Poverty in the United States: 2009
Thomas Gabe
Specialist in Social Policy
September 20, 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: 2009

Summary
In 2009, 43.6 million people were counted as poor in the United States—an increase of 3.7
million persons from 2010, and the largest number of persons counted as poor in the measure’s
50-year recorded history. The poverty rate, or percent of the population considered poor under the
official definition, was reported at 14.3% in 2009, amounting to one of every seven persons in the
U.S. being counted as poor. The 2009 poverty rate was up from 13.2% in 2008, and above its
most recent pre-recession low of 12.3% in 2006. The increase in poverty over the past three years
reflects the effects of the economic recession that began in December 2007. In spite of signs that
the economy may be recovering, some analysts expect poverty to remain above pre-recessionary
levels for as long as a decade. 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 2009 if its pre-tax cash income for the year was below $21,954.
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 “official” 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: 2009

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: 1959-2009, and
Unemployment Rate from January 1959 through August 2010 ................................................. 6
Figure 2. U.S. Poverty Rates by Age Group, 1959-2009 .............................................................. 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, 1959-2009.................................. 17

Appendixes
Appendix. U.S. Poverty Statistics: 1959-2009 ........................................................................... 17

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 19

Congressional Research Service

Poverty in the United States: 2009

Trends in Poverty1
In 2009, the U.S. poverty rate was 14.3%, accounting for one in seven, 43.6 million, persons as
having income below the official poverty line. The 2009 poverty rate was up from 13.2% in 2008,
and was at the highest level it has been since 1994. In 2009, 3.7 million more persons were
counted as poor than the year before. The 43.6 million persons counted as poor in 2009 is the
largest amount in the measure’s recorded history, which goes back as far as 1959. (See Figure 1.)
The recent increase in poverty reflects the effects of the economic recession that began in
December 2007.2 The level of poverty tends to follow the economic cycle quite closely, tending
to rise when the economy is faltering and fall when the economy is in sustained growth. This
most recent recession, have officially ended in June 2009, was the longest recorded (18 months)
in the post-World War II period. Even as 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. Given the depth and duration of the recession, and the projected slow recovery, by
some estimates it may be a decade or more before poverty rates recede to their 2006 pre-recession
level.3 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 December 2007 recession. Over the course of 2008, the
unemployment rate increased from 4.9% (January 2008) to 7.2% (December 2008). The
unemployment rate continued to rise over most of 2009, peaking at 10.1% in October. As of
August 2010 (the most recent estimate available), the unemployment rate of 9.6% was nearly
twice its pre-recession level. Poverty estimates for 2010 will not be available until the late
summer of 2011, but will likely remain near, or even exceed, their 2009 level.
The recession has especially affected non-aged adults (persons age 18 to 64) and children. The
poverty rate of non-aged adults reached 12.9% in 2009, amounting to one in eight non-aged
adults, and the highest it has been since the early 1960’s.4 The poverty rate for non-aged adults
will need to fall to 10.8% to reach its 2006 pre-recession level. In 2009, one in five children
(20.1% ) were poor, up from about one in six (16.9%) in 2006.
In 2009, the aged poverty rate reached a historic low of 8.9%, in spite of the recession. 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

1 Supporting data are based on the following: U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in
the United States: 2009; Current Population Report No. P60-238, September 2010; and unpublished Census Bureau
tables, available on the Internet at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/index.html.
2 Periods of recession are officially defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Business Cycle
Dating Committee. See http://www.nber.org/cycles/main.html.
3 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.
4 The poverty rate of non-aged adults was 17.0% in 1959. Comparable estimates are not available from 1960 through
1965. By 1966, the non-aged poverty rate stood at 10.5%. See Table A-1.
Congressional Research Service
1

