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 Race

Definition

Ratio of the liquid asset poverty rate of white, non-Hispanic households to households of color (Black or African-American; Asian; Hispanic or Latino; other races), 2009.

Calculated by dividing the higher value by the lower value, i.e., the liquid asset poverty rate of households of color divided by white households.

A ratio of 1 indicates perfect equality; the higher the ratio, the greater the inequality. For example, the liquid asset poverty rate for households of color in North Carolina is two times higher than for white 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 white households and households of color. Liquid asset poverty is significantly higher for households of color, indicating that these households are more vulnerable to a financial crisis and are less able to meet emergency financial needs. For example, households of color in Nevada are 2.5 times more likely to be liquid asset poor than white households.

toggle page width

Liquid Asset Poverty by Race

StateLiquid Asset Poverty,
White Households (%)
Liquid Asset Poverty,
Households of Color (%)
Ratio
United States  34.1%  64.6%  1.89 
Alabama  58.8%  76.0%  1.29 
Alaska  —  —  — 
Arizona  32.5%  69.0%  2.12 
Arkansas  43.6%  76.4%  1.75 
California  28.4%  59.5%  2.09 
Colorado  35.7%  67.6%  1.89 
Connecticut  26.8%  59.8%  2.23 
Delaware  26.5%  —  — 
District of Columbia  —  —  — 
Florida  37.3%  68.9%  1.85 
Georgia  49.3%  69.9%  1.42 
Hawaii  —  24.2%  — 
Idaho  37.6%  —  — 
Illinois  29.5%  64.3%  2.18 
Indiana  37.4%  67.0%  1.79 
Iowa  26.8%  —  — 
Kansas  28.3%  —  — 
Kentucky  43.7%  —  — 
Louisiana  34.0%  69.8%  2.05 
Maine  46.3%  —  — 
Maryland  22.6%  48.6%  2.15 
Massachusetts  31.0%  58.4%  1.88 
Michigan  32.8%  67.6%  2.06 
Minnesota  23.1%  54.5%  2.36 
Mississippi  44.9%  73.1%  1.63 
Missouri  34.2%  55.8%  1.63 
Montana  37.2% * —  — 
Nebraska  23.1% * —  — 
Nevada  32.4%  80.0%  2.47 
New Hampshire  21.4%  —  — 
New Jersey  27.6%  65.0%  2.35 
New Mexico  36.5%  63.8%  1.75 
New York  35.5%  67.8%  1.91 
North Carolina  34.9%  69.3%  1.99 
North Dakota  34.3%  —  — 
Ohio  37.7%  70.2%  1.86 
Oklahoma  41.1%  65.5%  1.59 
Oregon  31.0%  70.5%  2.28 
Pennsylvania  30.0%  62.4%  2.08 
Rhode Island  29.9%  —  — 
South Carolina  32.1%  77.3%  2.41 
South Dakota  40.0%  —  — 
Tennessee  47.4%  76.6%  1.62 
Texas  38.6%  65.0%  1.69 
Utah  32.4% * —  — 
Vermont  —  —  — 
Virginia  27.8%  55.8%  2.01 
Washington  26.6%  44.9%  1.69 
West Virginia  54.0%  —  — 
Wisconsin  28.3%  64.5%  2.28 
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