In 2021, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was the city with the highest poverty rate of the United States' most populated cities. In this statistic, the cities are sorted by poverty rate, not population. The most populated city in 2021 according to the source was New York city - which had a poverty rate of 18 percent.

The McAllen-Edinburg-Mission metropolitan area in Texas was ranked first with 27.2 percent of its population living below the poverty level in 2023. Eagle Pass, Texas had the second-highest poverty rate, at 24.4 percent.

In 2021, the city of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania had the highest family poverty rate of the 25 most populated cities in the United States. The city with the next highest poverty rate was Houston, Texas.

In 2021, New York city had the highest number of people living below the poverty line, with 1.4 million people living in poverty. This is significantly higher than any of the other most populated cities.

This poverty rate data shows what percentage of the measured population* falls below the poverty line. Poverty is closely related to income: different “poverty thresholds” are in place for different sizes and types of household. A family or individual is considered to be below the poverty line if that family or individual’s income falls below their relevant poverty threshold. For more information on how poverty is measured by the U.S. Census Bureau (the source for this indicator’s data), visit the U.S. Census Bureau’s poverty webpage.

The poverty rate is an important piece of information when evaluating an area’s economic health and well-being. The poverty rate can also be illustrative when considered in the contexts of other indicators and categories. As a piece of data, it is too important and too useful to omit from any indicator set.

The poverty rate for all individuals in the measured population in Champaign County has hovered around roughly 20% since 2005. However, it reached its lowest rate in 2021 at 14.9%, and its second lowest rate in 2023 at 16.3%. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) data shows fluctuations between years, given their margins of error, none of the differences between consecutive years’ estimates are statistically significant, making it impossible to identify a trend.

Poverty rate data was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, which are released annually.

As with any datasets that are estimates rather than exact counts, it is important to take into account the margins of error (listed in the column beside each figure) when drawing conclusions from the data.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because data is not available for Champaign County, no data for 2020 is included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes a dataset on Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Age.

*According to the U.S. Census Bureau document “How Poverty is Calculated in the ACS," poverty status is calculated for everyone but those in the following groups: “people living in institutional group quarters (such as prisons or nursing homes), people in military barracks, people in college dormitories, living situations without conventional housing, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old."

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (17 October 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (25 September 2023).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (16 September 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (8 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 September 2018).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (14 September 2017).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (19 September 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).

The Census Bureau determines that a person is living in poverty when his or her total household income compared with the size and composition of the household is below the poverty threshold. The Census Bureau uses the federal government's official definition of poverty to determine the poverty threshold. Beginning in 2000, individuals were presented with the option to select one or more races. In addition, the Census asked individuals to identify their race separately from identifying their Hispanic origin. The Census has published individual tables for the races and ethnicities provided as supplemental information to the main table that does not dissaggregate by race or ethnicity. Race categories include the following - White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Some other race, and Two or more races. We are not including specific combinations of two or more races as the counts of these combinations are small. Ethnic categories include - Hispanic or Latino and White Non-Hispanic. This data comes from the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year estimates, table B17001. The ACS collects these data from a sample of households on a rolling monthly basis. ACS aggregates samples into one-, three-, or five-year periods. CTdata.org generally carries the five-year datasets, as they are considered to be the most accurate, especially for geographic areas that are the size of a county or smaller.Poverty status determined is the denominator for the poverty rate. It is the population for which poverty status was determined so when poverty is calculated they exclude institutionalized people, people in military group quarters, people in college dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years of age.Below poverty level are households as determined by the thresholds based on the criteria of looking at household size, Below poverty level are households as determined by the thresholds based on the criteria of looking at household size, number of children, and age of householder.number of children, and age of householder.

This table contains data on the percentage of the total population living below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), and the percentage of children living below 200% FPL for California, its regions, counties, cities, towns, public use microdata areas, and census tracts. Data for time periods 2011-2015 (overall poverty) and 2012-2016 (child poverty) and with race/ethnicity stratification is included in the table. The poverty rate table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity. Poverty is an important social determinant of health (see http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/overview.aspx?topicid=39) that can impact people’s access to basic necessities (housing, food, education, jobs, and transportation), and is associated with higher incidence and prevalence of illness, and with reduced access to quality health care. More information on the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the About/Attachments section.

