Poverty in the United States: 2008
Thomas Gabe
Specialist in Social Policy
April 21, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33069
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Poverty in the United States: 2008
Summary
In 2008, 39.8 million people were counted as poor in the United States—an increase of 2.6
million persons from 2007, and nearly the largest number of persons counted as poor since 1960.
The poverty rate, or percent of the population considered poor under the official definition, was
reported at 13.2%; this is up from 12.5% in 2007, and is the highest rate since 1997. The recent
increase in poverty reflects the worsening of economic conditions since the onset of the economic
recession in December 2007. Many expect poverty to rise further next year, and it will likely
remain comparatively high even after the economy begins to recover. The incidence of poverty
varies widely across the population according to age, education, labor force attachment, family
living arrangements, and area of residence, among other factors. Under the official poverty
definition, an average family of four was considered poor in 2008 if its pre-tax cash income for
the year was below $22,025.
The measure of poverty currently in use was developed nearly 50 years ago, and was adopted as
the “official” U.S. statistical measure of poverty in 1969. Except for minor technical changes, and
adjustments for price changes in the economy, the “poverty line” (i.e., the income thresholds by
which families or individuals with incomes that fall below are deemed to be poor) is the same as
that developed nearly a half century ago, reflecting a notion of economic need based on living
standards that prevailed in the mid-1950s.
Moreover, poverty as it is currently measured only counts families’ and individuals’ pre-tax
money income against the poverty line in determining whether or not they are poor. In-kind
benefits, such as benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly
named the Food Stamp program) and housing assistance are not accounted for under the
“official” poverty definition, nor are the effects of taxes or tax credits, such as the Earned Income
Tax Credit (EITC) or Child Tax Credit (CTC). In this sense, the current “official” poverty
measure fails to capture the effects of a variety of programs and policies specifically designed to
address income poverty.
A congressionally commissioned study conducted by a National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
panel of experts recommended, some 15 years ago, that a new U.S. poverty measure be
developed, offering a number of specific recommendations. Bills introduced in the 111th Congress
(H.R. 2909 and S. 1625) would instruct the Census Bureau to develop a new “modern” poverty
measure, following NAS recommendations. More recently, under the Obama Administration, an
initiative is underway for the Census Bureau to develop a Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM)
that would reflect many of the NAS panel’s recommendations and be informed by research
conducted on those recommendations over the past 15 years. This initiative aligns with many of
the provisions in H.R. 2909 and S. 1625. Statistics based on the SPM, which has yet to be
developed, are to accompany the Census Bureau’s fall 2011 scheduled release of 2010 income
and poverty statistics under the “official” measure. The new poverty measure is to be considered
an “experimental” measure, to supplement the “official” poverty measure. The “official”
statistical poverty measure would continue to be used by programs that use it as the basis for
allocating funds under formula and matching grant programs. The Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) would continue to issue poverty income guidelines derived from
“official” Census Bureau poverty thresholds. HHS poverty guidelines are used in determining
individual and family income eligibility under a number of federal and state programs. This CRS
report will be updated on an annual basis, following release of U.S. Census Bureau annual
income and poverty estimates.
Congressional Research Service
Poverty in the United States: 2008
Contents
Trends in Poverty........................................................................................................................ 1
Definition of Poverty .................................................................................................................. 2
Poverty Among Selected Groups ................................................................................................. 8
Racial and Ethnic Minorities ................................................................................................. 8
Nativity and Citizenship Status.............................................................................................. 8
Children................................................................................................................................ 8
Adults with Low Education, Unemployment, or Disability .................................................... 9
The Aged .............................................................................................................................. 9
Receipt of Welfare Among the Poor .......................................................................................... 10
The Geography of Poverty ........................................................................................................ 10
American Community Survey (ACS) State Poverty Estimates ............................................. 11
Figures
Figure 1. Trend in Poverty Rate and Number of Poor Persons: 1959-2008, and
Unemployment Rate from January 1959 through March 2010 .................................................. 6
Figure 2. U.S. Poverty Rates by Age Group, 1959-2008 .............................................................. 7
Figure 3. Poverty Rates for the 50 States and the District of Columbia: 2008 American
Community Survey (ACS) Data ............................................................................................. 12
Tables
Table 1. Poverty Rates for the 50 States and the District of Columbia, 2002 to 2008
Estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS)........................................................ 14
Table A-1. Poverty Rates (Percent Poor) for Selected Groups, 1959-2008.................................. 17
Appendixes
Appendix. U.S. Poverty Statistics: 1959-2008 ........................................................................... 17
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 19
Congressional Research Service
Poverty in the United States: 2008
Trends in Poverty1
In 2008, the U.S. poverty rate was 13.2%, accounting for 39.8 million persons as having income
below the official poverty line. The 2008 poverty rate was up from 12.5% in 2007, and was at the
highest level it has been over the past 11 years. In 2008, 2.6 million more persons were counted
as poor than the year before, and the number of poor in that year was the highest since 1960. (See
Figure 1.) The recent increase in poverty reflects the effects of the economic recession that began
in December 2007, and has not yet ended. Given that poverty tends to follow the economic cycle,
tending to rise when the economy is faltering and fall when the economy is in sustained growth,
the poverty rate and number of poor are expected by analysts to be even higher in 2009. Over the
course of 2008, the unemployment rate increased from 4.9% (January 2008) to 7.2% (December
2008); by March 2010 (the latest data available at the time of this report), the unemployment rate
was 9.7%, down from a most recent high of 10.2% in October 2009. Estimates of poverty in 2009
will not be available until the late summer of 2010, but given the most recent unemployment data,
they will most certainly be higher than in 2008. Even after the economy begins to recover,
poverty is expected to remain high, as poverty rates generally do not begin to fall until economic
expansion is well underway. A strong economy during most of the 1990s is generally credited
with the declines in poverty that occurred over the latter half of that decade, resulting in a record-
tying, historical low poverty rate of 11.3% in 2000 (a rate statistically tied with the previous
lowest recorded rate of 11.1% in 1973). The poverty rate increased each year from 2001 through
2004, a trend generally attributed to economic recession (March 2001 to November 2001), and
failed to recede appreciably before the onset of the current recession. Given the depth and
projected duration of the current recession, by some estimates, it may be a decade or more before
poverty rates recede to their 2007 pre-recession level.2
The longer-term secular trend in poverty has been affected by changes in household and family
composition and by government income security and transfer programs. In 1959, over one-third
(35.2%) of persons age 65 and over were poor, a rate well above that of children (26.9%). (See
Figure 2.) In 2008, the aged poverty rate was 9.7%—a rate statistically tied with the historical
low rate of 9.4% in 2006. Social security in combination with a maturing pension system has
helped greatly to reduce the incidence of poverty among the aged over the years. The poverty
rates of children were cut nearly in half from 1959 to 1969, reaching a historical low of 13.8% in
1969. Since reaching an all-time low, the growth in the number of single-parent families, which
tend to have a high incidence of poverty, has contributed to higher rates of child poverty overall.
