American Community Survey Briefs

Poverty: 2014 and 2015

INTRODUCTION

The poverty rate measures the percentage of people 

whose income fell below their assigned poverty 

threshold. Poverty thresholds are assigned to individuals or families based on family size and composition. 

Planners and policy makers often use poverty rates as 

a key economic indicator to evaluate trends and current economic conditions within communities and to 

make comparisons between sectors of the population. 

Federal and state governments frequently use poverty 

rate estimates to allocate funds to local communities. 

Furthermore, government agencies and local organizations use these estimates to identify the number of 

individuals and families eligible for various programs.

This brief uses the 2014 and 2015 American 

Community Surveys (ACS) 1-year data to analyze poverty rates for 2015 as well as the change in poverty 

from 2014 for the nation, states and the District of 

Columbia, and the most populous metropolitan areas.1 

The brief will also discuss the depth of poverty, which 

measures the distribution of people by income-topoverty ratio. 

1 Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas (metro and micro 

areas) are geographic entities delineated by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for use by federal statistical agencies in collecting, 

tabulating, and publishing federal statistics. The term Core Based 

Statistical Area (CBSA) is a collective term for both metro and micro 

areas. A metro area contains a core urban area of 50,000 or more 

population, and a micro area contains an urban core of at least 10,000 

(but less than 50,000) population. For more information see 

<www.census.gov/population/metro/>.

HIGHLIGHTS

• In 2015, 14.7 percent of the U.S. population had 

income below the poverty level, a decline from 

15.5 percent in 2014. 

• This is the second consecutive year that the ACS 

national poverty rate declined, the first consecutive 

decline since the inception of the ACS in 2005.

• Between 2014 and 2015, the poverty rate declined 

in 23 states. The poverty rate did not increase in 

any states.

• Among the most populous 25 metropolitan areas, 

the poverty rate declined in 16 from 2014 to 2015. 

The poverty rate did not increase in any of the 25 

most populous metropolitan areas.

• The percentage of the U.S. population with income 

less than 50 percent of their poverty thresholds 

was 6.5 percent in 2015, a decline from 6.8 percent in 2014.

• In 2015, the proportion of people with an incometo-poverty ratio less than 50 percent declined in 16 

states and in 9 of the 25 most populous metropolitan areas.

The estimates contained in this report are primarily 

based on the 2014 and 2015 ACS. The ACS is conducted every month, with income data collected for the 

12 months preceding the interview. Since the survey is 

continuous, adjacent ACS years have income reference 

months in common. Therefore, comparing the 2014 

ACS with the 2015 ACS is not an exact comparison of 

Issued September 2016

ACSBR/15-01

By Alemayehu Bishaw and Brian Glassman
2 U.S. Census Bureau

the economic conditions in 2014 

with those in 2015, and comparisons should be interpreted with 

care.2 For more information on the 

ACS sample design and other topics, visit <www.census.gov/acs>.

POVERTY 

According to the 2015 ACS, 14.7 

percent of the U.S. population had 

income below their respective 

poverty levels, a decline from the 

2014 estimate of 15.5 percent. 

The percent of the U.S. population 

in poverty declined significantly 2 

years in a row (from 2013 to 2014 

and from 2014 to 2015); this is 

the first consecutive year-to-year 

decline since the inception of the 

ACS in 2005 (see Figure 1).3 

2 For a discussion of this and related 

issues see Howard Hogan, “Measuring 

Population Change Using the American 

Community Survey,” Applied Demography 

in the 21st Century, eds. Steven H. Murdock 

and David A. Swanson, Springer Netherlands, 

2008. 3 All the year-to-year changes between 

2006 and 2015, except the changes between 

2011–2012 and 2012–2013, were statistically 

significant.

Among the states, poverty rates 

ranged from a low of 8.2 percent 

in New Hampshire to a high of 22.0 

percent in Mississippi (Table 1). 

Figure 1. 

Year-to-Year Percentage Point Change in Poverty Rate: 2006–2015

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, 

see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical-documentation/code-lists.html)

–0.4

–0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

2006–2007 2007–2008 2008–2009 2009–2010 2010–2011 2011–2012 2012–2013 2013–2014 2014–2015

Percentage point change

Note: All the changes are statistically significant except the changes for 2011–2012 and 2012–2013.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 to 2015 American Community Surveys.

How Poverty Is Measured

Poverty status is determined by comparing annual income 

to a set of dollar values, called poverty thresholds, that vary 

by family size, number of children, and the age of the householder. If a family’s before-tax money income is less than the 

dollar value of their threshold, then that family and every individual in it are considered to be in poverty. For people not living in families, poverty status is determined by comparing 

the individual’s income to his or her poverty threshold. 

The poverty thresholds are updated annually to account 

for changes in the cost of living using the Consumer Price 

Index (CPI-U). They do not vary geographically. 

The ACS is a continuous survey and people respond throughout 

the year. Since income is reported for the previous 12 months, the 

appropriate poverty threshold for each family is determined by multiplying the base-year poverty threshold from 1982 by the average of 

monthly CPI values for the 12 months preceding the survey month. 

For more information see page 104 of “American Community Survey 

and Puerto Rico Community Survey 2014 Subject Definitions” at 

<www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/tech_docs/subject

_definitions/2014_ACSSubjectDefinitions.pdf>.
U.S. Census Bureau 3

Table 1. 

Number and Percentage of People in Poverty in the Past 12 Months by State and 

Puerto Rico: 2014 and 2015

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

/technical-documentation/code-lists.html)

Area

Below poverty in 2014 Below poverty in 2015 Change in poverty (2015 less 2014)

Number1

Margin 

of error2

(±)

Percentage1Margin 

of error2

(±) Number1

Margin 

of error2

(±)

Percentage1Margin 

of error2

(±) Number1

Margin 

of error2

(±)

Percentage1Margin 

of error2

(±)

 United States . . 48,208,387 241,557 15.5 0.1 46,153,077 275,061 14.7 0.1 *–2,055,310 366,071 *–0.8 0.1

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . 910,175 25,515 19.3 0.5 876,016 23,918 18.5 0.5 –34,159 34,972 *–0.8 0.7

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . 80,627 6,821 11.2 0.9 74,532 5,835 10.3 0.8 –6,095 8,977 –0.9 1.2

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . 1,199,061 26,607 18.2 0.4 1,159,043 29,822 17.4 0.4 *–40,018 39,966 *–0.9 0.6

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . 543,882 15,436 18.9 0.5 550,508 17,473 19.1 0.6 6,626 23,315 0.2 0.8

California . . . . . . . . . . 6,259,098 64,461 16.4 0.2 5,891,678 66,827 15.3 0.2 *–367,420 92,850 *–1.1 0.3

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . 630,786 21,138 12.0 0.4 613,549 20,501 11.5 0.4 –17,237 29,447 –0.6 0.6

Connecticut . . . . . . . . 374,772 16,369 10.8 0.5 366,909 15,789 10.5 0.5 –7,863 22,743 –0.2 0.7

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . 113,508 7,940 12.5 0.9 114,360 9,567 12.4 1.0 852 12,433 –0.1 1.3

District of Columbia . . 110,666 7,793 17.7 1.2 110,500 8,628 17.3 1.4 –166 11,626 –0.4 1.8

