Key takeaways:

• Trump has weaponized the EEOC to go after employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, accusing them of “reverse racism” against white workers—but nothing in the EEOC’s own data points to evidence of systemic discrimination against white workers.
• People of color have made up a growing share of the U.S. working-age population since 1989, while the share of the white working-age population has fallen from 76.9% in 1989 to 55.4% in 2025.
• According to data submitted to the EEOC by large employers, workers of color make up more than 40% of the workforce but hold only 1 in 5 executive or senior-level positions—a pattern that contradicts the administration’s narrative of bias against white workers.

Trump’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently opened a federal investigation into Nike and its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives—alleging systemic discrimination against white workers. This is the first time the EEOC has targeted a large private employer with a federal investigation and subpoena explicitly linked to their DEI initiatives and hiring goals. Shortly thereafter, the EEOC sued a Coca-Cola bottling company for sex discrimination following a networking event it held for female employees. The EEOC chair closed a busy February with a letter to Fortune 500 companies, warning them about “unlawful discrimination” related to their use of DEI initiatives.

These recent EEOC actions reflect Trump’s undue control over the agency and his administration’s effective weaponization of the EEOC to fight against DEI, a broad set of programs and initiatives designed to remedy the long and well-documented history of systemic injustices against people of color and women in the labor market. Established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the EEOC has operated as an independent federal agency throughout its 60-year history enforcing employment nondiscrimination laws—until last year.

EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas has repeatedly affirmed her commitment to redirecting the EEOC’s priorities toward those of the administration; she has made the scrutiny of DEI programs and initiatives a top enforcement priority. This restructuring of EEOC priorities follows the administration’s revisionist version of history that centers white men—not people of color and women—as the primary victims of labor market discrimination. In an unprecedented move last December, Chair Lucas actively solicited discrimination complaints from white male workers, arguing that DEI initiatives function as illegal quotas that make it easier for employers to discriminate against white men. Previous EEOC chairs have avoided using their platform to solicit charges from specific demographic groups. In January 2026, the Republican majority voted to give the chair more power to decide which matters reach the full commission and to require nearly all litigation to be approved by the commissioners. The vote to centralize power with the chair and Republican majority completely neutralizes bipartisan decision-making over which cases to pursue.

Right-wing commentators have cited a now debunked report that over 90% of new corporate hires were people of color as evidence of DEI gone too far. In this post, we expose the fallacy of such claims by showing increased employment among people of color is consistent with demographic changes in the working-age population. The Trump EEOC’s targeting of employers with programs aimed at improving hiring and promotion of historically underrepresented groups defies the ongoing demographic changes of the U.S. labor force and the spirit of the Civil Rights Act that created the agency. Under current law, anyone who believes they’ve experienced discrimination based on race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, and disability can file a charge. By prioritizing so-called “reverse discrimination,” fewer of the underfunded agency’s resources will be available to investigate systemic inequities against workers of color or members of any other protected class.

DEI programs or not, the U.S. working population is increasingly more diverse and less white

 As Trump’s EEOC goes after private employers based on their efforts to improve workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion, it is important to understand that non-Hispanic white workers are a smaller share of the U.S. workforce than they were decades ago. In 1989, for example, more than 3 out of 4 people between the ages of 16 and 64 were white (see Figure A). This share declined by 28% over the course of the last three decades. In 2025, just over half (55.4%) of the U.S. working-age population was white. People of color, on the other hand, have become an increasing share of the working-age population since 1989.

Figure A

Last year, more than 2 in 5 individuals between the ages of 16 and 64 were either Hispanic, Black, or Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI). This figure nearly doubled between 1989 and 2025. A significant share of this growth can be attributed to the growth of the Hispanic working-age population, which nearly tripled over the course of the last three decades with increased immigration.

Figure B

This demographic shift is most evident among younger workers—the new hires who will gradually replace less diverse cohorts of older workers as they retire. Nearly 1 in 2 individuals between the ages of 16 to 24 are either Black, Hispanic, AAPI, or American Indian and Alaska Native (see Figure B), up more than 80% since 1989. Based on these numbers, it is only logical that historically underrepresented groups of workers account for a larger share of employment now and in the future than they did decades ago—regardless of DEI initiatives. In fact, workplaces that reflect the growing diversity of the labor force are a sign of less discrimination, not of a bias against white workers. Moreover, employers who set and pursue DEI goals that develop the talent and career growth of workers of color are making forward-looking investments in the leadership of the future workforce. This has been a primary motivation and justification for many DEI initiatives.

Despite the growing diversification of the U.S. workforce, EEOC data suggest that people of color continue to be underrepresented in leadership positions

While Trump’s EEOC targets and accuses employers with equity initiatives of bias against white workers, demographic statistics reported to the regulatory agency paint a different picture when it comes to representation in leadership roles. Private employers with 100 or more employees and federal contractors with 50 or more employees are required to file an annual EEO-1 report. These data are used to support EEOC enforcement efforts and can raise flags about systemic patterns of discrimination. Based on publicly available EEO-1 data for 2023 (latest year), white workers are significantly more likely to be overrepresented in leadership positions (see Figure C). In 2023, for example, Black, Hispanic, AAPI, and AIAN workers accounted for more than 40% of workers in all job categories at EEO-1 reporting firms, but only about 1 in 5 employees in executive- or senior-level positions. Similarly, less than 1 in 3 workers in mid-level, managerial positions identified as Black, Hispanic, AAPI, or AIAN in 2023.

Figure C

Table 1 presents the 2023 data along with data for 2020—the year several private employers launched DEI initiatives in response to the racial reckoning that followed the murder of George Floyd at the hands of police officers—and 2017. While it is impossible to disentangle DEI from demographic and pandemic effects based on these data alone, we can see changes in the racial composition of employees at EEO-1 reporting firms over these years that are generally consistent with changes in the working-age population shown in Figure A. More importantly, nothing in these statistics points to evidence of systemic “DEI-motivated discrimination” against white workers. Relative to the preceding three years, between 2020 and 2023, there was a larger increase in the share of all people of color employed in executive-/senior- level and first-/mid-level management positions—3.7 and 3.3 percentage points, respectively—but white workers remained significantly overrepresented in these roles. Throughout the entire period, Black and Hispanic workers remained grossly underrepresented relative to their share of all positions.

Table 1

The Trump EEOC’s intentional diversion of attention and resources away from more prevalent forms of discrimination will hurt all workers

Aggregate results alone neither qualify nor disqualify a charge of discrimination against a specific employer. All charges, whether filed by an individual or an EEOC commissioner, are individually investigated— a process involving extensive information gathering and detailed examination of the facts to assess the merits of the charge. The administration’s aggressive search for evidence of “reverse discrimination” diverts the limited resources of an already understaffed and underfunded agency away from investigating more prevalent forms of racial and gender discrimination that are consistent with persistent racial and gender wage gaps and patterns of occupational segregation.

It would be a mistake to assume that Trump and the Republican majority leading the EEOC don’t understand the nature of demographic changes in the U.S. population and labor market. The administration’s campaign against DEI initiatives and accusations of bias against white male workers represent an emboldened assertion of white supremacy to stoke fear and to recast growing racial, ethnic, and gender diversity as a threat to social and economic advantages historically afforded to white men. This is a strategy that has often led to periods of slower economic growth and greater economic inequality. In the end, it not only makes the American workplace less fair, but it also risks lowering the standard of living for all working people and their families. 

The relentless attack of the Trump-Vance administration on basic needs programs, access to data, and economic equity will harm the well-being of Native families and children even more. This is evident when we examine the impact of the administration’s cuts to vital programs like Medicaid and SNAP. The ongoing government shutdown threatens to further exacerbate the gaps in the provision of quality services that Native communities rely on for their health and nutritional needs.

Poverty continues to disadvantage AIAN children and their families

More than 1 in 6 (16.6%) AIAN children continued to live under the poverty line last year. This figure has remained statistically unchanged since 2022 (see Figure A) and is much higher than it was in 2021 when fewer than 1 in 10 AIAN children wrestled with poverty. The big difference in the numbers from 2021 and 2022 was due to pandemic relief efforts like the enhanced Child Tax Credit (CTC), which helped thousands of AIAN families with children meet their basic needs and avoid material shortcomings. But these gains for AIAN families and children were short lived. By 2022, AIAN child poverty rates climbed again, more than doubling after the expiration of the expanded social safety programs.

The situation of these economically vulnerable families and children has not changed since then and is only likely to deteriorate further with the historic cuts to basic needs programs (like Medicaid and SNAP) that the Trump-Vance administration passed this year. These cuts will disproportionately harm economically vulnerable families of color, such as AIAN families who are more likely than their peers to have a parent or child with a disability and who are still recovering from the impact of the last two recessions.

Figure A

Native families are more likely to suffer food insecurity than their peers

Early this year, we wrote about the rising threat of food insecurity for families of color. The persistent experience of AIAN families with poverty leaves them disproportionately affected by these concerns surrounding their ability to meet the nutritional needs of their household. Between 2016 and 2021, for example, AIAN households recorded a much higher prevalence of food insecurity relative to other groups (see Figure B). During this period, nearly 1 in 4 (23.3%) AIAN families struggled with food insecurity, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 (8%) white households.

Figure B

The situation of AIAN parents is even worse. During the six-year period referenced, more than 1 in 4 AIAN households with children under 18 (27.8%) and families with children under 6 (27.4%) did not feel secure in their ability to provide their families with an adequate and balanced diet. Irrespective of the characteristics of the household, AIAN families are significantly more likely than all families to struggle with food insecurity.

This disadvantage will likely compound in the years ahead as the Trump-Vance administration cuts funding for the Department of Agriculture (USDA), further restricts eligibility for programs like SNAP, and limits public access to crucial data about hunger. This year, for example, Trump’s USDA canceled the country’s leading survey that helps us understand the magnitude and severity of hunger and food insecurity in the U.S., on the grounds that it was “redundant” and “politicized.”

Lack of access to health insurance leaves Native communities disproportionately vulnerable to an early death

The well-being of Native communities is also threatened by lack of access to health insurance. Relative to peers, AIAN individuals suffer the highest uninsured rate in the U.S. Nearly 1 in 5 (18.9%) AIAN individuals (amounting to more than half a million people) lacked access to health insurance last year (see Figure C). While the Affordable Care Act (ACA) helped reduce the uninsured rate for AIAN individuals (nearly 3 in 10 AIAN individuals lacked health insurance in 2010), disparities in access have persisted over the years. Compared with their non-Hispanic white peers, AIAN people have been more than twice as likely to lack access to health insurance in just the last decade. These inequities also translate into disparities in life expectancy. AIAN men and women, for example, record a lower life expectancy at birth than their peers. Trump’s attacks on public health agencies, their personnel, research infrastructure, and programs for the needy threaten to exacerbate these disparities for years to come. 

Figure C

The Trump-Vance administration has weakened the agencies and programs that help the U.S. meet its obligations to Native communities

In less than a year, the Trump-Vance administration has weakened every aspect of the U.S. social safety net that helps AIAN families and children escape poverty, hunger, and disease. Trump began his second term by cutting staffing and funding for public health agencies and programs. By April 2025, the administration had reduced the Department of Health and Humans Service by more than 20%. Trump’s attack on equity also targeted workplace safety regulations and the broader research infrastructure for public health that works to identify and address the structural barriers that yield and widen racial and ethnic disparities in health. 

To top this off, Trump’s most significant legislative achievement this year delivered historic cuts to health programs (like Medicaid and CHIP) that are estimated to strip 10 million people of their health insurance coverage by 2034. More than 1 million AIAN individuals rely on Medicaid and CHIP. While AIAN individuals will be exempt from the new Medicaid work requirements, public health experts have warned that cuts to the program can widen gaps in tribal health services and disparities that already exist due to chronic federal underfunding of AIAN communities.

Trump’s major legislative achievement this year also weakened SNAP, the country’s most important nutritional assistance program. In FY 2023, more than 500,000 AIAN households relied on SNAP to meet their nutritional needs and avoid deeper economic insecurity. Trump’s reconciliation legislation from this summer is estimated to impact the benefits of millions of SNAP recipients. While pre-existing work requirements exemptions partially mitigate the harmful impact of Trump’s law on AIAN individuals, the phasing out of culturally relevant initiatives (such as SNAP-Ed) and cuts to the broader program weaken an important vehicle through which the U.S. delivers its obligations to Native communities.

In addition, beginning on November 1 of this year, the Trump-Vance administration has been denying access to SNAP benefits to millions of people due to the administration’s unwillingness to use SNAP’s contingency reserve funds during the government shutdown. In doing so, the administration is removing a critical safety net for Native American tribes and for over 1 in 5 Native American households more broadly.

States with some of the largest Native American populations are also states with higher overall population shares participating in SNAP. Oklahoma and New Mexico have some of the highest Native populations and more than 16% of their population receive SNAP benefits. Native Americans living in Oklahoma, on reservations, and other designated areas may be able to continue to receive food assistance through the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). However, that program may face constraints due to additional demand and is not accessible for many Native people who do not live near federally recognized tribes that participate in FDPIR.

With every step this year, the administration has weakened the capacity of the federal government to meet the needs of Native communities. And families and children are being hurt in the process because they are disproportionately vulnerable to costly disparities in poverty, food insecurity, and health care access.

This interactive chartbook provides a statistical snapshot of race and ethnicity in the United States, depicting racial/ethnic disparities observed through

• Population demographics
• Civic engagement
• Labor market outcomes
• Income, poverty, and wealth
• Health

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.