Cash welfare programs that target the poor, including many poor single-parent families, tend to
lift few families’ incomes above the poverty line, but in combination with other noncash aid, such
programs help to reduce the depth of income and material deprivation poor families incur.
Changes in cash welfare programs implemented since passage of the 1996 welfare reform law
(Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), P.L. 104-193)
continue to be assessed in terms of their possible impacts on economically vulnerable
1 Supporting data are based on the following: U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in
the United States: 2008; Current Population Report No. P60-235, September 2009; and unpublished Census Bureau
tables, available on the Internet at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty08.html.
2 See, for example, Emily Monea and Isabel Sawhill, Simulating the Effect of the “Great Recession” on Poverty,
Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, September 10, 2009, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2009/
0910_poverty_monea_sawhill/0910_poverty_monea_sawhill.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
1
Poverty in the United States: 2008
populations.3 The welfare reform law ended the Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) program, replacing it with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
program.4 Among other features, TANF sets a five-year lifetime limit on receipt of federally
funded cash assistance (allowing lower limits at state option), imposes strong work requirements,
and allows states to impose sanctions that reduce or deny benefits to families who fail to comply
with program requirements.
Many forms of noncash assistance, such as food assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called the Food Stamp Program), and tax benefits, such as
the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for working families and the Child Tax Credit (CTC), are
not counted as income under the official poverty measure. Many believe that these and other
benefits should be included in a poverty measure so as to better reflect the effects of government
programs on poverty.
Definition of Poverty5
The Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds form the basis for statistical estimates of poverty in the
United States.6 The thresholds reflect crude estimates of the amount of money individuals or
families, of various size and composition, need per year to purchase a basket of goods and
services deemed as “minimally adequate,” according to the living standards of the early 1960s.
The thresholds are updated each year for changes in consumer prices. In 2008, for example, the
average poverty threshold for an individual living alone was $10,991; for a two-person family,
$14,051; and for a family of four, $22,025.7
The current official U.S. poverty measure was developed in the early 1960s using data available
at the time. It was based on the concept of a minimal standard of food consumption, derived from
research that used data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 1955 Food
Consumption Survey. That research showed that the average U.S. family spent one-third of its
pre-tax income on food. A standard of food adequacy was set by pricing out the USDA’s
Economy Food Plan—a bare-bones plan designed to provide a healthy diet for a temporary period
when funds are low. An overall poverty income level was then set by multiplying the food plan by
three, to correspond to the findings from the 1955 USDA Survey that an average family spent
one-third of its pre-tax income on food and two-thirds on everything else.
3 See CRS Report RL30797, Trends in Welfare, Work, and the Economic Well-Being of Female-Headed Families with
Children: 1987-2008, by Thomas Gabe.
4 See CRS Report RS20807, Short History of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law, by Joe Richardson and Vee Burke.
5 For a more complete discussion of the U.S. poverty measure, see CRS Report R41187, Poverty Measurement in the
United States: History, Current Practice, and Proposed Changes, by Thomas Gabe.
6 The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) releases poverty income guidelines that are derived directly
from Census poverty thresholds. These guidelines, a simplified approximation of the Census poverty thresholds, are
used by HHS and other federal agencies for administering programs, particularly for determining program eligibility.
For current guidelines and methods for their computation, see http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/index.shtml.
7 See http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh08.html.
Congressional Research Service
2
Poverty in the United States: 2008
The “official” U.S. poverty measure8 has changed little since it was originally adopted in 1969,
with the exception of annual adjustments for overall price changes in the economy, as measured
by the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Thus, the poverty line reflects a
measure of economic need based on living standards that prevailed in the mid-1950s. It is often
characterized as an “absolute” poverty measure, in that it is not adjusted to reflect changes in
needs associated with improved standards of living that have occurred over the decades since the
measure was first developed. If the same basic methodology developed in the early 1960s was
applied today, the poverty thresholds would be at least 2 1/2-times higher than the current
thresholds.9
Persons are considered poor, for statistical purposes, if their family’s countable money income is
below its corresponding poverty threshold. Annual poverty estimates are based on a Census
Bureau household survey (Current Population Survey) conducted each March. The official
definition of poverty counts most sources of money income received by families during the prior
year (e.g., earnings, social security, pensions, cash public assistance, interest and dividends,
alimony and child support, among others). For purposes of officially counting the poor, noncash
benefits (such as the value of Medicare and Medicaid, public housing, or employer provided
health care) and “near cash” benefits (e.g., food stamps, renamed Supplemental Assistance
Nutrition (SNAP) benefits beginning in FY2009) are not counted as income, nor are tax payments
subtracted from income, nor are tax credits added (e.g., Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)).
There is mounting interest in including the value of noncash benefits and tax credits when
assessing progress against poverty. These benefits represent a growing share of assistance to the
poor. In FY2008, the federal government provided an estimated $33.6 billion in Food Stamp
benefits, most of which went to poor households. The EITC program is the fastest growing form
of cash aid for children. In FY2008, the Treasury paid an estimated $39.5 billion in EITC to
families with relatively low earnings who owed no income tax. Neither Food Stamp (SNAP)
benefits nor the EITC are counted as income under the official poverty definition. The Census
Bureau provides a variety of alternate measures of poverty, based on various combinations of
cash, noncash, and after-tax income. These alternative measures are still considered experimental;
none have displaced the official measure.
The poverty rate is the estimated percentage of the national population living alone or in families
whose money income is below the poverty threshold. Under an alternate experimental definition
of poverty, the poverty rate would be lower than under the official definition of poverty, based on
pre-tax cash income. Using a more comprehensive definition of income measured against the
poverty line (one which includes the value of noncash benefits and the effect of taxes), the
estimated poverty rate would have been 10.2% in 2008,10 as opposed to 13.2% under the official
measure in 2008.
8 The poverty measure was adopted as the “official poverty measure” by a directive issued in 1969 by the Bureau of the
Budget, now the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The directive was revised in 1978 to include revisions to
poverty thresholds and procedures for updating thresholds for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). See OMB
Statistical Policy Directive 14, available on the internet at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/povmeas/ombdir14.html.
9 Based on U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey data, in 2005 the average
family spent about 12.8% of pre-tax income on food (including food consumed at home and away from home), or about
one-eighth of total income, as opposed to one-third in the mid-1950s. This implies that the multiplier for updating poverty
thresholds based on food consumption would be 7.8 (i.e., 1/.128), or 2.6 times the multiplier of 3 subsumed under poverty
thresholds developed in the 1960s.
