Poverty in the United States: 2012
Thomas Gabe
Specialist in Social Policy
November 13, 2013
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: 2012

Summary
In 2012, 46.5 million people were counted as poor in the United States—the number, statistically
unchanged over the past three years, is the largest recorded in the measure’s 54-year history. The
poverty rate, or percent of the population considered poor under the official definition, was
reported at 15.0% in 2012, a level statistically unchanged from the two previous years. The 2012
poverty rate of 15.0% is well above its most recent pre-recession low of 12.3% (2006) and
remains at a level not last seen since 1993. Poverty in the United States increased markedly from
2007 through 2010, in tandem with the economic recession (officially marked as running from
December 2007 to June 2009). Little if any improvement in the level of “official” U.S. poverty
has been seen since the recession’s official end, with the poverty rate remaining at about 15% for
the past three years. Some analysts expect U.S. poverty to remain above pre-recession levels
through much, if not most, of the remainder of the decade, given the slow pace of economic
recovery. The pre-recession poverty rate of 12.3% in 2006 was well above the 2000 rate of
11.3%, which marked an historical low (a rate statistically tied with the previous historical low of
11.1% in 1973).
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 2012 if its pre-
tax cash income for the year was below $23,492.
The measure of poverty currently in use was developed some 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 19 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
Congressional Research Service

Poverty in the United States: 2012

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: 2012

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: 2002-2012 ............................................................................. 14
Poverty Rates by Metropolitan Area ....................................................................................... 20
Congressional District Poverty Estimates ............................................................................... 22
“Neighborhood” Poverty—Poverty Areas and Areas of Concentrated and Extreme
Poverty ................................................................................................................................. 23
The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure .............................................................................. 24
Poverty Thresholds .................................................................................................................. 28
SPM Poverty Thresholds ................................................................................................... 28
Resources and Expenses Included in the SPM ........................................................................ 29
Poverty Estimates Under the Research SPM Compared to the “Official” Measure ................ 30
Poverty by Age .................................................................................................................. 30
Poverty by Type of Economic Unit ................................................................................... 31
Poverty by Region ............................................................................................................. 33
Poverty by Residence ........................................................................................................ 34
Poverty by State ................................................................................................................ 35
Marginal Effects of Counting Specified Resources and Expenses on Poverty
Under the SPM ............................................................................................................... 40
Distribution of the Population by Ratio of Income/Resources Relative to Poverty .......... 41
Discussion................................................................................................................................ 43

Figures
Figure 1. Trend in Poverty Rate and Number of Poor Persons: 1959-2012, and
Unemployment Rate from January 1959 through August 2013 ................................................... 4
Figure 2. U.S. Poverty Rates by Age Group, 1959-2012 ................................................................. 5
Figure 3. Child Poverty Rates by Family Living Arrangement, Race and Hispanic Origin,
2012 .............................................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 4. Composition of Children, by Family Type, Race and Hispanic Origin, 2012 .................. 8
Figure 5. Percentage of People in Poverty in the Past 12 Months by
State and Puerto Rico: 2012 ....................................................................................................... 11
Congressional Research Service

Poverty in the United States: 2012

Figure 6. Poverty Rates for the 50 States and the District of Columbia: 2012 American
Community Survey (ACS) Data ................................................................................................. 13
Figure 7. Distribution of Poor People by Race and Hispanic Origin, by Level of
Neighborhood (Census Tract) Poverty, 2006-2010 .................................................................... 24
Figure 8. Poverty Thresholds Under the “Official” Measure and the Research
Supplemental Poverty Measure for Units with Two Adults and Two Children: 2012 ................ 29
Figure 9. Poverty Rates Under the “Official”* and Research Supplemental Poverty
Measures, by Age: 2012 ............................................................................................................. 31
Figure 10. Poverty Rates Under the “Official”* and Research Supplemental Poverty
Measures, by Type of Economic Unit: 2012 .............................................................................. 33
Figure 11. Poverty Rates Under the “Official”* and Research Supplemental Poverty
Measures, by Region: 2012 ........................................................................................................ 34
Figure 12. Poverty Rates Under the “Official”* and Research Supplemental Poverty
Measures, by Residence: 2012 ................................................................................................... 35
Figure 13. Difference in Poverty Rates by State Using the “Official”* Measure and the
SPM: Three-Year Average 2010-2012 ........................................................................................ 36
Figure 14. Poverty Rates by State Using the “Official”* Measure and the SPM: Three-
Year Average 2010-2012............................................................................................................. 38
Figure 15. Poverty Rates by State Using the “Official”* Measure and the SPM: Three-
Year Average 2010-2012............................................................................................................. 39
Figure 16. Percentage Point Change in Poverty Rates Attributable to Selected Income and
Expenditure Elements Under the Research Supplemental Poverty Measure, by Age
Group: 2012 ................................................................................................................................ 41
Figure 17. Distribution of the Population by Income/Resources to Poverty Ratios Under
the “Official”* and Research Supplemental Poverty Measures, by Age Group: 2012 ............... 42

