Skip to content
Contents
ZIP Code Destiny

    Type to search. Planned chapters match by title only.

    Chapter 4.3 · Two ladders, one street

    Race, income and mobility

    White children from low-income families born in 1978 to 1983 reached a higher adult income rank than Black children raised in the same tract in 92.5% of the 30,997 tracts where both are estimated.

    Affiliation
    NYU Stern
    Published

    White children born in 1978 to 1983 to parents at the 25th percentile of the national income distribution reached a mean adult income rank of 44.944.9 percentile points of national household income rank in adulthoodEstimandmean adult household income rank, population-weighted mean over tracts (2010 tract population as the weight), county-bootstrap intervalInterval95% CI 44.5 to 45.3n30,997 tractsWeights2010 census tract populationPopulationwhite children raised in low-income families (parents at the 25th percentile of the national income distribution), in tracts where the Atlas also estimates Black childrenPeriodchildren born 1978 to 1983, household income measured in 2014 to 2015SourceOpportunity AtlasNoteCounting each tract once gives a similar mean.. Black children born in the same years to parents at the same percentile, and raised in the same census tracts, reached 34.634.6 percentile points of national household income rank in adulthoodEstimandmean adult household income rank, population-weighted mean over tracts (2010 tract population as the weight), county-bootstrap intervalInterval95% CI 34.3 to 34.9n30,997 tractsWeights2010 census tract populationPopulationBlack children raised in low-income families (parents at the 25th percentile of the national income distribution), in tracts where the Atlas also estimates white childrenPeriodchildren born 1978 to 1983, household income measured in 2014 to 2015SourceOpportunity AtlasNoteCounting each tract once gives a similar mean.. Both means weight each tract by its population. The rank is the position a child reached in the national distribution of household incomeIncome rank (kfr)The position that adult children reach in the national distribution of household income, from the lowest rank to the highest, averaged over children who grew up in a place with parents at a stated income level. The Opportunity Atlas labels this measure kfr. in their thirties, measured in 2014 to 2015. Because the two groups share a tract and a parental income level, the comparison removes the differences between neighborhoods that a county or ZIP code average mixes in.

    White children ranked higher in the same tracts

    The comparison runs tractCensus tractA small area drawn by the Census Bureau to stand in for a neighborhood. Boundaries are redrawn after each decennial census. by tract. In 92.5%92.5% percent of tracts in which the white children's mean rank is higherEstimandshare of tracts (each tract counted once) where white children reach a higher mean adult rank than Black children, county-bootstrap intervalInterval95% CI 91.9% to 93.0%n30,997 tractsWeightsnone (each tract counts once)Populationchildren raised in low-income families (parents at the 25th percentile of the national income distribution) in tracts where the Atlas estimates both white and Black childrenPeriodchildren born 1978 to 1983, household income measured in 2014 to 2015SourceOpportunity AtlasNoteWeighting tracts by 2010 population gives a similar share. of the 30,99730,997 tractsEstimandcount of tractsWeightsnone (full count)Population2010 census tracts with a mean adult income rank for white and for Black children from low-income families and a recorded 2010 populationPeriodchildren born 1978 to 1983, household income measured in 2014 to 2015SourceOpportunity Atlas tracts where the Opportunity Atlas estimates both groups, white children from low-income families reached the higher mean rank.[1] That share counts each tract once. The gap between the two population-weighted means is 10.3 (95% CI 10.0 to 10.6)10.3 percentile points of national household income rank in adulthood, white minus BlackEstimandmean over tracts of the white minus Black gap in adult income rank, population-weighted mean over tracts (2010 tract population as the weight), county-bootstrap intervalInterval95% CI 10.0 to 10.6n30,997 tractsWeights2010 census tract populationPopulationchildren raised in low-income families (parents at the 25th percentile of the national income distribution) in tracts where the Atlas estimates both white and Black childrenPeriodchildren born 1978 to 1983, household income measured in 2014 to 2015SourceOpportunity AtlasNoteCounting each tract once gives a similar gap. percentile points.

    In Figure 1 each dot is one tract. A tract that gave children of both groups the same outcome would sit on the diagonal, and a dot below the diagonal is a tract where white children ranked higher.

    Figure 1

    White children from low-income families reached a higher adult income rank than Black children from the same tract in 92.5% of 30,997 tracts

    Adult household income rank (percentile) of Black children against white children raised in the same census tract by parents at the 25th income percentile, one dot per tract

    Loading data

    Dots below the diagonal, which marks equal outcomes, are tracts where white children ranked higher, and the county markers fall further below the diagonal where white children do better. The dots are a random sample of the tracts with both estimates. Each marker is the population-weighted mean Black rank in a tenth of counties ranked by their mean white rank, with a 95% interval from resampling whole states. Values in Table 2.

