CFED Scorecard

Financial Assets & Income

Outcome Measures

Income Poverty Rate

Asset Poverty Rate

Asset Poverty by Race

Asset Poverty by Gender

Asset Poverty by Family Structure

Liquid Asset Poverty Rate

Liquid Asset Poverty by Race

Liquid Asset Poverty by Gender

Liquid Asset Poverty by Family Structure

Extreme Asset Poverty Rate

Net Worth

Net Worth by Race

Net Worth by Income

Net Worth by Gender

Net Worth by Family Structure

Unbanked Households

Underbanked Households

Consumers with Subprime Credit

Borrowers 90+ Days Overdue

Average Credit Card Debt

Bankruptcy Rate

Policy Priorities

Tax Credits for Working Families

State IDA Program Support

Lifting Asset Limits in Public Benefit Programs

Protections from Predatory Short-Term Loans

Additional Policies

Income Tax Threshold

Tax Burden by Income

Prize-Linked Savings

Paperless Payday

Trend Indicators

Change in Net Worth

Change in Asset Poverty

Change in Liquid Asset Poverty

Businesses & Jobs

Housing & Homeownership

Health Care

Education

CFED Assets & Opportunity Scorecard

Asset Poverty by Family Structure

Definition

Ratio of the asset poverty rate of one-parent households to two-parent households, 2009.

Calculated by dividing the higher value by the lower value, i.e., one-parent households divided by two-parent households.

A ratio of 1 indicates perfect equality; the higher the ratio, the greater the inequality. For example, the asset poverty rate for single-parent households in Massachusetts is four times higher than for two-parent households.

Data are point estimates produced from a national survey with relatively small samples for some states, which can result in imprecise estimates and ranks. States are not ranked on this measure due to insufficient data at the state level. For more information on how we measured precision and to download margin of error data for each state, see here.

Description

This measure describes the disparity in asset poverty between two-parent and one-parent households. Nationally, one-parent households are 2.2 times more likely to be asset poor than two-parent households. This large disparity exists for two main reasons. First, the resources of two individuals combined are clearly greater than the resources of one individual alone. Second, two-parent households enjoy economic benefits that make it easier to build wealth. For example, the ability to share certain resources – like housing, utility expenses and health insurance – create economies of scale that are not available to one-parent households.

For more information on wealth disparities by family structure, see the work of Mariko Lin Chang.

toggle page width

Asset Poverty by Family Structure

StateAsset Poverty,
2-Parent Households (%)
Asset Poverty,
1-Parent Households (%)
Ratio
United States  24.9%  54.8%  2.20 
Alabama  17.3% * 47.6%  2.75 
Alaska  —  —  — 
Arizona  35.0%  63.2%  1.80 
Arkansas  25.1% * —  — 
California  33.2%  57.4%  1.73 
Colorado  29.1%  —  — 
Connecticut  16.3% * —  — 
Delaware  —  —  — 
District of Columbia  —  —  — 
Florida  31.9%  53.3%  1.67 
Georgia  25.6%  62.4%  2.44 
Hawaii  —  —  — 
Idaho  —  —  — 
Illinois  21.6%  62.8%  2.90 
Indiana  26.1%  58.0%  2.22 
Iowa  14.1% * —  — 
Kansas  25.5% * —  — 
Kentucky  29.4% * —  — 
Louisiana  18.8%  —  — 
Maine  —  —  — 
Maryland  9.7% * 55.8%  5.75 
Massachusetts  15.4%  61.4%  3.99 
Michigan  19.3% * 53.0%  2.75 
Minnesota  19.3% * —  — 
Mississippi  —  47.3%  — 
Missouri  22.4%  51.4%  2.30 
Montana  —  —  — 
Nebraska  —  —  — 
Nevada  —  —  — 
New Hampshire  —  —  — 
New Jersey  17.6%  63.0%  3.57 
New Mexico  —  —  — 
New York  24.2%  62.3%  2.57 
North Carolina  25.1%  50.2%  2.01 
North Dakota  —  —  — 
Ohio  28.2% * 57.5%  2.04 
Oklahoma  21.7% * —  — 
Oregon  28.5% * —  — 
Pennsylvania  13.5% * 47.2%  3.49 
Rhode Island  —  —  — 
South Carolina  30.0%  —  — 
South Dakota  —  —  — 
Tennessee  25.7%  49.4%  1.92 
Texas  27.0%  46.5%  1.72 
Utah  21.5% * —  — 
Vermont  —  —  — 
Virginia  18.2%  47.1%  2.58 
Washington  26.5%  46.2%  1.74 
West Virginia  —  —  — 
Wisconsin  16.5% * 52.4%  3.18 
Wyoming  —  —  — 

Source

Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 Panel, Wave 4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 2009. Data calculated by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute.

"—" indicates that no data is available, or data is suppressed due to a margin of error that is greater than 50% of the estimate.

Footnotes

* Indicates that the margin of error is greater than 25% of the estimate, and as such, this estimate is too imprecise to rank. Caution should be used when using this data.

Copyright © 2016 CFED — Corporation for Enterprise Development 1200 G Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 202.408.9788