10 Alternative poverty estimates for 2008 will not be available until the late fall of 2009. The alternative poverty
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
3
Poverty in the United States: 2008
Major changes to the way in which poverty is defined and measured in the United States have
been recommended by a congressionally commissioned study conducted by a National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) panel of experts. 11 The NAS panel recommended that the poverty level be
reset to take into account improvements in the U.S. standard of living that have occurred over the
past 40-plus years (i.e., since the current poverty measure was originally devised). The Academy
recommended that noncash benefits, taxes, and tax credits be counted with cash income, and that
certain expenses (e.g., work-related child care expenses, housing, and out-of-pocket medical
expenses) be deducted from income in determining families’ poverty status. The effect of these,
and other changes, would result in comparatively more working families and aged persons being
counted as poor. The NAS panel also recommended that the poverty income levels be adjusted for
area cost of living differences. The current poverty income thresholds are uniform across the 50
states and the District of Columbia. Most experts agree that the current measure underestimates
the extent of poverty in high cost of living areas. If adopted, a cost of living adjustment to the
poverty thresholds would result in comparatively higher levels of measured poverty in the
Northeast and West, compared to the South and Midwest, than under the current measure.
A bill introduced by Representative McDermott, The Measuring American Poverty Act of 2009
(H.R. 290912), and a companion bill introduced by Senator Dodd (S. 162513) would instruct the
Census Bureau to adopt many of the NAS recommendations as a new “modern” poverty measure.
The legislation, if adopted, would result in a new “modern” poverty measure that would coexist
with the current “official” poverty measure, and re-designate the current “official” measure as the
“traditional” poverty measure. The new “modern” poverty measure would not affect programs
that use poverty as a criterion for either determining eligibility or allocating funds, but would
stand as an additional statistical indicator to measure the effects of programs on poverty.
More recently, the Department of Commerce announced that the Census Bureau, in cooperation
with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), is preparing to develop a Supplemental Poverty
Measure (SPM) designed to implement many of the NAS panel recommendations.14 President
Obama’s Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Chief Statistician formed a Technical
Working Group15, charged with developing a set of initial starting points to help the Census
Bureau, in consultation with BLS, develop the new statistic. Observations from the Working
Group are based on much of what has been learned over the past 15 years on developing data and
(...continued)
estimate shown here is Income Definition 14a, from U.S. Census Bureau, Table 2. Percent of Persons in Poverty, By
Definition of Income and Selected Characteristics: 2008, available on the internet at http://www.census.gov/hhes/
www/cpstables/032009/rdcall/2_001.htm.
11 See Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance: Concepts, Information Needs, and Measurement Methods, Measuring
Poverty: A New Approach, ed. Constance F. Citro and Robert T. Michael (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
1995). For estimates of the effects of the NAS panel recommendations, see U.S. Bureau of the Census. Experimental
Poverty Measures: 1999. Current Population Report No. P60-216, October 2001. Also, for a discussion of NAS-based
poverty measurement, see the 2008 edition of “Background Material and Data on the Programs within the Jurisdiction
of the Committee on Ways and Means,” informally known as the Green Book, Appendix E, Poverty, Income
Distribution and Antipoverty Effectiveness, pp. 77-102, available on the internet at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/
media/pdf/110/appE.pdf.
12 For the full bill, see the Legislative Information System link to H.R. 2909.
13 For the full bill, see the Legislative Information System link to S. 1625.
14 See http://www.esa.doc.gov/.
15 The working group includes representatives from the Census Bureau, BLS, the Council of Economic Advisors, the
Department of Commerce, the Department of Health and Human Services, and OMB.
Congressional Research Service
4
Poverty in the United States: 2008
methods to implement the NAS panel’s recommendations, as well as on conceptual discussions
about how best to estimate economic need.16 The President’s FY2011 budget proposal includes $5
million to assist the Census Bureau in creating the new statistic, and $2.5 million for the Bureau
of Labor Statistics to develop supplemental poverty thresholds to be used by the Census Bureau.
Statistics based on the SPM, which is yet to be developed, are to accompany the Census Bureau’s
fall 2011 scheduled release of 2010 income and poverty statistics under the “official” measure.
The SPM would not replace the “official” poverty measure, as it would be considered an
experimental measure. According to the Working Group, the SPM should be considered a “work
in progress,” as improvements in data and methods are made over time. The Working Group’s
observations serve as an initial starting point intended to assist the Census Bureau in developing
the new statistical measure. Ultimately, the Census Bureau is responsible for the development and
final decisions relating to the development and initial publication of the SPM, as well as for
making improvements to the measure over time.
As noted above, the proposed new poverty measure is intended to supplement the “official”
statistical measure of poverty currently in use. Used in conjunction with the “official” poverty
measure, the SPM would help in assessing the effects of economic and social conditions and
government programs and policies on individuals and families in ways not possible with the
“official” measure. The “official” statistical poverty measure would continue to be used by
programs that use it as the basis for allocating funds under formula and matching grant programs.
Additionally, HHS poverty guidelines (footnote 6), used as a basis for determining income
eligibility of individuals, families, and households for federal and state programs, would continue
to be derived from the “official” statistical poverty measure.
16 See http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/SPM_TWGObservations.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5
Figure 1. Trend in Poverty Rate and Number of Poor Persons: 1959-2008,
and Unemployment Rate from January 1959 through March 2010
(recessionary periods marked in red)
25%
50,000
22.4%
?
39,851
39,829
39,265
20%
40,000
37,040
39,490
35,303
Nu mber of
poor person s
36,460
t)
(right axis)
ercen
15.2%
15.1%
)
(p 15%
31,528
31,581
0s
te
30,000
t Ra
13.2%
25,877
1,00
25,559
12.7%
12.1%
24,497
(in
men
r
Pove rty rate
y
o
(le ft axis)
12.8%
o
lo
?
p
12.3%
P
12.3%
24,147
10.8%
em
of
11.4%
11.3%
r
11.1%
e
Un
b
10%
d
20,000
m
n
u
9.0%
a
Mar.,
N
y
Une mployme nt rate
ert
7.8%
(left axis)
7.8%
9.7%
v
o
7.1%
P
6.3%
6.1%
5.7%
5%
10,000
4.8%
5.0%
4.6%
4.4%
3.8%
?
3.4%
0
2
1
61
/7
75
80
/8
91
/0
1
?