    Note: The dots are a random sample of 5,000 tracts inside the plotted range (seed 12345); every estimate in the text uses all 30,997 tracts. Tracts have a Black and a white estimate only where the Atlas has enough children of both groups, so they are not a sample of all tracts.Note: The markers average the tracts of each county that has at least 20 tracts with both estimates, because sorting tracts on the noisy white rank would flatten a line of tract means and widen the apparent contrast. Each tract is weighted by its 2010 census population, the nearest available stand-in for the number of children. Ranks are percentiles of the national distribution of household income for children born in 1978 to 1983, measured in 2014 to 2015. The Opportunity Atlas adds noise to its estimates to protect privacy and the staged values are never clipped, so a few fall outside 0 to 100.Source: Opportunity Atlas tract outcomes, 2010 tracts, 1978-1983 birth cohorts; population-weighted (2010 tract population), modeled estimates

    How we know

    The Opportunity Atlas follows the children of each tract from childhood into adult tax and census records.[1] Its estimates are reported for 2010 tracts and describe children born in 1978 to 1983, who grew up in the 1980s and 1990s, and none describes the same tracts today. A tract has both a white and a Black estimate only where the Atlas can measure enough children of each group. The tracts in the comparison therefore have sizeable Black and white populations and are not a sample of all tracts. They held 46.9%46.9% percent of the 2010 U.S. populationEstimandpopulation of the same-tract comparison tracts as a share of the U.S. populationWeightsnone (full count)Populationresidents of the United StatesPeriod2010 censusSourceOpportunity Atlas of the 2010 population of the United States. The Atlas has no counts of children, so each tract is weighted by its 2010 census population. The white and Black children here are non-Hispanic, and the Atlas keeps Hispanic children of any race as a group of their own.[2] Each tract estimate rests on a modest number of children and carries noise added to protect privacy.Noise of that kind spreads dots in both directions around the diagonal. It would pull the share of tracts below the diagonal toward an even split, not away from one. The report gives every estimate with its interval and sample size.

    The gap is wider where white children rank higher

    The gap is wider where white children do best, though by less than a tract-by-tract comparison suggests. Noise in the white estimate both sorts the tracts and enters the white minus Black difference, so sorting tracts on the white rank overstates the contrast. The chapter therefore averages the tracts within each county that has at least 2020 tractsEstimandminimum number of tracts with both estimates for a county to enter the county versionWeightsnone (inclusion rule)Populationcounties in the county version of the comparisonPeriodchildren born 1978 to 1983, household income measured in 2014 to 2015SourceOpportunity Atlas tracts with both estimates, which damps that noise. In the third of those counties where white children ranked lowest, white children ranked 8.4 (95% CI 8.1 to 8.7)8.4 percentile points of national household income rank in adulthood, white minus BlackEstimandmean of the county white minus Black gap in adult income rank within a third of counties (equal numbers of counties, ranked by the county mean white rank), weighted by 2010 population summed to the county, state-bootstrap intervalInterval95% CI 8.1 to 8.7n112 countiesWeights2010 census tract populationPopulationchildren raised in low-income families (parents at the 25th percentile of the national income distribution) in counties with at least 20 tracts that have both estimates, in the third of those counties with the lowest mean rank for white childrenPeriodchildren born 1978 to 1983, household income measured in 2014 to 2015SourceOpportunity Atlas points above Black children. In the third where white children ranked highest, the gap was 11.6 (95% CI 10.8 to 12.1)11.6 percentile points of national household income rank in adulthood, white minus BlackEstimandmean of the county white minus Black gap in adult income rank within a third of counties (equal numbers of counties, ranked by the county mean white rank), weighted by 2010 population summed to the county, state-bootstrap intervalInterval95% CI 10.8 to 12.1n112 countiesWeights2010 census tract populationPopulationchildren raised in low-income families (parents at the 25th percentile of the national income distribution) in counties with at least 20 tracts that have both estimates, in the third of those counties with the highest mean rank for white childrenPeriodchildren born 1978 to 1983, household income measured in 2014 to 2015SourceOpportunity Atlas points. Where white children rank higher, Black children rank higher too, by a smaller amount.

