This brief, one in a series on disconnected low-income men, provides a geographic and demographic snapshot of these men. Low-income men are defined as those age 18 to 44 who live in families with incomes below twice the federal poverty level (FPL)1 and do not have four-year college degrees. Other briefs in the series examine low-income men’s education, employment, health, and their heightened risk of incarceration and disenfranchisement. This brief uses data from the American Community Survey (2008–10) to estimate the number of low-income men in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and includes a focus on metropolitan areas with at least 50,000 low-income men.2
Characteristics and Risk of Being or Becoming Disconnected
Nationally, 16.5 million civilian men age 18–44 lived in families with incomes below 200 percent of FPL3 in 2008–10. Fifteen million men meet our definition of “low income”—that is, in addition to living in poor families, they are without four-year college degrees. Low-income men accounted for more than a quarter (28 percent) of men age 18–44 nationwide.
The number and share of low-income men have increased since 2000. That year, 13 million, or 24 percent of the male population age 18–44, were low income.
Low-income men are less likely to have graduated from high school and are more likely to be unemployed than men living in families with incomes above 200 percent of FPL (or “higher-income men”). Twenty-eight percent of low-income men have not completed high school.4 Low-income men are also more likely than all men age 18–44 nationally to be unemployed: 21 percent compared with 11 percent.5
Low-income men are more likely to be young adults than in their late 30s and early 40s: 36 percent of low-income men are age 18–24. Thirty percent of low-income men are age 35–44.
More than half (59 percent) of low-income men in the United States have never been married. Thirty-two percent are married, and 8 percent are widowed, divorced, or sepa-rated. Low-income men are less likely to be ever married than men in the same age group overall (41 percent versus 50 percent).
Low-income men are more likely to be immigrants (foreign born) than all men in that age group: 27 percent compared with 18 percent. Only 16 percent of low-income immigrants are naturalized US citizens, below the share for all immigrant men (28 percent).
The Vast Majority of Low-Income Men Live in Metropolitan Areas
Almost all low-income men (93 percent, or 13.9 million) live in metropolitan areas. And, 57 percent of low-income men (or 8.5 million) live in just 10 states: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. This brief calls this group the “top 10 states” (table 1).
Table 1. States with the Most Low-Income Men
| State | Number |
|---|---|
| Total, top 10 states | 8,488,993 |
| Total, United States | 14,967,262 |
| 1. California | 2,070,553 |
| 2. Texas | 1,488,313 |
| 3. Florida | 954,954 |
| 4. New York | 823,623 |
| 5. Illinois | 565,278 |
| 6. Ohio | 539,871 |
| 7. Georgia | 533,939 |
| 8. North Carolina | 513,019 |
| 9. Michigan | 503,737 |
| 10. Pennsylvania | 495,706 |
Figure 1. Number of Low-Income Men by Metropolitan Area, 2008–10
Source: ASPE tabulations of the American Community Survey (2008–10).
Note: Low-income men are age 18–44, live in families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and do not have four-year college degrees.
Although metropolitan areas may have a sizeable num-ber of low-income men, who they are and where they live within the metropolitan area varies in important ways that could have implications for federal, state, and local policy, including social service delivery and job creation.
States and Metropolitan Areas with the Most Low-Income Men and the Highest Shares of Low-Income Men Are Not the Same
The differences between size versus share of low-income men in a metropolitan area may pose different challenges and opportunities for states and localities as they consider what low-income men need in order to succeed and connect with mainstream economic and social systems.
The number of low-income men in a given location gives a sense of magnitude, while the percentage gives a sense of concentration. The geographical distribution of low-income men across the United States varies considera-bly according to whether the metric is size (numbers) or percent (share) of the population. Generally speaking, the states with the largest proportions of low-income men are conventionally considered more rural. In Mississippi, 38 percent of the population of men age 18–44 is low income. Other states where more than a third of men are low income include New Mexico and Arkansas (37 percent), West Virginia (36 percent), Idaho and Oklahoma (35 per-cent), and Kentucky, Alabama, and Tennessee (34 percent; see appendix table 1).
Figure 2. Share of Low-Income Men by Metropolitan Area, 2008–10
Source: ASPE tabulations of the American Community Survey (2008–10).
Note: Low-income men are age 18–44, live in families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and do not have four-year college degrees.
Not surprisingly, larger metropolitan areas have a higher number of low-income men. The Los Angeles metro-politan area has the largest number of low-income men, 760,000 (figure 1; also see appendix table 2).6 Nearly that many low-income men reside in the New York metropolitan area (739,000), and close to a half-million (407,000) reside in the Chicago metro area. The Dallas and Houston metro-politan areas have the next-largest low-income male popu-lations, followed by the Miami and Atlanta metropolitan areas. Riverside, Phoenix, and Philadelphia round out the top 10 metropolitan areas.
Perhaps more surprisingly, smaller metropolitan areas have higher shares of low-income men. The share of men who are low income is higher in metropolitan areas aside from the very largest, including 54 percent in McAllen (TX), 46 percent in Fresno, and 44 percent in Bakersfield. Other metropolitan areas with above-average low-income shares include El Paso (43 percent), Tucson (37 percent), River-side, Memphis, Oklahoma, and San Antonio (33 percent each). The low-income shares are smaller in the Seattle, Minneapolis, San Jose, Baltimore, Boston, and Washington, DC, metropolitan areas at under 20 percent (figure 2).
Some, but Not All, Low-Income Men Live in Central Cities
Where low-income men live within a metropolitan area—and, specifically, whether they live within or beyond a cen-tral city—may affect what services and resources may be available to them, or where jobs and schools are located. Also, whether the state has one or more major metropoli-tan areas with sizeable populations of low-income men may shape how resources are distributed. The living patterns of low-income men vary across the country.
Figure 3. Distribution of Low-Income Men in Central City versus Balance of Metropolitan Area, Top 10 Metropolitan Areas , 2008–10
Source: ASPE tabulations of the American Community Survey (2008–10).
Note: Low-income men are age 18–44, live in families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and do not have four-year college degrees.
In some states, low-income men are concentrated in a single metropolitan area. Almost all low-income men in New York State, for example, live in the New York City metropolitan area (90 percent). Similarly, 72 percent of Illinois’s lowincome men live in the Chicago metropolitan area.
In other states, such as Texas, California, and Florida, low-income men are spread across several metropolitan areas. Almost two-thirds (61 percent) of Texas’s low-income men live in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin. In California, low-income men appear in large numbers in six metropolitan areas: Los Angeles, Riverside, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Diego, and San Jose. Similarly, low-incomemen in Florida are spread across the Miami, Tampa, Orlando, and Jacksonville metropolitan areas.
The share of low-income men living in or outside the central city varies as well. Looking across the top 10 metropolitan areas, three-quarters of low-income men in Phoenix live in the central city. The same is true for two-thirds of lowincome men in Los Angeles, New York, and Dallas. In contrast, almost all low-income men live outside the central city in the Atlanta metropolitan area (figure 3).
Nationally, the majority of low-income men live in metropolitan areas outside a central city. But patterns varyby race and ethnicity. Nearly 80 percent of white lowincome men live outside a major city, compared with over 70 percent of Hispanic low-income men and about 63 percent of African American low-income men.7 These national numbers disguise some variation across states. In New York, 65 percent of white low-income men live outside the central city, compared with only 20 percent of low-income African American men and 25 percent of low-income Hispanic men. In Florida, 93 percent of white, 90 percent of African American, and 96 percent of Hispanic low-income men live outside a central city.
Low-income men are concentrated in the central city in 29 of the 52 metropolitan areas with 50,000 or more lowincome men. However, in the remaining metropolitan areas, such as Atlanta, more than half of low-income men live outside the central city. These include the Pittsburgh metropolitan area, where 80 percent of low-income men live outside the central city, along with Orlando and St. Louis (78 percent) and Washington, DC (76 percent).
In Several Metropolitan Areas, Most Low-Income Men Are Hispanic
Low-income men are disproportionately Hispanic and African American. Looking at low-income men age 18–44 nationwide, no single racial or ethnic group is a majority: 45 percent are white, 32 percent are Hispanic, 16 percent are African American, and 7 percent are other races and ethnicities. Among all men age 18–44 nationally, however, there is a clear majority: 60 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and 12 percent are African American.
Figure 4. Race and Ethnicity of All 18–44-Year-Old Men, Top 10 Metropolitan Areas, 2008–10
Source: ASPE tabulations of the American Community Survey (2008–10).
