RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITY
Advancing anti-racist economic research and policyRacial and ethnic disparities in the United StatesAn interactive chartbook
Report • October 15, 2025
BlueskyFacebookLinkedInCopy LinkShare
Originally published June 15, 2022
This interactive chartbook provides a statistical snapshot of race and ethnicity in the United States, depicting racial/ethnic disparities observed through
The chartbook also highlights some notable intersections of gender with race and ethnicity, including educational attainment, labor force participation, life expectancy, and maternal mortality. The findings are bracing, as they show how much more work we need to do to address longstanding and persistent racial inequities.
Most charts include data for five racial/ethnic groups in each of the charts—white, Black, Hispanic, Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI), and American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN). In the charts and text, “Americans” refers to all U.S. residents, regardless of citizenship status.
Data for AAPI and AIAN populations have not always been available from the federal government sources used. Starting in November 2024 this data is included in selected charts identified with a yellow box.
Researchers seeking disaggregated data and statistics for AAPI and AIAN groups are encouraged to look at sources cited in the companion essays in the Anti-Racist Economic Research and Policy Guide: AAPI Data and the Center for Indian Country Development at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
As our efforts illustrate, collecting and maintaining data sources that are representative of the entire U.S. population is an essential first step toward overcoming the invisibility, neglect, and lack of understanding experienced by many communities of color. Future work on this project will involve identifying comparable data from alternative sources that fill in as much of the missing information in the chartbook as possible.
In this interactive chartbook, additional notes and source information can be accessed by clicking on the ellipses ( … ) in the notes and sources lines under the charts.
Population demographics
The U.S. has become more racially and ethnically diverse over the last two decadesShare of U.S. population by race and ethnicity, 2000, 2010, and 2020
1
| White | Black | Hispanic | AAPI | AIAN | Some other race | Two or more races | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 57.8% | 12.1% | 18.7% | 6.1% | 0.7% | 0.5% | 4.1% |
| 2010 | 63.7% | 12.2% | 16.3% | 4.8% | 0.7% | 0.2% | 1.9% |
| 2000 | 69.1% | 12.1% | 12.5% | 3.7% | 0.7% | 0.2% | 1.6% |
6.1%4.8%3.7%18.7%16.3%12.5%12.1%12.2%12.1%57.8%63.7%69.1%WhiteBlackHispanicAAPIAIANSome other raceTwo or more races202020102000
Notes: AAPI refers to Asian American and Pacific Islander, AIAN refers to American Indian and Alaskan Native. Race and ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive (i.e., white non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, AAPI non-Hispanic, AIAN non-Hispanic, and Hispanic any race).
Sources: Economic Policy Institute analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census Summary File 2, Table DP1, for 2000, and Decennial Census Redistricting Data, Table P2, for 2010 and 2020.
Each decennial Census since 2000 has revealed a more racially and ethnically diverse U.S. population. While the share of people who identify as Black (about 12%) or American Indian and Alaskan Native (0.7%) has remained constant, the non-Hispanic white share of the population has declined from 69.1% in 2000 to 57.8% in 2020. On the other hand, a growing share of U.S. residents identify as Hispanic (increasing from 12.5% in 2000 to 18.7% in 2020) or Asian American and Pacific Islander (increasing from 3.7% in 2000 to 6.1% in 2020). These changing population demographics reflect different trends in birth, mortality, and immigration rates across groups. Since 2000, there have also been significant changes in how people identify racially. Notably, a growing share of people identify as being of two or more races (this would include people who, for example, identify as Black and AAPI, but would not include people who identify as Black and Hispanic, as they are identifying Black alone as their race and Hispanic as their ethnicity). Also, a growing but still small share of people identify as being of a race other than those explicitly defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
As Trevon Logan notes in his essay, it is the OMB that issues regulations regarding the classifications of race and ethnicity by federal agencies, including the U.S. Census Bureau, which conducts the major household and business surveys used by researchers. There are six permitted race categories and two ethnicity classifications, Hispanic and non-Hispanic. As such, everyone is a member of both a race and ethnicity. For more on the current classifications, see Logan’s essay.
Share this chart:
While U.S. residents are overwhelmingly citizens, Asian American/Pacific Islander and Hispanic citizens are more likely to be first-generation immigrantsShare of U.S. population by race/ethnicity and nativity, 2024
2
| Born a citizen | Naturalized citizen | Noncitizen | |
|---|---|---|---|
| White | 95.9% | 2.7% | 1.4% |
| Black | 88.6% | 7.1% | 4.4% |
| Hispanic | 66.7% | 12.6% | 20.7% |
| AIAN | 81.3% | 6.1% | 12.6% |
| AAPI | 37.8% | 38.3% | 23.9% |
20.7%12.6%23.9%12.6%38.3%95.9%88.6%66.7%81.3%37.8%Born a citizenNaturalized citizenNoncitizenWhiteBlackHispanicAIANAAPI
Notes: AIAN refers to American Indian and Alaska Native. AAPI refers to Asian American and Pacific Islander. All race categories are single race and do not distinguish Hispanic ethnicity from non-Hispanic ethnicity, except for white, which is exclusive of Hispanic ethnicity (i.e., non-Hispanic white alone, Black alone, AIAN alone, and AAPI alone). Hispanic can be of any race.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2024 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Detailed Tables B05003H, B05003B, B05003D, B05003I, B05003E, and B05003C.
Across all racial and ethnic groups, an overwhelming majority of people in the United States are U.S. citizens, according to data from the Current Population Survey. However, nativity shares vary across racial groups. White persons (95.9%), American Indian and Alaskan Native (AIAN) persons (81.3%), and Black persons (88.6%) are most likely to have been born citizens (born in the United States or to United States citizens abroad), compared with over half of the Hispanic population (66.7%) and more than one-third (37.8%) of the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) population.
Immigration status also varies widely. AAPI residents are most likely to be immigrants: more than one-third (38.3%) were not born U.S. citizens but became U.S. citizens (i.e., are naturalized U.S. citizens), while another 23.9% are not citizens. Hispanic residents are next most likely to be immigrants: 12.6% are naturalized citizens and 20.7% are not citizens. These statistics highlight only a fraction of the diversity represented within and across different racial and ethnic groups. As several essays in the Advancing Anti-Racist Economic Research and Policy guide explain, analyses that use categories or group descriptions that are too broadly defined can lead to inaccurate conclusions.
Share this chart:
The uneven geographic distribution of racial and ethnic populations highlights the influence of state and local policy on racial inequalityShare of state population by race and ethnicity, 2020
3
WhiteBlackHispanicAAPIAIANOtherTwo or more
Maine
Vt.
N.H.
Wash.
Idaho
Mont.
N.D.
Minn.
Ill.
Wis.
Mich.
N.Y.
R.I.
Mass.
Ore.
Nev.
Wyo.
S.D.
Iowa
Ind.
Ohio
Pa.
N.J.
Conn.
Calif.
Utah
Colo.
Neb.
Mo.
Ky.
W.Va.
Va.
Md.
Del.
Ariz.
N.M.
Kan.
Ark.
Tenn.
N.C.
S.C.
D.C.
Okla.
La.
Miss.
Ala.
Ga.
Alaska
Hawaii
Texas
Fla.
21.690.2
Click map to view data.
| State | White | Black | Hispanic | AAPI | AIAN | Some other race | Two or more races |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 63.1% | 25.6% | 5.3% | 1.6% | 0.5% | 0.3% | 3.7% |
| Alaska | 57.5% | 2.8% | 6.8% | 7.6% | 14.8% | 0.6% | 9.8% |
| Arizona | 53.4% | 4.4% | 30.7% | 3.7% | 3.7% | 0.4% | 3.7% |
| Arkansas | 68.5% | 14.9% | 8.5% | 2.2% | 0.7% | 0.3% | 4.9% |
| California | 34.7% | 5.4% | 39.4% | 15.5% | 0.4% | 0.6% | 4.1% |
| Colorado | 65.1% | 3.8% | 21.9% | 3.5% | 0.6% | 0.5% | 4.5% |
| Connecticut | 63.2% | 10.0% | 17.3% | 4.8% | 0.2% | 0.8% | 3.8% |
| Delaware | 58.6% | 21.5% | 10.5% | 4.3% | 0.3% | 0.5% | 4.3% |
| Washington D.C. | 38.0% | 40.9% | 11.3% | 4.9% | 0.2% | 0.5% | 4.3% |
| Florida | 51.5% | 14.5% | 26.5% | 3.0% | 0.2% | 0.6% | 3.7% |
| Georgia | 50.1% | 30.6% | 10.5% | 4.5% | 0.2% | 0.5% | 3.6% |
| Hawaii | 21.6% | 1.5% | 9.5% | 46.8% | 0.2% | 0.4% | 20.1% |
| Idaho | 78.9% | 0.8% | 13.0% | 1.6% | 1.0% | 0.4% | 4.2% |
| Illinois | 58.3% | 13.9% | 18.2% | 5.9% | 0.1% | 0.4% | 3.2% |
| Indiana | 75.5% | 9.4% | 8.2% | 2.5% | 0.2% | 0.4% | 3.9% |
| Iowa | 82.7% | 4.1% | 6.8% | 2.5% | 0.3% | 0.3% | 3.4% |
| Kansas | 72.2% | 5.6% | 13.0% | 3.0% | 0.7% | 0.3% | 5.1% |
| Kentucky | 81.3% | 7.9% | 4.6% | 1.7% | 0.2% | 0.3% | 3.9% |
| Louisiana | 55.8% | 31.2% | 6.9% | 1.9% | 0.6% | 0.4% | 3.4% |
| Maine | 90.2% | 1.8% | 2.0% | 1.3% | 0.5% | 0.3% | 3.9% |
| Maryland | 47.2% | 29.1% | 11.8% | 6.8% | 0.2% | 0.6% | 4.4% |
| Massachusetts | 67.6% | 6.5% | 12.6% | 7.2% | 0.1% | 1.3% | 4.7% |
| Michigan | 72.4% | 13.5% | 5.6% | 3.3% | 0.5% | 0.4% | 4.4% |
| Minnesota | 76.3% | 6.9% | 6.1% | 5.3% | 1.0% | 0.4% | 4.1% |
| Mississippi | 55.4% | 36.4% | 3.6% | 1.1% | 0.5% | 0.2% | 2.8% |
| Missouri | 75.8% | 11.3% | 4.9% | 2.3% | 0.4% | 0.4% | 5.0% |
| Montana | 83.1% | 0.5% | 4.2% | 0.8% | 6.0% | 0.4% | 5.0% |
| Nebraska | 75.7% | 4.8% | 12.0% | 2.7% | 0.8% | 0.3% | 3.7% |
| Nevada | 45.9% | 9.4% | 28.7% | 9.3% | 0.8% | 0.6% | 5.4% |
| New Hampshire | 87.2% | 1.4% | 4.3% | 2.6% | 0.2% | 0.4% | 4.0% |
| New Jersey | 51.9% | 12.4% | 21.6% | 10.2% | 0.1% | 0.8% | 3.1% |
| New Mexico | 36.5% | 1.8% | 47.7% | 1.7% | 8.9% | 0.5% | 2.8% |
| New York | 52.5% | 13.7% | 19.5% | 9.5% | 0.3% | 1.0% | 3.6% |
| North Carolina | 60.5% | 20.2% | 10.7% | 3.3% | 1.0% | 0.4% | 3.9% |
| North Dakota | 81.7% | 3.4% | 4.3% | 1.8% | 4.8% | 0.2% | 3.9% |
| Ohio | 75.9% | 12.3% | 4.4% | 2.6% | 0.2% | 0.4% | 4.3% |
| Oklahoma | 60.8% | 7.2% | 11.9% | 2.5% | 7.9% | 0.3% | 9.4% |
| Oregon | 71.7% | 1.9% | 13.9% | 5.0% | 1.0% | 0.5% | 6.1% |
| Pennsylvania | 73.5% | 10.5% | 8.1% | 3.9% | 0.1% | 0.4% | 3.5% |
| Rhode Island | 68.7% | 5.0% | 16.6% | 3.5% | 0.3% | 1.0% | 4.8% |
| South Carolina | 62.1% | 24.8% | 6.9% | 1.8% | 0.3% | 0.4% | 3.7% |
| South Dakota | 79.6% | 2.0% | 4.4% | 1.6% | 8.4% | 0.2% | 3.9% |
| Tennessee | 70.9% | 15.7% | 6.9% | 2.0% | 0.2% | 0.3% | 3.9% |
| Texas | 39.7% | 11.8% | 39.3% | 5.5% | 0.3% | 0.4% | 3.0% |
| Utah | 75.4% | 1.1% | 15.1% | 3.5% | 0.9% | 0.4% | 3.7% |
| Vermont | 89.1% | 1.3% | 2.4% | 1.8% | 0.3% | 0.4% | 4.6% |
| Virginia | 58.6% | 18.3% | 10.5% | 7.1% | 0.2% | 0.5% | 4.7% |
| Washington | 63.8% | 3.8% | 13.7% | 10.2% | 1.2% | 0.6% | 6.6% |
| West Virginia | 89.1% | 3.6% | 1.9% | 0.9% | 0.2% | 0.3% | 4.0% |
| Wisconsin | 78.6% | 6.2% | 7.6% | 3.0% | 0.8% | 0.3% | 3.5% |
| Wyoming | 81.4% | 0.8% | 10.2% | 1.0% | 2.0% | 0.4% | 4.1% |
Notes: AAPI refers to Asian American and Pacific Islander. AIAN refers to American Indian and Alaskan Native. The “Two or more” category captures the share of people who identify as being of two or more races, and persons in this category are not included in the single race categories.
Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census Redistricting Data, Table P1.
