Poverty in the United States: 2011
Thomas Gabe
Specialist in Social Policy
September 13, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33069
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Summary
In 2011, 46.2 million people were counted as poor in the United States, the same number as in
2010 and the largest number of persons counted as poor in the measure’s 53-year recorded
history. The poverty rate, or percent of the population considered poor under the official
definition, was reported at 15.0% in 2011, statistically unchanged from 2010. The 2011 poverty
rate of 15.0% is well above its most recent pre-recession low of 12.3% in 2006, and has reached
the highest level seen in the past 18 years (1993). The increase in poverty over the past four years
reflects the effects of the economic recession that began in December 2007. Some analysts expect
poverty to remain above pre-recessionary levels for as long as a decade, and perhaps longer,
given the depth of the recession and slow pace of economic recovery. The pre-recession poverty
rate of 12.3% in 2006 was well above the 11.3% rate at the beginning of the decade, in 2000,
which marked a historical low previously attained in 1973 (11.1%, a rate statistically tied with the
2000 poverty rate).
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 2011 if its pre-
tax cash income for the year was below $23,021.
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 16 years ago, that a new U.S. poverty measure be
developed, offering a number of specific recommendations. The Census Bureau, in partnership
with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), has developed a Supplemental Poverty Measure
(SPM) designed to implement many of the NAS panel recommendations. The SPM is to be
considered a “research” measure, to supplement the “official” poverty measure. Guided by new
research, the Census Bureau and BLS intend to improve the SPM over time. The “official”
statistical poverty measure will 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) will 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. Estimates from the
SPM differ from the “official” poverty measure and are presented in a final section of this report.
Congressional Research Service
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Contents
Trends in Poverty............................................................................................................................. 1
The U.S. “Official” Definition of Poverty....................................................................................... 2
Poverty Among Selected Groups..................................................................................................... 6
Racial and Ethnic Minorities ..................................................................................................... 6
Nativity and Citizenship Status ................................................................................................. 6
Children ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Adults with Low Education, Unemployment, or Disability...................................................... 8
The Aged ................................................................................................................................... 9
Receipt of Need-Tested Assistance Among the Poor....................................................................... 9
The Geography of Poverty............................................................................................................... 9
Poverty in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas, Center Cities and Suburbs.................. 10
Poverty by Region ................................................................................................................... 10
State Poverty Rates.................................................................................................................. 10
Change in State Poverty Rates: 2002-2010 ............................................................................. 13
“Neighborhood” Poverty—Poverty Areas and Areas of Concentrated and Extreme
Poverty ................................................................................................................................. 17
The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure .............................................................................. 18
Poverty Thresholds.................................................................................................................. 22
SPM Poverty Thresholds................................................................................................... 22
Resources and Expenses Included in the SPM........................................................................ 23
Poverty Estimates Under the Research SPM Compared to the “Official” Measure................ 24
Poverty by Age.................................................................................................................. 24
Poverty by Type of Economic Unit ................................................................................... 25
Poverty by Region............................................................................................................. 27
Poverty by Residence........................................................................................................ 28
Marginal Effects of Counting Specified Resources and Expenses on Poverty
Under the SPM............................................................................................................... 29
Distribution of the Population by Ratio of Income/Resources Relative to Poverty.......... 31
Discussion................................................................................................................................ 33
Figures
Figure 1. Trend in Poverty Rate and Number of Poor Persons: 1959-2011, and
Unemployment Rate from January 1959 through August 2012 ................................................... 4
Figure 2. U.S. Poverty Rates by Age Group, 1959-2011................................................................. 5
Figure 3. Child Poverty Rates by Family Living Arrangement, Race and Hispanic Origin,
2011 .............................................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 4. Composition of Children, by Family Type, Race and Hispanic Origin, 2011.................. 8
Figure 5. Percentage of People in Poverty in the Past 12 Months by
State and Puerto Rico: 2010 ....................................................................................................... 11
Figure 6. Poverty Rates for the 50 States and the District of Columbia: 2010 American
Community Survey (ACS) Data................................................................................................. 12
Congressional Research Service
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Figure 7. Distribution of Poor People by Race and Hispanic Origin, by Level of
Neighborhood (Census Tract) Poverty, 2006-2010 .................................................................... 17
Figure 8. Poverty Thresholds Under the “Official” Measure and the Research
Supplemental Poverty Measure for Units with Two Adults and Two Children: 2010................ 23
Figure 9. Poverty Rates Under the “Official”* and Research Supplemental Poverty
Measures, by Age: 2010 ............................................................................................................. 25
Figure 10. Poverty Rates Under the “Official”* and Research Supplemental Poverty
Measures, by Type of Economic Unit: 2010 .............................................................................. 27
Figure 11. Poverty Rates Under the “Official”* and
Research Supplemental Poverty Measures, by Region: 2010 .................................................... 28
Figure 12. Poverty Rates Under the “Official”* and Research Supplemental Poverty
Measures, by Residence: 2010 ................................................................................................... 29
Figure 13. Percentage Point Change in Poverty Rates Attributable to Selected Income and
Expenditure Elements Under the Research Supplemental Poverty Measure, by Age
Group: 2010................................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 14. Distribution of the Population by Income/Resources to Poverty Ratios Under
the “Official”* and Research Supplemental Poverty Measures, by Age Group: 2010............... 32
Tables
Table 1. Poverty Rates for the 50 States and the District of Columbia, 2002 to 2010
Estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS).......................................................... 14
Table 2. Poverty Measure Concepts Under “Official” and Supplemental Measures..................... 20
Table A-1. Poverty Rates (Percent Poor) for Selected Groups, 1959-2011 ................................... 35
Appendixes
Appendix. U.S. Poverty Statistics: 1959-2011............................................................................... 35
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 37
Congressional Research Service
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Trends in Poverty1
In 2011, the U.S. poverty rate was 15.0%—46.2 million persons were estimated as having income
below the official poverty line. Neither the poverty rate nor the number of persons counted as
poor differed statistically from a year earlier. Since 2006, when the poverty rate stood at 12.3%,
marking its most recent low, the number of poor has grown by 9.7 million persons. The 46.2
million persons counted as poor in both 2011 and 2010 are the largest numbers counted in the
measure’s recorded history, which goes back as far as 1959. The 2011 poverty rate of 15.0%,
statistically tied with the 2010 rate, is the highest seen in the past 18 years (1993). (See Figure 1.)
The increase in poverty since 2006 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, which officially ended in June 2009, was the longest recorded (18 months)
in the post-World War II period. Even as the economy recovers, 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, it will take several
years or more before poverty rates recede to their 2006 pre-recession level.
The poverty rate increased markedly over the past decade, in part a response to two economic
recessions. A strong economy during most of the 1990s is generally credited with the declines in
poverty that occurred over the latter half of the previous 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. From
December 2009 to December 2010, the unemployment rate fell 0.5%, from 9.9% to 9.4%, and the
poverty rate in 2010 increased over 2009. From December 2010 to December 2011, the
unemployment rate fell 0.9%, from 9.4% to 8.5%, and the poverty rate remained in check. The
seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in August 2012 (the most recent estimate available) was
8.1%, a full percentage point below the August 2011 rate, suggesting that poverty in 2012 may
continue to stay in check, and perhaps begin to fall. Poverty estimates for 2012 will not be
available until the late summer of 2013.
The recession has especially affected non-aged adults (persons age 18 to 64) and children. (See
Figure 2.) The poverty rate of non-aged adults reached 13.8% in 2010, the highest it has been
since the early 1960s.3 In 2011, the non-aged poverty rate of 13.7% was statistically no different
than in 2010. The poverty rate for non-aged adults will need to fall to 10.8% to reach its 2006
pre-recession level.
1 Supporting data are based on the following: U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in
the United States: 2010; Current Population Report No. P60-239, September 2011; and unpublished Census Bureau
tables, available on the Internet at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2010/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 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: 2011
In 2011, over one in five children (21.4%) were poor, a rate statistically unchanged from the year
prior, but significantly above its 2006 pre-recession low, at which time about one in six children
(16.9%) were counted as poor. Child poverty appears to be especially sensitive to economic
cycles, as it often takes two working parents to support a family, and a loss of work by one may
put the family at risk of falling into poverty. 4 Moreover, one-third of all children in the country
live with only one parent, making them even more prone to falling into poverty when the
economy falters.
In 2011, the aged poverty rate (8.7%) was statistically tied with the previous year, and remained
at a historical low of 8.7%, 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%). 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 U.S. “Official” 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 2011, for example, the
average poverty threshold for an individual living alone was $11,484; for a two-person family,
$14,657; and for a family of four, $23,021.7
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’s) 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.
4 CRS Report RL33615, Parents’ Work and Family Economic Well-Being, by Thomas Gabe and Gene Falk.
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/data/threshld/index.html.
Congressional Research Service
2
Poverty in the United States: 2011
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 over three 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 (Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population
Survey, CPS/ASEC, conducted February through April). 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)). 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.
The Census Bureau, in partnership with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), has recently
released a Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), designed to address many of the perceived
flaws of the “official” measure. The SPM is discussed in a separate section at the end this report
(see “The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure”).
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/povmeas/methodology/
ombdir14.html.
9 Based on U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey data, in 2010 the average
family spent an estimated 9.8% 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 10.2 (i.e., 1/.0.98), or 3.4 times the multiplier of 3 subsumed under
poverty thresholds developed in the 1960s.
