States Most Supportive of People in Poverty

Nearly 40 million Americans live in poverty in the United States, according to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau. These individuals struggle with food insecurity and access to quality education, housing, health care and more. While each state has taken action to reduce poverty, some states support their impoverished residents much more than others.

In order to highlight the states most supportive of people in poverty and the ones that need to improve the most, SmileHub compared each of the 50 states based on 20 key metrics. The data set ranges from the share of residents living in poverty to access to public transportation to the food insecurity rate.

If you want to support people in poverty but don’t know where to donate, check out our picks for the Best Charities for Reducing Poverty in 2024.

• Main Findings
• Methodology

Main Findings

States Most Supportive of People in Poverty

Overall Rank*	State	Total Score	Education & Transportation Availability Rank	Income & Benefits Rank	Housing, Healthcare & Food Rank
1	Massachusetts	65.53	3	6	4
2	Washington	64.63	9	1	15
3	New Jersey	64.02	2	7	12
4	Rhode Island	63.06	12	5	1
5	Maryland	62.27	6	2	16
6	New York	61.34	1	20	18
7	Minnesota	61.25	11	13	2
8	Maine	58.19	24	11	6
9	California	57.45	5	9	31
10	Connecticut	57.24	4	17	11
11	Oregon	57.06	10	4	30
12	Colorado	56.57	16	3	26
13	Vermont	56.41	18	10	17
14	New Hampshire	54.86	44	12	3
15	Michigan	53.94	7	22	23
16	Illinois	52.63	8	32	14
17	Iowa	51.74	28	25	8
18	Delaware	51.68	17	15	22
19	Pennsylvania	50.81	20	33	7
20	Alaska	50.25	38	8	34
21	New Mexico	50.19	13	35	9
22	Hawaii	50.09	21	16	27
23	Virginia	49.93	22	27	21
24	North Dakota	49.40	46	28	5
25	Ohio	48.35	33	31	10
26	Arizona	48.17	41	14	29
27	Indiana	48.09	31	29	19
28	Missouri	46.38	19	36	24
29	Wisconsin	45.69	35	19	37
30	Nevada	45.62	15	21	45
31	South Dakota	45.29	45	23	28
32	Montana	44.49	42	34	20
33	Nebraska	43.30	40	26	35
34	Idaho	42.58	50	30	25
35	Wyoming	42.38	23	24	47
36	Utah	42.38	48	18	40
37	Kentucky	42.36	30	46	13
38	Kansas	41.79	26	38	39
39	Tennessee	40.90	14	40	42
40	North Carolina	39.00	27	41	41
41	Oklahoma	38.73	29	43	38
42	West Virginia	38.02	34	47	32
43	Arkansas	37.02	36	45	36
44	Florida	35.40	39	37	48
45	Louisiana	35.10	25	49	33
46	Georgia	33.74	43	42	46
47	Texas	32.20	32	39	50
48	Alabama	31.73	47	48	43
49	South Carolina	31.19	37	44	49
50	Mississippi	27.25	49	50	44

Notes: *1 = Best

With the exception of “Total Score,” all of the columns in the table above depict the relative rank of that state, where a rank of 1 represents the best conditions for that metric category.

Methodology

In order to determine the states most supportive of people in poverty, SmileHub compared the 50 states across three key dimensions: 1) Education & Transportation Availability, 2) Income & Benefits and 3) Housing, Healthcare & Food.

We evaluated those dimensions using 20 relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing the highest level of poverty support. For metrics marked with an asterisk (*), the square root of the population was used to calculate the population size in order to avoid overcompensating for population differences across states.

We then determined each state's weighted average across all metrics to calculate its overall score and used the resulting scores to rank-order the states.

Education & Transportation Availability - Total Points: 20

• Access to Public Transportation: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)
  Note: This metric measures the share of commuters who use public transit.
• Public Schools per Capita*: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)
• Public School Spending per Student: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)
• Presence of a Free Community College Education: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)
  Note: This metric considers the presence or absence of legislation to provide free community-college education or if such legislation is currently under consideration.
  1 - Statewide free college tuition program enacted with few eligibility limits;
  0.5 - State-sponsored free college tuition programs with income, merit, geographical or programmatic limitations;
  0 - This state does not have a statewide free college tuition program that meets Campaign for Free College Tuition's recognition criteria.

Income & Benefits - Total Points: 40

• Charities for Reducing Poverty per Capita*: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
• Share of Residents Living in Poverty: Triple Weight (~10.00 Points)
• Public Welfare Expenditure per Capita: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
• Minimum Wage: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
• Individual Income Tax as a Share of Personal Income: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
• Income Inequality: Triple Weight (~10.00 Points)
  Note: This metric is based on the GINI index, which measures the extent to which the distribution of income or consumption among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. A Gini index of 0 represents perfect equality, while an index of 100 implies perfect inequality.
• Presence of Mandatory Paid Sick Leave: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
  Note: This is a binary metric:
  1 - This state has a mandatory paid sick leave law;
  0 - This state does not have mandatory paid sick leave laws.
• Presence of Paid Family Leave: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
  Note: This is a binary metric:
  1 - This state has paid family leave;
  0.5 - This state has enacted paid family leave;
  0 - This state does not have paid family leave.

Housing, Healthcare & Food - Total Points: 40

• Food Insecurity Rate: Triple Weight (~12.00 Points)
  Note: Food insecurity rate measures the percentage of households that qualified as low food security or very low food security, based on survey responses to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s annual Food Security Supplement to the monthly Current Population Survey. Households that affirm three out of the ten survey questions (eighteen for households with children) are classified as food insecure. Adult-only households that affirm 6 items, and households with children that affirm 8 items, are classified as very low food secure.
• Average Benchmark Premiums for Health Insurance: Full Weight (~4.00 Points)
  Note: Premiums were analyzed using the second-lowest cost silver (benchmark) premium for a 40-year-old in each county and weighted by county plan selections, including premiums for non-Essential Health Benefits. In some state-based marketplaces, the premium data for some years are at the rating area level and are mapped to counties before weighting by county plan selections.
• Presence of an Expanded Medicaid Policy: Full Weight (~4.00 Points)
  Note: In a state with an expanded Medicaid policy, income alone is enough to qualify for Medicaid. In states without an expanded policy, multiple factors, including income, disability status, and household size must be considered, and the total list of requirements can vary by state.
  This is a binary metric:
  1 - This state has implemented an expanded Medicaid policy;
  0 - This state has not implemented an expanded Medicaid policy.
• Medicaid Spending per Capita: Full Weight (~4.00 Points)
• Cost of Living: Full Weight (~4.00 Points)
  Note: This metric is based on The Council for Community and Economic Research's 2023 annual Cost of Living Index.
• Median Monthly Rent: Full Weight (~4.00 Points)
• Affordable and Available Rental Homes per 100 Extremely Low-Income Households: Full Weight (~4.00 Points)
  Note: Renters with extremely low incomes refers to households where the income is at or below either the federal poverty guideline or 30% of their area median income, whichever is greater.
• Federal Rental Assistance per Capita: Full Weight (~4.00 Points)

 
Sources: Data used to create this ranking were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Association, Campaign for Free College Tuition, Internal Revenue Service, Urban Institute, National Council of State Legislatures, National Partnership for Women and Families, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Medicaid.gov, Kaiser Family Foundation, Council for Community and Economic Research, National Low Income Housing Coalition and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.