In 2023, around 27.4 percent of residents in Bremen were at risk of living in poverty. This list shows the 15 cities in Germany with the highest at-risk-of-poverty rates.

The database is a panel design containing approximately 7,300 economic, social, demographic, and health indicators for the 100 largest metropolitan central cities and their underclass and poverty subareas. Items were selected from 32 sources; and most variable were drawn or computer from large, multiyear machine-readable files provided by the Bureau of Census, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the National Center for Health Statistics. Smaller, more specialized data files from other federal agencies (Eg. the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Center for Disease Control) and from scholarly reports were added to capture such factors as racial segregation, homelessness, and AIDS prevalence. Variables were chosen that are central to underclass research, that provide comparability of cities and city subareas across selected years between 1960 and 1990, and that are not typically available from published sources. The database brings together as a consolidated resource 27 files of interest to poverty researchers, urban policy analysts, city planners, and social scientists for investigating the changing state of America's largest cities and their disadvantaged residents.

A range of indicators for a selection of cities from the New York City Global City database.

Dataset includes the following:

Geography

City Area (km2)

Metro Area (km2)

People

City Population (millions)

Metro Population (millions)

Foreign Born

Annual Population Growth

Economy

GDP Per Capita (thousands $, PPP rates, per resident)

Primary Industry

Secondary Industry

Share of Global 500 Companies (%)

Unemployment Rate

Poverty Rate

Transportation

Public Transportation

Mass Transit Commuters

Major Airports

Major Ports

Education

Students Enrolled in Higher Education

Percent of Population with Higher Education (%)

Higher Education Institutions

Tourism

Total Tourists Annually (millions)

Foreign Tourists Annually (millions)

Domestic Tourists Annually (millions)

Annual Tourism Revenue ($US billions)

Hotel Rooms (thousands)

Health

Infant Mortality (Deaths per 1,000 Births)

Life Expectancy in Years (Male)

Life Expectancy in Years (Female)

Physicians per 100,000 People

Number of Hospitals

Anti-Smoking Legislation

Culture

Number of Museums

Number of Cultural and Arts Organizations

Environment

Green Spaces (km2)

Air Quality

Laws or Regulations to Improve Energy Efficiency

Retrofitted City Vehicle Fleet

Bike Share Program

2013-2023 Virginia Ratio of Income to Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months by Census Block Group. Contains estimates and margins of error.

U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table C17002 Data accessed from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey (https://www.census.gov/data/developers/data-sets.html)

The United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS): -What is the American Community Survey? (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/about.html) -Geography & ACS (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/geography-acs.html) -Technical Documentation (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical-documentation.html)

Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Technical Documentation section. (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical-documentation/code-lists.html)

Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section. (https://www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/sample_size_and_data_quality/)

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical-documentation.html). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.

