RESEARCH THAT MATTERS

LGBT POVERTY IN
THE UNITED STATESA study of differences
between sexual
orientation andgender identity
groups
October 2019
M. V. Lee Badgett
Soon Kyu Choi
Bianca D.M. Wilson

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 1

TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................................... 2
MAIN FINDINGS......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................................................... 5
FINDINGS................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
POVERTY RATES DIFFER BY SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY..................................................................................... 7
Geography and LGBT status................................................................................................................................................................ 8
Race, ethnicity, and LGBT status......................................................................................................................................................... 12
AGE AND LGBT STATUS............................................................................................................................................................................. 14
LGBT AND CIS-STRAIGHT PEOPLE DIFFER IN WAYS THAT AFFECT THE LIKELIHOOD OF POVERTY................................................. 17
LGBT PEOPLE ARE MORE LIKELY TO EXPERIENCE POVERTY AFTER ACCOUNTING FOR OTHER KNOWN FACTORS..................... 24

FUTURE RESEARCH SUGGESTIONS......................................................................................................................................26
CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................................................................... 27
AUTHORS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 28
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................................................................................. 28
SUGGESTED CITATION.............................................................................................................................................................................. 29

APPENDIX: METHODS............................................................................................................................................................ 30
DATA SOURCE............................................................................................................................................................................................ 30
SAMPLE....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Measure in Module.......................................................................................................... 31
MEASURES.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 33
Sexual orientation and gender identity.............................................................................................................................................. 33
Poverty.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Covariates............................................................................................................................................................................................... 34
WEIGHTS..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35
ANALYTIC APPROACH............................................................................................................................................................................... 35
DETAILED FINDINGS FROM MULTIVARIATE ANALYSES......................................................................................................................... 36

SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES....................................................................................................................................................... 39
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................................................... 45

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Although prior research has documented rates of poverty among lesbian, gay, bisexual, andtransgender (LGBT) people and shown evidence of economic disparities for LGBT people, moststudies on the topic have not been able to fully describe the entire LGBT community across theUnited States. Many past studies used data that do not allow for identification of transgender peopleor people not living in same-sex couples. This study, which is the first in a series of reports basedon the Pathways to Justice Project, addresses earlier shortcomings of the research on poverty toprovide a new lens on one of the most important measures of economic security—living on very low
incomes. In particular, this new research on LGBT poverty comes from the Behavioral Risk Factor
Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey, which has asked questions about sexual orientation and gender
identity (SOGI) since 2014. This report covers self-identified lesbians, gay men, bisexual people, andtransgender people (of various sexual orientations) in 35 states from 2014 to 2017. The focus of thefull report is answering the following questions about LGBT poverty:
1. Do poverty rates differ by SOGI? How do these differences look across various demographic
characteristics?
2. Do LGBT and cisgender (cis) straight people differ in ways that affect poverty?
3. Accounting for other known factors related to poverty, do LGBT people still experience higher
rates of poverty compared to cisgender straight people?

MAIN FINDINGS• Poverty rates differ by SOGI. We examined poverty rates separately for cisgender straight men
and women, cisgender gay men and lesbian women, cisgender bisexual men and women, andtransgender people.
LGBT people collectively have a poverty rate of 21.6%, which is much higher than the rate
for cisgender straight people of 15.7%.
{ Among LGBT people, transgender people have especially high rates of poverty—29.4%.
{ Lesbian (17.9%) and straight (17.8%) cisgender women have higher poverty rates than gay(12.1%) and straight (13.4%) cisgender men. But cisgender lesbian women do not havesignificantly different poverty rates than cisgender straight women.
{ Bisexual cisgender women (29.4%) and men (19.5%) had higher poverty rates thancisgender straight women and men, respectively.
{

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 3

29.4%

29.4%

CIS-BISEXUALWOMEN (N=5,481

TRANSGENDER(N=744)

19.5%

12.1%

CIS-GAY MEN(N=5,119)

17.8%

17.9%

CIS-STRAIGHT
WOMEN(N=313,753)

CIS-LESBIANWOMEN (N=3,532)

13.4%

CIS-STRAIGHT
MEN (N=244,008)

CIS-BISEXUAL
MEN (N=3,193)

Poverty was also particularly high at the intersection of racial and SOGI minority statuses.
 Black, White, Asian, and other-race LGBT people have statistically significant higher
poverty rates than their same-race cisgender straight counterparts. For example,
30.8% of Black LGBT people live in poverty, whereas 25.3% of Black cisgender straightpeople live in poverty.
 The patterns of racial disparities in poverty rates were similar for both LGBT andcisgender straight people. That is, for nearly all SOGI groups, people of color hadsignificantly higher poverty rates than White people.
{

LGBT people in rural areas (26.1%) have the highest poverty rates, compared to LGBT
people in urban areas (21.0%) and cisgender straight people in either rural (15.9%) or
urban (15.5%) areas.

• LGBT and cisgender straight people differ in ways that affect the likelihood of poverty.
{

Several characteristics known to be related to poverty are more common among LGBT
people. LGBT people, particularly bisexual and transgender people, are more likely to be: people of color, young, and experiencing a disability.

{

However, some LGBT groups have higher levels of education, live in urban areas, and havefewer children (namely, gay cisgender men), all factors that protect them from poverty.

• Once factors such as race, age, location, education, disability, language marital status,
employment, health, and children are taken into account, we find that LGBT people are still more
likely to experience poverty than their cisgender straight counterparts.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 4{

Beyond the poverty-related factors that are more common among LGBT people suchas those previously listed, LGBT people as a group had higher odds of being poor thancisgender straight people—17% higher odds compared to cisgender straight women and
15% higher compared to cisgender straight men. The chart below shows these differences,
but the bars in light blue show differences that are not statistically significant.
 However, compared to cisgender straight women, bisexual cisgender women andtransgender people drove this economic disparity. Lesbians were neither more nor
less likely to be poor than cisgender straight women.
 Once accounting for the effect of other factors, bisexual cisgender men no longer hadsignificantly lower poverty rates compared to cisgender straight men, but transgenderpeople remained more likely to experience poverty. Gay cisgender men were just as
likely to be poor as cisgender straight men (the difference in likelihood was not
significantly different for gay and straight cisgender men).
Compared to cis-straight women

Compared to cis-straight men
70%

38%

17%

17%

15%

5%

-1%
-7%
LGBT

TRANSGENDERPEOPLECIS BISEXUAL
WOMEN

CIS LESBIANLGBTTRANSGENDERPEOPLECIS BISEXUALMENCIS GAY MEN

Taken together, this report extends our knowledge of LGBT poverty. Using a new dataset with moredetailed measures of SOGI and a much larger sample size than previous studies reveals importantdifferences in the collective group of LGBT people.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 5

INTRODUCTION
Over time, evidence has grown showing that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people
face significant economic disparities compared with cisgender (cis) heterosexuala people. Poverty
rates are at least as high for LGBT people as for the general population, and certain subgroups of
the LGBT community are more likely to be poor than the general population, particularly bisexual
people and transgender people.1-5 Studies have shown that high proportions of LGBT adults face foodinsecurity.6 Young LGBT people have high rates of involvement in the foster care system, which is apredictor of future economic insecurity,7-9 and they represent a disproportionately high proportionof young people experiencing homelessness in some cities10-12 and incarceration.13 In the LGBT
community, people of color appear to be particularly vulnerable to poverty and other indicators of
economic insecurity.4,10,14
So far, however, research on economic insecurity has not been able to fully describe the low-income
population of the LGBT community. Many past studies used data that do not allow for identificationof transgender people or people not living in couples. Also, small samples of LGBT people make it
difficult to investigate economic insecurity in individual states or rural areas. Further, although it isuseful to examine how LGBT communities are faring as a whole, it is also important that we build onprior work to provide specific information that distinguishes economic outcomes among subgroups of
the LGBT community.
This study expands on existing research to provide a new lens on one of the most importantmeasures of economic security—poverty or living on very low incomes. It is the first report in a series
completed as part of the Pathways to Justice Project, a multimethod long-term project examining
poverty rates, exploring life narratives, and documenting experiences with economic development
services among LGBT people.
This first report extends our knowledge of how sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) affectthe likelihood that an individual will experience poverty using a national dataset, the Behavioral Risk
Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey. This report covers self-identified lesbians, gay men, andbisexual people (n = 20,926, 3.7% weighted in aggregate dataset) and transgender people (of various
sexual orientations; n = 3,037, 0.5% weighted in aggregate dataset) in 35 states from 2014 to 2017. In
addition, we provide estimates of LGBT poverty in rural and urban areas.

a We use “cisgender straight” or “cisgender heterosexual” interchangeably in this report and in tables for readability.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 6

Throughout this report, we provide the key findings of analyses we conducted to answer major
questions about LGBT poverty:
1. Do poverty rates differ by SOGI? How do these differences look across various demographic
characteristics?
2. Do LGBT and cisgender straight people differ in ways that affect the risk of poverty?
3. Accounting for other known factors related to poverty, do LGBT people still experience a higher
risk of poverty?
Our analysis accounted for the effects of age, race, urbanicity, language, and disability, as well as forthe effects of education, marital status, employment status, and health on poverty. We selected thesefactors because they are linked to poverty, both as causes and effects. Testing whether SOGI are
related to poverty beyond those characteristics sheds additional light on poverty dynamics.
Throughout the initial sections of the paper, we provide detailed information on LGBT people as awhole and the multiple subgroups represented. Details regarding the study methods and statisticalanalyses, such as what measures were used to define poverty and identify respondents’ SOGI, areexplained at the end of this report in an appendix. Box 1 provides an explanation of the standard
definition of poverty in the United States, which compares a household’s income to the poverty
threshold defined by the federal government.

How We Define Poverty
In the United States, an individual is considered to be experiencing poverty if their family income falls below
the official federal poverty threshold. The thresholds are set each year for different sizes of households. In
2015, for example, a family of two adults and one child would be considered living in poverty if their annual
income fell below $19,078. See the appendix for further details.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 7

FINDINGS
POVERTY RATES DIFFER BY SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER
IDENTITY
At a very general level, we can see that SOGI affects the likelihood that someone is poor, because
more LGBT people (21.6%) than straight cisgender people (15.7%) are living in poverty (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Poverty rates comparing LGBT andcisgender straight adults
21.6%

In addition to assessing poverty rates between
LGBT and non-LGBT people, a major aim of
this study was to understand the differencesin poverty among LGBT people. Figure 2 shows
the poverty rates for seven different gender–

sexual orientation combinations. We seethat cisgender straight (13.4%) and gay men(12.1%) have similar rates of poverty, and theirpoverty rates are lower than every other group.
Cisgender lesbians (17.9%) have similar rates ofpoverty to cisgender straight women (17.8%),
and both groups have significantly higher rates
of poverty compared to cisgender gay andLGBT
CIS-STRAIGHT(N=19,786)(N=557,817)
straight men. Compared to cisgender straightand lesbian women, bisexual women and transgender people have higher poverty rates, at 29.4% forboth groups. Similarly, compared to cisgender straight and gay men, transgender people and bisexual
men have higher poverty rates, although bisexual men’s rate is 19.5%, compared to 29.4% for alltransgender people. This difference between bisexual men and transgender people is statisticallysignificant.
15.7%

For descriptive purposes, we provide poverty rates on gender subgroups of transgender people (seeTable 1). Those who identified as transgender men have the highest poverty rate (33.7%), followed bytransgender women (29.6%) and gender nonconforming people (23.8%); however, these differences
are not statistically significant. Because a transgender gender experience has been shown to be aunique and significant factor in economic, health, and experienced discrimination,15-17 we comparedtransgender people as one group to the other gender and sexual orientation subgroups in Figure 2
and in all other analyses in this report. We made this decision because the sample size of transgenderpeople is relatively small, making comparisons difficult if we were to divide transgender people into
their different gender identities, and it avoids untested assumptions about whether experiences
related to economic insecurity compared to cisgender men and women need to be framed in terms ofsex assigned at birth or current gender identity.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 8

Figure 2. Poverty rates by sexual orientation and gender identityb
29.4%

29.4%

CIS-BISEXUALWOMEN (N=5,481

TRANSGENDER(N=744)

19.5%
17.9%

CIS-STRAIGHT
WOMEN(N=313,753)

CIS-LESBIANWOMEN (N=3,532)

13.4%

12.1%

CIS-GAY MEN(N=5,119)

17.8%

CIS-STRAIGHT
MEN (N=244,008)

CIS-BISEXUAL
MEN (N=1,193)

Table 1. Poverty rates in the transgender population
TRANSGENDER PEOPLE%

N

Transgender men

33.7

172

Transgender women

29.6

242

Gender nonconforming

23.8

109

In the following sections, we present the percentage of people who experience poverty by SOGI. We
discuss whether the patterns are the same for people who live in urban versus rural areas, are ofdifferent races and ethnicities, and are of different ages.

