The Heller School For Social Policty And Management The Heller School For Social Policy and Management Brandeis University
Poverty Rate of School Where Average Primary School Student of Specified Income Attends by Student Income Level
Year: 2010-2011; Student Income Level: All; Ordered: alphabetically; Region: 100 Largest MSAs

Year
Student Income Level


Sort Order
Sort Options


Select Regions


Notes and Sources
Update this Report

Scale Range: 17.1% – 83.2%

1: Akron, OH Value Scale
Poor 65.5% Barchart image
Non-Poor 30.8% Barchart image
2: Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Value Scale
Poor 53.8% Barchart image
Non-Poor 24.3% Barchart image
3: Albuquerque, NM Value Scale
Poor 80.9% Barchart image
Non-Poor 44.3% Barchart image
4: Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Value Scale
Poor 62.2% Barchart image
Non-Poor 24.8% Barchart image
5: Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Value Scale
Poor 70.5% Barchart image
Non-Poor 37.4% Barchart image
6: Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC Value Scale
Poor 72.6% Barchart image
Non-Poor 48.2% Barchart image
7: Austin-Round Rock, TX Value Scale
Poor 73.0% Barchart image
Non-Poor 30.4% Barchart image
8: Bakersfield, CA Value Scale
Poor 82.1% Barchart image
Non-Poor 50.0% Barchart image
9: Baltimore-Towson, MD Value Scale
Poor 70.3% Barchart image
Non-Poor 27.6% Barchart image
10: Baton Rouge, LA Value Scale
Poor 77.9% Barchart image
Non-Poor 54.3% Barchart image
11: Birmingham-Hoover, AL Value Scale
Poor 61.4% Barchart image
Non-Poor 36.9% Barchart image
12: Boise City-Nampa, ID Value Scale
Poor 53.9% Barchart image
Non-Poor 35.6% Barchart image
13: Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Value Scale
Poor 59.9% Barchart image
Non-Poor 19.2% Barchart image
14: Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Value Scale
Poor 73.9% Barchart image
Non-Poor 17.1% Barchart image
15: Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Tonawanda, NY Value Scale
Poor 68.4% Barchart image
Non-Poor 31.0% Barchart image
16: Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Value Scale
Poor 73.8% Barchart image
Non-Poor 54.7% Barchart image
17: Charleston-North Charleston, SC Value Scale
Poor 65.7% Barchart image
Non-Poor 40.9% Barchart image
18: Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC Value Scale
Poor 66.0% Barchart image
Non-Poor 32.7% Barchart image
19: Chattanooga, TN-GA Value Scale
Poor 69.3% Barchart image
Non-Poor 45.4% Barchart image
20: Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Value Scale
Poor 77.7% Barchart image
Non-Poor 26.0% Barchart image
21: Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN Value Scale
Poor 58.7% Barchart image
Non-Poor 28.6% Barchart image
22: Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Value Scale
Poor 70.9% Barchart image
Non-Poor 28.9% Barchart image
23: Colorado Springs, CO Value Scale
Poor 56.1% Barchart image
Non-Poor 27.8% Barchart image
24: Columbia, SC Value Scale
Poor 63.8% Barchart image
Non-Poor 40.7% Barchart image
25: Columbus, OH Value Scale
Poor 63.6% Barchart image
Non-Poor 28.8% Barchart image
26: Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Value Scale
Poor 74.6% Barchart image
Non-Poor 34.8% Barchart image
27: Dayton, OH Value Scale
Poor 64.3% Barchart image
Non-Poor 32.1% Barchart image
28: Denver-Aurora, CO Value Scale
Poor 68.5% Barchart image
Non-Poor 24.3% Barchart image
29: Des Moines, IA Value Scale
Poor 56.8% Barchart image
Non-Poor 26.5% Barchart image
30: Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Value Scale
Poor 68.3% Barchart image
Non-Poor 33.0% Barchart image
31: El Paso, TX Value Scale
Poor 77.2% Barchart image
Non-Poor 56.7% Barchart image
32: Fresno, CA Value Scale
Poor 81.2% Barchart image
Non-Poor 48.2% Barchart image
33: Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI Value Scale
Poor 67.5% Barchart image
Non-Poor 35.3% Barchart image
34: Greensboro-High Point, NC Value Scale
Poor 67.7% Barchart image