Tabular data of population by age groups, race and gender, and the poverty by race is attached to the split tract geography to create this split tract with population and poverty data. Split tract data is the product of 2020 census tracts split by 2022 incorporated city boundaries and unincorporated community/countywide statistical areas (CSA) boundaries. The census tract boundaries have been altered and aligned where necessary with legal city boundaries and unincorporated areas, including shoreline/coastal areas. Census Tract:Every 10 years the Census Bureau counts the population of the United States as mandated by Constitution. The Census Bureau (https://www.census.gov/) released 2020 geographic boundaries data including census tracts for the analysis and mapping of demographic information across the United States. City Boundary:City Boundary data is the base map information for the County of Los Angeles. These City Boundaries are based on the Los Angeles County Seamless Cadastral Landbase. The Landbase is jointly maintained by the Los Angeles County Assessor and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (DPW). This layer represents current city boundaries within Los Angeles County. The DPW provides the most current shapefiles representing city boundaries and city annexations. True, legal boundaries are only determined on the ground by surveyors licensed in the State of California.Countywide Statistical Areas (CSA): The countywide Statistical Area (CSA) was defined to provide a common geographic boundary for reporting departmental statistics for unincorporated areas and incorporated Los Angeles city to the Board of Supervisors. The CSA boundary and CSA names are established by the CIO and the LA County Enterprise GIS group worked with the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Unincorporated Area and Field Deputies that reflect as best as possible the general name preferences of residents and historical names of areas. This data is primarily focused on broad statistics and reporting, not mapping of communities. This data is not designed to perfectly represent communities, nor jurisdictional boundaries such as Angeles National Forest. CSA represent board approved geographies comprised of Census block groups split by cities.Data Field:CT20: 2020 Census tractFIP22: 2022 City FIP CodeCITY: City name for incorporated cities and “Unincorporated” for unincorporated areas (as of July 1, 2022) CSA: Countywide Statistical Area (CSA) - Unincorporated area community names and LA City neighborhood names.CT20FIP22CSA: 2020 census tract with 2022 city FIPs for incorporated cities and unincorporated areas and LA neighborhoods. SPA22: 2022 Service Planning Area (SPA) number.SPA_NAME: Service Planning Area name.HD22: 2022 Health District (HD) number: HD_NAME: Health District name.POP22_AGE_0_4: 2022 population 0 to 4 years oldPOP22_AGE_5_9: 2022 population 5 to 9 years old POP22_AGE_10_14: 2022 population 10 to 14 years old POP22_AGE_15_17: 2022 population 15 to 17 years old POP22_AGE_18_19: 2022 population 18 to 19 years old POP22_AGE_20_44: 2022 population 20 to 24 years old POP22_AGE_25_29: 2022 population 25 to 29 years old POP22_AGE_30_34: 2022 population 30 to 34 years old POP22_AGE_35_44: 2022 population 35 to 44 years old POP22_AGE_45_54: 2022 population 45 to 54 years old POP22_AGE_55_64: 2022 population 55 to 64 years old POP22_AGE_65_74: 2022 population 65 to 74 years old POP22_AGE_75_84: 2022 population 75 to 84 years old POP22_AGE_85_100: 2022 population 85 years and older POP22_WHITE: 2022 Non-Hispanic White POP22_BLACK: 2022 Non-Hispanic African AmericanPOP22_AIAN: 2022 Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska NativePOP22_ASIAN: 2022 Non-Hispanic Asian POP22_HNPI: 2022 Non-Hispanic Hawaiian Native or Pacific IslanderPOP22_HISPANIC: 2022 HispanicPOP22_MALE: 2022 Male POP22_FEMALE: 2022 Female POV22_WHITE: 2022 Non-Hispanic White below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV22_BLACK: 2022 Non-Hispanic African American below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV22_AIAN: 2022 Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV22_ASIAN: 2022 Non-Hispanic Asian below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV22_HNPI: 2022 Non-Hispanic Hawaiian Native or Pacific Islander below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV22_HISPANIC: 2022 Hispanic below 100% Federal Poverty Level POV22_TOTAL: 2022 Total population below 100% Federal Poverty Level POP22_TOTAL: 2022 Total PopulationAREA_SQMil: Area in square mile.POP22_DENSITY: Population per square mile.POV22_PERCENT: Poverty rate/percentage.How this data created?The tabular data of population by age groups, by ethnic groups and by gender, and the poverty by ethnic groups is attributed to the split tract geography to create this data. Split tract polygon data is created by intersecting 2020 census tract polygons, LA Country City Boundary polygons and Countywide Statistical Areas (CSA) polygon data. The resulting polygon boundary aligned and matched with the legal city boundary whenever possible. Note:1. Population and poverty data estimated as of July 1, 2022. 2. 2010 Census tract and 2020 census tracts are not the same. Similarly, city and community boundary are not the same because boundary is reviewed and updated annually.

In 2023, Wildwood-The Villages metropolitan area in Florida was ranked first, with 39.3 percent of its population aged under 18 years living below the poverty level. McAllen-Edinburg-Mission metro area in Texas had the second-highest rate of child poverty in the nation.