The U.S. Census Bureau projects that Black, Hispanic, AAPI, and other people who do not identify as white will collectively account for over half of the population of the United States by 2044. In California, Hawaii, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and the District of Columbia, the white population is already in the minority, and in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, and New York, white persons make up just over half of the population. This interactive map shows areas of population density for each race or ethnic group (click on a race or ethnic group) along with the racial and ethnic distribution of each state’s population (click on a state). It shows that Southern states and the District of Columbia have the largest shares of residents who are Black, with the highest shares in the District of Columbia (40.9%), Mississippi (36.4%), and Louisiana (31.2%). Southwestern and Western states are home to a large percentage of Latinos, with the highest shares in New Mexico (47.7%), Texas (39.3%), and California (39.4%). AAPI residents, including Native Hawaiians, predictably account for nearly half (46.8%) of the population of Hawaii but are also a significant share of the population in California (15.5%) as well as New Jersey and Washington state (10.2% each). Also, as the group’s name would indicate, American Indian and Alaska Native residents account for the highest share of the population in Alaska (14.8%), followed by New Mexico (8.9%), South Dakota (8.4%), and Oklahoma (7.9%). White Americans account for the largest majority of the population in several Northeastern states (90.2% in Maine, 89.1% in Vermont, and 87.2% in New Hampshire) and West Virginia (89.1%).
The patterns illustrated in the map trace each group’s unique history of settlement, immigration, and migration in this country. But they also help to make a point about the important role that state and local policies play in either improving or worsening racial disparities in the United States. As just one example, EPI research shows that Southern states, which have a high density of Black residents, are more likely than states in other regions to use preemption laws to stop local governments from setting strong labor standards, such as raising the minimum wage and guaranteeing paid sick leave.
For more on preemption laws in the South, see Hunter Blair et al., Preempting Progress: State Interference in Local Policymaking Prevents People of Color, Women, and Low-Income Workers from Making Ends Meet in the South, Economic Policy Institute, September 2020.
Share this chart:
Current population demographics by race/ethnicity and age support projections that people of color will become the collective majority by 2050Share of U.S. population within given age ranges, by race and ethnicity, 2024
4
| Under 18 | 18–24 | 25–54 | 55–64 | 65 and older | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White | 17.8% | 8.1% | 37.1% | 13.9% | 23.0% |
| Black | 24.5% | 10.0% | 41.0% | 11.3% | 13.3% |
| Hispanic | 28.9% | 11.6% | 41.6% | 9.1% | 8.8% |
| AIAN | 27.9% | 10.1% | 42.0% | 9.7% | 10.3% |
| AAPI | 19.9% | 9.0% | 46.1% | 10.9% | 14.2% |
23.0%13.3%8.8%10.3%14.2%13.9%11.3%9.1%9.7%10.9%37.1%41.0%41.6%42.0%46.1%8.1%10.0%11.6%10.1%9.0%17.8%24.5%28.9%27.9%19.9%Under 1818–2425–5455–6465 and olderWhiteBlackHispanicAIANAAPI
Notes: AIAN refers to American Indian and Alaska Native. AAPI refers to Asian American and Pacific Islander. All race categories are single race and do not distinguish Hispanic ethnicity from non-Hispanic ethnicity, except for white, which is exclusive of Hispanic ethnicity (i.e., non-Hispanic white alone, Black alone, AIAN alone, and AIAN alone). Hispanic can be of any race.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2024 Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin, Table NC-EST2024-ASR6H.
The changing racial and ethnic makeup of the U.S. population is foretold in the age distribution of different racial and ethnic groups. In 2024, over a quarter (28.9%) of people who identified as Hispanic were under the age of 18, as were about a quarter of those who identified as Black (24.5%), American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) (27.9%) and a fifth within those who identified as Asian American and Pacific Islander (19.9%). A smaller share of the white population (17.8%) belonged to this younger age cohort while over a third (36.9%) of white residents were near or at retirement age (age 55 or older)—a much larger share than for other racial and ethnic groups. As the current population ages, the older population will remain predominantly non-Hispanic white while Black, Hispanic, AAPI, and AIAN persons will be a growing share of the younger population. This racial and ethnic generation gap will require balancing the interests of a younger, less wealthy, more racially and ethnically diverse population with those of an older, wealthier, predominantly white population. However, these generations are linked in important ways. Older workers and retirees have a stake in worker, economic, and racial justice for those younger workers who in the years ahead will be a growing share of workers driving the national economy and providing many of the services the aging population relies on. Census population projections from 2022 (the latest available) indicate that in 2050, non-Hispanic white persons will account for less than half (48.4%) of the U.S. population (see U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 National Population Projections Tables, Table 4).
Share this chart:
Men’s educational attainment is highly stratified by race and ethnicity, with American Indian and Alaska Native, Hispanic, and Black men most likely to be “working class”Share of men aged 25 and older within given level of educational attainment, by race and ethnicity, 2024
5
| Less than high school | High school | Some college | College | Advanced degree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White | 6.0% | 26.7% | 27.6% | 24.5% | 15.3% |
| Black | 12.3% | 34.7% | 29.5% | 14.8% | 8.7% |
| Hispanic | 27.6% | 30.1% | 23.2% | 12.8% | 6.4% |
| AIAN | 23.5% | 34.7% | 27.1% | 9.9% | 4.8% |
| AAPI | 9.9% | 13.8% | 17.0% | 29.9% | 29.3% |
15.3%8.7%6.4%4.8%29.3%24.5%14.8%12.8%9.9%29.9%27.6%29.5%23.2%27.1%17.0%26.7%34.7%30.1%34.7%13.8%6.0%12.3%27.6%23.5%9.9%Less than high schoolHigh schoolSome collegeCollegeAdvanced degreeWhiteBlackHispanicAIANAAPI
Notes: AIAN refers to American Indian and Alaskan Native. AAPI refers to Asian American and Pacific Islander. All race categories are single race and do not distinguish Hispanic ethnicity from non-Hispanic ethnicity, except for white, which is exclusive of Hispanic ethnicity (i.e., non-Hispanic white alone, Black alone, AIAN alone, and AAPI alone). Hispanic can be of any race.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2024 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Detailed Tables B15002H, B15002B, B15002I, B15002D, B15002C, and B15002E.
The term working class has been used to describe working-age adults who have less than a bachelor’s degree. Based on their high shares without a bachelor’s degree or more education, American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) (85.3%), Hispanic (80.9%), and Black (76.5%) men are more likely to be considered working class (under this definition) than are white (60.3%) or Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) (40.7%) men. Even among the groups of men most likely to be considered working class, there is still a wide range of educational attainment that includes everything from less than a high school diploma to some college. The some college category includes attendance at a four-year or two-year institution, but no degree; it also includes completion of a two-year associate or technical degree. The groups with the highest shares of people with less than a high school education are Hispanic men (27.6%) and AIAN men (23.5%) and 57.7% of Hispanic men and over half of AIAN men (58.2%) have no education beyond high school. While about half (47.0%) of Black men also have no education beyond high school, Black men are more likely than either Hispanic or AIAN men to have a bachelor’s or advanced degree, but still much less likely to have that level of education than either white or AAPI men. AAPI men lead all other racial groups in the share (59.2%) who have a bachelor’s or advanced degree. These patterns of educational attainment are shaped by multiple factors, including differences in immigration policies applied to Asian versus Latin American countries, as well as the legacy of racial discrimination and oppression that severely limited educational opportunities for generations of Black and Native Americans.
Share this chart:
Most women have more than a high school education, but Latinas and AIAN women lag behind other groups in attaining higher educationShare of women aged 25 and older within given level of educational attainment, by race and ethnicity, 2024
6
| Less than high school | High school | Some college | College | Advanced degree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White | 4.9% | 24.2% | 29.2% | 24.7% | 17.1% |
| Black | 9.8% | 27.6% | 32.7% | 16.8% | 13.0% |
| Hispanic | 24.2% | 26.7% | 25.2% | 15.8% | 8.1% |
| AIAN | 19.4% | 28.0% | 32.9% | 12.9% | 6.8% |
| AAPI | 12.0% | 14.1% | 16.9% | 32.2% | 24.7% |
17.1%13.0%8.1%6.8%24.7%24.7%16.8%15.8%12.9%32.2%29.2%32.7%25.2%32.9%16.9%24.2%27.6%26.7%28.0%14.1%9.8%24.2%19.4%12.0%Less than high schoolHigh schoolSome collegeCollegeAdvanced degreeWhiteBlackHispanicAIANAAPI
Notes: AIAN refers to American Indian and Alaskan Native. AAPI refers to Asian American and Pacific Islander. All race categories are single race and do not distinguish Hispanic ethnicity from non-Hispanic ethnicity, except for white, which is exclusive of Hispanic ethnicity (i.e., non-Hispanic white alone, Black alone, AIAN alone, AAPI alone). Hispanic can be of any race. Shares may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2024 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Detailed Tables B15002H, B15002B, B15002I, B15002D, B15002C, and B15002E.
In 2024, across most racial and ethnic groups, at least half of women aged 25 or older had some education beyond a high school diploma. Latinas were the exception—only 49.1% had some level of education beyond high school and 24.2% had less than a high school education, a much higher percentage than any other group of women (1.2 to nearly 5 times as much). Those women least likely to have a bachelor’s or advanced degree were American Indian and Alaskan Native (AIAN) women (19.7%) and Latinas (23.9%). Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) and white women had the highest levels of educational attainment with 56.9% of AAPI women and 41.8% of white women having at least a bachelor’s degree, followed by 29.9% of Black women. As with men, these patterns of educational attainment are shaped by multiple factors, including differences in immigration policies applied to Asian versus Latin American countries, as well as the legacy of racial discrimination and oppression that severely limited educational opportunities for generations of Black and Native Americans. But compared with male educational attainment by race and ethnicity women tend to have higher levels of educational attainment (see Chart 5).
Share this chart:
This chart now includes AIAN and AAPI data
While the Black and AIAN imprisonment rate has decreased, Black and AIAN people are still five times as likely as white people to be imprisonedImprisonment rates per 100,000 U.S. residents by race and ethnicity, 2012–2022
7
| Year | White | Black | Hispanic | AIAN | AAPI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | 296 | 1866 | 939 | 1277 | 132 |
| 2013 | 295 | 1818 | 935 | 1160 | 126 |
| 2014 | 290 | 1749 | 903 | 1232 | 125 |
| 2015 | 281 | 1659 | 871 | 1172 | 124 |
| 2016 | 275 | 1599 | 866 | 1152 | 122 |
| 2017 | 272 | 1543 | 837 | 1183 | 118 |
| 2018 | 268 | 1488 | 804 | 1165 | 116 |
| 2019 | 263 | 1436 | 763 | 1175 | 111 |
| 2020 | 224 | 1238 | 641 | 1030 | 93 |
| 2021 | 222 | 1186 | 619 | 1004 | 90 |
| 2022 | 229 | 1196 | 603 | 1042 | 88 |
1,8661,1961,2771,04293960329622913288BlackAIANHispanicWhiteAAPI201220142016201820202022
Notes: AIAN refers to American Indian and Alaska Native. AAPI refers to Asian American and Pacific Islander. Race and ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive (i.e., white non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, AIAN non-Hispanic, AAPI, non-Hispanic, and Hispanic any race).
Source: Economic Policy Institute compilation of Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Justice Statistics, 2023, Table 6.
In response to the demand for criminal justice reform and a shift away from the “tough on crime” politics of the 1980s and 1990s, imprisonment rates for Black, American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN), Hispanic people have fallen over the last decade. But Black, AIAN, and Hispanic people are still much more likely to be incarcerated than white people, whose imprisonment rate has stagnated over the past decade. Over 1,000 out of every 100,000 U.S. residents who are Black or American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) were imprisoned in 2023, followed by 603 out of 100,000 Latino U.S. residents, 229 out of 100,000 white U.S. residents, and 88 out of 100,000 Asian American and Pacific Islander U.S. residents. Thus, the approximately 1.8 million people held in U.S. prisons at the end of 2022 —an often-forgotten segment of the U.S. population—are disproportionately Black, AIAN, Hispanic, and other people of color.
Data on the size of the overall incarcerated population come from the “Correctional Populations in the United States, 2022—Statistical Tables” published by the U.S. Department of Justice in May 2024.
Share this chart:
This chart now includes AIAN and AAPI data
Black and AIAN men have an exceptionally high imprisonment rateImprisonment rates per 100,000 U.S residents, by race/ethnicity and gender, 2022
8
| 2022 | |
|---|---|
| White women | 40 |
| Black women | 64 |
| Hispanic women | 49 |
| AIAN women | 173 |
| AAPI women | 5 |
| White men | 337 |
| Black men | 1826 |
| Hispanic men | 794 |
| AIAN men | 1443 |
| AAPI men | 141 |
40644917353371,8267941,443141White womenBlack womenHispanic womenAIAN womenAAPI womenWhite menBlack menHispanic menAIAN menAAPI men
Notes: AIAN refers to American Indian and Alaska Native. AAPI refers to Asian American and Pacific Islander. Race and ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive (i.e., white non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, AIAN non-Hispanic, AAPI non-Hispanic, and Hispanic any race).
Source: Economic Policy Institute compilation of Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Justice Statistics, 2023, Table 13.
This chart makes two facts very clear: That imprisonment in the United States is not only a gendered issue—with men being much more likely to be imprisoned—but also an issue of racialized gender, with Black and American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) men being far and away the most highly imprisoned group. Among women, AIAN residents had the highest imprisonment rate (173 per 100,000), followed by Black residents who had an imprisonment rate (64 per 100,000) in 2022. AIAN women were almost three times as likely to be imprisoned as Black women, around four times as likely to be imprisoned as White and Hispanic women, and 34 times as likely to be imprisoned as AAPI women. Among men, Black residents had the highest imprisonment rate (1,826 per 100,000), followed by AIAN men (1,443 per 100,000). Black men were more than twice as likely to be imprisoned as Hispanic men, more than five times as likely to be imprisoned as white men, and almost 13 times as likely to be imprisoned as AAPI men. AIAN men were almost twice as likely to be imprisoned as Hispanic men, more than four times as likely to be imprisoned as white men, and more than ten times as likely to be imprisoned as AAPI men.