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 decades: Share of U.S. population by race and ethnicity, 2000, 2010, and 2020

1

1

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 immigrants: Share of U.S. population by race/ethnicity and nativity, 2024

2

2

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 inequality: Share of state population by race and ethnicity, 2020

3

3

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 2050: Share of U.S. population within given age ranges, by race and ethnicity, 2024

4

4

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

5

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 education: Share of women aged 25 and older within given level of educational attainment, by race and ethnicity, 2024

6

6

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:

While the Black and AIAN imprisonment rate has decreased, Black and AIAN people are still five times as likely as white people to be imprisoned: Imprisonment rates per 100,000 U.S. residents by race and ethnicity, 2012–2022

7

7

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:

Black and AIAN men have an exceptionally high imprisonment rate: Imprisonment rates per 100,000 U.S residents, by race/ethnicity and gender, 2022

8

8

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 2020: Voter turnout in presidential election years by race and ethnicity, select years 1992 to 2024

9

9

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 decades: Union membership rates, by race and ethnicity, 1973–2024

10

10

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

Black women have maintained the highest labor force participation rate amid post-1970 rise in women’s labor force participation overall: Labor force participation rate for women by race and ethnicity, 1973–2024

11

11

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:

Hispanic men have maintained the highest labor force participation rate even as labor force participation of all men has declined since the 1970s: Men’s labor force participation rate by race and ethnicity, 1973–2024

12

12

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:

Black and AIAN unemployment is consistently higher than unemployment of all other racial and ethnic groups: Annual unemployment rate by race and ethnicity, 1979–2024

13

13

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 rates: Unemployment rate by race/ethnicity and educational attainment, 2024

14

14

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:

Black, Hispanic, and AIAN workers earn lower wages and have smaller gender wage disparities than their white and AAPI counterparts: Median wages by race/ethnicity and gender, 2024

15

15

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 men: Regression-adjusted hourly wage gaps for women relative to non-Hispanic white men, by race and ethnicity, 2024

16

16

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

Racial and ethnic disparities in median household income have been largely persistent across time: Inflation-adjusted median household income (2024 dollars), by race and ethnicity, 1972–2024

17

17

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:

Black and AIAN households are more likely to have the lowest annual incomes—under $25,000 per year in 2024: Share of households within given income range by race and ethnicity, 2024

18

18

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:

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

19

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:

Poverty rates are higher among AIAN, Black and Hispanic working-age adults: Poverty rates for age 18–64, by race and ethnicity, 1974–2024

20

20

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:

There are large racial disparities in poverty at older ages (65 and older)—likely reflecting differences in retirement preparedness and/or lifetime income disparities: Poverty rates for people ages 65 and older, by race and ethnicity, 1974–2024

21

21

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:

Racial wealth disparities are stark and persistent, reflecting a history of exploitation and exclusion: Median family net worth by race and ethnicity, selected years from 1989 to 2022

22

22

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

Racial disparities in life expectancy reflect the cumulative disadvantage of living as a minority in the United States: Women’s and men’s life expectancy at birth, by race and ethnicity, 2022

23

23

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 remain: Uninsured rates by race and ethnicity, 2008–2024

24

24

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:

Black mothers are far more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than are white and Hispanic mothers: Pregnancy-related deaths per 100,000 live births by race and ethnicity, 2023

25

25

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:

AIAN population 1-year estimates and 3-year rolling averages, select charts

Appendix

Appendix

Share this chart:

Who are low-income families of color?

Families in which the household head identifies as

• Black
• Hispanic
• American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN)
• Asian American or Pacific Islander (AAPI)

With at least one child under the age of 18 living at home

With a total family income below 200% of the federal poverty line (below $64,300 in 2025 for a family of two adults and two children)

Introduction

Low-income families of color live in a permanent cycle of economic insecurity and uncertainty. These families make up a disproportionate share of the nearly 10 million families with children (9.7 million) who are either poor or vulnerable to poverty. As a result of their economic precarity, these families are among the first to experience the painful consequences of a recession. This was evident during the last two business cycle downturns: the Great Recession and the pandemic recession. We find that these two economic contractions dealt a mighty blow to the employment security of these families, triggering a rise in poverty and housing insecurity.

Given the weak policy response to the Great Recession, it took economically vulnerable families of color nearly a decade to recover in nearly all the economic domains we examine, including employment, poverty status, and housing insecurity. While the bold response to the pandemic recession led to a relatively faster rebound in employment, economically vulnerable families of color remain disproportionately burdened by poverty and housing insecurity.

Instead of easing the pain of economically vulnerable families, the Trump-Vance administration and congressional Republicans have been on the attack in the first half of 2025. They have gone after the agencies, laws, and programs that help protect these families from joblessness, discrimination, poverty, hunger, and premature death. In just its first 100 days, the administration deliberately cut the wages of workers, rolled back protections against bias in employment, and hacked away at staffing at agencies that support the well-being of low-income families (like the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services). As if this weren’t enough, the administration and congressional Republicans prioritized dealing a historic blow to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). They cut spending on programs that provide desperately needed health care and nutritional support to families by more than $1 trillion (CBO 2025b).

The chaos and uncertainty ushered in by the economic mismanagement of the Trump-Vance administration even led to the first quarterly contraction in economic growth since 2022. With the prospects of another recession rising, the administration has done everything in its power to leave low-income families even more vulnerable to the pain ahead. As we illustrate in this report, economic downturns hit these families the hardest, and while we’ve learned a great deal since 2007 about how to protect them, the administration has chosen not to build upon those lessons. Instead of protecting the strong labor market they inherited, empowering workers to bargain for better pay and working conditions, and strengthening basic needs programs, the Trump-Vance administration is fighting for an economic agenda centered on austerity for the economically vulnerable and subsidies for the rich.

In just a short period of time, the Trump-Vance administration has left low-income families more economically insecure and vulnerable to pain as recession risks continue to rise

Since taking office, the Trump-Vance administration has worked to dismantle the basic protections that help shelter low-income families from even deeper economic insecurity and hardship. This attack on families has taken the form of executive actions undermining civil and workers’ rights. While some of President Trump’s executive orders have been challenged in court, their introduction has altered the policy discourse and the lived experience of low-income families of color throughout the U.S. with an explicitly racist and xenophobic agenda. Beyond executive actions, the Trump-Vance administration and congressional Republicans also passed one of the most sweeping cuts to the U.S. social safety net in recent history, gutting basic needs programs and making Medicaid and SNAP benefits much more difficult for families in need to access (Shierholz 2025). All of this was done to help offset the cost of tax cuts that disproportionately benefit rich households and corporations (The Budget Lab 2025).

Few policy issues have received as much priority in the Trump-Vance administration as their attack on economic justice and initiatives promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). In just his first day in office, President Trump rolled back numerous executive actions expressing the federal government’s commitment to racial justice for Black, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islanders (EPI 2025d). President Trump later also rescinded executive actions that identified systemic barriers impeding Black Americans’ opportunity to fully participate in American society on a level playing field (EPI 2025e). Equity in the classroom is also under attack. This was evident when President Trump rescinded an executive order stating that all students should be guaranteed an educational environment free from discrimination, including discrimination in the form of sexual harassment, sexual violence, and on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity (EPI 2025c). These efforts form part of more than a dozen executive actions signed by President Trump in his first 100 days to roll back years of progress on racial and economic justice (McNicholas et al. 2025).

The Trump-Vance administration is also working to roll back anti-discrimination protections by weakening the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (Maye and Wilson 2025). Just days into his second term, President Trump dismissed two EEOC commissioners and the agency’s general counsel, years before the expiration of their appointment (Olson and Savage 2025; EPI 2025b). As a result of these dismissals, the commission lost the quorum needed to perform key functions. Trump has also redirected the EEOC’s priorities to focus more on investigating so-called DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination and anti-American national origin bias and discrimination (EEOC 2025; DOJ 2025). Because wages are the primary source of income for low-income families, weaker enforcement of anti-discrimination laws leaves families of color more vulnerable to employment and pay discrimination in the labor market.

The EEOC is not the only federal body that the Trump-Vance administration has weakened to the detriment of low-income families. In March 2025, President Trump signed an executive order that would effectively eliminate the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The U.S. Supreme Court later lifted a lower court decision that had blocked the administration from firing more than 1,300 employees at ED (Sherman 2025). While the merits of the case before the Supreme Court have yet to be decided, the gutting of ED will disproportionately harm children from low-income families of color that benefit from federal funding for under-resourced schools and programs aimed at closing learning and achievement gaps (Dianis 2025; EPI 2025a; Santhanam 2025).

More broadly, ED serves an essential role in helping enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance (ED n.d.). Even the U.S. public health infrastructure is now under attack, as the Trump administration is committed to carrying out layoffs at federal health agencies focused on reducing premature and preventable deaths associated with pervasive racial health disparities (Moore 2025).

President Trump’s attacks on federal agencies that are vital to the provision of public goods and services for families are part of a larger war his administration has waged on workers. In his first 100 days, Trump replaced the leadership of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—the federal agency tasked with protecting the most fundamental U.S. labor rights—with members more likely to carry out his agenda to erode workers’ union and collective bargaining rights (McNicholas et al. 2025). This will hurt the ability of workers to form and join unions at work. Unions are vital to working families, as union workers enjoy better wages and working conditions than their nonunion peers (Banerjee et al. 2021).

Beyond executive actions, the main legislative priority of the Trump-Vance administration imposed more than $1 trillion in cuts to basic needs programs in exchange for continuing a tax regime that overwhelmingly favors rich households and corporations (CBO 2025b; Shierholz 2025). Extending the 2017 tax cuts that President Trump enacted in his first term will not just favor the rich disproportionately. On its own, this extension can even suppress economic growth over the long run and leave policymakers with significantly less room to respond to another recession (Bivens 2025b). To help offset the cost of these large tax cuts to the rich, the Republican-led budget reconciliation bill that Trump signed into law adds more stringent work requirements to Medicaid and SNAP on top of historic cuts.

This combination will leave more than 22 million families at risk of losing some or all of their SNAP benefits and strip away health coverage for more than 11 million people (CBO 2025a; Wheaton et al. 2025). These cruel and misguided efforts will disproportionately hurt low-income families of color and children who are more likely than their peers to rely on Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for health insurance, and SNAP and other nutritional assistance programs to avoid going hungry in the face of growing food insecurity (Cid-Martinez, Moore, and Maye 2025; Cid-Martinez 2025).

In its totality, the policy positions President Trump has advanced in his first 100 days via executive orders and legislative priorities will leave low-income families of color and children much more vulnerable to hardship. In the face of a recession, which is no longer a hypothetical scenario, the consequences would be devastating. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported the first quarterly contraction of economic growth since 2022, and while growth climbed again in the second quarter, the U.S. economy is now growing significantly slower in the first half of 2025 than in the previous year (BEA 2025). And the chaotic economic climate that the current administration has generated with its trade, immigration, and macroeconomic policy management has increased the prospects of a recession (Bivens 2025a).

The fear of an approaching recession increased with the downward revision of employment gains that defined the weak jobs report published in August 2025 (EPI Staff 2025). What we see in the first half of 2025 is an economy being held back by anemic growth and a deteriorating labor market.

The upheaval that this administration has produced leaves low-income families of color exposed to future hardship. Without a bold policy response to recessions and the support of a strong welfare state, these families are hit hardest by economic downturns and sluggish economic recoveries (Bivens et al. 2025). This report sheds light on this reality by examining how the last two recessions impacted the well-being of low-income families, as captured by their employment situation, poverty status, and housing insecurity.

Low-income families of color with children and the last two recessions

What do we mean by low-income families of color with children?

The sample of families included in this analysis are those in which the household head has at least one child of their own, under age 18, living at home. Within these households, there may also be other members who have children under 18. Families of color are broadly defined as those whose household head identifies as Black, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN), or Asian American or Pacific Islander (AAPI).[1]

We further restrict this sample to a subset of economically vulnerable, or low-income, families, defined as having total family income below 200% of the federal poverty threshold.[2] To place the poverty threshold in context, the federal poverty line (FPL) for a single individual in the 48 contiguous states (excluding Alaska and Hawaii), and Washington, D.C., is $15,560 in 2025. While the FPL increases by $5,500 for each additional family member, a year-round worker earning the federal minimum wage ($7.25 an hour) can’t afford to keep their family out of poverty in 2025 (Hickey and Cid-Martinez 2025). For the remainder of this report, we will use families (of color) to refer to families (of color) with children, and the terms “economically vulnerable” and “low income” will be used interchangeably.

Drawing a demographic portrait of economically vulnerable families

While our main economic analysis is focused exclusively on Black and Hispanic families due to data limitations associated with the sample size of other groups, this section provides a demographic picture of low-income families of color more broadly. Table 1 shows low-income families by race and ethnicity, using data from the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS). As depicted in Table 1, families of color are generally overrepresented among the 9.7 million families with children that are economically vulnerable. While Black, Hispanic, AIAN, and AAPI families collectively account for 44.4% of all families with children, they represent 61.1% of economically vulnerable families with children. Although white families make up a larger share of low-income families than any other single racial or ethnic group, they are underrepresented among low-income families (38.9%) relative to their share of all families (55.6%).

More than 3 in 10 (32.6%) low-income families are Hispanic and more than 1 in 5 (21.5%) are Black. Together, Black and Hispanic families represent more than half (54.1%) of all low-income families with children, but just over one-third (35.1%) of all families with children. While less than 1.5% of all families are AIAN, they too are slightly overrepresented (1.8%) among the economically vulnerable. AAPI families account for 7.9% of all families and 5.2% of economically vulnerable families; however, the aggregate socioeconomic status of AAPI families hides important differences that become evident when we separate groups by country of origin (Cid-Martinez and Marvin 2023).

Immigrant families also make up a disproportionate share of low-income families and are especially prevalent among low-income Hispanic and AAPI families. Foreign-born families made up 23.6% of all families in 2023, but a higher share (30.5%) of low-income families were immigrant families. Slightly more than 8 in 10 (81.1%) economically vulnerable AAPI families are foreign-born, as are more than 6 in 10 (61.9%) comparable Hispanic families.

Beyond economic insecurity, these families face ongoing threats under Trump’s draconian mass deportation agenda, which the administration and congressional Republicans bolstered with new financing in the budget reconciliation bill that Trump signed into law (Costa 2025; NIJC 2025). These attacks on immigrant families and the immigrant workforce will also have ripple effects on the labor market, costing the U.S. economy nearly 6 million jobs, particularly in construction and child care (Zipperer 2025). All of this will also put upward pressure on food and housing prices (McNicholas et al. 2025).

In terms of family structure, low-income families are generally more likely to be headed by women or a non-married household head.[3] However, one finds noticeable variations in these patterns across racial and ethnic groups. For example, Black and AIAN families are most likely to be headed by women, 78.7% and 69.5% respectively, compared with less than half (43.3%) of low-income AAPI families. There are also differences in marital status. Low-income AAPI families are significantly more likely to be led by a married couple (76.2%), compared with about half of white (50.5%) and Hispanic (51.6%) families. More than one-third of low-income AIAN families and one-quarter of low-income Black families are led by married couples. Apart from Black families, less than 1% of low-income families report having a partner or spouse of the same sex in 2023. Because most low-income Black families are headed by women, attacks on women’s reproductive rights, along with efforts to undermine nondiscrimination enforcement for racial and ethnic minorities, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals, impose additional disadvantages for these families.