Poverty in the United States: 2009

Figure 2.) Social security, in combination with a maturing pension system, has helped greatly to
reduce the incidence of poverty among the aged over the years, and as recent evidence seems to
show, it has helped protect them during the economic downturn. The poverty rate of children was
cut nearly in half from 1959 to 1969, reaching a historic 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. Child poverty rates
also reflect the cyclical effects of the economy, with the recession having contributed to their
most recent increase.
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
populations.5 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.6 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 Poverty7
The Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds form the basis for statistical estimates of poverty in the
United States.8 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 2009, for example, the

5 See CRS Report RL30797, Trends in Welfare, Work, and the Economic Well-Being of Female-Headed Families with
Children: 1987-2008
, by Thomas Gabe.
6 See CRS Report RS20807, Short History of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law, by Joe Richardson and Vee Burke.
7 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.
8 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.
Congressional Research Service
2

Poverty in the United States: 2009

average poverty threshold for an individual living alone was $10,956; for a two-person family,
$13,991; and for a family of four, $21,954.9
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.
The “official” U.S. poverty measure10 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.11
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 FY2009, the federal government provided an estimated $50.4 billion in SNAP (Food
Stamp) benefits, most of which went to poor households. The EITC program is the fastest
growing form of cash aid for children. In FY2009, the Treasury paid an estimated $42.4 billion in

9 See http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html.
10 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.
11 Based on U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey data, in 2008 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.
Congressional Research Service
3

Poverty in the United States: 2009

EITC to families with relatively low earnings who owed no income tax. Neither 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 2008,12 as opposed to 13.2% under the official
measure in 2008. (Estimates for 2009 won’t be available until the late fall of 2010.)
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. 13 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. 290914), and a companion bill introduced by Senator Dodd (S. 162515) 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

12 Alternative poverty estimates for 2009 will not be available until the late fall of 2010. The alternative poverty
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.
13 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.
14 For the full bill, see the Legislative Information System link to H.R. 2909.
15 For the full bill, see the Legislative Information System link to S. 1625.
Congressional Research Service
4

Poverty in the United States: 2009

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.16 President
Obama’s Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Chief Statistician formed a Technical
Working Group17, charged with developing a set of initial starting points to help the Census
Bureau, in consultation with BLS, construct 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
methods to implement the NAS panel’s recommendations, as well as on conceptual discussions
about how best to estimate economic need.18 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 (see footnote 8), 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.esa.doc.gov/.
17 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.
18 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: 1959-2009,
and Unemployment Rate from January 1959 through August 2010
(recessionary periods marked in red)
25%
50,000
22.4%
43,569
?
39,851
39,265
20%
40,000
37,040
39,490
35,303
Nu mbe r of
poor pe rson s

36,460
t)
(righ t axi s)
ercen
15.2%
15.1%
p
)
(
31,581
15%
31,528
0s
te
14.1% 30,000
a
,00
t R
1
25,559
25,877
n
in
e
12.1%
12.7%
24,497
(
m
Pove rty rate
r
y
o
(l e ft axis)
12.8%
o
lo
?
p
12.3%
P
12.3%
24,147
10.8%
em
of
n
r
11.1%
11.4%
11.3%
10.1%
e
U
b
10%
d
20,000
m
n
u
9.0%
a
Aug,
N
y
Une mpl oyme nt rate
9.6%
ert
7.8%
(l e ft axi s)
7.8%
v
o

7.1%
P
6.1%
6.3%
5.7%
5%
10,000
4.8%
4.6%
5.0%
4.4%
3.8%
?
3.4%
0
2
1
/8
/61
/7
/0
1
/75
/80
/91
?
2
1
3
7
11
3
11
-
-
07 -
60 -
73 -
80 -
1
81
90 -
0
4/
/69 -
9/
1/
7/
7/
3/
12/
0%
12
0
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
195
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
197
197
197
197
197
197
197
197
197
197
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
201
Ye ar

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009,”
Table B-1, Current Population Report P60-238, September 2010, available on the internet at http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.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, 1959-2009
40
35
Age d
30
C h ildre n
25
r)
o
o
t p
n