Share this chart:
Civic engagement
Consistently higher turnout among white voters was challenged by historic Black voter turnout in 2012 and, to a lesser extent by historic Hispanic and Asian voter turnout in 2020Voter turnout in presidential election years by race and ethnicity, select years 1992 to 2024
9
| White | Black | Hispanic | Asian | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1992 | 70.2% | 59.2% | 51.6% | 53.9% |
| 1996 | 60.7% | 53.0% | 44.0% | 45.0% |
| 2000 | 61.8% | 56.8% | 45.1% | 43.3% |
| 2004 | 67.2% | 60.0% | 47.2% | 44.2% |
| 2008 | 66.1% | 64.7% | 49.9% | 47.6% |
| 2012 | 64.1% | 66.2% | 48.0% | 47.3% |
| 2016 | 65.3% | 59.4% | 47.6% | 49.0% |
| 2020 | 70.9% | 62.6% | 53.7% | 59.7% |
| 2024 | 70.5% | 59.6% | 50.6% | 57.1% |
WhiteBlackHispanicAsian1992199620002004200820122016202020240255075%
Notes: Race and ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive (i.e., white non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, Asian non-Hispanic, and Hispanic any race).
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Historical Reported Voting Rates data, Table A-1.
The right to vote is the most powerful right of U.S. citizenship—and widespread voter participation is essential to a functional democracy. Yet many U.S. citizens ages 18 and older do not vote. Data on voter participation during presidential election years since 1992 reveal that turnout varies significantly by race and ethnicity and changes over time. Since 1992, voter turnout has typically been highest among white voters—ranging from 60.7% to 70.9%—although Black voter turnout saw a huge increase in 2008 and 2012 during the election and reelection of the nation’s first Black president, Barack Obama. In fact, 2012 was the only election in which Black voter turnout (66.2%) exceeded white voter turnout (64.1%). Hispanic and Asian voter turnout was less than 50% in all presidential election years between 1996 and 2016, until both groups had the largest turnout in decades in 2020 (53.7% and 59.7% respectively). In the 2024 presidential election, voter participation declined among Black, Hispanic and AAPI adults. While one’s personal decision to participate in an election can be influenced by any number of factors—including enthusiasm about a particular candidate or confidence in the democratic process—rampant forms of voter suppression in some states undoubtedly contribute to these disparities as well.
For more on the impact of state laws that limit access to voter registration, revoke the right to vote for returning (formerly incarcerated) citizens, or otherwise make it more difficult for certain populations to cast a ballot, see “State Voting Laws,” Brennan Center for Justice, accessed May 5, 2022; “State Voting Rights Tracker,” Voting Rights Lab, accessed May 5, 2022.
Share this chart:
Amid dramatic decline in union membership since the 1970s, Black workers have held onto the highest rate of union membership for decadesUnion membership rates, by race and ethnicity, 1973–2024
10
| Year | White | Black | Hispanic | AAPI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1973 | 23.0% | 29.0% | 31.2% | |
| 1974 | 22.9% | 27.9% | 27.6% | |
| 1975 | 21.4% | 28.4% | 24.9% | |
| 1976 | 21.2% | 29.4% | 24.2% | |
| 1977 | 22.8% | 30.8% | 26.3% | |
| 1978 | 22.1% | 29.5% | 26.1% | |
| 1979 | 23.0% | 32.2% | 26.2% | |
| 1980 | 22.0% | 30.3% | 26.2% | |
| 1981 | 20.8% | 27.4% | 19.6% | |
| 1982 | 20.0% | 27.2% | 20.3% | |
| 1983 | 19.2% | 27.1% | 21.0% | |
| 1984 | 17.8% | 25.7% | 20.2% | |
| 1985 | 17.2% | 24.1% | 18.9% | |
| 1986 | 16.7% | 23.4% | 17.8% | |
| 1987 | 16.3% | 22.4% | 17.2% | |
| 1988 | 16.0% | 22.9% | 16.0% | |
| 1989 | 15.8% | 22.1% | 15.2% | 15.8% |
| 1990 | 15.5% | 21.0% | 14.4% | 16.0% |
| 1991 | 15.4% | 21.1% | 15.3% | 15.9% |
| 1992 | 15.1% | 21.1% | 14.6% | 14.3% |
| 1993 | 15.1% | 20.6% | 14.8% | 14.0% |
| 1994 | 15.0% | 20.2% | 14.2% | 16.0% |
| 1995 | 14.4% | 19.8% | 13.0% | 15.1% |
| 1996 | 14.2% | 18.9% | 12.9% | 12.2% |
| 1997 | 13.9% | 17.8% | 11.8% | 12.5% |
| 1998 | 13.7% | 17.7% | 11.9% | 11.6% |
| 1999 | 13.7% | 17.1% | 11.9% | 12.3% |
| 2000 | 13.4% | 17.2% | 11.2% | 11.5% |
| 2001 | 13.5% | 17.1% | 11.1% | 11.5% |
| 2002 | 13.3% | 17.2% | 10.6% | 11.6% |
| 2003 | 12.8% | 16.5% | 10.7% | 11.6% |
| 2004 | 12.7% | 15.1% | 10.1% | 11.6% |
| 2005 | 12.5% | 15.1% | 10.4% | 11.6% |
| 2006 | 12.1% | 14.5% | 9.8% | 10.8% |
| 2007 | 12.3% | 14.2% | 9.8% | 11.2% |
| 2008 | 12.6% | 14.4% | 10.6% | 11.0% |
| 2009 | 12.6% | 14.0% | 10.2% | 11.7% |
| 2010 | 12.1% | 13.5% | 10.0% | 10.9% |
| 2011 | 12.1% | 13.5% | 9.7% | 10.4% |
| 2012 | 11.4% | 13.2% | 9.8% | 9.8% |
| 2013 | 11.4% | 13.6% | 9.4% | 9.9% |
| 2014 | 11.3% | 13.1% | 9.2% | 10.7% |
| 2015 | 11.2% | 13.3% | 9.4% | 10.1% |
| 2016 | 11.0% | 12.9% | 8.8% | 9.3% |
| 2017 | 11.1% | 12.4% | 9.3% | 9.1% |
| 2018 | 10.8% | 12.4% | 9.1% | 8.8% |
| 2019 | 10.7% | 11.2% | 8.9% | 9.4% |
| 2020 | 11.0% | 12.3% | 9.8% | 9.3% |
| 2021 | 10.7% | 11.6% | 9.0% | 8.2% |
| 2022 | 10.4% | 11.4% | 8.9% | 8.8% |
| 2023 | 10.1% | 11.9% | 9.0% | 8.3% |
| 2024 | 10.0% | 11.7% | 8.5% | 8.9% |
10.0%11.7%8.5%8.9%WhiteBlackHispanicAAPI19801990200020102020102030040%
Notes: AAPI refers to Asian American and Pacific Islander. Race and ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive (i.e., white non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, AAPI non-Hispanic, and Hispanic any race). 1982 data on union membership is the average of 1981 and 1983, as there were no union status questions in the 1982 CPS.
Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of Current Population Survey data from EPI Microdata Extracts, Version 2025.09.11 (2025); https://microdata.epi.org.
Like the constitutional right to vote in civil society, union membership gives workers a voice—in this case, a voice at work. But as the chart shows, since 1973, union membership has declined for all racial and ethnic groups. Union membership is an important metric of the state of the American worker given the role that labor unions play in giving workers a stronger, collective voice to advocate for higher pay, better benefits, and training and promotional opportunities, as well as protections against discrimination and harassment. In a unionized workforce, for example, collective bargaining results in labor contracts that help to create greater transparency through clearly defined policies and pay structures. These contracts help reduce the potential for pay discrimination by limiting an employer’s discretion in paying different wages to comparably qualified individuals doing the same job and by providing workers with critical protections and direct recourse against other forms of exploitation or mistreatment. The benefits of union membership are a likely contributor to the higher union membership rate of Black workers, given their long history of unequal treatment relative to other groups of workers. Between 1973 and 1980, Hispanic workers also had higher rates of union membership than white workers. While the subsequent across the board decrease in union membership has brought union membership rates by race and ethnicity closer together, in 2024, Black workers were still more likely to be union members (11.7%) compared with white workers (10.0%), Asian American and Pacific Islander workers (8.9%), and Hispanic workers (8.5%).
Still, the labor movement, like any other U.S. institution, is not immune to racism. Unions must continue to become more diverse, inclusive, and dynamic as they serve the vital role of leveling the playing field for all workers.
For more on the benefits and protections conferred by union membership, see Celine McNicholas et al., Why Unions Are Good for Workers—Especially in a Crisis Like COVID-19, Economic Policy Institute, August 2020 and Valerie Wilson, “The Costs of Racial and Ethnic Labor Market Discrimination and Solutions That Can Contribute to Closing Employment and Wage Gaps,” testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth, January 20, 2022.
Share this chart:
Labor market
This chart now includes AIAN data
Black women have maintained the highest labor force participation rate amid post-1970 rise in women’s labor force participation overallLabor force participation rate for women by race and ethnicity, 1973–2024
11
| Year | White | Black | Hispanic | AIAN | Asian |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1973 | 44.1% | 49.3% | 41.0% | ||
| 1974 | 45.2% | 49.0% | 42.4% | ||
| 1975 | 45.9% | 48.8% | 43.2% | ||
| 1976 | 46.9% | 49.8% | 44.3% | ||
| 1977 | 48.0% | 50.8% | 44.3% | ||
| 1978 | 49.4% | 53.1% | 46.6% | ||
| 1979 | 50.5% | 53.1% | 47.4% | ||
| 1980 | 51.2% | 53.1% | 47.4% | ||
| 1981 | 51.9% | 53.5% | 48.3% | ||
| 1982 | 52.4% | 53.7% | 48.1% | ||
| 1983 | 52.7% | 54.2% | 47.7% | ||
| 1984 | 53.3% | 55.2% | 49.6% | ||
| 1985 | 54.1% | 56.5% | 49.3% | ||
| 1986 | 55.0% | 56.9% | 50.1% | ||
| 1987 | 55.7% | 58.0% | 52.0% | ||
| 1988 | 56.4% | 58.0% | 53.2% | ||
| 1989 | 57.2% | 58.7% | 53.5% | ||
| 1990 | 57.4% | 58.3% | 53.1% | ||
| 1991 | 57.4% | 57.5% | 52.4% | ||
| 1992 | 57.7% | 58.5% | 52.8% | ||
| 1993 | 58.0% | 57.9% | 52.1% | ||
| 1994 | 58.9% | 58.7% | 52.9% | ||
| 1995 | 59.0% | 59.5% | 52.6% | ||
| 1996 | 59.1% | 60.4% | 53.4% | ||
| 1997 | 59.5% | 61.7% | 55.1% | ||
| 1998 | 59.4% | 62.8% | 55.6% | ||
| 1999 | 59.6% | 63.5% | 55.9% | ||
| 2000 | 59.5% | 63.1% | 57.5% | 59.2% | |
| 2001 | 59.4% | 62.8% | 57.6% | 59.0% | |
| 2002 | 59.3% | 61.8% | 57.6% | 57.8% | 59.1% |
| 2003 | 59.2% | 61.9% | 55.9% | 58.0% | 58.3% |
| 2004 | 58.9% | 61.5% | 56.1% | 57.5% | 57.6% |
| 2005 | 58.9% | 61.6% | 55.3% | 57.4% | 58.2% |
| 2006 | 59.0% | 61.7% | 56.1% | 57.4% | 58.3% |
| 2007 | 59.0% | 61.1% | 56.5% | 57.4% | 58.6% |
| 2008 | 59.2% | 61.3% | 56.2% | 57.5% | 59.4% |
| 2009 | 59.1% | 60.3% | 56.5% | 56.3% | 58.2% |
| 2010 | 58.5% | 59.9% | 56.5% | 54.5% | 57.0% |
| 2011 | 58.0% | 59.1% | 55.9% | 53.1% | 56.8% |
| 2012 | 57.4% | 59.8% | 56.6% | 52.5% | 56.5% |
| 2013 | 56.9% | 59.2% | 55.7% | 53.0% | 57.1% |
| 2014 | 56.7% | 59.2% | 56.0% | 53.5% | 55.8% |
| 2015 | 56.2% | 59.7% | 55.7% | 54.5% | 55.2% |
| 2016 | 56.3% | 59.4% | 55.8% | 55.2% | 55.5% |
| 2017 | 56.4% | 60.3% | 56.4% | 55.2% | 56.4% |
| 2018 | 56.4% | 60.2% | 57.0% | 55.3% | 56.4% |
| 2019 | 56.8% | 60.5% | 57.7% | 55.7% | 57.1% |
| 2020 | 55.7% | 58.8% | 56.4% | 55.3% | 55.5% |
| 2021 | 55.4% | 58.8% | 55.8% | 55.1% | 56.8% |
| 2022 | 56.1% | 59.7% | 57.3% | 54.3% | 57.7% |
| 2023 | 56.5% | 61.0% | 58.7% | 54.9% | 58.1% |
| 2024 | 56.7% | 60.5% | 58.9% | 55.1% | 58.6% |
56.7%60.5%58.9%55.1%58.6%WhiteBlackHispanicAIANAsian198019902000201020204050603070%
Notes: AIAN refers to American Indian and Alaska Native. Race/ethnicity categories are not mutually exclusive; white, Black, and Asian data do not exclude Hispanic workers of each race. Shaded areas denote recessions. AIAN data are 3-year pooled averages to account for sample size restrictions. Please see Appendix Table 1 for 1-year estimates.