Geography and LGBT status
One major advantage of the BRFSS dataset is that it allows for a much more detailed analysis ofpoverty for LGBT people across geographic areas. In this section, we look first at the urban–rural
divide and how LGBT people fare, followed by a presentation of poverty rates for the states that
included a SOGI question module during the 2014–2017 period.bb

The sample size for cisgender straight men and cisgender straight women (n = 58,583) does not equal the sample size in

Figure 1 for cisgender straight adults (n = 58,773) because 190 respondents did not provide information on their genderbut did provide information on their sexual orientation or gender identity. For the same reason, the sum of the separate

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 9

Figure 3 shows the proportions of LGBT and cisgender straight people living in rural and urban areas.
As Figure 3 shows, LGBT people are more likely to live in urban areas (88.3%) compared to theircisgender straight counterparts (84.2%); 11.7% of LGBT people live in rural areas, compared to 15.8%
of cisgender straight people. In a more detailed analysis (not presented here), we found thatdifference to be significant and persistent after considering other characteristics such as education,
employment, race, and age.c
Figure 3. Percentages of LGBT and cisgender straight people living in rural and urban areas
Percent of LGBT People Living in Urban and Rural
Communities

TYPE OF COMMUNITY

11.7%

Percent of Cisgender Straight People Living in Urban
and Rural Communities

RURAL (N=192,851)

URBAN (N=18,531)

URBAN (N=478,703)

88.3%

Given this difference between urban and rural
populations by SOGI status, we comparedpoverty rates of people living in urban areas
to those living in rural areas in Figure 4 by
SOGI. First, note that the poverty rates forLGBT people as a whole are higher than therate among cisgender straight people in bothurban and rural areas. About 16% of cisgender
straight people live in poverty in both urban
and rural areas, but one in five (21.0%) LGBT
people live in poverty in urban areas and one
in four (26.1%) in rural areas are poor. In otherwords, although both rural and urban LGBT
people have higher rates of poverty, the gap islarger for LGBT people in rural areas.

15.8%

TYPE OF COMMUNITYRURAL (N=5,091)

84.2%

Figure 4. Poverty rates comparing LGBT andcisgender straight people by rural and urban
residence

26.1%
21.0%

LGBT, RURAL(N=4,257)

LGBT, URBAN(N=15,234)

15.9%

15.5%

CIS-STRAIGHT,
RURAL(N=158,702)

CIS-STRAIGHT,
URBAN(N=391,237)

As with the differences in poverty rates between SOGI groups previously noted, cisgender bisexual womenand transgender people have the highest rates of poverty in both rural and urban areas, as shown in Table

LGBT groups (n = 3,221) in Figure 2 does not equal the LGBT (n = 3,222) sample in Figure 1.
c

We conducted a logistic regression with living in urban area as an outcome and SOGI as a predictor variable. We also

included other variables such as race, education, age, etc. to account for characteristics that may prompt someone to live
in an urban area.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 10

2. Their rates are higher than those of cisgender straight women and men in both urban and rural areas.
In urban areas, cis-gay men (11.9%) and cis-straight men (13.4%) have similar rates of poverty, as do
cis-lesbian women (17.5%) and cis-straight women (17.6%), though the differences between these
men and women groups is statistically significant. Additionally, cisgender bisexual women in urban
areas (28.3%) have a much higher rate of poverty than cisgender bisexual men (19.1%). Cisgenderbisexual women and transgender people have the highest rate of poverty compared to all othergroups in the urban areas.
In rural areas, SOGI patterns of poverty somewhat differ. Although the poverty rate of cisgender
straight men (13.2%) and cisgender gay men (13.6%), and cisgender lesbian women (19.5%) andcisgender straight women (18.6%) remain similar, the differences by gender are no longer statisticallysignificant with the exception of cisgender straight men and women. Cisgender bisexual women inrural areas (37.0%) continue to have a higher rate of poverty than cisgender bisexual men (24.5%),
but that difference is not statistically significant. However, cisgender bisexual women in rural areas
have the highest rate of poverty compared to all other groups and a much higher rate of poverty thancisgender bisexual women in urban areas. Transgender people in rural areas (27.6%) also have a highrate of poverty, but they are not statistically significantly different than cisgender lesbian women orcisgender bisexual men in rural areas or transgender people in urban areas.
Table 2. Poverty rates by SOGI and rural and urban residence
URBAN

RURAL

SOGI

%

N

%

N

Cis-straight men

13.4

14,891

13.2

6,524

Cis-straight women

17.6

24,776

18.6

11,675

Cis-gay men

11.9

386

13.6

348

Cis-lesbian women

17.5

331

19.5

103

Cis-bisexual men

19.1

98

24.5

121

Cis-bisexual women

28.3

928

37.0

344

Transgender

29.5

358

27.6

158

Note: Bold percentages indicate respondents differed significantly (p < .05) by row. For example, 28.3% of cis-bisexual womenin urban areas experienced poverty compared to 37.0% of cis-bisexual women in rural areas. This difference is statisticallysignificant and indicated by the bold percentages. However, the difference between cis-straight men in urban areas (13.4%)
compared to cis-straight men in rural areas (13.2%) is not statistically significantly different and, therefore, not bold.

For another geographic perspective, we examined how poverty rates varied for SOGI groups acrossstates. Thirty-five states included the SOGI module at least once in the 2014–2017 BRFSS surveys,
allowing us to explore poverty rates by SOGI in these 35 states. Table 3 shows that LGBT people
have significantly higher poverty rates in 22 of the states: Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. The differencein poverty rates was not statistically significant in the remaining 13 states: California, Colorado,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, South
Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming. In 12 of the 13 states (the exception being Florida), the poverty
rates were higher for LGBT people but not statistically significantly higher.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 11

Table 3. Poverty rates of states that included the SOGI module comparing LGBT and cisgender
straight people
POVERTY RATESTATES THAT INCLUDED THE SOGI MODULE

CIS-STRAIGHT

LGBT

%

N

%

N

California

22.8

2,945

22.5

147

Colorado

11

808

17.9

41

Connecticut

10.1

1,637

17.8

97

Delaware

13

1,103

15

53

Florida

10.8

570

6.9

19

Georgia

18.4

1,050

21.8

51

Hawaii

16.7

3,318

24.4

212

Idaho

13.5

1,383

28.1

66

Illinois

14.1

1,233

25

83

Indiana

15.1

3,334

28.5

203

Iowa

10.5

1,404

24.2

75

Kansas

11.9

2,197

23.7

119

Kentucky

17.7

2,163

28.3

107

Louisiana

21.2

2,051

30.1

78

Massachusetts

9.4

1,160

12.8

92

Maryland

11.6

1,121

22.7

66

Minnesota

8.8

2,772

16

174

Mississippi

23.2

1,371

29.3

34

Missouri

13.3

1,114

22.2

44

Montana

14.7

1,248

31.3

58

Nevada

18.8

1,158

22.6

81

New York

16.3

5,162

20.2

359

North Carolina

16.5

460

18.1

25

Ohio

13.2

3,049

21.8

140

Oklahoma

17.2

559

30.7

28

Pennsylvania

12

2,136

17.6

112

Rhode Island

12.9

764

20.8

57

South Carolina

17.5

1,078

19.6

37

Texas

21.1

3,438

28.1

164

Vermont

9.8

1,147

18.3

87

Virginia

12.4

2,040

17.2

95

Washington

11.5

1,650

18.1

123

West Virginia

18.5

643

21.9

22

Wisconsin

8.5

1,230

15.8

60

Wyoming

8.7

277

26.9

13

Note: Bold percentages indicate respondents differed significantly (p < .05) by row. For example, 17.8% of LGBT people
experienced poverty compared to 10.1% of cisgender straight people in Connecticut. This difference is statistically significant
and indicated by the bold percentages. However, the difference between LGBT people (22.5%) and cisgender straight people(22.8%) in California is not statistically significantly different and, therefore, not bold.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 12

Figure 5 maps the states and their LGBT poverty rates, with orange states denoting a significantly
higher poverty rate for LGBT people compared to their cisgender straight counterparts. The
geographic pattern generally shows higher poverty rates for LGBT people in Northeast, Midwest,
Northwest, and Southwest states.
Figure 5. LGBT poverty in the U.S. - Using the Behavioral Risk Surveillance Survey in 35 states

18.1%

18.3%
31.3%
16.0%
15.8%

28.1%

12.8%

20.1%

26.9%
17.6%

24.2%

22.6%

25.0%

28.5%

21.8%

17.9%
23.7%

22.5%

22.2%

15.0%
21.9%
17.2%

28.3%

18.1%
30.7%

19.6%
29.3%

21.8%

28.1%
30.1%
6.9%
24.4%

STATISTICAL TEST RESULTSSTATISTICALLY HIGHER LGBT POVERTY RATELGBT RATE IS STATISTICALLY THE SAME AS CIS-GENDER STRAIGHTNO STATE SOGI DATA REPORTED

Overall, this section shows that where one lives matters for the poverty gap between LGBT people
and cisgender straight people. Being in a rural area appears to be especially challenging to economic
stability for LGBT people. States with poverty gaps appear in most regions of the United States,suggesting that some states and regions are also more economically challenging for LGBT people
relative to cisgender straight people.

Race, ethnicity, and LGBT status
When making comparisons between cisgender straight people and the combined LGBT respondents,
we see that Black, White, Asian, and “other” LGBT people have statistically significantly higher poverty
rates than their same-race cisgender straight counterparts (Table 4). For example, 30.8% of Black
LGBT people live in poverty, whereas 25.3% of Black cis-straight people live in poverty. The LGBT

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 13

people in the remaining groups of people of color tend to have similarly high rates of poverty whencompared to cisgender people of the same racial and ethnic groups.
Table 4. Poverty rates comparing LGBT and cisgender straight people by race and ethnicity
CIS-STRAIGHT

LGBT

%

N

%

N

White

9.1

32,049

15.4

1,802

Black

25.3

8,986

30.8

382

Hispanic

38.0

10,36237.3

520

American Indian or Alaska Native

26.9

1,438

32.4

101

Asian

14.6

1,819

22.9

102

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

25.4

437

28.9

33

“Other” race

14.8

266

42.1

29

Multirace

20.8

2509

22.3

186

Note: Bold percentages indicate respondents differed significantly (p < .05) by row.