Note: These layers were compiled by Esri's Demographics Team using data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. These data sets are not owned by the City of Rochester.Overview of the map/data: This map shows the percentage of the population living below the federal poverty level over the previous 12 months, shown by tract, county, and state boundaries. Estimates are from the 2018 ACS 5-year samples. This service is updated annually to contain the most currently released American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data, and contains estimates and margins of error. There are also additional calculated attributes related to this topic, which can be mapped or used within analysis. Current Vintage: 2019-2023ACS Table(s): B17020, C17002Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey Date of API call: December 12, 2024National Figures: data.census.govThe United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS):About the SurveyGeography & ACSTechnical DocumentationNews & UpdatesThis ready-to-use layer can be used within ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Online, its configurable apps, dashboards, Story Maps, custom apps, and mobile apps. Data can also be exported for offline workflows. Please cite the Census and ACS when using this data.Data Note from the Census:Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.Data Processing Notes:This layer will be updated automatically when the most current vintage of ACS data is released each year, usually in December. The layer always contains the latest available ACS 5-year estimates. It is updated annually within days of the Census Bureau's release schedule. Click here to learn more about ACS data releases.Boundaries come from the US Census TIGER geodatabases. Boundaries are updated at the same time as the data updates (annually), and the boundary vintage appropriately matches the data vintage as specified by the Census. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines clipped for cartographic purposes. For census tracts, the water cutouts are derived from a subset of the 2010 AWATER (Area Water) boundaries offered by TIGER. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are still available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters). The States layer contains 52 records - all US states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico.Census tracts with no population are removed from this data service (Census Tracts beginning with 99).Percentages and derived counts, and associated margins of error, are calculated values (that can be identified by the "_calc_" stub in the field name), and abide by the specifications defined by the American Community Survey.Field alias names were created based on the Table Shells file available from the American Community Survey Summary File Documentation page.Negative values (e.g., -555555...) have been set to null. These negative values exist in the raw API data to indicate the following situations:The margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.Either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution, or in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.The estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.The data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small. NOTE: any calculated percentages or counts that contain estimates that have null margins of error yield null margins of error for the calculated fields.

This report was written in collaboration between the Mayor's Office of Innovation and the Rochester Monroe Anti-Poverty Initiative (RMAPI) and released in December 2019. Executive SummaryThe Rochester Monroe Anti-Poverty Initiative (RMAPI) has selected single female headed households with children as one of its key target populations in which to focus strategy and its next phase of initiatives. This report is intended to provide additional insight on this population to support the next phase of RMAPI’s strategic planning as well as broader advocacy efforts on behalf of this population.

We begin with a brief summary of historic policy and societal factors known to have contributed to the current day inequities, written in collaboration with content experts from RMAPI.

The core of this report is a fact sheet based on analysis of US Census data. Major findings include:

Finding 1: Families headed by unmarried parents are a significant segment of the city population and account for the majority of individuals living below the poverty level in the city.

Finding 2: Unmarried households with children experience lower incomes, lower rates of home ownership, and higher rent burdens compared to their married counterparts

Finding 3: Women and people of color are overrepresented among the heads of unmarried households with children.

Finding 4: Four in ten unmarried householders with children have less than a high school education. Nearly 80 percent of those without a high school education are in poverty.

Finding 5: Unmarried householders with children in poverty are more likely to be disabled or face other common barriers to employment.

Finding 6: The more adults present in unmarried households with children, the less likely that household is to be in poverty. This trend amplifies when considering the number of employed adults.

Finding 7: Unmarried parents under age 40 head the majority of all households with children in Rochester. Younger householders correlate with higher poverty rates regardless of marriage status.

Finding 8: A birth before age 20, being unmarried, and having not completed high school education are three factors that, when compounded, are associated with poor economic outcomes.

Finding 9: The highest densities of unmarried householders with children are clustered in the highest poverty neighborhoods in the city of Rochester

We end with a discussion of the gaps in available data, acknowledging that there is room for further investigation and interpretation, data collection, and insights. We recommend readers to think critically about what is presented and how it might impact their own work in poverty reduction efforts. We present a series of questions that are a jumping off point for new inquiry and reflection. Methodology can be found in the Appendix.