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey, Labor Force Participation Rate for Women by Race and Ethnicity data series LNU01300005, LNU01300008, LNU01300011, LNU01335335, and LNU01332342.
The labor force participation rate is an important indicator of economic well-being. It shows the number of people in the labor force—people who are employed or unemployed but looking for work—as a share of the number of civilian, noninstitutionalized people ages 16 and older. Across racial and ethnic groups, women’s labor force participation rose significantly from the 1970s through the 1990s for a number a reasons: increased access to higher education, and the introduction and widespread availability of the birth control pill, to name a few. After leveling off during most of the first decade of the 2000s, labor force participation by women declined during or after the Great Recession of 2007–2009. And it declined again during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and recession as the burden of job losses and care responsibilities disproportionately impacted women. In 2024, Black women had the highest labor force participation rate at 60.5%, followed by Hispanic (58.9%), Asian (58.6%), white (56.7%), and American Indian and Alaska Native women (55.1%). While Latinas have historically had the lowest rates of labor force participation among women, their labor force participation rate had been climbing steadily in the four years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic. Historically, Black women have had stronger labor force attachments than other groups of women. This is part of the legacy of being forced to work as enslaved people, but the necessity of work has continued for Black women who are often co-breadwinners if not sole earners for their households.
For more on the rise of women’s labor force participation from the 1970s see Elisabeth Jacobs and Kate Bahn “Women’s History Month: U.S. women’s labor force participation”, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, March 22, 2019.
Share this chart:
This chart now includes AIAN data
Hispanic men have maintained the highest labor force participation rate even as labor force participation of all men has declined since the 1970sMen’s labor force participation rate by race and ethnicity, 1973–2024
12
| Year | White | Black | Hispanic | AIAN | Asian |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1973 | 79.4% | 73.4% | 81.5% | ||
| 1974 | 79.4% | 72.9% | 81.7% | ||
| 1975 | 78.7% | 70.9% | 80.7% | ||
| 1976 | 78.4% | 70.0% | 79.6% | ||
| 1977 | 78.5% | 70.6% | 80.9% | ||
| 1978 | 78.6% | 71.5% | 81.1% | ||
| 1979 | 78.6% | 71.3% | 81.3% | ||
| 1980 | 78.2% | 70.3% | 81.4% | ||
| 1981 | 77.9% | 70.0% | 80.6% | ||
| 1982 | 77.4% | 70.1% | 79.7% | ||
| 1983 | 77.1% | 70.6% | 80.3% | ||
| 1984 | 77.1% | 70.8% | 80.6% | ||
| 1985 | 77.0% | 70.8% | 80.3% | ||
| 1986 | 76.9% | 71.2% | 81.0% | ||
| 1987 | 76.8% | 71.1% | 81.0% | ||
| 1988 | 76.9% | 71.0% | 81.9% | ||
| 1989 | 77.1% | 71.0% | 82.0% | ||
| 1990 | 77.1% | 71.0% | 81.4% | ||
| 1991 | 76.5% | 70.4% | 80.3% | ||
| 1992 | 76.5% | 70.7% | 80.7% | ||
| 1993 | 76.2% | 69.6% | 80.2% | ||
| 1994 | 75.9% | 69.1% | 79.2% | ||
| 1995 | 75.7% | 69.0% | 79.1% | ||
| 1996 | 75.8% | 68.7% | 79.6% | ||
| 1997 | 75.9% | 68.3% | 80.1% | ||
| 1998 | 75.6% | 69.0% | 79.8% | ||
| 1999 | 75.6% | 68.7% | 79.8% | ||
| 2000 | 75.5% | 69.2% | 81.5% | 76.1% | |
| 2001 | 75.1% | 68.4% | 81.0% | 76.2% | |
| 2002 | 74.8% | 68.4% | 80.2% | 72.5% | 75.9% |
| 2003 | 74.2% | 67.3% | 80.1% | 72.2% | 75.6% |
| 2004 | 74.1% | 66.7% | 80.4% | 71.7% | 75.0% |
| 2005 | 74.1% | 67.3% | 80.1% | 70.6% | 74.8% |
| 2006 | 74.3% | 67.0% | 80.7% | 69.8% | 75.0% |
| 2007 | 74.0% | 66.8% | 80.5% | 69.5% | 75.1% |
| 2008 | 73.7% | 66.7% | 80.2% | 69.6% | 75.3% |
| 2009 | 72.8% | 65.0% | 78.8% | 68.1% | 74.6% |
| 2010 | 72.0% | 65.0% | 77.8% | 66.1% | 73.2% |
| 2011 | 71.3% | 64.2% | 76.5% | 64.4% | 73.2% |
| 2012 | 71.0% | 63.6% | 76.1% | 65.2% | 72.2% |
| 2013 | 70.5% | 63.5% | 76.3% | 65.6% | 73.0% |
| 2014 | 69.8% | 63.6% | 76.1% | 66.3% | 72.4% |
| 2015 | 69.7% | 63.8% | 76.2% | 66.1% | 71.4% |
| 2016 | 69.8% | 64.1% | 76.0% | 66.8% | 72.1% |
| 2017 | 69.5% | 64.6% | 75.8% | 66.3% | 71.9% |
| 2018 | 69.5% | 64.8% | 75.7% | 65.6% | 71.6% |
| 2019 | 69.6% | 64.8% | 75.9% | 64.9% | 71.8% |
| 2020 | 68.2% | 62.6% | 74.9% | 64.7% | 70.9% |
| 2021 | 67.9% | 63.5% | 75.4% | 65.5% | 71.8% |
| 2022 | 68.1% | 65.2% | 75.2% | 65.7% | 72.1% |
| 2023 | 68.2% | 65.6% | 75.1% | 64.9% | 72.8% |
| 2024 | 67.9% | 65.9% | 75.5% | 65.1% | 72.0% |
67.9%65.9%75.5%65.1%72.0%WhiteBlackHispanicAIANAsian19801990200020102020606570758085%
Notes: AIAN refers to American Indian and Alaska Native. Race/ethnicity categories are not mutually exclusive; white, Black, and Asian data do not exclude Hispanic workers of each race. Shaded areas denote recessions. AIAN data are 3-year pooled averages to account for sample size restrictions. Please see Appendix Table 1 for 1-year estimates.
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey, Labor Force Participation Rate for Men by Race and Ethnicity data series LNU01300004, LNU01300007, LNU01300010, LNU01335294, and LNU01332301.
Across all racial and ethnic groups, men’s labor force participation rates have declined significantly since the 1970s, with the sharpest decline occurring during and since the Great Recession of 2007–2009. While this trend in part reflects an aging population with a growing share of retirees, researchers have suggested that labor force participation has fallen among prime-age men (ages 25–54) due to a rise in serious health conditions that are a barrier to work, the emerging opioid crisis, or technological changes that encourage younger men (under age 30) to allocate less time to work and more time to leisure activities like playing video games. Unlike with Black women, who have the highest labor force participation rate among women, Black men in 2024 had the lower labor force participation rates than white and Asian men (65.9%). And unlike with Hispanic women, who have historically had the lowest labor force participation rates among women, Hispanic men have had the highest labor force participation rate, which reached 75.5% in 2024. The ranking of men’s labor force participation rates by race and ethnicity has remained constant over the last three decades.
For more on the likely reasons for declining male labor force participation see Alan Krueger, Where Have All the Workers Gone? An Inquiry into the Decline of the U.S. Labor Force Participation Rate, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, September 2017; and Mark Aguiar et al., “Leisure Luxuries and the Labor Supply of Young Men,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 23552, June 2017.
Share this chart:
This chart now includes AIAN data
Black and AIAN unemployment is consistently higher than unemployment of all other racial and ethnic groupsAnnual unemployment rate by race and ethnicity, 1979–2024
13
| Year | White | Black | Hispanic | AIAN | Asian |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1979 | 5.1% | 12.3% | 8.3% | ||
| 1980 | 6.3% | 14.3% | 10.1% | ||
| 1981 | 6.7% | 15.6% | 10.4% | ||
| 1982 | 8.6% | 18.9% | 13.8% | ||
| 1983 | 8.4% | 19.5% | 13.7% | ||
| 1984 | 6.5% | 15.9% | 10.7% | ||
| 1985 | 6.2% | 15.1% | 10.5% | ||
| 1986 | 6.0% | 14.5% | 10.6% | ||
| 1987 | 5.3% | 13.0% | 8.8% | ||
| 1988 | 4.7% | 11.7% | 8.2% | ||
| 1989 | 4.5% | 11.4% | 8.0% | ||
| 1990 | 4.8% | 11.4% | 8.2% | ||
| 1991 | 6.1% | 12.5% | 10.0% | ||
| 1992 | 6.6% | 14.2% | 11.6% | ||
| 1993 | 6.1% | 13.0% | 10.8% | ||
| 1994 | 5.3% | 11.5% | 9.9% | ||
| 1995 | 4.9% | 10.4% | 9.3% | ||
| 1996 | 4.7% | 10.5% | 8.9% | ||
| 1997 | 4.2% | 10.0% | 7.7% | ||
| 1998 | 3.9% | 8.9% | 7.2% | ||
| 1999 | 3.7% | 8.0% | 6.4% | ||
| 2000 | 3.5% | 7.6% | 5.7% | 7.5% | 3.6% |
| 2001 | 4.2% | 8.6% | 6.6% | 8.8% | 4.5% |
| 2002 | 5.1% | 10.2% | 7.5% | 10.3% | 5.9% |
| 2003 | 5.2% | 10.8% | 7.7% | 10.5% | 6.0% |
| 2004 | 4.8% | 10.4% | 7.0% | 9.6% | 4.4% |
| 2005 | 4.4% | 10.0% | 6.0% | 9.3% | 4.0% |
| 2006 | 4.0% | 8.9% | 5.2% | 7.9% | 3.0% |
| 2007 | 4.1% | 8.3% | 5.6% | 8.1% | 3.2% |
| 2008 | 5.2% | 10.1% | 7.6% | 9.9% | 4.0% |
| 2009 | 8.5% | 14.8% | 12.1% | 13.3% | 7.3% |
| 2010 | 8.7% | 16.0% | 12.5% | 15.1% | 7.5% |
| 2011 | 7.9% | 15.8% | 11.5% | 14.6% | 7.0% |
| 2012 | 7.2% | 13.8% | 10.3% | 12.3% | 5.9% |
| 2013 | 6.5% | 13.1% | 9.1% | 12.8% | 5.2% |
| 2014 | 5.3% | 11.3% | 7.4% | 11.3% | 5.0% |
| 2015 | 4.6% | 9.6% | 6.6% | 9.9% | 3.8% |
| 2016 | 4.3% | 8.4% | 5.8% | 8.9% | 3.6% |
| 2017 | 3.8% | 7.5% | 5.1% | 7.8% | 3.4% |
| 2018 | 3.5% | 6.5% | 4.7% | 6.6% | 3.0% |
| 2019 | 3.3% | 6.1% | 4.3% | 6.1% | 2.7% |
| 2020 | 7.3% | 11.4% | 10.4% | 11.7% | 8.7% |
| 2021 | 4.7% | 8.6% | 6.8% | 8.2% | 5.0% |
| 2022 | 3.2% | 6.1% | 4.3% | 6.2% | 2.8% |
| 2023 | 3.3% | 5.5% | 4.6% | 6.6% | 3.0% |
| 2024 | 3.6% | 6.0% | 5.1% | 6.5% | 3.5% |
3.6%6.0%5.1%6.5%3.5%WhiteBlackHispanicAIANAsian198019902000201020200510152025%
Notes: AIAN refers to American Indian and Alaska Native. Shaded areas denote recessions. Race and ethnicity categories are not mutually exclusive; white, Black, AIAN, and Asian data do not exclude Hispanic workers of each race.
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey, Annual Unemployed Rate by Race and Ethnicity data series LNU04000003, LNU04000006, LNU04000009, LNU04035243, and LNU04032183.
Relative rates of unemployment by race and ethnicity have been remarkably consistent over time. Typically, the annual unemployment rates of American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN), Black, and Hispanic workers are significantly higher than those of white workers. The difference between Asian and white unemployment rates is smaller, and the size of the gap fluctuates, as does which group has the lower unemployment rate. In 2024, this pattern held, with an unemployment rate of 6.5% for AIAN workers, 6.0% for Black workers, followed by 5.1% for Hispanic workers, 3.6% for white workers, and 3.5% for Asian workers. While 2023 saw historical low rates for Black unemployment, one of the most enduring features of the U.S. labor market is the roughly 2-to-1 ratio of the Black and white unemployment rates.
Share this chart:
Higher education typically lowers a worker’s chances of being unemployed but does not eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in unemployment ratesUnemployment rate by race/ethnicity and educational attainment, 2024
14
| White | Black | Hispanic | AAPI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Less than high school | 8.7% | 14.1% | 6.5% | 7.1% |
| High school | 4.0% | 8.7% | 5.8% | 4.5% |
| Some college | 3.2% | 5.4% | 4.0% | 4.4% |
| College | 2.5% | 3.7% | 3.5% | 3.5% |
| Advanced degree | 1.8% | 3.0% | 2.1% | 2.7% |
WhiteBlackHispanicAAPILess than high schoolHigh schoolSome collegeCollegeAdvanced degree
Notes: AAPI refers to Asian American and Pacific Islander. Race and ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive (i.e., white non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, AAPI non-Hispanic, and Hispanic any race).
Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of Current Population Survey basic monthly microdata from EPI Microdata Extracts, Version 2025.9.11 (2025); https://microdata.epi.org.