Congressional Research Service
3
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Figure 1. Trend in Poverty Rate and Number of Poor Persons: 1959-2011,
and Unemployment Rate from January 1959 through August 2012
(recessionary periods marked in red)
25%
50,000
46,343
22.4%
46,247
39,851
39,265
20%
40,000
37,040
39,490
35,303
Number of
poor persons
36,460
t)
(right axis)
15.2%
15.1%
15.1%
percen
)
31,528
31,581
15%
30,000
ate (
15.0%
000s
t R
25,877
25,559
12.7%
en
12.1%
in 1,
24,497
(
Poverty rate
12.8%
oor
ploym
(left axis)
12.3%
P
12.3%
24,147
10.8%
nem
11.4%
11.3%
11.1%
10.0%
ber of
10%
nd U
20,000
um
9.0%
y a
N
Unemployment rate
7.8%
(left axis)
7.8%
overt
P
7.1%
8.1%
6.3%
6.1%
5.7%
5%
10,000
4.8%
5.0%
4.6%
4.4%
3.8%
3.4%
61
70
75
80
82
91
01
09
2/
11/
3/
7/
11/
3/
11/
6/
60 -
69 -
73 -
80 -
90 -
07 -
4/
9/
1/
81 -
01 -
7/
7/
0%
12/
3/
12/
0
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Year
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2011,”
Table B-1, Current Population Report P60-243, September 2012 available on the internet at http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.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-4
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Figure 2. U.S. Poverty Rates by Age Group, 1959-2011
40
35
Aged
30
Children
)
25
t poor
n
e
Total
rc
Children, 21.4%
e
p
(
20
te
a
Non-aged
R
adults
rty
e
v
o
15
Total, 15.0%
P
Non-aged adults,
13.7%
10
Aged, 8.7%
5
Estimates unavailable 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
10
11
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
20
Year
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service using U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2011,” Tables
B-1 and B-2, Current Population Report P60-243, September 2012, available on the Internet at http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.pdf.
CRS-5
Poverty in the United States: 2011
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 Minorities10
The incidence of poverty among African Americans and Hispanics exceeds that of whites by
several times. In 2011, 27.6% of blacks (10.9 million) and 25.3% of Hispanics (13.2 million) had
incomes below poverty, compared to 9.8% of non-Hispanic whites (19.2 million) and 12.3% of
Asians (2.0 million). Although blacks represent only 12.8% of the total population, they make up
23.6% of the poor population; Hispanics, who represent 16.5% of the population, account for
28.6% of the poor. The poverty rate among Hispanics fell from 26.5% in 2010 to 25.3% in 2011;
poverty rates for all other groups mentioned above were statistically unchanged over the period.
Nativity and Citizenship Status
In 2011, among the native-born population, 14.4% (38.7 million) were poor—a rate statistically
unchanged from 2010. Among the foreign-born population, 19.0% (7.6 million) were poor in
2011. The poverty rate among foreign-born naturalized citizens (12.5%, in 2011) was lower than
that of the native-born U.S. population, but their poverty rate in 2011 increased from 2010
(11.3%) and their number counted as poor increased by over a quarter million. In 2011, the
poverty rate of non-citizens (24.3%) was nearly 10 percentage points above that of the native-
born population (14.4%). In that year, the 5.4 million non-citizens who were counted as poor
accounted for about one in nine of all poor persons (46.2 million). Among non-citizens, both the
number counted as poor, as well as their poverty rate, fell from 2010 to 2011; over a half-million
fewer non-citizens were counted among the poor in 2011 than the year before, and their poverty
rate fell from 26.8% to 24.3%.
Children
In 2011, over one in five children (21.4%) in the United States, some 15.5 million, were poor—
both numbers were statistically unchanged from 2010. 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 2011 a child
living in a single female-headed family was over four times more likely to be poor than a child
living in a married-couple family. In 2011 among all children living in single female-headed
10 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.
Congressional Research Service
6
Poverty in the United States: 2011
families, 47.6% were poor (up from 46.6% in 2010). In contrast, among children living in
married-couple families, 10.9% were poor (down from 11.6% in 2010). The increased share of
children who live in single female-headed families has contributed to the high overall child
poverty rate. In 2011, one quarter (26.1% ) of children were living in single female-headed
families, more than double the share who lived in such families when the overall child poverty
rate was at a historical low (1969). Among all poor children, nearly six in ten (58.1%) were living
in single female-headed families in 2011.
In 2011, 38.6% of black children were poor (4.2 million), compared to 33.7% of Hispanic
children (5.8 million) and 11.9% of non-Hispanic white children (4.6 million). (See Figure 3.)
Among children living in single female-headed families, more than half of black children (54.2%)
and Hispanic children (56.8%) were poor; in contrast, over one-third of non-Hispanic white
children (35.3%) were poor. The poverty rate among Hispanic children who live in married-
couple families (23.2%) was about half-again as high as that of black children (16.0%), and
nearly four times that of non-Hispanic white children (6.1%) 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 (55.8%) compared to Hispanic children (30.1%) or
non-Hispanic white children (17.0%). (See Figure 4.)
Figure 3. Child Poverty Rates by Family Living Arrangement,
Race and Hispanic Origin, 2011
Poverty Rate
60
56.8
54.2
White Alone, Non Hispanic
Asian Alone
Total
Hispanic (any race)
Black Alone
50
47.6
40
38.6
35.5 34.5
33.7
33.2
30
28.2
24.9 24.7
23.2
21.4
18.9
20
16.0
13.0
11.9
10.9
9.2
10
6.1
0
All Families
Married-couple families
Male householder,
Female householder,
no wife present
no husband present
Family Living Arrangement
Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on U.S. Census Bureau data from
the 2012 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement, available at
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032012/pov/POV05_100.htm.
Congressional Research Service
7
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Figure 4. Composition of Children, by Family Type, Race and Hispanic Origin, 2011
Percent
100%
5.0%
5.9%
6.6%
7.7%
7.4%
90%
11.8%
17.0%
80%
26.1%
30.1%
70%
55.8%
Male householder,
60%
no wife present
Female householder,
50%
no husband present
Married-couple families
83.2%
40%
77.0%
67.3%
62.2%
30%
20%
36.8%
10%
0%
Asian Alone
White Alone,
Total
Hispanic
Black Alone
Non Hispanic
(any race)
Race/Ethnicity
Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on U.S. Census Bureau data
fromthe 2012 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement, available at
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032012/pov/POV05_100.htm.
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 2011 among 25- to 34-year-olds without a high
school diploma, about two out of five (39.2%) were poor. Within the same age group, one of five
(20.2%) whose highest level of educational attainment was a high school diploma were poor. In
contrast, only about one in 16 (6.4%) of 25- to 34-year-olds with at least a bachelor’s degree were
found to be living below the poverty line. (About 11% of 25- to 34-year-olds lack a high school
diploma.) Among persons between the ages of 16 and 64 who were unemployed in March 2012,
over one in four (27.6%) were poor based on their families’ incomes in 2011; among those who
were employed, 6.9% were poor. In 2011, persons who had a work disability11 represented 11.3%
11 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
8
Poverty in the United States: 2011
of the 16- to 64-year-old population, and 24.8% of the poor population within this age range.
Among those with a severe work disability, 34.7% were poor, compared to 16.3% of those with a
less severe disability and 11.7% who reported having no work-related disability.
The Aged
In spite of the recession, the poverty rate among the aged remained at a historic low of 8.7% in
2011 (statistically tied with a rate of 8.9% in both 2009 and 2010). In 2011, an estimated 3.6
million persons age 65 and older were considered poor under the “official” poverty measure.
Among persons age 75 and over, 10.4% were poor in 2011, compared to 7.4% 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), 14.5% of the aged could be considered poor or
“near poor;” 12.1% who are ages 65 to 74, and 17.7% who are 75 years of age and over could be
considered poor or “near poor.”
Receipt of Need-Tested Assistance Among the Poor
In 2011, among poor persons, nearly three of every four (74.3%) lived in households that
received any means-tested assistance during the year.12 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 2011, about one in five (19.8%) poor persons lived in
households that received cash aid, nearly half (46.8%) received SNAP benefits (formerly named
Food Stamps), and six of ten (61.3%) lived in households where one or more household members
were covered by Medicaid, and 15.4% 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, one quarter (25.5%) were in households that
received government cash aid in 2010. 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 as it is in suburban areas and nearly three times as high in the poorest states as it is in
the least poor states. Some neighborhoods may be characterized as having high concentrations of
poverty. Among the poor, the likelihood of living in an area of concentrated or extreme poverty
varies by race and ethnicity.
12 See https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032012/pov/POV26_000.htm.
Congressional Research Service
9
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Poverty in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas, Center Cities
and Suburbs
Within metropolitan areas, the incidence of poverty in central city areas is considerably higher
than in suburban areas—20.0% versus 11.3%, respectively, in 2011. Nonmetropolitan areas had a
poverty rate of 17.0%. A typical pattern is for poverty rates to be highest in center city areas, with
poverty rates dropping off in suburban areas, and then rising with increasing distance from an
urban core. The suburban area poverty rate fell from 2010 (11.9%) to 2011 (11.3%), but poverty
rates in center city and nonmetropolitan areas remained statistically unchanged.
Poverty by Region
In 2011, poverty rates were lowest in the Northeast (13.1%), followed by the Midwest (14.0%),
and the West (15.8%), which was statistically tied with the South (16.0%). Among the four
regions, only the South showed a statistically significant decrease in its poverty rate from 2010 to
2011, with its rate falling from 16.8% to 16.0% over the period.
State Poverty Rates
The estimates that follow are based on U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS)
data for 2010. This section will be updated subsequent to release of 2011 estimates.
American Community Survey (ACS) State Poverty Estimates—2010
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 CPS/ASEC. Note, that the Census Bureau has not yet released ACS estimates for 2011However, it
should be noted that the ACS survey design differs from the CPS/ASEC in a variety of ways, and may produce
somewhat different estimates than those obtained from the ASEC/CPS. Based on the 2010 ACS, the U.S. poverty rate
was estimated to be 15.3%, compared to 15.1% based on the 2011 CPS/ASEC. The CPS/ASEC estimates are based on
a survey conducted in February through April 2010, 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 2010, for the
prior 12 months. For example, for the sample with data collected in January, the reference period is from January
2009 to December 2010, and for the sample with data col ected in December, from December 2009 to November
2010. The ACS data consequently cover a time span of 23 months, with the data centered at mid-December 2009.
Based on 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) data, poverty rates were highest in the South
(with the exception of Virginia), in two Appalachian states (Kentucky and West Virginia), and
Southwestern states bordering Mexico (Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona). (See Figure 5.)