Data Source:2017 Census American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Public Microdata SampleData and documentation can be accessed here:https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data/pums.html

The “richness index” represents the level of economical wellbeing a country certain area in 2010. Regions with higher income per capita and low poverty rate and more access to market are wealthier and are therefore better able to prepare for and respond to adversity. The index results from the second cluster of the Principal Component Analysis preformed among 9 potential variables. The analysis identifies four dominant variables, namely “GDPppp per capita”, “agriculture share GDP per agriculture sector worker”, “poverty rate” and “market accessibility”, assigning weights of 0.33, 0.26, 0.25 and 0.16, respectively. Before to perform the analysis all variables were log transformed (except the “agriculture share GDP per agriculture sector worker”) to shorten the extreme variation and then were score-standardized (converted to distribution with average of 0 and standard deviation of 1; inverse method was applied for the “poverty rate” and “market accessibility”) in order to be comparable. The 0.5 arc-minute grid total GDPppp is based on the night time light satellite imagery of NOAA (see Ghosh, T., Powell, R., Elvidge, C. D., Baugh, K. E., Sutton, P. C., & Anderson, S. (2010).Shedding light on the global distribution of economic activity. The Open Geography Journal (3), 148-161) and adjusted to national total as recorded by International Monetary Fund for 2010. The “GDPppp per capita” was calculated dividing the total GDPppp by the population in each pixel. Further, a focal statistic ran to determine mean values within 10 km. This had a smoothing effect and represents some of the extended influence of intense economic activity for the local people. Country based data for “agriculture share GDP per agriculture sector worker” were calculated from GDPppp (data from International Monetary Fund) fraction from agriculture activity (measured by World Bank) divided by the number of worker in the agriculture sector (data from World Bank). The tabular data represents the average of the period 2008-2012 and were linked by country unit to the national boundaries shapefile (FAO/GAUL) and then converted into raster format (resolution 0.5 arc-minute). The first administrative level data for the “poverty rate” were estimated by NOAA for 2003 using nighttime lights satellite imagery. Tabular data were linked by first administrative unit to the first administrative boundaries shapefile (FAO/GAUL) and then converted into raster format (resolution 0.5 arc-minute). The 0.5 arc-minute grid “market accessibility” measures the travel distance in minutes to large cities (with population greater than 50,000 people). This dataset was developed by the European Commission and the World Bank to represent access to markets, schools, hospitals, etc.. The dataset capture the connectivity and the concentration of economic activity (in 2000). Markets may be important for a variety of reasons, including their abilities to spread risk and increase incomes. Markets are a means of linking people both spatially and over time. That is, they allow shocks (and risks) to be spread over wider areas. In particular, markets should make households less vulnerable to (localized) covariate shocks. This dataset has been produced in the framework of the “Climate change predictions in Sub-Saharan Africa: impacts and adaptations (ClimAfrica)” project, Work Package 4 (WP4). More information on ClimAfrica project is provided in the Supplemental Information section of this metadata.

Data publication: 2014-05-15

Supplemental Information:

ClimAfrica was an international project funded by European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme (FP7) for the period 2010-2014. The ClimAfrica consortium was formed by 18 institutions, 9 from Europe, 8 from Africa, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations (FAO).

ClimAfrica was conceived to respond to the urgent international need for the most appropriate and up-to-date tools and methodologies to better understand and predict climate change, assess its impact on African ecosystems and population, and develop the correct adaptation strategies. Africa is probably the most vulnerable continent to climate change and climate variability and shows diverse range of agro-ecological and geographical features. Thus the impacts of climate change can be very high and can greatly differ across the continent, and even within countries.

The project focused on the following specific objectives:

1. Develop improved climate predictions on seasonal to decadal climatic scales, especially relevant to SSA;

2. Assess climate impacts in key sectors of SSA livelihood and economy, especially water resources and agriculture;

3. Evaluate the vulnerability of ecosystems and civil population to inter-annual variations and longer trends (10 years) in climate;

4. Suggest and analyse new suited adaptation strategies, focused on local needs;

5. Develop a new concept of 10 years monitoring and forecasting warning system, useful for food security, risk management and civil protection in SSA;

6. Analyse the economic impacts of climate change on agriculture and water resources in SSA and the cost-effectiveness of potential adaptation measures.