A breakdown of unemployment rates by race, ethnicity, and education level shows the limits of educational attainment as a factor in addressing inequitable economic outcomes. As the chart shows, racial and ethnic disparities in unemployment rates exist at every level of educational attainment. And Black workers have the highest rates of unemployment among all groups without a college degree. In fact, even at historically low rates of unemployment in 2024, only the most highly educated Black workers approached anything near unemployment rate parity with their white counterparts. The figure also shows that while education can contribute to better outcomes—unemployment rates are lower for all groups at higher levels of education—education alone does not necessarily create equal outcomes. Reading this chart alongside Chart 13 suggests that differences in the average unemployment rates of racial and ethnic groups can only be partially explained by relative differences in education, skill, experience or local labor market conditions—discrimination remains an undeniable factor.
Share this chart:
This chart now includes AIAN data
Black, Hispanic, and AIAN workers earn lower wages and have smaller gender wage disparities than their white and AAPI counterpartsMedian wages by race/ethnicity and gender, 2024
15
| Women | Men | |
|---|---|---|
| White | $25.00 | $30.00 |
| Black | $21.00 | $22.00 |
| Hispanic | $19.50 | $22.00 |
| AIAN | $20.50 | $23.46 |
| AAPI | $27.90 | $35.00 |
$30.00$22.00$22.00$23.46$35.00$25.00$21.00$19.50$20.50$27.90WomenMenWhiteBlackHispanicAIANAAPI
Notes: AAPI refers to Asian American and Pacific Islander and AIAN refers to American Indian and Alaska Native. Race and ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive (i.e., white non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, AAPI non-Hispanic, and Hispanic any race). Wages for AIAN women and men are estimated using pooled years 2020-2024 to address sample size restrictions. Wages are in 2024 dollars.
Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of Current Population Survey basic monthly microdata from EPI Microdata Extracts, Version 2025.9.11 (2025); https://microdata.epi.org.
There are sharp differences in the wages earned by typical workers of different racial groups in the United States. Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) and white workers are paid the highest wages at the median, while Black, Hispanic, and American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) workers are paid significantly less. The gender differences are also greater among AAPI and white workers than among Black, Hispanic and AIAN workers. While AAPI and white men far out-earn AAPI and white women, Black and Hispanic men and women have much more similar median wages.
Share this chart:
Even after controlling for education and other factors known to affect earnings, women—particularly Black and Hispanic women—are paid far less than white menRegression-adjusted hourly wage gaps for women relative to non-Hispanic white men, by race and ethnicity, 2024
16
| Wage share | Wage gap | |
|---|---|---|
| White women | 80.1% | 19.9% |
| Black women | 75.3% | 24.7% |
| Hispanic women | 72.6% | 27.4% |
| AAPI women | 78.5% | 21.5% |
19.9% gap24.7% gap27.4% gap21.5% gap80.1%75.3%72.6%78.5%White womenBlack womenHispanic womenAAPI women
Notes: The hourly wage gap is how much less women make than comparable non-Hispanic white men with the same level of education and experience and in the same geographic location). AAPI refers to Asian American and Pacific Islander. Race and ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive (i.e., white non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, AAPI non-Hispanic, and Hispanic any race).
Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of Current Population Survey basic monthly microdata from EPI Microdata Extracts, Version 2025.9.11 (2025); https://microdata.epi.org.
Women of all racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. have a significant pay penalty by virtue of their gender, even when we account for several factors that could reasonably influence a worker’s productivity or wage rate, including education, marital status, age (a measure of potential experience) and geographic area (a measure of local labor market conditions). Black and Hispanic women face an additional pay penalty by virtue of their race or ethnicity. The chart depicts these wage gaps, presented as how much less women make than non-Hispanic white men. The fact that Black and Hispanic women earn about a quarter less than white men on average when calculating regression-adjusted wage gaps mean, then, that the pay penalty is not a result of differences in formal education between those groups of women and white men. One partial explanation for these wage disparities is occupational segregation, by which women of color are more highly concentrated in occupations with low pay, even relative to their education level. However, women of all races and ethnicities also often earn less than men in the same occupation (not shown in the chart), an indication of potential pay discrimination.
For more on occupational segregation and on gender pay gaps by occupation, see Jessica Schieder and Elise Gould, Women’s Work” and the Gender Pay Gap: How Discrimination, Societal Norms, and Other Forces Affect Women’s Occupational Choices—and Their Pay, Economic Policy Institute, July 2016; Emily Carew and Valerie Wilson, “Latina Equal Pay Day: Latina Workers Remain Greatly Underpaid, Including in Front-Line Occupations,” Working Economics Blog, Economic Policy Institute, October 20, 2021; Valerie Wilson, “Black Women Face a Persistent Pay Gap, Including in Essential Occupations During the Pandemic,” Working Economics Blog, Economic Policy Institute, August 2, 2021.
Share this chart:
Income, poverty, and wealth
This chart now includes AIAN data
Racial and ethnic disparities in median household income have been largely persistent across timeInflation-adjusted median household income (2024 dollars), by race and ethnicity, 1972–2024
17
| Year | White | Black | Hispanic | AIAN | Asian |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1967 | $33,230 | ||||
| 1968 | $35,130 | ||||
| 1969 | $37,520 | ||||
| 1970 | $37,430 | ||||
| 1971 | $36,160 | ||||
| 1972 | $64,730 | $37,250 | $48,160 | ||
| 1973 | $65,700 | $38,340 | $48,150 | ||
| 1974 | $63,570 | $37,490 | $47,940 | ||
| 1975 | $61,780 | $36,810 | $44,050 | ||
| 1976 | $63,740 | $37,150 | $44,980 | ||
| 1977 | $64,260 | $37,180 | $47,010 | ||
| 1978 | $65,940 | $38,890 | $48,780 | ||
| 1979 | $66,070 | $38,250 | $49,230 | ||
| 1980 | $64,640 | $36,590 | $46,410 | ||
| 1981 | $63,440 | $35,090 | $47,480 | ||
| 1982 | $62,830 | $35,020 | $44,410 | ||
| 1983 | $63,090 | $34,910 | $44,670 | ||
| 1984 | $65,060 | $36,310 | $45,800 | ||
| 1985 | $66,390 | $38,630 | $45,530 | ||
| 1986 | $68,660 | $38,680 | $47,070 | ||
| 1987 | $69,990 | $38,880 | $47,970 | ||
| 1988 | $70,750 | $39,250 | $48,710 | ||
| 1989 | $71,180 | $41,440 | $50,240 | $40,563 | |
| 1990 | $69,810 | $40,820 | $48,800 | $43,147 | |
| 1991 | $68,160 | $39,660 | $47,850 | $46,870 | |
| 1992 | $68,460 | $38,570 | $46,470 | $49,147 | |
| 1993 | $68,580 | $39,200 | $45,930 | $48,653 | |
| 1994 | $68,990 | $41,300 | $46,000 | $48,970 | |
| 1995 | $71,330 | $42,960 | $43,860 | $47,297 | |
| 1996 | $72,500 | $43,890 | $46,560 | $45,830 | |
| 1997 | $74,260 | $45,840 | $48,730 | $45,887 | |
| 1998 | $76,620 | $45,770 | $51,150 | $51,010 | |
| 1999 | $78,100 | $49,370 | $54,380 | $54,023 | |
| 2000 | $78,010 | $50,720 | $56,710 | $54,623 | |
| 2001 | $77,430 | $49,280 | $56,120 | $53,533 | |
| 2002 | $77,460 | $47,940 | $54,670 | $53,753 | $86,910 |
| 2003 | $77,290 | $47,960 | $53,380 | $53,293 | $90,110 |
| 2004 | $77,190 | $47,500 | $54,090 | $52,077 | $90,760 |
| 2005 | $77,900 | $47,330 | $55,170 | $51,400 | $93,710 |
| 2006 | $78,140 | $47,650 | $56,320 | $50,027 | $95,750 |
| 2007 | $79,820 | $49,290 | $56,210 | $50,630 | $96,070 |
| 2008 | $77,850 | $47,970 | $53,150 | $49,770 | $92,020 |
| 2009 | $76,660 | $45,860 | $53,540 | $49,933 | $92,150 |
| 2010 | $75,620 | $44,610 | $52,250 | $47,480 | $89,230 |
| 2011 | $74,620 | $43,400 | $52,020 | $45,647 | $87,710 |
| 2012 | $75,320 | $44,020 | $51,530 | $44,607 | $90,680 |
| 2013 | $77,410 | $45,635 | $52,640 | $45,003 | $91,020 |
| 2014 | $77,550 | $45,560 | $54,690 | $48,163 | $95,630 |
| 2015 | $81,080 | $47,530 | $58,150 | $50,163 | $99,390 |
| 2016 | $83,040 | $50,420 | $60,870 | $52,687 | $104,000 |
| 2017 | $85,530 | $49,950 | $63,140 | $51,532 | $102,050 |
| 2018 | $86,880 | $50,870 | $63,280 | $52,335 | $107,200 |
| 2019 | $92,180 | $55,070 | $68,010 | $54,548 | $119,000 |
| 2020 | $90,430 | $55,210 | $66,480 | $57,437 | $114,200 |
| 2021 | $89,550 | $55,450 | $66,570 | $59,047 | $116,400 |
| 2022 | $86,410 | $56,350 | $66,950 | $57,860 | $115,900 |
| 2023 | $91,360 | $57,950 | $67,240 | $57,907 | $115,800 |
| 2024 | $92,530 | $56,020 | $70,950 | $58,033 | $121,700 |
WhiteBlackHispanicAIANAsian19701980199020002010202025,00050,00075,000100,000125,000$150,000
Note: AIAN refers to American Indian and Alaska Native. All race categories are single race and do not distinguish Hispanic ethnicity from non-Hispanic ethnicity, except for white, which is exclusive of Hispanic ethnicity (i.e., non-Hispanic white alone, Black alone, AIAN alone, and Asian alone). Hispanic can be of any race. AIAN data are 3-year pooled averages to account for sample size restrictions. Please see Appendix Table 1 for 1-year estimates.
Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey, Income and Poverty in the United States 2024 data, Table A-2.
In the United States, households of different racial and ethnic backgrounds bring in significantly different amounts of income and have done so for decades. At the median, Black, Hispanic, and American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) households earn the least on an annual basis, while Asian and white households earn the most. It is notable, though, that in 2023, Black households had the highest household income on record and experienced the largest increase in income between 2020 and 2023. Significant gaps in employment opportunities (shown in Chart 13) and lower wage levels (shown in Chart 15) translate into lower incomes among Black, Latino, and AIAN households. Household income is also a function of the number of earners in a household. Though not shown here, past EPI research found that in the pre-pandemic economy, about a third of Black nonelderly households (where the head of household is age 18–64) had two or more earners, compared with nearly half of white and Hispanic nonelderly households. This racial disparity in the number of household earners is not just a function of how many working-age adults live in the household, or family structure, but is another measurable consequence of the persistent 2-to-1 ratio between the Black and white unemployment rates (shown in Chart 13). As income inequality in the United States has increased in general over the past 50 years, disparities between the least and most well-off groups have continued to persist and, in some cases, have grown.
For more on earners per household by race, see Elise Gould and Valerie Wilson, Black Workers Face Two of the Most Lethal Preexisting Conditions for Coronavirus—Racism and Economic Inequality, Economic Policy Institute, June 2020. For more on increasing income inequality, see Elise Gould, “Decades of Rising Economic Inequality in the U.S.,” testimony before the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D.C., March 27, 2019.
Share this chart:
This chart now includes AIAN data
Black and AIAN households are more likely to have the lowest annual incomes—under $25,000 per year in 2024Share of households within given income range by race and ethnicity, 2024
18
| Under $25,000 | $25,000 to $49,999 | $50,000 to $99,999 | $100,000 to $149,999 | $150,000 to $199,999 | $200,000 and over | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White | 11.4% | 15.4% | 26.4% | 17.7% | 11.3% | 17.8% |
| Black | 22.9% | 21.8% | 28.5% | 12.5% | 6.1% | 8.2% |
| Hispanic | 15.1% | 19.7% | 30.9% | 15.9% | 8.3% | 10.2% |
| AIAN | 23.3% | 20.6% | 29.2% | 13.3% | 6.3% | 7.2% |
| Asian | 9.3% | 10.5% | 21.1% | 16.9% | 12.8% | 29.3% |
17.8%8.2%10.2%7.2%29.3%11.3%6.1%8.3%6.3%12.8%17.7%12.5%15.9%13.3%16.9%26.4%28.5%30.9%29.2%21.1%15.4%21.8%19.7%20.6%10.5%11.4%22.9%15.1%23.3%9.3%Under $25,000$25,000 to $49,999$50,000 to $99,999$100,000 to $149,999$150,000 to $199,999$200,000 and overWhiteBlackHispanicAIANAsian
Note: AIAN refers to American Indian and Alaska Native. All race categories are single race and do not distinguish Hispanic ethnicity from non-Hispanic ethnicity, except for white, which is exclusive of Hispanic ethnicity (i.e., non-Hispanic white alone, Black alone, AIAN alone, and Asian alone). Hispanic can be of any race.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey, Income and Poverty in the United States 2024 data, Table A-2.
This chart extends beyond the data on median or midpoint of household income shown in Chart 17 to provide a more detailed look at where different groups fall across the entire household income distribution. In 2024, 22.9% of Black households, 23.3% of American Indian and Alaska Native households, 15.1% of Hispanic households had annual incomes under $25,000, compared with just 11.4% of white households and 9.3% of Asian households. This $25,000 figure is well below the 2024 official poverty threshold for a family of two adults and two children ($31,812). Conversely, 29.3% of Asian households and 17.8% of white households had annual incomes at or above $200,000—the highest income category—compared with only about 6%-10% of Black, AIAN, and Hispanic households.
