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, 2010.
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 Massachusetts is 2.9 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 single-parent and two-parent households. Nationally, single-parent households are almost two times more likely to be asset poor than two-parent households, not only because the resources of two individuals combined are greater than the resources of one individual alone, but also because two-parent households enjoy economic benefits that make it easier to build wealth since they can share expenses like housing and utility payments.
For more information on wealth disparities by family structure, see the work of Mariko Lin Chang.
Liquid Asset Poverty by Family Structure
| State | Liquid Asset Poverty, 2-Parent Households (%) | Liquid Asset Poverty, 1-Parent Households (%) | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 38.8% | 73.1% | 1.88 |
| Alabama | 47.6% * | 88.4% | 1.85 |
| Alaska | — | — | — |
| Arizona | 54.5% | 75.2% | 1.38 |
| Arkansas | 44.3% | — | — |
| California | 45.9% | 72.1% | 1.57 |
| Colorado | 43.9% | — | — |
| Connecticut | 31.4% * | — | — |
| Delaware | — | — | — |
| District of Columbia | — | — | — |
| Florida | 48.7% | 74.1% | 1.52 |
| Georgia | 46.8% | 78.0% | 1.67 |
| Hawaii | — | — | — |
| Idaho | — | — | — |
| Illinois | 35.8% | 71.7% | 2.00 |
| Indiana | 41.3% | 73.6% | 1.78 |
| Iowa | — | — | — |
| Kansas | — | — | — |
| Kentucky | 39.8% * | — | — |
| Louisiana | 31.0% * | 76.3% | 2.46 |
| Maine | — | — | — |
| Maryland | 20.5% * | 65.9% | 3.21 |
| Massachusetts | 24.4% | 70.7% | 2.89 |
| Michigan | 30.3% | 69.4% | 2.29 |
| Minnesota | 13.6% | — | — |
| Mississippi | 45.6% | — | — |
| Missouri | 42.3% | 68.3% | 1.61 |
| Montana | — | — | — |
| Nebraska | — | — | — |
| Nevada | — | — | — |
| New Hampshire | — | — | — |
| New Jersey | 34.5% | 77.8% | 2.25 |
| New Mexico | — | — | — |
| New York | 36.1% | 79.4% | 2.20 |
| North Carolina | 41.9% | 80.9% | 1.93 |
| North Dakota | — | — | — |
| Ohio | 40.5% | 76.8% | 1.90 |
| Oklahoma | 42.1% | — | — |
| Oregon | 39.6% * | — | — |
| Pennsylvania | 21.9% * | 69.4% | 3.17 |
| Rhode Island | — | — | — |
| South Carolina | 37.7% | — | — |
| South Dakota | — | — | — |
| Tennessee | 45.9% | 81.9% | 1.78 |
| Texas | 49.4% | 73.6% | 1.49 |
| Utah | 33.1% | — | — |
| Vermont | — | — | — |
| Virginia | 28.3% | 63.7% | 2.25 |
| Washington | 30.8% | 69.0% | 2.24 |
| West Virginia | — | — | — |
| Wisconsin | 22.3% | 52.9% | 2.37 |
| Wyoming | — | — | — |
Source
Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 Panel, Wave 7. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 2010. 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 © 2013 CFED — Corporation for Enterprise Development 
1200 G Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 202.408.9788
Powered by ARCOS