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,211,615 59,681 16.5 0.3 3,116,886 47,330 15.7 0.2 *–94,729 76,171 *–0.8 0.4

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . 1,797,969 39,080 18.3 0.4 1,694,988 33,156 17.0 0.3 *–102,981 51,250 *–1.3 0.5

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . 156,729 10,340 11.4 0.8 147,984 8,530 10.6 0.6 –8,745 13,404 –0.7 1.0

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237,981 11,550 14.8 0.7 245,551 13,820 15.1 0.9 7,570 18,011 0.3 1.1

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,804,535 31,908 14.4 0.3 1,703,258 35,831 13.6 0.3 *–101,277 47,979 *–0.8 0.4

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . 974,218 25,464 15.2 0.4 933,181 24,656 14.5 0.4 *–41,037 35,445 *–0.7 0.6

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367,816 14,237 12.2 0.5 367,414 13,279 12.2 0.4 –402 19,468 –0.1 0.6

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . 382,712 13,369 13.6 0.5 368,879 13,898 13.0 0.5 –13,833 19,284 –0.5 0.7

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . 817,542 22,333 19.1 0.5 794,055 21,101 18.5 0.5 –23,487 30,725 –0.6 0.7

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . 896,524 23,296 19.8 0.5 889,946 24,422 19.6 0.5 –6,578 33,751 –0.2 0.7

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182,791 8,933 14.1 0.7 172,620 9,255 13.4 0.7 –10,171 12,863 –0.8 1.0

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . 589,818 21,635 10.1 0.4 570,776 21,279 9.7 0.4 –19,042 30,346 –0.4 0.6

Massachusetts . . . . . . 757,235 20,233 11.6 0.3 752,071 21,473 11.5 0.3 –5,164 29,503 –0.2 0.4

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . 1,568,844 28,256 16.2 0.3 1,529,645 27,659 15.8 0.3 –39,199 39,540 *–0.4 0.4

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . 611,354 19,609 11.5 0.4 546,431 16,392 10.2 0.3 *–64,923 25,558 *–1.3 0.5

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . 623,113 18,212 21.5 0.6 637,128 21,554 22.0 0.7 14,015 28,218 0.5 0.9

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . 908,628 22,347 15.5 0.4 875,495 21,660 14.8 0.4 *–33,133 31,121 *–0.6 0.6

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . 153,954 7,951 15.4 0.8 147,287 8,916 14.6 0.9 –6,667 11,946 –0.8 1.2

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . 227,310 9,475 12.4 0.5 231,321 10,619 12.6 0.6 4,011 14,232 0.1 0.8

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . 426,730 18,737 15.2 0.7 418,243 18,129 14.7 0.6 –8,487 26,072 –0.6 0.9

New Hampshire . . . . . 117,983 7,687 9.2 0.6 106,046 8,442 8.2 0.7 *–11,937 11,418 *–0.9 0.9

New Jersey . . . . . . . . 972,903 23,646 11.1 0.3 946,114 26,304 10.8 0.3 –26,789 35,370 –0.3 0.4

New Mexico . . . . . . . . 436,153 17,466 21.3 0.9 417,834 15,720 20.4 0.8 –18,319 23,498 –0.9 1.2

New York . . . . . . . . . . 3,062,938 48,945 15.9 0.3 2,970,032 47,607 15.4 0.2 *–92,906 68,279 *–0.5 0.4

North Carolina . . . . . . 1,668,686 32,408 17.2 0.3 1,607,835 31,818 16.4 0.3 *–60,851 45,416 *–0.8 0.4

North Dakota . . . . . . . 82,264 6,353 11.5 0.9 80,170 5,329 11.0 0.7 –2,094 8,292 –0.6 1.1

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,785,780 29,476 15.8 0.3 1,674,415 34,580 14.8 0.3 *–111,365 45,438 *–1.0 0.4

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . 623,840 14,892 16.6 0.4 610,828 15,093 16.1 0.4 –13,012 21,203 –0.5 0.6

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . 644,450 21,249 16.6 0.5 607,029 22,484 15.4 0.6 *–37,421 30,936 *–1.2 0.8

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . 1,682,212 31,577 13.6 0.3 1,629,995 31,848 13.2 0.3 *–52,217 44,849 *–0.4 0.4

Rhode Island . . . . . . . 145,596 9,132 14.3 0.9 141,035 9,670 13.9 1.0 –4,561 13,301 –0.5 1.3

South Carolina . . . . . . 843,860 23,093 18.0 0.5 790,715 22,651 16.6 0.5 *–53,145 32,347 *–1.3 0.7

South Dakota . . . . . . . 116,843 6,179 14.2 0.7 114,071 7,467 13.7 0.9 –2,772 9,692 –0.4 1.1

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . 1,171,307 27,981 18.3 0.4 1,077,900 30,450 16.7 0.5 *–93,407 41,354 *–1.6 0.6

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,523,708 59,686 17.2 0.2 4,255,517 65,900 15.9 0.2 *–268,191 88,911 *–1.3 0.3

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339,900 16,334 11.7 0.6 331,854 15,217 11.3 0.5 –8,046 22,324 –0.5 0.8

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . 73,149 4,724 12.2 0.8 61,314 5,009 10.2 0.8 *–11,835 6,885 *–1.9 1.1

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . 953,395 25,894 11.8 0.3 909,346 25,335 11.2 0.3 *–44,049 36,227 *–0.6 0.4

Washington . . . . . . . . 913,619 25,464 13.2 0.4 857,801 23,751 12.2 0.3 *–55,818 34,821 *–1.0 0.5

West Virginia . . . . . . . 327,764 12,083 18.3 0.7 321,583 14,177 17.9 0.8 –6,181 18,628 –0.3 1.1

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . 738,270 19,830 13.2 0.4 677,964 19,332 12.1 0.3 *–60,306 27,694 *–1.1 0.5

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . 63,774 5,334 11.2 0.9 63,425 7,239 11.1 1.3 –349 8,992 –0.1 1.6

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . 1,624,453 25,674 46.2 0.7 1,586,285 22,921 46.1 0.7 *–38,168 34,417 –0.1 1.0

* Statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level. 1 Poverty status is determined for individuals in housing units and noninstitutional group quarters. The poverty universe excludes children under age 15 who are 

not related to the housholder, people living in institutional group quarters, and people living in college dormitories or military barracks. 2 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in 

relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. This number when added to or subtracted from the estimate forms the 90 percent confidence interval.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 and 2015 American Community Survey and 2014 and 2015 Puerto Rico Community Survey.
4 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 2 displays the percent of 

people in poverty for all states, 

the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico based on 2015 ACS 

1-year data. According to Figure 

2, higher poverty rates are 

observed in Alabama, Arkansas, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

and New Mexico. Alternatively, 

the figure shows lower poverty 

rates for Alaska, Connecticut, 

Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, 

New Hampshire, New Jersey, and 

Vermont. 

From 2014 to 2015, the percent 

of people in poverty declined in 

23 states (Table 1). For 27 states 

and the District of Columbia, there 

were no significant changes in the 

percent of people in poverty across 

years. Between 2014 and 2015, 

there was not an increase in the 

percent of people in poverty in any 

state.