We can also look at the influence of race and ethnicity on poverty rates among cisgender straightpeople and LGBT people. Figure 6 shows that except for the “other race” category, the poverty rates
follow similar patterns for both cisgender straight people and LGBT people, though LGBT people of allraces and ethnicities show higher rates of poverty than their cisgender straight counterparts.
Figure 6. Poverty rates comparing LGBT and cisgender straight people by race and ethnicity

38.0%

37.3%
32.4%
26.9%

25.3%

30.8%

28.9%

25.4%

22.3%

20.8%

22.9%
15.4%

14.6%
9.1%

HISPANICAMERICANINDIAN/ALASKANNATIVEBLACK

NATIVEHI/PI

MULTIRACE

ASIAN

WHITE

HISPANICAMERICANINDIAN/ALASKANNATIVECISGENDER STRAIGHT

LGBT

BLACK

NATIVEHI/PI

MULTIRACE

ASIAN

WHITE

When we separate the LGBT population into subgroups (see each row in Table 5), the patterns ofpoverty rates among SOGI groups generally remain the same across racial groups, but the differences
are not all statistically significant. In each racial and ethnic group, cisgender straight women havesignificantly higher poverty rates than cisgender straight men. But among LGB cisgender people,
this gender disparity only holds true for Black lesbians (31.3%) and bisexual women (39.7%)
when compared to Black gay (17.1%) and bisexual men (20.3%). In most racial and ethnic groups,
transgender people had significantly higher poverty rates when compared to all cisgender straightpeople and to gay and bisexual cisgender men. For example, almost half (48.4%) of Hispanic

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 14

transgender people live in poverty, whereas 32.5% of Hispanic cisgender straight men live in poverty.
This difference was not observed among Black respondents, for whom—despite the rates of poverty
appearing similarly high among cisgender lesbians, bisexual women, and transgender people whencompared to cisgender straight women—only bisexual cisgender women’s poverty rates reachedstatistical significance. Transgender people and cisgender sexual minority women of color tended tohave comparable poverty rates.
Table 5. Poverty rate by SOGI and race and ethnicity
SOGI

WHITE

BLACK

HISPANIC

OTHER

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

Cis-straight men

7.6

11,702

21.8

2,833

32.5

4,014

15.7

2,810

Cis-straight women

10.5

20,345

28.0

6,150

43.6

6,347

18.5

3,659

Cis-gay men

8.1

287

17.1

45

24.0

88

15.4

67

Cis-lesbian women

10.7

251

31.3

63

34.8

49

27.5

72

Cis-bisexual men

14.6

258

20.3

43

33.6

80

22.5

80

Cis-bisexual women

23.4

755

39.7

154

45.4

201

26.9

155

Transgender

18.6

250

38.5

77

48.4

102

35.2

77

Note: Ethnic and racial groups are collapsed for readability and sample sizes. See Supplemental Tables for all ethnic andracial groups.
Note: Bold percentages indicate respondents differed significantly (p < .05) by row when compared to White respondents(shaded column). For example, the poverty rate of Hispanic (33.6%) and “other race” (22.5%) cis-bisexual men are statisticallysignificantly different from that of White cis-bisexual men (14.6%). However, poverty rates of Black cis-bisexual men (20.3%) arenot statistically different from that of White cis-bisexual men.

Another way to look at the influence of race and ethnicity is to note that in general, the poverty rates
for White people are lower than for people of color—only 7.6% of White cisgender straight men arepoor, compared with 21.8% of Black and 32.5% of Hispanic cisgender straight men. For nearly all SOGI
groups, people of color had significantly higher poverty rates than White people. The few exceptions
to this rule were that cisgender bisexual women categorized as “other” in terms of race (meaning a
combination of those who selected Asian or Pacific Islander, American Indian, other, and multiracial)
did not have statistically different poverty rates than their White counterparts, and bisexual Black andWhite cisgender men did not differ significantly.

AGE AND LGBT STATUS
Regarding age group differences, Table 6 presents poverty rates by age group for cisgender straightand LGBT people. Overall, there are some similarities in age patterns for LGBT people and cisgender
straight people, with poverty rates highest in the youngest groups but declining in older age groups.
Looking in each age group in Table 6, though, we see that poverty rates tend to be higher for LGBT
people, but those differences are only statistically significant for people aged 18 to 44 years old. For
older groups, the differences between poverty rates for LGBT people and cisgender straight people
are not significantly different.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 15

Table 6. Poverty rates comparing LGBT and cisgender straight people by age
CISGENDER STRAIGHT

LGBT

%

N

%

N

18-24

26.9

5,571

30.7

661

25-34

21.8

9,080

24.7

801

35-44

18.5

9,649

24.8

513

45-54

14.0

10,900

15.8

549

55-64

12.0

12,537

13.5

433

65+

8.3

10,7829.8

258

Note: Bold percentages indicate respondents differed significantly (p < .05) by row.

When we separate subgroups by SOGI in Table 7, the sample sizes of the comparison groups get
smaller and many of the differences between groups are not statistically significant. Among cisgendermen, gay men have similar rates of poverty to straight men across age groups (the differences are notstatistically significant), except those in the age range of 35–44 (10.1 vs. 15.2%, respectively) and 55-64(7.8% vs. 11.3%). Cisgender bisexual men also had similar rates of poverty compared to cisgender
straight men, although bisexual men (31.8%) aged 35–44 have significantly higher poverty rates
than straight men in the same age range (15.2%). Among cisgender women, there are no significant
differences between lesbians and straight women, but bisexual women aged 18–24 (37.3% vs. 31.2%,
respectively) and 35–44 (29.1% vs. 21.6%, respectively) have higher poverty rates than cisgender
straight women. Transgender people have higher poverty rates than cisgender straight men in every
age group, and the transgender poverty rates are statistically significantly higher than for cisgender
straight women for the 35–44 and 55–64 age groups.
Table 7. Poverty rates by SOGI and age
SOGI

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

Cis-straight men

23.0

2,620

16.8

3,251

15.2

3,390

12.6

4,253

11.3

4,995

6.4

3,165

Cis-straight women

31.2

2,951

27.0

5,828

21.6

6,257

15.3

6,646

12.5

7,539

9.9

7,616

Cis-gay men

20.3

73

12.9

67

10.1

70

11.9

129

7.8

91

7.9

59

Cis-lesbian women

34.3

67

22.3

104

18.1

81

13.6

100

8.8

61

7.5

31

Cis-bisexual men

19.9

106

21.6

104

31.8

57

17.8

88

16.6

75

9.4

46

Cis-bisexual women

37.3

345

30.9

433

29.1

223

19.4

143

12.4

94

9.5

47

Transgender

35.6

70

35.6

93

42.5

81

22.3

89

25.1

112

14.8

75

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 16

In Figure 7, we present data for each SOGI subgroup across the age ranges, illustrating the general
pattern of changes in poverty rates from younger to older (most but not all differences are statisticallysignificant, see Supplemental Table 3 for more detail). We see that transgender people (indicated by
the yellow line) have high poverty rates and that both transgender and cisgender bisexual men (darkblue line) follow a similar pattern of experiencing poverty with an uptick at ages 35-44 and 55-64.
Figure 7. Poverty rates by SOGI and age
SOGI

50

CIS-BISEXUAL MEN

18.1%

18.3% WOMEN
CIS-BISEXUAL
31.3%

CIS-GAY MEN
CIS-LESBIAN WOMEN

16.0%

40

CIS-STRAIGHT MEN

15.8%

28.1%
26.9%

TRANSGENDER

30

17.6%

24.2%

22.6%

25.0%

28.5%

21.8%

17.9%
23.7%

20 22.5%

22.2%

15.0%
21.9%
17.2%

28.3%

18.1%
30.7%
10

19.6%
29.3%

21.8%

28.1%
30.1%
0
18-24

25-34

24.4%

35-44

45-54

12.8%

20.1%
CIS-STRAIGHT
WOMEN

55-64
6.9%

65+

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 17

LGBT AND CIS-STRAIGHT PEOPLE DIFFER IN WAYS THAT AFFECT THE
LIKELIHOOD OF POVERTYAs the previous section shows, poverty rates are influenced by gender, age, race and ethnicity, andurban vs. rural location. Other characteristics also matter, like English proficiency, disability status,
education level, health, marital status, employment status, and having children. In this section, we
compare these additional characteristics across SOGI, because they might be additional reasons forthe heightened vulnerability to poverty for LGBT people noted in the first section. In other words,
poverty rates might vary by SOGI because these other characteristics that tend to predict poverty are
more common among LGBT people.
To examine patterns in important characteristics related to poverty among LGBT people and createa model for the final test of the impact of SOGI status on poverty, we compare sexual and genderminority groups separately to cisgender straight women and cisgender straight men. This is in linewith economic research that acknowledged wage gaps and other inequalities between men andwomen in the United States.18 In both sets of analyses, we still compare the full group of transgendersurvey respondents.
When we look more closely at those descriptive characteristics in Table 8 (comparing subgroups
to cisgender straight women) and Table 9 (comparing subgroups to cisgender straight men), we
see that LGBT people are more likely to be people of color, young, urban, and disabled—all social
statuses and characteristics that are known to be independently related to poverty rates. We pointout specific statistically significant comparisons between cisgender straight people and subgroups ofLGBT people. For the sake of brevity, we also use bold text and colored numbers in Tables 8 and 9 toindicate which estimates reach statistical significance when compared to cisgender straight womenor men.
Table 8. Descriptive variables for cisgender straight women, sexual minority women, andtransgender people

CISGENDERSTRAIGHT WOMEN

CIS-LESBIAN
AND BISEXUALWOMEN AND
TRANSGENDERPEOPLECISGENDERLESBIANWOMEN

CISGENDERBISEXUALWOMEN

TRANSGENDERPEOPLE

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

18-24

10.5

14,680

29.2

2,184

19.0

345

36.8

1,527

21.9

312

25-34

14.8

31,200

24.5

2,668

18.9

547

30.5

1,777

15.7

344

35-44

15.7

41,765

15.0

1,962

16.3

525

14.4

1,114

14.9

323

45-54

17.6

61,438

12.6

2,308

19.9

925

8.42

893

14.7

490

55-64

18.0

87,767

9.9

2,468

14.5

1,032

5.22

778

16.6

658

65+

23.4

148,269

8.8

2,545

11.4

776

4.77

886

16.2

883

White

66.3

307,049

61.5

10,243

64.3

3,200

62.4

4,981

55.5

2,062

Black

12.2

32,199

13.9

1,228

14.2

321

13.6

590

14.4

317

DESCRIPTIVEVARIABLES

Age

Race

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 18

CISGENDERSTRAIGHT WOMEN

CIS-LESBIAN
AND BISEXUALWOMEN AND
TRANSGENDERPEOPLECISGENDERLESBIANWOMEN

CISGENDERBISEXUALWOMEN

TRANSGENDERPEOPLE

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

Hispanic

14.0

22,487

14.8

1,166

12.5

247

14.0

623

19.9

296

American

0.6

3,711

1.1

228

0.9

63

1.3

116

1.0

49

Asian

5.0

8,999

4.9

333

4.8

70

4.62

163

5.6

100

Native

0.2

862

0.4

75

0.5

28

0.4

28

0.3

19

“Other” race

0.3

1,250

0.5

81

0.4

22

0.2

32

1.1

27

Multirace

1.3

8,446

3.0

626

2.4

167

3.6

353

2.2

106

6.1

7,730

3.9

261

1.4

36

2.7

105

10.3

120

Urban

84.2

273,163

87.3

10,737

89.1

3,294

87.9

5,323

83.6

2,120

Rural

15.8

111,238

12.7

3,261

10.9

805

12.1

1,582

16.4

874

24.3

106,770

35.4

5,006

31.7

1,237

37.0

2,616

35.5

1,153

12.1

25,355

14.6

1,149

8.8

195

14.1

523

23.0

431

27.2

107,429

28.3

3,651

24.5

798

27.6

1,750

34.6

1,103

32.8

111,567

34.4

4,147

32.9

1,038

37.3

2,283

29.0

826

27.8

144,335

22.7

5,226

33.9

2,131

21.1

2,432

13.4

663

Married51.2

194,528

28.6

4,614

27.7

1,262

24.2

2,087

41.0

1,265

Not

44.7

184,045

60.8

8,116

57.5

2,249

65.4

4,249

52.7

1,618

4.1

9,172

10.7

1,395

14.7

618

10.5

641

6.24

136

44.1

149,766

47.7

6,438

54.4

2,139

47.0

3,181

41.2

1,118

DESCRIPTIVEVARIABLES

Indian or
Alaska Native

Hawaiianor PacificIslanderLanguage
Non-English
Urbanicity

Disability status
Disabled
Education
Did not
graduatefrom highschoolGraduatehigh school
Attendedcollege ortechnical
schoolGraduatedfrom college
or technicalschoolMarital status

partnered
Cohabitating
Employment
Employed

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 19

DESCRIPTIVEVARIABLES

Self-

CISGENDERSTRAIGHT WOMEN

CIS-LESBIAN
AND BISEXUALWOMEN AND
TRANSGENDERPEOPLECISGENDERLESBIANWOMEN

CISGENDERBISEXUALWOMEN

TRANSGENDERPEOPLE

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

6.16

23,402

7.67

1,084

6.1

307

7.85

537

9.1

240

49.7

214,487

44.7

6,579

39.5

1,700

45.2

3,228

49.7

1,651

18.2

72,555

22.3

3,159

17.7

744

23.4

1,609

24.9

806

38.3

99,528

39.1

4,282

31.1

908

45.2

2,668

33.2

706

employed
Nonemployed
General health
Fair or poor
healthHouseholdHas a child orchildrenNote: Bold percentages indicate respondents differed significantly (p < .05) by row when comparing cisgender straight people
to LGBT people. Values among LGBT subgroups that differed significantly at the p < .05 level from cisgender straight people
are highlighted in blue. For example, 14.8% of cis-straight women are ages 25–34. This is statistically significant from 18.9% of
lesbian women and 30.5% of bisexual women, but not statistically significant from 15.7% of transgender people.