Michigan also stood out as a state having a relatively high poverty rate. The District of
Columbia’s poverty rate was exceeded only by New Mexico and Mississippi.
States in the Northeast, with the exception of New York, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania, were
among those with comparatively low poverty rates. Three Mid-Atlantic states—Delaware,
Maryland, and Virginia—also were among states with comparatively low poverty rates. Two
Congressional Research Service
10
Poverty in the United States: 2011
states in the upper Midwest—Iowa and Minnesota—had comparatively low poverty rates, as did
Nebraska and Wyoming.
Figure 5. Percentage of People in Poverty in the Past 12 Months by
State and Puerto Rico: 2010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, 2010 Puerto Rico Community Survey.
Figure 6 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 2010 American Community Survey (ACS), the most
recent ACS data currently available. 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.13 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 stands out as having the lowest poverty rate (8.3%), however, Maryland’s
poverty rate (9.9%) is statistically tied with five other states: Alaska (9.9%), Connecticut (10.1%),
New Jersey (10.3%), Hawaii (10.7%), and Wyoming (11.1%). Mississippi stands out as having
the highest poverty rate (22.4%), whereas New Mexico, the state with the apparent second-
highest poverty rate (20.4%), is statistically tied with the District of Columbia (19.2%). In turn,
the District of Columbia is statistically tied with eight other states besides New Mexico:
13 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
> 1 645
.
x(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 6 by 1.645.
Congressional Research Service
11
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Kentucky (19.0%), Alabama (19.0%), Arkansas (18.8%), Louisiana (18.7%), South Carolina
(18.2%), West Virginia (18.1%), Georgia (17.9%), and Texas (17.9%).
Figure 6. Poverty Rates for the 50 States and the District of Columbia:
2010 American Community Survey (ACS) Data
(Poverty rate and 90% statistical confidence interval)
New Hampshire (8.3% +/- 0.6%)
NH
Maryland (9.9% +/- 0.4%)
MD
Alaska (9.9% +/- 0.9%)
AK
Connecticut (10.1% +/- 0.5%)
CT
New Jersey (10.3% +/- 0.3%)
NJ
Hawaii (10.7% +/- 0.7%)
HI
Virginia (11.1% +/- 0.3%)
VA
Wyoming (11.2% +/- 1.2%)
WY
Massachusetts (11.4% +/- 0.3%)
MA
Minnesota (11.6% +/- 0.3%)
MN
Delaware (11.8% +/- 0.9%)
DE
Iowa (12.6% +/- 0.5%)
IA
Vermont (12.7% +/- 0.9%)
VT
Maine (12.9% +/- 0.6%)
ME
Nebraska (12.9% +/- 0.7%)
NE
North Dakota (13.0% +/- 0.9%)
ND
Wisconsin (13.2% +/- 0.3%)
WI
Utah (13.2% +/- 0.5%)
UT
Pennsylvania (13.4% +/- 0.2%)
PA
Washington (13.4% +/- 0.4%)
WA
Colorado (13.4% +/- 0.5%)
CO
Kansas (13.6% +/- 0.6%)
KS
Illinois (13.8% +/- 0.3%)
IL
Rhode Island (14.0% +/- 0.9%)
RI
South Dakota (14.4% +/- 1.0%)
SD
Montana (14.6% +/- 1.0%)
MT
New York (14.9% +/- 0.2%)
NY
Nevada (14.9% +/- 0.8%)
NV
United States (15.3% +/- 0.1%)
US
Indiana (15.3% +/- 0.4%)
IN
Missouri (15.3% +/- 0.4%)
MO
Idaho (15.7% +/- 0.7%)
ID
California (15.8% +/- 0.2%)
CA
Ohio (15.8% +/- 0.3%)
OH
Oregon (15.8% +/- 0.5%)
OR
Florida (16.5% +/- 0.2%)
FL
Michigan (16.8% +/- 0.3%)
MI
Oklahoma (16.9% +/- 0.4%)
OK
Arizona (17.4% +/- 0.5%)
AZ
North Carolina (17.5% +/- 0.3%)
NC
Tennessee (17.7% +/- 0.5%)
TN
Texas (17.9% +/- 0.2%)
TX
Georgia (17.9% +/- 0.4%)
GA
West Virginia (18.1% +/- 0.7%)
WV
South Carolina (18.2% +/- 0.5%)
SC
Louisiana (18.7% +/- 0.5%)
LA
Arkansas (18.8% +/- 0.6%)
AR
Alabama (19.0% +/- 0.5%)
AL
Kentucky (19.0% +/- 0.5%)
KY
District of Columbia (19.2% +/- 1.3%)
DC
New Mexico (20.4% +/- 1.0%)
NM
Mississippi (22.4% +/- 0.8%)
MS
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service on the basis of U.S. Census Bureau 2010 American
Community Survey (ACS) data.
Congressional Research Service
12
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Change in State Poverty Rates: 2002-2010
Table 1 provides estimates of state and national poverty rates from 2002 through 2010 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., 2005 vs. 2002, 2010 vs. 2007).14 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.15
Table 1 shows that 34 states experienced statistically significant increases in their poverty rates
from the 2009 to 2010 ACS—no state showed a statistically significant decrease in its poverty
rate over the period.
The table shows that poverty among states generally increased over the 2002 to 2005 period, as
measured by the ACS, consequent to the 2001 (March to November) economic recession. From
the 2002 to 2003 ACS, five states (including the District of Columbia) experienced statistically
significant increases in their poverty rates, whereas none experienced a statistically significant
decrease. 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 poverty rates from the 2005 ACS to those from the 2002
ACS, poverty was statistically higher in 25 states, and lower in only two.
By 2007, poverty rates among states were beginning to improve, with 13 states (including the
District of Columbia) experiencing statistically significant declines in their poverty rates from
2006; only Michigan experienced a statistically significant increase in its poverty rate in 2007
compared to a year earlier.
Since 2007, state poverty rates have generally increased as a consequence of the 18-month
recession (December 2007 to June 2009). By 2008, the ACS data showed 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. By 2009, 32 states saw their poverty
rates increase to an extent deemed to be statistically significant over 2008, and no state
experienced a statistically significant decrease. As noted above, from 2009 to 2010, 34 states
experienced statistically significant increases in poverty. Comparing 2010 to 2007, poverty rates
are statistically higher in 46 states (including the District of Columbia)—in 2010, no state has a
poverty rate statistically below its prerecession rate.
14 Statistically significant differences are based on a 90% statistical confidence interval.
15 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
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Table 1. Poverty Rates for the 50 States and the District of Columbia, 2002 to 2010
Estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS)
(percent poor)
Change in Poverty
Rates over Selected
Estimated Poverty Rate and
Periods and
Statistically Significant Differences
Statistically
over Previous Year
Significant Differences
2005
2010
vs.
vs.
2002
2003 2004 2005 2006a 2007a 2008a
2009a
2010a
2002
2007
United States
12.4
12.7▲
13.1▲
13.3▲
13.3
13.0 ▼
13.2 ▲
14.3 ▲
15.3 ▲
0.9 ▲
2.3 ▲
Alabama 16.6
17.1
16.1
17.0▲
16.6
16.9 15.7 ▼
17.5 ▲
19.0 ▲
-0.1
2.1 ▲
Alaska 7.7
9.7 ▲
8.2▼
11.2▲
10.9
8.9 ▼
8.4
9.0
9.9
3.2 ▲
1.0
Arizona 14.2
15.4 ▲
14.2
14.2 14.2
14.2 14.7
16.5 ▲
17.4 ▲
0.0
3.2 ▲
Arkansas 15.3
16.0
17.9▲
17.2 17.3
17.9 17.3
18.8 ▲
18.8
2.0 ▲
0.9 ▲
California 13.0
13.4
13.3
13.3 13.1
12.4 ▼
13.3 ▲
14.2 ▲
15.8 ▲
0.1
3.4 ▲
Colorado 9.7
9.8
11.1
11.1
12.0 ▲
12.0 11.4
12.9 ▲
13.4
2.3 ▲
1.4 ▲
Connecticut 7.5
8.1
7.6
8.3 8.3
7.9 9.3 ▲
9.4
10.1 ▲
0.8
2.2 ▲
Delaware 8.2
8.7
9.9
10.4 11.1
10.5 10.0
10.8
11.8
2.9 ▲
1.3 ▲
Dist. of Col.
17.5
19.9 ▲
18.9
19.0 19.6
16.4 ▼
17.2
18.4
19.2
2.2
2.8 ▲
Florida 12.8
13.1
12.2▼
12.8▲
12.6
12.1 ▼
13.2 ▲
14.9 ▲
16.5 ▲
-0.2
4.4 ▲
Georgia 12.7
13.4
14.8▲
14.4 14.7
14.3 14.7
16.5 ▲
17.9 ▲
2.0 ▲
3.6 ▲
Hawai 10.1
10.9
10.6
9.8 9.3
8.0 ▼
9.1 ▲
10.4 ▲
10.7
-0.8
2.7 ▲
Idaho 13.8
13.8
14.5
13.9
12.6 ▼
12.1 12.6
14.3 ▲
15.7 ▲
-1.2
3.6 ▲
Illinois 11.6
11.3
11.9
12.0 12.3
11.9 12.2
13.3 ▲
13.8 ▲
0.7 ▲
1.9 ▲
Indiana 10.9
10.6
10.8
12.2▲
12.7
12.3 13.1 ▲
14.4 ▲
15.3 ▲
1.8 ▲
3.0 ▲
Iowa 11.2
10.1
9.9
10.9▲
11.0
11.0 11.5
11.8
12.6 ▲
-0.2
1.6 ▲
Kansas 12.1
10.8
10.5
11.7▲
12.4
11.2 ▼
11.3
13.4 ▲
13.6
0.3
2.4 ▲
Kentucky 15.6
17.4
17.4
16.8 17.0
17.3 17.3
18.6 ▲
19.0
1.3 ▲
1.7 ▲
CRS-14
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Change in Poverty
Rates over Selected
Estimated Poverty Rate and
Periods and
Statistically Significant Differences
Statistically
over Previous Year
Significant Differences
2005
2010
vs.
vs.