Figure 3 maps changes in the 

percent of people in poverty from 

2014 to 2015 for all states, the 

District of Columbia and Puerto 

Rico. The figure shows statistically 

significant declines in poverty in 23 

states, located in all the regions of 

the country, from 2014 to 2015. 

According to the 2014 and 2015 

Puerto Rico Community Surveys, 

the poverty rate for Puerto Rico in 

2015 (46.1 percent) was not statistically different from 2014. 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

DC

TX

CA

MT

AZ

ID

NV

NM

CO

IL

OR

UT

KS

WY

IA

NE

SD

MN

FL

ND

OK

WI

MO

WA

AL GA

LA

AR

MI

IN

PA

NY

NC

MS

TN

VA

KY

OH

SC

ME

WV

VT

NH

NJ

MA

CT

MD

DE

RI

AK

PR

HI

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015

American Community Survey, 2015

Puerto Rico Community Survey.

Figure 2.

0 500 Miles

0 100 Miles

0 100 Miles

0 50 Miles

16.0 to 17.9

13.0 to 15.9

11.0 to 12.9

Less than 11.0

United States percentage

does not include data for

Puerto Rico.

18.0 or more

Percentage of People in Poverty 

for the United States and Puerto Rico: 2015

Note: For more information, see 

<www.census.gov/acs>

Percent by state

U.S. percent is 14.7
U.S. Census Bureau 5

POVERTY IN 

METROPOLITAN AREAS 

Table 2 shows the estimated number and percentage of people in 

poverty in 2014 and 2015 for the 

25 most populous metropolitan 

areas. In 2015, the WashingtonArlington-Alexandria, DC-VAMD-WV Metro Area had the lowest 

poverty rate (8.3 percent), and 

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, 

MN-WI Metro Area had the second 

lowest poverty rate (9.3 percent) 

for the most populous 25 metropolitan areas (see Figure 4). The 

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, 

CA Metro Area had the highest 

poverty rate in 2015 (17.5 percent) 

among these metropolitan areas.

From 2014 to 2015, the percentage 

of people in poverty significantly 

decreased in 16 of the 25 most 

populous metropolitan areas (Table 

2). There was no metropolitan 

area shown in Table 2 that experienced an increase in the percent 

of individuals in poverty from 

2014 to 2015. The percentage of 

people in poverty decreased from 

2014 to 2015 in the four most 

populous metropolitan areas (New 

York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA 

Metro Area; Los Angeles-Long 

Beach-Anaheim, CA Metro Area; 

Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI 

Metro Area; and Dallas-Fort WorthArlington, TX Metro Area).

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

DC

TX

CA

MT

AZ

ID

NV

NM

CO

IL

OR

UT

KS

WY

IA

NE

SD

MN

FL

ND

OK

WI

MO

WA

AL GA

LA

AR

MI

IN

PA

NY

NC

MS

TN

VA

KY

OH

SC

ME

WV

VT

NH

NJ

MA

CT

MD

DE

RI

AK

PR

HI

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 and 2015

American Community Survey, 2014 and 2015

Puerto Rico Community Survey.

Figure 3.

0 500 Miles

0 100 Miles

0 100 Miles

0 50 Miles

No change

Significant decrease

Changes in Percentage of People in Poverty

for the United States and Puerto Rico: 2014–2015

Note: For more information, see 

<www.census.gov/acs>

Statistically Significant 

Change of Percentage
6 U.S. Census Bureau Table 2. Number and Percentage of People in Poverty in the Past 12 Months for the 25 Most Populous Metropolitan Areas: 2014 and 2015 (For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical-documentation/code-lists.html) Metropolitan areas Below poverty in 2014 Below poverty in 2015 Change in poverty (2015 less 2014) Number1 Margin of error2 (±) Percent- age1 Margin of error2 (±) Number1 Margin of error2 (±) Percent- age1 Margin of error2 (±) Number1 Margin of error2 (±) Percent- age1 Margin of error2 (±) Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . 855,499 28,390 15.5 0.5 780,892 29,178 13.9 0.5 *–74,607 40,711 *–1.6 0.7 Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . 302,852 13,758 11.1 0.5 288,786 13,900 10.6 0.5 –14,066 19,557 –0.5 0.7 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH Metro Area . . . . . . . . . 486,954 15,505 10.6 0.3 471,869 17,554 10.2 0.4 –15,085 23,421 –0.4 0.5 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC Metro Area . . . . . . . . 355,868 16,867 15.2 0.7 337,010 15,184 14.1 0.6 –18,858 22,695 *–1.1 0.9 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . 1,304,499 27,162 13.9 0.3 1,252,772 29,768 13.3 0.3 *–51,727 40,298 *–0.6 0.4 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,018,299 31,810 14.8 0.5 936,012 31,523 13.4 0.4 *–82,287 44,784 *–1.4 0.6 Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292,869 13,048 10.8 0.5 285,724 14,662 10.3 0.5 –7,145 19,627 –0.5 0.7 Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 685,817 18,945 16.1 0.4 685,863 20,180 16.1 0.5 46 27,679 0.0 0.6 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX Metro Area . . . . 982,651 32,731 15.3 0.5 958,566 32,515 14.6 0.5 –24,085 46,136 *–0.7 0.7 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metro Area . . . . . . 2,259,876 37,710 17.3 0.3 2,064,301 42,315 15.7 0.3 *–195,575 56,680 *–1.6 0.4 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL Metro Area . 1,004,600 32,546 17.2 0.6 980,283 29,167 16.5 0.5 –24,317 43,703 –0.7 0.8 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metro Area . . . . 354,392 15,359 10.3 0.4 321,741 14,408 9.3 0.4 *–32,651 21,059 *–1.0 0.6 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area . . . . . 2,884,130 51,265 14.6 0.3 2,793,698 41,582 14.1 0.2 *–90,432 66,009 *–0.5 0.4 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . 379,500 22,617 16.7 1.0 351,315 18,449 15.0 0.8 –28,185 29,187 *–1.7 1.3 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791,664 21,691 13.4 0.4 773,078 20,864 13.1 0.4 –18,586 30,097 –0.3 0.6 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758,076 25,476 17.2 0.6 729,904 22,624 16.2 0.5 –28,172 34,072 *–1.0 0.8 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA Metro Area . . . . . . . 314,387 14,101 13.6 0.6 288,119 16,149 12.2 0.7 *–26,268 21,439 *–1.4 0.9 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . 814,692 28,406 18.7 0.6 768,690 25,415 17.5 0.6 –46,002 38,116 *–1.2 0.8 St. Louis, MO-IL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356,662 15,755 13.0 0.6 337,010 13,441 12.2 0.5 –19,652 20,709 –0.8 0.8 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 380,650 16,256 16.7 0.7 341,912 16,885 14.6 0.7 *–38,738 23,438 *–2.1 1.0 San Diego-Carlsbad, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467,054 18,548 14.7 0.6 444,260 18,840 13.8 0.6 –22,794 26,438 *–0.9 0.8 San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . 491,991 18,148 10.9 0.4 485,243 17,632 10.6 0.4 –6,748 25,303 –0.3 0.6 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408,352 15,389 11.3 0.4 375,320 14,531 10.2 0.4 *–33,032 21,165 *–1.1 0.6 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . 453,051 19,301 15.8 0.7 431,209 16,902 14.7 0.6 –21,842 25,656 *–1.1 0.9 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514,383 19,101 8.7 0.3 494,913 20,631 8.3 0.3 –19,470 28,116 –0.4 0.4 * Statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level. 1 Poverty status is determined for individuals in housing units and noninstitutional group quarters. The poverty universe excludes children under age 15 who are not related to the housholder, people living in institu- tional group quarters, and people living in college dormitories or military barracks. 2 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. This number when added to or subtracted from the estimate forms the 90 percent confidence interval. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 and 2015 American Community Surveys.
U.S. Census Bureau 7

