Asset Poverty by Gender

Definition

Ratio of the asset poverty rate of single male-headed households to single female-headed households, 2010.

Calculated by dividing the higher value by the lower value, i.e., single female-headed households divided by single male-headed households, except in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina and Virginia where single male-headed households have higher rates of asset poverty.

A ratio of 1 indicates perfect equality; the higher the ratio, the greater the inequality. For example, the asset poverty rate for single female-headed households in Oregon is 1.7 times higher than for single male-headed 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 single male- and single female-headed households. Historically, women have faced barriers to or been prevented from acquiring assets, especially property and capital. However, when comparing single women to single men, asset poverty is only 1.14 (or 14%) higher for single women than it is for single men. In fact, asset poverty is higher for men in eight of the 29 states for which data is available.

The Scorecard compares single households in gender comparisons rather than all male- and female-headed households to disentangle issues of gender from marital status. For more information on wealth disparities by gender, see the work of Mariko Lin Chang.

toggle page width

Asset Poverty by Gender

State	Asset Poverty, Single Male-Headed Households (%)	Asset Poverty, Single Female-Headed Households (%)	Ratio
United States	31.8%	36.3%	1.14
Alabama	25.9% *	29.6%	1.14
Alaska	—	—	—
Arizona	27.5%	41.4%	1.50
Arkansas	—	38.9%	—
California	31.8%	39.1%	1.23
Colorado	35.1%	28.7%	1.22
Connecticut	—	33.8%	—
Delaware	—	—	—
District of Columbia	—	—	—
Florida	37.5%	35.1%	1.07
Georgia	38.2%	41.2%	1.08
Hawaii	—	—	—
Idaho	—	—	—
Illinois	33.4%	36.1%	1.08
Indiana	24.9%	36.7%	1.47
Iowa	39.1%	26.8%	1.46
Kansas	—	31.6%	—
Kentucky	28.4%	33.5% *	1.18
Louisiana	—	38.5%	—
Maine	—	—	—
Maryland	31.9%	31.2%	1.02
Massachusetts	31.7%	40.1%	1.27
Michigan	34.3% *	38.8%	1.13
Minnesota	21.5% *	30.1%	1.40
Mississippi	30.7%	41.2%	1.34
Missouri	32.0%	31.1%	1.03
Montana	—	—	—
Nebraska	—	—	—
Nevada	—	—	—
New Hampshire	—	—	—
New Jersey	37.1%	35.3%	1.05
New Mexico	—	32.9% *	—
New York	39.4%	44.8%	1.14
North Carolina	38.7%	38.5%	1.01
North Dakota	—	—	—
Ohio	31.8%	37.6%	1.18
Oklahoma	27.0% *	33.9%	1.26
Oregon	24.0%	40.2%	1.67
Pennsylvania	27.3%	29.2%	1.07
Rhode Island	—	—	—
South Carolina	24.7%	40.1%	1.62
South Dakota	—	—	—
Tennessee	31.0%	33.3%	1.07
Texas	30.5%	35.5%	1.16
Utah	—	—	—
Vermont	—	—	—
Virginia	28.3%	26.6%	1.07
Washington	29.5%	30.8%	1.04
West Virginia	—	24.4% *	—
Wisconsin	29.7%	33.8%	1.14
Wyoming	—	—	—

Source

Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 Panel, Wave 7. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 2012. 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.