2002
2003 2004 2005 2006a 2007a 2008a
2009a
2010a
2002
2007
Louisiana 18.8
20.3
19.4
19.8 19.0
18.6 17.3 ▼
17.3
18.7 ▲
0.2
0.1
Maine 11.1
10.5
12.3▲
12.6 12.9
12.0 12.3
12.3
12.9
1.8 ▲
0.9
Maryland 8.1
8.2
8.8
8.2 7.8
8.3 8.1
9.1 ▲
9.9 ▲
-0.3
1.6 ▲
Massachusetts 8.9
9.4
9.2
10.3▲
9.9
9.9 10.0
10.3
11.4 ▲
1.0 ▲
1.5 ▲
Michigan 11.0
11.4
12.3
13.2▲
13.5
14.0 ▲
14.4 ▲
16.2 ▲
16.8 ▲
2.5 ▲
2.8 ▲
Minnesota 8.5
7.8
8.3
9.2▲
9.8 ▲
9.5 9.6
11.0 ▲
11.6 ▲
1.2 ▲
2.1 ▲
Mississippi 19.9
19.9
21.6▲
21.3 21.1
20.6 21.2
21.9
22.4
1.2 ▲
1.8 ▲
Missouri 11.9
11.7
11.8
13.3▲
13.6
13.0 ▼
13.4
14.6 ▲
15.3 ▲
1.6 ▲
2.3 ▲
Montana 14.6
14.2
14.2
14.4 13.6
14.1 14.8
15.1
14.6
-1.0
0.5
Nebraska 11.0
10.8
11.0
10.9 11.5
11.2 10.8
12.3 ▲
12.9
0.5
1.7 ▲
Nevada 11.8
11.5
12.6
11.1 10.3
10.7 11.3
12.4 ▲
14.9 ▲
-1.5 ▼
4.2 ▲
New Hampshire
6.4
7.7 ▲
7.6
7.5 8.0
7.1 ▼
7.6
8.5 ▲
8.3
1.6 ▲
1.2 ▲
New Jersey
7.5
8.4 ▲
8.5
8.7 8.7
8.6 8.7
9.4 ▲
10.3 ▲
1.2 ▲
1.7 ▲
New Mexico
18.9
18.6
19.3
18.5 18.5
18.1 17.1
18.0
20.4 ▲
-0.4
2.3 ▲
New York
13.1
13.5
14.2▲
13.8
14.2 ▲
13.7 ▼
13.6
14.2 ▲
14.9 ▲
1.1 ▲
1.2 ▲
North Carolina
14.2
14.0
15.2
15.1 14.7
14.3 14.6
16.3 ▲
17.5 ▲
0.4
3.2 ▲
North Dakota
12.5
11.7
12.1
11.2 11.4
12.1 12.0
11.7
13.0 ▲
-1.1
0.9
Ohio 11.9
12.1
12.5
13.0 13.3
13.1 13.4
15.2 ▲
15.8 ▲
1.5 ▲
2.7 ▲
Oklahoma 15.0
16.1
15.3
16.5 17.0
15.9 ▼
15.9
16.2
16.9 ▲
2.0 ▲
1.0 ▲
Oregon 13.2
13.9
14.1
14.1
13.3 ▼
12.9
13.6 ▲
14.3
15.8 ▲
0.0
2.9 ▲
Pennsylvania 10.5
10.9
11.7 ▲
11.9 12.1
11.6 ▼
12.1 ▲
12.5 ▲
13.4 ▲
1.5 ▲
1.8 ▲
Rhode Island
10.7
11.3
12.8 ▲
12.3 11.1
12.0 11.7
11.5
14.0 ▲
0.4
2.0 ▲
CRS-15
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Change in Poverty
Rates over Selected
Estimated Poverty Rate and
Periods and
Statistically Significant Differences
Statistically
over Previous Year
Significant Differences
2005
2010
vs.
vs.
2002
2003 2004 2005 2006a 2007a 2008a
2009a
2010a
2002
2007
South Carolina
14.2
14.1
15.7
15.6 15.7
15.0 15.7
17.1 ▲
18.2 ▲
1.4 ▲
3.2 ▲
South Dakota
11.4
11.1
11.0
13.6▲
13.6
13.1 12.5
14.2 ▲
14.4
2.2
1.3 ▲
Tennessee 14.5
13.8
14.5
15.5 16.2
15.9 15.5
17.1 ▲
17.7
1.7 ▲
1.8 ▲
Texas 15.6
16.3
16.6
17.6▲
16.9 ▼
16.3 ▼
15.8 ▼
17.2 ▲
17.9 ▲
1.3 ▲
1.6 ▲
Utah 10.5
10.6
10.9
10.2 10.6
9.7 ▼
9.6
11.5 ▲
13.2 ▲
0.1
3.5 ▲
Vermont 8.5
9.7
9.0
11.5▲
10.3
10.1 10.6
11.4
12.7 ▲
1.8 ▲
2.6 ▲
Virginia 9.9
9.0
9.5
10.0 9.6
9.9 10.2
10.5
11.1 ▲
-0.4
1.2 ▲
Washington 11.4
11.0
13.1▲
11.9▼
11.8
11.4 11.3
12.3 ▲
13.4 ▲
0.4
2.0 ▲
West Virginia
17.2
18.5
17.9
18.0 17.3
16.9 17.0
17.7
18.1
0.1
1.2 ▲
Wisconsin 9.7
10.5
10.7
10.2
11.0 ▲
10.8 10.4
12.4 ▲
13.2 ▲
1.2 ▲
2.4 ▲
Wyoming 11.0
9.7
10.3
9.5 9.4
8.7 9.4
9.8
11.2
-1.6 ▼
2.5 ▲
Number of
states with
statistically
significant change
in poverty:
5
10
14
7
14
11
32
34
27
46
Increase in
poverty
5 ▲
8▲
13▲
4▲
1▲
8 ▲
32▲
34▲
25▲
46▲
Decrease in
poverty
0 ▼
2▼
1 ▼
3▼
13▼
3 ▼
0 ▼
0 ▼
2 ▼
0▼
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates from U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) data, 2002 to 2010.
Notes: ▲ Statistical y significant increase in poverty rate at the 90% statistical confidence level.
▼ Statistical y 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: 2011
“Neighborhood” Poverty—Poverty Areas and Areas of
Concentrated and Extreme Poverty
Neighborhoods can be delineated from U.S. Census Bureau census tracts. Census tracts usually
have between 2,500 and 8,000 persons and, when first delineated, are designed to be
homogeneous with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions.
The Census Bureau defines “poverty areas” as census tracts having poverty rates of 20% or more.
Figure 7 groups census tracts according to their level of poverty. The first two groupings are
based on persons living in census tracts with poverty rates below the national average (13.5%
based on the five-year ACS data), and from 13.5% to less than 20.0%. Persons living in census
tracts with poverty rates of 20% or more meet the Census Bureau definition of living in “poverty
areas.” Poverty areas are further demarcated in terms of persons living in areas of “concentrated”
poverty (i.e., census tracts with poverty rates of 30% to 39.9%), and areas of “extreme” poverty
(i.e., census tracts with poverty rates of 40% or more). The figure is based on five years of data
(2006–2010) from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS). Five years of
data are required in order to get reasonably reliable statistical data at the census tract level while
at the same time preserving the confidentiality of survey respondents.
Figure 7. Distribution of Poor People by Race and Hispanic Origin,
by Level of Neighborhood (Census Tract) Poverty, 2006-2010
80%
White alone not Hispanic or Latino
Total
Hispanic or Latino
Am. Indian/Alaska Native
Black alone
7%
69.
70%
.3%
.7%
63
61
60%
.2%
50
50%
.4%
.5%
43
43
40%
.7%
.5%
.6%
36
34
.5%
33
30
.1%
30%
.6%
.2%
.5%
28
.6%
26
26
26
.1%
23
.0%
9%
.6%
22
3%
.1%
3%
.6%
21
22
19.
.0%
.4%
.7%
20
20%
19
19.
19
4%
18
19.
.1%
17
8%
.4%
.2%
.4%
17
15.
14.
14
14
.3%
14
12
8%
10%
7.
6%
6.
0%
Below national average Poverty rate from 13.8% Share in Poverty Areas Poverty rate from 20.0%
Share in Areas of
Concentrated Poverty -
Extreme Poverty -
poverty rate - under
to 19.9%
to 29.9%
Concentrated or
30.0% to 39.9%
40.0% and over
13.8%
Extreme Poverty
Areas of Concentrated and and Extreme Poverty
CensusTracts with poverty rates of 30% and Over
Poverty Areas - Census Tracts with Poverty Rates of 20% and over
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey,
five-year (2006-2010) data.
Congressional Research Service
17
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Figure 7 shows that over the five-year period, 2006–2010, half of all poor persons (50.2%) lived
in “poverty areas” (i.e., census tracts with poverty rates of 20% or more). Over one-quarter
(26.5%) lived in areas with poverty of 30% or more, and about one-in-eight (12.3%) lived in
areas of “extreme” poverty, having poverty rates of 40% or more. Among the poor, African
Americans, American Indian and Alaska Natives, and Hispanics are more likely to live in poverty
areas than either Asians or white non-Hispanics. Among poor blacks, over two of every five
(43.5%) live in neighborhoods with poverty rates of 30% or more, and over one-in-five (22.0%)
live in “extreme” poverty areas, with poverty rates of 40% or more. Among Hispanics, one-third
(33.6%) live in areas with poverty rates of 30% or more, and about one-in-seven (14.4%) live in
areas of “extreme” poverty. Among white non-Hispanics, close to two-thirds (64.5%) live outside
poverty areas, while about one-in-seven (14.4%) live in areas with poverty rates of 30% or more.