Figure 5 maps the 2015 poverty 

rates for all metropolitan statistical areas (MSA). MSA poverty 

rates ranged from a low of 6.6 

percent in Barnstable Town, MA 

Metro Area and Midland, TX Metro 

Area to a high of 32.4 percent in 

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX Metro 

Area.4 Geographically, higher poverty MSAs are scattered throughout 

4 The poverty rate for Barnstable Town, 

MA Metro Area (6.6 percent) is not statistically different from Midland, TX Metro Area 

(6.6 percent); Fairbanks, AK Metro Area (7.4 

percent); Gettysburg, PA Metro Area (7.9 

percent); California-Lexington Park, MD Metro 

Area (8.0 percent); Manchester-Nashua, NH 

Metro Area (8.0 percent); The Villages, FL 

Metro Area (8.1 percent); Ocean City, NJ 

Metro Area (8.7 percent); and ChambersburgWaynesboro, PA Metro Area (8.9 percent). The 

poverty rate for Brownsville-Harlingen, TX 

Metro Area (32.4 percent) is not statistically 

different from the rates for Laredo, TX Metro 

Area (31.8 percent) and McAllen-EdinburgMission, TX Metro Area (31.5 percent).

the country, however, the heaviest 

concentrations were in the West 

and the South. Alternatively, lower 

poverty MSAs are mostly located in 

the Midwest.

Figure 4. 

Percentage of People in Poverty in the Past 12 Months for the 25 Most Populous 

Metropolitan Areas: 2014 and 2015

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions,

see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical-documentation/code-lists.html)

* Change statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level.

Source: American Community Survey 2014 and 2015. 

Washington, DC 

 *Minneapolis-St. Paul 

 *Seattle

Boston 

Denver 

San Francisco 

Baltimore 

 *Portland

St. Louis

Philadelphia 

 *Chicago

 *Dallas

 *San Diego

 *Atlanta

 *New York

 *Charlotte

 *All Metro Areas

 *Houston

 *San Antonio

 *Tampa

 *Orlando

 *Los Angeles

Detroit 

 *Phoenix

Miami 

 *Riverside

2015 2014

8 10 12 14 16 18 20
8 U.S. Census Bureau RI DE MA MNDJ CT NH VT WV ME SC OH KY VA TMN I MS IN NY LA NC PA AR AL GA WI MO WA OK FL ND IA MN IL NE WY SD UT KS OR CO NM ID NV AZ MT CA TX DC AK HI Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey, 2015 Puerto Rico Community Survey. Figure 5. PR 0 500 Miles 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles 0 50 Miles 20.0 to 26.9 16.0 to 19.9 11.0 to 15.9 27.0 or more Less than 11.0 United States percentage does not include data for Puerto Rico. Percentage of People in Poverty by Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2015 Note: Metropolitan Statistical Areas defined by the Office of management and Budget as of February 2013. For more information, see <www.census.gov/acs> Percent U.S. percent is 14.7
U.S. Census Bureau 9

DEPTH OF POVERTY

The poverty rate is an estimate of 

the proportion of people with family or personal income below their 

poverty threshold. The income-topoverty ratio evaluates how close a 

family’s or individual’s income is to 

their poverty threshold. It measures 

the depth of poverty for those with 

income below their poverty threshold and the proximity to poverty 

for those with income above their 

poverty threshold.

In this report, the income-topoverty ratio is reported as a percentage. For example, an incometo-poverty-ratio of 125 percent 

indicates a family or individual 

with income equal to 1.25 times 

their poverty threshold, while an 

income-to-poverty ratio of 50 percent identifies families or individuals with income equal to one-half 

of their poverty threshold. Families 

and individuals identified as in 

poverty as described in the preceding sections of this report have an 

income-to-poverty ratio of less than 

100 percent.

Table 3 reports the number and 

percent of people with income 

below 50 percent of their poverty 

threshold for 2014 and 2015 for all 

states, the District of Columbia, 

and Puerto Rico. In 2015, 6.5 

percent of the U.S. population had 

income below 50 percent of the 

poverty threshold. This reflects a 

decline from the 2014 estimate of 

6.8 percent of the total population. 

Among the states, the percent of 

people with an income-to-poverty 

ratio below 50 percent ranged from 

a low of 3.6 percent in New 

Hampshire to a high of 10.4 percent in Mississippi.5 According to 

the 2014 and 2015 ACS data, the 

percent of people with income-topoverty ratios below 50 percent 

of the poverty level significantly 

decreased in 16 states. In one state 

(South Dakota), the percent of individuals with an income-to-poverty 

ratio below 50 percent increased.

Table 4 displays the number and 

percent of people with income-topoverty ratios below 125 percent 

of poverty for 2014 and 2015 for 

all states, the District of Columbia, 

and Puerto Rico. In 2015, 19.3 

percent of people in the United 

States had income-to-poverty ratios 

below 125 percent, a statistically 

significant decline from the 2014 

estimate of 20.3 percent. Estimates 

of the percent of individuals with 

income-to-poverty ratios below 125 

percent in 2015 ranged from a low 

5 The percent of people with an incometo-poverty ratio below 50 percent in 2015 

was not statistically different between New 

Hampshire (3.6 percent) and Alaska (4.2 

percent). The percent of people with an 

income-to-poverty ratio below 50 percent for 

Mississippi (10.4 percent) in 2015 was not 

statistically different from the percent for the 

District of Columbia (9.2 percent).

of 10.7 percent in New Hampshire 

to a high of 28.3 percent in 

Mississippi.

In 2015, the percent of people with 

income-to-poverty ratios below 125 

percent of poverty declined in 28 

states.

DEPTH OF POVERTY IN 

METROPOLITAN AREAS

Table 5 reports the number and 

percent of people with income-topoverty ratios below 50 percent of 

poverty for 2014 and 2015 among 

the 25 most populous metropolitan areas. In 2015, the percent of 

people with income-to-poverty ratios below 50 percent ranged from 

a low of 3.9 percent in MinneapolisSt Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metro 

Area and in Washington-ArlingtonAlexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV metro 

area to a high of 7.7 percent in 

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, 

CA Metro Area and 7.8 percent in 

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metro 

Area.6

6 The percent of people with incometo-poverty ratios below 50 percent of the 

poverty threshold in Minneapolis-St PaulBloomington, MN-WI Metro Area (3.9 percent) 

and in Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, 

DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area (3.9 percent) 

were not statistically different from each 

other. The percent of people with incometo-poverty ratios below 50 percent of the 

poverty threshold in Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, 

AZ Metro Area (7. 8 percent) and RiversideSan Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area (7.7 

percent) were not statistically different from 

each other.
10 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 3. 

