Poverty Estimates for Places in the United States
September 2005
Working Paper Number:
CES-05-12
Abstract
This paper first describes some historical poverty trends, overall and for demographic groups and broad locations within the U.S. from an ongoing household survey, and then presents some specific information on poverty for localities by size, from the most recent decennial census (2000). Rural poverty exceeded urban poverty in 1969 and 1979, but urban poverty in 1999 was higher than rural poverty. Non-metropolitan area poverty exceeded metropolitan area poverty in each of the four censuses, but within each of those areas, rural poverty is now less than urban poverty. Within metropolitan areas, poverty is highest for those in central cities. For urbanized areas (50,000 or more population), the poverty rate is lower as the area gets larger, with the exception of the very largest-sized areas. This higher poverty for the largest places is accounted for entirely by the higher poverty rate for the central city or cities in those urban agglomerations, as the poverty rates for the parts of the urbanized areas not in the central place continue to fall as the area itself gets larger. Some of the critical relationships affecting the poverty rate of places appear to be the location of certain types of people - female householders, non-citizens, people of color, and college graduates.
Document Tags and Keywords
Keywords
Keywords are automatically generated using KeyBERT, a powerful and innovative
keyword extraction tool that utilizes BERT embeddings to ensure high-quality and contextually relevant
keywords.
By analyzing the content of working papers, KeyBERT identifies terms and phrases that capture the essence of the
text, highlighting the most significant topics and trends. This approach not only enhances searchability but
provides connections that go beyond potentially domain-specific author-defined keywords.
:
economist,
recession,
midwest,
metropolitan,
agriculture,
rural,
area,
locality,
population,
urban,
city,
housing,
poor,
poverty,
suburb,
urbanized
Tags
Tags are automatically generated using a pretrained language model from spaCy, which excels at
several tasks, including entity tagging.
The model is able to label words and phrases by part-of-speech,
including "organizations." By filtering for frequent words and phrases labeled as "organizations", papers are
identified to contain references to specific institutions, datasets, and other organizations.
:
Center for Economic Studies,
Office of Management and Budget,
Current Population Survey,
Economic Research Service,
American Community Survey,
Census 2000,
Social and Economic Supplement,
Core Based Statistical Area
Similar Working Papers
Similarity between working papers are determined by an unsupervised neural
network model
know as Doc2Vec.
Doc2Vec is a model that represents entire documents as fixed-length vectors, allowing for the
capture of semantic meaning in a way that relates to the context of words within the document. The model learns to
associate a unique vector with each document while simultaneously learning word vectors, enabling tasks such as
document classification, clustering, and similarity detection by preserving the order and structure of words. The
document vectors are compared using cosine similarity/distance to determine the most similar working papers.
Papers identified with 🔥 are in the top 20% of similarity.
The 10 most similar working papers to the working paper 'Poverty Estimates for Places in the United States' are listed below in order of similarity.
-
Working PaperFinding Suburbia in the Census🔥
June 2025
Working Paper Number:
CES-25-40
This study introduces a methodology that goes beyond the urban/rural dichotomy to classify areas into detailed settlement types: urban cores, suburbs, exurbs, outlying towns, and rural areas. Utilizing a database that provides housing unit estimates for census tracts as defined in 2010 for all decennial census years from 1940 to 2020, this research enables a longitudinal analysis of urban spatial expansion. By maintaining consistent geography across time, the methodology described in this paper emphasizes the era of development, as well as proximity to large urban centers. This broadly applicable methodology provides a framework for comparing the evolution of urban landscapes over a significant historical period, revealing trends in the transformation of territory from rural to urban, as well as associated suburbanization and exurban growth.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperThe Impact of Household Surveys on 2020 Census Self-Response
July 2022
Working Paper Number:
CES-22-24
Households who were sampled in 2019 for the American Community Survey (ACS) had lower self-response rates to the 2020 Census. The magnitude varied from -1.5 percentage point for household sampled in January 2019 to -15.1 percent point for households sampled in December 2019. Similar effects are found for the Current Population Survey (CPS) as well.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperApplying Current Core Based Statistical Area Standards to Historical Census Data, 1940-2020
January 2025
Working Paper Number:
CES-25-10
In the middle of the twentieth century, the Bureau of the Budget, in conjunction with the Census Bureau and other federal statistical agencies, introduced a widely used unit of statistical geography, the county-based Standard Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan definitions since then have been generally regarded as comparable, but methodological changes have resulted in comparability issues, particularly among the largest and most complex metro areas. With the 2000 census came an effort to simplify the rules for defining metro areas. This study attempts to gather all available historical geographic and commuting data to apply the current rules for defining metro areas to create comparable statistical geography covering the period from 1940 to 2020. The changes that accompanied the 2000 census also brought a new category, "Micropolitan Statistical Areas," which established a metro hierarchy. This research expands on this approach, using a more elaborate hierarchy based on the size of urban cores. The areas as delineated in this paper provide a consistent set of statistical geography that can be used in a wide variety of applications.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperUrban-Suburban Migration in the United States, 1955-2000