Poverty threshold data can be found in the U.S. Census Bureau’s Poverty in the United States: 2024 data tables, published September 09, 2025
Share this chart:
This chart now includes AIAN data
Persistently elevated AIAN, Black, and Hispanic child poverty rates have thwarted progress reducing overall child poverty in the U.S.Child poverty rates, by race and ethnicity, 1974–2024
19
| Year | All | White | Black | Hispanic | AIAN | Asian |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1974 | 15.4% | 9.5% | 39.8% | |||
| 1975 | 17.1% | 10.8% | 41.7% | |||
| 1976 | 16.0% | 9.8% | 40.6% | 30.2% | ||
| 1977 | 16.2% | 9.9% | 41.8% | 28.3% | ||
| 1978 | 15.9% | 9.6% | 41.5% | 27.6% | ||
| 1979 | 16.4% | 10.1% | 41.2% | 28.0% | ||
| 1980 | 18.3% | 11.8% | 42.3% | 33.2% | ||
| 1981 | 20.0% | 12.9% | 45.2% | 35.9% | ||
| 1982 | 21.9% | 14.4% | 47.6% | 39.5% | ||
| 1983 | 22.3% | 14.8% | 46.7% | 38.1% | ||
| 1984 | 21.5% | 13.7% | 46.6% | 39.2% | ||
| 1985 | 20.7% | 12.8% | 43.6% | 40.3% | ||
| 1986 | 20.5% | 13.0% | 43.1% | 37.7% | ||
| 1987 | 20.3% | 11.8% | 45.1% | 39.3% | 23.5% | |
| 1988 | 19.5% | 11.0% | 43.5% | 37.6% | 24.1% | |
| 1989 | 19.6% | 11.5% | 43.7% | 36.2% | 36.0% | 19.8% |
| 1990 | 20.6% | 12.3% | 44.8% | 38.4% | 36.2% | 17.6% |
| 1991 | 21.8% | 13.1% | 45.9% | 40.4% | 37.6% | 17.5% |
| 1992 | 22.3% | 13.2% | 46.6% | 40.0% | 39.6% | 16.4% |
| 1993 | 22.7% | 13.6% | 46.1% | 40.9% | 38.3% | 18.2% |
| 1994 | 21.8% | 12.5% | 43.8% | 41.5% | 36.1% | 18.3% |
| 1995 | 20.8% | 11.2% | 41.9% | 40.0% | 37.5% | 19.5% |
| 1996 | 20.5% | 11.1% | 39.9% | 40.3% | 40.4% | 19.5% |
| 1997 | 19.9% | 11.4% | 37.2% | 36.8% | 40.2% | 20.3% |
| 1998 | 18.9% | 10.6% | 36.7% | 34.4% | 38.0% | 18.0% |
| 1999 | 17.1% | 9.4% | 33.2% | 30.3% | 36.9% | 11.9% |
| 2000 | 16.2% | 9.1% | 31.2% | 28.4% | 34.2% | 12.7% |
| 2001 | 16.3% | 9.5% | 30.2% | 28.0% | 32.2% | 11.5% |
| 2002 | 16.7% | 9.4% | 32.3% | 28.6% | 30.2% | 11.7% |
| 2003 | 17.6% | 9.8% | 34.1% | 29.7% | 30.8% | 12.5% |
| 2004 | 17.8% | 10.5% | 33.7% | 28.9% | 31.0% | 9.9% |
| 2005 | 17.6% | 10.0% | 34.5% | 28.3% | 30.9% | 11.1% |
| 2006 | 17.4% | 10.0% | 33.4% | 26.9% | 33.8% | 12.2% |
| 2007 | 18.0% | 10.1% | 34.5% | 28.6% | 32.5% | 12.5% |
| 2008 | 19.0% | 10.6% | 34.7% | 30.6% | 34.0% | 14.6% |
| 2009 | 20.7% | 11.9% | 35.7% | 33.1% | 32.8% | 14.0% |
| 2010 | 22.0% | 12.3% | 39.0% | 34.9% | 37.1% | 14.4% |
| 2011 | 21.9% | 12.5% | 38.8% | 34.1% | 37.5% | 13.5% |
| 2012 | 21.8% | 12.3% | 37.9% | 33.8% | 40.8% | 13.8% |
| 2013 | 20.7% | 12.1% | 36.0% | 31.7% | 38.7% | 12.4% |
| 2014 | 21.1% | 12.3% | 37.1% | 31.9% | 37.8% | 14.0% |
| 2015 | 19.7% | 12.1% | 32.9% | 28.9% | 33.0% | 12.3% |
| 2016 | 18.0% | 10.8% | 30.8% | 26.6% | 30.5% | 11.1% |
| 2017 | 17.5% | 10.6% | 29.7% | 25.0% | 28.1% | 10.9% |
| 2018 | 16.2% | 8.9% | 29.5% | 23.7% | 27.2% | 11.3% |
| 2019 | 14.4% | 8.3% | 26.4% | 20.9% | 25.9% | 7.3% |
| 2020 | 16.0% | 9.9% | 27.6% | 23.1% | 25.0% | 8.4% |
| 2021 | 15.3% | 8.8% | 27.3% | 22.4% | 25.5% | 8.8% |
| 2022 | 15.0% | 9.7% | 22.3% | 21.7% | 30.7% | 8.8% |
| 2023 | 15.3% | 8.7% | 25.0% | 22.5% | 31.8% | 11.6% |
| 2024 | 14.3% | 8.2% | 25.4% | 20.2% | 30.5% | 6.4% |
14.3%8.2%25.4%20.2%30.5%6.4%AllWhiteBlackHispanicAIANAsian1980199020002010202001020304050%
Notes: AIAN refers to American Indian and Alaska Native. All race categories are single race and do not distinguish Hispanic ethnicity from non-Hispanic ethnicity, except for white, which is exclusive of Hispanic ethnicity (i.e., non-Hispanic white alone, Black alone, AIAN alone, and Asian alone). Hispanic can be of any race. AIAN data are 3-year pooled averages to account for sample size restrictions. Please see Appendix Table 1 for 1-year estimates.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey Poverty in the United States, Table A-3.
A cruel and unfortunate reality of structural racism in the U.S. economy is that even in the “best” of economic times, Black, American Indian, and Alaska Native (AIAN), and Hispanic children experience much higher rates of poverty than white children. In 2024, 30.5% of AIAN children, 25.4% of Black children and 20.2% of Hispanic children lived below the official poverty threshold, compared with just 8.2% of non-Hispanic white children 6.4% of Asian children. While child poverty has fallen significantly for Black, Hispanic, and Asian American children over the past 40 years, Black and Hispanic child poverty rates remained over 20% in 2024. Additionally, in 2024, AIAN children had the highest rates of child poverty at over 30 percent (30.5%). This large and persistent disparity in child poverty combined with the fact that Black and Hispanic children have become an increasing share of the underage 18 population over time (see Chart 1 and Chart 4) has resulted in very little change in the overall child poverty rate since 1974. Given the long-term effects of exposure to poverty in childhood, addressing these persistent disparities must play a role in our approach toward building equity and moving the needle on child poverty.
For more on the long-term effects of exposure to poverty in childhood, see Kerris Cooper and Kitty Stewart, “Does Money Affect Children’s Outcomes? An Update,” CASEpapers (203), The London School of Economics and Political Science, July 2017; Randall Akee et al., “Parents’ Incomes and Children’s Outcomes: A Quasi-Experiment,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, January 2010.
Share this chart:
This chart now includes AIAN data
Poverty rates are higher among AIAN, Black and Hispanic working-age adultsPoverty rates for age 18–64, by race and ethnicity, 1974–2024
20
| Year | All | White | Black | Hispanic | AIAN | Asian |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1974 | 8.3% | 5.9% | 22.6% | |||
| 1975 | 9.2% | 6.8% | 23.1% | |||
| 1976 | 9.0% | 6.4% | 23.9% | 20.1% | ||
| 1977 | 8.8% | 6.4% | 23.3% | 17.9% | ||
| 1978 | 8.7% | 6.4% | 22.7% | 16.8% | ||
| 1979 | 8.9% | 6.3% | 23.8% | 16.8% | ||
| 1980 | 10.1% | 7.2% | 25.6% | 20.2% | ||
| 1981 | 11.1% | 8.2% | 26.8% | 20.3% | ||
| 1982 | 12.0% | 8.9% | 28.1% | 23.8% | ||
| 1983 | 12.4% | 9.1% | 29.2% | 22.5% | ||
| 1984 | 11.7% | 8.5% | 26.7% | 22.5% | ||
| 1985 | 11.3% | 8.4% | 24.3% | 22.6% | ||
| 1986 | 10.8% | 7.8% | 24.3% | 21.5% | ||
| 1987 | 10.6% | 7.2% | 25.3% | 21.4% | 12.7% | |
| 1988 | 10.5% | 7.1% | 24.4% | 20.7% | 14.4% | |
| 1989 | 10.2% | 7.0% | 23.3% | 20.9% | 22.9% | 12.1% |
| 1990 | 10.7% | 7.3% | 24.5% | 22.5% | 22.5% | 9.6% |
| 1991 | 11.4% | 7.9% | 25.1% | 22.7% | 22.2% | 12.3% |
| 1992 | 11.9% | 8.1% | 25.8% | 24.0% | 24.2% | 11.2% |
| 1993 | 12.4% | 8.4% | 26.2% | 25.2% | 22.9% | 14.0% |
| 1994 | 11.9% | 8.2% | 23.4% | 24.8% | 22.3% | 13.4% |
| 1995 | 11.4% | 7.5% | 22.5% | 24.9% | 22.1% | 12.4% |
| 1996 | 11.4% | 7.6% | 22.4% | 23.3% | 23.9% | 12.7% |
| 1997 | 10.9% | 7.6% | 20.5% | 21.7% | 23.4% | 11.3% |
| 1998 | 10.5% | 7.3% | 20.3% | 20.8% | 20.8% | 10.0% |
| 1999 | 10.1% | 7.0% | 18.6% | 18.5% | 19.9% | 10.2% |
| 2000 | 9.6% | 6.7% | 17.9% | 17.7% | 19.8% | 8.9% |
| 2001 | 10.1% | 7.2% | 18.7% | 17.7% | 20.2% | 9.7% |
| 2002 | 10.6% | 7.5% | 19.9% | 18.1% | 19.2% | 9.7% |
| 2003 | 10.8% | 7.6% | 19.4% | 18.7% | 19.4% | 11.3% |
| 2004 | 11.3% | 8.3% | 20.3% | 18.2% | 21.3% | 9.3% |
| 2005 | 11.1% | 7.8% | 20.4% | 18.3% | 23.2% | 11.0% |
| 2006 | 10.8% | 7.8% | 19.9% | 17.3% | 24.7% | 9.4% |
| 2007 | 10.9% | 7.7% | 19.8% | 17.9% | 24.3% | 9.2% |
| 2008 | 11.7% | 8.3% | 20.6% | 19.3% | 23.6% | 10.9% |
| 2009 | 12.9% | 9.3% | 22.0% | 21.4% | 23.4% | 11.4% |
| 2010 | 13.8% | 9.9% | 23.4% | 22.6% | 24.2% | 11.1% |
| 2011 | 13.7% | 9.8% | 24.1% | 21.1% | 25.0% | 11.9% |
| 2012 | 13.7% | 9.7% | 23.9% | 21.6% | 27.1% | 10.9% |
| 2013 | 13.5% | 9.8% | 23.2% | 20.4% | 27.2% | 11.1% |
| 2014 | 13.5% | 10.0% | 22.6% | 19.8% | 26.4% | 10.9% |
| 2015 | 12.4% | 8.9% | 21.3% | 17.8% | 23.0% | 11.0% |
| 2016 | 11.6% | 8.8% | 18.9% | 15.8% | 21.3% | 9.5% |
| 2017 | 11.2% | 8.5% | 18.5% | 15.1% | 20.0% | 9.3% |
| 2018 | 10.7% | 8.1% | 17.5% | 14.2% | 19.9% | 9.4% |
| 2019 | 9.4% | 7.1% | 15.9% | 13.0% | 18.4% | 7.0% |
| 2020 | 10.5% | 8.2% | 16.7% | 14.1% | 18.2% | 7.3% |
| 2021 | 10.5% | 8.0% | 16.7% | 14.4% | 19.0% | 8.6% |
| 2022 | 10.6% | 8.5% | 14.9% | 14.6% | 20.9% | 7.7% |
| 2023 | 10.0% | 7.6% | 14.5% | 13.8% | 20.3% | 7.9% |
| 2024 | 9.6% | 7.3% | 15.6% | 12.3% | 20.2% | 7.0% |
9.6%7.3%15.6%12.3%20.2%7.0%AllWhiteBlackHispanicAIANAsian198019902000201020200102030%
Notes: AIAN refers to American Indian and Alaska Native. All race categories are single race and do not distinguish Hispanic ethnicity from non-Hispanic ethnicity, except for white, which is exclusive of Hispanic ethnicity (i.e., non-Hispanic white alone, Black alone, AIAN alone, and Asian alone).Hispanic can be of any race. AIAN data are 3-year pooled averages to account for sample size restrictions. Please see Appendix Table 1 for 1-year estimates.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey Poverty in the United States, Table A-3.
While poverty across the working-age population (ages 18 to 64) is lower than that for children (see Chart 19), disparities by race and ethnicity follow a similar trend, with American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN), Black, and Hispanic adults more likely to be impoverished than white and Asian adults. Poverty is a measure of economic deprivation, and among working-age adults in particular, reflects disparities in unemployment, wages, and income. Life circumstances, such as severe disability and major illness—which can also limit earned income or quickly deplete any available savings—also contribute to poverty for this age group. The racially coded misrepresentation of poverty as some kind of moral or cultural pathology has hindered the political will needed to sustain and strengthen vital income supports that have proven effective in fighting poverty.