Number and Percentage of People With Income Below 50 Percent of the Poverty Level by 

State and Puerto Rico: 2014 and 2015

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

/technical-documentation/code-lists.html)

States

Below 50 percent of the poverty level 

in 2014

Below 50 percent of the poverty level 

in 2015 Change (2015 less 2014)

Number1

Margin of 

error2 (±)

Percentage1

Margin of 

error2

(±) Number1

Margin of 

error2 (±)

Percentage1

Margin of 

error2

(±) Number1

Margin of 

error2 (±)

Percentage1

Margin of 

error2

(±)

 United States . . . 21,244,778 145,073 6.8 0.1 20,441,866 156,191 6.5 0.1 *–802,912 213,171 *–0.3 0.1

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . 390,019 18,009 8.2 0.4 385,733 15,876 8.1 0.3 –4,286 24,008 –0.1 0.5

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,387 4,030 4.8 0.6 30,067 3,654 4.2 0.5 –4,320 5,440 –0.6 0.8

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561,138 19,231 8.5 0.3 547,868 22,497 8.2 0.3 –13,270 29,596 –0.3 0.4

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . 217,844 11,688 7.6 0.4 228,019 12,753 7.9 0.4 10,175 17,299 0.3 0.6

California . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,677,525 46,284 7.0 0.1 2,568,959 47,903 6.7 0.1 *–108,566 66,610 *–0.3 0.1

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . 287,952 11,728 5.5 0.2 273,501 13,881 5.1 0.3 –14,451 18,172 *–0.4 0.4

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . 171,654 10,666 4.9 0.3 174,686 10,493 5.0 0.3 3,032 14,962 0.1 0.4

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . 54,216 5,471 6.0 0.6 53,449 6,143 5.8 0.7 –767 8,226 –0.2 0.9

District of Columbia . . . . 56,790 6,173 9.1 1.0 58,611 6,805 9.2 1.1 1,821 9,188 0.1 1.5

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,396,477 36,785 7.2 0.2 1,329,921 34,082 6.7 0.2 *–66,556 50,147 *–0.5 0.3

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810,355 25,848 8.2 0.3 761,945 25,436 7.7 0.3 *–48,410 36,264 *–0.5 0.4

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,688 6,919 5.0 0.5 74,746 7,175 5.4 0.5 6,058 9,968 0.4 0.7

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96,609 9,388 6.0 0.6 96,781 8,190 6.0 0.5 172 12,458 0.0 0.8

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829,130 21,730 6.6 0.2 784,584 28,635 6.2 0.2 *–44,546 35,947 *–0.4 0.3

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434,407 17,502 6.8 0.3 422,132 18,581 6.6 0.3 –12,275 25,526 –0.2 0.4

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163,544 8,509 5.4 0.3 164,920 9,343 5.5 0.3 1,376 12,637 0.1 0.4

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165,153 10,913 5.9 0.4 159,767 10,717 5.6 0.4 –5,386 15,295 –0.3 0.6

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . 349,221 16,195 8.2 0.4 332,398 14,004 7.7 0.3 –16,823 21,410 –0.5 0.5

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . 409,170 20,113 9.1 0.4 399,056 16,767 8.8 0.4 –10,114 26,185 –0.3 0.6

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76,427 5,488 5.9 0.4 67,868 5,779 5.2 0.4 *–8,559 7,970 *–0.7 0.6

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . 274,369 14,824 4.7 0.3 275,043 17,106 4.7 0.3 674 22,636 0.0 0.4

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . 351,952 15,014 5.4 0.2 355,730 17,000 5.4 0.3 3,778 22,681 0.0 0.4

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . 719,061 19,213 7.4 0.2 673,796 20,833 6.9 0.2 *–45,265 28,340 *–0.5 0.3

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . 260,064 11,845 4.9 0.2 233,791 10,447 4.4 0.2 *–26,273 15,794 *–0.5 0.3

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . 293,739 12,593 10.1 0.4 301,574 15,351 10.4 0.5 7,835 19,855 0.3 0.6

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403,117 17,418 6.9 0.3 378,734 14,791 6.4 0.3 *–24,383 22,851 *–0.5 0.4

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69,360 6,392 7.0 0.6 63,304 4,561 6.3 0.5 –6,056 7,852 –0.7 0.8

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . 95,149 6,923 5.2 0.4 96,268 6,151 5.2 0.3 1,119 9,261 0.0 0.5

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208,738 11,482 7.5 0.4 188,103 12,149 6.6 0.4 *–20,635 16,716 *–0.9 0.6

New Hampshire . . . . . . . 47,168 4,925 3.7 0.4 46,789 5,705 3.6 0.4 –379 7,537 –0.1 0.6

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . 431,657 18,048 4.9 0.2 437,079 19,002 5.0 0.2 5,422 26,207 0.1 0.3

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . 191,449 12,871 9.4 0.6 178,880 11,329 8.7 0.6 –12,569 17,147 –0.7 0.8

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,349,961 31,364 7.0 0.2 1,335,126 33,044 6.9 0.2 –14,835 45,559 –0.1 0.3

North Carolina . . . . . . . . 712,244 20,097 7.3 0.2 697,968 23,016 7.1 0.2 –14,276 30,555 –0.2 0.3

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . 40,799 4,538 5.7 0.6 39,134 3,652 5.4 0.5 –1,665 5,825 –0.3 0.8

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821,838 23,071 7.3 0.2 771,435 21,394 6.8 0.2 *–50,403 31,464 *–0.5 0.3

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . 276,433 11,658 7.4 0.3 265,938 9,240 7.0 0.2 –10,495 14,876 *–0.4 0.4

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277,749 14,245 7.1 0.4 271,974 13,307 6.9 0.3 –5,775 19,493 –0.2 0.5

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . 765,187 25,065 6.2 0.2 725,873 22,068 5.9 0.2 *–39,314 33,395 *–0.3 0.3

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . 64,970 6,681 6.4 0.7 58,599 5,995 5.8 0.6 –6,371 8,976 –0.6 0.9

South Carolina . . . . . . . . 395,480 17,643 8.4 0.4 344,307 14,310 7.2 0.3 *–51,173 22,717 *–1.2 0.5

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . 47,820 4,248 5.8 0.5 55,221 5,349 6.7 0.6 * 7,401 6,831 * 0.9 0.8

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . 502,189 20,922 7.9 0.3 472,717 20,086 7.3 0.3 *–29,472 29,003 *–0.6 0.4

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,881,475 43,673 7.1 0.2 1,783,216 43,509 6.6 0.2 *–98,259 61,647 *–0.5 0.3

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145,545 9,443 5.0 0.3 142,038 11,575 4.8 0.4 –3,507 14,938 –0.2 0.5

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,783 3,656 5.3 0.6 27,015 3,598 4.5 0.6 –4,768 5,130 –0.8 0.8

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441,667 16,380 5.5 0.2 439,350 16,187 5.4 0.2 –2,317 23,029 –0.1 0.3

Washington . . . . . . . . . . 413,973 15,991 6.0 0.2 405,847 14,452 5.8 0.2 –8,126 21,554 –0.2 0.3

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . 142,062 9,895 7.9 0.6 143,749 10,230 8.0 0.6 1,687 14,232 0.1 0.8

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . 309,226 15,283 5.5 0.3 292,435 11,049 5.2 0.2 –16,791 18,859 –0.3 0.4

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,848 3,578 4.9 0.6 25,822 2,956 4.5 0.5 –2,026 4,641 –0.4 0.8

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . 895,730 21,258 25.5 0.6 889,086 22,201 25.8 0.6 –6,644 30,737 0.3 0.8

* Statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level. 1 Poverty status is determined for individuals in housing units and noninstitutional group quarters. The poverty universe excludes children under age 15 who are not 

related to the housholder, people living in institutional group quarters, and people living in college dormitories or military barracks. 2 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in 

relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. This number when added to or subtracted from the estimate forms the 90 percent confidence interval.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 and 2015 American Community Survey and 2014 and 2015 Puerto Rico Community Survey.
U.S. Census Bureau 11

Table 4. 