February 2016
Working Paper Number:
CES-16-08
This study uses census microdata from 1960 to 2010 to look at the rates of suburbanization in the 100 largest metro areas. Looking at the racial and ethnic composition of the population, and then further breaking down these groups by income, it's clear that more affluent people were more likely to move to the suburbs. Also, the White non-Hispanic population has long been the most suburbanized group. A majority of the White population lived in suburbs by 1960 in the 100 largest metro areas, while most of the Black non-Hispanic population lived in urban core areas as late as 2000. The Hispanic and Asian populations went from majority urban to majority suburban during this period.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperChanges in Metropolitan Area Definition, 1910-2010
February 2021
Working Paper Number:
CES-21-04
The Census Bureau was established as a permanent agency in 1902, as industrialization and urbanization were bringing about rapid changes in American society. The years following the establishment of a permanent Census Bureau saw the first attempts at devising statistical geography for tabulating statistics for large cities and their environs. These efforts faced several challenges owing to the variation in settlement patterns, political organization, and rates of growth across the United States. The 1910 census proved to be a watershed, as the Census Bureau offered a definition of urban places, established the first census tract boundaries for tabulating data within cities, and introduced the first standardized metropolitan area definition. It was not until the middle of the twentieth century, however, the Census Bureau in association with other statistical agencies had established a flexible standard metropolitan definition and a more consistent means of tabulating urban data. Since 1950, the rules for determining the cores and extent of metropolitan areas have been largely regarded as comparable. In the decades that followed, however, a number of rule changes were put into place that accounted for metropolitan complexity in differing ways, and these have been the cause of some confusion. Changes put into effect with the 2000 census represent a consensus of sorts for how to handle these issues.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperMigration and Dispersal of Hispanic and Asian Groups: An Analysis of the 2006-2008 Multiyear American Community Survey
October 2011
Working Paper Number:
CES-11-33
This report seeks to evaluate selective migration processes of Hispanic and Asian nationality groups in the US from established settlement areas, using recent migration data from the American Community Survey. The underlying goal is to detect migration tendencies leading toward an increased dispersion of these groups associated with their migration processes. Using descriptive statistics, maps, and migration models, we assess how migration processes in the 2006-8 period are leading to the dispersal of Hispanic and Asian race ethnic groups across metropolitan areas, with special attention to the roles of co-ethnic communities and spatial assimilation. These analyses employ migration data available from the 3-year 2006-8 American Community Survey using restricted data from the US Census Bureau's Research Data Centers. This use of the restricted ACS files permitted the first post 2000 analysis of inter-metropolitan migration for Hispanic groups (Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Salvadorans, Dominicans) and Asian groups (Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Koreans) using the detailed demographic and geographic attributes available with these files. The data and analysis presented here provide a benchmark for further research of this kind with the American Community Survey in light of the fact that migration data will no longer be available from the US decennial census. The study examines migration from these groups' major settlement areas to other metropolitan area destinations as they are affected by the attraction of co-ethnic communities and by a migrant selectivity pattern consistent with the perspective of spatial assimilation. The migration processes themselves were evaluated in terms of two components: the out--migration rates of residents, and the destination selection of movers. From the perspective of co-ethnic community attraction, it was hypothesized that the outmigration rates from high co-ethnic settlement areas would be lower than those from areas where the group had a smaller overall presence and that the destination selections of out-migrants would be positively affected by the presence of high co-ethnic population shares in destination areas. From the spatial assimilation perspective, it was hypothesized that out-migration from high coethnic areas would least likely occur for group members with lowest education, poor facility with English, and recently arrived in the US; whereas the selection of destinations with large coethnic population shares would be most likely to occur for these same population categories. The results strongly confirm that co-ethnic community attraction continues to reduce outmigration of groups from major settlement origins and positively influences their destination