For more on the misrepresentation of poverty as a cultural pathology see William “Sandy” Darity Jr., “Revisiting the Debate on Race and Culture: The New (Incorrect) Harvard/Washington Consensus.” Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 8, no. 2, 467–476. For more on the vital income supports that would lessen poverty see Asha Banerjee and Ben Zipperer, “Social Insurance Programs Cushioned the Blow of the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020,” Working Economics Blog, Economic Policy Institute, September 14, 2021.
Share this chart:
This chart now includes AIAN data
There are large racial disparities in poverty at older ages (65 and older)—likely reflecting differences in retirement preparedness and/or lifetime income disparitiesPoverty rates for people ages 65 and older, by race and ethnicity, 1974–2024
21
| Year | All | White | Black | Hispanic | AIAN | Asian |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1974 | 14.6% | 12.5% | 34.3% | |||
| 1975 | 15.3% | 13.0% | 36.3% | |||
| 1976 | 15.0% | 12.8% | 34.8% | 27.7% | ||
| 1977 | 14.1% | 11.7% | 36.3% | 21.9% | ||
| 1978 | 14.0% | 11.8% | 33.9% | 23.2% | ||
| 1979 | 15.2% | 12.9% | 36.2% | 26.8% | ||
| 1980 | 15.7% | 13.2% | 38.1% | 30.8% | ||
| 1981 | 15.3% | 12.7% | 39.0% | 25.7% | ||
| 1982 | 14.6% | 12.0% | 38.2% | 26.6% | ||
| 1983 | 13.8% | 11.4% | 36.0% | 22.1% | ||
| 1984 | 12.4% | 10.3% | 31.7% | 21.5% | ||
| 1985 | 12.6% | 10.5% | 31.5% | 23.9% | ||
| 1986 | 12.4% | 10.3% | 31.0% | 22.5% | ||
| 1987 | 12.5% | 10.0% | 32.4% | 27.5% | 15.0% | |
| 1988 | 12.0% | 9.5% | 32.2% | 22.4% | 13.5% | |
| 1989 | 11.4% | 9.2% | 30.7% | 20.6% | 24.7% | 7.4% |
| 1990 | 12.2% | 9.6% | 33.8% | 22.5% | 25.0% | 12.1% |
| 1991 | 12.4% | 9.8% | 33.8% | 20.8% | 23.3% | 12.7% |
| 1992 | 12.9% | 10.5% | 33.5% | 22.1% | 24.6% | 10.8% |
| 1993 | 12.2% | 10.1% | 28.0% | 21.4% | 23.0% | 15.6% |
| 1994 | 11.7% | 9.6% | 27.4% | 22.6% | 21.3% | 13.0% |
| 1995 | 10.5% | 8.3% | 25.4% | 23.5% | 19.7% | 14.3% |
| 1996 | 10.8% | 8.6% | 25.3% | 24.4% | 22.1% | 9.7% |
| 1997 | 10.5% | 8.1% | 26.0% | 23.8% | 21.2% | 12.3% |
| 1998 | 10.5% | 8.2% | 26.4% | 21.0% | 17.6% | 12.4% |
| 1999 | 9.7% | 7.6% | 22.8% | 20.5% | 17.7% | 11.1% |
| 2000 | 9.9% | 7.9% | 21.8% | 20.9% | 20.8% | 9.3% |
| 2001 | 10.1% | 8.1% | 21.9% | 21.8% | 22.4% | 10.2% |
| 2002 | 10.4% | 8.3% | 23.8% | 21.4% | 22.0% | 8.4% |
| 2003 | 10.2% | 8.0% | 23.7% | 19.5% | 20.0% | 14.3% |
| 2004 | 9.8% | 7.5% | 23.8% | 18.4% | 20.2% | 13.5% |
| 2005 | 10.1% | 7.9% | 23.3% | 19.9% | 18.6% | 12.8% |
| 2006 | 9.4% | 7.0% | 22.7% | 19.4% | 21.6% | 12.0% |
| 2007 | 9.7% | 7.4% | 23.2% | 17.1% | 23.5% | 11.3% |
| 2008 | 9.7% | 7.6% | 20.0% | 19.3% | 23.2% | 12.1% |
| 2009 | 8.9% | 6.6% | 19.5% | 18.3% | 20.4% | 15.8% |
| 2010 | 8.9% | 6.8% | 17.9% | 18.0% | 18.0% | 14.4% |
| 2011 | 8.7% | 6.7% | 17.3% | 18.7% | 16.3% | 11.7% |
| 2012 | 9.1% | 6.8% | 18.2% | 20.6% | 16.9% | 12.3% |
| 2013 | 9.9% | 7.6% | 18.2% | 20.1% | 18.4% | 15.2% |
| 2014 | 10.0% | 7.8% | 19.2% | 18.1% | 20.1% | 14.7% |
| 2015 | 8.8% | 6.6% | 18.4% | 17.5% | 19.0% | 11.8% |
| 2016 | 9.3% | 7.1% | 18.7% | 17.4% | 19.3% | 11.8% |
| 2017 | 9.4% | 7.3% | 19.2% | 16.9% | 18.9% | 11.3% |
| 2018 | 9.7% | 7.3% | 18.9% | 19.5% | 19.0% | 11.7% |
| 2019 | 8.9% | 6.8% | 18.0% | 17.1% | 19.1% | 9.3% |
| 2020 | 8.9% | 6.8% | 17.2% | 16.6% | 18.4% | 11.4% |
| 2021 | 10.3% | 8.0% | 17.8% | 18.7% | 18.8% | 13.3% |
| 2022 | 10.2% | 8.2% | 17.6% | 16.9% | 16.6% | 12.9% |
| 2023 | 9.7% | 7.2% | 19.9% | 17.3% | 17.2% | 11.0% |
| 2024 | 9.9% | 7.7% | 18.1% | 17.7% | 17.7% | 10.9% |
9.9%7.7%18.1%17.7%17.7%10.9%AllWhiteBlackHispanicAIANAsian19801990200020102020010203040%
Notes: AIAN refers to American Indian and Alaska Native. All race categories are single race and do not distinguish Hispanic ethnicity from non-Hispanic ethnicity, except for white, which is exclusive of Hispanic ethnicity (i.e., non-Hispanic white alone, Black alone, AIAN alone, and Asian alone).Hispanic can be of any race. AIAN data are 3-year pooled averages to account for sample size restrictions. Please see Appendix Table 1 for 1-year estimates.
Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey Poverty in the United States, Table A-3.
The poverty seen among older Americans in the chart is most likely the result of a lifetime of low earnings and a lack of retirement preparedness. While research shows that Social Security plays a critical role in keeping poverty rates among older Americans lower than they otherwise would have been (not depicted in the chart), older Black, Hispanic, and American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) adults still have relatively high poverty rates. Older Asian Americans are also more likely to live in poverty than older white Americans. Additionally, older Asian Americans have higher poverty rates than younger Asian Americans (see Chart 19 and Chart 20). This is likely due to a larger share of older Asian Americans having worked comparatively few years in the United States, or in jobs where they were unable to accumulate the necessary years for Social Security eligibility, leaving them less able to take advantage of work-based social safety net programs like Social Security.
For more on the causes of poverty among older Americans and the capacity of Social Security to lift older Americans—particularly women and people of color—out of poverty, see Kathleen Romig, Social Security Lifts More People Above the Poverty Line Than Any Other Program, Center on Budget and Policy priorities, April 2022. For more on the economic condition of the older Asian American population, see Victoria Tran, “Asian American Seniors Are Often Left Out of the National Conversation on Poverty,” Urban Wire (Urban Institute blog), May 31, 2017.
Share this chart:
This chart now includes Asian data
Racial wealth disparities are stark and persistent, reflecting a history of exploitation and exclusionMedian family net worth by race and ethnicity, selected years from 1989 to 2022
22
| Year | White | Black | Hispanic | Asian |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1989 | $166,417 | $9,914 | $11,528 | |
| 1992 | $144,416 | $20,513 | $14,069 | |
| 1995 | $148,641 | $21,135 | $24,193 | |
| 1998 | $175,004 | $28,262 | $17,923 | |
| 2001 | $205,742 | $32,309 | $19,587 | |
| 2004 | $221,503 | $32,054 | $24,103 | |
| 2007 | $245,445 | $30,051 | $30,194 | |
| 2010 | $177,212 | $21,716 | $22,604 | |
| 2013 | $180,615 | $16,649 | $17,565 | |
| 2016 | $210,906 | $21,152 | $25,555 | |
| 2019 | $219,206 | $27,937 | $41,789 | |
| 2022 | $284,310 | $44,100 | $62,120 | $536,020 |
WhiteBlackHispanicAsian1989199219951998200120042007201020132016201920220200,000400,000$600,000
White
1995: $148,641
Notes: Race and ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive (i.e., white non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, Asian non-Hispanic and Hispanic any race).
Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of Survey of Consumer Finances data from the Federal Reserve Board.
The chart shows sharp racial and ethnic disparities in net worth observed across time in the United States. Though not shown in the chart, these disparities reflect the differences in lived economic experiences between white, Black, Hispanic, and Asian families. Wealth can be accumulated both within and across generations, such that a high net worth can result from the benefit of prime earning years with 1) relatively few employment disruptions, 2) access to wealth-building savings and investment vehicles, 3) relatively few serious negative health shocks, and 4) well-timed wealth transfers from parents and grandparents. The typical white household has many times the wealth of the typical Black or Hispanic household due to 1) their privileged position in the American labor market, which grants them access to more consistent and higher-quality employment opportunities, 2) their more limited exposure to the health risks brought on by poorer living conditions and discrimination, and 3) their history of access to wealth-building opportunities from which other groups have been excluded.
In 2022, the Survey of Consumer Finances reported household wealth data for the Asian American population for the first time. Asian household wealth far outstrips that of other households in 2022, though this statistic should be couched with appropriate context: Asian Americans are an incredibly diverse group with varying economic circumstances related to, among other things, immigration history and country of origin; moreover, the SCF oversamples households that are likely to be wealthy. Further disaggregation of wealth data by immigration history could be useful in illuminating wealth disparities within the Asian American population.
For more on the systemic barriers to Black wealth building see Natasha Hicks, Fenaba Addo, Anne Price, and William Darity Jr., Still Running Up the Down Escalator: How Narratives Shape Our Understanding of Racial Wealth Inequality, The Samuel Dubois Cook Center on Social Equity, 2021. For more on the barriers to Hispanic wealth building see Dedrick Asante-Muhammad, Alexandra Perez, and Jamie Buell, “Racial Wealth Snapshot: Latino Americans.” National Community Reinvestment Coalition, September 17, 2021.
Share this chart:
Health
This chart now includes AIAN and Asian data
Racial disparities in life expectancy reflect the cumulative disadvantage of living as a minority in the United StatesWomen’s and men’s life expectancy at birth, by race and ethnicity, 2022
23
| Women | Men | |
|---|---|---|
| White | 80.1 | 75.1 |
| Black | 76.5 | 69.1 |
| Hispanic | 82.8 | 77.0 |
| AIAN | 71.3 | 64.5 |
| Asian | 86.3 | 82.3 |
75.169.177.064.582.380.1 years76.582.871.386.3WomenMenWhiteBlackHispanicAIANAsian
Notes: AIAN refers to American Indian and Alaska Native. Race and ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive (i.e., white non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, Asian non-Hispanic, AIAN non-Hispanic, and Hispanic any race).
Source: National Vital Statistics Reports, United States Life Tables, 2022, Table A.
Racial disparities in life expectancy have been documented as far back as statistics on life expectancy have been recorded in the U.S, with clear and persistent distinctions between privileged groups and disadvantaged groups. That is, rather than groups shifting in their ranking of life expectancy randomly across time, there are distinct patterns in which groups live longer lives than others. In general, Black and AIAN women and men live much shorter lives than white and Asian women and men.
In 2022, Asian American women and men had the longest life expectancies, at 86.3 years and 82.3 years respectively. AIAN women and men had the lowest life expectancies, at 64.5 years and 71.3 years respectively. This massive gap in life expectancy approaching two decades can be attributed to several factors, many of which are structural and rooted in economic disparity. In recent years, life expectancy gains have disproportionately gone to those in the highest income categories, who are disproportionately white and Asian (see Chart 18). Alongside the history of white supremacy and anti-Black racism in the United States, these economic roots of also help to explain persistent the persistent Black-white gap in life expectancy. That Black-white gap has fluctuated somewhat over the past decade, shrinking due to the impact of opioid-related “deaths of despair” on lowering white life expectancy, and reopening as COVID-19 related mortality disproportionately impacted Black and brown communities.
Hispanic women and men tend to live longer than white women and men, though that life expectancy advantage has been shown to diminish with subsequent generations of U.S.-born Latinos. This suggests that there may be something uniquely deleterious about living as a minority in the United States.
For more on gaps in life expectancy, effects of the opioid crisis, and Hispanic life expectancy see Congressional Research Service, The Growing Gap in Life Expectancy by Income: Recent Evidence and Implications for the Social Security Retirement Age, CRS Report R44846, July 6, 2021; Helena Hansen and Julie Netherland, “Is the Prescription Opioid Epidemic a White Problem?” American Journal of Public Health 106, no. 12 (December 2016), 2127–2129 (doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303483); Osea Giuntella, “The Hispanic Health Paradox: New Evidence from Longitudinal Data on Second and Third-Generation Birth Outcomes,” SSM – Population Health, vol. 2 (December 2016), 84–89 (doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.02.013).