Non-Poor 44.6% Barchart image
35: Greenville, SC Value Scale
Poor 62.6% Barchart image
Non-Poor 42.8% Barchart image
36: Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA Value Scale
Poor 56.5% Barchart image
Non-Poor 28.0% Barchart image
37: Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Value Scale
Poor 67.4% Barchart image
Non-Poor 19.5% Barchart image
38: Honolulu, HI Value Scale
Poor 57.1% Barchart image
Non-Poor 37.0% Barchart image
39: Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX Value Scale
Poor 68.2% Barchart image
Non-Poor 39.1% Barchart image
40: Indianapolis, IN Value Scale
Poor 64.2% Barchart image
Non-Poor 34.4% Barchart image
41: Jackson, MS Value Scale
Poor 81.2% Barchart image
Non-Poor 43.3% Barchart image
42: Jacksonville, FL Value Scale
Poor 63.3% Barchart image
Non-Poor 38.1% Barchart image
43: Kansas City, MO-KS Value Scale
Poor 62.3% Barchart image
Non-Poor 30.1% Barchart image
44: Knoxville, TN Value Scale
Poor 62.3% Barchart image
Non-Poor 40.8% Barchart image
45: Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL Value Scale
Poor 75.9% Barchart image
Non-Poor 58.3% Barchart image
46: Lancaster, PA Value Scale
Poor 50.4% Barchart image
Non-Poor 29.9% Barchart image
47: Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Value Scale
Poor 71.1% Barchart image
Non-Poor 41.4% Barchart image
48: Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR Value Scale
Poor 68.4% Barchart image
Non-Poor 44.3% Barchart image
49: Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Value Scale
Poor 73.5% Barchart image
Non-Poor 37.1% Barchart image
50: Louisville, KY-IN Value Scale
Poor 69.3% Barchart image
Non-Poor 44.9% Barchart image
51: Madison, WI Value Scale
Poor 43.5% Barchart image
Non-Poor 27.7% Barchart image
52: McAllen-Edinburg-Pharr, TX Value Scale
Poor
Non-Poor
53: Memphis, TN-MS-AR Value Scale
Poor 82.5% Barchart image
Non-Poor 36.8% Barchart image
54: Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL Value Scale
Poor 75.2% Barchart image
Non-Poor 44.4% Barchart image
55: Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Value Scale
Poor 72.4% Barchart image
Non-Poor 26.2% Barchart image
56: Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Value Scale
Poor 56.4% Barchart image
Non-Poor 25.8% Barchart image
57: Modesto, CA Value Scale
Poor 76.7% Barchart image
Non-Poor 52.2% Barchart image
58: Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro, TN Value Scale
Poor 65.9% Barchart image
Non-Poor 35.3% Barchart image
59: New Haven-Milford, CT Value Scale
Poor 70.6% Barchart image
Non-Poor 27.0% Barchart image
60: New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA Value Scale
Poor 83.2% Barchart image
Non-Poor 58.4% Barchart image
61: New York-Newark-Edison, NY-NJ-PA Value Scale
Poor 74.6% Barchart image
Non-Poor 26.2% Barchart image
62: Ogden-Clearfield, UT Value Scale
Poor 49.8% Barchart image
Non-Poor 27.7% Barchart image
63: Oklahoma City, OK Value Scale
Poor 71.5% Barchart image
Non-Poor 42.6% Barchart image
64: Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Value Scale
Poor 63.9% Barchart image
Non-Poor 28.8% Barchart image
65: Orlando, FL Value Scale
Poor 69.0% Barchart image
Non-Poor 45.6% Barchart image
66: Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Value Scale
Poor 70.2% Barchart image
Non-Poor 31.4% Barchart image
67: Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL Value Scale
Poor 60.3% Barchart image
Non-Poor 39.2% Barchart image
68: Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Value Scale
Poor 69.7% Barchart image
Non-Poor 24.6% Barchart image
69: Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Value Scale
Poor 69.2% Barchart image
Non-Poor 28.1% Barchart image
70: Pittsburgh, PA Value Scale
Poor 56.2% Barchart image
Non-Poor 28.5% Barchart image
71: Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA Value Scale
Poor 59.9% Barchart image
Non-Poor 35.9% Barchart image
72: Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY Value Scale