Total
ce
er

C h ildre n (20.1%)
p
20
(
te
a
R

Non -age d
ty
adul ts
ver
o

15
P
Total (14.3%)
Non -age d adu lts (12.9%)
10
Age d (8.9%)
5
Estimate s un avai 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
09
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
Ye ar

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service using U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009,” Tables
B-1 and B-2, Current Population Report P60-238, September 2010, available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf.
CRS-7

Poverty in the United States: 2009

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 Minorities19
The incidence of poverty among African Americans and Hispanics exceeds that of whites by
several times. In 2009, 25.8% of blacks (9.9 million) and 25.3% of Hispanics (12.3 million) had
incomes below poverty, compared to 9.4% of non-Hispanic whites (18.5 million) and 12.5% of
Asians (1.7 million). Although blacks represent only 12.7% of the total population, they make up
22.8% of the poor population; Hispanics, who represent 16.1% of the population, account for
28.3% of the poor. Poverty for all groups above, except Asians, increased from 2008 to 2009—
the rate for Asians was statistically unchanged over the period.
Nativity and Citizenship Status20
In 2009, among the native-born population, 13.7% (36.4 million) were poor, up from 12.6% (33.3
million) in 2008. Among the foreign-born population, 19.0% (7.2 million) were poor in 2009, up
from a respective 17.8% (6.5 million) in 2008. The poverty rate of naturalized citizens (10.8%)
was lower than that of native-born citizens (13.7%) in 2009; both the rate and number of poor
naturalized citizens was unchanged from 2008. In 2009, the poverty rate of non-citizens (25.1%)
was nearly twice that of the native-born population (13.7%). In that year, the 5.4 million non-
citizens who were counted as poor accounted for about one in eight of all poor persons (43.6
million). From 2008 to 2009, the poverty rate for non-citizens increased from 23.3% to 25.1%.
Children21
In 2009, one in five children in the United States, or 14.8 million (20.1%) were poor—a
statistically significant increase in the number of poor (up from 13.5 million) and the poverty rate
(up from 18.5%) from 2008. 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 2009, a child living in a single female-headed family was four times more
likely to be poor than a child living in a married-couple family. In 2009, among all children living

19 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 black and white, 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.
20 See U.S. Census Bureau detailed table, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032010/pov/
new29_100_01.htm.
21 Related children in families. For an in-depth discussion of child poverty, see CRS Report RL32682 (archived),
Children in Poverty: Profile, Trends, and Issues, by Vee Burke, Thomas Gabe, and Gene Falk.
Congressional Research Service
8

Poverty in the United States: 2009

in single female-headed families, 44.4% were poor (up from 43.5% in 2008). In contrast, among
children living in married-couple families in 2009, 11.0% were poor (up from 9.9% in 2008). The
increased share of children who live in single female-headed families has contributed to the high
overall child poverty rate. In 2009, almost a quarter (24.4% ) 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 a historic low (1969). Among all poor children, well over half (53.8%) lived
in single female-headed families in 2009.
In 2009, 35.3% of black children were poor (3.9 million), compared to 32.5% of Hispanic
children (5.4 million) and 11.2% of non-Hispanic white children (4.5 million). Among children
living in single female-headed families, half or more of black children (50.6%) and Hispanic
children (52.2%) were poor; in contrast, about one-third of non-Hispanic white children (33.5%)
were poor. The poverty rate among Hispanic children who live in married-couple families
(23.9%) was well over half-again as high as that of black children (15.2%), and about four times
that of non-Hispanic white children (6.0%) 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 (53.3%) compared to Hispanic children (28.0%) or non-Hispanic white children
(15.9%).
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 2009, among 25-34 year olds without a high school
diploma, 36.3% were poor. Within the same age group, 19.7% of those whose highest level of
educational attainment was a high school diploma were poor. In contrast, only 4.9% 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 2010, nearly one in four (24.1%) were poor based on their
families’ incomes in 2009; among those who were employed, 6.7% were poor. In 2009, persons
who had a work disability22 represented 10.6% of the 16-64 year old population, and 23.5% of the
poor population within this age range. Among those with a severe work disability, 33.5% were
poor, compared to 15.2% of those with a less severe disability and 11.2% who reported having no
work-related disability.
The Aged
In spite of the recession, the poverty rate among the aged fell to a historic low of 8.9% in 2009,
down from 9.7% in 2008. In contrast, poverty rates for children and the non-aged adults rose over
the same period. In 2009, an estimated 3.4 million persons age 65 and older were considered poor