Share this chart:
The Affordable Care Act significantly reduced uninsured rates across racial and ethnic groups, but disparities remainUninsured rates by race and ethnicity, 2008–2024
24
| Year | White | Black | Hispanic | AIAN | AAPI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 10.2% | 17.1% | 30.8% | 29.8% | 14.2% |
| 2009 | 10.7% | 18.1% | 31.0% | 29.2% | 14.9% |
| 2010 | 10.9% | 18.2% | 30.9% | 29.2% | 15.7% |
| 2011 | 10.7% | 17.7% | 29.8% | 27.6% | 15.4% |
| 2012 | 10.4% | 17.3% | 29.0% | 27.4% | 15.1% |
| 2013 | 10.2% | 17.1% | 28.4% | 26.9% | 14.7% |
| 2014 | 8.1% | 13.6% | 23.5% | 23.1% | 10.7% |
| 2015 | 6.3% | 11.0% | 19.5% | 20.7% | 7.9% |
| 2016 | 5.7% | 9.7% | 18.0% | 19.2% | 6.9% |
| 2017 | 5.9% | 10.0% | 17.8% | 19.3% | 6.8% |
| 2018 | 6.0% | 10.1% | 17.9% | 19.1% | 6.5% |
| 2019 | 6.3% | 10.1% | 18.7% | 19.1% | 6.8% |
| 2020 | |||||
| 2021 | 5.7% | 9.6% | 17.7% | 19.6% | 6.0% |
| 2022 | 5.3% | 8.7% | 16.8% | 18.5% | 5.7% |
| 2023 | 5.1% | 8.5% | 16.6% | 18.3% | 5.5% |
| 2024 | 5.3% | 8.9% | 17.0% | 18.9% | 5.4% |
5.3%8.9%17.0%18.9%5.4%WhiteBlackHispanicAIANAAPI2010202020150102030%40
Notes: AIAN refers to American Indian and Alaska Native. AAPI refers to Asian American and Pacific Islander. All race categories are single race and do not distinguish Hispanic ethnicity from non-Hispanic ethnicity, except for white, which is exclusive of Hispanic ethnicity (i.e., non-Hispanic white alone, Black alone, AIAN alone, and AAPI alone). Hispanic can be of any race. Data for 2020 are not available as a result of disruptions to data collection stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement, Health Insurance Historical Tables, Table HIC-9_ACS.
The Affordable Care Act (the ACA or “Obamacare”) expanded health insurance coverage to middle- and low-income Americans, which disproportionately benefited those groups with the least access—Hispanic Americans and American Indians and Alaska Natives (AIAN), and to a lesser extent Black Americans. Despite the marked improvement in health insurance coverage rates since the implementation of ACA, disparities between groups remain stark, with Hispanic and AIAN uninsured rates double Black rates, and approaching four times as high as the uninsured rates of white and Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPI). Early diagnosis and treatment are essential to minimizing the severity of chronic illnesses, and regular health care is important for promoting better overall health. The lack of health insurance often results in a choice to delay receiving health care until one’s condition is critical, contributing to racial disparities in health outcomes and life expectancy.
For more on how the ACA expanded health coverage, particularly to certain groups, see Samantha Artiga, Latoya Hill, Kendal Orgera, and Anthony Damico. “Health Coverage by Race and Ethnicity, 2010–2019,” Kaiser Family Foundation, July 16, 2021; Jesse Cross-Call, Medicaid Expansion Has Helped Narrow Racial Disparities in Health Coverage and Access to Care, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, October 2020.
Share this chart:
This chart now includes Asian data
Black mothers are far more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than are white and Hispanic mothersPregnancy-related deaths per 100,000 live births by race and ethnicity, 2023
25
| Pregnancy-related deaths | |
|---|---|
| White | 14.5 |
| Black | 50.3 |
| Hispanic | 12.4 |
| Asian | 10.7 |
14.550.312.410.7WhiteBlackHispanicAsian
Notes: Race and ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive (i.e., white non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, Asian, non-Hispanic, and Hispanic any race).
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Maternal Mortality Rates 2023 Figure 2.
Maternal mortality rates are a stark indicator of racial disparities in public health in the United States. Black women are over twice as likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause as white women, almost three times as likely as Hispanic women, and almost four times as likely as Asian women. Although not shown in the chart, these racial disparities persist regardless of a woman’s social or economic status. Health status and differential access to quality prenatal care play a major role in maintaining these disparities, as does structural racism more generally. To adequately address these disparities in maternal health outcomes, we must confront racism and bias in the U.S. health care system and the implications for how health care providers and personnel communicate with and treat patients.
For more on the causes and solutions to Black maternal mortality, see “Working Together to Reduce Black Maternal Mortality,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, April 6, 2022.
Share this chart:
Appendix
AIAN population 1-year estimates and 3-year rolling averages, select charts
| Chart 11. Women’s Labor Force Participation Rate | Chart 12. Men’s Labor Force Participation Rate | Chart 17. Inflation-adjusted median household income (2024 dollars) | Chart 19. Child poverty rate | Chart 20. Poverty rates for age 18–64 | Chart 21. Poverty rates for people ages 65 and older | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 1-year estimate | 3-year rolling average | 1-year estimate | 3-year rolling average | 1-year estimate | 3-year rolling average | 1-year estimate | 3-year rolling average | 1-year estimate | 3-year rolling average | 1-year estimate | 3-year rolling average |
| 1987 | $42,480 | 36.6% | 24.8% | 21.3% | ||||||||
| 1988 | $39,470 | 39.5% | 24.9% | 28.7% | ||||||||
| 1989 | $39,740 | $40,563 | 31.8% | 36.0% | 19.0% | 22.9% | 24.2% | 24.7% | ||||
| 1990 | $50,230 | $43,147 | 37.4% | 36.2% | 23.5% | 22.5% | 22.1% | 25.0% | ||||
| 1991 | $50,640 | $46,870 | 43.5% | 37.6% | 24.1% | 22.2% | 23.7% | 23.3% | ||||
| 1992 | $46,570 | $49,147 | 37.8% | 39.6% | 25.0% | 24.2% | 27.9% | 24.6% | ||||
| 1993 | $48,750 | $48,653 | 33.5% | 38.3% | 19.6% | 22.9% | 17.3% | 23.0% | ||||
| 1994 | $51,590 | $48,970 | 36.9% | 36.1% | 22.2% | 22.3% | 18.6% | 21.3% | ||||
| 1995 | $41,550 | $47,297 | 42.0% | 37.5% | 24.6% | 22.1% | 23.3% | 19.7% | ||||
| 1996 | $44,350 | $45,830 | 42.2% | 40.4% | 24.9% | 23.9% | 24.5% | 22.1% | ||||
| 1997 | $51,760 | $45,887 | 36.4% | 40.2% | 20.7% | 23.4% | 15.7% | 21.2% | ||||
| 1998 | $56,920 | $51,010 | 35.5% | 38.0% | 16.7% | 20.8% | 12.7% | 17.6% | ||||
| 1999 | $53,390 | $54,023 | 38.9% | 36.9% | 22.4% | 19.9% | 24.7% | 17.7% | ||||
| 2000 | 57.5% | 71.7% | $53,560 | $54,623 | 28.2% | 34.2% | 20.2% | 19.8% | 25.1% | 20.8% | ||
| 2001 | 58.5% | 72.5% | $53,650 | $53,533 | 29.6% | 32.2% | 18.0% | 20.2% | 17.4% | 22.4% | ||
| 2002 | 57.5% | 57.8% | 73.2% | 72.5% | $54,050 | $53,753 | 32.8% | 30.2% | 19.3% | 19.2% | 23.6% | 22.0% |
| 2003 | 58.0% | 58.0% | 71.0% | 72.2% | $52,180 | $53,293 | 30.0% | 30.8% | 20.9% | 19.4% | 19.1% | 20.0% |
| 2004 | 57.1% | 57.5% | 70.9% | 71.7% | $50,000 | $52,077 | 30.2% | 31.0% | 23.7% | 21.3% | 17.8% | 20.2% |
| 2005 | 57.2% | 57.4% | 70.0% | 70.6% | $52,020 | $51,400 | 32.5% | 30.9% | 25.1% | 23.2% | 18.9% | 18.6% |
| 2006 | 57.9% | 57.4% | 68.6% | 69.8% | $48,060 | $50,027 | 38.8% | 33.8% | 25.2% | 24.7% | 28.2% | 21.6% |
| 2007 | 57.0% | 57.4% | 69.9% | 69.5% | $51,810 | $50,630 | 26.2% | 32.5% | 22.6% | 24.3% | 23.3% | 23.5% |
| 2008 | 57.6% | 57.5% | 70.2% | 69.6% | $49,440 | $49,770 | 37.0% | 34.0% | 23.1% | 23.6% | 18.0% | 23.2% |
| 2009 | 54.2% | 56.3% | 64.1% | 68.1% | $48,550 | $49,933 | 35.1% | 32.8% | 24.4% | 23.4% | 20.0% | 20.4% |
| 2010 | 51.8% | 54.5% | 64.0% | 66.1% | $44,450 | $47,480 | 39.1% | 37.1% | 25.0% | 24.2% | 15.9% | 18.0% |
| 2011 | 53.2% | 53.1% | 65.2% | 64.4% | $43,940 | $45,647 | 38.2% | 37.5% | 25.7% | 25.0% | 13.0% | 16.3% |
| 2012 | 52.6% | 52.5% | 66.4% | 65.2% | $45,430 | $44,607 | 45.1% | 40.8% | 30.5% | 27.1% | 21.7% | 16.9% |
| 2013 | 53.3% | 53.0% | 65.3% | 65.6% | $45,640 | $45,003 | 32.9% | 38.7% | 25.5% | 27.2% | 20.4% | 18.4% |
| 2014 | 54.7% | 53.5% | 67.2% | 66.3% | $53,420 | $48,163 | 35.3% | 37.8% | 23.3% | 26.4% | 18.3% | 20.1% |
| 2015 | 55.5% | 54.5% | 65.9% | 66.1% | $51,430 | $50,163 | 30.8% | 33.0% | 20.3% | 23.0% | 18.4% | 19.0% |
| 2016 | 55.4% | 55.2% | 67.2% | 66.8% | $53,210 | $52,687 | 25.5% | 30.5% | 20.4% | 21.3% | 21.2% | 19.3% |
| 2017 | 54.8% | 55.2% | 65.8% | 66.3% | $49,955 | $51,532 | 27.9% | 28.1% | 19.2% | 20.0% | 17.2% | 18.9% |
| 2018 | 55.6% | 55.3% | 63.7% | 65.6% | $53,840 | $52,335 | 28.2% | 27.2% | 20.0% | 19.9% | 18.7% | 19.0% |
| 2019 | 56.7% | 55.7% | 65.1% | 64.9% | $59,850 | $54,548 | 21.5% | 25.9% | 16.1% | 18.4% | 21.3% | 19.1% |
| 2020 | 53.6% | 55.3% | 65.3% | 64.7% | $58,620 | $57,437 | 25.4% | 25.0% | 18.4% | 18.2% | 15.3% | 18.4% |
| 2021 | 55.0% | 55.1% | 66.2% | 65.5% | $58,670 | $59,047 | 29.6% | 25.5% | 22.6% | 19.0% | 19.7% | 18.8% |
| 2022 | 54.2% | 54.3% | 65.5% | 65.7% | $56,290 | $57,860 | 37.1% | 30.7% | 21.7% | 20.9% | 14.9% | 16.6% |
| 2023 | 55.6% | 54.9% | 63.0% | 64.9% | $58,760 | $57,907 | 28.8% | 31.8% | 18.3% | 20.3% | 18.9% | 17.2% |
| 2024 | 55.5% | 55.1% | 66.8% | 65.1% | $59,050 | $58,033 | 25.7% | 30.5% | 18.0% | 20.2% | 17.2% | 17.7% |
Note: Please refer to the individual charts for details on race/ethnicity notation, age restrictions, and sources.
See related work on Income and wages | Program on Race, Ethnicity, and the Economy | Health | Poverty | Wealth | Children | Unemployment | Labor force participation | Black Americans | Latinx Americans | Asian Americans | American Indians | Whites | Discrimination
Advancing anti-racist economic research and policyPerspectives and resources on race, ethnicity, and the economy
- Guiding principles for anti-racist research, the ‘bodycam’ for racial economic injustice
- The myth of race-neutral policy
- Race and ethnicity in empirical analysis: How should we interpret the race variable?
- Stratification economics: A moral policy approach for addressing persistent group-based disparities
- Serving, organizing, and empowering communities of color: Best practices for aligning research, advocacy, and activism
- Asian Americans and the anti-racist equity agenda: Contradictions and common ground
- Multidimensional identities of the Hispanic population in the United States
- The power of self-determination in building sustainable economies in Indian Country
- Racial and ethnic disparities in the United States: An interactive chartbook
Search for:
See related work on Income and wages, Program on Race, Ethnicity, and the Economy, Health, Poverty, Wealth, Children, Unemployment, Labor force participation, Black Americans, Latinx Americans, Asian Americans, American Indians, Whites, and Discrimination
We envision an economy that is just and strong, sustainable, and equitable–where every job is good, every worker can join a union, and every family and community can thrive.
EPI is a leader in the movement for economic justice. We use the tools of economics to win policy change that advances power for workers, economic security for families, and racial and gender equity in our nation.
EPI’s rigorous research and transformative ideas fortify worker organizing, build a shared understanding of how power and policy shape economic outcomes, and drive progressive policy change at every level of government.
1225 Eye St. NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-775-8810 • epi@epi.org
© 2026 Economic Policy Institute • Privacy Policy
Projects
State of Working America Data Library
Accessible, up-to-date data on the living standards of workers in the United States.
Economic Analysis and Research Network • EARN
The state and local network of organizations improving workers’ lives through research and advocacy.
Program on Race, Ethnicity, and the Economy • PREE
Exploring how race, ethnicity, and class intersect to affect economic outcomes in the United States.
About EPI
The Economic Policy Institute staff is unionized with the Nonprofit Professional Employees Union.