    The same comparison runs for other groups. In tracts where white and Hispanic children are both estimated, Hispanic children ranked 2.6 (95% CI 2.3 to 2.9)2.6 percentile points of national household income rank in adulthood, white minus HispanicEstimandmean over tracts of the white minus Hispanic gap in adult income rank, population-weighted mean over tracts (2010 tract population as the weight), county-bootstrap intervalInterval95% CI 2.3 to 2.9n35,579 tractsWeights2010 census tract populationPopulationchildren raised in low-income families (parents at the 25th percentile of the national income distribution) in tracts where the Atlas estimates both white and Hispanic childrenPeriodchildren born 1978 to 1983, household income measured in 2014 to 2015SourceOpportunity Atlas points below white children. In tracts where white and Asian children are both estimated, Asian children ranked 9.4 (95% CI 8.9 to 9.8)9.4 percentile points of national household income rank in adulthood, Asian minus whiteEstimandmean over tracts of the Asian minus white gap in adult income rank, population-weighted mean over tracts (2010 tract population as the weight), county-bootstrap intervalInterval95% CI 8.9 to 9.8n15,078 tractsWeights2010 census tract populationPopulationchildren raised in low-income families (parents at the 25th percentile of the national income distribution) in tracts where the Atlas estimates both white and Asian childrenPeriodchildren born 1978 to 1983, household income measured in 2014 to 2015SourceOpportunity Atlas points above them. Each comparison uses its own set of tracts, so the three gaps are not measured on one set of tracts.

    Figure 2

    Black children ranked 10.3 points below white children in the same tracts, Hispanic children 2.6 points below and Asian children 9.4 points above

    Mean adult household income rank of each group minus that of white children raised in the same tract by parents at the 25th income percentile, tracts where both are estimated

    Group's mean rank minus white children's mean rank (percentile points)

    Show data
    Data for Black children ranked 10.3 points below white children in the same tracts, Hispanic children 2.6 points below and Asian children 9.4 points above
    conf_highconf_lowestimategroupn
    −10.03−10.60−10.31Black children30,997
    −2.32−2.92−2.61Hispanic children35,579
    9.838.899.37Asian children15,078

    Black children's dot lies furthest left, Hispanic children's near zero and Asian children's to the right of zero, and none of the three intervals reaches zero. Each dot is a group's population-weighted mean rank minus the white mean rank, over the tracts where both are estimated, with a 95% interval from resampling whole counties. Values in Table 3.

    Note: Each row uses its own set of tracts, the tracts where that group and white children both have an estimate, so the rows are not a single sample. The number of tracts is in each row's tooltip. Ranks are percentiles of the national distribution of household income for children born in 1978 to 1983, measured in 2014 to 2015. The Opportunity Atlas adds noise to its estimates to protect privacy and the staged values are never clipped, so a few fall outside 0 to 100.Source: Opportunity Atlas tract outcomes, 2010 tracts, 1978-1983 birth cohorts; population-weighted (2010 tract population), modeled estimates

    Across counties, mobility moves with friendships across incomes

    The Atlas also gives each county a mean adult rank for children from low-income families, averaged over every child in the county. The Social Capital Atlas builds economic connectednessEconomic connectednessA measure of friendship across class lines, based on the share of high-status friends among people below the median in socioeconomic status. It is scaled so that friendships mixing in proportion to the population give the reference value. from the friendships of Facebook users in 2022. It compares the share of high-status friends among people with below-median status to the share expected if friendships ignored status.[3] Across counties weighted by population, economic connectedness correlates +0.69 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.74)+0.69 correlation coefficientEstimandpopulation-weighted correlation of the county economic connectedness with the county mobility rank, bootstrap interval over countiesInterval95% CI 0.64 to 0.74n2,942 countiesWeights2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)Populationcounties with a Social Capital Atlas measure and an Opportunity Atlas mobility rankPeriodfriendships among Facebook users in 2022; mobility for children born 1978 to 1983SourceSocial Capital Atlas with the mean adult rank of children from low-income families. That correlation is larger than the correlation of any civic or cohesion measure with mobility, among them the density of civic organizations and the volunteering rate. Civic participation is the subject of Chapter 6.2, Civic life, loneliness and partnership.

    Figure 3

    Across counties, economic connectedness correlates +0.69 with upward mobility, more than any civic or cohesion measure

    Population-weighted correlation of each Social Capital Atlas county measure with the mean adult income rank of children from low-income families

    • Contact across incomes
    • Cohesion
    • Civic life
    Show data
    Data for Across counties, economic connectedness correlates +0.69 with upward mobility, more than any civic or cohesion measure
    conf_highconf_lowestimategroupmeasuren
    0.7410.6440.693Contact across incomesEconomic connectedness2,942
    0.7340.6500.695Contact across incomesExposure to high-income friends2,939
    −0.076−0.316−0.192Contact across incomesFriending bias2,939
    0.117−0.0120.052CohesionNetwork clustering2,983
    −0.168−0.332−0.254CohesionSupport ratio2,983
    0.2530.1210.187Civic lifeVolunteering rate2,983
    0.138−0.0110.062Civic lifeCivic organizations2,983

    The two measures of contact across incomes, economic connectedness and exposure to high-income friends, sit furthest to the right, and the civic and cohesion measures sit close to zero or below it. Each dot is a population-weighted correlation across counties with a 95% interval from resampling whole counties, and resampling whole states widens every interval. Values in Table 5.

