Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What demographic groups have the lowest literacy rates in the U.S. and why?
Executive summary
Data from the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) and multiple 2024–2025 compilations show that U.S. literacy deficits are concentrated among older adults, people with low levels of formal education, some racial and ethnic minorities, and many immigrants — with roughly one-in-five to one-in-four adults performing at the lowest proficiency levels in recent reports (PIAAC-derived summaries and compilations) [1] [2]. State and regional patterns matter too: larger, diverse states such as California, New York, Texas and Florida are repeatedly listed among those with lower adult literacy rates in secondary sources [3] [4].
1. Who is scoring lowest — an outline of demographic groups
Multiple summaries and data-driven write-ups report the lowest literacy proficiencies among: (a) older cohorts (notably ages 55–65 in one summary), (b) adults with low formal educational attainment, (c) U.S. adults born outside the country, and (d) residents of certain large states and some regions [1] [5] [6] [4]. PIAAC-based summaries cited in these sources note that adults at “Level 1 or below” (the lowest proficiency band) have grown as a share of the population between 2017 and 2023 in many age groups, with males and females both represented among low performers [1].
2. The role of age and cohort effects
Reporting compiled from PIAAC indicates older adults—particularly those in mid- to later-life age bands—often score worse than younger cohorts; one summary specifically flags adults 55–65 as performing worse than other groups [1]. Analysts and compilers interpret this as a mix of historical educational access differences, changing occupational literacy demands over decades, and cohort effects where younger cohorts received more consistent schooling aligned to modern literacy expectations [2] [1].
3. Education, poverty and incarceration: structural drivers
All the summaries link low literacy to lower educational attainment, poverty, and higher incarceration rates. Sources describe a tight correlation: adults with low literacy tend to have lower incomes (one report cites median incomes around half of higher-literacy peers) and are overrepresented in unemployment and justice-system populations, with children from low-literacy homes at greater risk of poor academic outcomes [4] [7] [5]. These accounts frame literacy as both cause and effect of economic and social marginalization [5] [4].
4. Immigration and language background
Several compilations emphasize that a substantial share of adults lacking literacy proficiency were born outside the U.S.—one figure recurring in secondary sources is roughly one-third of low-proficiency adults—highlighting language barriers, interrupted schooling, and credential recognition as contributors [6] [8]. Available sources do not provide PIAAC cross-tabs here with full detail, but secondary reports consistently identify immigrant status and limited English proficiency as major correlates [6] [8].
5. Geographic disparities: which states and why
State-by-state compilations list New England and the Upper Midwest near the top for adult literacy while populous states such as California, New York, Texas, Florida and New Jersey appear more often among those with lower reported rates [9] [3] [4]. Commentators point to complex causes: greater demographic diversity, higher immigrant populations, urban poverty concentrations, and uneven education funding histories — though the secondary sources vary in emphasis and methodology [3] [9].
6. How the pandemic and recent trends are framed
Multiple analyses assert that COVID-19 school disruptions accelerated literacy challenges, with declines in fourth-grade reading proficiency and adult competencies stabilizing at lower levels after 2020 in some data compilations [3] [5]. These sources contend the pandemic widened preexisting gaps — especially for children without access to remote learning supports — and that some recovery remains incomplete [3] [1].
7. Limitations, contested figures and methodological caveats
There is notable variation across the supplied sources in headline literacy rates (figures range from about 79% literate to higher estimates), reflecting differing definitions (basic prose skills, PIAAC proficiency levels, state survey methods) and claims by private compilers versus international datasets [8] [9] [2]. The World Bank link included in the search index points to international literacy indicators but the current search results do not provide direct, disaggregated World Bank or UNESCO numbers for recent U.S. subgroups here [10]. Where a claim in a source explicitly refutes another, that refutation is presented in the cited piece; otherwise available sources do not mention a single authoritative, reconciled national breakdown by every demographic subgroup [2] [9].
8. What this implies for policy and readers
Sources converge on a policy implication: targeted investments in early-grade reading, adult basic education, English‑language supports for immigrants, and place-based strategies in high-need states are central to reducing low-literacy concentrations [5] [4]. Different compilers stress different levers — from classroom curriculum changes to adult workforce upskilling — but all link literacy improvements to long-term gains in employment, income and social stability [5] [4].
If you want, I can extract the specific PIAAC proficiency breakdowns and state rankings cited by these secondary compilations into a table (using only the sources listed) so you can see exact percentages and age/race/immigrant splits those sources report.