Tables
Table 1. Poverty Rates for the 50 States and the District of Columbia, 2002 to 2012
Estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS) .......................................................... 16
Table 2. Large Metropolitan Areas Among Those with the Lowest Poverty Rates: 2012 ............. 20
Table 3. Large Metropolitan Areas Among Those with the Highest Poverty Rates: 2012 ............ 21
Table 4. Smaller Metropolitan Areas Among Those with the Lowest Poverty Rates: 2012 .......... 21
Table 5. Smaller Metropolitan Areas Among Those with the Highest Poverty Rates: 2012 ......... 22
Table 6. Poverty Measure Concepts Under “Official” and Supplemental Measures ..................... 26
Table A-1. Poverty Rates (Percent Poor) for Selected Groups, 1959-2012 ................................... 44
Table B-1. Metropolitan Area Poverty: 2012 ................................................................................. 46
Table C-1. Poverty by Congressional District: 2012 ..................................................................... 63

Congressional Research Service

Poverty in the United States: 2012

Appendixes
Appendix A. U.S. Poverty Statistics: 1959-2012 ........................................................................... 44
Appendix B. Metropolitan Area Poverty Estimates ....................................................................... 46
Appendix C. Poverty Estimates by Congressional District ........................................................... 63

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 79

Congressional Research Service

Poverty in the United States: 2012

Trends in Poverty1
In 2012, the U.S. poverty rate was 15.0%—46.5 million persons were estimated as having income
below the official poverty line. Neither the poverty rate nor the number of persons counted as
poor in 2012 differed statistically from 2011 or 2010. In 2012, an estimated 10.0 million more
people were poor than in 2006 and the poverty rate (15.0%) was 22% above that of 2006 (12.3%).
The 46.5 million persons counted as poor in 2012 is the largest number counted in the measure’s
recorded history, which goes back as far as 1959, and the 2012 poverty rate of 15.0% is the
highest seen since 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 likely 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 that decade, resulting in a record-tying, historical low
poverty rate of 11.3% in 2000 (a rate statistically tied with the previous lowest recorded rate of
11.1% in 1973). The poverty rate increased each year from 2001 through 2004, a trend generally
attributed to economic recession (March 2001 to November 2001), and failed to recede
appreciably before the onset of the December 2007 recession. Over the course of the most recent
recession, the unemployment rate increased from 4.9% (January 2008) to 7.2% (December 2008),
and 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%, but the poverty rate in
2010 increased over 2009. The unemployment rate fell 0.9%, from 9.4% to 8.5% from December
2010 to December 2011, and by December 2012 by an additional 0.7%, to 7.8%, but the poverty
rate in 2012 (15.0%) has remained at recent peak levels for three years running.
The recession 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 2012 and 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.
In 2012, over one in five children (21.3%) were poor, a rate statistically unchanged from the two
prior years, but significantly above its 2006 pre-recession low, at which time about one in six

1 Supporting data are based on the following: U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in
the United States: 2012; Current Population Report No. P60-245, September 2013; and unpublished Census Bureau
tables, available on the Internet at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2012/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: 2012

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 2012, the aged poverty rate (9.1%) was statistically tied with most recent prior years, and in
spite of the recession, remains at an historic low level. 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 2012, for example, the
average poverty threshold for an individual living alone was $11,720; for a two-person family,
$14,937; and for a family of four, $23,492.7
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.
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

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.
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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2

Poverty in the United States: 2012

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”).

(...continued)
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 2012 the average
family spent an estimated 10.0% of pre-tax income on food (including food consumed at home and away from home), as
opposed to one-third in the mid-1950s. This implies that the multiplier for updating poverty thresholds based on food
consumption would be 10.0 (i.e., 1/0.10), or 3.3 times the multiplier of 3 subsumed under poverty thresholds developed in
the 1960s. Author’s calculations from: http://bls.gov/cex/2012/aggregate/age.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3


































































































Figure 1. Trend in Poverty Rate and Number of Poor Persons: 1959-2012,
and Unemployment Rate from January 1959 through August 2013
(recessionary periods marked in red)
25%
50,000
46,343
22.4%
46,496
39,851
39,265
20%
40,000
39,490
37,040
35,303
Number of
t)
poor persons
36,460
cen
(right axis)
er
15.2%
(p
15.1%
15.1%
15.0%
te
31,528
31,581
15%
30,000
0s)
,00

t Ra
1
en
25,559
25,877
m
12.1%
12.7%
24,497
r (in
Poverty rate
o
oy
pl

12.8%
(left axis)
Po
12.3%
12.3%
10.8%
nem
24,147
of
U
11.1%
11.4%
11.3%
10.0%
ber
d
n
10%
20,000
m
a
9.0%
Nu
ty
Unemployment rate
ver
(left axis)
7.8%
7.8%
o
P

7.1%
7.3%
6.1%
6.3%
5.7%
5%
10,000
4.8%
4.6%
5.0%
4.4%
3.8%
3.4% 70
0
1
1
/61
82
/09
-2
11/
3/75
7/8
11/
3/9
1/0
6
-
1
60
73 -
80 -
90 -
7 -
4/
69 -
9/
1/
/81
7/
01 -
2/0
12/
7
3/
1
0%
0
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
000
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
011
012
013
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Year