Table 9. Descriptive variables for cisgender straight men, sexual minority men, and transgenderpeopleCISGENDERSTRAIGHT MEN

CIS-GAY ANDBISEXUAL
MEN AND
TRANSGENDERPEOPLECISGENDER GAY
MENCISGENDERBISEXUAL MEN

TRANSGENDERPEOPLE

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

18-24

12.5

17,700

22.5

1,551

18.5

580

28.5

659

21.9

312

25-34

16.4

28,524

20.4

1,778

21.9

839

21.5

595

15.7

344

35-44

16.4

33,806

13.4

1,349

13.6

648

12.1

378

14.9

323

45-54

17.7

47,839

16.9

2,317

21.1

1,283

12.5

544

14.7

490

55-64

17.6

66,601

14.8

2,707

15.1

1,347

13.1

702

16.6

658

65+

19.4

94,224

12.0

3,022

9.7

1,200

12.2

939

16.2

883

White

66.3

228,206

61.0

9,332

65.1

4,566

59.4

2,704

55.5

2,062

Black

10.8

18,504

11.3

943

9.9

347

11.1

279

14.4

317

Hispanic

14.9

17,818

17.4

1,142

15.9

486

17.8

360

19.9

296

American

0.7

3,179

1.0

169

0.6

45

1.5

75

1.02

49

5.4

8,971

6.1

402

5.6

147

7.0

155

5.57

100

DESCRIPTIVEVARIABLE

Age

Race

Indian or
Alaska Native
AsianLGBT Poverty in the United States | 20

DESCRIPTIVEVARIABLE

CISGENDERSTRAIGHT MEN

CIS-GAY ANDBISEXUAL
MEN AND
TRANSGENDERPEOPLECISGENDER GAY
MENCISGENDERBISEXUAL MEN

TRANSGENDERPEOPLE

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

0.2

775

0.3

69

0.3

30

0.4

20

0.3

19

“Other” race

0.4

1,409

0.5

72

0.3

27

0.3

18

1.1

27

Multirace

1.5

7,265

2.6

458

2.3

202

2.5

150

2.2

106

6.0

5,862

5.0

261

2.2

66

5.1

75

10.3

120

Urban

84.2

205,485

88.4

9,911

91.1

4,844

88.0

2,947

83.6

2,120

Rural

15.8

81,594

11.6

2,704

8.9

996

12.0

834

16.4

874

19.5

62,032

28.4

3,803

24.0

1,453

29.3

1,197

35.5

1,153

13.4

20,098

12.8

938

6.34

208

14.4

299

23.0

431

30.5

82,201

27.6

3,217

22.8

1,052

29.0

1,062

34.6

1,103

29.6

74,662

31.9

3,364

32.5

1,518

33.1

1,020

29.0

826

26.4

113,404

27.7

5,237

38.4

3,127

23.4

1,447

13.4

663

Married54.4

170,261

26.2

3,567

18.1

1,127

26.8

1,175

41.0

1,265

Not

41.1

111,046

63.9

8,023

68.6

3,983

65.6

2,422

52.7

1,618

4.5

8,439

9.8

1,123

13.4

772

7.6

215

6.24

136

Employed

53.0

131,644

49.0

5,756

54.5

2,954

46.9

1,684

41.2

1,118

Self-

11.8

33,774

9.6

1,202

10.0

590

9.42

372

9.13

240

NativeHawaiianor PacificIslanderLanguage
Non-English
Urbanicity

Disability status
Disabled
Education
Did not
graduatefrom highschoolGraduatehigh school
Attendedcollege ortechnical
schoolGraduatedfrom college
or technicalschoolMarital status

partnered
Cohabitating
Employment

employed

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 21

DESCRIPTIVEVARIABLE

Non-

CISGENDERSTRAIGHT MEN

CIS-GAY ANDBISEXUAL
MEN AND
TRANSGENDERPEOPLECISGENDER GAY
MENCISGENDERBISEXUAL MEN

TRANSGENDERPEOPLE

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

35.2

124,004

41.4

5,761

35.4

2,355

43.7

1,755

49.7

1,651

16.7

50,765

18.6

2,609

13.9

981

20.7

822

24.9

806

34.8

72,881

21.9

1,945

10.6

415

29.5

824

33.2

706

employed
General health
Fair or poor
healthHouseholdHas a child orchildrenNote: Bold percentages indicate respondents differed significantly (p < .05) by row. Values among LGBT subgroups that differedsignificantly at p < .05 from cisgender straight people are highlighted in blue.

Starting with age, we see that transgender people and lesbian and bisexual women tend to be
younger than cisgender straight women. For example, 19.0% of lesbians, 36.8% of bisexual women,
and 21.9% of transgender people are aged 18–24, compared to only 10.5% of cisgender straightwomen. Similarly, 18.5% of gay men, 28.5% of bisexual men, and 21.9% of transgender people areaged 18–24, whereas only 12.5% of cisgender straight men are in the youngest group.
Turning to race and ethnicity, cisgender straight men and women are more likely than LGBT people
to be White—the group least likely to be poor. We see that approximately 66% of cisgender straightwomen and cisgender straight men are White, but only approximately 61% of sexual and genderminority women and men are White. When combined into one group (the second column of Table 8),transgender people and lesbian and bisexual women are more likely to be Black, American Indian or
Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or multiracial than are cisgender straight women.
The combined group of gay and bisexual cisgender men plus transgender people (the second column
in Table 9) are more likely to be Hispanic, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian orPacific Islander, or multiracial than are cisgender straight men. Most of the comparisons between thesubgroups of LGBT people and cisgender straight people were not statistically significant. One notable
exception is that transgender people were more likely to be Hispanic compared to either cisgender
straight men or women, and they were more likely to be Black than cisgender straight men.
As noted in Figure 3, LGBT people are more likely to live in urban areas than cisgender straightpeople. We see that 15.8% of cisgender straight men and women live in rural areas, but only 11.6%
of gay and bisexual men and transgender people and 12.7% of lesbian and bisexual women andtransgender people live in rural areas.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 22

Disability status is also more common for LGBT people: 35.4% of lesbian and bisexual women andtransgender people versus 24.3% for cisgender straight women, and 28.4% of gay and bisexual men
and transgender people versus 19.5% for cisgender straight men.
A second set of characteristics that might affect the relationship between SOGI and poverty includes
education, marital status, employment status, and health. However, their relationship to poverty ismore complicated than the ones already discussed. Having lower levels of education, being single(non-partnered) or partnered with a low-income person, being unemployed, and having poor healthmake poverty more likely for families and individuals. Conversely, being poor also makes thosecharacteristics more likely. Getting a college degree is more difficult without financial resources. One
may be less likely to have a partner or marry if poor. Having a stable home and resources for a job
search are also more challenging if poor. Poverty can create stress that leads to poorer health.
Looking at these more complicated factors, we again see that LGBT people, and particularly bisexualand transgender people, are more likely to have some of those characteristics associated withhigher poverty. Starting with the combined LGBT groups, we see in Table 8 that cisgender lesbianand bisexual women and transgender people have generally lower education levels; they are more
likely to have not graduated from high school and are less likely to have graduated from college thancisgender straight women. Once we divide up the LGBT group, we see that bisexual women andtransgender adults had lower education levels than cisgender straight women, lesbians had higher
education levels than cisgender straight women. In Table 9, cisgender gay and bisexual men andtransgender people are more likely to have attended college. Bisexual men and transgender adults
had lower education levels than cisgender straight men, whereas gay men had higher educationlevels than cisgender straight men.
Turning to marital status, cisgender lesbian and bisexual women plus transgender people (60.8%)
are more likely to be non-partnered than cisgender straight women (44.7%), as are cisgender gay andbisexual men plus transgender people men compared with cisgender straight men (63.9% vs. 41.1%,
respectively).
Employment status shows differences between groups, too. Cisgender lesbian and bisexual womenand transgender people are more likely to be employed than cisgender straight women (47.7% vs.
44.1%, respectively), but cisgender gay and bisexual men and transgender people are less likely to be
employed than cisgender straight men. In particular, cisgender bisexual men and transgender adults
were less likely to be employed than cisgender straight men.
Turning to health, LGBT people as a group are more likely to report being in fair or poor health(compared to great or good health) than cisgender straight women or men. However, the picture ismore complicated when looking at the LGBT subgroups separately. Gay men are less likely to reportfair or poor health than cisgender straight men, and lesbians have similar health as cisgender straightwomen. But bisexual women and men and transgender adults are more likely to report worse healththan their cisgender straight counterparts.
These tables (and other research) show that LGBT people and cisgender heterosexual people
have very different patterns of characteristics that predict whether someone will be poor. To know

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 23

more precisely how SOGI independently influences the risk of poverty, we want to take those other
differences into account.
The patterns are also complex. On one hand, cisgender gay and bisexual men have higher levels of
education and fewer children, both of which protect them from poverty. On the other hand, they areless likely to be partnered, to be employed, or to be in good health, which tend to increase their risk ofpoverty. Cisgender lesbian and bisexual women are protected by having higher levels of employment
than cisgender straight women but are at risk because of less education (for bisexual women), poorer
health, and lower partnership rates. This complexity requires a more sophisticated statistical method
to make detailed comparisons, which we describe next.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 24

LGBT PEOPLE ARE MORE LIKELY TO EXPERIENCE POVERTY AFTERACCOUNTING FOR OTHER KNOWN FACTORSIn this section, we explore the effect of SOGI on the probability of being poor, accounting for the otherrelevant factors described in the previous section. The statistical technique we used allowed us tocontrol for the other characteristics that are known to also predict poverty—that way we can answer
the question of whether SOGI is associated with poverty above and beyond known determinants ofpoverty. For this detailed analysis, we condensed some variables (age, race, education, marital status,and employment status) into fewer categories because of the relatively small sample sizes of some
subgroups. In this section, we present the main findings, with details of the statistical analysis in the
appendix.
As in the comparisons in the previous section, we did two separate comparisons: one compared theprobability of poverty for lesbian and bisexual women and transgender people to the probability forcisgender straight women, and the other compared gay and bisexual men and transgender people
to cisgender straight men. For each set of comparisons, we first tested the effect of being part of theLGBT collective, and then tested whether being part of a specific subgroup of the LGBT population is asignificant predictor of poverty.
Our statistical method gives us a comparison of the odds of being poor (the “odds ratio”) for theLGBT group compared to the cisgender straight group. Odds ratios are a way of measuring how
likely someone is to be poor. If 15% of cisgender straight people are poor and 85% are not poor, theaverage cisgender straight person’s odds of poverty are 15/85, or 0.176. If 20% of LGBT people arepoor and 80% are not poor, their odds of poverty are 20/80, or 0.25. The odds ratio that compares
the odds for LGBT people to that of cisgender straight people is 0.25/0.176, or 1.42. Thus, the odds ofpoverty are 42% (0.42) higher for LGBT people in this example.
First, we look at the role of SOGI in predicting women’s poverty. When we account for age, raceand ethnicity, urban vs. rural location, English proficiency, disability status, education level, health,marital status, employment status, and having children, lesbian and bisexual cisgender women andtransgender people combined are more likely to be poor than cisgender straight women (Figure 8).
Their odds of being poor are 17% higher than the odds for cisgender straight women. Separating
the LGBT group into lesbians, bisexual women, and transgender people shows that the differenceis driven by a higher risk of poverty for bisexual women (17% higher) and transgender people (38%higher). Lesbians are neither more likely nor less likely to be poor than cisgender straight women.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 25

Figure 8. Odds of living in poverty compared to cisgender straight women and men – LGBT andLGBT subgroups
Compared to cis-straight women

Compared to cis-straight men
70%

38%

17%

17%

15%

5%

-1%
-7%
LGBT

TRANSGENDERPEOPLECIS BISEXUAL
WOMEN

CIS LESBIANLGBTTRANSGENDERPEOPLECIS BISEXUALMENCIS GAY MEN

Note: The orange and yellow bars represent statistically significant differences in probabilities of poverty compared tocisgender straight women or men; the gray bars indicate the difference is not statistically significant. See Appendix Table 3 formore details.

