Executive Summary
Recent research at the national level shows that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people are more vulnerable to economic insecurity compared to cisgender heterosexual people. In particular, LGBT people are more likely to be poor and food insecure. We know little about LGBT poverty in individual states, but variation in public policies and public attitudes related to LGBT people may limit economic opportunities and access to income in some states more than others. For the first time, this report provides state-level poverty comparisons between LGBT people and cisgender heterosexual people (discussed here as “cis straight people”) in 35 states presented by four regions in alphabetical order. We use the Census Bureau’s designated regions and divisions to organize the state profiles.
We draw on recent state-level data from the Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey collected in 2014–2017. The BRFSS includes a module asking about self-identified sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) that 35 states chose to include in their state-level survey in at least one of those years, allowing us to estimate poverty rates at the state level. A companion national report, LGBT Poverty in the United States, provides details on the dataset and measures used here.
In this report, we present comparisons of poverty rates by SOGI status. An individual is considered poor if their self-reported family income falls below the official federal poverty threshold for the size of their household. For example, in 2015, a family of two adults and one child would have been considered living in poverty if their annual income was less than $19,078. In addition, wherever possible, we make comparisons by SOGI and several key social statuses that are traditionally assessed in general research on economic stability: gender, race, age, and urban-rural residence.
However, we are limited in the types of comparisons that are possible, because the sample sizes of the LGBT population are relatively small for each state. We conducted weighted and design-adjusted statistical tests to see if observed differences in poverty rates are statistically significant (i.e., unlikely to exist because of chance.) When the sample size of a particularly detailed group (such as African American LGBT people or LGBT people in rural areas) is less than 20 people, we do not report comparisons between that group and others. Unless otherwise noted, any comparisons reported in the text are statistically significant at the 10% level or below. At the end, we provide a table of population-based estimates for 35 states (see Appendix A).
Summary of Findings
This report is intended as a resource for state-specific research and public policy work related to poverty. We do not make statistical comparisons of one state to any other, but we do see some notable general patterns in each region.
Midwest
When comparing LGBT people to cis straight people in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin, the data indicate the following patterns:
- LGBT people have higher poverty rates than cis straight people in all eight states. In Missouri, the difference is statistically significant at the 10% significance cutoff; the difference is not significant at the 5% cutoff used in the national report.
- Transgender people have higher poverty rates than cisgender people (or cis men) in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, and Ohio.
- LGBT people of color have higher poverty rates than White LGBT people in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Ohio.
- LGBT people who are 18–44 years old have higher rates of poverty than LGBT people aged 45 or older in all eight states.
- In Minnesota and Ohio, rural LGBT people had higher poverty than urban LGBT people.
Northeast
When comparing LGBT people to cis straight people in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the data indicate the following patterns:
- In all six states, LGBT people have higher poverty rates than cis straight people. In Massachusetts, the difference is statistically significant at the 10% significance cutoff but not significant at the 5% cutoff used in the national report.
- Transgender people have higher poverty rates than cisgender people (or cis men) in Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.
- LGBT people of color have higher poverty rates than White LGBT people in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.
- In general, LGBT people aged 18–44 have higher rates of poverty than LGBT people aged 45 or older in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.
- With the exception of New York, the sample sizes of LGBT people in rural areas were too small to detect significant differences compared to LGBT people in urban areas. In New York, LGBT people in urban areas had a higher poverty rate than those in rural areas.
South
When comparing LGBT people to cis straight people in Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia, the data indicate the following patterns:
- LGBT people have higher poverty rates than cis straight people in Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia. Florida is the only state where cis straight people are more likely to be poor than LGBT people at the 10% significance cutoff; the difference is not significant at the 5% cutoff used in the national report.
- Transgender people have higher poverty rates than cisgender people (or cis men) in Kentucky, Maryland, Texas, and Virginia.
- LGBT people of color have higher poverty rates than White LGBT people in Delaware, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.
- LGBT people aged 18–44 have higher rates of poverty than LGBT people age 45 or older in Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
- In most of these states, the sample sizes of LGBT people in rural areas were too small to detect significant differences compared to LGBT people in urban areas. In West Virginia, urban LGBT people’s poverty rate was higher than for rural LGBT people; in Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia, rural LGBT people had higher poverty than urban LGBT people.
West
When comparing LGBT people to cis straight people in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Washington, and Wyoming, the data indicate the following patterns:
- LGBT people have higher poverty rates than cis straight people in Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming. In Wyoming, the difference is statistically significant at the 10% significance cutoff but not significant at the 5% cutoff used in the national report.
- Transgender people have higher poverty rates than cisgender people (or cis men) in California, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, and Washington.
- LGBT people of color have higher poverty rates than White LGBT people in California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, and Washington.
- In general, LGBT people aged 18–44 have higher rates of poverty than LGBT people aged 45 or older in California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, and Washington.
- In most of these states, the sample sizes of LGBT people in rural areas were too small to detect significant differences compared to LGBT people in urban areas. In Montana, urban LGBT people’s poverty rate was higher than for rural LGBT people; in Washington, rural LGBT people had higher poverty than urban LGBT people.