Number and Percentage of People With Income Below 125 Percent of the Poverty Level by 

State and Puerto Rico: 2014 and 2015

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

/technical-documentation/code-lists.html)

States

Below 125 percent of the poverty level 

in 2014

Below 125 percent of the poverty level 

in 2015 Change (2015 less 2014)

Number1

Margin 

of error2

(±)

Percentage1

Margin of 

error2

(±) Number1

Margin 

of error2

(±)

Percentage1

Margin of 

error2

(±) Number1

Margin of 

error2 (±)

Percentage1

Margin of 

error2

(±)

 United States . . . 63,010,024 269,299 20.3 0.1 60,552,019 291,801 19.3 0.1 *–2,458,005 397,076 *–1.0 0.1

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,182,910 28,256 25.0 0.6 1,129,280 23,418 23.8 0.5 *–53,630 36,699 *–1.2 0.8

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108,653 7,751 15.1 1.1 100,422 6,807 13.9 0.9 –8,231 10,316 –1.2 1.4

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,564,526 28,952 23.8 0.4 1,490,362 32,375 22.3 0.5 *–74,164 43,432 *–1.5 0.6

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . 722,248 19,072 25.1 0.7 729,974 20,665 25.3 0.7 7,726 28,121 0.2 1.0

California . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,198,675 75,342 21.5 0.2 7,768,650 70,792 20.2 0.2 *–430,025 103,382 *–1.3 0.3

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . 854,664 25,659 16.3 0.5 812,553 22,356 15.2 0.4 *–42,111 34,032 *–1.1 0.6

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . 484,099 17,387 13.9 0.5 478,550 17,177 13.7 0.5 –5,549 24,441 –0.2 0.7

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . 143,860 8,919 15.8 1.0 146,612 10,280 15.9 1.1 2,752 13,610 0.1 1.5

District of Columbia . . . . 130,514 7,880 20.9 1.3 136,322 8,962 21.4 1.4 5,808 11,934 0.5 1.9

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,264,883 59,137 21.9 0.3 4,194,063 56,120 21.1 0.3 –70,820 81,527 *–0.8 0.4

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,292,330 42,470 23.3 0.4 2,201,142 40,034 22.1 0.4 *–91,188 58,365 *–1.2 0.6

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209,439 11,905 15.2 0.9 184,671 9,484 13.2 0.7 *–24,768 15,221 *–2.0 1.1

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338,551 15,636 21.1 1.0 322,009 15,887 19.9 1.0 –16,542 22,291 –1.2 1.4

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,355,441 35,429 18.7 0.3 2,233,291 40,704 17.8 0.3 *–122,150 53,963 *–0.9 0.4

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,283,057 28,837 20.1 0.5 1,219,906 26,274 19.0 0.4 *–63,151 39,011 *–1.1 0.6

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,834 16,643 16.7 0.6 493,318 15,548 16.3 0.5 –7,516 22,776 –0.4 0.8

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504,927 14,694 17.9 0.5 490,927 15,932 17.3 0.6 –14,000 21,674 –0.6 0.8

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,054,949 23,008 24.7 0.5 1,000,159 23,442 23.3 0.5 *–54,790 32,847 *–1.4 0.7

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,142,650 26,417 25.3 0.6 1,128,564 27,150 24.8 0.6 –14,086 37,881 –0.5 0.8

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241,610 10,077 18.7 0.8 229,862 11,443 17.8 0.9 –11,748 15,248 –0.9 1.2

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . 781,607 25,904 13.4 0.4 747,057 23,496 12.7 0.4 –34,550 34,973 *–0.7 0.6

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . 978,814 23,507 15.0 0.4 973,763 23,373 14.8 0.4 –5,051 33,149 –0.2 0.6

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,032,883 30,229 21.0 0.3 1,961,687 30,913 20.2 0.3 *–71,196 43,237 *–0.8 0.4

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . 788,480 20,690 14.8 0.4 750,284 18,560 14.0 0.3 *–38,196 27,795 *–0.8 0.5

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . 812,858 20,378 28.1 0.7 819,297 22,117 28.3 0.8 6,439 30,074 0.2 1.1

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,195,344 25,932 20.3 0.4 1,142,790 24,009 19.4 0.4 *–52,554 35,340 *–0.9 0.6

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208,149 9,982 20.9 1.0 192,976 8,701 19.1 0.9 *–15,173 13,242 *–1.8 1.3

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . 310,538 11,598 17.0 0.6 305,376 10,869 16.6 0.6 –5,162 15,895 –0.4 0.8

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577,339 21,486 20.6 0.8 561,034 19,028 19.7 0.7 –16,305 28,700 –0.9 1.1

New Hampshire . . . . . . . 157,157 8,693 12.2 0.7 138,076 9,701 10.7 0.8 *–19,081 13,026 *–1.5 1.1

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . 1,268,403 26,332 14.5 0.3 1,257,255 28,987 14.3 0.3 –11,148 39,161 –0.2 0.4

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . 564,143 18,591 27.6 0.9 531,630 17,620 26.0 0.9 *–32,513 25,614 *–1.6 1.3

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,910,928 52,055 20.3 0.3 3,817,118 48,693 19.8 0.3 *–93,810 71,279 *–0.5 0.4

North Carolina . . . . . . . . 2,214,894 35,280 22.9 0.4 2,133,530 35,488 21.8 0.4 *–81,364 50,041 *–1.1 0.6

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . 107,768 6,397 15.1 0.9 105,089 5,568 14.4 0.8 –2,679 8,481 –0.7 1.2

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,280,425 32,511 20.2 0.3 2,180,344 34,842 19.3 0.3 *–100,081 47,654 *–0.9 0.4

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . 825,232 17,209 22.0 0.5 816,349 16,349 21.5 0.4 –8,883 23,737 –0.5 0.6

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847,831 23,408 21.8 0.6 788,531 25,442 20.0 0.6 *–59,300 34,572 *–1.8 0.8

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . 2,196,807 30,298 17.8 0.2 2,107,958 33,949 17.0 0.3 *–88,849 45,503 *–0.8 0.4

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . 188,567 10,424 18.6 1.0 183,385 10,827 18.0 1.1 –5,182 15,029 –0.6 1.5

South Carolina . . . . . . . . 1,106,809 26,464 23.6 0.6 1,030,953 23,119 21.7 0.5 *–75,856 35,140 *–1.9 0.8

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . 148,685 6,880 18.0 0.8 152,366 8,628 18.4 1.0 3,681 11,035 0.4 1.3