2/
3/
7/
11
3/
-
1
-
-
-
-
11
7 -
-
9 -
/0
/60
/73
/80
/81
/90
01
4
/6
9
1
7
7
12
0%
3/
12
0
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Year
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008,”
Table B-1, Current Population Report P60-236, September 2009, available on the internet at http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf. Unemployment rates are
available on the internet at http://www.bls.gov/cps/. Recessionary periods defined by National Bureau of Economic Research Business Cycle Dating Committee:
http://www.nber.org/cycles/main.html.
CRS-6
Figure 2. U.S. Poverty Rates by Age Group, 1959-2008
40
35
Age d
30
Chi l dre n
r)
25
o
o
t p
en
Total
erc
p
20
te (
a
Chi ldre n (18.5%)
R
y
Non-age d
ert
adul ts
v
o
P
15
Total (13.2%)
Non-age d adul ts (11.7%)
10
Age d (9.7%)
5
Esti mate s unavai lable from 1960 to 1965
0
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Year
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service using U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008,” Tables
B-1 and B-2, Current Population Report P60-236, September 2009, available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf.
CRS-7
Poverty in the United States: 2008
Poverty Among Selected Groups
Even during periods of general prosperity, poverty is concentrated among certain groups and
in certain areas. Minorities, women and children, the very old, the unemployed, and those with
low levels of educational attainment, low skills, or disability, among others, are especially prone
to poverty.
Racial and Ethnic Minorities17
African Americans and Hispanics have poverty rates that exceed the white poverty rate by several
times. In 2008, 24.7% of blacks (9.4 million) and 23.2% of Hispanics (11.0 million) had incomes
below poverty, compared to 8.6% of non-Hispanic whites (17.0 million) and 11.8% of Asians
(1.6 million). Although blacks represent only 12.6% of the total population, they make up 23.6%
of the poor population; Hispanics, who represent 15.7% of the population, account for 27.6% of
the poor. Poverty for all groups above, except blacks, increased from 2007 to 2008—the rate for
blacks was statistically unchanged over the period.
Nativity and Citizenship Status18
In 2008, among the native-born population, 12.6% (33.3 million) were poor in 2008, up from
11.9% (31.1 million) in 2007. Among the foreign-born population, 17.8% (6.5 million) were poor
in 2008, up from a respective 16.5% (6.2 million) in 2007. The poverty rate of naturalized
citizens (10.2%) was lower than that of native-born citizens (12.6%) in 2008; both the rate and
number of poor naturalized citizens was unchanged from 2007. In 2008, the poverty rate of non-
citizens (23.3%) was nearly twice that of the native-born population (12.6%). In that year, the 5.0
million non-citizens who were counted as poor accounted for about one-in-seven of all poor
persons (34.9 million). From 2007 to 2008, the poverty rate for non-citizens increased from
21.3% to 23.3%.
Children19
In 2008, 13.5 million children (18.5%) were poor—a statistically significant increase in the
number of poor (up from 12.8 million) and the poverty rate (up from 17.6%) from 2007. The
lowest recorded rate of child poverty was in 1969, when 13.8% of children were counted as poor.
Children living in single female-headed families are especially prone to poverty. In 2008, a child
living in a single female-headed family was well over four times more likely to be poor than a
17 Beginning with the March 2003 CPS, the Census Bureau allows survey respondents to identify themselves as
belonging to one or more racial groups. In prior years, respondents could select only one racial category. Consequently,
poverty statistics for different racial groups for 2002 and after are not directly comparable to earlier years’ data. The
terms blacks and whites, above, refers to persons who identified with only a single racial group. The term Hispanic
refers to individuals’ ethnic, as opposed to racial, identification. Hispanics may be of any race.
18 See U.S. Census Bureau detailed table, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032009/pov/
new29_100_01.htm.
19 Related children in families. For an in-depth discussion of child poverty, see CRS Report RL32682, Children in
Poverty: Profile, Trends, and Issues, by Vee Burke, Thomas Gabe, and Gene Falk.
Congressional Research Service
8
Poverty in the United States: 2008
child living in a married-couple family. In 2008, 43.5% of all children living in single female-
headed families were poor (statistically unchanged from 43.0% in 2007). In contrast, 9.9% of
children living in married-couple families were poor, which represented a statistically significant
increase from 2007, when 8.5% of such children were poor. The increased share of children who
live in single female-headed families has contributed to the high overall child poverty rate. In
2008, 23.9% of children were living in single female-headed families, about double the share who
lived in such families when the overall child poverty rate was at its historical low (1969). Among
all poor children, well over half (56.2%) lived in single female-headed families in 2008.
In 2008, 34.4% of black children were poor (3.8 million), compared to 30.3% of Hispanic
children (4.9 million) and 10.0% of white non-Hispanic children (4.1 million). Among children
living in single female-headed families, the poverty rate for black and Hispanic children was
identical at 51.9%; non-Hispanic white children in such families had a poverty rate of 31.7%. The
poverty rate among Hispanic children who live in married-couple families (22.1%) was over
twice that of black children (11.0%), and more than four times that of white non-Hispanic
children (5.3%) who live in such families. Contributing to the high rate of overall black child
poverty is the large share of black children who live in single female-headed families (55.0%)
compared to Hispanic children (26.5%) or white non-Hispanic children (15.4%).
Adults with Low Education, Unemployment, or Disability
Adults with low education, those who are unemployed, or those who have a work-related
disability are especially prone to poverty. In 2008, 34.7% of 25-34 year olds without a high
school diploma were poor. Within the same age group, 16.7% of those whose highest level of
educational attainment was a high school diploma were poor. In contrast, only 4.4% of 25-34 year
olds with at least a bachelor’s degree were found to be living below the poverty line. (About 12%
of 25-34 year olds lack a high school diploma.) Among persons between the ages of 16 and 64
who were unemployed in March 2009, 20.8% were poor based on their families’ incomes in
2008; among those who were employed, 6.0% were poor. In 2008, persons who had a work
disability20 represented 10.3% of the 16-64 year old population, and 26.1% of the poor population
within this age range. Among those with a severe work disability, 33.6% were poor, compared to
14.1% of those with a less severe disability and 9.1% who reported having no work-related
disability.
The Aged
The poverty rate of persons age 65 and older in 2008 was 9.7% (3.7 million poor). The poverty
rate among the aged in 2008 was identical to that in 2007, and statistically tied with its historical
low rate of 9.4% in 2006. Among those ages 75 and over, 11.2% were poor in 2008, compared to
20 The CPS asks several questions to determine whether individuals are considered to have a work disability. Persons
are identified as having a work disability if they (1) reported having a health problem or disability that prevents them
from working or that limits the kind or amount of work they can do; (2) ever retired or left a job for health reasons; (3)
did not work in the survey week because of long-term physical or mental illness or disability which prevents the
performance of any kind of work; (4) did not work at all in the previous year because they were ill or disabled; (5) are
under 65 years of age and covered by Medicare; (6) are under age 65 years of age and a recipient of Supplemental
Security Income (SSI); or (7) received veteran’s disability compensation. Persons are considered to have a severe work
disability if they meet any of the criteria in (3) through (6), above. See http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/
disabcps.html.