selections. A series of multivariate migrant destination selection models confirm a consistent draw of ethnically similar destinations across individual Hispanic and Asian groups when other economic, demographic and structural metropolitan attributes are taken into account. In contrast, results regarding spatial assimilation are typically mixed or nonexistent in characterizing both out-migration and mover destination selectivity patterns. In fact, we find contrary evidence for some Asian groups for whom it is the most educated, and native born migrants who show a penchant for selecting destinations with greater co-ethnic population shares. Among the greatest destinations for Indians, for example, are Philadelphia, Seattle, Dallas, Boston and Atlanta- areas with higher than average Indian population shares, and areas that also house knowledge-based industries. The selection of co-ethnic destinations among Hispanic group migrants appears somewhat impervious to education attainment and Hispanic and Mexican group movers, who are foreign born and who arrived since 2000, are least, rather than most, prone to select co-ethnic destinations. The mover destination models make plain that employment growth at destination provides a strong draw for all Hispanic groups. This suggests that recent growth in low skilled jobs in parts of the country with small Hispanic populations are nonetheless attracting newly arrived, and less skilled Mexicans and other Hispanics who might have previously been especially lured to destinations with large co-ethnic population shares.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperChanges in Neighborhood Inequality, 2000-2010
March 2016
Working Paper Number:
CES-16-18
Recent work has suggested that higher income inequality may be a desirable attribute of a neighborhood in that it represents diversity, even though high (and rising) inequality appears to be detrimental to the nation as a whole. The research reported here has determined the key characteristics of a census tract that are associated with the level of inequality in 2000 or 2010, and those associated with changes in income inequality between 2000 and 2010. For the change, the strongest influence is a negative effect for the level of income inequality in 2000; that is, higher income inequality in 2000 leads to a decline over the decade, ceteris paribus. Neighborhoods with higher proportions or levels of the following population and housing characteristics tend to have both higher income inequality and a larger increase in income inequality between 2000 and 2010: individuals in poverty, those with a bachelor's degree, older individuals, householders living alone, and median rent, and lower median housing value and household income. Among these, perhaps the most important determinant is the percent in poverty in 2000. Furthermore, as the baseline level of demographic and economic diversity increases, the better the baseline and change characteristics explain the change in the Gini index from 2000 to 2010.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperMeasuring Poverty in the United States: History and Current Issues
April 2006
Working Paper Number:
CES-06-11
Formal measurement of poverty in the United States is now about 40 years old. This paper first briefly describes the origins and basis of the official poverty thresholds adopted by the federal government in the late 1960s. Then, it discusses in some detail some of the more current issues that observers suggest must be addressed if changes are to be made. The final sections discuss recent efforts to propose alternates to the current official approach.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperCorrectional Facility and Inmate Locations: Urban and Rural Status Patterns
July 2017
Working Paper Number:
carra-2017-08
As the incarcerated population grew from the 1980s through the late 2000s, so too did the number of correctional facilities. An increasing number of these facilities have been constructed in rural areas. While research has shown there has been growth in prisons and prisoners in rural areas, there are no recent national-level statistics regarding the urban-rural status of correctional facilities and inmates, the urban-rural status of inmates prior to prison, or an accounting of how many inmates from urban or rural areas are incarcerated in urban and rural facilities. Using 2010 decennial census and Bureau of Justice Statistics' 2004 Survey of Prison Inmates data we describe these patterns. We find that a disproportionate share of prisons and inmates are located in rural areas, while a disproportionate share of inmates are from urban areas. Our research could inform discussions about the potential consequences of Census Bureau residence criteria for inmates.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperSocial, Economic, Spatial, and Commuting Patterns of Dual Jobholders
April 2007
Working Paper Number:
tp-2007-01
Individuals who hold multiple jobs have complex working lives and complex commuting patterns. Economic and spatial information on these individuals is not readily available in standard datasets, such as the 2000 Decennial Census Long Form, because the survey questions were not designed to collect details on multiple jobs. This study takes advantage of firm-based data from the Unemployment Insurance administrative wage records, linked with the Census Bureau's household-based data, to examine multiple jobholders - and specifically a sentinel group of dual jobholders. The study uses a sample from Los Angeles County, California and examines the dual jobholders by their demographic characteristics as well as their economic, commuting, and spatial location outcomes. In addition this report evaluates whether multiple jobholders should be included explicitly in future labor-workforce analyses and transportation modeling.View Full Paper PDF