The work of ClimAfrica project was broken down into the following work packages (WPs) closely connected. All the activities described in WP1, WP2, WP3, WP4, WP5 consider the domain of the entire South Sahara Africa region. Only WP6 has a country specific (watershed) spatial scale where models validation and detailed processes analysis are carried out.

Contact points:

Metadata Contact: FAO-Data

Resource Contact: Selvaraju Ramasamy

Resource constraints:

copyright

Online resources:

Richness index (2010)

Project deliverable D4.1 - Scenarios of major production systems in Africa

Climafrica Website - Climate Change Predictions In Sub-Saharan Africa: Impacts And Adaptations

DeprecatedUpdated for PY-2023 (effective March 1, 2023, to September 30, 2024). Deprecated October 1, 2024.What does the data represent?These are named polygons that follow block group boundaries that contain 51% or greater low-to-moderate income persons as published by HUD from 2011-2015 ACS data. That data has been superseded by data developed from 2016-2020 ACS data by HUD and published at https://services.arcgis.com/VTyQ9soqVukalItT/ArcGIS/rest/services/LMISD_layers/FeatureServer/4. Target areas primarily served residential areas, and each target area ideally could self-identify as the named community.Where were they located?Target Areas of Harris County fit within the Harris County Service Area, which was the unincorporated land of Harris County, Texas plus then-cooperative cities. Any portions of otherwise qualified block groups that extended into non-service area were excluded from the target area. This prevented “double-dipping” community development resource entitlements.How accurate are they?Block group boundaries in Harris County follow visual cues such as roadways and streams. Census Bureau linework attempts to delineate these bounding features but they are seldom more accurate than within thirty feet of ground truth.Full-service city boundaries determine whether an incorporated area is within the Harris County Service Area or the non-service area. These are updated roughly quarterly in the Harris County GIS Repository layer managed by the Harris County Appraisal District. Target areas have been updated each year using this data from the late autumn to the end of each calendar year.When were they collected?When HCCSD updated the Service Area and Target Areas of Harris County in the latter part of each Program Year, it uses the current HUD LMISD dataset and HCAD full-service city boundaries to perform the update. HUD publishes an updated LMISD dataset every year, but the data HUD analyzes to create these updates only changes when an additional five-year period of American Community Survey data has accumulated. Therefore the survey data reported in the HUD LMISD were collected from 4 to 8 years prior (PY2019) to as much as 9 to 13 years prior to publishing the results (PY2023). Unless a local income survey was conducted more recently between one and four years ago, each Program Year’s target area boundaries reflect LMISD block group information collected at least four to as much as thirteen years ago.Who collected them?Harris County Community Services Department (HCCSD) collected and Harris County Housing & Community Development (HCHCD) maintains Harris County Service Area and Target Area information. As representative of one of the largest urban counties in the U.S. and the largest in Texas, the Highest Elected Official in Harris County has delegated HCHCD to implement HUD-assisted community development activities on unincorporated land and on behalf of the cooperative cities. Cooperative cities are generally those of insufficient size to become entitled to HUD funds on their own, i.e. less than 50,000 population. Through 9/30/2024 Harris County maintained agreements with 12 cooperative cities, including: Deer Park, Galena Park, Humble, Jacinto City, Katy, La Porte, Morgan's Point, Seabrook, Shoreacres, South Houston, Tomball, and Webster in PY2023. Tomball ended its agreement 9/30/2024, thereafter becoming part of the non-service area.

