The “starving student” is more than a stereotype of a challenging slice of one’s life.

College kids are a noteworthy economic force for a campus and its surrounding community — both good and bad. Ponder a recent Census Bureau report that shows how coed’s off-campus living boosts local poverty rates.

When the census compiles the traditional poverty rate, it tabulates those among the civilian population living on less than poverty incomes. They are older than 15 and not “institutionalized” — those folks living in prisons, senior-living homes and … college dorms.

But those college kids living off-campus are typically counted as impoverished. Why? They usually have little if any income by census standards as their wage-producing time is (hopefully) spent with their studies.

Yes, many college kids are well-supported by parents, not to mention scholarships, loans and other means. Others are forced to skimp to survive — thus the “starving student” image — and off-campus housing is one way college kids stretch their budgets.

Census researchers, using 2012-2016 data, studied what local poverty measures would look like if all college students were counted alike. They found that in 226 places nationwide off-campus living is an economic factor that significantly boosts poverty-rate calculations. Please note: They’re not all the stereotypical “college town” or small community with the big university.

These 226 communities — with 10,000 or more residents — had roughly 2.5 million off-campus students in total; 81 of these places also were home to a college with the largest on-site enrollments (among 100 nationwide).

Here’s a prime example many Southern Californians can understand: In Isla Vista, the town that serves as the off-campus home for many UC Santa Barbara students, 76.3 percent of its population — or roughly 13,000 residents — are off-campus students.

Take this group out of the poverty calculation, and a 67.3 percent poverty rate — yes, 67.3 percent — falls to 34.2 percent. That’s a 33.1 percentage-point cut, the third-largest drop nationally.

Or consider Boone, N.C., home to Appalachian State University, where 57.2 percent of its population is off-campus students. The poverty rate goes from 62.2 percent to 20 percent without this college cohort, the top drop nationally.

But it’s not just small communities impacted by this student factor. Just look around Southern California.

The city of Los Angeles — with a wide collection of colleges — has 2.5 percent of its population (96,000 residents) as off-campus students. Subtract them from the poverty math and the rate goes from 21.5 percent to 20.6 percent. That’s a 0.9 percentage-point cut.

Irvine — home to UC Irvine and Concordia University — has 6.8 percent of its population (16,000) as off-campus students. Subtract this group and city poverty rate goes from 12.7 percent to 8.3 percent. That’s an eye-catching 4.4 percentage-point cut.

In Riverside — home to UC Riverside — without 2.9 percent of its population or 9,000 off-campus students, the poverty rate goes from 17.8 percent to 16.3 percent, a 1.5 percentage-point cut. In Fullerton — home to Cal State Fullerton — take away 4.9 percent of its population, or 7,000 off-campus students, and see its poverty rate go from 15.3 percent to 12.8 percent, a 2.5 percentage-point cut.

When census looked at large U.S. counties, 211, or 8.7 percent, were found to have significant boosts to poverty rates due to off-campus living.

On that list were Los Angeles County (poverty rate minus 178,000 off-campus students — 1.8 percent of the population — went from 17.8 percent to 17.2 percent) and Orange County (poverty rate minus 59,000 off-campus students — 1.9 percent of the population) — went from 12.5 percent to 11.7 percent.

This is more than a statistical exercise. Colleges have widespread economic fallout that extends well beyond their campuses. And it’s more than simply the poverty rate adjustments.

Even if one scoffs at the notion of widespread impoverished “starving students” living off-campus, remember that this college-aged flock is consuming various assets of a community. That’s everything from safety and social services to badly needed housing units.