Congressional Research Service
9
Poverty in the United States: 2008
8.4% of those ages 65 to 74. Although the aged poverty rate tends to be lower than the child
poverty rate, many of the aged live just slightly above the poverty line. As measured by a slightly
raised poverty standard (125% of the poverty threshold), 15.9% of the aged could be considered
poor or “near poor;” 13.6% who are ages 65 to 74, and 18.7% who are 75 years of age and over
could be considered poor or “near poor.” In comparison, 25.0% of children (persons under age
18) could be considered poor or “near poor.”
Receipt of Welfare Among the Poor
In 2008, seven of every 10 persons who were poor (70.4%) lived in households that received any
means-tested assistance during the year.21 Such assistance could include cash aid, such as
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
payments, SNAP benefits (Food Stamps), Medicaid, subsidized housing, free or reduced price
school lunches, and other programs. In 2008, only 19.6% of poor persons lived in households that
received cash aid, 41.3% received Food Stamps, 57.9% lived in households where one or more
household members were covered by Medicaid, and 15.8% lived in subsidized housing. Poor
single-parent families with children are among those families most likely to receive cash aid.
Among poor children who were living in single female-headed families, 28.2% were in
households that received government cash aid in 2008. The share of poor children in single
female-headed families receiving cash aid is well below historical levels. In 1993, 70.2% of these
children’s families received cash aid. In 1995, the year prior to passage of sweeping welfare
changes under PRWORA, 65% of such children were in families receiving cash aid.
The Geography of Poverty
Poverty is more highly concentrated in some areas than in others; it is about twice as high in
center cities than it is in suburban areas and nearly three times as high in the poorest states than it
is in the least poor states.
Within metropolitan areas, the incidence of poverty in central city areas is considerably higher
than in suburban areas, 17.7% versus 9.8%, respectively, in 2008. Nonmetropolitan areas had a
poverty rate of 15.1%. In 2003 (the most recent year’s data available for this comparison), over
one-third (34.8%) of the nation’s poor lived in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty (areas
based on census tracts and minor civil divisions with a poverty rate of 20% or higher based on the
1990 census). Poor racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in areas of concentrated
poverty than non-Hispanic whites. Among poor African Americans, 52.9% lived in areas of
concentrated poverty, and among poor Hispanics, 47.5%. In contrast, 18.8% of poor non-
Hispanic whites lived in areas of concentrated poverty. In 2008, poverty rates were lowest in the
Northeast (11.6%), followed by the Midwest (12.4%), the West (12.4%) and the South (14.3%).
21 See http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/macro/032009/pov/new26_002_01.htm.
Congressional Research Service
10
Poverty in the United States: 2008
American Community Survey (ACS) State Poverty Estimates
Up to this point, the poverty statistics presented in this report come from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Social
and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS). For purposes of producing state and sub-
state poverty estimates, the Census Bureau now recommends using the American Community Survey (ACS)—
because of its much larger sample size, the ACS produces estimates with a much smaller margin of statistical error
than that of the ASEC/CPS. However, it should be noted that the ACS survey design differs from the ASEC/CPS in a
variety of ways, and may produce somewhat different estimates than those obtained from the ASEC/CPS. The
ASEC/CPS estimate that 13.2% of the nation’s population was poor in 2008 was coincidently the same as that
obtained for the 2008 ACS, although the two surveys were conducted at different times, and account for income
reported over different periods. The ASEC/CPS estimates are based on a survey conducted in February through April
2009, and account for income reported for the previous year. In contrast, the ACS estimates are based on income
information col ected between January and December 2008, for the prior 12 months. For example, for the sample
with data col ected in January, the reference period is from January 2007 to December 2007, and for the sample with
data col ected in December, from December 2007 to November 2008. The ACS data consequently cover a time span
of 23 months, with the data centered at mid-December 2007. The economic recession did not officially begin
until December 2007, so the 2008 ACS data only partially capture its possible effects on poverty.
Figure 3 shows estimated poverty rates for the United States and for each of the 50 states and the
District of Columbia on the basis of the 2008 American Community Survey (ACS). In addition to
the point estimates, the figure displays a 90% statistical confidence interval around each state’s
estimate, indicating the degree to which these estimates might be expected to vary based on
sample size.22 Although the states are sorted from lowest to highest by their respective poverty
rate point estimates, the precise ranking of each state is not possible because of the depicted
margin of error around each state’s estimate. For example, New Hampshire would appear to have
the lowest poverty rate (7.6%), but it overlaps statistically with Maryland (8.1%) and Alaska
(8.4%). Mississippi stands out as having the highest poverty rate (21.26%) and is followed by
Louisiana (17.3%), which is statistically tied with five other jurisdictions: Kentucky (17.3%),
Arkansas (17.3%), the District of Columbia (17.2%), New Mexico (17.1%), and West Virginia
(17.0%).
22 Two states’ poverty rates are statistically different at the 90% statistical confidence interval if the confidence intervals
bounding their respective poverty rates do not overlap with one another. However, some states with overlapping
confidence intervals may also statistically differ at the 90% statistical confidence interval. In order to precisely determine
whether two states’ poverty rates differ from one another, a statistical test of differences must be performed. The standard
error for the difference between two estimates may be calculated as:
2
2
SE
− SE
= SE
+ SE
. Two estimates
StateA
StateB
StateA
StateB
are considered statistically different if at the 90% statistical confidence interval the absolute value of the difference is
greater than 1.645 times the standard error of the difference (i.e., Povrate
− Povrate
>1.645x(SE
− SE
) .
StateA
StateB
StateA
StateB
Note that the standard error for a state’s poverty estimate may be obtained by dividing the margin of error depicted in
Figure 3 by 1.645.
Congressional Research Service
11
Poverty in the United States: 2008
Figure 3. Poverty Rates for the 50 States and the District of Columbia:
2008 American Community Survey (ACS) Data
(Poverty rate and 90% statistical confidence interval)
New Hampshire (7.6% + or -0.6%)
NH
Maryland (8.1% + or -0.3%)
MD
Alaska (8.4% + or -0.8%)
AK
New Jersey (8.7% + or -0.3%)
NJ
Hawaii (9.1% + or -0.7%)
HI
Connecticut (9.3% + or -0.4%)
CT
Wyoming (9.4% + or -0.9%)
WY
Utah (9.6% + or -0.5%)
UT
Minnesota (9.6% + or -0.3%)
MN
Massachusetts (10.0% + or -0.3%)
MA
Delaware (10.0% + or -0.8%)
DE
Virginia (10.2% + or -0.3%)
VA
Wisconsin (10.4% + or -0.3%)
WI
Vermont (10.6% + or -0.9%)
VT
Nebraska (10.8% + or -0.5%)
NE
Nevada (11.3% + or -0.6%)
NV
Kansas (11.3% + or -0.5%)
KS
Washington (11.3% + or -0.3%)
WA
Colorado (11.4% + or -0.5%)
CO
Iowa (11.5% + or -0.5%)
IA
Rhode Island (11.7% + or -0.8%)
RI
North Dakota (12.0% + or -0.9%)
ND
Pennsylvania (12.1% + or -0.2%)
PA
Illinois (12.2% + or -0.2%)
IL
Maine (12.3% + or -0.6%)
ME
South Dakota (12.5% + or -0.9%)
SD
Idaho (12.6% + or -0.9%)
ID
Indiana (13.1% + or -0.4%)
IN
United States (13.2% + or -0.1%)
US
Florida (13.2% + or -0.2%)
FL
California (13.3% + or -0.2%)
CA
Ohio (13.4% + or -0.3%)
OH
Missouri (13.4% + or -0.3%)
MO
New York (13.6% + or -0.2%)
NY
Oregon (13.6% + or -0.5%)
OR
Michigan (14.4% + or -0.3%)
MI
North Carolina (14.6% + or -0.4%)
NC
Georgia (14.7% + or -0.3%)
GA
Arizona (14.7% + or -0.4%)
AZ
Montana (14.8% + or -0.9%)
MT
Tennessee (15.5% + or -0.4%)
TN
South Carolina (15.7% + or -0.5%)
SC
Alabama (15.7% + or -0.5%)
AL
Texas (15.8% + or -0.2%)
TX
Oklahoma (15.9% + or -0.5%)
OK
West Virginia (17.0% + or -0.7%)
WV
New Mexico (17.1% + or -0.7%)
NM
District of Columbia (17.2% + or -1.3%)
DC
Arkansas (17.3% + or -0.7%)
AR
Kentucky (17.3% + or -0.5%)
KY
Louisiana (17.3% + or -0.6%)
LA
Mississippi (21.2% + or -0.9%)
MS
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service on the basis of U.S. Census Bureau 2008 American
Community Survey (ACS) data.
Congressional Research Service
12
Poverty in the United States: 2008
Table 1 provides estimates of state and national poverty rates from 2002 through 2008 from the
ACS. Statistically significant changes from one year to the next are indicated by an upward-
pointing arrow (▲) if a state’s poverty rate was statistically higher, and by a downward-pointing
arrow (▼) if statistically lower, than in the immediately preceding year or for other selected
periods (i.e., 2002 to 2005, 2006 to 2008, and 2002 to 2008).23 It should be noted that ACS
poverty estimates for 2006 and later are not strictly comparable to those of earlier years, due to a
change in ACS methodology that began in 2006 to include some persons living in non-
institutionalized group quarters who were not included in earlier years.24
Table 1 shows that poverty among states was generally increasing over the 2002 to 2005 period,
as measured by the ACS. This is in spite of the fact that the nation had emerged out of economic
recession in November 2001. From 2002 to 2003, five states experienced statistically significant
increases in their poverty rate, whereas none experienced a significant decrease in poverty. From
2003 to 2004, eight states saw their poverty rates increase, whereas two saw decreases. From
2004 to 2005, 13 states saw their poverty rates increase, whereas only one saw its poverty rate
decrease. Comparing 2005 to 2002, 25 states had higher poverty rates in 2005 than in 2002, and
only two states had lower poverty rates.
By 2007, the effects of the 2001 recession on state poverty rates were beginning to fade, as 12
states and the District of Columbia experienced statistically significant decreases in their poverty
rates from 2006, and only one state (Michigan) saw its poverty rate increase over the period.
However, by 2008, the ACS data show eight states (California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii,
Indiana, Michigan, Oregon, and Pennsylvania) as experiencing statistically significant increases
in their poverty rates, whereas three states (Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas) experienced
statistically significant decreases. As the current recession was not officially pegged as beginning
until December 2007, the 2008 ACS data do not fully capture economic circumstances of 2008,
as the data were collected over a 23-month period centered on December 2007, the point at which
the economic downturn was marked as having just begun (see text box, above). The 2008 ACS
poverty estimates show 18 states as having statistically higher poverty rates than in 2002, and
three states as having statistically lower poverty rates; however, as noted earlier, these estimates
are not strictly comparable, due to the inclusion of some persons in non-institutional group
quarters in 2008 who were not included in the survey in 2002.
23 Statistically significant differences are based on a 90% statistical confidence interval.
24 Beginning in 2006, a portion of the population living in non-institutional group quarters has been included in the
ACS in estimating poverty. The population living in institutional group quarters, military barracks, and college
dormitories has been excluded in the ACS poverty estimates for all years. The part of the non-institutional group
quarters population that has been included in the poverty universe since 2006 (e.g., people living in group homes or
those living in agriculture workers’ dormitories) is considerably more likely to be in poverty than people living in
households. Consequently, estimates of poverty in 2006 and after are somewhat higher than would be the case if all
group quarters residents were excluded—thus, comparisons with earlier year estimates are not strictly comparable.
Congressional Research Service
13
Table 1. Poverty Rates for the 50 States and the District of Columbia, 2002 to 2008
Estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS)
(percent poor)
Change in Poverty Rates over
Estimated Poverty Rate and
Selected Periods and
Statistically Significant Differences
Statistically Significant
over Previous Year
Differences
2005
2008
2008
vs.
vs.
vs.