    Note: Economic connectedness is built from Facebook friendships among active users in 2022, while the mobility ranks describe children who grew up in the 1980s and 1990s, so the correlation links a recent network measure to an earlier cohort.Note: Intervals resample whole counties. Counties in one state tend to resemble each other, and resampling whole states gives a wider interval for every measure.Note: Counties with a missing measure drop out of that row only, so the number of counties differs by row.Source: Social Capital Atlas county measures, 2022, and Opportunity Atlas county outcomes, 1978-1983 birth cohorts; population-weighted (2018 county population)

    Connectedness also moves with income. Across ZIP code areas (ZCTAsZCTAZIP Code Tabulation Area, the Census Bureau's approximation of a ZIP code as a set of census blocks. It lets census data be reported by ZIP code, though some ZIP codes have no matching ZCTA.), it correlates +0.82 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.83)+0.82 correlation coefficientEstimandpopulation-weighted correlation of ZIP economic connectedness with the ZIP's percentile rank of median household income, bootstrap interval over countiesInterval95% CI 0.81 to 0.83n18,896 ZIP code areasWeights2018 ZIP population (Social Capital Atlas)PopulationZIP code areas (ZCTAs) with an economic connectedness value and a median household incomePeriodfriendships among Facebook users in 2022; income ACS 2019 to 2023SourceSocial Capital Atlas with the area's rank in median household income, so the county correlation could partly reflect income. The chapter fits a weighted regression across counties that sets connectedness beside the log of median household income, the Black share of residents, the share with a college degree and the poverty rate. In it, the standardized coefficients on connectedness and on the log of income differ by 0.10 (95% CI −0.16 to 0.36)0.10 standard deviations of the county mobility rank per standard deviation of the measureEstimandstandardized coefficient on economic connectedness minus the coefficient on log median income, same regression, errors clustered on stateInterval95% CI −0.16 to 0.36n2,933 countiesWeights2018 county population (Social Capital Atlas)Populationcounties with a Social Capital Atlas measure and an Opportunity Atlas mobility rank and ACS controls (Connecticut left out)Periodfriendships among Facebook users in 2022; mobility for children born 1978 to 1983; ACS 2019 to 2023SourceSocial Capital Atlas. That interval includes zero, so the data do not rank the two. The coefficient on connectedness stays positive with income in the model. Connectedness is measured in 2022, long after the 1978 to 1983 cohorts grew up, and the data cannot show that friendships across incomes change a child's later income.

    What the same-tract gap describes

    The same-tract comparison removes the differences between neighborhoods but not all differences. Within a tract, families at one income percentile can still differ in wealth, in the exact block, in schooling and in how institutions treat them. The gap is a residual, and the data describe it without explaining it. Chetty, Hendren, Jones and Porter find that the gap in individual adult income between Black and white children raised at the same parental income is concentrated among boys and men.[2] The ranks here pool boys and girls and measure household income, which includes a spouse's income, since race by gender is not in the staged data. The movers and voucher studies in the report estimate how much a move changes a child's own outcome. Neither tests whether the Black-white gap inside a tract would close if the tract changed.[4, 5] The comparison inside one place also extends to adult health in a later period. For deaths in 2019 to 2021, County Health Rankings puts non-Hispanic white life expectancy 4.4 (95% CI 4.0 to 4.8)4.4 years of life expectancy at birth, non-Hispanic white minus non-Hispanic BlackEstimandmean of the county non-Hispanic white minus non-Hispanic Black gap in life expectancy, weighted by county population, bootstrap interval over countiesInterval95% CI 4.0 to 4.8n1,265 countiesWeightscounty total populationPopulationcounties with both a non-Hispanic white and a non-Hispanic Black life expectancy in County Health RankingsPerioddeaths in 2019 to 2021 (County Health Rankings 2024 release)SourceCounty Health RankingsNoteCounty Health Rankings publishes a race-specific life expectancy only where deaths are numerous enough. These 1,265 counties hold 98 percent of the non-Hispanic Black residents of all counties in the file. Interval: bootstrap over counties. years above non-Hispanic Black life expectancy in the counties that publish both, weighted by county population.[6] Counting each county once, the gap is 3.5 (95% CI 3.3 to 3.7)3.5 years of life expectancy at birth, non-Hispanic white minus non-Hispanic BlackEstimandmean of the county non-Hispanic white minus non-Hispanic Black gap in life expectancy, each county counted once, bootstrap interval over countiesInterval95% CI 3.3 to 3.7n1,265 countiesWeightsnone (each county counts once)Populationcounties with both a non-Hispanic white and a non-Hispanic Black life expectancy in County Health RankingsPerioddeaths in 2019 to 2021 (County Health Rankings 2024 release)SourceCounty Health RankingsNoteCounty Health Rankings publishes a race-specific life expectancy only where deaths are numerous enough. These 1,265 counties hold 98 percent of the non-Hispanic Black residents of all counties in the file. Interval: bootstrap over counties. years.