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012,”
Table B-1, Current Population Report P60-245, September 2013 available on the Internet at http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-245.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


Figure 2. U.S. Poverty Rates by Age Group, 1959-2012
40
35
Aged
30
Children
)
25
poor
ent
Total
rc
Children, 21.3%
e
20
(p
te

Non-aged
Ra
adults
verty
o

15
Total, 15.0%
P
Non-aged adults,
13.7%
10
Aged, 9.1%
5
Estimates unavailable from 1960 to 1965
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 using U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012,” Tables
B-1 and B-2, Current Population Report P60-245, September 2013, available on the Internet at http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-245.pdf.
CRS-5

Poverty in the United States: 2012

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 2012, 27.2% of blacks (10.9 million) and 25.6% of Hispanics (13.6 million) had
incomes below poverty, compared to 9.7% of non-Hispanic whites (18.9 million) and 11.7% of
Asians (1.9 million). Although blacks represent only 12.9% of the total population, they make up
23.5% of the poor population; Hispanics, who represent 17.1% of the population, account for
29.3% of the poor. Poverty rates for all groups mentioned above were statistically unchanged
from 2011 to 2012, as were the total numbers estimated as poor.
Nativity and Citizenship Status
In 2012, among the native-born population, 14.3% (38.8 million) were poor. Among the foreign-
born population, 19.7% (7.7 million) were poor in 2012. The poverty rate among foreign-born
naturalized citizens (12.4%, in 2012) was lower than that of the native-born U.S. population. In
2012, the poverty rate of non-citizens (24.9%) was about 10 percentage points above that of the
native-born population (14.3%). In that year, the 5.4 million non-citizens who were counted as
poor accounted for about one in nine of all poor persons (46.5 million). Poverty rates and the
number estimated as poor, for each nativity/citizenship status highlighted above, were statistically
unchanged from 2011 to 2012.
Children
In 2012, over one in five children (21.3%) in the United States, some 15.4 million, were poor—
both their poverty rate and estimated number poor were statistically unchanged from 2011. 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 2012 a child
living in a single female-headed family was well over four times more likely to be poor than a
child living in a married-couple family. In 2012, among all children living in single female-
headed families, 47.2% were poor. In contrast, among children living in married-couple families,
11.1% were poor. The increased share of children who live in single female-headed families has
contributed to the high overall child poverty rate. In 2012, one quarter (25.3%) of children were

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, refer 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: 2012

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, well
over half (56.1%) were living in single female-headed families in 2012.
In 2012, 37.5% of black children were poor (4.1 million), compared to 33.3% of Hispanic
children (5.7 million) and 11.8% of non-Hispanic white children (4.4 million). (See Figure 3.)
Among children living in single female-headed families, more than half of black children (53.3%)
and Hispanic children (54.7%) were poor; in contrast, over one-third of non-Hispanic white
children (36.5%) were poor. The poverty rate among Hispanic children who live in married-
couple families (23.6%) was about half-again as high as that of black children (15.0%), and
nearly four times that of non-Hispanic white children (6.2%) 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 (54.3%) compared to Hispanic children (29.6%) or
non-Hispanic white children (16.1%). (See Figure 4.)
Figure 3. Child Poverty Rates by Family Living Arrangement,
Race and Hispanic Origin, 2012
Poverty Rate
60
54.7 53.3
White Alone, Non Hispanic
Asian Alone
Total
Hispanic (any race)
Black Alone
50
47.2
40
37.5
36.5
36.0
33.3
33.0
29.4
30
25.7
23.6
22.6
21.3
20
18.2
15.0
13.3
11.8
11.1
10.2
10
6.2
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 2013 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement, available at
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032013/pov/pov05_000.htm.
Congressional Research Service
7

Poverty in the United States: 2012

Figure 4. Composition of Children, by Family Type, Race and Hispanic Origin, 2012
Percent
100%
4.5%
6.2%
7.1%
8.8%
8.0%
90%
11.0%
16.1%
80%
25.3%
29.6%
70%
54.3%
60%
Male householder,
no wife present
Female householder,
50%
no husband present
Married-couple families
84.6%
40%
77.7%
67.6%
61.5%
30%
20%
37.7%
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 from
the 2013 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement, available at
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032013/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 2012 among 25- to 34-year-olds without a high
school diploma, about 2 out of 5 (39.1%) were poor. Within the same age group, over 1 of 5
(21.5%) whose highest level of educational attainment was a high school diploma were poor. In
contrast, only about 1 in 18 (5.6%) 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 2013,
nearly 3 out of 10 (28.6%) were poor based on their families’ incomes in 2012; among those who
were employed, 7.0% were poor. In 2012, 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: 2012

of the 16- to 64-year-old population, and about one-quarter (25.3%) of the poor population within
this age range. Among those with a severe work disability, 34.9% were poor, compared to 16.7%
of those with a less severe disability and 11.6% 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 9.1% in
2012 (statistically tied with the 2011 rate of 8.7%). In 2012, an estimated 3.9 million persons age
65 and older were considered poor under the “official” poverty measure. Among persons age 75
and over, 10.6% were poor in 2012, compared to 7.9% 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), 14.8% of the aged could be considered poor or “near poor”; 12.1%
who are ages 65 to 74, and 17.8% who are 75 years of age and over, could be considered poor or
“near poor.”
Receipt of Need-Tested Assistance Among the Poor
In 2012, among poor persons, nearly three of every four (74.4%) 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 2012, fewer than 1 in 5 (18.5%) poor persons lived in
households that received cash aid; half (50.6%) received SNAP benefits (formerly named Food
Stamps); 6 in 10 (61.8%) lived in households where one or more household members were
covered by Medicaid; and about 1 in 7 (14.9%) 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 (24.0%) were in
households that received government cash aid in 2012. 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 http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032013/pov/pov26_000.htm.
Congressional Research Service
9