Poor 54.0% Barchart image
Non-Poor 26.5% Barchart image
73: Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Value Scale
Poor 64.4% Barchart image
Non-Poor 28.5% Barchart image
74: Provo-Orem, UT Value Scale
Poor 43.3% Barchart image
Non-Poor 29.9% Barchart image
75: Raleigh-Cary, NC Value Scale
Poor 48.6% Barchart image
Non-Poor 31.5% Barchart image
76: Richmond, VA Value Scale
Poor 60.3% Barchart image
Non-Poor 29.5% Barchart image
77: Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Value Scale
Poor 75.9% Barchart image
Non-Poor 43.6% Barchart image
78: Rochester, NY Value Scale
Poor 65.0% Barchart image
Non-Poor 28.1% Barchart image
79: Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA Value Scale
Poor 69.0% Barchart image
Non-Poor 34.0% Barchart image
80: Salt Lake City, UT Value Scale
Poor 58.7% Barchart image
Non-Poor 31.5% Barchart image
81: San Antonio, TX Value Scale
Poor 63.4% Barchart image
Non-Poor 32.7% Barchart image
82: San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Value Scale
Poor 71.2% Barchart image
Non-Poor 32.5% Barchart image
83: San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Value Scale
Poor 64.7% Barchart image
Non-Poor 26.4% Barchart image
84: San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Value Scale
Poor 64.3% Barchart image
Non-Poor 26.1% Barchart image
85: Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL Value Scale
Poor 65.4% Barchart image
Non-Poor 44.4% Barchart image
86: Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA Value Scale
Poor 59.7% Barchart image
Non-Poor 40.6% Barchart image
87: Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Value Scale
Poor 49.0% Barchart image
Non-Poor 27.6% Barchart image
88: Springfield, MA Value Scale
Poor 71.2% Barchart image
Non-Poor 32.5% Barchart image
89: St. Louis, MO-IL Value Scale
Poor 62.0% Barchart image
Non-Poor 31.2% Barchart image
90: Stockton, CA Value Scale
Poor 66.4% Barchart image
Non-Poor 47.0% Barchart image
91: Syracuse, NY Value Scale
Poor 61.9% Barchart image
Non-Poor 31.6% Barchart image
92: Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Value Scale
Poor 69.7% Barchart image
Non-Poor 42.0% Barchart image
93: Toledo, OH Value Scale
Poor 70.9% Barchart image
Non-Poor 32.0% Barchart image
94: Tucson, AZ Value Scale
Poor 63.5% Barchart image
Non-Poor 31.3% Barchart image
95: Tulsa, OK Value Scale
Poor 73.9% Barchart image
Non-Poor 44.2% Barchart image
96: Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Value Scale
Poor 57.8% Barchart image
Non-Poor 35.9% Barchart image
97: Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Value Scale
Poor 59.6% Barchart image
Non-Poor 26.9% Barchart image
98: Wichita, KS Value Scale
Poor 71.2% Barchart image
Non-Poor 40.4% Barchart image
99: Worcester, MA Value Scale
Poor 59.7% Barchart image
Non-Poor 22.9% Barchart image
100: Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA Value Scale
Poor 68.5% Barchart image
Non-Poor 37.8% Barchart image

Definition: Poverty rate in the primary school attended by the average student of the specified income group.

Notes: Primary schools defined as those with lowest grade of "Pre-K" through 3 and highest grade of "Pre-K" through 8. Includes charter schools. Poverty rate defined as the share of children eligible for free or reduced lunch. Excludes metro areas in which 10 percent or more of students attend schools that do not report valid data on free and reduced lunch eligibility and those for which the computed student poverty rate differs dramatically from that which would be expected based on Census child poverty data.  Data for 1999-2001 geocoded from zip codes to metropolitan areas.  Pre-K students not included for metros in the following states in the specified years:  1999-2000: AL, CA, KY, WY.   2000-2001: AL, CA, KY, WY, TN.   2007-2008: CA, MI, SD.  2010-2011:  CA, OR, MI. 


Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data. Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey.