Voters head to the polls outside Cleveland, Ohio. Aaron Josefczyk/REUTERS

“The numbers really underscore how cross-cutting an issue poverty is—it’s not just a red or a blue issue or an inner-city or suburban issue.”

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign famously made much ado about “inner cities”—those hellish parts of U.S. metros where “the blacks” live. As my colleague Brentin Mock recently pointed out, the phrase is decades-old innuendo for black crime. Outdated as it may be, there is a nugget of truth that can be extracted from it: Too many cities do have pockets of concentrated poverty—and Democrats as well as Republicans need to take responsibility for that. But the same is increasingly true of American suburbs.

A new analysis by Elizabeth Kneebone, a fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program, finds that poverty affects every single Congressional district in the U.S.—and suburban ones are not exceptions, but particular concerns. “The numbers really underscore how cross-cutting an issue poverty is—it’s not just a red or a blue issue or an inner-city or suburban issue.” Kneebone says. “Popular perceptions just have not kept up with the shifting and broadening geography of poverty.”

Kneebone compared data from the 2000 Decennial Census with 5-year American Community Survey estimates (2010-2014) to analyze how poverty rates and the numbers of people living in poverty has risen in each Congressional district. An interactive visualizes the results for each state, but here are the major top-line results:

Democratic districts have a deeper poverty problem

Congressional districts led by Democrats tend to have higher poverty rates. On average, 17.1 percent of their residents live below the poverty line, compared to 14.4 percent in Republican-led districts, per 2010-2014 data. (For context: The national poverty rate has been hovering between 13 to 15 percent in the last few years.)

These numbers don’t mean that Democrats caused the poverty in these districts. It’s possible that low-income individuals there vote Democrat because they think the party is better equipped to solve their problems. But data show that Democratic congresspeople are certainly not putting out the fires any faster than Republican ones: Poverty rates rose similarly in both Democratic and Republican districts—3.3 and 3.2 percentage points, respectively—between 2000 and 2010-2014.

Not only is poverty already deep in blue districts, it’s also becoming more concentrated: 22 out of the 31 districts that saw their shares of low-income residents increase to twice the national average were Democratic. The increase was particularly stark in urban districts such as those in Detroit (11. 5 percent), Indianapolis (10.5 percent), and Charlotte (10.2 percent). Georgia’s suburban 4th and 13th  districts saw 10.6 and 10.5 percent increases, respectively.

However: More red than blue districts saw the poverty rates rise, the analysis shows. And of the 15 districts where poverty rates fall, 11 were Democratic ones in cities like New York, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and El Paso.

Republican districts have a more people in poverty

As a whole, these red districts contained more absolute numbers of poor residents—25.1 million compared to 22.7 million in blue ones, per Kneebone’s analysis. That’s important because it means Republican poverty-alleviation policies have the potential to affect more people, overall.

The situation is also getting worse, fast, in many of these districts. Overall, 96 percent of congressional districts saw rises in numbers of below-poverty-line residents. But of 35 that saw their numbers double, 28 were Republican-led. The ones highest on the list were located in suburbs of Las Vegas, Atlanta, and Phoenix that were badly hit in the housing crisis.

The number of poor have increased in suburban and Republican-led districts. (Brookings Institution)

These districts also drove the growth in the nation’s poor in the time period analyzed—60 percent of the national increase came from these places. The rise in numbers of low-income residents in Democratic districts (33 percent) was lower than that in Republican ones (49 percent). One reason: changing settlement patterns among the poor in the U.S., Kneebone explains.

Although these districts stand out for fast growth in their poor populations, they also reflect a broader national trend in which suburbs became home to the largest and fastest-growing poor population in the 2000s.

To voters heading home from the polls, Kneebone’s message is that it’s necessary to demand more commitment from whoever wins the White House and the down-ballot tickets in their area. And for the lawmakers who prevail today, it’s to recognize that American poverty transcends party lines—and will need a bipartisan fix.

About the Author

Most Popular

  1. A photo of the Vianden castle rising above the tree-covered Ardennes hills in northern Luxembourg
    Equity

    Luxembourg’s New Deal: Free Transit and Legal Weed

    It’s not just public transit: The Grand Duchy’s progressive new government also raised the minimum wage and gave everyone two extra days off.

  2. The opulent anteroom to a ladies' restroom at the Ohio Theatre, a 1928 movie palace in Columbus, Ohio.
    Design

    The Glamorous, Sexist History of the Women’s Restroom Lounge

    Separate areas with sofas, vanities, and even writing tables used to put the “rest” in women’s restrooms. Why were these spaces built, and why did they vanish?

  3. A photo of an encampment of homeless people outside Minneapolis,
    Equity

    Why Minneapolis Just Made Zoning History

    The ambitious Minneapolis 2040 plan will encourage more dense housing development in single-family neighborhoods.

  4. Passengers line up for a bullet train at a platform in Tokyo Station.
    Transportation

    The Amazing Psychology of Japanese Train Stations

    The nation’s famed mastery of rail travel has been aided by some subtle behavioral tricks.

  5. Anti-Amazon graffiti in Long Island City, Queens.
    Equity

    Amazon HQ2 and the ‘Gentrification of Jobs’

    Amazon has said each HQ2 site will result in 25,000 jobs. Will the working-class benefit? Will Amazon train locals for future employment?