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . 1,530,083 30,241 24.0 0.5 1,425,698 33,976 22.1 0.5 *–104,385 45,485 *–1.9 0.7

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,928,534 74,224 22.5 0.3 5,669,421 82,239 21.1 0.3 *–259,113 110,781 *–1.4 0.4

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461,657 18,686 15.9 0.6 446,870 16,777 15.2 0.6 –14,787 25,112 –0.7 0.8

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96,765 5,538 16.1 0.9 90,330 5,954 15.0 1.0 –6,435 8,131 –1.1 1.3

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,249,846 31,874 15.5 0.4 1,202,425 29,901 14.8 0.4 *–47,421 43,704 *–0.7 0.6

Washington . . . . . . . . . . 1,188,472 28,543 17.2 0.4 1,122,481 26,660 16.0 0.4 *–65,991 39,057 *–1.2 0.6

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . 424,222 14,401 23.7 0.8 415,363 15,865 23.2 0.9 –8,859 21,426 –0.5 1.2

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . 957,356 21,519 17.1 0.4 906,049 20,077 16.1 0.4 *–51,307 29,430 *–1.0 0.6

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . 90,608 7,457 15.9 1.3 85,897 7,944 15.0 1.4 –4,711 10,896 –0.9 1.9

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . 1,927,553 27,008 54.8 0.8 1,880,584 22,641 54.6 0.7 *–46,969 35,243 –0.2 1.1

* Statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level. 1

 Poverty status is determined for individuals in housing units and noninstitutional group quarters. The poverty universe excludes children under age 15 who are not 

related to the housholder, people living in institutional group quarters, and people living in college dormitories or military barracks. 2

 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in 

relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. This number when added to or subtracted from the estimate forms the 90 percent confidence interval.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 and 2015 American Community Survey and 2014 and 2015 Puerto Rico Community Survey.
12 U.S. Census Bureau Table 5. Number and Percentage of People With Income Below 50 Percent of the Poverty Level for the 25 Most Populous Metropolitan Areas: 2014 and 2015 (For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical-documentation/code-lists.html) Metropolitan areas Below 50 percent of poverty level in 2014 Below 50 percent of poverty level in 2015 Change (2015 less 2014) Number1 Margin of error2 (±) Per- cent- age1 Margin of error2 (±) Number1 Margin of error2 (±) Per- cent- age1 Margin of error2 (±) Number1 Margin of error2 (±) Per- cent- age1 Margin of error2 (±) Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385,190 17,361 7.0 0.3 351,157 18,158 6.3 0.3 *–34,033 25,123 *–0.7 0.4 Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143,854 10,206 5.3 0.4 144,820 9,993 5.3 0.4 966 14,284 0.0 0.6 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234,449 11,423 5.1 0.3 229,476 13,149 5.0 0.3 –4,973 17,418 –0.1 0.4 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,700 10,291 6.4 0.4 142,747 8,584 6.0 0.4 –7,953 13,402 –0.4 0.6 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590,514 18,472 6.3 0.2 567,425 23,805 6.0 0.3 –23,089 30,132 –0.3 0.4 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405,272 19,479 5.9 0.3 358,218 16,853 5.1 0.2 *–47,054 25,757 *–0.8 0.4 Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,007 8,546 4.8 0.3 125,634 9,210 4.5 0.3 –4,373 12,564 –0.3 0.4 Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322,326 13,808 7.6 0.3 301,681 12,483 7.1 0.3 *–20,645 18,614 *–0.5 0.4 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX Metro Area . . . . . . . . . 377,399 19,232 5.9 0.3 403,707 22,642 6.1 0.3 26,308 29,707 0.2 0.4 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . 912,045 27,539 7.0 0.2 880,522 26,790 6.7 0.2 –31,523 38,420 *–0.3 0.3 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL Metro Area . . . . . . 412,571 19,388 7.0 0.3 384,458 19,790 6.5 0.3 *–28,113 27,705 *–0.5 0.4 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metro Area . . . . . . . . . 153,050 10,481 4.5 0.3 134,330 8,548 3.9 0.2 *–18,720 13,525 *–0.6 0.4 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . 1,248,882 31,951 6.3 0.2 1,233,929 30,424 6.2 0.2 –14,953 44,118 –0.1 0.3 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154,309 13,146 6.8 0.6 139,976 11,082 6.0 0.5 –14,333 17,194 *–0.8 0.8 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area . . . 378,797 19,071 6.4 0.3 375,182 16,093 6.3 0.3 –3,615 24,954 –0.1 0.4 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359,678 16,905 8.2 0.4 348,523 18,035 7.8 0.4 –11,155 24,719 –0.4 0.6 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 136,710 10,257 5.9 0.4 131,939 10,400 5.6 0.4 –4,771 14,607 –0.3 0.6 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 343,464 15,411 7.9 0.4 339,773 17,017 7.7 0.4 –3,691 22,959 –0.2 0.6 St. Louis, MO-IL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166,720 11,192 6.1 0.4 157,139 10,667 5.7 0.4 –9,581 15,461 –0.4 0.6 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153,553 12,192 6.7 0.5 152,302 12,621 6.5 0.5 –1,251 17,548 –0.2 0.7 San Diego-Carlsbad, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225,580 14,315 7.1 0.4 200,816 14,381 6.2 0.4 *–24,764 20,292 *–0.9 0.6 San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 229,902 13,077 5.1 0.3 225,685 11,904 4.9 0.3 –4,217 17,684 –0.2 0.4 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193,133 11,065 5.3 0.3 191,489 10,201 5.2 0.3 –1,644 15,050 –0.1 0.4 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217,600 13,479 7.6 0.5 197,560 10,834 6.7 0.4 *–20,040 17,293 *–0.9 0.6 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area . . . 234,562 11,804 4.0 0.2 234,697 13,026 3.9 0.2 135 17,579 –0.1 0.3 * Statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level. 1 Poverty status is determined for individuals in housing units and noninstitutional group quarters. The poverty universe excludes children under age 15 who are not related to the housholder, people living in institu- tional group quarters, and people living in college dormitories or military barracks. 2 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. This number when added to or subtracted from the estimate forms the 90 percent confidence interval. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 and 2015 American Community Surveys.
U.S. Census Bureau 13 Table 6. Number and Percentage of People With Income Below 125 Percent of the Poverty Level for the 25 Most Populous Metropolitan Areas: 2014 and 2015 (For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technical-documentation/code-lists.html) Metropolitan areas Below 125 percent of poverty level in 2014 Below 125 percent of poverty level in 2015 Change (2015 less 2014) Number1 Margin of error2 (±) Per- cent- age1 Margin of error2 (±) Number1 Margin of error2 (±) Per- cent- age1 Margin of error2 (±) Number1 Margin of error2 (±) Per- cent- age1 Margin of error2 (±) Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,098,770 30,619 19.9 0.6 1,038,229 33,236 18.5 0.6 *–60,541 45,190 *–1.4 0.8 Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389,485 16,261 14.3 0.6 377,166 15,870 13.8 0.6 –12,319 22,722 –0.5 0.8 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 630,086 19,044 13.8 0.4 615,332 20,577 13.3 0.4 –14,754 28,037 –0.5 0.6 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454,150 17,358 19.4 0.7 449,584 16,665 18.8 0.7 –4,566 24,063 –0.6 1.0 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,698,873 29,438 18.1 0.3 1,648,754 34,971 17.5 0.4 *–50,119 45,712 *–0.6 0.5 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,358,403 36,648 19.8 0.5 1,281,107 37,668 18.3 0.5 *–77,296 52,554 *–1.5 0.7 Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401,903 15,952 14.8 0.6 375,928 15,893 13.5 0.6 *–25,975 22,518 *–1.3 0.8 Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873,910 17,876 20.5 0.4 873,290 23,075 20.5 0.5 –620 29,189 0.0 0.6 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX Metro Area . . . . . . . . . 1,296,970 34,120 20.3 0.5 1,259,435 34,310 19.2 0.5 –37,535 48,388 *–1.1 0.7 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . 2,991,667 42,689 22.9 0.3 2,768,203 43,681 21.0 0.3 *–223,464 61,077 *–1.9 0.4 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL Metro Area . . . . . . 1,347,492 37,577 23.0 0.6 1,344,512 30,338 22.7 0.5 –2,980 48,295 –0.3 0.8 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metro Area . . . . . . . . . 455,990 16,669 13.3 0.5 437,064 15,712 12.6 0.5 –18,926 22,907 –0.7 0.7 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . 3,694,189 47,918 18.7 0.2 3,613,185 41,938 18.2 0.2 *–81,004 63,678 *–0.5 0.3 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511,556 24,709 22.5 1.1 485,157 20,118 20.7 0.9 –26,399 31,863 *–1.8 1.4 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area . . . 1,002,730 22,805 17.0 0.4 983,943 23,721 16.6 0.4 –18,787 32,905 –0.4 0.6 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983,317 26,287 22.3 0.6 943,599 25,984 21.0 0.6 *–39,718 36,962 *–1.3 0.8 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 413,074 17,508 17.9 0.8 373,341 18,273 15.8 0.8 *–39,733 25,307 *–2.1 1.1 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,041,124 30,158 23.9 0.7 1,001,119 30,034 22.8 0.7 –40,005 42,562 *–1.1 1.0 St. Louis, MO-IL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466,508 16,603 17.0 0.6 433,730 14,962 15.8 0.5 *–32,778 22,350 *–1.2 0.8 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505,075 20,120 22.1 0.9 462,123 19,406 19.7 0.8 *–42,952 27,954 *–2.4 1.2 San Diego-Carlsbad, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604,190 21,540 19.0 0.7 581,014 21,624 18.0 0.7 –23,176 30,522 *–1.0 1.0 San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 637,948 17,885 14.1 0.4 639,158 22,916 13.9 0.5 1,210 29,069 –0.2 0.6 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517,767 18,332 14.3 0.5 487,453 16,832 13.3 0.5 *–30,314 24,887 *–1.0 0.7 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600,018 21,676 20.9 0.8 570,734 18,030 19.5 0.6 *–29,284 28,195 *–1.4 1.0 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area . . . 674,703 23,626 11.4 0.4 645,921 24,733 10.8 0.4 –28,782 34,204 *–0.6 0.6 * Statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level. 1 Poverty status is determined for individuals in housing units and noninstitutional group quarters. The poverty universe excludes children under age 15 who are not related to the housholder, people living in institu- tional group quarters, and people living in college dormitories or military barracks. 2 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. This number when added to or subtracted from the estimate forms the 90 percent confidence interval. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 and 2015 American Community Surveys.
14 U.S. Census Bureau