Economically vulnerable families are also more likely to have more than one child (under age 18): 67% of low-income families have two or more children, compared with 58.7% of all families. However, among low-income families, there is little variation in the number of children across racial and ethnic groups. For example, about two-thirds of all low-income families has two or more children, and only 12.6% have four or more children.

The share of low-income families with either a disabled child or parent of a child shows considerable variation across race and ethnicity. AIAN families stand out as having the highest prevalence of disability. About 1 in 3 (33.7%) AIAN households has a parent or child with a disability. Similarly, more than one-quarter of white families, and more than 1 in 5 Black and Hispanic households have a parent or child with a disability. AAPI households had the smallest share (16.2%) of households with a disabled parent or child.

The share of low-income families that is a part of intergenerational households varies significantly by race and ethnicity group. More than 1 in 8 (13.1%) AAPI households are multigenerational or intergenerational, followed by 7.8% of Hispanic households and 5.9% of AIAN households. Economically vulnerable white families are the least likely to be intergenerational, as less than 4% have a grandparent in the household.

Table 1

The Great Recession and the pandemic recession: Differences and similarities

As this report contrasts the economic experience of families during two different recessions, it is important to first understand the severity and duration of these events.

By official accounts, the Great Recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, representing the longest economic downturn to impact the U.S. economy in the postwar period (NBER 2010). We assess the severity of the Great Recession by examining the impact that it had on the labor market via the employment situation of workers of color (EPI 2025g). These workers are among the first to lose a job during a downturn of the business cycle. Between 2007 and 2010, for example, the unemployment rate for Hispanic workers more than doubled, rising from 5.6% to 12.5%. Similarly, the unemployment rate for Black workers shot up from 8.3% in 2007 to 15.9% in 2010. While the recession had been declared officially over by 2009, it took nearly a decade for the unemployment rate of workers of color to fully recover. This prolonged suffering was largely due to the anemic policy response that followed the Great Recession, largely characterized by austerity measures at both the federal and state levels (Bivens 2019; Bivens 2011). 

Compared with the Great Recession, the pandemic recession was considerably shorter. Officially, the pandemic recession only lasted two months, from February 2020 to April 2020, making it the shortest economic contraction in U.S. history (NBER 2021). But this doesn’t mean that the impact on workers was less severe. Just between February 2020 and April 2020, the unemployment rate for Hispanic workers more than tripled, and that of Black workers more than doubled.

Unlike previous contractions, the economic impact on women was particularly pronounced (Alon et al. 2021).[4] By April 2020, more than 1 in 5 (20.3%) Latina workers were out of a job and seeking employment, as the unemployment rate of these workers quadrupled between February and April of that year.[5] Similarly, the unemployment rate of Black women more than tripled during this period, rising from 5% in February 2020 to 16.4% in April 2020.[6] The nature of the economic shock explains much of the disproportionate impact on these workers, as the public health crisis and mitigation efforts fell most heavily on low-wage industries and occupations in which women of color are overrepresented due in large part to occupational segregation (Wilson 2020).

Despite the sharp rise in joblessness caused by the pandemic recession, the economic suffering didn’t last as long as during the Great Recession. Within two years, the unemployment rate for Black and Hispanic workers had fully recovered to 6.2% and 4.3% respectively, reaching historical lows (EPI 2025g). Black women and Latinas experienced similar rebounds; by 2022, the unemployment rate for Black women and Latinas (at 6.2% and 4.4% respectively) was among their lowest in recorded history (EPI 2025g). This swift and atypically even rebound was not just a function of a much shorter recession. As we detail later in this report, the swift and bold policy response to the pandemic and the economic contraction that followed was qualitatively different from that of previous recessions in the United States. Rather than the austerity and conditional support provided during the Great Recession, policymakers responded to the pandemic crisis with more generous cash transfers and extended support for unemployed workers and families with children.

Weathering crises: How did the last two recessions impact the employment security, poverty status, and housing insecurity of economically vulnerable families?

In this section, we examine how the Great Recession and the pandemic recession impacted the well-being of low-income families in three domains: their employment security, poverty status, and housing insecurity.

Employment security: Labor market attachment of families and employment rate of parents

One way of assessing the impact that business cycle downturns have on the economic well-being of families is by examining the impact that these events have on their employment security and attachment to the labor market. Since earnings represent the primary source of income for most families, involuntary separation from the labor market is likely to magnify the economic hardship experienced by these households. In this section, we examine changes in the labor market attachment of economically vulnerable families by looking at the share of families with at least one full-time earner and by capturing shifts in the employment rate of parents between the ages of 25 and 54.

Labor market attachment

Given the importance of work for low-income families, the prevalence of full-time employment in the household provides a measure of their attachment to the labor market. On average, more than two-thirds of low-income families had at least one full-time earner before the Great Recession. However, as can be seen in Figure A, differences in attachment existed by race and ethnicity even before the crisis. In 2007, 63.6% of Black families had at least one full-time earner, compared with more than 67.7% of white families and 77.7% of Hispanic families.

The Great Recession, and the weak policy response that followed, left a major dent in the labor market attachment of families. By 2010, the attachment gap between white and Black families had widened, as only 56% of Black families had at least one full-time earner that year, compared with 63.1% of their white counterparts. The share of low-income Hispanic households with at least one full-time earner also fell by nearly 10 percentage points, from 77.7% in 2007 to 68.1% in 2010. Comparatively, the rate of attachment for white families dropped by less than five percentage points during this period. While Hispanic families were more likely to report a stronger attachment to the labor market than their white peers, this advantage declined during the crisis and its aftermath. Overall, Black and Hispanic families took nearly a decade to recover, as their attachment to the labor market remained below the pre-crisis level in 2016. 

Leading to the COVID-19 pandemic and the recession, families of color regained a significant measure of the employment they had lost during the Great Recession. By 2018, for example, 64.4% and 76.6% of Black and Hispanic families respectively had at least one full-time earner. Largely due to the much shorter duration of the contraction and the robust policy response that followed, the pandemic recession had a much more muted impact on the labor market attachment of these families. Between 2018 and 2020, the share of economically vulnerable families of color with at least one full-time earner in the household declined only marginally, by about three percentage points for Black and Hispanic families.

By 2022, the share of Black families with a full-time earner had rebounded to 68.1%. This figure was nearly identical to the attachment rate for white families in the same year, and it represented the highest rate for Black families since 2007. While that number declined in 2023, it was still higher than in most years since 2007. On the other hand, by 2023, Hispanic families continued to lag considerably behind their 2007 peak.

Figure A

Employment rate of prime-age low-income parents

Examining changes in the prevalence of full-time earners within the household can provide us with a sense of the impact that crises have on the annual labor market attachment of families. But it does not capture monthly changes in the employment situation of parents over the business cycle. This is particularly important in the context of the pandemic recession since it represents the shortest economic recession in U.S. history. To best capture the impact that this economic contraction had on the employment situation of economically vulnerable parents of color, we examine changes in the employment-to-population (EPOP) ratio of low-income parents between the ages of 25 and 54.

In Figure B, prime-age Hispanic parents enjoyed higher employment rates than their Black and white peers before the pandemic. This pattern is also consistent with those shown in Figure A. Leading to the pandemic in January 2020, 94.7% of low-income Hispanic parents between the ages of 25 and 54 were employed, compared with 89.8% of white parents and 88.6% of Black parents, who face the greatest employment disadvantage historically.

As evidenced in Figure B, the gap in employment between Black and white prime-age parents widened during the pandemic recession. Much of this is explained by the disproportionate impact that the pandemic recession had on parents of color. Between January 2020 and April 2020, the employment rate of prime-age low-income Black and Hispanic parents plummeted by more than 32.7 and 27.0 percentage points respectively. By April 2020, only around half (55.9%) of prime-age Black parents had a job. At this point, prime-age Hispanic parents also saw their employment rate drop to a low of 67.7%. While the employment rate of white parents declined by 17.6 percentage points between January 2020 and April 2020, these parents remained about 29% and 7% more likely to be employed in April 2020 than their Black and Hispanic peers respectively. 

While the employment rate of parents of color declined to historically low levels in 2020, the bold policy response to the pandemic recession led to a quick rebound in the labor market. By the end of 2023, 88.9% of prime-age low-income Black parents and 91.6% of their Hispanic peers had a job. The strong recovery of parents of color also helped narrow the racial gaps in employment seen at the height of the pandemic recession in April 2020.

Figure B

Poverty status: Prevalence of poverty and severe poverty

As low-income families are largely dependent on wage earnings to meet their financial obligations, business cycle fluctuations can significantly affect their economic vulnerability. Without a proportional policy response or adequate social protection systems, these families are the first to fall victim to material hardship during an economic downturn. The Great Recession and the pandemic recession exemplify this, as these crises pushed more low-income families of color into poverty and severe poverty. This is evident when we examine changes in the prevalence, severity, and distribution of poverty over time.

Prevalence of poverty

Leading to the Great Recession, economically vulnerable Black and Hispanic families were more likely than their white peers to fall below the federal poverty line (FPL).[7] In 2007, more than half (53.6%) of low-income Black families were poor, relative to 44.6% and 38.7% of Hispanic and white families respectively (see Figure C). The Great Recession and the inadequate policy response to the downturn pushed a larger share of these families into poverty quickly and for a prolonged period of time. By 2010, more than half (51.2%) of Hispanic families fell below the FPL. The poverty rate for Black families continued to rise the following year, reaching nearly 6 in 10 (58.5%) in 2011. The poverty rates of both Hispanic and Black families did not return to pre-Great Recession levels until 2015, more than half a decade later. While racial gaps first widened and then narrowed throughout the crisis and the slow recovery, poverty rates remained much higher among Black and Hispanic families, relative to their white counterparts. 

By the lead-up to the COVID-19 pandemic and the recession that followed, the poverty rates of families of color were lower than they were in 2007, but a large racial poverty gap remained. While less than half (49.3%) of Black families fell below the FPL in 2018, they remained about 30% more likely to suffer material hardship than their white peers.

Largely because of policy, the material situation of families was not impacted as severely by the pandemic recession as it was during the Great Recession. While Hispanic families experienced a marginal increase in poverty between 2019 and 2022, rising by 3.3 percentage points (relative to the larger increase, of 6.6 percentage points, during the previous downturn), the share of Black families that fell below the FPL during this period declined. By 2022, low-income Black families recorded the lowest poverty rate (44.1%) in the entire period between 2007 and 2023. After economic relief measures expired, poverty rates were relatively stable for Hispanic families but had increased for Black families.

Figure B

Prevalence of severe poverty 

Economic downturns don’t just push economically vulnerable families into poverty. Without the support of a strong social safety net, families can fall deeper into economic deprivation when parents lose their jobs during a recession. The parents struggle to make ends meet and provide their children with the resources they need to flourish and to participate in society without shame. This happened far too often during the Great Recession as an increasing share of low-income families experienced severe poverty, with an income below half (50%) of the federal poverty line. To place this figure in context, the severe poverty threshold for the 48 contagious states and Washington, D.C., amounts to $7,825 annually for a single individual in 2025 (HHS n.d.).

Before being hit by the Great Recession, more than 1 in 4 (26.1%) Black families suffered severe poverty in 2007 (see Figure D). At this stage, Black families were about 61% more likely than their white peers to fall among the poorest of the poor. While Hispanic families fared relatively better in 2007 (with a severe poverty rate close to that of white families), disparities quickly widened. By 2010, more than 1 in 5 (21.6%) Hispanic families fell among the poorest of the poor, and an even larger share (30.3%) of Black families experienced similar material hardship, compared with 18% of their white peers. The anemic policy response to the Great Recession left an elevated share of these families under a prolonged state of economic deprivation until about 2015.

The strong policy response to the pandemic recession prevented a large uptick in the prevalence of poverty, especially for Black families, but severe poverty rates rose significantly for families as the material shortcomings of the most vulnerable worsened. Between 2018 and 2020, the share of Black families that fell among the poorest of the poor increased by 4.7 percentage points, from 22.5% to 27.2%. Hispanic families fared slightly better, as the severe poverty rate for these families rose from 15.6% in 2018 to 18.9% in 2021.

While the exposure of families of color to severe poverty fell in 2022, reaching a historic low of 22% for Black families, severe poverty again rose once economic relief measures ended. By 2023, the share of Black and Hispanic families among the poorest of the poor remained above the pre-recession levels of 2018. In contrast, severe poverty among white families had returned to the pre-recession rate by 2023.

Figure D

Housing insecurity: Prevalence and severity

Business cycle downturns that lead to significant job losses don’t just leave low-income families more vulnerable to poverty. Recessions also leave families much more exposed to housing insecurity, irrespective of whether these families own or rent their homes. As we illustrate below, this is because housing represents a significant expense for resource-constrained families. Low-income families of color are particularly vulnerable to even more pain during downturns as they are also forced to contend with an economy that suffers from an obstinate deficit in affordable housing and one in which the housing and lending markets have historically discriminated against them (Moore and Maye 2024).

In this section, we examine the impact that both the Great Recession and the pandemic recession had on the rent and homeownership rates of families of color. We also look at how the cost burden of housing evolved for both renters and homeowners during and after the crises.

Renters and housing insecurity

Given the high economic barriers to homeownership, Black and Hispanic families are generally more likely to rent, relative to their white peers (see Appendix Table 1). But, as homeownership rates declined during the Great Recession, the share of low-income families who rent has increased. Leading to the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2018, more than 80% of Black families and more than 70% of Hispanic families were renters. In contrast, slightly more than half (55.3%) of white families rented their homes that same year. While the share of renters was lower post-pandemic, racial gaps widened in 2023 with Black and Hispanic families being 61% and 36%, correspondingly, more likely to rent than their white peers.

The pandemic and the short economic downturn that followed exacerbated the already precarious position that low-income renters found themselves in after the Great Recession. By 2017, nearly a decade after the Great Recession, the share of economically vulnerable families that spend 30% or more of their income on rent remained above the pre-recession levels of 2007 (see Figure E). In 2018, for example, more than 8 in 10 Black and Hispanic families that rent were housing poor. The strong pandemic recovery did little to shelter these families from the housing affordability crisis in the U.S. that was amplified by the global health crisis (Moore and Maye 2024). By 2023, racial gaps had widened as the share of Black and Hispanic families that spend over 30% of their income on rent climbed above the peaks reached in the aftermath of the Great Recession.

Figure E

The impact of the last two recessions on families fell most heavily on those that spend more than half of their income on rent. While some of these renting families had recovered by the time that the pandemic recession rolled in, the share of Hispanic families experiencing severe housing insecurity remained above pre-recession levels in 2019 (see Figure F). Black families were particularly disadvantaged. Nearly half (48.3%) of low-income Black families spent over half of their income on rent in 2019. The situation quickly worsened for all families, as the strong economic recovery failed to protect these families from the growing affordability crisis in housing. By 2023, a higher share of white, Black, and Hispanic families spent more than half of their income on rent than at any other point since 2007. Low-income Black and Hispanic families remain most disadvantaged, as more than half of these families spend over 50% of their income on rent.

Figure F

Homeowners and housing insecurity

The Great Recession deepened the racial divide in homeownership rates, as families of color were disproportionately touched by the crisis (see Appendix Table 1). The share of low-income Black families that owned their home declined from 21.5% in 2007 to 15.7% in 2016, and from 34.6% to 28.3% during the same period for their Hispanic peers. By 2017, a decade after the start of the crisis, the homeownership rate of families had yet to recover, and racial disparities had widened. At this stage, economically vulnerable white families were 169% and 48% more likely than their Black and Hispanic peers respectively to own their home. 

Despite the steep gaps in homeownership, the pandemic recession didn’t quite lead to a suppression of homeownership rates for families. Partly as a function of younger households transitioning toward ownership, low interest rates, and the generous (albeit temporary) economic relief measures enacted in response to the pandemic recession, the downturn failed to reverse the gains in homeownership that economically vulnerable families of color were already experiencing in 2018 and 2019 (Sanchez-Moyano 2024; Callis 2023).

By 2023, slightly more than one-third (34%) of low-income Hispanic families owned their home, compared with about 3 in 10 (29.7%) in 2018. Black families also experienced gains. During this period, the homeownership rate of low-income Black families increased by 5.3 percentage points, from 16.4% in 2018 to 21.7% in 2023. By 2023, the homeownership of low-income Black and Hispanic families had achieved a near full recovery from both the Great Recession and the pandemic recession. While these achievements in homeownership helped narrow racial disparities, economically vulnerable families of color remained significantly less likely to own their homes in 2023 compared with their white peers.

While owning a home can be an important step toward wealth creation, economically vulnerable homeowners spend a significant share of their income on housing costs associated with mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, and more (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). Leading to the pandemic recession, Black homeowners remained more likely to spend over 30% of their income on housing costs (see Figure G). At this stage in 2019, 65.2% of economically vulnerable Black families who owned their homes were housing poor, compared with fewer than 6 in 10 Hispanic and white families. Despite the economic relief measures that helped economically vulnerable families weather the shock of the pandemic recession, housing insecurity rose for nearly all families. By 2023, a slightly higher share of Black and Hispanic families who owned their homes spent over 30% of their income on housing than in 2019.

Figure G

The impact of the pandemic recession and the increasing cost of housing in the U.S. is even more evident when we examine the situation of low-income families suffering from severe housing insecurity (Moore and Maye 2024). These are homeowning families who spend over half of their income on housing. Despite the short duration of the most recent downturn, the share of economically vulnerable families who face severe housing insecurity climbed by more than four percentage points between 2019 and 2023 (see Figure H). By 2023, Black families remained disproportionately vulnerable to economic pain with a prevalence of severe housing insecurity comparable to the hardship they experienced in the lead-up to the Great Recession. Since 2007, more than 2 in 5 economically vulnerable Black families who own their homes were unable to escape severe housing poverty as a result of having to spend over 50% of their income on housing costs.

Figure H

Lessons learned: Key policy choices that made a difference during the pandemic recession and are still needed to break the cycle of economic vulnerability for families

By nearly every measure of economic well-being examined above, low-income families of color weathered the pandemic recession better than the Great Recession largely because of policy choices. The weak policy response to the Great Recession, centered on austerity at the federal and state levels, contrasted sharply with the bold response to the pandemic recession guided by economic relief measures and public investments. This enabled families to avoid a prolonged separation from the job market and a worsening of their material conditions.

The last two recessions and their distinct recoveries left us with a clear blueprint for action. The economic lessons are not unfamiliar:

• Full employment policies that create tight labor markets also promote economic equity for workers and their families.
• Good jobs are union jobs.
• A strong social safety net helps families avoid unnecessary and scarring economic deprivation.

Breaking the vicious cycle that leaves low-income families more susceptible to hardship during recessions will require a renewed commitment to full employment, stronger worker rights and unions, and a robust welfare state that meets the needs of families and children. While the policies that can accomplish these objectives commonly face political headwinds, actions taken by the Trump administration and Congress will create even worse conditions.

Full employment policies are equity-enhancing policies 

While economists debate the overall rate of unemployment that constitutes full employment, there is less debate about the equity-enhancing effects of a tight or “high-pressure” labor market, one in which willing workers can obtain access to a job and the working hours they prefer (Bivens 2021; Bivens and Zipperer 2018). Sustained periods of low unemployment can effectively boost the earnings of low-wage workers and help narrow persistent racial disparities in a labor market that disproportionately disadvantages the employment situation of workers of color and the economic well-being of their families (Wilson 2023; Bivens 2021). The narrowing of these gaps would not constitute full healing from the legacy and continued expression of structural racism and xenophobia in the U.S. economy, but it would be a step in the right direction. Historical evidence points to increased economic equity via low unemployment and rapid job growth. 

The recent economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic contraction that followed serves as a good example of a policy regime that aimed, in large part, to provide a strong or high-pressure labor market. Unlike the economic recovery from the Great Recession, the rebound from the pandemic recession has been characterized by bold fiscal policies, via much-needed relief and strategic public investments, and more accommodating monetary policy that kept downward pressure on unemployment (Wilson 2023; Bivens 2024; Bivens 2016). The results of this policy regime are unambiguously clear: Workers of color made historic gains over the last five years in both employment and earnings, with Black and Hispanic real wages (adjusted for inflation) growing more than three times faster over the last five years than the four decades prior (Cid-Martinez, Maye, and Marvin 2025).

Instead of providing continuity to the economic regime they inherited, the Trump-Vance administration is pursuing a macroeconomic and trade policy that is sowing economic uncertainty and chaos and has already led to a contraction of economic growth in the first quarter of 2025.

Unions help narrow economic disparities that hurt workers and their families

It is easy to envision growing income disparities that threaten the economic security of working families as endemic features of the U.S. economy. Between 1979 and 2023, for example, the real annual earnings for the top 1% of earners increased by 181.7%, while the earnings for the bottom 90% grew just 43.7% (Gould and Kandra 2024). This economic divide mirrors another increasing gap between economywide productivity and the hourly pay of the typical worker, a gap that is even more pronounced for the typical Black and Hispanic worker (Moore and Banerjee 2021). But none of these trends is inevitable.

Behind these rising inequities one finds a wide range of deliberate policies choices that have weakened labor standards and stripped workers of their ability to bargain collectively for better compensation and working conditions (Mishel and Bivens 2021), including the erosion of union membership since the late 1950s (Bivens et al. 2023b).

Workers of color have been disproportionately touched by the decline of union density in the U.S. economy since they typically receive a larger wage boost from union membership. Compared with the premium of the average worker, the union pay premium is higher for Black and Hispanic workers (Bivens et al. 2023a). Black workers, for example, are more likely than white workers to be unionized (13.1% vs 11.2%), and the wage advantage unionized Black workers receive from being covered by collective bargaining is 12.6% (EPI 2025f; EPI 2025h). This premium is higher than the 11.9% average wage premium for unionized white workers. While Hispanic workers have slightly lower union coverage (9.7%) than white workers, they claim a higher union wage advantage of 16.4%.

Unions can also protect workers from discrimination and improve working conditions. Because private employment in the U.S. is for the most part “at will,” employers can terminate workers for nearly any reason, without providing notice or severance. This power imbalance harms workers of color disproportionately, as they are more likely than their white peers to report unfair dismissals (Bivens et al. 2023a). Unions protect these workers with the provision of “just cause” rights that shelter workers from discriminatory and retaliatory practices and unfair dismissals. Unions also offer workers better employment conditions. This is important for economically vulnerable families who face care needs alongside scarce resources. Unionized workers, for example, are more likely than their nonunion peers to have access to paid sick days and employer-sponsored health and retirement benefits (Shierholz et al. 2024).

Low-income working parents stand to gain the most from union membership. However, few of them belong to a union. Only 8% of prime-age Black parents and 4.9% of Hispanic parents belonged to a union in 2023. Similarly, only 5.3% of economically vulnerable white parents between the ages of 25 and 54 belonged to a union in the same year.

Instead of strengthening the rights of workers to bargain collectively, President Trump has openly embarked on an anti-worker agenda centered on weakening the federal agency tasked with protecting the most basic and fundamental U.S. labor rights, the National Labor Relations Board (McNicholas et al. 2025). These efforts will leave families of color much more vulnerable to discrimination in the labor market and to wage theft and mistreatment at work.

The social safety net expanded in response to the pandemic, which demonstrated that poverty remains a policy choice

The welfare of economically vulnerable families of color and their children is not an insurmountable problem beyond the reach of public policy. This became most evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. The federal government responded to this crisis boldly with an array of economic relief measures, such as economic impact or stimulus payments; with provisional expansions of social programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and the unemployment insurance (UI) program; with temporary enhancements of tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC); and with increased federal assistance to state and local governments. Overall, these measures kept millions of people out of poverty in 2021 (Banerjee and Zipperer 2022). The economic impact or stimulus checks alone kept nearly 9 million people out of poverty in 2021, including more than 2 million children (Shrider and Creamer 2023).

The expanded social safety net had a notable impact on alleviating the material hardship experienced by families of color. This is most evident when we look at trends in the prevalence of child poverty. For this, we rely on child poverty rates based on the Census Bureau‘s Supplemental Poverty Measure, which accounts for cash and in-kind transfers as well as geographic differences in housing costs. By this measure, the post-pandemic social policy regime looks particularly effective in its ability to reach children of color and to alleviate the human suffering that accompanies deprivation at a young age. Between 2019 and 2021, for example, child poverty rates fell by more than half across nearly all groups, reaching their lowest levels in recorded history (see Figure I). Before the pandemic, more than 1 in 5 Black and Hispanic children fell below the supplemental poverty line in 2019. By 2021, these rates plummeted by nearly 60%, as the Black and Hispanic child poverty rate dropped to 8.3% and 8.4% respectively. The Asian American and AIAN child poverty rates also declined by more than 40% during this period, reaching historic lows of 5.1% and 7.4% respectively in 2021.

Many of the gains in poverty reduction were driven by the expansion of the Child Tax Credit (Gould 2022). Relative to all income transfers in 2021, the expanded CTC drove an estimated 44% of the reduction in child poverty that year (Parolin 2023). The impact was especially pronounced for children of color (Burns and Fox 2022). For example, this expanded credit lifted an estimated 1.2 million Hispanic children out of poverty in 2021. Similarly, more than 700,000 Black children and over 100,000 Asian children avoided falling below the supplemental poverty line in 2021 because of the expanded CTC. The rest of the social policy levers (aside from Social Security) that drove the bulk of the historic reduction in child poverty had also been provisionally expanded under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), including EITC, SNAP, and UI benefits.

Despite the powerful effect these measures had in extinguishing poverty, nearly all the enhanced social safety net measures under ARPA expired by 2022. This purposeful expiration erased the bulk of the gains in poverty alleviation that families and children of color had achieved economically in 2021 (Cid-Martinez and Zipperer 2023). This is evident when we examine how the end of the expanded welfare state impacted the prevalence of poverty for children of color. Between 2021 and 2023, the poverty rates of Black, Hispanic, Asian, and AIAN children had more than doubled, returning to or exceeding 2019 levels (see Figure I). This increase marked an obliteration of the gains achieved in poverty reduction between 2019 and 2021. In fact, by 2023, the poverty rates of all groups were either higher, or no different, than the pre-pandemic estimates of 2019. 

Instead of expanding the CTC to help more low-income parents meet the basic needs of their children and reduce poverty, the Republican-led budget reconciliation bill that Trump signed into law fails to increase benefits for the 17 million children who receive less than the full value of the credit because their parents earn too little to meet the earnings requirement (Maag 2025). The Republican law is also particularly harmful to children of migrant parents, as it revokes the credit eligibility of children that are U.S. citizens if both spouses in a married couple lack a Social Security number (Tax Policy Center 2025). At least one spouse will now need to have a Social Security number in order for a U.S. citizen child to qualify for the CTC. While the Republican law increases the maximum credit from $2,000 to $2,200 per child, no significant changes in the refundability structure and earnings requirement mean that CTC benefits will remain out of reach for the children of the poorest of the poor, while middle- and high-income families continue to receive most of the benefits (Collyer et al. 2025; Crandall-Hollick, Maag, and Jha 2025).

The Republican budget reconciliation bill that the president signed into law also missed an opportunity to break the cycle of economic vulnerability that poor children face with the “Trump accounts.” These new tax-free investment accounts will provide a single government contribution of $1,000 to every child born in the next four years (Hamilton and Pressley 2025). The current administration is also discussing these accounts as a “back door for privatizing Social Security,” a program that helps narrow racial and income disparities, lifting more than one million children out of poverty in 2023 (Price and Mascaro 2025; Morrissey and Bivens 2025; Shrider 2024).

Unlike the more popular Baby Bonds, which require sustained contributions from the federal government throughout childhood with the goal of narrowing the racial wealth gap, the Trump accounts are built on the mistaken premise that low-income families lack an incentive to save when the real issue is that they lack enough discretionary income to put into a savings account (Markoff, Radcliff, and Hamilton 2025). The employment, income, and wealth disadvantages that low-income families with children face leave them in a perennial struggle to access basic necessities like health care, housing, and child care. These families are often an emergency away from falling into poverty or severe poverty. Helping families escape this generational challenge will require more than a new savings vehicle that will further widen the divide between the rich and poor by providing yet another giveaway to rich families.

Figure I

Conclusion

Low-income families of color were disproportionately impacted by the economic suffering that came in the wake of the last two recessions. Both the Great Recession and the pandemic recession worsened the employment security, poverty status, and housing insecurity of these families. In contrast with the Great Recession, policymakers responded to the pandemic with a show of strength that helped families recover their employment and bounce back from poverty significantly faster. But housing insecurity and poverty continue to leave these families particularly vulnerable when the next recession strikes.

While the prospects of a recession continue to rise due to the chaos and uncertainty generated by the Trump-Vance administration, they are deliberately ignoring the lessons of the past. This administration has failed to protect the strong labor market they inherited, has failed to empower workers to bargain for better pay and working conditions, and has failed to strengthen basic needs programs. Instead, the administration is proudly advancing an economic agenda that forces austerity on low-income families, strips away protection from discrimination for people of color, and offers more tax cuts for those who do not need it—the ultrarich. This economic agenda will push even more families into poverty and prolong the pain that follows a recession.

Appendix

Appendix Table 1

Acknowledgments

Support for this research was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation.

Notes

[1] Our classification of race and ethnicity is mutually exclusive, such that white families are non-Hispanic white, and Black families represent all families in which the head identified their race as Black in combination with other races. Hispanic families include those in which the head identified Hispanic origin, irrespective of race. Among the remaining pool, those who identified as American Indian in combination with other races are listed as AIAN, and respondents who identified as Asian or Pacific Islander in combination with other races (such as Asian and white or Pacific Islander and white) are listed as AAPI.

[2] Total family income is the sum of the individual incomes of each family member. Because unmarried partners are nonrelated household members, the unmarried partner’s total income is not incorporated in the primary family’s total family income. In cases where the income statuses of the household head and the unmarried partner are different, we use the income status of the household head.

[3] Similarly to race and ethnicity, the marital status of the family is informed by the status of the household head, such that married captures respondents who identify as married, irrespective of the presence of the spouse. All other responses are classified as not married.

[4] As we point out below, this disproportionately affected low-income families of color,  which are more likely to be headed by women.

[5] The unemployment rate here is captured by the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of Hispanic women, 20 years old and over.

[6] The unemployment rate here is captured by the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of Black women, 20 years old and over.

[7] This federal poverty line is informed by the official poverty measure (OPM) published annually by the Census Bureau since 1967. This measure uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. While the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) is considered to be a more accurate and comprehensive measure because it accounts for government transfers and geographic cost-of-living expenses, including housing, published estimates only go back to 2009 (Shrider 2024). For the purpose of this analysis, we rely on OPM to capture the impact of both the Great Recession and pandemic recession.

References

Alon, Titan, Sena Coskun, Matthias Doepke, David Koll, and Michèle Tertilt. 2021. “From Mancession to Shecession: Women’s Employment in Regular and Pandemic Recessions.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 28632, April 2021. https://doi.org/10.3386/w28632.

Banerjee, Asha, Margaret Poydock, Celine McNicholas, Ihna Mangundayao, and Ali Sait. 2021. Unions Are Not Only Good for Workers, They’re Good for Communities and for Democracy: High Unionization Levels Are Associated with Positive Outcomes Across Multiple Indicators of Economic, Personal, and Democratic Well-Being. Economic Policy Institute, December 2021.

Banerjee, Asha, and Ben Zipperer. 2022. “Pandemic Safety Net Programs Kept Millions out of Poverty in 2021, New Census Data Show.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), September 13, 2022.

Bivens, Josh. 2011. Failure by Design: The Story Behind America’s Broken Economy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press.

Bivens, Josh. 2016. Why Is Recovery Taking So Long—and Who’s to Blame? Economic Policy Institute, August 2016.

Bivens, Josh. 2019. What Should We Know About the Next Recession? Economic Policy Institute, April 2019.

Bivens, Josh. 2021. The Promise and Limits of High-Pressure Labor Markets for Narrowing Racial Gaps. Economic Policy Institute, August 2021.

Bivens, Josh. 2024. “The Post-Pandemic Recovery Is an Economic Policy Success Story: Policymakers Took the Best Way Through a Rocky Path.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), October 1, 2024.

Bivens, Josh. 2025a. “The Macroeconomics of the Trump Administration: Chaotic and Harmful Policies Will Make the United States Poorer—Either Rapidly or Gradually.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), March 12, 2025.

Bivens, Josh. 2025b. There Will Be Pain: Continuing Low Tax Rates for the Rich and Corporations Will Hurt Working Families. Economic Policy Institute, February 2025.

Bivens, Josh, Elise Gould, Adam S. Hersh, Hilary Wething, and Ben Zipperer. 2025. Recession FAQ (FAQ). Economic Policy Institute, June 10, 2025.

Bivens, Josh, Celine McNicholas, Kyle K. Moore, and Margaret Poydock. 2023a. Unions Promote Racial Equity (fact sheet). Economic Policy Institute, July 31, 2023.

Bivens, Josh, Celine McNicholas, Margaret Poydock, Jennifer Sherer, and Monica Leon. 2023b. What to Know About This Summer’s Strike Activity: What’s Spurring the Rise in Labor Actions? Economic Policy Institute, August 2023.

Bivens, Josh, and Ben Zipperer. 2018. The Importance of Locking in Full Employment for the Long Haul. Economic Policy Institute, August 2018.

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2025. “Gross Domestic Product, 2nd Quarter 2025 (Advance Estimate)” (news release). July 30, 2025.

Burns, Kalee, and Liana E. Fox. 2022. “The Impact of the 2021 Expanded Child Tax Credit on Child Poverty.” Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division (U.S. Census Bureau) Working Papers no. 2022-24, November 2022.

Callis, Robert R. 2023. “Younger Householders Drove Rebound in U.S. Homeownership.” America Counts: Stories (U.S. Census Bureau), July 25, 2023.

Cid-Martinez, Ismael. 2025. “Cuts to SNAP Benefits Will Disproportionately Harm Families of Color and Children.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), April 29, 2025.

Cid-Martinez, Ismael, and Stevie Marvin. 2023. “Broad Child Poverty Data for the Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Population Don’t Tell the Whole Economic Story.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), May 26, 2023.

Cid-Martinez, Ismael, Adewale A. Maye, and Stevie Marvin. 2025. “Workers of Color Made Historic Gains over the Last Five Years, but Trump’s Anti-Worker and Anti-Equity Agenda Threatens to Reverse This Progress.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), March 27, 2025.

Cid-Martinez, Ismael, Kyle K. Moore, and Adewale A. Maye. 2025. “Cuts to Medicaid Will Disproportionately Hurt People of Color and Children.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), April 2, 2025.

Cid-Martinez, Ismael, and Ben Zipperer. 2023. “The End of Key U.S. Public Assistance Measures Pushed Millions of People into Poverty in 2022.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), September 12, 2023.

Collyer, Sophie, Christopher Yera, Megan Curran, David Harris, and Christopher Wimer. 2025. “Children Left Behind by the H.R.1 Child Tax Credit.” Poverty and Social Policy Brief (Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University), June 5, 2025.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 2025a. “Estimated Budgetary Effects of an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Relative to CBO’s January 2025 Baseline.” [Excel file] Accessed July 2025.

Congressional Budget Office. 2025b. “Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 119-21, to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of H. Con. Res. 14, Relative to CBO’s January 2025 Baseline.” [Excel file] Accessed July 2025.

Costa, Daniel. 2025. “House Republican Budget Bill Gives Trump $185 Billion to Carry Out His Mass Deportation Agenda—While Doing Nothing for Workers.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), June 5, 2025.

Crandall-Hollick, Margot, Elaine Maag, and Muskan Jha. 2025. Options to Reform the Child Tax Credit in the 2025 Tax Debate. Tax Policy Center, May 2025.

Department of Education (ED). n.d. “Education and Title VI” (web page). Last reviewed April 11, 2025.

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). n.d. “2025 Poverty Guidelines” [pdf]. Accessed July 2025.

Department of Justice (DOJ). 2025. “EEOC and Justice Department Warn Against Unlawful DEI-Related Discrimination” (press release). March 19, 2025.

Dianis, Judith Browne. 2025. “Eliminating the Department of Education Would Hurt Black Students.” Time, February 27, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025a. “Department of Education Reduces Workforce by Half.” Federal Policy Watch (Economic Policy Institute), July 14, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025b. “Firing EEOC General Counsel Karla Gilbride.” Federal Policy Watch (Economic Policy Institute), January 29, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025c. “Rescind EO 14021, Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free from Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity.” Federal Policy Watch (Economic Policy Institute), January 24, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025d. “Rescission of Biden-Era EOs on Racial Equity and Racial Justice for AANHPI, Black, Hispanic, and Native Americans.” Federal Policy Watch (Economic Policy Institute), January 24, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025e. “Rescission of EOs on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Black, Hispanic, AANHPI, and Native Americans.” Federal Policy Watch (Economic Policy Institute), January 22, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute analysis of Current Population Survey data from EPI Microdata Extracts, Version 2025.5.8, https://microdata.epi.org.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025f. “Share Represented by a Union” [web page], State of Working America Data Library. Published 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025g. “Unemployment—Unemployment Rate” [web page], State of Working America Data Library. Published 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025h. “Union Wage Premium, Average (Regression-Based)” [web page], State of Working America Data Library. Published 2025.

EPI Staff. 2025. “Weak Jobs Report May Signal a Coming Recession.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), August 1, 2025.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 2025. “EEOC Acting Chair Vows to Protect American Workers from Anti-American Bias” (press release). February 19, 2025.

Flood, Sarah, Miriam King, Renae Rodgers, Steven Ruggles, J. Robert Warren, Daniel Backman, Annie Chen, Grace Cooper, Stephanie Richards, Megan Schouweiler, and Michael Westberry. 2024. IPUMS CPS: Version 12.0 . Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS. https://doi.org/10.18128/D030.V12.0

Gould, Elise. 2022. “Child Tax Credit Expansions Were Instrumental in Reducing Poverty Rates to Historic Lows in 2021.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), September 22, 2022.

Gould, Elise, and Jori Kandra. 2024. “Wage Inequality Fell in 2023 amid a Strong Labor Market, Bucking Long-Term Trends: But Top 1% Wages Have Skyrocketed 182% Since 1979 While Bottom 90% Wages Have Seen Just 44% Growth.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), December 11, 2024.

Hamilton, Darrick, and Ayanna Pressley. 2025. “‘Trump Accounts’ Will Save Kids? Republicans Can’t Be Serious.” Washington Post, June 11, 2025.

Hickey, Sebastian Martinez, and Ismael Cid-Martinez. 2025. “The Federal Minimum Wage Is Officially a Poverty Wage in 2025.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), April 28, 2025.

Maag, Elaine. 2025. “House and Senate Plans Boost Child Tax Credit, Could Help More Low-Income Families.” TaxVox (Tax Policy Center), June 25, 2025.

Markoff, Shira, David Radcliffe, and Darrick Hamilton. 2025. A Brighter Future with Baby Bonds: How States and Cities Should Invest in Our Kids. Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy, February 2024.

Maye, Adewale A., and Valerie Wilson. 2025. “Trump Is Making It Easier for Employers to Discriminate. This Stifles Equity and Hurts Economic Growth.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), May 27, 2025.

McNicholas, Celine, Samantha Sanders, Josh Bivens, Margaret Poydock, and Daniel Costa. 2025. 100 Ways Trump Has Hurt Workers in His First 100 Days. Economic Policy Institute, April 2025.

Mishel, Lawrence, and Josh Bivens. 2021. Identifying the Policy Levers Generating Wage Suppression and Wage Inequality. Economic Policy Institute, May 2021.

Moore, Kyle K. 2025. “Trump’s Gutting of Public Health Institutions Is Setting the Stage for Our Next Crisis.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), April 21, 2025.

Moore, Kyle K., and Asha Banerjee. 2021. “Black and Brown Workers Saw the Weakest Wage Gains over a 40-Year Period in Which Employers Failed to Increase Wages with Productivity.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), September 16, 2021.

Moore, Kyle K., and Adewale A. Maye. 2024. “The Free Market Won’t Solve Our Nationwide Housing Affordability Problem: Equity-Focused Policy Is the Solution.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), May 7, 2024.

Morrissey, Monique, and Josh Bivens. 2025. Social Security FAQ (FAQ). Economic Policy Institute, August 11, 2025.

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). 2010. “Business Cycle Dating Committee Announcement September 20, 2010” (news release). September 20, 2010.

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). 2021. “Business Cycle Dating Committee Announcement July 19, 2021” (news release). July 19, 2021.

National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC). 2025. “How Congress Codified Hateful and Extreme Anti-Immigrant Policies by Passing Trump’s Budget Bill.” July 10, 2025.

Olson, Alexandra, and Claire Savage. 2025. “Trump Fires Two Democratic Commissioners of Agency That Enforces Civil Rights Laws in the Workplace” Associated Press, January 29, 2025.

Parolin, Zachary. 2023. Poverty in the Pandemic: Policy Lessons from COVID-19. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Price, Michelle L., and Lisa Mascaro. 2025. “Bessent Says New Trump Child Savings Accounts Are ‘Back Door for Privatizing Social Security.’” Associated Press, July 30, 2025.

Ruggles, Steven, Sarah Flood, Matthew Sobek, Daniel Backman, Grace Cooper, Julia A. Rivera Drew, Stephanie Richards, Renae Rodgers, Jonathan Schroeder, and Kari C.W. Williams. 2025. IPUMS USA: Version 16.0 . Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS. https://doi.org/10.18128/D010.V16.0

Sanchez-Moyano, Rocio. 2024. Pandemic Homebuyers: Who Were They, and Where Did They Buy? Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, October 2024.

Santhanam, Laura. 2025. “Trump Cuts to Education Department Grants Will Cost Students Opportunities, Educators and Former Employees Say.” PBS News, May 28, 2025.

Sherman, Mark. 2025. “Supreme Court Allows Trump to Lay Off Nearly 1,400 Education Department Employees.” Associated Press, July 14, 2025.

Shierholz, Heidi. 2025. “The Radical Republican Budget Bill Steals from the Poor to Give Tax Cuts to the Rich.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), July 2, 2025.

Shierholz, Heidi, Celine McNicholas, Margaret Poydock, and Jennifer Sherer. 2024. Workers Want Unions, but the Latest Data Point to Obstacles in Their Path: Private-Sector Unionization Rose by More than a Quarter Million in 2023, While Unionization in State and Local Governments Fell. Economic Policy Institute, January 2024.

Shrider, Emily A. 2024. Poverty in the United States: 2023. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-283, September 2024.

Shrider, Emily A., and John Creamer. 2023. Poverty in the United States: 2022. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-280, September 2023.

Tax Policy Center. 2025. “Comparing Child Tax Credit Legislation in 2025” (web page). Last updated July 10, 2025.

The Budget Lab at Yale (The Budget Lab). 2025. “Distributional Effects of Selected Provisions of the House and Senate Reconciliation Bills.” June 30, 2025.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. Differences Between the Housing Cost and Housing Quality Estimates from the American Community Survey and the American Housing Survey (fact sheet). November 30, 2004.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2024. Poverty in the United States: 2023, “Table B-2. Number and Percentage of People in Poverty Using the Supplemental Poverty Measure, by Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 2009 to 2023.” [Excel file]. Accessed May 2025.

Wheaton, Laura, Linda Giannarelli, Sarah Minton, and Ilham Dehry. 2025. “How the Senate Budget Reconciliation SNAP Proposals Will Affect Families in Every US State.” Urban Institute, July 2, 2025.

Wilson, Valerie. 2020. “Inequities Exposed: How COVID-19 Widened Racial Inequities in Education, Health, and the Workforce.” Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, D.C., June 22, 2020.

Wilson, Valerie R. 2023. “Tight Labor Markets Are Essential to Reducing Racial Disparities in the Labor Market and Within the Purview of the Fed’s Dual Mandate.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 43, no. 1: 322–328. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22545.

Zipperer, Ben. 2025. Trump’s Deportation Agenda Will Destroy Millions of Jobs: Both Immigrants and U.S.-Born Workers Would Suffer Job Losses, Particularly in Construction and Child Care. Economic Policy Institute, July 2025.

The broad-based nature of the labor market recovery is most evident when examining the employment-to-population (EPOP) ratio of prime-age workers between the ages of 25 and 54. Unlike the unemployment rate, the EPOP ratio is not influenced by changes in labor force participation since it captures the share of workers during a given period that have a job. The prime-age EPOP ratio is also less influenced by college attendance and the aging of the population when compared with the employment rate of all workers. As shown in Figure A, the employment rate of prime-age Black, Hispanic, AAPI, and AIAN workers hit record highs within the past few years. For example, the share of prime-age Black workers with a job reached a historic peak of 77.7% in 2023.

Figure A

The rapid and sustained labor market recovery also helped deliver stronger wage growth for workers of color (see Figure B). Black workers experienced the fastest wage growth of any group between 2019 and 2024. In fact, Black and Hispanic real wages grew more than three times faster over the last five years than the four decades prior, on an annualized basis. Much of this is explained by low-wage workers (who are disproportionately workers of color) experiencing strong wage growth since 2019, as the tight labor market with low unemployment compelled employers to expand their hiring networks and compete for workers by offering higher wages. 

Figure B

These historic gains should be protected and continued through a policy regime centered on low unemployment and pro-worker, pro-equity policies. Instead, all of these things are now under threat. Since taking office, President Trump has signed several executive orders centered on deporting migrants, including taking actions that will make it harder for migrants to legally work and support their families in the United States. He also signed orders ending critical diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs within the federal government, which were dedicated to promoting goals of racial and gender equity within the economy and beyond.

Further, President Trump has stifled the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by illegally firing Commissioners Charlotte Burrows and Jocelyn Samuels, who were appointed by President Biden and confirmed by the Senate. As an independent agency, EEOC commissioners are intended to be insulated from presidential interference once nominated and confirmed. These illegal firings have prevented the EEOC from reaching a quorum to hear cases and fulfill its mission to enforce federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination and harassment.

Beyond these executive actions, the Trump administration has engineered an economic climate of chaos by announcing (and seemingly walking back) a temporary freeze of federal assistance and broad-based tariffs against trading partners.

But it’s not just Trump who poses a threat. Republicans in Congress are considering plans to gut the social safety net, including Medicaid, a move that would make economically vulnerable families pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. These efforts are likely to severely limit our capacity to recover quickly from the next economic crisis as well as exacerbate the persistently high levels of poverty that disproportionately burden families and children of color.

These policies don’t just threaten the historic gains for workers of color over the last five years. All workers and their families are now forced to contend with heightened uncertainty and chaos that put their employment and broader economic security at risk. As attacks on public-sector employment continue, and the prospects of a self-inflicted recession rise, it’s likely workers of color will once again be among the first to contend with setbacks, reversing the forward movement of the last five years.

Children of color endure a disproportionate share of the burden of poverty in the United States. In 2023, Black, Hispanic, and American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) children remained about three times as likely as their non-Hispanic white peers to fall below the poverty line (see Figure A below). Similarly, Asian children were about twice as likely to suffer material shortcomings relative to their white peers.

Figure A

The results of the policy response to the pandemic proved that we purposely choose to tolerate a disproportionately high level of poverty for children of color in the United States. Between 2019 and 2021, the poverty rate of all these children declined by about half. This decline was largely attributed to the expanded Child Tax Credit (CTC), which helped lift out of poverty more than 700,000 Black children and more than 1 million Hispanic children. But after lawmakers failed to extend the expansion of the CTC, nearly all the gains in poverty reduction disappeared the next year.

Inequities remained unjustifiably high even when the poverty rate for children of color declined to its lowest point in 2021, reflecting the embeddedness of structural racism in the U.S. economy. Black and Hispanic children remained three times as likely as their white peers in 2021 to suffer the debilitating effects of poverty at a young age (see Figure A above). This racial gap is partly explained by the inadequacies of the expanded CTC to reach all families in need. But structural racism and the myth of race-neutral policies lie behind the broader persistence of the poverty gap.  

The material shortcomings endured by children reflect the economic situation of their parents and family. Black households are more likely to experience joblessness and low earnings than their non-Hispanic white peers. In 2023, the typical Black and Hispanic household earned just 63 cents and 74 cents, respectively, for every dollar earned by the median non-Hispanic white household. These persistent disadvantages leave families of color much more vulnerable to poverty. At the same time, the eroding U.S. social safety net leaves children from economically vulnerable families much more defenseless in the face of economic shocks.

Realizing Dr. King’s dream will require a recognition that the brunt of economic disparities falls largely on children of color, and Black children in particular. The early deprivation that poor Black children are left to endure is likely to compound once they enter a labor market that shapes outcomes by race and economic status. Breaking this cycle of economic vulnerability will require some form of child allowance, akin to the enhanced CTC, that doesn’t exclude families who stand to gain the most due to their material shortcomings.

The ability of unconditional cash transfers to relieve families from economic hardship and food insufficiency in 2021 proved once and for all that we don’t need to run social experiments to know that all families in need are deserving of relief. Similarly, our sustained commitment to full employment and fighting for stronger workers’ rights and unions should form part of a broad basket of policy solutions that enhance economic equity. Republicans in Congress are currently considering plans to do the exact opposite. House Republicans are proposing to slash spending on social safety net programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—or food stamps—to essentially make hungry families pay for federal tax cuts for wealthy households. Food stamps alone kept more than 1.3 million children out of poverty last year. Continuing to gut the social safety net in the face of persistently high poverty fails all children and robs our economy of their future contributions.

The newly updated chartbook provides a more detailed snapshot of the social, political, and economic conditions for AIAN, Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI), Black, Hispanic, and white households, and those data are also disaggregated by gender where possible.

The addition of AIAN data represents an ongoing effort to improve and expand representation of Indigenous communities within economic research and policy discussions. Historically, their exclusion has reflected a genuine lack of data of comparable quality and quantity compared with more populous groups within the United States. However, it is important to also acknowledge that Indigenous Americans have often been deliberately erased from the American narrative, even when those conversations center on social and economic justice. A history of physical, cultural, and economic violence—combined with institutional neglect and the denial of sovereignty—has resulted in AIAN communities experiencing rates of poverty, incarceration, and unemployment much more similar to Black and Hispanic Americans than white and Asian Americans. Supporting the self-determination of Native American communities while simultaneously working to make those communities whole through compensation for the harm done by American policy is critical to reducing those inequities.  

Significant gaps in employment opportunities and lower wage levels translate to lower median household incomes among Black, Latino, and AIAN households. As shown in the figure below, these income disparities have been persistent across time, even as recent years have seen increases in household incomes across groups. 

Anti-racist handbook

AIAN, Black, and Latino households experience much higher poverty rates on average than white and Asian households. AIAN households experience poverty at twice the rate of the typical American household (20.9% versus 10%). Poverty is a measure of economic deprivation, reflecting disparities in unemployment, wages, and income, as well as differences in life circumstances like severe disability and major illness.

Anti-racist handbook

When we initially released our anti-racist handbook, the goal was to provide a resource for scholars and organizations committed to redefining policy to fight against racism. The publication includes essays by scholars and activists from diverse race and ethnic backgrounds and disciplines. Each essay tackles a different aspect of the research and policy development process or addresses the political and economic concerns of a specific racial or ethnic community in the United States. These essays provide important context for interpreting the data in the interactive chartbook.

As outlined in one of the handbook’s essays, there is no such thing as race-neutral policy. Capturing differences in outcomes across groups enables us to examine the disparate effects of policy and move toward improving the lives of marginalized and often “invisible” communities.

Poverty increased sharply for AIAN children in 2022, as policymakers allowed key economic relief measures to expire that helped families absorb the shock of the pandemic. Native American children have historically been painfully exposed to economic vulnerability. Structural inequities in the labor market and the broader economy continue to limit the earnings of AIAN families and leave workers in this community unfairly exposed to job losses.

Native Americans represent a diverse and growing share of the U.S. population

About 9.7 million people make up the AIAN population in the United States. This figure increased from 5.2 million in 2010, with growth across all major groups during the last decade in part because more Americans identify as multiracial/multiethnic. But even this is an underestimate, as the U.S. Census Bureau has acknowledged similar undercount rates for AIAN populations on reservations in 2010 and 2020.

Between 2010 and 2020, the Alaska Native alone population increased by 10.9% and the Alaska Native (alone or in any combination) population surged by 45.6%. Similarly, the American Indian alone population increased by 11.6%, while the alone or in any combination population almost doubled during this period. The growth of the Latin American Indian (alone or in any combination) population was even stronger. The differences in growth between AIAN populations that identify as AIAN alone, versus alone or in any combination, reflect the need to observe Native communities holistically. This is particularly true when broad population and economic statistics fail to account for the unique experience and rich diversity that characterize the Native American community.

The vitality of the U.S. Native American community is also reflected in its youth. Children under age 5, and those between the ages of 5 and 17, make up a larger share of the total AIAN population than children in the non-Hispanic white population (see Figure A). Overall, children account for more than one-quarter of the total AIAN population, compared with less than one-fifth of the non-Hispanic white population. The general youth of the Native American community means that its economic welfare cannot be separated from the well-being of AIAN children.

Figure A

After declining in 2021, poverty increased sharply for Native American children last year

Native American families and children have historically been painfully exposed to poverty in the United States. Before the pandemic, for example, AIAN children were about twice as likely (13.7%) as their non-Hispanic white peers (7.0%) to suffer from economic deprivation below the poverty line (see Figure B).  

However, the poverty rate of AIAN children fell by 40% between 2019 and 2021 as a result of economic relief measures that included the temporary expansion of the Child Tax Credit. During this period, about 87,000 AIAN children were lifted out of poverty. 

But Congress quickly allowed this progress to evaporate. The sunset of provisions that helped reduce economic suffering during the pandemic left AIAN families and children worse off in 2022 than before the pandemic. Between 2021 and 2022, the share of poor AIAN children more than doubled, and the share of AIAN (alone) children more than tripled. Nearly 1 in 5 (18.5%) AIAN children, and more than 1 in 4 (25.9%) AIAN alone children, fell below the supplemental poverty line in 2022.

Figure B

Structural inequities leave AIAN families exposed to economic insecurity and poverty

Native American children’s experience with poverty is directly related to the structural inequities that reduce the economic security and well-being of their families. In 2022, for example, the typical AIAN household earned about 72 cents for every dollar of income earned by the median non-Hispanic white household. This gap was even steeper, 65 cents, for the typical AIAN alone household.

Further, AIAN workers are more likely to be out of work and searching for a job than their white peers. While the unemployment rate of AIAN (alone) workers continues to slowly rebound amid the strong labor market recovery, these workers remained about twice as likely as their white peers to be unemployed in October 2023. AIAN workers in AIAN or tribal areas often face even more limited employment prospects. Structural racism drives the historical persistence of these inequities.  

AIAN workers stand to gain from legislative proposals that would raise the federal minimum wage and strengthen workers’ right to organize. But much more will be required to achieve economic equity for Native American families and children. The economic relief measures enacted in response to the pandemic proved that both child poverty and inequity are policy choices. Expanding the U.S. social safety net can once again help AIAN children and their families avoid economic insecurity. Recognizing the power of tribal self-determination, the federal government must also honor tribal nations’ sovereign right to inform the implementation of federal investments in infrastructure, manufacturing, and clean energy. All these measures could help pave the way for Native American families and children to escape the cycle of economic vulnerability left behind centuries of violence, theft, and unmet obligations.

Notes

1. Conscious of limitations, we use American Indian and Alaska Native interchangeably with Native American and Native community or people.

2. AIAN hereby refers to AIAN alone or in combination with other groups, unless specified otherwise.

Similarly, the Supreme Court will hear arguments later this month over President Biden’s student loan debt relief plan that would forgive at least $10,000, and up to $20,000, for tens of millions of federal student loan borrowers. The Supreme Court will likely strike down the plan.

Both affirmative action and student loan debt forgiveness are critical measures for college access and completion for students of color. Sadly, these statutes, along with many others, have been targeted and threatened within the courts over the years—leaving students of color to bear more acute barriers to higher education and more disparate socioeconomic outcomes.

Affirmative action increases access to higher education for students of color

Despite the United States being over half a century removed from the pivotal Brown v. Board of Education decision outlawing segregation, the legality of universities using affirmative action as a tool for broader integration and diversity within their student bodies has consistently been a topic of dispute. In 1978, the Supreme Court upheld the use of race as one factor in choosing among qualified applicants for admission in the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke ruling. In the several decades that followed, public and private universities have considered race and ethnicity as one of the many factors in their admissions process, but not without concerted efforts to roll back race-conscious admissions programs on the state level. 