When we look at men’s poverty, we see a similar finding. Gay and bisexual men and transgenderpeople have a 15% higher likelihood of being poor than cisgender straight men (Figure 8). But
subgroup analysis shows that gay and bisexual men are neither more nor less likely (statistically) thancisgender straight men to be poor; transgender people are 70% more likely to be poor than cisgender
straight men.
Overall, the higher odds of being poor for LGBT people are driven mainly by a greater risk of poverty
for transgender people and, to some extent, for bisexual people.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 26

FUTURE RESEARCH SUGGESTIONS
Although this study’s findings allow us to better understand poverty for LGBT people, including
subgroups of LGBT identities, than previous reports, we are still limited in the strength of conclusions
that we can draw because of the limited size of the sample of LGBT people.
As we note in several places, small sample sizes of subgroups especially limit our ability to makecomparisons and draw conclusions about the risks of poverty for LGBT people, particularly in relation
to other important characteristics such as race and age. For example, higher rates of poverty among
Black cisgender lesbian and transgender people compared to cisgender straight women do not
approach statistical significance, though the rates of poverty are higher. When combined into an
LGBT group (achieving a larger sample size), they are significantly different than the cisgender straightgroup. We could not perform detailed comparisons for different groups of transgender people for thesame reason. To see the impact of the small sample sizes, see the Supplemental Tables—the small
samples tend to have wider confidence intervals, which make it harder to detect differencesamong groups.
Beyond poverty rates, although the proportions of LGBT people in this sample are similar to otherestimates of the LGBT population (4.5% from Gallup Daily Tracking Survey14), the sample sizes
are likely too small for some nuanced analyses because the total samples for the survey were not
big enough to identify enough LGBT people in various minority groups (by race, age, and region).
Additionally, SOGI data were not collected in each state every year, which affected sample sizes. This
limitation also likely affected the LGBT versus cisgender straight comparisons. We found that manystates did not show significant differences among SOGI groups, but these are also the states with thesmallest samples of LGBT people.
Finally, we have data from only 35 states, which limits our ability to generalize our findings to thenational level. Because states vary in terms of laws and policies that are inclusive of LGBT people, wewould want to take state-level factors into account that may be associated with poverty, but the small
sample size in each state makes that impossible. Overall, having data from all states and having larger
sample sizes will be necessary to conduct more detailed research on the contextual influences onLGBT poverty.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 27

CONCLUSION
Looking at the basic poverty rates for women tells us a story that is consistent with the statisticalanalysis. Lesbian cisgender women have similarly high poverty rates as cisgender straight women,
and bisexual women and transgender people are much more likely to be poor than cisgender
straight women. This difference remains even after accounting for the many differences (e.g. age,race/ethnicity, and education) among lesbians, bisexual women, transgender people, and cisgender
straight women.
Gay and straight cisgender men at first appear to have similarly low (when compared to women)poverty rates, and bisexual cisgender men and transgender people have higher poverty rates thancisgender straight men. After accounting for differences in race, age, education, and other relevantcharacteristics, gay men are indeed just as likely to be poor as cisgender straight men. In addition, thehigher rates of poverty initially seen for bisexual men disappeared after accounting for their different
characteristics compared to cisgender straight men. We find that transgender people consistently
have the highest odds of being poor among all groups, even after accounting for their characteristics.
Where people live matters for poverty rates. In particular, LGBT people are less likely to live in rural
areas compared to cisgender straight people, but LGBT people living in rural areas have particularlyhigh rates of poverty.
Taken together, this report extends our knowledge of LGBT poverty. Using a new dataset with moredetailed measures of SOGI and a much larger sample size than previous studies revealed importantdifferences in the collective group of LGBT people. Being LGBT increases the risk of poverty overall,and for bisexual and transgender people, in particular. In addition, this report also identifies arange of contributors to elevated rates of poverty among LGBT people, including lower educational
attainment, unemployment, poor health, and disability. Addressing these differences, as well as
ensuring access to employment through legal protections, may serve to reduce poverty among
LGBT adults.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 28

AUTHORS
M. V. Lee Badgett, Ph.D., is a Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, anda senior scholar at the Williams Institute. She co-constructed the theoretical and analytic frameworkand co-wrote this report.
Soon Kyu (Soonie) Choi, M.P.P., M.Sc., is a Project Manager and the Richard Taylor Public Policy
Fellow at the Williams Institute. She conducted data analysis and co-wrote this report.
Bianca D.M. Wilson, Ph.D., is a Senior Scholar of Public Policy at the Williams Institute. She is also
the Principal Investigator of the Pathways to Justice Project and co-constructed the theoretical andanalytic framework, co-wrote, and assisted in the data visualization development for this report.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We appreciate the support of multiple groups that contributed to the resources needed to complete
the larger Pathways to Justice Project in which this report is embedded: Arcus Foundation, MAZON: A
Jewish Response to Hunger, Conagra Brands Foundation, The David Bohnett Foundation, Amy Mandel
and Katina Rodis Fund of the Morton and Barbara Mandel Family Foundation, and The Small Change
Foundation.
We also thank several colleagues who provided feedback on earlier versions of this report: Dr.
Christopher (Kitt) Carpenter (Vanderbilt University, E. Bronson Ingram Chair and Professor of
Economics), Dr. Alyssa Schneebaum (Vienna University of Economics and Business, AssistantProfessor), Dr. Kerith Conron (Williams Institute, Research Director), and Jocelyn Samuels (Williams
Institute, Executive Director).
Finally, we would like to thank the Pathways to Justice Project Community Advisory Board (listed
alphabetically): Renée Bever (Independent Artist), Lisa Cisneros (LGBT Program, California Rural Legal
Assistance), Moises Duran (Bakersfield Kern County Public Health Services Department), Laura Diven(California Rural Legal Assistance), Iyatunde Folayan (aka LaTrice Dixon, Black Lesbian United), Gloria
Garcia (California Rural Legal Assistance), Jan Hefner (The Center for Sexuality & Gender Diversity,
Bakersfield) and Queen Victoria Ortega (FLUX & St. John’s Well Child and Family Center- Transgender
Health Program).

PATHWAYS TO JUSTICE PROJECTThe Pathways to Justice Project is multiple method long term project examining poverty rates, exploring
the life narratives, and documenting experiences with economic development and food insecurity
services among LGBTQ people. We rely on government survey data and in-person interviews to
study economic insecurity among LGBTQ people to answer the following questions: 1) How do LGBTQ
poverty rates and other measures of economic insecurity vary across states and between urban andrural areas within states?; 2) Do adequate services exist to serve LGBTQ adults living in poverty?; 3)What are the social, psychological, and contextual factors, or “root causes,” associated with high ratesof LGBTQ poverty?; and 4) How do other social statuses (race, immigration status, etc.) complicate
narratives of LGBT poverty. Paired together, quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews forLGBT Poverty in the United States | 29

learning the stories of LGBTQ
people living in poverty will
better equip the community to
advocate for policy change by
distilling down complex survey
PROJECT
data that is not easily accessible
to the public. Combining thesemethods of understanding
LGBTQ poverty also allows for
us document experiences ofpoverty among subgroups who may not have higher rates of poverty (e.g., gay cisgender men), andyet are nonetheless represented among those experiencing economic insecurities. Also, it allows
us to fill in the gaps that survey data cannot fill through answering questions about “how” and “why”
disparities exist, and “what do we do now?”. For more information about the overall project, please
visit: www.pathways-study.org.

SUGGESTED CITATION
Badgett, M. V. L., Choi, S. K., & Wilson, B. D. M., (2019, October). LGBT poverty in the United States: A
study of differences between sexual orientation and gender identity groups. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams
Institute.

ABOUT THE WILLIAMS INSTITUTE
The Williams Institute is dedicated to conducting rigorous, independent research on sexual
orientation and gender identity law and public policy. A think tank at UCLA Law, the Williams Instituteproduces high-quality research with real-world relevance and disseminates it to judges, legislators,
policymakers, media and the public. These studies can be accessed at the Williams Institute website.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law
Box 951476, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu
RESEARCH THAT MATTERS

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 30

APPENDIX: METHODSDATA SOURCEThe Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is a national telephone survey of more than
400,000 adults designed to collect information on health behaviors, conditions, and services. It isfunded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It is administered at the state levelby state health departments, universities, or call centers using a random-digit-dialing method on bothlandlines and mobile phones to adults aged 18 or older, and respondents answer questions over the
telephone. Data on health indicators such as usage of health services, chronic health conditions, andhealth-related risk behaviors are collected annually on an ongoing basis in 50 U.S. states and three
U.S. territories. The BRFSS includes a standardized core set of questions that are asked in every state,
optional modules that states choose to include, and other specific state-added questions. For more
information, please see the BRFSS website.19
Since 2014, the CDC has allowed states to include an optional module with standardized SOGI
questions in the BRFSS survey. During the 2014–2017 period, 35 states included these questionsat least once, and the CDC included the results from that module in the publicly available BRFSS
dataset.d During the 4-year period, the number of states that included the SOGI questions increased.
In 2014, 19 states (with 31.7% of the U.S. population) included the SOGI questions. In 2015 and2016, 22 states (with 50.8% of the U.S. population) and 25 states (with 64.3% of the U.S. population),
respectively, included the SOGI questions. In 2017, 27 states (with 73.4% of the U.S. population)
included the SOGI questions.

SAMPLEFor this report, the study sample was limited to the 35 states that included the SOGI module at least
once (see Table Appendix 1). For the 35 states across four years, we had 93 state-level modules that
we combined into one dataset for analysis. For sample size reasons, BRFSS 2014, 2015, 2016, and2017 data were combined.

dOther states have included different questions on sexual orientation in earlier years, but the responses to thosequestions are not included in the public use dataset from BRFSS.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 31

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Measure in Module

1. Do you consider yourself to be:
INTERVIEWER NOTE: Please say the number before the “yes” text response. Respondent can answer witheither the number or the text/word.
Please read:1

Straight

2

Lesbian or gay

3

Bisexual

Do not read:
4

Other

7

Don’t know/Not sure9

Refused

2. Do you consider yourself to be transgender?
If yes, ask “Do you consider yourself to be 1. male-to-female, 2. female-to-male, or 3. gender nonconforming?
INTERVIEWER NOTE: Please say the number before the “yes” text response. Respondent can answer witheither the number or the text/word.
1

Yes, Transgender, male-to-female

2

Yes, Transgender, female-to-male

3

Yes, Transgender, gender nonconforming

4

No

7

Don’t know/Not sure9

RefusedINTEVIEWER NOTE: If asked about definition of transgender:
Some people describe themselves as transgender when they experience a different gender identity fromtheir sex at birth. For example, a person born into a male body, but who feels female or lives as a woman
would be transgender. Some transgender people change their physical appearance so that it matches theirinternal gender identity. Some transgender people take hormones and some have surgery. A transgenderperson may be of any sexual orientation–straight, gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
INTERVIEWER NOTE: If asked about definition of gender non-conforming:
Some people think of themselves as gender non-conforming when they do not identify only as a man or
only as a woman.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 32

Appendix Table 1. States that included the SOGI module by year
SOGI MODULE ASKED IN BRFSS SURVEY BY YEAR
2014

2015

2016

2017

1

1

1
1

TOTAL YEARS OF DATAINCLUDED BY STATE

STATES2

California

1

Colorado

1

1

1

3

Connecticut

1

1

1

4

Delaware1

1

Florida

1

1

1

3

Georgia

1

1

1

1

4

Hawaii

1

1

1

3

Idaho

1

1

1

3

Illinois

1

1

1

1

4

Indiana

1

1

1

1

4

Iowa

1

1

2

Kansas2

Kentucky

3

Louisiana

2

Maryland

1

1

1
1
1

1

1

1
1

1

1

3

Massachusetts

1

1

1

4

Minnesota

1

12Mississippi

2

Missouri

1

2Montana

1

1

1
1

1

1

1

4

Nevada

1

1

1

1

4

New York

1

1

North Carolina

1

4

Ohio

1

1

1

1

1

Oklahoma

1

1

1

1

4

Pennsylvania

1

1

2

Rhode Island

1

1

South Carolina

1

1

3

Texas

1

1

3

Vermont1

14

Virginia

1

1

2

Washington

1

West Virginia

4

Wisconsin

1

Wyoming

1
1
1

1
1

1

1

1

1

1
19

22

25

27

35 States

The sample is further limited to individuals who provided a response to the SOGI measures inthese states. A total of 704,715 individuals are included in the analysis of this report, with 680,752

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 33

individuals identified as cisgender straight and 23,963 individuals as LGBT.e Because not everyone
provided information on all variables, sample sizes for some variables are smaller.
Appendix Table 2. BRFSS sample by sexual orientation and gender identity status
SOGI

%

N

Cis-straight men

46.3

291,078

Cis-straight women

49.4

389,600

Cis-gay men

1.0

5,921

Cis-lesbian women

0.6

4,167

Cis-bisexual men

0.7

3,835

Cis-bisexual women

1.4

7,000

Transgender

0.5

3,037

Total

704,638

MEASURES
Sexual orientation and gender identity
In theory, all respondents should have a sex, a sexual orientation, and a gender identity. Respondents
were assigned a sex by the interviewer based on either voice or starting in 2016, their answer to ascreening question about gender. All were asked the sexual orientation question. Anyone answering
yes to the transgender question received a follow-up question (see Appendix Box 1). However, somepeople did not respond with a clear identity category to the SOGI questions (for those questions,people had additional options: other, don’t know or not sure, or refuse). Therefore, we used boththe sexual orientation question (“sxorient”) and the transgender identity question (“trnsgndr”) to
categorize each person into one LGBT category. First, we categorized each person as transgender,
cisgender male, or cisgender female based on the BRFSS sex variable and the transgender question.
Second, if the answer to the transgender question was effectively missing, we then categorized
them according to their answer to the sexual orientation question. In this second step, we also used
the sexual orientation question to assign a category—straight, lesbian, gay, or bisexual—to eachcisgender person.
Respondents who answered “other” or “don’t know or not sure” were included in the regression
analysis as an “unknown” group, but we do not report findings on that group because we know
nothing about their sexual orientation or gender identity. Respondents who declined to answer thequestion were not included in the analysis. However, we note that people whose SOGI are unknown
have the highest poverty rates: 53.5% for women and 45.9% for men. Prior research has foundthat individuals with low levels of formal education are more likely to report “don’t know” to sexual
orientation identity questions.20

eThis total sample size and the sample size reported in Appendix Table 2 differ because not everyone who answered the

SOGI questions provided information about their gender (male or female), which we used to categorize the cisgender
straight, lesbian, gay, and bisexual groups.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 34

Poverty
The poverty variable was created from BRFSS data based on the federal poverty thresholds provided
by the U.S. Census Bureau for each respective year of 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017.18 Using numberof adults in the household, number of children under the age of 18 in the household, and householdincome, respondents were categorized as either experiencing poverty or not. Because the BRFSS
annual household income variable is a categorical variable of an income range with eight categories(i.e., less than $10,000; $10,000 to less than $15,000; $15,000 to less than $20,000; $20,000 to lessthan $25,000; $25,000 to less than $35,000; $35,000 to less than $50,000; $50,000 to less than
$75,000; and $75,000 or more) rather than an exact income that is used by the U.S. Census Bureau,
we used the income midpoint (i.e., $12,500 for respondents who answered $10,000 to less than
$15,000) as a comparison point.21 (We also found that using the midpoint to calculate the poverty
threshold resulted in proportions closer to the official poverty threshold reported by the U.S. Census
Bureau.) For example, suppose a household features two adults and one child and has an annual
income in the $15,000–$19,999 category in 2015. We counted the adult BRFSS respondent as below
the poverty line because the midpoint of that income range is $17,500, falling below the poverty
threshold of $19,078 for that household size (number of children and adults) and age configuration in2015.

Covariates
Other data collected in the BRFSS include demographics that predict poverty: being female, being aperson of color, being young or old, not speaking English, and having a disability. Other characteristics
are included that are both effects and potential contributing causes of poverty. Those variables
include education, marital status, employment, health, and having a child or children.
Demographic variables include age, race, language, urbanicity, and disability status. Age is categorized
into five categories (18–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, 55–64, and 65+), and the collapsed variable features
three categories (18–34, 35–64, and 65+). Race is categorized into eight categories (White, Black,
Hispanic, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, other race,and multirace), and it is also collapsed into four categories (White, Black, Hispanic, and other, which
includes the other races). The language variable was measured as English and non-English using
the language in which the questionnaire was taken. Using a six-category variable of urbanicity fromthe National Center for Health Statistics’ Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties 2013,22
urbanicity was categorized into two groups: urban or rural. Disability is a combined variable indicating
whether a respondent has at least one disability among blindness, difficulty concentrating orremembering, difficulty walking or climbing stairs, difficulty dressing or bathing, or difficulty doing
errands alone.
Additional variables include education, marital status, employment, general health, and whether
the respondent has a child or children or not. The education variable was categorized into fourgroups (did not graduate high school, graduated high school, attended college or technical school,and graduated college or technical school) and also collapsed into two groups (high school graduate
or less, some college or more). Marital status is categorized into married, not partnered, andcohabitating. Employment is grouped by employed, self-employed, or non-employed and grouped
into a two-category variable of employed or self-employed versus non-employed. Self-reported

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 35

general health was transformed into a bivariate measure of good or better health and fair or poor
health. We also measured whether having a child or children in the household affected the poverty
status of an individual.

WEIGHTSBRFSS data is weighted to ensure the data are representative of the population based on various
demographic characteristics, such as sex, race, education, marital status, home ownership, phoneownership (landline, cellular, or both) and substate region.23 With the exception of the 2015 SOGI
module data for Iowa, which has the final weight “_LCPWTV1,” all other 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017
SOGI modules have the same final weight variable of “_LLCPWT.” The final weight is assigned to each
respondent in datasets in which data collected through landline telephones and cellular telephones
are combined. Before combining the datasets, the different weights variables were reconciled to one
final weight variable, “_LLCPWT,” for each year of data.
For analysis of the combined 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 BRFSS data, we created a final weightvariable (“NEWWT”) divided by 4 to account for the correct representation of U.S. population in agiven year.
NEWWT = _LLCPWT/4
For state-level analysis, the final weight variable was divided by the number of years the SOGI module
was included. For example, BRFSS 2016 and BRFSS 2017 included the SOGI module. Therefore, theweight applied for California-level analysis is the final weight divided by 2 (NEWWT=_LLCPWT/2).

ANALYTIC APPROACH
All analysis was stratified by gender because gender is an important predictor of poverty, withwomen’s poverty rate exceeding that of men.18 We combined the BRFSS data on sex (male or female)and gender identity (transgender or cisgender) to create a single gender variable of women and men.
All respondents who identified as transgender (n = 3,037) were included with the samples of both
women (n = 403,804) and men (n = 303,871) in the descriptive tables and regression model. Although
the transgender status question asked whether the respondent identified as male-to-female, femaleto-male, or gender nonconforming, we combined transgender people in one group because aspreviously mentioned, the sample size of transgender people is relatively small, making comparisonsdifficult if we were to divide transgender people into their different gender identities. It also avoided
assumptions about whether experiences related to economic insecurity compared to cisgender men
and women need to be framed in terms of sex assigned at birth or current gender identity.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 36

DETAILED FINDINGS FROM MULTIVARIATE ANALYSES
Because someone is either poor or not, we used a technique known as logistic regression (orlogit) that is appropriate for an outcome measure with two possible options. We started first withthe characteristics that predict poverty but aren’t likely to be determined by poverty: age, race,
language, urbanicity, and disability. Our second set of statistical models added the characteristics
that have a more complicated relationship to poverty, as discussed in the previous section:
education, employment, marital status, health, and whether there are any children in the household.
In our analysis, we first used the characteristics with the categories shown in Tables 8 and 9 (seeSupplemental Table 6 for results). We then used a collapsed version of the same characteristics
described in the Covariates section under Measures, because some of the subgroups had small
sample sizes. The results for this analysis are shown in Appendix Table 3.
In Appendix Table 3, the odds ratio column shows the effect of each variable on the odds of beingpoor compared to the reference characteristic, which is the value of the variable that is not includedin the model.f If the odds ratio is 1, the odds are the same for the characteristic defined by thevariable and the reference group. If it’s less than 1, the characteristic reduces the odds relative to thereference group, and if greater than 1, it increases the odds.
For example, in Model 1 in Appendix Table 3, the odds ratio for being Hispanic is 2.30. Because
the odds ratio is greater than 1, that means that the odds of being poor are higher for Hispanic
respondents compared to White respondents (the variable that is not included). In other words, astatistically significant odds ratio less than 1 means that there is a negative correlation between thatvariable and poverty. Having a p-value less than 5% indicates that the effect is not likely to be due tochance. If the odds ratio is greater than 1, it indicates a positive correlation.
We started by combining all transgender people and lesbian and bisexual women (or gay and bisexualmen) into one category and compared them to cis-straight women (or cis-straight men). In Model 1
for women in Appendix Table 3, being lesbian, bisexual, or transgender has an odds ratio of 1.17,
showing that being a lesbian or bisexual woman or a transgender person made it more likely to
be poor after holding constant age, race, language, urbanicity, disability, education, marital status,
employment status, health, children, and year of the survey. The other variables had the expected
effects on the odds of being poor. Being older and having a higher level of education reduced theodds of being poor. Being a person of color, living in a rural area, having a disability, taking the survey
in a language other than English, not being in a married couple, not being employed, being in fair orpoor health, and having children all increased the odds of being poor.
Because Figure 2 shows that transgender people and bisexual women have higher poverty rates on
average than everyone else, we wanted to see the separate impact of being in each group on therisk of poverty. The second model in Appendix Table 3 assessed lesbian and bisexual women andtransgender people as separate variables. Here we see that being a lesbian has no impact on beingf Odds are related to but different than probabilities. The odds of poverty for a group is the number of people who arepoor divided by the number of people who are not poor. The probability of being poor is the number of people who arepoor divided by the total number of people in the group. So, the numerators are the same, but the denominators aredifferent. The statistical procedure we used produces odds ratios to enable simple comparisons.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 37

poor, but bisexual women (odds ratio: 1.17), transgender people (odds ratio: 1.17), and women withunknown SOGI status (odds ratio: 1.72) are more likely to be poor compared to cis-straight women,
holding all other factors equal.
Models 3 and 4 in Appendix Table 3 show the findings for men and transgender people. Again, formen, we first combined gay and bisexual men and all transgender people to compare them to cisgender heterosexual men. Model 3 for men shows that people in the combined gay and bisexual men
or transgender people category are more likely to be poor than cis-straight men, with an odds ratioof 1.15, holding all else equal. As with women, older people and those with higher levels of education
are less likely to be poor, whereas people of color, non-English speakers, rural people, people withdisabilities, those not married, those not employed, those in poor health, and those with children in
the household are more likely to be poor. In Model 4 of Appendix Table 3, we split grouping of gay
and bisexual men and transgender people. We see that gay men are less likely and bisexual men are
no more likely to be poor than cis-straight men after controlling for these factors. Only transgenderpeople are significantly more likely to be poor than cis-straight men (odds ratio: 1.70), holding theother factors constant.
Appendix Table 3. Logistic Regression Results
WOMEN
OUTCOME: EXPERIENCING POVERTYMENMODEL 1