The race and ethnicity of low-income men in the top 10 metropolitan areas generally mirror the racial and ethnic make-up of the metropolitan area where they reside. However, low-income men are disproportionately Hispanic and African American. For example, although 53 percent of all men age 18–44 in the Riverside metropolitan area are Hispanic (figure 4), Hispanic men represent 69 percent of< those who are low income (figure 5). Similarly, Hispanics are 50 percent of all men, but 72 percent of low-income men, in the Los Angeles metropolitan area and 42 percent of all men, but 63 percent of low-income men, in the Houston metropolitan area.
Figure 5. Race and Ethnicity of Low-Income Men, Top 10 Metropolitan Areas, 2008–10
Source: ASPE tabulations of the American Community Survey (2008–10).
Note: Low-income men are age 18–44, live in families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and do not have four-year college degrees.
Similar patterns are evident among African American men. In the Philadelphia metropolitan area, for example, African Americans make up 33 percent of low-income men but only 19 percent of all men.
In the 16 metropolitan areas with the largest populations of low-income men, Hispanics represent a majority (at least 50 percent) of the low-income male population. For example, almost all low-income men are Hispanic in the McAllen (98 percent) and El Paso (91 percent) metropolitan areas; and close to three-quarters are Hispanic in the Los Angeles and San Antonio (72 percent) and Bakersfield- Delano (71 percent) metropolitan areas.
African American men represent at least a third of the low-income male population in nine metropolitan areas. In Memphis, they are a majority (59 percent); in the New Orleans (46 percent), Baltimore (44 percent), Virginia Beach (43 percent), and Detroit (39 percent) metropolitan areas, they are a sizeable share.
White men are the majority of the low-income male population in 13 metropolitan areas, including metros in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, New York, Missouri, Oregon, and Tennessee. Their representation is highest in the Pittsburgh (77 percent), Cincinnati (70 percent), Columbus (65 percent), and Louisville (64 percent) metropolitan areas.
Hispanic low-income men tend to differ from white and African American low-income men in some characteristic ways. Hispanic low-income men tend to be slightly older on average. More Hispanics fall between the ages of 25 and 34 years old than white and African American men, who are somewhat more likely to be between 18 and 24 years old. And while rates vary across states, a higher proportion of low-income Hispanic men tends to be married. The share of married Hispanic men ranges from 41 percent in Pennsylvania to 52 percent in Texas. Among white low-income men, the married share ranges from 31 percent in California to 50 percent in Georgia. Among African American low-income men, the married share is lower, from 21 percent in California to 31 percent in Texas.
Also, unlike white and African American low-income men, the proportion of Hispanic low-income men that is US citizens varies widely across states. In North Carolina, 16 percent of low-income Hispanic men are US citizens. However, in Pennsylvania, 68 percent are US citizens.
Among low-income white and African American men, the majority in all states are US citizens. Among whites the share ranges from 94 percent in California to 99 percent in Ohio. Among African Americans the share ranges from 82 percent in New York to 99 percent in Michigan.
Conclusion
Almost all low-income men in the United States live in urban areas, and about half of them live in 10 states. But the concentration of low-income men varies. Some states and metropolitan areas with smaller low-income male populations have larger than average low-income shares. In some metropolitan areas, low-income men are concentrated in the central city, while in others, they are spread out across the metropolitan area. These variations in geographic distribution have implications for the provision of services and design of programs to engage disconnected low-income men.
Also of policy relevance is the racial and ethnic distribution of the low-income male population. White men are a minority in the metropolitan areas with the highest numbers of low-income men, and Hispanic men are often concentrated in different metropolitan areas than African American men. In the same way that variation in such factors as age, educational level, and citizenship status can determine strategies to promote upward mobility, differences in location could also have implications for the policies needed to ensure men remain or become connected to mainstream institutions.
Notes
- In 2010, the year for the data estimates, the federal poverty threshold was $11,344 for a single adult and $17,552 for a family of three with one child. Twice the pov-erty level was $22,688 for a single adult and $35,104 for a family of three (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/).
- Men in the armed forces and those in group quarters (college dorms, correctional facilities, hospitals) are excluded from the present analysis because of data limitations.
- Unless specified otherwise, statistics are based on the American Community Survey (2008–10).
- Statistics are based on US Department of Health and Hu-man Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Plan-ning and Evaluation (ASPE) tabulations of the American Community Survey (2008–10).
- Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Sur-vey, seasonally adjusted unemployment rate, 2008–10 average, at http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=ln (accessed August 2012). Also see Margaret Simms, Karina Fortuny, Marla McDaniel, and William Monson, “Education and Employment of Disconnected Low-Income Men” (Washington, DC: The Urban Insti-tute, 2013), Race, Place, and Poverty Symposium Issue Brief 2.
- Metropolitan areas are the Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) as defined by the US Office of Management and Budget. CBSAs consist of the county or counties or equiv-alent entities associated with at least one core (urbanized area) with a population of at least 10,000 people, and the adjacent counties that have a high degree of social and economic integration with the core urbanized area.
- African American refers to non-Hispanic African Ameri-can or black and includes those who identified themselves in the decennial census as black or African American only. White refers to non-Hispanic white and includes those who identified themselves in the census as white only. People of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Respondents who identified as other or two or more races in the census are grouped under “other non-Hispanic.”
Appendix Table 1. State Rankings by Number and Share of Low-Income Men
| State | Low-income men | Rank by size | Share of state population | Rank by share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 14,967,262 | 28% | ||
| California | 2,070,553 | 1 | 30% | 20 |
| Texas | 1,488,313 | 2 | 33% | 11 |
| Florida | 954,954 | 3 | 32% | 16 |
| New York | 823,623 | 4 | 24% | 37 |
| Illinois | 565,278 | 5 | 25% | 35 |
| Ohio | 539,871 | 6 | 29% | 23 |
| Georgia | 533,939 | 7 | 32% | 15 |
| North Carolina | 513,019 | 8 | 33% | 13 |
| Michigan | 503,707 | 9 | 31% | 18 |
| Pennsylvania | 495,706 | 10 | 24% | 39 |
| Arizona | 361,493 | 11 | 33% | 12 |
| Tennessee | 356,875 | 12 | 34% | 9 |
| Indiana | 324,393 | 13 | 30% | 21 |
| Washington | 299,360 | 14 | 25% | 33 |
| Missouri | 289,688 | 15 | 30% | 22 |
| Virginia | 282,013 | 16 | 21% | 43 |
| Alabama | 264,578 | 17 | 34% | 8 |
| New Jersey | 263,595 | 18 | 18% | 47 |
| South Carolina | 249,980 | 19 | 33% | 10 |
| Wisconsin | 249,119 | 20 | 26% | 32 |
| Kentucky | 247,700 | 21 | 34% | 7 |
| Colorado | 237,606 | 22 | 26% | 31 |
| Louisiana | 230,095 | 23 | 30% | 19 |
| Oklahoma | 213,508 | 24 | 35% | 6 |
| Oregon | 207,789 | 25 | 31% | 17 |
| Minnesota | 206,197 | 26 | 22% | 42 |
| Massachusetts | 195,417 | 27 | 18% | 46 |
| Mississippi | 182,584 | 28 | 38% | 1 |
| Arkansas | 178,200 | 29 | 37% | 3 |
| Maryland | 170,839 | 30 | 18% | 48 |
| Utah | 139,437 | 31 | 27% | 29 |
| Nevada | 138,780 | 32 | 28% | 27 |
| Kansas | 134,783 | 33 | 29% | 24 |
| Iowa | 133,424 | 34 | 27% | 30 |
| New Mexico | 125,262 | 35 | 37% | 2 |
| West Virginia | 105,537 | 36 | 36% | 4 |
| Connecticut | 100,275 | 37 | 18% | 49 |
| Idaho | 93,190 | 38 | 35% | 5 |
| Nebraska | 82,506 | 39 | 27% | 28 |
| Maine | 56,845 | 40 | 28% | 26 |
| Montana | 50,053 | 41 | 32% | 14 |
| Rhode Island | 42,435 | 42 | 25% | 36 |
| Hawaii | 40,548 | 43 | 19% | 45 |
| South Dakota | 36,154 | 44 | 28% | 25 |
| New Hampshire | 35,180 | 45 | 17% | 51 |
| Delaware | 33,251 | 46 | 23% | 41 |
| North Dakota | 28,109 | 47 | 24% | 38 |
| Alaska | 24,982 | 48 | 21% | 44 |
| Vermont | 24,178 | 49 | 25% | 34 |
| Wyoming | 22,012 | 50 | 23% | 40 |
| District of Columbia | 20,299 | 51 | 17% | 50 |
Source: ASPE tabulations of the American Community Survey (2008–10).