Beginning in 1996, California was the first state to ban affirmative action in public universities for college admissions. As of now, seven additional states—Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington—have banned public universities from considering race in admissions. Consequently, an abundance of research has indicated that college enrollment for racial and ethnic groups has decreased at selective universities and graduate programs following the enactment of these bans. One study estimated that students of color experience a 23 percentage point decline in likelihood of admission to highly selective public colleges after an affirmative action ban goes into effect. 

While numerous studies have indicated that state bans on affirmative action significantly hinder college diversity and hurt students of color the most, many state policymakers believe that race-neutral policy is a key solution to avoid further discrimination. These policymakers are wrong. Instead, race-neutral policy simply maintains longstanding inequities and operates within the parameters of existing inequality.

Many of the arguments against race-conscious decision-making in college admissions negate the systemic and structural hurdles that many students of color face within higher education. For example, although college enrollment and completion rates over the past few decades have increased, Black and Latino students are more underrepresented at top universities than they were 35 years ago. 

In many states, Black enrollment at flagship universities lags significantly behind the share of Black students completing their high school education. For example, in 2019, the share of Black public high school graduates was 17% in Michigan, 37% in South Carolina, and 49% in Mississippi. However, the share of Black college freshmen enrolled that fall semester at flagship universities was only 4% at the University of Michigan, 6% at the University of South Carolina, and 10% at the University of Mississippi. These gaps in high school completion and Black freshman enrollment demonstrate a concerning trend among top universities and their failure to admit more diverse student bodies.

Overall, the percentage of adults age 25 and older who had completed high school increased for all race and Hispanic origin groups from 2011 to 2021. During this period, high school completion rates increased from 92.4% to 95.1% for the non-Hispanic white population; from 84.5% to 90.3% for the Black population; from 88.6% to 92.9% for the Asian population; and from 64.3% to 74.2% for the Hispanic population. However, despite gains in high school completion, Black and Latino students continue to see double-digit differences in college completion compared with white and Asian graduates. In 2021, the percentage of adults age 25 and older with a bachelor’s degree or higher was 20.6% for Latino people, 28.1% for Black people, 41.9% for white people, and 61% for Asian people.

Student loan debt forgiveness is a gender and racial justice issue

While students of color face structural hurdles to gain admission to top universities, they are also more likely to face financial barriers to completing their degree. Compounding pressures—including the growing cost of college tuition and the crushing implications of high student loan debt—present additional intersectional implications for students of color within higher education.

While more than 44 million borrowers are struggling with student loan debt, Black college students are far more likely to take out federal student loans and owe an overall average of $25,000 more in student loan debt than white college graduates. Following graduation, 48% of Black students owe an average of 12.5% more than they borrowed, while 83% of white students owe 12% less than they borrowed four years after graduation. 

The outstanding debt Black students are taking to finance their education is also reinforcing the racial wealth gap. With less family wealth, Black and Latino students end up borrowing more to fund their college education while also taking longer to repay these debts. 

Women, and especially Black women, bear the brunt of the student debt crisis. Women hold nearly two-thirds of the $1.7 trillion in student debt in America. The American Association of University Women (AAUW) found that Black women had the largest average student loan debt ($41,466) in 2021, followed closely by Pacific Islander/Hawaiian women ($38,747), American Indian/Alaska Native women ($36,184), and white women ($33,852). Latina women borrowers were the next highest group at $29,302 and Asian women borrowers owed the lowest amounts at $27,606. Both the gender pay gap and racial wealth gap play a significant role in women borrowing more and struggling to repay student loan debt. Canceling student debt is as much a gender issue as it is a racial justice issue and is pivotal to address the intersectional inequalities these groups experience. 

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments for and against President Biden’s student loan debt cancellation plan, Black and brown students, borrowers, and families hold their breath as they prepare for another blow to their access to higher education.

If the Supreme Court rules against both affirmative action and student loan debt forgiveness, communities of color would face widening gaps in college access and be further entrenched in a cycle of economic inequality. Race-neutral policy will always fail to reverse the gaps and barriers that exist because of structural racism. Racial equity and racial justice must center the lived experience of systematically excluded communities as well as bear in mind the policies, programs, and institutions that continue to intentionally disempower these communities to this day. Policymakers and the U.S. judicial system have a responsibility to redress the attacks on equal access to higher education and create broader pathways to earn a college degree and achieve economic prosperity.

Summary: Tribal governments are a significant part of the national economy, thanks to a policy shift toward tribal self-governance that ushered in an era of economic development, led by tribal gaming. Yet the economic and cultural shocks that deprived Native Americans of their livelihoods and social infrastructure for so long are still affecting Indian Country. Here are five important things that policymakers and researchers need to understand to effectively address the economic and social challenges faced by Native Americans and their communities: 

• Tribal self-determination through self-governance is the only policy that produces positive results. By affirming tribes’ inherent right to pursue economic development on their lands, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, one of several modern pro-tribal sovereignty policies, has ushered in an extraordinary era of economic development funded by gaming revenues that has not only stabilized tribal economies, but also made them economic anchors in their regional economies.
• Thanks to tribal self-determination, tribal governments are a significant part of the national economy. The nation’s 574 federally recognized tribes have authority over more than 60 million acres within the 325 Indian reservations and other lands under the jurisdiction of the tribes. Tribal governments and their enterprises directly employ almost 350,000 workers and indirectly support an additional 600,000 jobs and generate $40 billion per year in wages and benefits along with an additional $9 billion spillover impact in state and regional economies.
• Today’s economic successes show the potential and resilience of Native Americans, who are still working to overcome generations of wrenching geographic displacement and oppressive bureaucratic supervision. The high levels of persistent poverty, chronic health problems, and substandard housing for many Native Americans are current manifestations of economic and cultural shocks that deprived Native Americans of their livelihoods and social infrastructure—the deliberate decimation of the North American bison and the assimilation of Indian children via forced placement in residential schools are prominent examples.
• Further advances for Native Americans require tackling bureaucratic barriers and expanding tribal authority, which include tribes’ incomplete authority to put their lands to good and productive use, their inability to collect taxes to pay for government operations, and discriminatory higher costs for accessing capital.
• While tribal government gaming has been a phenomenal success, tribal reliance on gaming and recreation enterprises (245 now operating in 29 states) makes them highly susceptible to volatile economic changes. Tackling the impediments outlined above could spur greater engagement in land and resource management, health care, and other diverse industries for future economic growth.

Introduction: Tribal governments today

One of the great puzzles in economic development is the economic sustainability of a nation, local community, or individual households. For Native American tribes, sustainable economies were an abstract notion for most of their 500-year history post-European contact: They were in survival mode and fighting to hold onto their lands and protect their people. Today, tribal governments have collectively scaled a $34.6 billion industry (gaming industry revenues and related enterprises and amenities) and become a distinctively important component of the U.S. economy (National Indian Gaming Commission 2020). Their path to economic revitalization is singularly unique and demonstrates the remarkable power of self-determination to overcome adversity and change adversarial systems.1

Before the COVID-19 crisis, tribal governments directly supported a collective workforce of 350,000 jobs and indirectly an additional 600,000 jobs, $40 billion per year in wages and benefits, and an additional $9 billion spillover impacts in state and regional economies.2 Tribal governments have returned revenues to their communities through services, improved reservation infrastructure from roads to broadband, and boosted investments in their social infrastructure such as health care, education, housing, and public safety. With steady improvement in revenues, per capita income on tribal lands has increased substantially for three decades, growing about 49%, compared with 9% per capita income growth in the United States overall, from 1990 to 2018) (Kunesh 2019a).3

How did this phenomenon happen? In short, the complementary commitment to places and the people in them have helped create durable economies and enhanced community assets described as social capital.

Tribal sovereignty is the foundation of enduring social and economic development

The sovereign authority of American Indian tribes as a distinguishing political status predates the formation of the United States and is well established in the U.S. Constitution and federal law. Each of the 574 federally recognized tribal nations in the United States today, including 231 Alaska Native villages, has a unique political relationship with the federal government, affirmed through treaties, statutes, and judicial decisions. Economic development among these tribal nations today reflects their great diversity of histories, geographies, and cultures. The one constant over the course of this time is the barrage of chaotic, repressive, and often demoralizing federal policies. Only when tribes assumed control over their resources and responsibility for making their own decisions did socioeconomic conditions on American Indian reservations begin to improve (Cornell 1988).

The lands possessed by American Indian tribes are often called “Indian Country,” a reference to the jurisdictional definition found at 18 U.S.C. § 1151: all land within the limits of any of the 325 Indian reservations under the jurisdiction of the tribe, allotted lands, and dependent Indian communities (62 Stat. 757, 1948; 63 Stat. 94, 1949). Today tribes exercise sovereign authority over a land base of more than 60 million acres (in aggregate about the size of Oregon), mostly held in restricted trust that cannot be sold, used as collateral, or encumbered by a mortgage (Kunesh 2021b). “Indian Country” thus further encompasses a complex legal web that make it unnecessarily difficult for tribes to use reservation trust lands to the benefit of their people. 

The land essentially represents an enduring connection between Native people and their traditional lifeways. These highly valued social systems have helped remediate generations of trauma and strengthen tribal economies. They also underpin the recent population growth throughout Indian Country. The 2020 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that the “American Indian and Alaska Native alone” population (people who answer the survey question on race by marking only the “American Indian or Alaska Native” response) increased from 2.9 million in 2010 to 3.7 million in 2020.4 The total Native population (people who answer the survey question on race by marking either just the “American Indian or Alaska Native” response or marking the “American Indian or Alaska Native” response box and one or more other races) grew from 5.2 million to 9.7 million (Estus 2021; Indian Country Today 2021; U.S. Census Bureau 2021). About 60% of Native Americans live on or near reservation homelands (Kunesh 2021b).

Tribes have inherited formidable barriers to economic development

Conflict over land, resources, and culture has been the center of nearly every significant interaction between Native and non-Native people across the United States since the earliest days of European contact. Historically, Native societies employed extensive trade and commerce networks to exchange goods and resources. Once European colonizers realized the vastness of these resources, they sought to appropriate and exploit them. Inevitably clashes ensued, often violent.

One devastating example involves the Plains tribes who had created robust economies around the North American bison. The bison provided these Native communities with a steady food source and materials for tools, clothing, and shelter. The bison’s economic utility further fostered trade and expanded commercial networks. Most importantly, the bison represented the continued autonomy of Native people who had established self-sustaining inter-reliant micro-economies. Such independence, though, was incongruous with the tenets of manifest destiny and the federal government’s designs for western expansion (Miller 2006).

As many as 30 million bison existed pre-European contact. Shockingly, this once abundant species was brought to the brink of extinction within just a few decades in the late 1800s. Federal officials recognized the centrality of the bison to the independence of the Plains Indians, who had not yet been forced onto reservations. In 1873, after the secretary of the interior declared that “the civilization of the Indian is impossible while buffalo remain on the plains,” the U.S. Army supplied hide hunters with free ammunition (U.S. National Park Service 2021). Less than 1,000 bison remained following their rapid, relentless, and brutal assault.

The slaughter of the bison was one of the largest economic shocks in recorded North American history (Feir, Gillezeua, and Jones 2019). For the Native Americans who relied on the bison, this sudden loss meant devastating upheaval. Not only did they lose their economic livelihoods, but valuable social contacts as well. Their diets deteriorated and they would suffer long-term health impacts. Research shows that bison-reliant people were once the tallest people in the world, but the generations born after the slaughter were among the shortest. Moreover, formerly bison-reliant societies now have between 20–40% less income per capita than the average Native American nation (Feir, Gillezeua, and Jones 2019).

With the Great Plains cleared of the bison, the federal government moved quickly to acquire vast swaths of tribal lands. As an inducement to tribal leaders to surrender their lands peacefully, the government signed treaties that guaranteed tribal rights to hunt and fish and promised protection against settler hostilities. Upon signing these treaties, Native people were driven onto and confined to federal reservations, mere fragments of their original homelands. Over time this wrenching geographic displacement and oppressive bureaucratic supervision impeded the ability of these communities to adapt and generated lasting social and economic disparities (Feir, Gillezeua, and Jones 2019).

Maintaining hundreds of American Indian reservations proved costly and soon the federal government reneged on its treaty promises and commitments to provide basic life support to reservation communities. Remarkably, despite the resulting inadequate food, decrepit housing, and limited employment opportunities, tribes continued to maintain traditional governing structures, cohesive social networks, and communal ties to the land. This cultural fortitude intimidated the federal government. Hoping to destroy tribalism and dismantle the reservation system, Congress enacted the General Allotment Act in 1887, also known as the Dawes Act (Pub. L. 49-105). The act authorized the Bureau of Indian Affairs to divide communally held lands into individual parcels of about 160 acres. These allotments were assigned to the heads of American Indian households with instructions to become farmers. Unallotted reservation lands were deemed “surplus” and sold to white settlers. Two-thirds of reservation lands were lost through allotment and sale to white settlers, a total of more than 90 million acres (Khan Academy 2022). With settlers pouring in, the character of Indian Country changed dramatically and assimilation became the predominant federal policy.5

Federal assimilation policies targeted traditional tribal governance and banned cultural practices. One of the most aggressive assimilation devices was residential schools.6 Children as young as three years old were removed from their families and sent to schools located far away from their reservation homelands. The first was the Carlisle Indian Boarding School, founded by Richard Henry Pratt in 1879 on a former military installation in Pennsylvania. Pratt’s motto, “Kill the Indian, and save the man” (Pratt 1892), foretold the horrific violence and abuse children would suffer in these institutions. Children were punished for speaking their Native languages and conformity to school rules was strictly enforced, from dress to manners to curriculum. Girls were taught domestic skills while boys were trained for industrial jobs.

Carlisle became the model for 357 other government-operated schools. In 1900, 20,000 Native children were in boarding schools. Twenty-five years later, nearly 83% of Native children were attending boarding schools. Thousands of these children never returned home. When the last school was closed in 1978, generations of survivors carried deep emotional scars from their traumas.7 See National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition n.d. for a more complete account of this history.

The Dawes Act succeeded in disrupting tribal ways of life and community cohesion. In its wake was a wasteland of corrosive living conditions. Eventually the federal government was forced to address the deplorable state of affairs and commissioned a study of reservations across the country. The result was an extensive investigation into 40 years of failed federal Indian policies that culminated in a lengthy detailed report exposing pernicious levels of poverty, terrible disease and high death rates, and severely inadequate and deteriorating housing (Merriam 1928). The extent of neglect was unfathomable.