The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure
On November 7, 2011, the Census Bureau released its first report using a new Supplemental
Poverty Measure (SPM).16 As its name implies, the SPM is intended to “supplement,” rather than
replace, the “official” poverty measure. The “official” Census Bureau statistical measure of
poverty will continue to be used by programs that allocate funds to states or other jurisdictions on
the basis of poverty, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will continue to
derive Poverty Income Guidelines from the “official” Census Bureau measure.
Many experts consider the “official” poverty measure to be flawed and outmoded.17 In 1990,
Congress commissioned a study on how poverty is measured in the United States, resulting in the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) convening a 12-member expert panel to study the issue.
The NAS panel issued a wide range of specific recommendations to develop an improved
statistical measure of poverty in its 1995 report Measuring Poverty: A New Approach.18
In late 2009, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) formed an Interagency Technical
Working Group19 (ITWG) to suggest how the Census Bureau, in cooperation with the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS), should develop a new Supplemental Poverty Measure, using the NAS
expert panel’s recommendations as a starting point. Referencing the work of the ITWG,20 the
Department of Commerce announced in March 2010 that the Census Bureau was developing a
new Supplemental Poverty Measure, as “an alternative lens to understand poverty and measure
16 Kathleen Short, The Research SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY MEASURE: 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-241,
Washington, DC, November 2011, http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-241.pdf.
17 For a discussion of the history and development of the U.S. poverty measure, and efforts to improve poverty
measurement, see CRS Report R41187, Poverty Measurement in the United States: History, Current Practice, and
Proposed Changes, by Thomas Gabe.
18 National Research Council, Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance, “Measuring Poverty: A New Approach,”
Constance F. Citro and Robert T. Michael, eds. (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995). (Hereinafter cited
as Citro and Michael, Measuring Poverty…)
19 The working group included representatives from BLS, the Census Bureau, the Council of Economic Advisors, the
Department of Commerce, the Department of Health and Human Services, and OMB.
20 The ITWG’s guidance is available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/SPM_TWGObservations.pdf
Congressional Research Service
18
Poverty in the United States: 2011
the effects of anti-poverty policies,” with the intention that the new measure “will be dynamic and
will benefit from improvements over time based on new data and new methodologies.”21
The SPM is intended to address a number of weaknesses of the “official” measure. Criticisms of
the “official” poverty measure raised by the NAS expert panel include the following:
• The “official” poverty measure, by counting only families’ total cash, pre-tax
income as a resource in determining poverty status, ignores a host of government
programs and policies that affect the disposable income families may actually
have available. For example, the official measure ignores the effects of payroll
taxes paid by families, and tax benefits they may receive such as the EITC and
the Child Tax Credit. It ignores a variety of in-kind benefits, such as SNAP
benefits and free or reduced-price lunches under the National School Lunch
Program, that free up resources to meet other needs. Similarly, it ignores housing
subsidies that help make housing more affordable.
• The “official” poverty income thresholds used in determining families’ and
individuals’ poverty status, devised in the early 1960s, have changed little since.
Except for minor technical changes and adjustments for price inflation, poverty
income thresholds have essentially been frozen in time, reflecting living
standards of a half-century ago.
• The “official” poverty measure does not take into account necessary work-
related expenses, such as child care and transportation costs that are associated
with getting to work. Child care expenses are much more common today than
when the “official” poverty measure was originally developed, as mothers’ labor
force participation has since increased.
• The “official” poverty measure does not take into account medical expenses that
individuals and families may incur, affecting their ability to meet other basic
needs. These costs, which tend to vary by age, health status, and insurance
coverage of individuals, may differentially affect families’ abilities to meet other
basic needs, especially given rising health care costs.
• The “official” poverty measure does not take into account changing family
situations, such as cohabitation among unmarried couples, or child support
payments.
• The “official” poverty measure does not adjust for differences in prices across
geographic areas, which may affect the cost of living from one area to another.
The ITWG, using the NAS-panel recommendations as a starting point, suggested an approach to
developing the SPM that addressed how income thresholds should be set and resources counted in
measuring poverty. Conceptual differences between the “official” and supplemental poverty
measures are summarized in Table 2.
21 Census Bureau to Develop Supplemental Poverty Measure, March 2, 2009 News Release, Economics and Statistics
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Available on the internet at http://www.esa.doc.gov/news/2010/03/02/
census-bureau-develop-supplemental-poverty-measure.
Congressional Research Service
19
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Table 2. Poverty Measure Concepts Under “Official” and Supplemental Measures
“Official” Poverty Measure
Supplemental Poverty Measure
Measurement units
Families and unrelated individuals
All related individuals who live at the
same address, including any co-
resident unrelated children who are
cared for by the family (such as foster
children) and any cohabitors and their
children
Poverty threshold
Three times the cost of a minimum
The 33rd percentile of expenditures
food diet in 1963
on food, shelter, clothing, and utilities
(FCSU) for consumer units with
exactly two children multiplied by 1.2
to account for other family needs
(e.g., household supplies, personal
care, non-transportation-related
expenses)
Based on data from the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics Consumer
Expenditure Survey (BLS CE)
Separate thresholds developed for
- homeowners with a mortgage,
- homeowners without a mortgage,
- renters
Threshold adjustments
Vary by family size, composition, and
A three parameter equivalence scale
age of householder
for number of adults and children in
the family
Geographic adjustments for
differences in housing costs
Updating thresholds
Consumer Price Index for Urban
Five-year moving average of
Consumers (CPI-U) based on all items expenditures on FCSU from the BLS
CE
Congressional Research Service
20
Poverty in the United States: 2011
“Official” Poverty Measure
Supplemental Poverty Measure
Resource measures
Gross before-tax cash income
Sum of cash income
Plus in-kind benefits that families can
use to meet their FCSU needs:
•
Supplemental Nutritional
Assistance (SNAP)
•
National School Lunch Program
•
Supplementary Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC)
•
Housing Subsidies
•
Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance (LIHEAP)
Plus refundable tax credits:
•
Earned Income Tax Credit
(EITC)
•
Refundable portion of the Child
Tax Credit (CTC), known as the
Additional Child Tax Credit
(ACTC)
Minus nondiscretionary expenses:
•
federal and state income taxes
•
payrol taxes
•
work-related expenses, including
work-related child care expenses
•
medical out-of-pocket expenses
(MOOP), including insurance
premiums paid
•
child support paid
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS). Adapted from Kathleen Short, The Research SUPPLEMENTAL
POVERTY MEASURE: 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-241, Washington, DC, November 2011,
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-241.pdf.
The SPM incorporates a more comprehensive income/resource definition than that used by the
“official” poverty measure, including in-kind benefits (e.g., SNAP) and refundable tax credits
(e.g., EITC). It also expands upon the traditional family definition based on blood, marriage, and
adoption to include cohabiting partners and their family relatives as part a of broader economic
unit for assessing poverty status. The SPM subtracts necessary expenses (i.e., taxes, work-related
expenses including child-care, child support paid, medical out-of-pocket (MOOP) expenses) from
resources to arrive at a measure of an economic unit’s disposable income/resources that may be
applied to a standard of need based on food, clothing, shelter, and utilities (FCSU), plus “a little
bit more” for everything else. The SPM income/resource thresholds are initially set at a point in
the distribution (33rd percentile) of what reference families (families with exactly two children)
actually spend on FCSU. Separate thresholds are derived for homeowners with a mortgage and
those without a mortgage, and for renters. Thresholds are adjusted for price differences in housing
costs by geographic area (metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas in a state). Thresholds for
economic units other than initial reference units (i.e., those with exactly two children) are
adjusted upwards or downwards for the number of adults and number of children in the unit.
Congressional Research Service
21
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Poverty Thresholds
As described earlier, the “official” U.S. poverty measure measures cash—pre-tax—income
against income thresholds that vary by family size and composition. The thresholds were derived
from research that showed that the average U.S. family spent one-third of its pre-tax income on
food, based on a USDA 1955 Food Consumption Survey. After pricing minimally adequate food
plans for families of varying sizes and compositions, poverty thresholds were derived by
multiplying the cost of those food plans by a factor of three (i.e., one-third of the thresholds were
assumed to address families’ food needs, and two-thirds addressed everything else). The
thresholds, established in 1963, are adjusted each year for price inflation.
SPM Poverty Thresholds
The SPM poverty thresholds are based on the NAS panel recommendation that thresholds be
based on a point in the empirical distribution that “reference” families spend on food, clothing,
shelter, and utilities (FCSU). Based on ITWG’s suggestions, the Census Bureau derives FCSU
thresholds for “reference” units with exactly two children, at the 33rd percentile of what such units
spend on FCSU, averaged over five years of survey data from the BLS Consumer Expenditure
(CE) Survey.22 Whereas “official” poverty thresholds are based on initial thresholds adjusted for
price changes over time, the SPM thresholds are based on changes in reference consumer units’
actual spending on FCSU over time.
Following the ITWG’s suggestion, three separate sets of thresholds are established: one set for
homeowners with a mortgage, another set for homeowners without a mortgage, and a third set for
renters. Following NAS panel recommendations, the ITWG suggested that initial poverty
thresholds based on FCSU be multiplied by a factor of 1.2, to account for all other needs (e.g.,
household supplies, personal care, non-work-related transportation).23 Additionally, thresholds are
adjusted upward and downward based on SPM reference unit size using a three parameter
equivalence scale based on the number of adults and children in the unit.
Lastly, the thresholds are adjusted to account for variation in geographic price differences across
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, by state, based on differences in median housing costs
across areas relative to the nation. The geographic housing cost adjustment is applied to the
shelter portion of the FCSU-based thresholds.