Poverty in the United States: 2012

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—19.7% versus 11.2%, respectively, in 2012. Nonmetropolitan areas had a
poverty rate of 17.7%. 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.
Poverty by Region
In 2012, poverty rates were lowest in the Northeast (13.6%), followed by the Midwest (13.3%),
and the West (15.1%), with the South having the highest poverty rate (16.5%). Among the four
regions, only the West experienced statistically significant change in its poverty rate from 2011 to
2012, with its rate declining from 15.8% to 15.1% over the period.
State Poverty Rates

American Community Survey (ACS) State Poverty Estimates—2012
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. However, 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 2012 ACS, the U.S. poverty rate was estimated to be 15.9%, compared to 15.0% based on the 2013 CPS/ASEC.
The CPS/ASEC estimates are based on a survey conducted in February through April 2013, 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 2012, for the prior 12 months. For example, for the sample with data col ected in January, the
reference period is from January 2011 to December 2011, and for the sample with data col ected in December, from
December 2011 to November 2012. The ACS data consequently cover a time span of 23 months, with the data
centered at mid-December 2011.

Based on 2012 American Community Survey (ACS) data, poverty rates were highest in the South
(with the exception of Virginia), extending across to Southwestern states bordering Mexico
(Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona). (See Figure 5.) Poverty rates in several states bordering the
Ohio River (Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky) also exceeded the national rate, as did those of
Michigan and the District of Columbia, in the eastern half of the nation, and California, Oregon,
and Nevada in the western half.
States along the Atlantic Seaboard from Virginia northward tended to have poverty rates well
below the national rate, as did three contiguous states in the upper Midwest/plains (Iowa,
Minnesota, and North Dakota), as well as Utah, Wyoming, Alaska, and Hawaii.
Congressional Research Service
10


Poverty in the United States: 2012

Figure 5. Percentage of People in Poverty in the Past 12 Months by
State and Puerto Rico: 2012

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey, 2012 Puerto Rico Community Survey.
Alemayehu Bishaw, Poverrty: 2000 to 2012, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Briefs, ACSBR/12
01, Washington, DC, September 2013, p. 5, http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr12-01.pdf
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 2012 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. 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. All states
with non-overlapping statistical confidence intervals have statistically significant different
poverty rates from one another. Some states with overlapping confidence intervals may also have
significantly different poverty rates from one another, measured at the 90% confidence interval.13

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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
11

Poverty in the United States: 2012

For example, New Hampshire, shown as having the lowest poverty rate (10.0%) in 2012, is
statistically tied with several other states, including Alaska (10.1%), Maryland (10.3%),
Connecticut (10.6%), and New Jersey (10.8%). Mississippi clearly stands out as the state with the
highest poverty rate (24.2%). New Mexico, with a poverty rate of 20.8%, has the second-highest
poverty rate, and is statistically untied with any other state, even though its statistical confidence
interval overlaps with several other states. Louisiana, a state ranked as having the third-highest
poverty rate (19.9%), is statistically tied with Arkansas (19.8%) and Kentucky (19.4%), but not
with Georgia (19.2) nor Alabama (19.0), even though their statistical confidence intervals
overlap.

