Can NC Sustain Pandemic-era Improvements in Income & Poverty?

Between 2015-19 and 2020-24, North Carolina households experienced  improvements in economic conditions, thanks in part to pandemic-era policies. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, those gains include: 

• The inflation-adjusted income of the typical North Carolina household rose to $72,288 in 2020-24, up 7.7% from 2015-19; 40 counties saw significant income increases.
• The statewide poverty rate fell to 13% in 2020-24, with significant reductions occurring in 31 counties.
• The share of people without health insurance coverage dropped to 9.9 %, with significant coverage gains occurring in 34 counties.

These findings come from the latest version of the American Community Survey (ACS), which is the US Census Bureau’s premier source of social, economic, housing, and demographic data. This release covers the five-year period spanning 2020-24 and has data for North Carolina and all its counties, municipalities, and sub-county statistical areas. The ACS is a primary source of information about the economic well-being of the country’s households.

Household Incomes Rose Significantly in 40 Counties 

Between 2015-19 and 2020-24, the income of the typical household rose significantly in 40 of the state’s 100 counties. Wake County logged the highest annual value ($105,768). Tyrrell County had the lowest ($41,685).  

However, income was unchanged in 58 counties. And it declined significantly in two counties: Hertford and Watauga.

The typical household income now surpasses $100,000 annually in two North Carolina counties: Wake and Union. Both counties rank among the nation’s top 150 counties in terms of median household income: Wake ranks 120th and Union 146th out of 3,143 counties nationally.

At the other end of the spectrum, the income of the typical household in Tyrrell County ranks 3,043 out of 3,143 counties nationally. In fact, 28 North Carolina counties fall within the bottom 20% of all U.S. counties for median household income. This illustrates how the state’s overall growth has not benefited a sizable portion of the state.

Poverty Rates Dropped Statewide, Yet Still Exceed 20% in 18 Counties

The share of North Carolinians living in households with incomes below the federal poverty level fell to 13%, down from 14.7% in 2015-19. 

Poverty rates fell significantly in 31 counties. Seven counties with poverty rates above 20% in 2015-19—Alleghany, Bertie, Cleveland, Columbus, Hoke, Pitt, and Wayne—saw poverty rates improve enough to now fall below the 20% threshold. Camden County had the lowest poverty rate in the state at 6.1%.

Even with this significant drop in the poverty rate, North Carolina still had a higher poverty rate than 34 other states. 

 In 2020-24, poverty rates exceeded 20% in 18 of North Carolina’s 100 counties. Poverty rates rose significantly in two counties—Polk and Stanly—and were unchanged in 67 counties. Robeson County recorded the highest poverty rate at 27.2%.

The Share of Persons without Health Insurance Fell in 34 Counties but Varies Greatly by County

The share of North Carolinians who lacked health insurance coverage fell to 9.9% in 2020-24, down from 10.7% in 2015-19. Between 2015-19 and 2020-24, uninsurance rates fell significantly in 34 counties. 

Even with this significant improvement in health insurance coverage, North Carolina’s uninsured rate was higher than in 39 other states. 

The uninsured rate rose significantly in two counties (Jackson and Nash), and were unchanged in 64 counties. Swain County recorded the highest uninsurance rate at 27.2%. Camden the lowest rate at 4.5%.

Future Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Trends Are Unclear

We can’t look at the improvements in household income, poverty, and health insurance coverage 2020-24 without considering the context in which they occurred. These improvements are intertwined with the economic conditions and policies of the COVID pandemic. 

During the height of the COVID pandemic, the U.S. Congress boosted the money income (which is what the Census Bureau tracks) of many households through such policies as enhanced unemployment insurance payments and three rounds of direct economic impact payments. Those gains are captured in ACS data.

Congress also enacted policies that provided households with more resources that aren’t part of the Census Bureau’s definition of income. Expanded child tax credits and enhanced ACA subsidies, for example, expanded overall household resources. Meanwhile, other policies, like pauses in student loan payments and eviction moratoria, lowered monthly costs, which allowed household income to go further. 

And when the economy reopened, many working people saw meaningful wage gains as employers competed in a tight labor market. The combination of generous policy choices and tight labor markets left many households better off materially.

Today, most pandemic-related programs have ended, and the labor market is weakening. Add the effects of inflation and higher out-of-pocket costs for health care, housing, and childcare, and many households report seeing themselves as being worse off.

Because the local ACS estimates lag current conditions by a few years, current household conditions may not be as positive as those documented in the 2020-24 data. In coming years, it may turn out that the improvements in incomes, poverty, and health insurance coverage experienced across much of the state from 2015-19 to 2020-24 were tied to an extraordinary set of conditions. Greater insight into whether these trends are sustainable will come this fall when the Census Bureau reports 2025 housing and income data for the state and its most populous counties.

How to Interpret ACS Data for 2020-24

Remember four points when using ACS data to avoid mistaken interpretations:

1. The published values are period estimates collected over a 60-month period, which makes them more like a representative value instead of a count on a specific day.
2. Each published value is a point estimate with a specified margin of error. A user can be 90 % confident that the true value is in the range bounded by the margin of error.
3. When comparing five-year ACS estimates, only compare periods that have no overlapping years; for the 2020-24 estimates, the direct comparison period is 2015-19.
4. The 2020-24 ACS estimates reflect the effects of temporary social programs enacted during the pandemic. Since most programs have ended, current conditions may differ.