Note: Low-income men are age 18–44, live in families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and do not have four-year college degrees.
Appendix Table 2. Metropolitan Areas with 50,000 or More Low-Income Men
| Metropolitan area | Low-income men | Rank by size | Share of metro population | Rank by share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 14,967,262 | 28% | ||
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA | 760,180 | 1 | 30% | 11 |
| New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA | 739,085 | 2 | 22% | 43 |
| Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI | 407,380 | 3 | 24% | 37 |
| Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX | 348,130 | 4 | 29% | 16 |
| Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX | 342,600 | 5 | 30% | 10 |
| Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL | 280,965 | 6 | 30% | 15 |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA | 263,395 | 7 | 27% | 25 |
| Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA | 249,125 | 8 | 33% | 6 |
| Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ | 229,310 | 9 | 30% | 13 |
| Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD | 207,665 | 10 | 21% | 45 |
| Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI | 200,320 | 11 | 28% | 20 |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA | 161,650 | 12 | 20% | 46 |
| San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA | 150,760 | 13 | 27% | 23 |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV | 145,130 | 14 | 14% | 52 |
| Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL | 133,440 | 15 | 30% | 14 |
| Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH | 125,775 | 16 | 16% | 51 |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA | 124,115 | 17 | 19% | 47 |
| Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL | 120,210 | 18 | 30% | 12 |
| San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX | 119,935 | 19 | 33% | 9 |
| Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO | 116,140 | 20 | 24% | 35 |
| Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI | 113,935 | 21 | 19% | 48 |
| Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA | 108,820 | 22 | 29% | 17 |
| St. Louis, MO-IL | 106,845 | 23 | 23% | 40 |
| Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA | 105,325 | 24 | 25% | 33 |
| Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX | 103,340 | 25 | 29% | 18 |
| Las Vegas-Paradise, NV | 102,615 | 26 | 27% | 21 |
| Columbus, OH | 90,490 | 27 | 27% | 26 |
| Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN | 84,855 | 28 | 23% | 38 |
| Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC | 84,575 | 29 | 26% | 29 |
| Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH | 82,905 | 30 | 26% | 32 |
| Pittsburgh, PA | 81,865 | 31 | 22% | 42 |
| Indianapolis-Carmel, IN | 81,355 | 32 | 26% | 27 |
| Kansas City, MO-KS | 81,120 | 33 | 23% | 41 |
| Baltimore-Towson, MD | 79,050 | 34 | 18% | 50 |
| Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN | 78,530 | 35 | 27% | 22 |
| Fresno, CA | 78,160 | 36 | 46% | 2 |
| Memphis, TN-MS-AR | 73,650 | 37 | 33% | 7 |
| McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX | 73,460 | 38 | 54% | 1 |
| Oklahoma City, OK | 72,970 | 39 | 33% | 8 |
| Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI | 69,265 | 40 | 26% | 30 |
| San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA | 65,145 | 41 | 18% | 49 |
| Bakersfield-Delano, CA | 63,260 | 42 | 44% | 3 |
| Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA | 61,290 | 43 | 23% | 39 |
| Tucson, AZ | 58,570 | 44 | 37% | 5 |
| Jacksonville, FL | 58,180 | 45 | 26% | 31 |
| Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN | 57,335 | 46 | 26% | 28 |
| El Paso, TX | 56,325 | 47 | 43% | 4 |
| New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA | 56,055 | 48 | 28% | 19 |
| Salt Lake City, UT | 54,590 | 49 | 24% | 34 |
| Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC | 53,745 | 50 | 21% | 44 |
| Birmingham-Hoover, AL | 51,650 | 51 | 27% | 24 |
| Raleigh-Cary, NC | 50,360 | 52 | 24% | 36 |
| Not in Census MSA with ≥ 50,000 low-income men age 18–44 | 7,302,315 | 32% |
Source: ASPE tabulations of the American Community Survey (2008–10).
Note: Low-income men are age 18–44, live in families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and do not have four-year college degrees.