Between 2014 and 2015, the 

percent of people with income-topoverty ratios below 50 percent of 

the poverty threshold significantly 

declined in 9 of the 25 most populous metropolitan areas.

Table 6 displays the number and 

percent of people with income-topoverty ratios below 125 percent 

for 2014 and 2015 among the 25 

most populous metropolitan areas. 

The Washington-ArlingtonAlexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro 

Area had the lowest percent of 

people with income-to-poverty 

ratios below 125 percent in 2015 

(10.8 percent). The Miami-Fort 

Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 

Metro Area (22.7 percent) and 

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, 

CA Metro Area (22.8 percent) had 

the highest rate of individuals with 

income-to-poverty ratios below 125 

percent among the most populous 

metropolitan areas listed.7

In 2015, the percent of people with 

income-to-poverty ratios below 125 

percent decreased in 17 of the 25 

most populous metropolitan areas 

(Table 6).

SOURCE AND ACCURACY 

The data presented in this report 

are based on the ACS sample interviewed from January 2014 through 

December 2014 (2014 ACS) and the 

ACS sample interviewed from 

January 2015 through December 

2015 (2015 ACS). The estimates 

based on these samples describe 

the average values of person, 

household, and housing unit characteristics over this period of col7 The percentage of people with incometo-poverty ratios below 125 percent in 

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 

Metro Area (22.7 percent) and Riverside-San 

Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area (22.8 

percent) were not statistically different from 

each other.

lection. Sampling error is the uncertainty between an estimate based 

on a sample and the corresponding 

value that would be obtained if the 

estimate were based on the entire 

population (as from a census). Measures of sampling error are provided in the form of margins of error 

for all estimates included in this 

report. All comparative statements 

in this report have undergone 

statistical testing, and comparisons 

are significant at the 90 percent 

level unless otherwise noted. In 

addition to sampling error, nonsampling error may be introduced 

during any of the operations used 

to collect and process survey data, 

such as editing, reviewing, or keying data from questionnaires. For 

more information on sampling and 

estimation methods, confidentiality protection, and sampling and 

nonsampling errors, please see the 

2015 ACS Accuracy of the 

Data document located at 

<www.census.gov/programs

-surveys/acs/technical

-documentation/code-lists.html>.

NOTES

The Census Bureau also publishes 

poverty estimates based on the 

Current Population Survey’s Annual 

Social and Economic Supplement 

(CPS ASEC). Following the standard specified by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) in 

Statistical Policy Directive 14, data 

from the CPS ASEC are used to estimate the official national poverty 

rate, which can be found in the 

report Income and Poverty in the 

United States: 2015, available at 

<www.census.gov/content/dam

/Census/library/publications

/2016/demo/p60-256.pdf>. 

For information on poverty estimates from the ACS and how they 

differ from those based on the CPS 

ASEC, see “Differences Between 

the Income and Poverty Estimates 

From the American Community 

Survey and the Annual Social 

and Economic Supplement to the 

Current Population Survey” at 

<www.census.gov/topics/income

-poverty/poverty/guidance

/data-sources/acs-vs-cps.html>.

What Is the American Community Survey?

The American Community Survey (ACS) is a nationwide survey 

designed to provide communities with reliable and timely 

demographic, social, economic, and housing data for the nation, 

states, congressional districts, counties, places, and other localities 

every year. It has an annual sample size of about 3.5 million addresses 

across the United States and Puerto Rico and includes both housing 

units and group quarters (e.g., nursing facilities and prisons). The 

ACS is conducted in every county throughout the nation, and every 

municipio in Puerto Rico, where it is called the Puerto Rico Community 

Survey. Beginning in 2006, ACS data have been released annually 

for geographic areas with populations of 65,000 and greater. For 

information on the ACS sample design and other topics, visit 

<www.census.gov/acs>.