MODEL 2

MODEL 3

MODEL 4ODDS RATIOODDS RATIOODDS RATIOODDS RATIOSOGI (ref: cis-straight)LGBT

1.17**

1.15**

Lesbian or gay

0.99

0.93

Bisexual

1.17**

1.05

Transgender
Unknown

1.38**

1.70***

1.72***

1.72***

1.84***

1.85***

35-64

0.65***

0.65***

0.75***

0.75***

65+

0.26***

0.26***

0.26***

0.26***

Hispanic

2.30***

2.30***

2.38***

2.39***

Black

2.29***

2.29***

2.48***

2.47***

Other

1.92***

1.91***

2.23***

2.22***

3.63***

3.62***

4.22***

4.20***

1.41***

1.41***

1.26***

1.26***

1.86***

1.85***

1.78***

1.78***

0.37***

0.37***

0.44***

0.44***

Not partnered

3.48***

3.48***

2.34***

2.35***

Cohabitating

2.55***

2.56***

2.02***

2.03***

Age (ref: 18-34)

Race (ref: White)

Language (ref: English)
Language other than English
Geography (ref: Urban)
Rural
Disability (ref: has no disabilities)
Has at least one disability
Education (ref: HS grad or less)Some college or more
Marital status (ref: married)

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 38

WOMEN
OUTCOME: EXPERIENCING POVERTYMENMODEL 1

MODEL 2

MODEL 3

MODEL 4ODDS RATIOODDS RATIOODDS RATIOODDS RATIO

2.61***

2.61***

3.62***

3.61***

1.84***

1.84***

1.61***

1.61***

3.13***

3.13***

2.42***

2.41***

2015

0.90***

0.90***

0.85***

0.85***

2016

0.91***

0.91**

0.90**

0.90**

2017

1.02

1.02

0.95

0.95

_cons

0.05

0.04

0.04

0.04

Employment (ref: employed or self-employed)
Non-employed
General health (ref: good or better health)
Fair or poor healthChild or children in household (ref: no)
YesYear (ref: 2014)*p < .10; **p < .05; ***p < .01

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 39

SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES
Below are the tables reported throughout the report, but now including the confidence intervals for
all the estimates.
Supplemental Table 1. Poverty rates and 95% confidence intervals by SOGI
SOGI%

95% CIN

Cis-straight

15.7(15.4, 15.9)

58,773LGBT

21.6(20.5,22.9)

3,222

SOGI

%

95% CIN

Cis-straight men

13.4(13.1, 13.7)

21,757

Cis-straight women

17.8(17.5, 18.2)

37,008Cis-gay men

12.1(10.4, 13.9)

492

Cis-lesbian women

17.9(15.1, 21.2)

444

Cis-bisexual men

19.5(16.8, 22.6)

476

Cis-bisexual women

29.4(27.1, 31.8)

1,286Transgender

29.4(25.7, 33.5)

523

TRANSGENDER PEOPLE%

95% CI

N

Trans men

33.7

(26.8, 41.4)

172

Trans women

29.6(24.1, 35.7)

242

Gender nonconforming

23.8(17.7, 31.3)

109

Supplemental Table 2. Poverty rates and 95% confidence intervals by SOGI and by race andethnicity
RACE/ETHNICITY

CIS-STRAIGHT

LGBT

%

95% CIN%

95% CI

N

White

9.1

(8.9,9.3)

32,04915.4(14.2, 16.6)

1,802

Black

25.3

(24.5,26.1)

8,986

30.8

(27, 34.9)

382

Hispanic

38(37.1, 39)

10,362

37.3(33.1, 41.7)

520

American Indian or Alaska Native

26.9(24.6,29.4)

1,438

32.4

(23.6,42.6)

101

Asian

14.6

(13.4,15.9)

1,819

22.9

(17.2, 29.8)

102

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

25.4(20.9,30.6)

437

28.9

(15.9, 46.6)

33

Other race

14.8

(12.1, 17.9)

266

42.1

(26.4, 59.6)

29

Multirace

20.8(19.1, 22.7)

2509

22.3

(16.9, 28.8)

186

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 40

RACE/ETHNICITY

WHITE

BLACK

HISPANIC

OTHER

% (N)

95% CI% (N)

95% CI% (N)

95% CI% (N)

95% CI

Cis-straight men

7.6 (11,702)(7.38, 7.878)

21.8 (2,833)(20.7, 23)

32.5 (4,014)(31.3, 33.9)

15.7 (2,810)(14.5, 16.9)

Cis-straight women

10.5 (20,345)(10.3, 10.8)

28 (6,150)(27, 29.1)

43.6 (6,347)(42.3, 45)

18.5 (3,659)(17.1, 20)

Cis-gay men

8.1 (287)(6.81, 9.81)

17.1 (45)(11.4, 24.9)

24 (88)(17.6, 32)

15.4 (67)(9.46, 24.2)

Cis-lesbian women

10.7 (251)(8.73, 13.1)

31.3 (63)(23.1, 40.8)

34.8 (49)(21.6, 51.1)

27.5 (72)(16.1, 42.8)

Cis-bisexual men

14.6 (258)(12, 17.7)

20.3 (43)(13.3, 29.6)

33.6 (80)(23.8, 45.2)

22.5 (80)(16.1, 30.5)

Cis-bisexual women

23.4 (755)(21, 26.2)

39.7 (154)(32.4, 47.6)

45.4 (201)(38.3, 52.8)

26.9 (155)(20.5, 34.3)

Transgender18.6 (250)(15.2, 22.7)

38.5 (77)(28.4, 49.8)

48.4 (102)37.4, 59.6)

35.2 (77)(23.7, 48.6)

NATIVEHAWAIIAN
OR PACIFICISLANDER

OTHER RACEMULTIRACE

WHITE

BLACK

HISPANICAMERICANINDIAN OR
ALASKA NATIVE

ASIAN

SOGI

% (N)

95% CI% (N)

95% CI% (N)

95% CI% (N)

95% CI% (N)

95% CI% (N)

95% CI% (N)

95% CI% (N)

95% CI

Cis-straight

7.6(7.38,

21.8(20.7,

32.5(31.3,

23

(20,

13.8

(12.4,

17.2(12.6,

13.1(9.87,

19.1(16.5,

men(11,702)

7.878)(2,833)23)(4,014)

33.9)

(550)

26.3)

(902)

15.5)

(197)

23)

(128)

17.3)

(1,033)22.1)

Cis-straight

10.5(10.3,

28

(27,

43.6

(42.3,

31(27.5,

15.2(13.4,

33.5(26.1,

16.8(12.7,

22.6(20.5,

women(20,345)

10.8)(6,150)29.1)(6,347)

45)

(888)

35)

(917)

17.4)

(240)

41.8)

(138)

22.1)

(1,476)

24.9)

Cis-gay men

8.1(6.81,

17.1(11.4,

24(17.6,

21.2(6.07,

15(6.84,

18(5.77,

41.1(17.7,

10.6(5.95,

(287)

9.81)

(45)

24.9)

(88)

32)

(11)

53)

(13)

29.9)

(6)

44.3)

(7)

69.6)

(30)

18.3)

Cis-lesbian

10.7(8.73,

31.3(23.1,

34.8(21.6,

41.8

(23,

22.5

(8.61,

44.3(11.8,

31.3(8.29,

30.1(12.9,

women

(251)

13.1)

(63)

40.8)

(49)

51.1)

(15)

63.5)

(17)

47.4)

(7)

82.5)

(5)

69.8)

(28)

55.7)

Cis-bisexual

14.6

(12,

20.3

(13.3,

33.6(23.8,

23.2(12.2,

23.5(14.6,

17.1(4.19,

14.5

(4,

20.2

(10.2,

men

(258)

17.7)

(43)

29.6)

(80)

45.2)

(20)

39.9)

(24)

35.8)

(6)

49.5)

(4)

40.9)

(26)

36.4)

Cis-bisexual

23.4

(21,

39.7

(32.4,

45.4(38.3,

44.8(27.8,

22.8

(13,

28.3

(8.9,

22.4

(7.49,

25(17.4,

women

(755)

26.2)

(154)

47.6)

(201)

52.8)

(39)

63.2)

(25)

37)

(8)

61.7)

(4)

50.7)

(79)

34.7)

Transgender

18.6(15.2,

38.5(28.4,

48.4

37.4,

18.6

(7.16,

35.1

(19,

35.9

9.09,

63.5

(32.5,

28.9(13.5,

(250)

22.7)

(77)

49.8)

(102)

59.6)

(16)

40.6)

(23)

55.5)

(6)

76)

(9)

86.3)

(23)

51.7)

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 41

Supplemental Table 3. Poverty rates and 95% confidence intervals by SOGI and age
AGE

CIS-STRAIGHT

LGBT

%

95% CIN%

95% CI

N

18-24

26.9

(25.9, 27.9)

5,571

30.7

(27.7, 33.9)

661

25-34

21.8

(21.2, 22.5)

9,080

24.7

(22.3, 27.4)

801

35-44

18.5

(17.9, 19.1)

9,649

24.8

(21.5, 28.4)

513

45-54

14

(13.6, 14.5)

10,90015.8(13.8, 17.9)

549

55-64

12

(11.6, 12.4)

12,537

13.5(10.7, 16.7)

433

65+

8.35

(8, 8.71)

10,7829.81(7.64, 12.5)

258

SOGI

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

% (N)

95% CI% (N)

95% CI% (N)

95% CI% (N)

95% CI% (N)

95% CI% (N)

95% CI

Cis-straight23(21.8,

16.8

(16,

15.2

(14.5,

12.6

(12,

11.3

(10.8,

6.4(5.98,

men(2,620)24.4)(3,251)17.8)(3,390)16.1)(4,253)13.3)(4,995)12)(3,165)

6.98)

Cis-straight

31.2(29.7,

27

(26,

21.6

(20.8,

15.3(14.7,

12.5

(12,

9.9

(9.46,

women(2,951)

32.8)(5,828)28)(6,257)22.5)(6,646)

16.1)(7,539)13.1)(7,616)

10.5)

Cis-gay men

20.3(14.3,

12.9(9.08,

10.1(7.08,

11.9(9.28,

7.8(5.46,

7.9(5.01,

(73)

28.1)

(67)

18.2)

(70)

14.5)

(129)

15.2)

(91)

11.2)

(59)

12.4)

Cis-lesbian

34.3(23.6,

22.3(16.6,

18.1(12.4,

13.6(10.1,

8.8(5.49,

7.5(4.02,

women

(67)

47.1)

(104)

29.4)

(81)

25.8)

(100)

18.2)

(61)

13.8)

(31)

13.7)

Cis-bisexual

19.9

(15,

21.6

(16.1,

31.8(21.2,

17.8(13.2,

16.6(10.6,

9.4(4.79,

men(106))

26)

(104)

28.4)

(57)

44.8)

(88)

23.7)

(75)

25.2)

(46)

17.8)

Cis-bisexual

37.3(32.7,

30.9(26.9,

29.1(23.5,

19.4(14.8,

12.4(8.53,

9.5(5.06,

women

(345)

42.2)

(433)

35.4)

(223)

35.5)

(143)

25.2)

(94)

17.9)

(47)

17.4)

Transgender

35.6(26.6,

35.6(26.7,

42.5(32.4,

22.3(15.8,

25.1(15.4,

14.8(9.67,

(70)

45.8)

(93)

45.8)

(81)

53.4)

(89)

30.7)

(112)

38.2)

(75)

22.3)