This dataset contains replication files for "The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment" by Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence Katz. For more information, see https://opportunityinsights.org/paper/newmto/. A summary of the related publication follows. There are large differences in individuals’ economic, health, and educational outcomes across neighborhoods in the United States. Motivated by these disparities, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development designed the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) experiment to determine whether providing low-income families assistance in moving to better neighborhoods could improve their economic and health outcomes. The MTO experiment was conducted between 1994 and 1998 in five large U.S. cities. Approximately 4,600 families living in high-poverty public housing projects were randomly assigned to one of three groups: an experimental voucher group that was offered a subsidized housing voucher that came with a requirement to move to a census tract with a poverty rate below 10%, a Section 8 voucher group that was offered a standard housing voucher with no additional contingencies, and a control group that was not offered a voucher (but retained access to public housing). Previous research on the MTO experiment has found that moving to lower-poverty areas greatly improved the mental and physical health of adults. However, prior work found no impacts of the MTO treatments on the earnings of adults and older youth, leading some to conclude that neighborhood environments are not an important component of economic success. In this study, we present a new analysis of the effect of the MTO experiment on children’s long-term outcomes. Our re-analysis is motivated by new research showing that a neighborhood’s effect on children’s outcomes may depend critically on the duration of exposure to that environment. In particular, Chetty and Hendren (2015) use quasi-experimental methods to show that every year spent in a better area during childhood increases a child’s earnings in adulthood, implying that the gains from moving to a better area are larger for children who are younger at the time of the move. In light of this new evidence on childhood exposure effects, we study the long-term impacts of MTO on children who were young when their families moved to better neighborhoods. Prior work has not been able to examine these issues because the younger children in the MTO experiment are only now old enough to be entering the adult labor market. For older children (those between ages 13-18), we find that moving to a lower-poverty neighborhood has a statistically insignificant or slightly negative effect. More generally, the gains from moving to lower-poverty areas decline steadily with the age of the child at the time of the move. We do not find any clear evidence of a “critical age” below which children must move to benefit from a better neighborhood. Rather, every extra year of childhood spent in a low-poverty environment appears to be beneficial, consistent with the findings of Chetty and Hendren (2015). The MTO treatments also had little or no impact on adults’ economic outcomes, consistent with previous results. Together, these studies show that childhood exposure plays a critical role in neighborhoods’ effects on economic outcomes. The experimental voucher increased the earnings of children who moved at young ages in all five experimental sites, for Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics, and for boys and girls. Perhaps most notably, we find robust evidence that the experimental voucher improved long-term outcomes for young boys, a subgroup where prior studies have found little evidence of gains. Our estimates imply that moving a child out of public housing to a low-poverty area when young (at age 8 on average) using a subsidized voucher like the MTO experimental voucher will increase the child’s total lifetime earnings by about $302,000. This is equivalent to a gain of $99,000 per child moved in present value at age 8, discounting future earnings at a 3% interest rate. The additional tax revenue generated from these earnings increases would itself offset the incremental cost of the subsidized voucher relative to providing public housing. We conclude that offering low-income families housing vouchers and assistance in moving to lowerpoverty neighborhoods has substantial benefits for the families themselves and for taxpayers. It appears important to target such housing vouchers to families with young children – perhaps even at birth – to maximize the benefits. Our results provide less support for policies that seek to improve the economic outcomes of adults through residential relocation. More broadly, our findings suggest that efforts to integrate disadvant... Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/sha256%3Aa12b8c1f14eeabc92c1d91bd0311bc4aa3ddf6d7fb69ca798ca6926e7fa292c7 for complete metadata about this dataset.

Table of INEBase At-risk-of-poverty rate, by Autonomous Community. Annual. Autonomous Communities and Cities. Living Conditions Survey (LCS)

This map shows demographic and income data in Detroit. Assuming an assignment where the poverty fighting charity I work for would like to alleviate suffering among impoverished children in Detroit. Detroit is a Michigan city that always ranks among America's poorest urban centers. Orange circles have below average median household income, the darker shades indicate households with a very low income-close to poverty level. The size of the circles: larger circles indicate a greater number of children in the area.What stands out is the obvioud pattern of low-income households in the city center combined with areas of high child population. This pattern helps answer where in Detroit our charity will focus its resources to help children living in poverty-in places shown on the map where there is a cluster of several large dark Orange circles like Dearborn and Pontiac (for example). The charity may and will offer free after school care and/Or but not limited to breakfast programs.