(...continued)
Figure 6 by 1.645.
Congressional Research Service
12

Poverty in the United States: 2012

Figure 6. Poverty Rates for the 50 States and the District of Columbia:
2012 American Community Survey (ACS) Data
(Poverty rate and 90% statistical confidence interval)
New Hampshire (10.0% +/- 0.8%)
NH
Alaska (10.1% +/- 0.7%)
AK
Maryland (10.3% +/- 0.3%)
MD
Connecticut (10.7% +/- 0.4%)
CT
New Jersey (10.8% +/- 0.3%)
NJ
North Dakota (11.2% +/- 0.6%)
ND
Minnesota (11.4% +/- 0.3%)
MN
Hawaii (11.6% +/- 0.7%)
HI
Virginia (11.7% +/- 0.3%)
VA
Vermont (11.8% +/- 0.8%)
VT
Massachusetts (11.9% +/- 0.3%)
MA
Delaware (12.0% +/- 0.9%)
DE
Wyoming (12.6% +/- 1.1%)
WY
Iowa (12.7% +/- 0.5%)
IA
Utah (12.8% +/- 0.7%)
UT
Nebraska (13.0% +/- 0.6%)
NE
Wisconsin (13.2% +/- 0.3%)
WI
South Dakota (13.4% +/- 0.7%)
SD
Washington (13.5% +/- 0.4%)
WA
Pennsylvania (13.7% +/- 0.2%)
PA
Colorado (13.7% +/- 0.4%)
CO
Rhode Island (13.7% +/- 0.8%)
RI
Kansas (14.0% +/- 0.4%)
KS
Maine (14.7% +/- 0.7%)
ME
Illinois (14.7% +/- 0.3%)
IL
Montana (15.5% +/- 0.8%)
MT
Indiana (15.6% +/- 0.3%)
IN
New York (15.9% +/- 0.2%)
NY
Idaho (15.9% +/- 0.9%)
ID
United States (15.9% +/- 0.1%)
US
Missouri (16.2% +/- 0.4%)
MO
Ohio (16.3% +/- 0.3%)
OH
Nevada (16.4% +/- 0.7%)
NV
California (17.0% +/- 0.2%)
CA
Florida (17.1% +/- 0.3%)
FL
Oregon (17.2% +/- 0.6%)
OR
Oklahoma (17.2% +/- 0.4%)
OK
Michigan (17.4% +/- 0.3%)
MI
West Virginia (17.8% +/- 0.7%)
WV
Texas (17.9% +/- 0.2%)
TX
Tennessee (17.9% +/- 0.4%)
TN
North Carolina (18.0% +/- 0.3%)
NC
District of Columbia (18.2% +/- 1.3%)
DC
South Carolina (18.3% +/- 0.5%)
SC
Arizona (18.7% +/- 0.4%)
AZ
Alabama (19.0% +/- 0.4%)
AL
Georgia (19.2% +/- 0.4%)
GA
Kentucky (19.4% +/- 0.5%)
KY
Arkansas (19.8% +/- 0.6%)
AR
Louisiana (19.9% +/- 0.5%)
LA
New Mexico (20.8% +/- 0.7%)
NM
Mississippi (24.2% +/- 0.8%)
MS
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service on the basis of U.S. Census Bureau 2012 American
Community Survey (ACS) data.
Congressional Research Service
13

Poverty in the United States: 2012

Change in State Poverty Rates: 2002-2012
Table 1 provides estimates of state and national poverty rates from 2002 through 2012 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, 2011 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 three states (California, Mississippi, and New Hampshire) experienced
statistically significant increases in their poverty rates from the 2011 to 2012 ACS. California’s
estimated poverty rate increased form 16.6% in 2011, to 17.0% in 2012, while Mississippi’s rate
increased from 22.6% to 24.2%, and New Hampshire’s rate increased from 8.8% to 10.0%, over
the period. Two states (Minnesota and Texas) experienced statistically significant decreases in
their poverty rates from 2011 to 2012, with Minnesota’s rate falling from 11.9% to 11.4%, and
Texas’s rate falling from 18.5% to 17.9% 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 1 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 2.
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 consequent to the 18-month recession
(December 2007 to June 2009). From 2007 to 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. From 2008 to 2009, 32 states saw their
poverty rates increase, and no state experienced a statistically significant decrease, and from 2009
to 2010, 34 states experienced statistically significant increases in poverty, and again, no state

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
14

Poverty in the United States: 2012

experienced a decrease. As noted above, from 2011 to 2012, three states saw their poverty rates
rise, and only two saw a decline. Comparing 2012 to 2007, poverty rates were statistically higher
in 47 states (including the District of Columbia), and no state had a poverty rate statistically
below its prerecession rate.
Congressional Research Service
15


Table 1. Poverty Rates for the 50 States and the District of Columbia, 2002 to 2012
Estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS)
(percent poor)
Change in
Poverty Rates
over Selected
Periods and
Statistically
Significant

Estimated Poverty Rates and Statistically Significant Differences over Previous Year
Differencesa
2005
2012
vs.
vs.
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006b 2007b
2008b
2009b
2010b
2011b
2012b
2001
2007
United States
12.4

12.7▲
13.1 ▲ 13.3 ▲
13.3

13.0 ▼
13.2
14.3 ▲
15.3▲
15.9 ▲
15.9
0.9▲
3.0 ▲
Alabama 16.6

17.1


16.1

17.0 ▲
16.6
16.9
15.7 ▼
17.5 ▲
19.0▲
19.0
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
10.5
10.1
3.2▲
1.2 ▲
Arizona 14.2