Supplemental Table 4. Poverty rates and 95% confidence intervals of states that included the SOGI
module comparing LGBT and cisgender straight people
POVERTY RATE BY STATE
STATES THAT INCLUDEDTHE SOGI MODULESTRAIGHT%

95% CINLGBT%

95% CIN

California

22.8%(21.9, 23.7)

2945

22.5%

(18.7, 26.8)

147

Colorado

11.0%(9.96, 12.1)

808

17.9%

(11.3, 27.1)

41

Connecticut

10.1%(9.45, 10,7)

1,637

17.8%

(14, 22.3)

97

Delaware13.0%(12, 14.1)

1,103

15.0%

(10.7, 20.6)

53

Florida10.8%(9.05, 12.8)

570

6.9%

(2.36, 18.8)

19Georgia18.4%(17.1, 19.8)

1,050

21.8%

(15.7, 29.6)

51

Hawaii

16.7%(16, 17.5)

3,318

24.4%

(20.6, 28.6)

212

Idaho

13.5%

(12.6, 14.4)

1,383

28.1%

(21.1, 36.3)

66

Illinois

14.1%(13.3, 15.1)

1,233

25.0%

(20, 30.8)

83

Indiana

15.1%(14.5, 15.8)

3,334

28.5%

(24, 33.4)

203

Iowa

10.5%

(9.8, 11.3)

1,404

24.2%

(18.5, 30.8)

75

Kansas

11.9%(11.4, 12.5)

2,197

23.7%

(19.5, 28.5)

119

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 42

POVERTY RATE BY STATE
STATES THAT INCLUDEDTHE SOGI MODULESTRAIGHT%

95% CINLGBT%

95% CIN

Kentucky

17.7%(16.7, 18.8)

2,163

28.3%

(22.4, 35.1)

107

Louisiana

21.2%(20.1, 22.4)

2,051

30.1%

(23.5, 37.7)

78

Massachusetts

9.4%(8.7, 10.2)

1,160

12.8%

(9.5, 16.9)

92

Maryland

11.6%(10.4, 12.8)

1,121

22.7%

(15.7, 31.8)

66

Minnesota

8.8%(8.5, 9.2)

2,772

16.0%

(13.4, 18.9)

174

Mississippi

23.2%(21.7, 24.7)

1,371

29.3%

(20.3, 40.2)

34

Missouri

13.3%(12.3, 14.4)

1,114

22.2%

(14, 33.3)

44Montana

14.7%(13.7, 15.8)

1,248

31.3%

(23.6, 40.2)

58

Nevada18.8%(17.5, 20.2)

1,158

22.6%

(17.3, 29)

81

New York

16.3%(15.7, 17)

5,162

20.2%

(17.5, 23.3)

359

North Carolina

16.5%(14.7, 18.5)

460

18.1%

(11.5, 27.2)

25

Ohio

13.2%

(12.5, 13.9)

3,049

21.8%

(17.3, 27.2)

140

Oklahoma

17.2%(15.6, 18.8)

559

30.7%

(21, 42.4)

28

Pennsylvania

12.0%(11.4, 12.7)

2,136

17.6%

(14.1, 21.7)

112

Rhode Island

12.9%(11.8, 14.2)

764

20.8%

(15, 28.1)

57

South Carolina

17.5%(16.2, 18.8)

1,078

19.6%

(13, 28.6)

37

Texas

21.1%

(20, 22.3)

3,438

28.1%

(22, 35)

164

Vermont

9.8%(9.14, 10.6)

1,147

18.3%

(14, 23.7)

87

Virginia

12.4%(11.8, 13.1)

2,040

17.2%

(13.7, 21.4)

95

Washington

11.5%(10.8, 12.2)

1,650

18.1%

(14.8, 21.9)

123

West Virginia

18.5%(17.1, 20.1)

643

21.9%

(14.2, 32.3)

22

Wisconsin

8.5%(7.9, 9.2)

1,230

15.8%

(11.1, 22)60

Wyoming

8.7%(7.25, 10.6)

277

26.9%

(12.7, 48.3)

13

Supplemental Table 5. Poverty rates and 95% confidence intervals by SOGI and rural and urban
residence
CIS-STRAIGHTLGBTGEOGRAPHY%

95% CIN%

95% CI

N

Urban

15.5

(15.3, 15.8)

39,671

21.0(19.7, 22.4)

2,352

Rural

15.9

(15.5, 16.4)

18,20326.1(23.2, 29.3)

824

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 43

URBAN

RURAL

SOGI

%

95% CIN%

95% CIN

Cis-straight men

13.4(13.0, 13.7)

14,891

13.2(12.6, 13.8)

6,524

Cis-straight women

17.6(17.3, 18.0)

24,77618.6(18.0, 19.3)

11,675

Cis-gay men

11.9(10.1, 13.8)

386

13.6

(8.5, 21.1)

348

Cis-lesbian women

17.5(14.4, 21.0)

331

19.5

(13.8, 26.9)

103

Cis-bisexual men

19.1(16.1, 22.5)

98

24.5

(17.6, 33.0)

121

Cis-bisexual women

28.3(25.8, 30.9)

928

37.0

(31.5, 43.0)

344Transgender

29.5(25.2, 34.1)

358

27.6

(21.1, 35.1)

158

Supplemental Table 6. Logistic Regression Results with expanded control variables
WOMEN
OUTCOME: EXPERIENCING POVERTYMENMODEL 1

MODEL 2

MODEL 3

MODEL 4ODDS RATIOODDS RATIOODDS RATIOODDS RATIOSOGI (ref: cis-straight)
LGBT

1.11*

1.15**

Lesbian/Gay

0.98

0.95

Bisexual

1.11

1.05

g

Transgender
Unknown

1.27*

1.65***

1.57***

1.57***

1.70***

1.71***

25-34

1.15**

1.15***

1.09

1.09

35-44

0.87**

0.87**

0.91

0.91

45-54

0.68***

0.68***

0.76***

0.76***

55-64

0.56***

0.55***

0.61***

0.61***

65+

0.25***

0.25***

0.24***

0.24***

Black

2.21***

2.21***

2.38***

2.37***

Hispanic

2.11***

2.11***

2.20***

2.21***

American Indian or Alaska Native

1.95***

1.95***

2.05***

2.05***

Asian

2.13***

2.13***

2.57***

2.56***

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

3.54***

3.55***

2.18***

2.17***

Other race

1.71***

1.71***

2.06***

2.03***

Multiracial

1.63***

1.63***

1.72***

1.72***

2.80***

2.79***

3.37***

3.36***

1.34***

1.34***

1.21***

1.21***

1.76***

1.76***

1.72***

1.72***

Age (ref: 18-24)

Race (ref: White)

Language (ref: English)
Language other than English
Geography (ref: Urban)
Rural
Disability (ref: has no disabilities)
Has at least one disability
Education (ref: did not graduate HS)

g The difference between bisexual women and cis-straight women is statistically significant at the 20% level.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 44

WOMEN
OUTCOME: EXPERIENCING POVERTYMENMODEL 1

MODEL 2

MODEL 3

MODEL 4ODDS RATIOODDS RATIOODDS RATIOODDS RATIO

graduated high school

0.51***

0.51***

0.53***

0.53***

attended college or tech school

0.30***

0.30***

0.36***

0.36***

graduated college or tech school

0.11***

0.11***

0.17***

0.17***

Not partnered

3.35***

3.35***

2.22***

2.23***

Cohabitating

2.38***

2.39***

1.89***

1.91***

Self-employed

1.56***

1.56***

1.92***

1.93***

Non-employed

2.61***

2.61***

4.16***

4.16***

1.75***

1.75***

1.57***

1.57***

2.73***

2.73***

2.23***

2.22***

2015

0.91**

0.91**

0.85

0.85

2016

0.92**

0.92**

0.90**

0.90**

2017

1.04

1.04

0.95

0.95

_cons

0.08

0.08

0.06

0.06

Marital status (ref: married)

Employment (ref: employed)

General health (ref: good or better
health)Fair or poor healthChild or children in household (ref: no)
YesYear (ref: 2014)*p < .10; **p < .05; ***p < .01

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 45

REFERENCES
1.

Schneebaum, A., and Badgett, M.V. Lee. (2019). Poverty in US Lesbian and Gay Couple Households. Feminist
Economics 25 (1): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2018.1441533.

2.

Badgett, M. V. Lee. (2018). Left Out? Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Poverty in the U.S. Population Research and Policy
Review 37 (5): 667–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-018-9457-5.

3.

Carpenter, C. S., & Eppink, S. T. & Gonzales, G. (2017). Transgender status, employment, and income. Unpublishedmanuscript.

4.

Badgett, M. V. Lee, Durso, L.E. & Schneebaum, A. (2013). “New Patterns of Poverty in the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
Community.” Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute.

5.

Crissman, H. P., Berger, M. B., Graham, L. F., & Dalton, V. K. (2017). Transgender Demographics: A Household
Probability Sample of US Adults, 2014. American journal of public health, 107(2), 213–215. doi:10.2105/
AJPH.2016.303571

6.

Brown, T. N., Romero, A. P., & Gates, G. J. (2016). “Food Insecurity and SNAP Participation in the LGBT Community.”
Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute.

7.

Detlaff, A., Washburn, M., Carr, C., & Vogel, A. (2018). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) youth within in welfare:
Prevalence, risk and outcomes. Child abuse & neglect. 80. 183-193. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.03.009.

8.

Wilson, B.D.M. & Kastanis, A. A., (2015). Sexual and gender minority disproportionality and disparities in childwelfare: A population-based study. Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 11-17.

9.

Wilson, B.D.M., Cooper, K., Kastani, A., & Nezhad, S. (2014). “Sexual and gender minority youth in foster care:
Assessing disproportionality and disparities in Los Angeles.`” Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Insitute, UCLA School of
Law.

10. Choi, S.K., Wilson, B.D.M., Shelton, J., & Gates, G. (2015). “Serving Our Youth 2015: The Needs and Experiencesof Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning Youth Experiencing Homelessness.” Los Angeles, CA: The
Williams Institute with True Colors Fund.
11. Cunningham, M., Pergamit, M., Astone, N., & Luna, J. (2014). Homeless LGBTQ youth. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/22876/413209-Homeless-LGBTQ-Youth.PDF
12. Durso, L. E., & Gates, G. J. (2012). “Serving our youth: Findings from a national survey of services providers working
with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.” Los Angeles,
CA: The Williams Institute.
13. Wilson, B.D.M., Jordan, S.P., Meyer, I.H., Flores, A. R., Stemple, L., & Herman, J.L. (2017). Disproportionality anddisparities among sexual minority youth in custody. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46 (7). 1547-1561. https://link.
springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-017-0632-5
14. LGBT Demographic Data Interactive. (January 2019). Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.
15. James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). “The Report of the 2015 U.S.
Transgender Survey.” Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality. https://transequality.org/sites/
default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf
16. Meyer, I.H., Brown, T.N., Herman, J.L., Reisner, S.L. & Bockting, W.O. (2017). Demographic characteristics and healthstatus of transgender adults in select US regions: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2014. American Journalof Public Health, 107 (4).
17. Poteat, T., German, D., & Kerrigan, D. (2013). Managing uncertainty: A grounded theory of stigma in transgender
health care encounters. Social Science & Medicine, 84.

LGBT Poverty in the United States | 46

18. Fontenot, K., Semega, J. & Kollar, M. (2018). “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2017.” U.S. Census Bureau,
P60-263. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.
html
19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System questionnaires. Available at:https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/questionnaires/index.htm. Accessed August 3, 2019.
20. Conron, K.J., Mimiaga, M.J. & Landers, S.J. (2010). A Population-Based Study on Sexual Orientation Identity andGender Differences in Adult Health. American Journal of Public Health, 100(10).
21. Conron, K.J., Scott, G., Stowell, S., & Landers, S.J. (2012). Transgender Health in Massachusetts: Results from a
Household Probability Sample of Adults. American Journal of Public Health, 102(1).
22. Ingram, D.D., Franco, S.J. (2014). 2013 NCHS urban-rural classificsation scheme for counties. National Center for
Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 2, (166). https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_166.pdf
23. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. The BRFSS Data
User Guide