Figure 8 depicts poverty threshold levels under the “official” poverty measure and under the
Research SPM for a resource unit consisting of two adults and two children. The figure shows
that in 2010, the SPM poverty threshold not accounting for housing status ($24,343) was $2,230,
or 10.1%, above the official threshold ($22,113). For homeowners with a mortgage, the poverty
22 The NAS panel recommended that the reference family for establishing initial thresholds be based on families with
two adults and two children. The ITWG suggested that initial thresholds be based on consumer units with exactly two
children, as children reside in a variety of family types (such as single parent families, presence of one or more
grandparents, and families with cohabiting adult partners). The NAS panel recommended that initial thresholds be
established at between 78% and 83% of median expenditures on FCSU of reference families, which empirically ranged
between the 30th and 35th percentiles. The ITWG suggested that initial thresholds be set at the 33rd percentile of
expenditures on FCSU for the reference consumer units. The ITWC suggested that five years of CE data be used in
establishing thresholds to smooth the change in the thresholds from one year to the next.
23 The 1.2 multiplier applied to FCSU equals the midpoint of the NAS panel’s recommended multiplier of between 1.15
and 1.25.
Congressional Research Service
22
Poverty in the United States: 2011
threshold ($25,018) was $2,905, or 13.1%, above the official threshold, but for homeowners with
a mortgage ($20,509), it was $1,523, or 6.9%, below the official threshold. The SPM poverty
threshold for renters ($24,391) was $2,278, or 10.3%, above the official measure.
Figure 8. Poverty Thresholds Under the “Official” Measure and the
Research Supplemental Poverty Measure for Units with
Two Adults and Two Children: 2010
$30,000
$25,018
$25,000
$24,343
$24,391
$22,113
$20,590
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
Official
Not accounting for
Homeowners with a
Homeowners without a
Renters
housing status
mortgage
mortgage
Research Supplemental Poverty Measure
Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on Kathleen Short, The Research
SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY MEASURE: 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-241, Washington, DC, November 2011,
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-241.pdf.
Resources and Expenses Included in the SPM
As discussed earlier, the “official” poverty measure is based on counting families’ and unrelated
individuals’ pre-tax cash income against poverty thresholds that vary by family size and
composition. The SPM expands upon the pre-tax cash income resource definition used by the
“official” measure to develop a more comprehensive measure of “disposable” income that SPM
units might use to help meet basic needs (i.e., poverty thresholds based on FCSU, plus “a little
more”). The SPM resource measure includes the value of a number of federal in-kind benefits,
such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamp) benefits; free
and reduced-price school lunches; nutrition assistance for women, infants, and children (WIC);
federal housing assistance; and energy assistance under the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP). It also includes federal tax benefits administered by the Internal Revenue
Service, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the partially refundable portion of the
Child Tax Credit (CTC), known as the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC).
Congressional Research Service
23
Poverty in the United States: 2011
The SPM subtracts a number of necessary expenses from SPM units’ resources to arrive at a
measure of “disposable” income that units might have available to meet basic needs. Necessary
expenses subtracted from resources on the SPM include child support paid; estimated federal,
state, and local income taxes; estimated social security payroll (FICA) taxes; estimated work-
related expenses other than child care (e.g., work-related commuting costs, purchase of uniforms
or tools required for work); reported work-related child care expenses; reported medical out of
pocket (MOOP) expenses, including the employee share of health insurance premiums plus other
medically necessary items such as prescription drugs and doctor copayments.
The effects of counting each of these resources and expenses in the SPM are assessed later in this
report (see “Marginal Effects of Counting Specified Resources and Expenses on Poverty Under
the SPM”).
Poverty Estimates Under the Research SPM Compared to the
“Official” Measure
In 2010, the overall poverty rate was somewhat higher under the SPM (16.0%), compared to
15.2% under an “official” poverty measure “adjusted” to include unrelated children typically
excluded from the “official” measure.24 In 2010, an estimated 49.1 million people were poor
under the SPM; 2.5 million people over the 46.6 million estimated under the “official” (adjusted)
poverty measure. The remainder of this report focuses on differences in poverty rates among and
between various groups under the two measures.
Poverty by Age
The SPM yields a very different impression of the incidence of poverty with respect to age than
that portrayed by the “official” measure. Figure 9 compares poverty rates by age group under the
SPM and the “official” measure in 2010. The poverty rate for adults ages 18 to 64 is somewhat
higher under the SPM than under the “official” measure (15.2% compared to 13.7%). The figure
shows that the poverty rate for children (under age 18) is lower under the SPM than under the
“official” measure (18.2% compared to 22.5%). In contrast, the poverty rate among persons age
65 and over is much higher under the SPM than under the “official” measure (15.9% compared to
9.0%). Although the child poverty rate is lower under the SPM than under the “official” measure,
and the aged poverty rate is considerably higher, the incidence of poverty among children still
exceeds that of the aged under the SPM, as it did under the “official” measure. The SPM paints a
much different picture of poverty among the aged than that conveyed by the “official” measure.
As will be shown later, much of the difference between the aged poverty rate measured under the
SPM compared to the “official” measure is attributable to the effect of medical expenses on the
disposable income among aged units to meet basic needs represented by the SPM resource
thresholds.
24 “Official” published estimates of poverty exclude unrelated children under the age of 15 in the universe for whom
poverty is determined. For comparison with the SPM measure, these children are included in both the “adjusted
official” poverty measure and the SPM. Under the “official” published poverty measure, the overall poverty rate was
15.1% in 2010; under the adjusted measure shown in this report, the overall “official” poverty rate in 2010 was 15.2%.
Congressional Research Service
24
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Figure 9. Poverty Rates Under the “Official”* and Research Supplemental Poverty
Measures, by Age: 2010
(Percent poor)
Percent
25%
22.5%
Official*
SPM
20%
18.2%
16.0%
15.9%
15.2%
15.2%
15%
13.7%
10%
9.0%
5%
0%
Total
Under 18
18 to 64
65 and over
Age Group
Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on Kathleen Short, The Research
SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY MEASURE: 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-241, Washington, DC, November 2011,
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-241.pdf.
* Differs from published “official” poverty rates as unrelated individuals under age 15 are included in the
universe.
Poverty by Type of Economic Unit
As noted above, the SPM expands the definition of the economic unit considered for poverty
measurement purposes over that used under the “official” poverty measure. The “official” poverty
measure groups all co-residing household members related by marriage, birth, or adoption as
sharing resources for purposes of poverty determination. Unrelated individuals, whether living
alone as a single person household or with other unrelated members, are treated as separate
economic units under the “official” poverty measure. The “official” measure also excludes
unrelated children under age 15 from the universe for poverty determination. As noted earlier, the
“adjusted official” poverty measure presented in this section of the report includes unrelated
children, resulting in a 15.2% poverty rate as opposed to the published rate of 15.1% in 2010.
Congressional Research Service
25
Poverty in the United States: 2011
The SPM expands the economic unit used for poverty determination beyond that used by the
“official” measure.25 The SPM assesses the relationship of unrelated household members to
others in the household to determine whether they will be joined with others to construct
expanded economic units. For example, the SPM combines unrelated co-residing household
members age 14 and older who are not married and who identify each other as boyfriend,
girlfriend, or partner as cohabiting partners. Cohabiting partners, as well as any of their co-
resident family members, are combined as an economic unit under the SPM. The SPM also
combines unmarried co-residing parents of a child living in the household as an economic unit,
even if the parents do not identify as a cohabiting couple. Any unrelated children who are under
age 15 and are not foster children are assigned to the householder’s economic unit, as are foster
children under the age of 22. Additionally, the SPM combines children over age 18 living in a
household with a parent, and any younger children of the parent, as an economic unit. Under the
“official” poverty measure, a child age 18 and over is treated as an unrelated individual, and the
child’s parent is also treated as an unrelated individual if no other family members are present, or
as an unrelated subfamily head if a spouse or other children (under age 18) are also residing in the
household.
In 2011, about 26.2 million persons, 8.6% of the 306.1 million persons represented in the
CPS/ASEC, were classified as either joining an economic unit or having members added to their
economic unit under the SPM measure, compared to how they would have been classified under
the “official” measure’s economic unit definition. Combining the resources of these additional
household members had the effect of reducing poverty under the SPM measure, compared to the
“official” measure, in 2010.
Figure 10 shows poverty rates in 2010 by type of economic unit. Persons identified as being in a
married-couple unit, or in female- or male-householder units, are persons in those economic units
whose members remained unchanged under the SPM compared to the “official” poverty measure.
Persons who were added to an economic unit, or were part of an economic unit that had members
added to it under the SPM definition, are labeled as being in a “new SPM unit.” The figure shows
that poverty rates for persons in married-couple units, and in male-householder units, are higher
under the SPM than under the “official” poverty measure (9.9% versus 7.6% for persons in
married-couple units, and 22.7% versus 18.4% for persons in male-householder units). Poverty
rates were no different statistically between the two measures for persons living in female-
householder units. In contrast, poverty among persons who were members of “new SPM units”
fell by over one-third, from 32.2% under the “official” measure to 21.0% under the SPM.
25 For further discussion, see Ashley J. Provencher, Unit of Analysis for Poverty Measurement: A Comparison of the
Supplemental Poverty Measure and the Official Poverty Measure, U.S. Census Bureau, SEHSD Working Paper #
2011-22, Washington, DC, August 2, 2011, http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/
Provencher_JSM.pdf
Congressional Research Service
26
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Figure 10. Poverty Rates Under the “Official”* and Research Supplemental Poverty
Measures, by Type of Economic Unit: 2010
Percent
35%
32.2%
Official*
SPM
30%
28.7% 29.0%
25%
22.7%
21.0%
20%
18.4%
16.0%
15.2%
15%
9.9%
10%
7.6%
5%
0%
Total
In married-couple unit
In female-householder unit
In male-householder unit
In new SPM unit
Type of Economic Unit
Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on Kathleen Short, The Research
SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY MEASURE: 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-241, Washington, DC, November 2011,
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-241.pdf.
* Differs from published “official” poverty rates as unrelated individuals under age 15 are included in the
universe.