15.4 ▲
14.2
14.2 14.2
14.2
14.7 16.5 ▲
17.4▲
19.0 ▲
18.7
0.0
4.5 ▲
Arkansas 15.3

16.0


17.9 ▲ 17.2 17.3
17.9
17.3 18.8 ▲
18.8
19.5
19.8
2.0▲
2.0 ▲
California 13.0

13.4


13.3

13.3
13.1

12.4 ▼
13.3 ▲
14.2 ▲
15.8▲
16.6 ▲
17.0 ▲
0.1
4.6 ▲
Colorado 9.7

9.8


11.1

11.1
12.0 ▲
12.0
11.4 12.9 ▲
13.4
13.5
13.7
2.3▲
1.7 ▲
Connecticut 7.5

8.1


7.6

8.3
8.3

7.9

9.3 ▲
9.4 10.1▲
10.9 ▲
10.7
0.8
2.8 ▲
Delaware 8.2

8.7


9.9

10.4
11.1

10.5

10.0
10.8

11.8
11.9
12.0
2.9▲
1.6 ▲
Dist. of Col.
17.5

19.9 ▲
18.9
19.0 19.6
16.4 ▼
17.2 18.4

19.2
18.7
18.2
2.2
1.7
Florida 12.8

13.1


12.2 ▼ 12.8 ▲
12.6

12.1 ▼
13.2 ▲
14.9 ▲
16.5▲
17.0 ▲
17.1
-0.2
5.0 ▲
Georgia 12.7

13.4


14.8 ▲ 14.4 14.7
14.3
14.7 16.5 ▲
17.9▲
19.1 ▲
19.2
2.0▲
4.9 ▲
Hawaii 10.1

10.9


10.6

9.8
9.3

8.0 ▼
9.1 ▲
10.4 ▲
10.7
12.0 ▲
11.6
-0.8
3.6 ▲
Idaho 13.8

13.8


14.5

13.9
12.6 ▼
12.1
12.6 14.3 ▲
15.7▲
16.5
15.9
-1.2
3.7 ▲
Illinois 11.6

11.3


11.9

12.0
12.3

11.9

12.2
13.3 ▲
13.8▲
15.0 ▲
14.7
0.7▲
2.8 ▲
Indiana 10.9

10.6


10.8

12.2 ▲
12.7
12.3
13.1 ▲
14.4 ▲
15.3▲
16.0 ▲
15.6
1.8▲
3.3 ▲
Iowa 11.2

10.1


9.9

10.9 ▲
11.0
11.0
11.5 11.8

12.6▲
12.8
12.7
-0.2
1.7 ▲
Kansas 12.1

10.8


10.5

11.7 ▲
12.4

11.2 ▼
11.3
13.4 ▲
13.6
13.8
14.0
0.3
2.8 ▲
CRS-16


Change in
Poverty Rates
over Selected
Periods and
Statistically
Significant

Estimated Poverty Rates and Statistically Significant Differences over Previous Year
Differencesa
2005
2012
vs.
vs.
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006b 2007b
2008b
2009b
2010b
2011b
2012b
2001
2007
Kentucky 15.6

17.4


17.4

16.8
17.0

17.3

17.3
18.6 ▲
19.0
19.1
19.4
1.3▲
2.1 ▲
Louisiana 18.8

20.3


19.4

19.8
19.0

18.6

17.3 ▼
17.3 18.7▲
20.4 ▲
19.9
0.2
1.3 ▲
Maine 11.1

10.5


12.3 ▲ 12.6 12.9
12.0
12.3 12.3

12.9
14.1 ▲
14.7
1.8▲
2.6 ▲
Maryland 8.1

8.2


8.8

8.2
7.8

8.3

8.1
9.1 ▲
9.9▲
10.1
10.3
-0.3
2.0 ▲
Massachusetts 8.9

9.4


9.2

10.3 ▲
9.9
9.9
10.0 10.3

11.4▲
11.6
11.9
1.0▲
1.9 ▲
Michigan 11.0

11.4


12.3

13.2 ▲
13.5

14.0 ▲
14.4 ▲
16.2 ▲
16.8▲
17.5 ▲
17.4
2.5▲
3.4 ▲
Minnesota 8.5

7.8


8.3

9.2 ▲
9.8 ▲
9.5
9.6 11.0 ▲
11.6▲
11.9
11.4▼
1.2▲
1.9 ▲
Mississippi 19.9

19.9


21.6 ▲ 21.3 21.1
20.6
21.2 21.9

22.4
22.6
24.2 ▲
1.2▲
3.5 ▲
Missouri 11.9

11.7


11.8

13.3 ▲
13.6

13.0 ▼
13.4
14.6 ▲
15.3▲
15.8
16.2
1.6▲
3.2 ▲
Montana 14.6

14.2


14.2

14.4
13.6

14.1

14.8
15.1

14.6
14.8
15.5
-1.0
1.4 ▲
Nebraska 11.0

10.8


11.0

10.9
11.5

11.2

10.8
12.3 ▲
12.9
13.1
13.0
0.5
1.8 ▲
Nevada 11.8

11.5


12.6

11.1
10.3

10.7

11.3
12.4 ▲
14.9▲
15.9
16.4
-1.5 ▼
5.8 ▲
New Hampshire
6.4

7.7 ▲
7.6
7.5 8.0
7.1 ▼
7.6
8.5 ▲
8.3
8.8
10.0 ▲
1.6▲
3.0 ▲
New Jersey
7.5

8.4 ▲
8.5
8.7 8.7
8.6
8.7 9.4 ▲
10.3▲
10.4
10.8
1.2▲
2.2 ▲
New Mexico
18.9

18.6
19.3

18.5
18.5

18.1

17.1
18.0 20.4▲
21.5
20.8
-0.4
2.7 ▲
New York
13.1

13.5
14.2 ▲ 13.8
14.2 ▲
13.7 ▼
13.6
14.2 ▲
14.9▲
16.0 ▲
15.9
1.1▲
2.2 ▲
North Carolina
14.2