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006a 2007a
2008a
2002
2006
2002a
United States
12.4
12.7▲
13.1▲
13.3▲
13.3
13.0 ▼
13.2▲
0.9▲
-0.1
0.8▲
Alabama 16.6
17.1
16.1
17.0▲
16.6 16.9
15.7▼
-0.1
-1.3▼
-0.9
Alaska 7.7
9.7▲
8.2▼
11.2▲
10.9
8.9 ▼
8.4
3.2▲
-2.8▼
0.7
Arizona 14.2
15.4▲
14.2
14.2
14.2
14.2
14.7
0.0
0.5 0.6
Arkansas 15.3
16.0
17.9▲
17.2
17.3
17.9
17.3
2.0▲
0.2
2.0▲
California 13.0
13.4
13.3
13.3
13.1
12.4 ▼
13.3▲
0.1
0.0 0.2
Colorado 9.7
9.8
11.1
11.1
12.0▲
12.0
11.4
2.3▲
0.4
1.7▲
Connecticut 7.5
8.1
7.6
8.3
8.3
7.9
9.3▲
0.8
1.0▲
1.8▲
Delaware 8.2
8.7
9.9
10.4
11.1
10.5
10.0
2.9▲
-0.4
1.8▲
District of Columbia
17.5
19.9▲
18.9
19.0
19.6
16.4 ▼
17.2 2.2
-1.8 -0.2
Florida 12.8
13.1
12.2▼
12.8▲
12.6
12.1 ▼
13.2▲
-0.2
0.4▲
0.4
Georgia 12.7
13.4
14.8▲
14.4
14.7
14.3
14.7
2.0▲
0.3
2.0▲
Hawai 10.1
10.9
10.6
9.8
9.3
8.0 ▼
9.1▲
-0.8
-0.7 -1.0
Idaho 13.8
13.8
14.5
13.9
12.6▼
12.1
12.6
-1.2
-1.2▼
-1.2
Illinois 11.6
11.3
11.9
12.0
12.3
11.9
12.2
0.7▲
0.2 0.6
Indiana 10.9
10.6
10.8
12.2▲
12.7 12.3
13.1▲
1.8▲
0.9▲
2.2▲
Iowa 11.2
10.1
9.9
10.9▲
11.0 11.0
11.5 -0.2
0.7▲
0.3
Kansas 12.1
10.8
10.5
11.7▲
12.4
11.2 ▼
11.3 0.3
-0.4 -0.8
Kentucky 15.6
17.4
17.4
16.8
17.0
17.3
17.3
1.3▲
0.5
1.7▲
CRS-14
Change in Poverty Rates over
Estimated Poverty Rate and
Selected Periods and
Statistically Significant Differences
Statistically Significant
over Previous Year
Differences
2005
2008
2008
vs.
vs.
vs.
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006a 2007a
2008a
2002
2006
2002a
Louisiana 18.8
20.3
19.4
19.8
19.0
18.6
17.3▼
0.2
-2.4▼
-1.5▼
Maine 11.1
10.5
12.3▲
12.6
12.9
12.0
12.3
1.8▲
-0.3
1.2▲
Maryland 8.1
8.2
8.8
8.2
7.8
8.3
8.1
-0.3
-0.2 0.0
Massachusetts 8.9
9.4
9.2
10.3▲
9.9 9.9
10.0 1.0▲
-0.3
1.1▲
Michigan 11.0
11.4
12.3
13.2▲
13.5
14.0 ▲
14.4▲
2.5▲
1.2▲
3.4▲
Minnesota 8.5
7.8
8.3
9.2▲
9.8▲
9.5
9.6
1.2▲
0.5▲
1.1▲
Mississippi 19.9
19.9
21.6▲
21.3
21.1
20.6
21.2
1.2▲
-0.1 1.3
Missouri 11.9
11.7
11.8
13.3▲
13.6
13.0 ▼
13.4
1.6▲
0.0
1.5▲
Montana 14.6
14.2
14.2
14.4
13.6
14.1
14.8
-1.0
0.4 0.2
Nebraska 11.0
10.8
11.0
10.9
11.5
11.2
10.8
0.5
-0.1 -0.1
Nevada 11.8
11.5
12.6
11.1
10.3
10.7
11.3
-1.5 ▼
0.2 -0.5
New Hampshire
6.4
7.7▲
7.6
7.5
8.0
7.1 ▼
7.6
1.6▲
0.1 1.2▲
New Jersey
7.5
8.4▲
8.5
8.7
8.7
8.6
8.7
1.2▲
0.0
1.2▲
New Mexico
18.9
18.6
19.3
18.5
18.5
18.1
17.1
-0.4
-1.4▼
-1.8▼
New York
13.1
13.5
14.2▲
13.8
14.2▲
13.7 ▼
13.6
1.1▲
-0.2 0.5
North Carolina
14.2
14.0
15.2
15.1
14.7
14.3
14.6
0.4
-0.5 0.3
North Dakota
12.5
11.7
12.1
11.2
11.4
12.1
12.0
-1.1
0.7 -0.6
Ohio 11.9
12.1
12.5
13.0
13.3
13.1
13.4
1.5▲
0.3
1.5▲
Oklahoma 15.0
16.1
15.3
16.5
17.0
15.9 ▼
15.9
2.0▲
-0.6 0.9
Oregon 13.2
13.9
14.1
14.1
13.3▼
12.9
13.6▲
0.0
-0.5 0.4
Pennsylvania 10.5
10.9
11.7▲
11.9
12.1
11.6 ▼
12.1▲
1.5▲
0.2
1.6▲
Rhode Island
10.7
11.3
12.8▲
12.3
11.1
12.0
11.7
0.4
-0.6 1.0
CRS-15
Change in Poverty Rates over
Estimated Poverty Rate and
Selected Periods and
Statistically Significant Differences
Statistically Significant
over Previous Year
Differences
2005
2008
2008
vs.
vs.
vs.
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006a 2007a
2008a
2002
2006
2002a
South Carolina
14.2
14.1
15.7
15.6
15.7
15.0
15.7
1.4▲
0.1
1.4▲
South Dakota
11.4
11.1
11.0
13.6▲
13.6 13.1
12.5 2.2
-1.2 1.1
Tennessee 14.5
13.8
14.5
15.5
16.2
15.9
15.5
1.7▲
-0.1 1.0
Texas 15.6
16.3
16.6
17.6▲
16.9▼
16.3 ▼
15.8▼
1.3▲
-1.8▼
0.2
Utah 10.5
10.6
10.9
10.2
10.6
9.7 ▼
9.6 0.1
-0.6 -0.9
Vermont 8.5
9.7
9.0
11.5▲
10.3 10.1
10.6 1.8▲
-0.9
2.0▲
Virginia 9.9
9.0
9.5
10.0
9.6
9.9
10.2
-0.4
0.2 0.3
Washington 11.4
11.0
13.1▲
11.9▼
11.8 11.4
11.3 0.4
-0.6▼
0.0
West Virginia
17.2
18.5
17.9
18.0
17.3
16.9
17.0
0.1
-1.0 -0.2
Wisconsin 9.7
10.5
10.7
10.2
11.0▲
10.8
10.4
1.2▲
0.2 0.7
Wyoming 11.0
9.7
10.3
9.5
9.4
8.7
9.4
-1.6 ▼
-0.1
-1.6▼
Number of states with
statistically significant
change in poverty:
5
10
14
7
14
11
27
13 21
Increase in poverty
5 ▲
8▲
13 ▲
4 ▲
1 ▲
8▲
25 ▲
6 ▲
18 ▲
Decrease in poverty
0 ▼
2▼
1 ▼
3 ▼
13 ▼
3▼
2 ▼
7 ▼
3 ▼
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates from U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) data, 2002 to 2008.
Notes:
▲ Statistically significant increase in poverty rate at the 90% statistical confidence level.
▼ Statistically significant decrease in poverty rate at the 90% statistical confidence level.
a. Comparisons to 2002 through 2005 estimates are not strictly comparable, due to inclusion of persons living in some non-institutional group quarters beginning in 2006
and after.
CRS-16
Poverty in the United States: 2008
Appendix. U.S. Poverty Statistics: 1959-2008
Table A-1. Poverty Rates (Percent Poor) for Selected Groups, 1959-2008
Related Children
Under Age18a
Adults
Race/Ethnicityb—All Ages
In
Female-
In All
White
All
Headed
Other
Ages
Age
Non-
Year
Persons
Total
Families Families
18-64
65+
Whiteb Hispanicb
Blackb Hispanic
2008 13.2 18.5 43.5 10.7 11.7 9.7 11.2b 8.6b 24.7b 23.2
2007 12.5 17.6 43.0 9.5 10.9 9.7 10.5b 8.2b 24.5b 21.5
2006 12.3 16.9 42.1 9.0 10.8 9.4 10.3b 8.2b 24.3b 20.6
2005 12.6 17.1 42.8 9.3 11.1 10.1 10.6b 8.3b 24.9b 21.8
2004r 12.7 17.3 41.9 9.7 11.3 9.8 10.8b 8.7b 24.7b 21.9
2003 12.5 17.2 41.8 9.6 10.8 10.2 10.5b 8.2b 24.4b 22.5
2002 12.1 16.3 39.6 9.2 10.6 10.4 10.2b 8.0b 24.1b 21.8
2001 11.7 15.8 39.3 8.8 10.1 10.1 9.9
7.8 22.7 21.4
2000r 11.3 15.6 40.1 8.6 9.6 9.9 9.5
7.4 22.5 21.5
1999 11.8 16.3 41.9 9.0 10.0 9.7 9.8 7.7 23.6 22.8
1998 12.7 18.3 46.1 9.7 10.5 10.5 10.5 8.2 26.1 25.6
1997 13.3 19.2 49.0 10.2 10.9 10.5 11.0 8.6 26.5 27.1
1996 13.7 19.8 49.3 10.9 11.3 10.8 11.2 8.6 28.4 29.4
1995 13.8 20.2 50.3 10.7 11.4 10.5 11.2 8.5 29.3 30.3
1994 14.5 21.2 52.9 11.7 11.9 11.7 11.7 9.4 30.6 30.7
1993 15.1 22.0 53.7 12.4 12.4 12.2 12.2 9.9 33.1 30.6
1992r 14.8 21.6 54.6 11.8 11.9 12.9 11.9 9.6 33.4 29.6
1991r 14.2 21.1 55.5 11.1 11.4 12.4 11.3 9.4 32.7 28.7
1990 13.5 19.9 53.4 10.7 10.7 12.2 10.7 8.8 31.9 28.1
1989 12.8 19.0 51.1 10.4 10.2 11.4 10.0 8.3 30.7 26.2
1988r 13.0 19.0 52.9 10.0 10.5 12.0 10.1 8.4 31.3 26.7
1987r 13.4 19.7 54.7 10.9 10.6 12.5 10.4 8.7 32.4 28.0
1986 13.6 19.8 54.4 10.8 10.8 12.4 11.0 9.4 31.1 27.3
1985 14.0 20.1 53.6 11.7 11.3 12.6 11.4 9.7 31.3 29.0
1984 14.4 21.0 54.0 12.5 11.7 12.4 11.5 10.0 33.8 28.4
1983 15.2 21.8 55.5 13.5 12.4 13.8 12.2 10.8 35.7 28.1
1982 15.0 21.3 56.0 13.0 12.0 14.6 12.0 10.6 35.6 29.9
1981 14.0 19.5 52.3 11.6 11.1 15.3 11.1 9.9 34.2 26.5
1980 13.0 17.9 50.8 10.4 10.1 15.7 10.2 9.1 32.5 25.7
1979 11.7 16.0 48.6 8.5 8.9 15.2 9.0
8.1 31.0 21.8
Congressional Research Service
17
Poverty in the United States: 2008
Related Children
Under Age18a
Adults
Race/Ethnicityb—All Ages
In
Female-
In All
White
All
Headed
Other
Ages
Age
Non-
Year
Persons
Total
Families Families
18-64
65+
Whiteb Hispanicb
Blackb Hispanic
1978 11.4 15.7 50.6 7.9 8.7 14.0 8.7
7.9 30.6 21.6
1977 11.6 16.0 50.3 8.5 8.8 14.1 8.9
8.0 31.3 22.4
1976 11.8 15.8 52.0 8.5 9.0 15.0 9.1
8.1 31.1 24.7
1975 12.3 16.8 52.7 9.8 9.2 15.3 9.7
8.6 31.3 26.9
1974 11.2 15.1 51.5 8.3 8.3 14.6 8.6
7.7 30.3 23.0
1973 11.1 14.2 52.1 7.6 8.3 16.3 8.4
7.5 31.4 21.9
1972 11.9 14.9 53.1 8.6 8.8 18.6 9.0
n/a 33.3 n/a
1971 12.5 15.1 53.1 9.3 9.3 21.6 9.9
n/a 32.5 n/a
1970 12.6 14.9 53.0 9.2 9.0 24.6 9.9
n/a 33.5 n/a
1969 12.1 13.8 54.4 8.6 8.7 25.3 9.5
n/a 32.2 n/a
1968 12.8 15.3 55.2 10.2 9.0 25.0 10.0 n/a 34.7 n/a
1967 14.2 16.3 54.3 11.5 10.0 29.5 11.0 n/a 39.3 n/a
1966 14.7 17.4 58.2 12.6 10.5 28.5 11.3 n/a 41.8 n/a
1959 22.4 26.9 72.2 22.4 17.0 35.2 18.1 n/a 55.1 n/a
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service using U.S. Bureau of the Census data.
Notes: r = revised estimates. n/a = not available.
a. Beginning in 1979, restricted to children in primary families only. Before 1979, includes children in unrelated
subfamilies.
b. Beginning in 2002, CPS respondents could identify themselves as being of more than one race.
Consequently, racial data for 2002 and after are not comparable to earlier years. Here, in 2002 and after,
the term white means of white race alone and the term black means of black race alone. Hispanics, who
may be of any race, are included among whites and blacks unless otherwise noted.
Congressional Research Service
18
Poverty in the United States: 2008
Author Contact Information
Thomas Gabe
Specialist in Social Policy
tgabe@crs.loc.gov, 7-7357
Congressional Research Service
19