Poverty by Region
Figure 11 compares poverty rates in 2010 under the SPM with the “official” measure by Census
region. The figure shows that poverty rates in the West are considerably higher (about 25%
higher) under the SPM (19.4%) than under the “official” measure (15.4%). Poverty rates are
about 12% higher in the Northeast under the SPM (14.5%) compared to the “official” measure
(12.9%). Poverty rates in both the Midwest and South are lower under the SPM than under the
“official” measure. Under the SPM, poverty is highest in the West, followed by the South, then
the Northeast, and the Midwest. The differences in poverty rates within and between regions
based on the SPM compared to the “official” measure are most directly due to the SPM’s
geographic price adjustments to poverty thresholds for differences in the cost of housing in
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas across states. The cost of housing tends to be higher in
the West and Northeast, causing their poverty rates to rise under the SPM relative to the “official”
measure and relative to the South and Midwest, where housing tends to be less expensive.
Congressional Research Service
27
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Figure 11. Poverty Rates Under the “Official”* and
Research Supplemental Poverty Measures, by Region: 2010
(Percent poor)
Percent
25%
Official*
SPM
20%
19.4%
17.0%
16.0%
16.3%
15.2%
15.4%
14.5%
15%
14.0%
12.9%
13.1%
10%
5%
0%
Total
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Region
Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on Kathleen Short, The Research
SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY MEASURE: 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-241, Washington, DC, November 2011,
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-241.pdf.
* Differs from published “official” poverty rates as unrelated individuals under age 15 are included in the
universe.
Poverty by Residence
Figure 12 depicts poverty rates by residence in metropolitan (principal city, and outside principal
city (i.e., “suburban” )) and nonmetropolitan areas in 2010.26 The figure shows that under the
SPM, the poverty rate for persons living in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) (16.6%) is
somewhat higher than under the “official” measure (15.0%), whereas for persons living outside
MSAs, the poverty rate is lower under the SPM (16.6%) than under the “official” measure
(12.8%). Again, this most likely reflects differences in the cost of housing between MSAs and
26 The Census Bureau defines Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) containing a core urban area with a population of
50,000 or more, consisting of one or more counties, that includes the counties containing the urban core area as well as
any adjacent counties that have a high degree of social and economic integration (as measured by commuting to work)
with the urban core. See http://www.census.gov/population/metro/.
Congressional Research Service
28
Poverty in the United States: 2011
non-MSAs. Within MSAs, poverty rates are higher for persons living within principal cities under
both measures than for people living outside them in “suburban” or “ex-urban” areas.
Figure 12. Poverty Rates Under the “Official”* and Research Supplemental Poverty
Measures, by Residence: 2010
(Percent poor)
Percent
25%
Official*
SPM
21.0%
19.8%
20%
16.6%
16.6%
16.0%
15.2%
15.0%
15%
13.9%
12.8%
11.9%
10%
5%
0%
Total
Inside MSAs
Inside principal cities
Outside principal cities
Outside MSAs
Residence
Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on Kathleen Short, The Research
SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY MEASURE: 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-241, Washington, DC, November 2011,
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-241.pdf.
* Differs from published “official” poverty rates as unrelated individuals under age 15 are included in the
universe.
Marginal Effects of Counting Specified Resources and Expenses on Poverty
Under the SPM
Figure 13 focuses strictly on the SPM, examining the marginal effects on poverty rates
attributable to the inclusion of each selected income/resource or expenditure element on the
measure. The marginal effects of each element on the SPM are displayed by age group. Elements
that marginally contribute resources, and thereby have a poverty reducing effect when included in
the SPM, are ranked from left to right in terms of their effect on poverty reduction among all
persons. Similarly, expenditure elements, which are subtracted from resources and thereby
Congressional Research Service
29
Poverty in the United States: 2011
marginally increase poverty as measured by the SPM, are ranked from left to right by their
marginal poverty increasing effects on all persons.
The figure shows, for example, that the EITC has a greater poverty reducing effect than any of the
other depicted resource elements. Overall, the EITC lowers the SPM poverty rate for all persons
by 2.0 percentage points. The EITC is followed by SNAP benefits (1.7 percentage point
reduction), housing subsidies (0.9 percentage point reduction), school lunch (0.4 percentage point
reduction), and WIC and LIHEAP (each with a 0.1 percentage point reduction).
In contrast, on the expenditure side, child support paid to members outside the household has a
relatively small effect on increasing the overall poverty rate. Federal income taxes before
considering refundable credits, such as the EITC (counted on the resource side), result in an
increase in overall poverty of 0.4 percentage points. FICA payroll taxes have a larger effect on
marginal poverty (1.4 percentage point increase) than federal income taxes, as do work expenses
(1.5 percentage points). Among all of the expense elements presented, medical out of pocket
expenses (MOOP) contribute to the largest increase in poverty (3.3 percentage point increase for
all persons).
Among the three age groups, the additional resources included in the SPM have a greater effect
on reducing poverty among children (persons under age 18) and poverty among working age
adults (ages 18 to 64) than on the aged (age 65 and older), with the exception of housing
subsidies, which reduce the aged poverty rate by about the same amount as that of children.
On the expenditure side, FICA payroll taxes and work expenses have a greater effect on
increasing poverty among children (due to a working parent) and non-aged adults than on the
aged, who are less likely to be in the labor force and incur work-related taxes and expenses.
Notably, under the SPM, MOOP expenses contribute to a substantial increase in poverty among
the aged, contributing to a 7.3 percentage point increase in their poverty rate.
The relative distribution of additional resources and expenses in the SPM by age group helps to
explain why poverty among children is lower under the SPM than it is under the “official”
measure, whereas it is considerably higher for the aged.
Congressional Research Service
30
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Figure 13. Percentage Point Change in Poverty Rates Attributable to Selected
Income and Expenditure Elements Under the Research Supplemental Poverty
Measure, by Age Group: 2010
Percentage point change in
poverty rate
8
3
7.
7
All Persons
Under 18
18 to 64
65 and older
6
5
4
3
3.
8
8
3
2.
2.
9
0
1.
2.
2
Resources
4
5
5
5
1.
1.
1.
1.
1
4
5
Housing
School
3
0.
3
3
1
2
0.
1
0.
2
0.
0.
EITC
SNAP
subsidies
lunch
WIC
LIHEAP
0.
0. 0.
0
0.
0.
0
0
.1
.1
.1 .1
0.
.1
.1
.2
.2
.1
.1
Child
Federal
FICA
Work
MOOP
-0
.4
-0
-0
-0 -0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
.7
-1
support
income tax
expenses
.9
.9
-0
.8
-0
-0
-0
-0
paid
before
.3
.3
.2
.5
-1
credits
-2
.7
-1
-1
-1
.0
-1
-2
Expenses
-3
.0
-3
-4
.2
-4
-5
Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data adapted from Kathleen
Short, The Research SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY MEASURE: 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-241, Washington, DC,
November 2011, http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-241.pdf.
Distribution of the Population by Ratio of Income/Resources
Relative to Poverty
Figure 14 shows the distribution of the population by age group according to the degree to which
their income and resources fall below or above poverty under the “official” and SPM definitions.
The figure breaks out the poor population, depicted by brackets, into the share whose income and
resources fall below half of their respective poverty lines (a classification sometimes referred to
as “deep poverty”) and the remainder. Others are categorized by the extent to which their
income/resources exceed poverty under the two definitions, with those who fall below twice the
poverty line also demarcated by brackets.
The figure shows, for example, that the share of children in “deep poverty” under the SPM is
considerably lower than under the “official” measure (5.3% compared to 10.4%). As shown
earlier, the SPM child poverty rate (18.2%) is lower than the “official” rate (22.5%). However,
under the SPM, a much greater share of children live in “families” with income/resources
between one and two times the poverty line than under the “official” measure (38.6% and 21.4%).
All together, well over half of the children live in “families” having income/resources below
Congressional Research Service
31
Poverty in the United States: 2011
twice the poverty line under the SPM (56.8%) compared to just over two-fifths (43.9%) under the
“official” measure. Thus, while the SPM appears to result in fewer children being counted as poor
than under the “official” measure, under the SPM a greater share than under the “official”
measure are concentrated at income levels just above poverty.
Among persons age 65 and over, a greater share are poor under the SPM than under the “official”
measure, as shown earlier (15.9% compared to 9.0%), and a greater share are in “deep poverty”
under the SPM (4.6%) than under the “official” measure (2.5%). In contrast to the “official”
measure, under which over one-third (34.6%) of the aged have income below 200% of poverty,
nearly half (49.0%) have income/resources below that level under the SPM.
Figure 14. Distribution of the Population by Income/Resources to Poverty Ratios
Under the “Official”* and Research Supplemental Poverty Measures, by Age Group:
2010
(Percent distribution)
Percent distribution
100
4.0 or more
10.8
17.3
2.0 to 3.99
90
19.6
18.5
1.0 to 1.99
26.8
31.4
0.5 to 0.99
35.8
80
40.2
Less than 0.5
32.5
70
34.8
32.5
36.2
60
29.2
34.0
50
30.2
29.8
40
38.6
31.8
21.4
33.1
30
29.0
.8
56
18.8
.8
9
.0
47
16.3
.2
25.6
49
20
0
43.
44
.6
34.
12.1
.0
34
30
.5
8.4
10.7
12.8
10
22
7.4
9.7
11.3
.2
.0
.2
7
.2
.9
15
16
10.4
18
15
6.5
15
13.
0
6.8
5.4
5.3
6.3
5.5
9.
2.5
4.6
0
Official*
SPM
Official*
SPM
Official
SPM
Official
SPM
All Persons
Under 18
18 to 64
65 and over
Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on Kathleen Short, The Research
SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY MEASURE: 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-241, Washington, DC, November 2011,
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-241.pdf.
* Differs from published “official” poverty rates as unrelated individuals under age 15 are included in the
universe.
Congressional Research Service
32
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Discussion
As a research measure, the SPM offers potential for improved insight leading to better
understanding of the nature and circumstances of those deemed to be among the nation’s most
economically and socially vulnerable. The SPM offers the means to better assess the performance
of the economy, government policies, and programs with regard to the population’s ability to
secure sufficient income/resources to be able to meet basic expenditures for food, clothing,
shelter, and utilities (plus “a little bit more”).
