Examining the Relationship between Non-English Languages and Poverty in the United States
Lucia Devlin – University of Iowa – lrongerude@uiowa.edu
Data from the U.S. Census was used to compare English vs. non-English households to create a dodged and stacked bar chart, focusing on populations living at or below the poverty line. Additionally, data from the SNAP Language Access study was used to examine the percentage of each state's population with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) living at or below 130% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).
All data processing and analysis were conducted using the TACC supercomputer. ChatGPT was used to learn how to code as well as assist in identifying and troubleshooting coding errors throughout the analysis.
The Federal Poverty Level (FPL) in the United States is typically defined as an annual income of $15,650 for an individual, with an additional $5,500 allocated for each additional household member.* The FPL is commonly used to determine eligibility for various programs and government assistance.
Although the United States does not have an official language, only 78% of the population speaks English at home. Non-English languages spoken at home are broadly categorized as Spanish, other Indo-European languages¹, Asian and Pacific Islander languages², and other languages³.
1. How does speaking a non-English language at home influence of adults in the United States living at or below the poverty line?
2. How does limited English proficiency impact the likelihood of living at or below the poverty line?
*The FPL for individuals in Hawaii is $17,990, increasing by $6,330 per additional person. The FPL for individuals in Alaska is $19,550, increasing by $6,880 per person.
¹Other Indo-European languages includes French (incl. Cajun), Haitian, Italian, Portuguese, German, Yiddish, Greek, Slavic Languages, Persian, Hindi, Bengali, and other Indic languages or European languages.
²Asian and Pacific Island languages includes but is not limited to Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Hawaiian, Samoan, and any other languages of Asia or other Austronesian languages.
³Other languages refers to any other language not previously mentioned. This includes but is not limited to Navajo, Lakota, other Native American languages, Arabic, Hebrew, Swahili, and more.
Special thanks to Connor Flynn, my project lead, as well as Clara Slate-Liu and Lela Gi, my project mentors. I would also like to thank all other SPICE staff and mentors.
Sources LinkedIn
Figure 1 illustrates that states with darker red shading have a higher percentage of individuals with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) living in poverty. For example, in California, approximately 37% of LEP individuals are at or below 130% of the Federal Poverty Level.
Figure 2 shows that in all but four states or districts across the United States, the percentage of individuals in poverty who speak a language other than English at home is higher than the percentage of those in poverty who speak English at home.
Figure 3 provides a more detailed view, further emphasizing the greater proportion of individuals in poverty who speak a language other than English at home.
Figure 1 presents the percentage of the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) population living at or below 130% of the Federal Poverty Level. This income threshold equates to an annual income of $20,345 for an individual, with an additional $7,150 allocated for each additional household member.
Figure 3 compares individuals living at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) based on the primary language spoken at home. The left bar represents the percentage of English-speaking adults (ages 18 and over) who are at or below the FPL. The right bar represents the percentage of adults at or below the FPL among those who speak a language other than English at home, categorized by language group.
Figure 2 illustrates the difference between the percentage of individuals living at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) who speak English at home and those who speak a language other than English at home, as detailed in Figure 3. The states are ranked from the largest to the smallest difference.
These findings demonstrate that individuals with Limited English Proficiency, as well as those who speak a language other than English at home, are more likely to be at or below the poverty line.
Background
Research Questions
Methods
Acknowledgements
Conclusion
Discussion
I analyzed data from the U.S. Census to compare the percentages of individuals who speak English at home with those who speak a language other than English at home, focusing specifically on populations living at or below the poverty line. Additionally, I incorporated data from the SNAP Language Access study to examine the percentage of each state's population with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) living at or below 130% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).
Data processing and analysis were conducted using the TACC supercomputer. I also utilized ChatGPT to assist in identifying and troubleshooting coding errors throughout the analysis.
The Federal Poverty Level (FPL) in the United States is typically defined as an annual income of $15,650 for an individual, with an additional $5,500 allocated for each additional household member.* The FPL is commonly used to determine eligibility for various programs and government assistance.
Although the United States does not have an official language, only 78% of the population speaks English at home. Non-English languages spoken at home are broadly categorized as Spanish, other Indo-European languages¹, Asian and Pacific Islander languages², and other languages³.
1. How does speaking a non-English language at home influence of adults in the United States living at or below the poverty line?
2. How does limited English proficiency impact the likelihood of living at or below the poverty line?
*The FPL for individuals in Hawaii is $17,990, increasing by $6,330 per additional person. The FPL for individuals in Alaska is $19,550, increasing by $6,880 per person.
¹Other Indo-European languages includes French (incl. Cajun), Haitian, Italian, Portuguese, German, Yiddish, Greek, Slavic Languages, Persian, Hindi, Bengali, and other Indic languages or European languages.
²Asian and Pacific Island languages includes but is not limited to Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Hawaiian, Samoan, and any other languages of Asia or other Austronesian languages.
³Other languages refers to any other language not previously mentioned. This includes but is not limited to Navajo, Lakota, other Native American languages, Arabic, Hebrew, Swahili, and more.
Background
Research Questions
Methods
Figure 1 presents the percentage of the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) population living at or below 130% of the Federal Poverty Level. This income threshold equates to an annual income of $20,345 for an individual, with an additional $7,150 allocated for each additional household member.
Figure 3 to the right compares individuals living at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) based on the primary language spoken at home. The left bar represents the percentage of English-speaking adults (ages 18 and over) who are at or below the FPL. The right bar represents the percentage of adults at or below the FPL among those who speak a language other than English at home, categorized by language group.
Figure 2 above illustrates the difference between the percentage of individuals living at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) who speak English at home and those who speak a language other than English at home, as detailed in Figure 3. The states are ranked from the largest to the smallest difference.
To continue working with this dataset, I aim to conduct a more detailed analysis by disaggregating the data within each language group to gain a deeper understanding of their specific experiences. Additionally, I intend to expand this study to the county level to assess the distinct needs of individual communities better better. This will help me explore other contributing factors to poverty, including access to education, the quality of education, affordable housing, and broader social and economic inequalities.
Understanding the poverty levels among different groups can help uncover unique barriers that are often overlooked. By identifying these disparities, we can inform more targeted and equitable policies that better serve the specific needs of these communities. Examining the relationship between language and poverty is essential for assessing access to services, knowledge that is crucial to build a more inclusive and thriving society.
These findings demonstrate that individuals with Limited English Proficiency, as well as those who speak a language other than English at home, are more likely to be at or below the poverty line.
What can we learn from this?
Conclusion
Taking it further…
Special thanks to Connor Flynn, my project lead, as well as Clara Slate-Liu and Lela Gi, my project mentors. I would also like to thank all other SPICE staff and mentors.
Sources
Acknowledgements
LinkedIn – Let’s Connect!