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), 2010.
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 Illinois is 2.2 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 Maryland are 2.2 times more likely to be liquid asset poor than white households.
Liquid Asset Poverty by Race
| State | Liquid Asset Poverty, White Households (%) | Liquid Asset Poverty, Households of Color (%) | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 34.8% | 62.6% | 1.80 |
| Alabama | 56.5% | 78.4% | 1.39 |
| Alaska | — | — | — |
| Arizona | 33.6% | 59.8% | 1.78 |
| Arkansas | 44.9% | 75.3% | 1.68 |
| California | 30.5% | 50.5% | 1.66 |
| Colorado | 37.3% | — | — |
| Connecticut | 26.8% | — | — |
| Delaware | 31.3% | — | — |
| District of Columbia | — | — | — |
| Florida | 41.0% | 66.9% | 1.63 |
| Georgia | 46.8% | 68.9% | 1.47 |
| Hawaii | — | 31.8% | — |
| Idaho | 39.7% | — | — |
| Illinois | 31.2% | 68.9% | 2.21 |
| Indiana | 36.7% | 69.9% | 1.90 |
| Iowa | 23.0% | — | — |
| Kansas | 25.9% | — | — |
| Kentucky | 45.7% | — | — |
| Louisiana | 36.0% | 68.2% | 1.89 |
| Maine | 43.7% | — | — |
| Maryland | 23.9% | 53.5% | 2.24 |
| Massachusetts | 33.3% | 50.6% | 1.52 |
| Michigan | 33.2% | 65.4% | 1.97 |
| Minnesota | 18.5% | — | — |
| Mississippi | 46.5% | 73.1% | 1.57 |
| Missouri | 39.3% | 64.8% | 1.65 |
| Montana | 34.0% * | — | — |
| Nebraska | 25.1% * | — | — |
| Nevada | 42.0% | — | — |
| New Hampshire | 27.5% | — | — |
| New Jersey | 33.1% | 57.9% | 1.75 |
| New Mexico | 34.3% | — | — |
| New York | 34.0% | 70.8% | 2.08 |
| North Carolina | 36.6% | 73.7% | 2.01 |
| North Dakota | 26.7% | — | — |
| Ohio | 37.6% | 71.8% | 1.91 |
| Oklahoma | 38.8% | 53.9% * | 1.39 |
| Oregon | 28.3% * | — | — |
| Pennsylvania | 32.9% | 65.9% | 2.00 |
| Rhode Island | 25.8% * | — | — |
| South Carolina | 34.6% | 71.2% | 2.06 |
| South Dakota | 41.4% | — | — |
| Tennessee | 47.9% | 76.2% | 1.59 |
| Texas | 36.7% | 54.6% | 1.49 |
| Utah | 31.8% * | — | — |
| Vermont | — | — | — |
| Virginia | 27.5% | 52.4% | 1.90 |
| Washington | 28.6% | 40.6% | 1.42 |
| West Virginia | 46.8% | — | — |
| Wisconsin | 29.3% | 63.2% | 2.16 |
| 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