The SPM counts considerably more elderly as poor than does the “official” measure. Medical
expenses appear to be the driving factor in increasing poverty among the elderly under the SPM
(see Figure 13). While not negating the improvement in the poverty status of the aged over the
years, based on the “official” measure (see Figure 2), the SPM points more directly to the
economic vulnerability of the aged, based not on income/resources alone, but rather, medical
expenses competing for income that might otherwise be used to meet basic needs (i.e., FCSU plus
“a little bit more”). Rising medical costs in society overall and individuals’ personal health and
insurance statuses pose potential economic risk to the aged being able to meet basic needs, as
captured by FCSU-based poverty thresholds. The SPM provides additional insight that poverty
reduction among the elderly depends not only on improving income, but also on their ability to
reduce exposure to high medical expenses through “affordable” insurance. Rising medical costs
in society also place the aged at increased risk of poverty under the SPM. It is worth noting that
the SPM does not consider financial assets, other than interest, dividends, and annuity income
from those assets, nor non-liquid assets (e.g., home equity) in determining poverty status. The
SPM therefore does not address the means or extent to which the aged might tap those assets to
meet medical or other needs.
The SPM results in fewer children being counted as poor than under the “official” measure. Still,
the incidence of poverty under the SPM, as under the “official” measure, exceeds that of the aged,
but by a much slimmer margin (see Figure 9). Work-based supports, which both encourage work
and help to offset the costs of going to work, appear be especially important to families with
children, as captured by the SPM. The EITC, not counted under the “official” measure,
significantly reduces child poverty as measured by the SPM, helping to offset taxes and work-
related expenses working families with children incur (also captured by the SPM, but not under
the “official” measure) (see Figure 13). The lack of safe, reliable, and affordable child care may
limit parents’ attachment to the labor force, contributing to poverty by reducing earnings that
parents might otherwise secure. The SPM recognizes child care as a necessary expense many
families face in their decisions relating to work by subtracting work-related child care expenses
from income/resources that might otherwise go to meeting basic needs (i.e., FCSU plus “a little
bit more”). As a consequence, the SPM should be sensitive to measuring the effects of child care
programs and policies on child care affordability and poverty. The SPM captures the policy
effects of assisting the poor through the provision of in-kind benefits, as opposed to just cash,
whereas the “official” measure does not. For example, SNAP benefits, not captured under the
“official” poverty measure, appear to have a sizeable effect in reducing child poverty under the
SPM. Additionally, the expansion of the economic unit under the SPM to include cohabiting
partners and their relatives may also contribute to lower child poverty rates under the SPM than
under the “official” poverty measure, which is based on family ties defined by blood, marriage,
and adoption.
Congressional Research Service
33
Poverty in the United States: 2011
The Census Bureau’s first release of statistics based on the SPM provides a glimpse of how the
nation might begin to better measure progress against poverty than that offered by the “official”
measure. At this point, comparable SPM estimates are available only for 2009 and 2010. The
Census Bureau is scheduled to release SPM estimates for 2011 in November 2012. As more data
are released and analyzed, the SPM will likely set a new standard of comparison to supplement
the current understanding of the nature and extent of poverty in the United States, and ways that
programs and policies address it.
Congressional Research Service
34
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Appendix. U.S. Poverty Statistics: 1959-2011
Table A-1. Poverty Rates (Percent Poor) for Selected Groups, 1959-2011
Related Children
Under Age18a
Adults
Race/Ethnicityb—All Ages
In
Female-
In All
Ages
White
All
Headed
Other
18-
Age
Non-
Year Persons Total Families Families
64
65+
Whiteb Hispanicb Blackb Hispanic Asianb
2011 15.1 21.4 47.6 12.1 13.7 8.7 12.8b 9.8b 27.6b 25.3 12.3b
2010r 15.0 21.5 46.6 12.9 13.8 8.9 13.0b 9.9b 27.4b 26.5 12.2b
2009 14.3 20.1 44.4 12.3 12.9 8.9 12.3b 9.4b 25.8b 25.3 12.5b
2008 13.2 18.5 43.5 10.7 11.7 9.7 11.2b 8.6b 24.7b 23.2 11.8b
2007 12.5 17.6 43.0
9.5 10.9 9.7 10.5b 8.2b 24.5b 21.5 10.2b
2006 12.3 16.9 42.1
9.0 10.8 9.4 10.3b 8.2b 24.3b 20.6 10.3b
2005 12.6 17.1 42.8
9.3 11.1
10.1 10.6b 8.3b 24.9b 21.8 11.1b
2004r 12.7 17.3 41.9
9.7 11.3 9.8 10.8b 8.7b 24.7b 21.9 9.8b
2003 12.5 17.2 41.8
9.6 10.8
10.2 10.5b 8.2b 24.4b 22.5 11.8b
2002 12.1 16.3 39.6
9.2 10.6
10.4 10.2b 8.0b 24.1b 21.8 10.1b
2001 11.7 15.8 39.3
8.8 10.1
10.1 9.9
7.8 22.7 21.4 n/a
2000r 11.3 15.6 40.1
8.6 9.6 9.9 9.5
7.4 22.5 21.5 n/a
1999 11.8 16.3 41.9
9.0 10.0 9.7 9.8
7.7 23.6 22.8 n/a
1998 12.7 18.3 46.1
9.7 10.5
10.5 10.5
8.2 26.1 25.6 n/a
1997 13.3 19.2 49.0 10.2 10.9
10.5 11.0
8.6 26.5 27.1 n/a
1996 13.7 19.8 49.3 10.9 11.3
10.8 11.2
8.6 28.4 29.4 n/a
1995 13.8 20.2 50.3 10.7 11.4
10.5 11.2
8.5 29.3 30.3 n/a
1994 14.5 21.2 52.9 11.7 11.9
11.7 11.7
9.4 30.6 30.7 n/a
1993 15.1 22.0 53.7 12.4 12.4
12.2 12.2
9.9 33.1 30.6 n/a
1992r 14.8 21.6 54.6 11.8 11.9 12.9 11.9
9.6 33.4 29.6 n/a
1991r 14.2 21.1 55.5 11.1 11.4 12.4 11.3
9.4 32.7 28.7 n/a
1990 13.5 19.9 53.4 10.7 10.7
12.2 10.7
8.8 31.9 28.1 n/a
1989 12.8 19.0 51.1 10.4 10.2
11.4 10.0
8.3 30.7 26.2 n/a
1988r 13.0 19.0 52.9 10.0 10.5 12.0 10.1
8.4 31.3 26.7 n/a
1987r 13.4 19.7 54.7 10.9 10.6 12.5 10.4
8.7 32.4 28.0 n/a
1986 13.6 19.8 54.4 10.8 10.8
12.4 11.0
9.4 31.1 27.3 n/a
1985 14.0 20.1 53.6 11.7 11.3
12.6 11.4
9.7 31.3 29.0 n/a
1984 14.4 21.0 54.0 12.5 11.7
12.4 11.5 10.0 33.8 28.4 n/a
1983 15.2 21.8 55.5 13.5 12.4
13.8 12.2 10.8 35.7 28.1 n/a
1982 15.0 21.3 56.0 13.0 12.0
14.6 12.0 10.6 35.6 29.9 n/a
Congressional Research Service
35
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Related Children
Under Age18a
Adults
Race/Ethnicityb—All Ages
In
Female-
In All
Ages
White
All
Headed
Other
18-
Age
Non-
Year Persons Total Families Families
64
65+
Whiteb Hispanicb Blackb Hispanic Asianb
1981 14.0 19.5 52.3 11.6 11.1
15.3 11.1
9.9 34.2 26.5 n/a
1980 13.0 17.9 50.8 10.4 10.1
15.7 10.2
9.1 32.5 25.7 n/a
1979 11.7 16.0 48.6 8.5 8.9
15.2 9.0 8.1 31.0 21.8 n/a
1978 11.4 15.7 50.6 7.9 8.7
14.0 8.7 7.9 30.6 21.6 n/a
1977 11.6 16.0 50.3 8.5 8.8
14.1 8.9 8.0 31.3 22.4 n/a
1976 11.8 15.8 52.0 8.5 9.0
15.0 9.1 8.1 31.1 24.7 n/a
1975 12.3 16.8 52.7 9.8 9.2
15.3 9.7 8.6 31.3 26.9 n/a
1974 11.2 15.1 51.5 8.3 8.3
14.6 8.6 7.7 30.3 23.0 n/a
1973 11.1 14.2 52.1 7.6 8.3
16.3 8.4 7.5 31.4 21.9 n/a
1972 11.9
14.9 53.1 8.6 8.8
18.6 9.0 n/a 33.3 n/a n/a
1971 12.5
15.1 53.1 9.3 9.3
21.6 9.9 n/a 32.5 n/a n/a
1970 12.6
14.9 53.0 9.2 9.0
24.6 9.9 n/a 33.5 n/a n/a
1969 12.1
13.8 54.4 8.6 8.7
25.3 9.5 n/a 32.2 n/a n/a
1968 12.8
15.3 55.2 10.2 9.0
25.0
10.0 n/a 34.7 n/a n/a
1967 14.2 16.3 54.3 11.5 10.0
29.5 11.0 n/a 39.3 n/a n/a
1966 14.7 17.4 58.2 12.6 10.5
28.5 11.3 n/a 41.8 n/a n/a
1959 22.4 26.9 72.2 22.4 17.0
35.2 18.1 n/a 55.1 n/a n/a
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service using U.S. Bureau of the Census data based on the
“official” measure of poverty.
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, the term black means of black race alone, and the term Asian
means asian alone. Hispanics, who may be of any race, are included among whites and blacks unless
otherwise noted.
Congressional Research Service
36
Poverty in the United States: 2011
Author Contact Information
Thomas Gabe
Specialist in Social Policy
tgabe@crs.loc.gov, 7-7357
Congressional Research Service
37