14.0
15.2

15.1
14.7

14.3

14.6
16.3 ▲
17.5▲
17.9
18.0
0.4
3.7 ▲
North Dakota
12.5

11.7
12.1

11.2
11.4

12.1

12.0
11.7 13.0▲
12.2
11.2
-1.1
-0.9
Ohio 11.9

12.1


12.5

13.0
13.3

13.1

13.4
15.2 ▲
15.8▲
16.4 ▲
16.3
1.5▲
3.1 ▲
Oklahoma 15.0

16.1


15.3

16.5
17.0

15.9 ▼
15.9 16.2

16.9▲
17.2
17.2
2.0▲
1.3 ▲
Oregon 13.2

13.9


14.1

14.1
13.3 ▼
12.9

13.6 ▲
14.3 15.8▲
17.5 ▲
17.2
0.0
4.3 ▲
CRS-17


Change in
Poverty Rates
over Selected
Periods and
Statistically
Significant

Estimated Poverty Rates and Statistically Significant Differences over Previous Year
Differencesa
2005
2012
vs.
vs.
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006b 2007b
2008b
2009b
2010b
2011b
2012b
2001
2007
Pennsylvania 10.5

10.9


11.7 ▲ 11.9 12.1
11.6 ▼
12.1 ▲
12.5 ▲
13.4▲
13.8
13.7
1.5▲
2.1 ▲
Rhode Island
10.7

11.3
12.8 ▲ 12.3 11.1
12.0
11.7 11.5

14.0▲
14.7
13.7
0.4
1.8 ▲
South Carolina
14.2

14.1
15.7

15.6
15.7

15.0

15.7
17.1 ▲
18.2▲
18.9 ▲
18.3
1.4▲
3.2 ▲
South Dakota
11.4

11.1
11.0

13.6 ▲
13.6
13.1
12.5 14.2 ▲
14.4
13.9
13.4
2.2
0.3
Tennessee 14.5

13.8


14.5

15.5
16.2

15.9

15.5
17.1 ▲
17.7
18.3
17.9
1.7▲
2.0 ▲
Texas 15.6

16.3


16.6

17.6 ▲
16.9 ▼
16.3 ▼
15.8 ▼
17.2 ▲
17.9▲
18.5 ▲
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▲
13.5
12.8
0.1
3.2 ▲
Vermont 8.5

9.7


9.0

11.5 ▲
10.3
10.1
10.6 11.4

12.7▲
11.5 ▼
11.8
1.8▲
1.7 ▲
Virginia 9.9

9.0


9.5

10.0
9.6

9.9

10.2
10.5

11.1▲
11.5 ▲
11.7
-0.4
1.8 ▲
Washington 11.4

11.0


13.1 ▲ 11.9 ▼
11.8
11.4
11.3 12.3 ▲
13.4▲
13.9
13.5
0.4
2.1 ▲
West Virginia
17.2

18.5
17.9

18.0
17.3

16.9

17.0
17.7 18.1
18.6
17.8
0.1
0.9
Wisconsin 9.7

10.5


10.7

10.2
11.0 ▲
10.8
10.4 12.4 ▲
13.2▲
13.1
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 11.3
12.6
-1.6 ▼
4.0 ▲
Number of states

with statistical y
significant change

in poverty:


5
10
14
7
14
11
32
34
18 5
27
47

Increase in poverty


5 ▲
8▲
13▲
4▲
1▲
8▲
32 ▲
34▲
17 ▲
3
25▲
47 ▲
Decrease in
poverty


0 ▼
2▼
1 ▼
3▼
13▼
3▼
0 ▼
0 ▼
1 ▼
2
2 ▼
0 ▼
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates from U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) data, 2002 to 2012.
Notes: ▲ Statistical y significant increase in poverty rate at the 90% statistical confidence level.
CRS-18


▼ Statistical y significant decrease in poverty rate at the 90% statistical confidence level.
a. Depicted changes in poverty rates over selected periods may differ slightly from differences calculated directly from the table, due to rounding.
b. 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-19

Poverty in the United States: 2012

Poverty Rates by Metropolitan Area
The four tables that follow provide poverty estimates for large metropolitan areas having a
population of 500,000 and over, and for smaller metropolitan areas having a population of 50,000
or more but less than 500,000. Among large metropolitan areas, 10 areas with some of the lowest
poverty rates are shown in Table 2, and the 10 areas with some of the highest poverty rates are
shown in Table 3. Among smaller metropolitan areas, 10 areas with some of the lowest poverty
rates are shown in Table 4, and 10 among those with the highest poverty rates in Table 5. It
should be noted that metropolitan areas shown in these tables may not be statistically different
from one another, or from others not shown in the tables.
Poverty estimates for all metropolitan areas are shown in Appendix B. Table B-1 includes
poverty rate estimates for 2012, and whether 2012 estimates statistically differ from 2011. The
table shows that from 2011 to 2012, 26 metropolitan areas experienced statistically significant
increases in their poverty rates, whereas 25 areas experienced statistically significant decreases.
Table 2. Large Metropolitan Areas Among Those with the
Lowest Poverty Rates: 2012
(Metropolitan Areas with Population of 500,000 and Over)
Poverty Rate