President Franklin Roosevelt finally repudiated the dreadful Dawes Act policies in his New Deal program. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (the IRA) (Pub. L. 73-383) marked a dramatic turning point in federal–tribal relations: It ended the allotment process, stabilized the reservation land base, promoted tribal self-governance, and removed prohibitions on cultural practices. While the Bureau of Indian Affairs still wielded heavy oversight authority, the IRA laid the groundwork for rebuilding tribal self-sufficiency.

Tribal self-governance is the only policy that produces positive results

Four decades after passage of the IRA, Congress codified the principles of tribal self-governance in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (Pub. L. 93-638). Self-determination simply means that tribes themselves, rather than the Bureau of Indian Affairs, decide funding priorities and manage tribal resources. The act authorized tribes to directly receive federal funds and administer government programs. Not surprisingly, as tribes gained greater control over reservation affairs, they directed more investments into their communities and built fledgling economies.

An extraordinary era of economic development was launched in 1988 with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) (Pub. L. 100-497), which affirmed tribes’ inherent right to pursue economic development on their lands, albeit subject to certain state and federal regulation. Gaming revenues have since become a vitally important funding source for many tribal governments, providing much-needed investments in tribal health, education, and welfare programs (Akee, Spilde, and Taylor 2015). From a total revenue standpoint, tribal gaming has been a phenomenal success, not only stabilizing tribal economies, but also becoming economic anchors in regional economies (Kunesh 2019a).

Off the balance sheet, the economic payoffs from tribal gaming have translated into profound impacts on community well-being and quality of life (Cornell and Kalt 2007). For the past 30 years, incomes of American Indians on reservations have been increasing. Real per capita income has increased 49% from 1990 to 2018 (from $9,650 to $14,355), though still hovering at poverty levels. Even modest income supports of an additional $4,000 per year for the poorest households have made significant and lasting differences: high school graduation rates increased by almost 40%, chances of committing a minor crime were reduced by 22% for 16- and 17-year-olds, and the likelihood of voting in adulthood demonstrably increased (Kunesh 2019a; Akee, Spilde, and Taylor 2015; Wolfe et al. 2012).

This progress has been slow and is very uneven across Indian Country (Meister 2017). A significant economic concentration exists in a small number of tribes located in more densely populated locations. The 20 largest revenue generators now account for more than 50% of the total revenue; the next 85 account for 41% (National Indian Gaming Commission 2021).

Opportunities exist for shared economic prosperity in Indian Country

Gaming has not been the panacea for all the economic problems that Native American communities continue to face. Even when federal policies ostensibly promote economic development, their benefits are diminished by rules and regulations that in effect are anti-economic development. For instance, tribes still do not have full authority to put their lands to good and productive use, mainly because of bureaucratic impediments to use these lands efficiently for collateral and security purposes (Kunesh 2019b).

Other unwarranted limitations are found in the areas of governmental finance, taxation, and jurisdiction. Unlike state and local governments, tribes cannot collect taxes to pay for government operations, making them dependent on income from casinos and other enterprises to pay for law enforcement, public safety, and social services. Nongaming tribes still rely heavily on federal funding, but Congress has chronically underfunded tribal services and continually fails to fulfill its treaty responsibilities to tribes and Native Americans (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 2018). Even when tribes break through such barriers, they often encounter other forms of unfair treatment, such as paying significantly higher costs to access capital (Feir and Catteneo 2019).

Eliminating these legal and institutional constraints would accelerate the realization of a broader range of benefits and help to reduce the economic and social disparities that persist in many tribal communities. At the federal level, Congress has attempted to refashion one of its most onerous processes, the leasing of tribal lands. The Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership (HEARTH) Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-151), encourages tribes to assert more control over land use and resource management by promulgating tribal leasing regulations and conducting their own appraisals and environmental reviews. Uptake of HEARTH Act authority has been slow, however, mired in complicated approval processes and an outmoded title recording system, among other issues (Kunesh 2019b).

At the local level, tribal governments have work to do, too. As COVID-19 tore across Indian Country, tribal governments confronted terrifying public health challenges caused by the pandemic and grappled with economic devastation. At the height of the pandemic in 2020, all tribal gaming facilities and gaming-related businesses were closed across Indian Country. Gaming revenue plummeted to 2012 levels (National Indian Gaming Commission 2020). Moreover, since a large share of jobs on reservations align with gaming and government administration (Akee, Mykerezi, and Todd 2019), the closure of casinos meant massive layoffs and unemployment. With their main revenue source wiped out, tribes have struggled to maintain basic services and to address more acute health and safety problems, namely overcrowded housing, lack of running water, poor roads, and unreliable access to broadband service.

The pandemic revealed another vulnerability across Indian Country: the danger of relying exclusively on one industry. Much like the Plains tribes’ reliance on the bison, the sudden absence of an economic mainstay should signal the potential risk to community stability and security. Serious consideration should be given to diversifying tribal businesses and reducing their market concentration in gaming and recreation industries. While reservation-based businesses tend to be more resilient than their nonreservation counterparts (Akee, Mykerezi, and Todd 2021), weathering more acute economic shocks such as the pandemic will prove the ultimate test of resiliency.

Tribes can emerge from the pandemic stronger, using recovery and infrastructure funds to bolster social resiliency and upgrade basic community infrastructure. One of most crucial investments is building more affordable housing equipped with a modern sanitation infrastructure (Kunesh 2021b). Tribes also could explore alternative policies for boosting wages and living standards. The federal child tax credit and other social benefits are working wonders to reduce poverty and economic insecurity, but their effectiveness requires access to financial systems that may not be readily available on many reservations (Kunesh 2021a).

Tribes have faced many dark challenges, yet their history is one of resilience and perseverance. While they survive as self-governed sovereign nations, they thrive by wrapping themselves around the very core of their existence—their people and their culture. Together they are the bond to the past and the promise of the future.

The lesson here is captured in the timeless words of Lakota spiritual leader, Tȟatȟáŋka, known as Sitting Bull. Caught in the chaotic transition from a life of freedom on the prairie to forced confinement on reservations, and contemplating imminent annihilation by the U.S. Army, Tȟatȟáŋka remained steadfast, beseeching his people, “Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children” (Sitting Bull College 2022).

Additional reading and resources

Readers interested in delving deeper into the issues touched on in this chapter are encouraged to explore the following resources suggested by the author.

Endnotes

1. This report focuses on federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and their citizens, whose governing structures and economies differ widely due to their unique histories, geographies, and cultures. Gaming exemplifies this diversity: The 245 tribal gaming enterprises operating in 29 states range from resort-type facilities to trailers for bingo games (National Indian Gaming Commission 2021).

2. See Henson et al. 2020 for an updated snapshot of leading economic indicators in Indian Country.

3. See also Akee and Taylor 2014.

4. While the U.S. Census Bureau classifies race and ethnicity categories, being a member of an American Indian or Alaska Native tribe equates to a political relationship, akin to citizenship status, not a racial status (U.S. DOJ 2014).

5. Another assimilation ploy was to induce Native people to renounce their tribal affiliation through the promise of citizenship and private property. Native people were not considered citizens of the United States until 1924 when Congress enacted The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (Pub.L. 68-175).

6. The precursor to assimilation was “civilization.” On March 3, 1819, the Civilization Fund Act authorized confiscation of Native land and other policies aimed at achieving, according to then Indian Commissioner Luke Lea, “the great work of regenerating the Indian race” (Equal Justice Initiative n.d.). The act directly led to the creation of residential schools based on the notion that Native culture and language were to blame for what was deemed the country’s “Indian problem” (National Museum of the American Indian n.d.).

7. Department of Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, the first Native American to hold a cabinet level position, recently announced a new initiative to examine the “Troubled Legacy of Federal Boarding School Policies” (U.S. DOI 2021). Legislation also has been introduced to create a truth and healing commission around American Indian boarding school tragedies (H. R. 5444, 2021; S. 2907, 2021).

References

Akee, Randall K.Q., William E. Copeland, Gordon Keeler, Adrian Angold, E. Jane Costello. 2010. “Parents’ Incomes and Children’s Outcomes: A Quasi-Experiment Using Transfer Payments from Casino Profits.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2: 86–115. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.2.1.86.

Akee, Randall, Elton Mykerezi, and Richard M. Todd. 2019. “Opportunities to Diversify: Reservation Workplaces and Job Numbers Compared to Nearby County Areas.” In Creating Private Sector Economies in Native America: Sustainable Development Through Entrepreneurship, edited by R. Miller, M. Jorgensen, and D. Stewart. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. 

Akee, Randall K.Q., Elton Mykerezi, and Richard Todd. 2021. “Business Dynamics on American Indian Reservations: Evidence from Longitudinal Datasets.” Center for Indian Country Development Working Paper 2021-2, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.

Akee, Randall K.Q., Katherine A. Spilde, and Jonathan B. Taylor. 2015. “The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and Its Effects on American Indian Economic Development,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 29, no. 3 (Summer): 185–208.

Akee, Randall K.Q., and Jonathan B. Taylor. 2014. Social and Economic Change on American Indian Reservations: A Databook of the US Censuses and the American Community Survey 1990–2010. The Taylor Policy Group, Inc.

Cornell, Stephen. 1988. The Return of the Native: American Indian Political Resurgence. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Cornell, Stephen, and Joseph P. Kalt. 2003. “Reloading the Dice: Improving the Chances for Economic Development on American Indian Reservations.” Joint Occasional Papers on Native Affairs (JOPNA). Tucson and Cambridge: Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy and Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development.

Cornell, Stephen, and Joseph P. Kalt. 2007. “Two Approaches to the Development of Native Nations: One Works, the Other Doesn’t.” In Rebuilding Native Nations: Strategies for Governance and Development, edited by M. Jorgensen. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Equal Justice Initiative. n.d. “On This Day Mar 03, 1819” (web page).

Estus, Joaqlin. 2021. “US Census Explains American Indian, Alaska Native Numbers.” Indian Country Today, November 2, 2021.

Feir, Donna, and Laura Cattaneo. 2019. “The Higher Price of Mortgage Financing for Native Americans.” Center for Indian Country Development Working Paper 2019-06, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.

Feir, Donna, Rob Gillezeua, and Maggie E.C. Jones. 2019. “The Slaughter of the Bison and Reversal of Fortunes of the Great Plains,” Working Paper 2019-01. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. January 2019.

Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development (HPAIED). n.d. “About Honoring Nations” (web page). https://hpaied.org/honoring‐nations.

Henson, Eric C., Megan M. Hill, Miriam R. Jorgensen, and Joseph P. Kalt. 2020. “Emerging Stronger than Before: Guidelines for the Federal Role in American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes’ Recovery from the COVID‐19 Pandemic.” Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, Policy Brief No. 4, July 24, 2020.

Indian Country Today. 2021. “2020 Census: Native Population Increased by 86.5%.” August 13, 2021.

Jones, Nicholas. 2021. “2020 Census Results on Race and Ethnicity” (online presentation). U.S. Census Bureau, August 2021.

Khan Academy. 2022. “The Dawes Act” (online learning module). Accessed March 2022. 

Kunesh, Patrice H. 2019a. “Getting Real about Indian Country—Surprising Progress in the Heartland.” Indian Country Today, April 22, 2019.

Kunesh, Patrice H. 2019b. “Lending Opportunities: Opening the Door to Homeownership in Indian Country.” Testimony to U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C., October 16, 2019.

Kunesh, Patrice H. 2021a. “A More Inclusive Banking System in Indian Country Is Possible.” Indian Country Today, June 11, 2021.

Kunesh, Patrice H. 2021b. “The Significance of Belonging for Indigenous Peoples: The Power of Place and People—Creating a Vision for Community in Indian Country through Self-Governance and Self-Determination,” Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law 30, no. 1, 23–46.

Meister, Alan. 2017. The Economic Impact of Tribal Gaming: A State-By-State Analysis. American Gaming Association. September 2017.

Merriam, Lewis. 1928. The Problem of Indian Administration. Brookings Institution, February 21, 1928. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED087573.

Miller, Robert J. 2006. Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, and Manifest Destiny. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers.

National Indian Gaming Commission. 2020. “Gross Gaming Revenue Trending FY00–FY20” (online graph).

National Indian Gaming Commission. 2021. “FY16–FY20 Gaming Revenues by Range” (online data table).

National Museum of the American Indian. n.d. “The Indian Problem” (video).

National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition. n.d. “US Indian Boarding School History” (web page).

Pratt, R.H. 1892. “On the Education of Native Americans.” Speech given during the National Conference of Charities and Correction, Denver. Archived by Carlisle Indian School Digital Resource Center at Dickinson College.

Sitting Bull College. 2022. “Vision & Mission” (web page). Accessed March 2022.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 2018. Broken Promises: Continuing Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americans. December 2018.

U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S. DOI). 2021. “Secretary Haaland Announces Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative” (press release). June 6, 2021.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Tribal Justice (U.S. DOJ). 2014. “About Native Americans” (web page). Last updated June 17, 2014.

U.S. National Park Service. 2021. “What Happened to the Bison?” Last updated January 26, 2021.

Wolfe, Barbara, Jessica Jakubowski, Robert Haveman, and Marissa Courey. 2012. “The Income and Health Effects of Tribal Casino Gaming on American Indians.” Demography 49, no. 2 (May): 499–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-012-0098-8.

Federal statutes

“Indian Country” defined. 18 U.S.C. § 1151, 62 Stat. 757, June 25, 1948; 63 Stat. 94, May 24, 1949.

The General Allotment Act of 1887. Pub. L. 49-105, 24 Stat. 388. Feb. 8, 1887.

The Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2012. Pub. L. 112-151, 126 Stat. 1150. July 30, 2012. 

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Pub. L. 68-175, 43 Stat. 253. June 2, 1924.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. Pub. L. 100-497, 102 Stat. 2467. Oct. 17, 1988.

The Indian Reorganization Act. Pub. L. 73-383, 48 Stat. 984. June 18, 1934.

The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975. Pub. L. 93-638, 88 Stat. 2203. Jan. 4, 1975.

The Truth and Healing Commission on Indian Boarding School Policies Act. S. 2907, Sept. 30, 2021; H. R. 5444, Sept. 30, 2021.