22 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: 2009

under the “official” poverty measure. Among persons age 75 and over, 10.0% were poor in 2009,
compared to 8.0% of those ages 65 to 74. Many of the aged live just slightly above the poverty
line. As measured by a slightly raised poverty standard (125% of the poverty threshold), 14.3% of
the aged could be considered poor or “near poor;” 12.6% who are ages 65 to 74, and 16.3% who
are 75 years of age and over could be considered poor or “near poor.”
Receipt of Welfare Among the Poor
In 2008, the most recent estimates currently available, seven of every 10 persons who were poor
(70.4%) lived in households that received any means-tested assistance during the year.23 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, 18.7% versus 11.0%, respectively, in 2009. Nonmetropolitan areas had a
poverty rate of 16.6%. The incidence of poverty rates in all three areas of residence increased
from 2008 to 2009.
In 2009, poverty rates were lowest in the Northeast (12.2%), followed by the Midwest (13.3%),
the West (14.8%) and the South (15.7%). Poverty rates increased from 2008 to 2009 in all regions
except the Northeast, where the increase was not of sufficient magnitude to be deemed
statistically significant.
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

23 Estimates for 2009 will not be available until the late fall of 2010, when the Census Bureau releases estimates of
income and poverty, which include inkind benefits and taxes. Estimates for 2008 are available at
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032009/pov/new25_000.htm.
Congressional Research Service
10

Poverty in the United States: 2009

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.
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. Estimates
from the 2009 ACS won’t be available until September 28, 2010.

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), the most
recent ACS data currently available. (Estimates from the 2009 ACS will not be available until
September 28, 2010.
) 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.24 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%).

24 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: 2009

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: 2009

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).25 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.26
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. The most recent recession was officially pegged as beginning in
December 2007 and ending in June 2009. 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
.

25 Statistically significant differences are based on a 90% statistical confidence interval.
26 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)
Estimated Poverty Rate and
Change in Poverty Rates over
Statistically Significant Differences
Selected Periods and Statistically

over Previous Year
Significant 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


Estimated Poverty Rate and
Change in Poverty Rates over
Statistically Significant Differences
Selected Periods and Statistically

over Previous Year
Significant 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

South Carolina
14.2
14.1
15.7
15.6
15.7
15.0
15.7
1.4▲
0.1
1.4▲
CRS-15


Estimated Poverty Rate and
Change in Poverty Rates over
Statistically Significant Differences
Selected Periods and Statistically

over Previous Year
Significant Differences
2005
2008
2008
vs.
vs.
vs.
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006a 2007a
2008a
2002
2006
2002a
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: 2009

Appendix. U.S. Poverty Statistics: 1959-2009
Table A-1. Poverty Rates (Percent Poor) for Selected Groups, 1959-2009
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
2009 14.3 20.1 44.4 12.3 12.9 8.9 12.3b 9.4b 25.8b 25.3
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
Congressional Research Service
17

Poverty in the United States: 2009

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
1979 11.7 16.0 48.6 8.5 8.9 15.2 9.0 8.1 31.0 21.8
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: 2009


Author Contact Information

Thomas Gabe

Specialist in Social Policy
tgabe@crs.loc.gov, 7-7357


Congressional Research Service
19