    What this cannot tell you

    These are averages for tracts, counties and groups, and they say little about the adult income of any one child (ecological inferenceEcological inferenceDrawing conclusions about individuals from data about places or groups. A pattern across counties need not hold for the people inside them.). Every Atlas figure describes children who grew up in the 1980s and 1990s, and none describes the same tracts today. The tracts with both estimates are those with enough children of both groups, and the connectedness measures come from active Facebook users in 2022. Connecticut is missing from the regression because its tract codes differ across the files.

    Go deeper

    • The report: every estimate with its interval and sample size.
    • Tables: every figure of the report as a table.

    Reading paths that include this chapter:

    Data sources

    • Opportunity AtlasTract and county outcomes of children born 1978 to 1983, native 2010 tracts, ranks as percentiles; income measured in 2014 to 2015Years: 1978-1983 birth cohorts (2018 release) · Weights: 2010 census tract population for tract comparisons; county population for county summaries · License: Public use (Opportunity Insights and the U.S. Census Bureau)
    • Social Capital AtlasEconomic connectedness and network measures, county and ZIP code, 2022Years: 2022 (friendship snapshot) · Weights: 2018 population (Social Capital Atlas) · License: Open for research use (Opportunity Insights)
    • County Health RankingsCounty Health Rankings 2024: life expectancy by race (deaths 2019 to 2021), premature death by race, Black-white residential segregationYears: 2024 release · Weights: county total population; each county once where stated · License: CC BY 4.0 (University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute)
    • American Community SurveyACS 2019 to 2023 tract file, aggregated to counties for the connectedness regressionYears: 2019-2023 (5-year) · Weights: 2019-2023 tract population · License: Public domain (U.S. Census Bureau)
    • USDA Food Access Research Atlas2010 census population of each 2010 tract, from the Food Access Research Atlas file; the food-access flags are not usedYears: 2019 release (population from the 2010 census) · Weights: none (census counts); used as the weight for tract comparisons · License: Public domain (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service)

    All data sources

    References

    1. Chetty, Raj; Friedman, John N.; Hendren, Nathaniel; Jones, Maggie R.; Porter, Sonya R. (2018). The Opportunity Atlas: Mapping the Childhood Roots of Social Mobility. NBER Working Paper 25147. doi:10.3386/w25147
    2. Chetty, Raj; Hendren, Nathaniel; Jones, Maggie R.; Porter, Sonya R. (2020). Race and Economic Opportunity in the United States: An Intergenerational Perspective. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 135(2): 711-783. doi:10.1093/qje/qjz042
    3. Chetty, Raj; Jackson, Matthew O.; Kuchler, Theresa; Stroebel, Johannes; et al. (2022). Social capital I: measurement and associations with economic mobility. Nature 608: 108-121. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04996-4
    4. Chetty, Raj; Hendren, Nathaniel; Katz, Lawrence F. (2016). The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment. American Economic Review 106(4): 855-902. doi:10.1257/aer.20150572
    5. Chetty, Raj; Hendren, Nathaniel (2018). The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility I: Childhood Exposure Effects. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133(3): 1107-1162. doi:10.1093/qje/qjy007
    6. University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute (2024). County Health Rankings & Roadmaps Technical Documentation, Version 2. University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute (updated March 18, 2024). www.countyhealthrankings.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2024%20CHRR%20Technical%20Document_1.pdf

    How to cite

    @misc{singh2026raceincomeandmobility,
  author = {Singh, Vishal},
  title = {Race, income and mobility},
  year = {2026},
  url = {https://vishalsingh.org/zipcode/race-income-and-mobility},
  note = {In ZIP Code Destiny. Published 9 October 2026.}
}