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

Liquid Asset Poverty by Family Structure

Definition

Ratio of the liquid 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 liquid asset poverty rate for single-parent households in Pennsylvania is three 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 liquid asset poverty between two-parent and one-parent households. Nationally, two-parent households are almost two times more likely to be asset poor than one-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

Liquid Asset Poverty by Family Structure

StateLiquid Asset Poverty,
2-Parent Households (%)
Liquid Asset Poverty,
1-Parent Households (%)
Ratio
United States  37.7%  73.4%  1.94 
Alabama  50.8% * 72.9%  1.44 
Alaska  —  —  — 
Arizona  45.3%  74.9%  1.65 
Arkansas  39.9%  —  — 
California  44.3%  71.2%  1.61 
Colorado  34.3%  —  — 
Connecticut  21.5% * —  — 
Delaware  —  —  — 
District of Columbia  —  —  — 
Florida  45.6%  75.5%  1.66 
Georgia  46.3%  85.1%  1.84 
Hawaii  —  —  — 
Idaho  —  —  — 
Illinois  35.9%  78.2%  2.18 
Indiana  40.6%  75.0%  1.85 
Iowa  —  —  — 
Kansas  39.6%  —  — 
Kentucky  40.5%  —  — 
Louisiana  34.8% * —  — 
Maine  —  —  — 
Maryland  19.6%  70.3%  3.59 
Massachusetts  24.3%  67.9%  2.79 
Michigan  30.2%  65.6%  2.17 
Minnesota  15.7% * —  — 
Mississippi  49.9%  76.3%  1.53 
Missouri  35.1%  56.5%  1.61 
Montana  —  —  — 
Nebraska  —  —  — 
Nevada  —  —  — 
New Hampshire  —  —  — 
New Jersey  31.0%  77.8%  2.51 
New Mexico  —  —  — 
New York  34.1%  74.0%  2.17 
North Carolina  42.0%  78.9%  1.88 
North Dakota  —  —  — 
Ohio  36.5%  79.1%  2.16 
Oklahoma  34.8%  —  — 
Oregon  42.0% * —  — 
Pennsylvania  22.1% * 65.7%  2.98 
Rhode Island  —  —  — 
South Carolina  42.6%  —  — 
South Dakota  —  —  — 
Tennessee  49.4%  80.2%  1.62 
Texas  50.7%  75.3%  1.49 
Utah  33.0%  —  — 
Vermont  —  —  — 
Virginia  29.2%  65.9%  2.26 
Washington  33.9%  59.5%  1.75 
West Virginia  —  —  — 
Wisconsin  21.9%  67.1%  3.06 
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