Concentrated Poverty

The Concentrated Poverty indicator measures the percentage of the population that falls below the federal poverty line threshold, which is updated annually and reported in the U.S. Census. Poverty strongly influences well-being, at the individual level. Individuals who experience poverty, especially consistently throughout their life-course, are at a greater risk of unemployment, obesity, and a host of other chronic illnesses. Furthermore, those who grow up in high poverty neighborhoods are less likely to escape from poverty, especially if they live in low-income neighborhoods during adolescence, and into adulthood. Hence, the effect of place-based poverty is also consequential. As the distribution of poverty and affluence has become more spatially isolated throughout the United States, social and financial capital has also become more concentrated, which impedes the ability for many poor Americans, to access ladders of opportunity. For example, neighborhoods with higher rates of poverty have high demand for expensive social services, which often significantly underserve local residents. Also, high poverty neighborhoods typically have higher preventable deaths, lower life expectancies, more environmental hazards, and poor quality school systems. Furthermore, freeways and other busy roadways often run through low-income neighborhoods resulting in disproportionately higher exposure to noise and air pollution. Data for this indicator is available from the U.S. Census.

Neighborhood Indicator Value Ranksort descending
North Avondale 66.2% -
Rising - West Princeton 53.3% -
Thomas 24.3% -
Bush Hills 19.6% -
Eastwood 27.2% -
Graymont 65.6% -
North Birmingham 23.6% -
Roebuck 23.9% -
Tuxedo 60.7% -
Central City 31.7% -
Echo Highlands 20.9% -
Green Acres 13.7% -
North East Lake 42.2% -
Roebuck Springs 9.7% -
Wahouma 43.3% -
Central Park 35.5% -
Enon Ridge 34.0% -
Harriman Park 57.2% -
Highland Park 19.1% -
North Pratt 17.1% -
Roosevelt 25.7% -
West Brownville 41.6% -
Central Pratt 31.8% -
Ensley 43.3% -
Hillman 18.3% -
North Titusville 53.0% -
Sandusky 16.8% -
West End Manor 28.9% -
College Hills 28.9% -
Ensley Highlands 32.1% -
Hillman Park 33.7% -
Norwood 54.2% -
Sherman Heights 21.1% -
West Goldwire 40.3% -
Collegeville 67.1% -
Evergreen 34.2% -
Hooper City 25.9% -
Oak Ridge 16.2% -
Smithfield 46.7% -
Woodland Park 15.3% -
Crestline 11.1% -
Fairmont 49.1% -
Huffman 18.0% -
Oak Ridge Park 39.8% -
Smithfield Estates 13.7% -
Acipco-Finley 24.3% -
Woodlawn 36.5% -
Crestwood North 14.0% -
Fairview 33.3% -
Industrial Center 43.3% -
Oakwood Place 33.9% -
South East Lake 36.3% -
Airport Highlands 15.6% -
Wylam 37.7% -
Crestwood South 6.2% -
Five Points South 33.4% -
Inglenook 42.6% -
Overton 10.6% -
South Pratt 13.6% -
Apple Valley 17.2% -
Zion City 46.0% -
Dolomite 16.4% -
Forest Park 26.2% -
Jones Valley 21.1% -
Oxmoor 16.2% -
South Titusville 37.1% -
Arlington - West End 36.1% -
Druid Hills 28.7% -
Fountain Heights 47.8% -
Killough Springs 22.7% -
Penfield Park 25.2% -
South Woodlawn 34.0% -
Belview Heights 19.6% -
East Avondale 29.4% -
Garden Highlands 39.6% -
Kingston 50.7% -
Pine Knoll Vista 6.1% -
Southside 83.9% -
Bridlewood 26.0% -
East Birmingham 52.5% -
Gate City 82.8% -
Liberty Highlands 20.5% -
Powderly 37.5% -
Spring Lake 10.4% -
Brown Springs 31.7% -
East Brownville 33.8% -
Germania Park 32.4% -
Maple Grove 25.1% -
Redmont Park 9.6% -
Sun Valley 24.7% -
Brownsville Heights 16.1% -
East Lake 26.2% -
Glen Iris 32.4% -
Mason City 47.7% -
Riley 25.2% -
Tarpley City 40.4% -
Brummitt Heights 6.1% -
East Thomas 25.1% -
Grasselli Heights 34.8% -

Key Citations:
1. Williams, DR, Collins, C. Racial residential segregation: a fundamental cause of racial disparities in health. Public Health Reports. 2001; 116: 404-416.
2. Wilson, WJ. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1987.
3. Lannin, DR, Matthews, HF, Mitchell, J, Swanson, FH, Edwards, MS. Influence of Socioeconomic and Cultural Factors on Racial Differences in Late-stage Presentation of Breast Cancer. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998; 279(22): 1801-1807.