Appendix Table 3. Race and Ethnicity of Top 52 Metropolitan Areas (percent)
| Metropolitan area | Hispanic | White | African American |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 32 | 45 | 16 |
| Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA | 72 | 13 | 6 |
| New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA | 49 | 20 | 19 |
| Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI | 45 | 26 | 24 |
| Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX | 57 | 24 | 15 |
| Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX | 63 | 15 | 17 |
| Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL | 56 | 15 | 25 |
| Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA | 34 | 27 | 35 |
| Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA | 69 | 19 | 7 |
| Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ | 53 | 34 | 7 |
| Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD | 20 | 39 | 33 |
| Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI | 8 | 48 | 39 |
| San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA | 49 | 21 | 10 |
| San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA | 54 | 30 | 6 |
| Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV | 40 | 21 | 31 |
| Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL | 31 | 49 | 16 |
| Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH | 26 | 50 | 12 |
| Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA | 24 | 49 | 10 |
| Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL | 39 | 37 | 19 |
| San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX | 72 | 18 | 7 |
| Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO | 48 | 37 | 8 |
| Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI | 18 | 51 | 18 |
| Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA | 36 | 36 | 10 |
| St. Louis, MO-IL | 5 | 61 | 30 |
| Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA | 27 | 60 | 4 |
| Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX | 55 | 31 | 7 |
| Las Vegas-Paradise, NV | 51 | 28 | 12 |
| Columbus, OH | 9 | 65 | 21 |
| Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN | 7 | 70 | 20 |
| Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC | 29 | 38 | 28 |
| Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH | 11 | 50 | 36 |
| Pittsburgh, PA | 3 | 77 | 16 |
| Indianapolis-Carmel, IN | 19 | 54 | 22 |
| Kansas City, MO-KS | 22 | 54 | 19 |
| Baltimore-Towson, MD | 13 | 35 | 44 |
| Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN | 22 | 57 | 18 |
| Fresno, CA | 69 | 15 | 5 |
| Memphis, TN-MS-AR | 14 | 24 | 59 |
| McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX | 98 | 2 | 0 |
| Oklahoma City, OK | 26 | 50 | 13 |
| Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI | 24 | 40 | 29 |
| San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA | 62 | 17 | 3 |
| Bakersfield-Delano, CA | 71 | 19 | 5 |
| Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA | 28 | 55 | 8 |
| Tucson, AZ | 51 | 36 | 3 |
| Jacksonville, FL | 14 | 51 | 31 |
| Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN | 12 | 64 | 21 |
| El Paso, TX | 91 | 6 | 2 |
| New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA | 17 | 33 | 46 |
| Salt Lake City, UT | 37 | 52 | 3 |
| Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC | 10 | 41 | 43 |
| Birmingham-Hoover, AL | 15 | 46 | 37 |
| Raleigh-Cary, NC | 35 | 38 | 23 |
| Not in Census MSA with ≥ 50,000 low-income men age 18–44 | 20 | 60 | 14 |
Source: ASPE tabulations of the American Community Survey (2008–10).
Notes: Low-income men are age 18–44, live in families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and do not have four-year college degrees. African American refers to non-Hispanic African American or black and includes those who identified themselves in the decennial census as black or African American only.
White refers to non-Hispanic white and includes those who identified themselves in the census as white only. People of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
About the Series
A large number of US men of prime working age are neither gainfully employed nor pursuing education or other training, suggesting a potentially significant disconnection from mainstream economic and social life. The Urban Institute, funded by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, US Department of Health and Human Services, convened the Race, Place, and Poverty symposium to better understand the experiences of men who were disengaged or at high risk of disengagement from mainstream economic and social systems. The symposium explored the state of knowledge on discon-nected low-income men and discussed effective strategies for improving their well-being.
The five briefs in this series on disconnected low-income men summarize the symposium, provide a geographic and demographic snapshot of low-income men, and examine their education, employment, health, and heightened risk of incarceration and disenfranchisement. A related background paper prepared for the symposium features key themes from ethnographic and other qualitative research.
Acknowledgments
We would like to extend a special thank you to the HHS staff for their commitment to this project and for making this work possible; in particular, we acknowledge the federal project officers, Annette Waters and Kimberly Clum. We are also grateful to Kendall Swenson for his work with the data and to Erica Meade for her contributions. We thank Vivian Gadsden, Waldo Johnson, and Thomas LaVeist for serving as consultants on the project and for their inval-uable contributions to this report series and the symposium. We also gratefully acknowledge key advisor Jocelyn Fontaine and other Urban Institute colleagues Gregory Acs, Bob Lerman, and Elizabeth Peters for their assistance and feedback. Finally, we give special thanks to the researchers and social service providers from across the country who participated in the symposium and whose knowledge about low-income men enriched this work.