Number Poor
(Percent Poor)
Total
Margin of
Margin of
Metropolitan Area
Population
Estimate
Errora Estimate Errora
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-
5,702,639
477,661
+/-17,577
8.4%
+/-0.3%
MD-WV
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT
915,813
81,629
+/-7,143
8.9%
+/-0.8%
Ogden-Clearfield, UT
556,266
56,638
+/-7,028
10.2%
+/-1.3%
Honolulu, HI
945,975
97,754
+/-8,616
10.3%
+/-0.9%
Al entown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ
804,602
84,127
+/-6,553
10.5%
+/-0.8%
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH
4,486,468
479,126
+/-15,238
10.7%
+/-0.3%
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI
3,299,784
352,560
+/-14,086
10.7%
+/-0.4%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA
1,868,187
202,357
+/-12,662
10.8%
+/-0.7%
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT
1,169,356
127,371
+/-7,291
10.9%
+/-0.6%
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY
843,802
93,228
+/-6,350
11.0%
+/-0.8%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau
2012 American Community Survey (ACS) data, table series S1701: Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months, from
the Census Bureau’s American FactFinder, available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/
index.xhtml.
Notes: Areas are included based on their estimated 2012 poverty rates. Areas shown may not be statistical y
different from one another, or from others not shown in the table.
a. Margin of error of an estimate based on a 90% statistical confidence level. When added to and subtracted
from an estimate, the range reflects a 90% statistical confidence interval bounding the estimate.

Congressional Research Service
20

Poverty in the United States: 2012

Table 3. Large Metropolitan Areas Among Those with the
Highest Poverty Rates: 2012
(Metropolitan Areas with Population of 500,000 and Over)
Poverty Rate


Number Poor
(Percent Poor)
Total
Margin of
Margin of
Metropolitan Area
Population Estimate Errora Estimate Errora
McAl en-Edinburg-Mission, TX
796,479
274,713
+/-17,146
34.5%
+/-2.2%
Fresno, CA
930,872
264,738
+/-13,321
28.4%
+/-1.4%
El Paso, TX
812,645
195,247
+/-10,809
24.0%
+/-1.3%
Bakersfield-Delano, CA
825,020
196,625
+/-13,837
23.8%
+/-1.7%
Jackson, MS
531,354
117,984
+/-8,520
22.2%
+/-1.6%
Modesto, CA
515,955
104,559
+/-10,039
20.3%
+/-1.9%
Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC
553,981
112,218
+/-8,963
20.3%
+/-1.6%
Tucson, AZ
968,447
193,466
+/-11,146
20.0%
+/-1.1%
Toledo, OH
630,598
125,508
+/-7,513
19.9%
+/-1.2%
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
1,307,830
259,780
+/-10,892
19.9%
+/-0.8%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau
2012 American Community Survey (ACS) data, table series S1701: Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months, from
the Census Bureau’s American FactFinder, available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/
index.xhtml.
Notes: Areas are included based on their estimated 2012 poverty rates. Areas shown may not be statistical y
different from one another, or from others not shown in the table.
a. Margin of error of an estimate based on a 90% statistical confidence level. When added to and subtracted
from an estimate, the range reflects a 90% statistical confidence interval bounding the estimate.
Table 4. Smaller Metropolitan Areas Among Those with the
Lowest Poverty Rates: 2012
(Metropolitan Areas with Populations Between 50,000 and 499,999)
Poverty Rate


Number Poor
(Percent Poor)
Total
Margin of
Margin of
Metropolitan Area
Population
Estimate
Errora
Estimate
Errora
Midland, TX
145,188
9,086
+/-2,649
6.3%
+/-1.8%
Bismarck, ND
110,290
7,266
+/-1,572
6.6%
+/-1.4%
Fairbanks, AK
96,529
6,646
+/-1,813
6.9%
+/-1.9%
Appleton, WI
225,045
18,885
+/-2,630
8.4%
+/-1.2%
Anchorage, AK
384,749
33,353
+/-4,104
8.7%
+/-1.1%
Fond du Lac, WI
98,703
8,608
+/-1,938
8.7%
+/-2.0%
Napa, CA
135,439
11,996
+/-2,747
8.9%
+/-2.0%
Congressional Research Service
21

Poverty in the United States: 2012

Ocean City, NJ
93,825
8,392
+/-2,201
8.9%
+/-2.3%
Norwich-New London, CT
262,896
24,105
+/-3,537
9.2%
+/-1.3%
Cedar Rapids, IA
254,225
24,150
+/-3,246
9.5%
+/-1.3%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau
2012 American Community Survey (ACS) data, table series S1701: Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months, from
the Census Bureau’s American FactFinder, available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/
index.xhtml.
Notes: Areas are included based on their estimated 2012 poverty rates. Areas shown may not be statistical y
different from one another, or from others not shown in the table.
a. Margin of error of an estimate based on a 90% statistical confidence level. When added to and subtracted
from an estimate, the range reflects a 90% statistical confidence interval bounding the estimate.
Table 5. Smaller Metropolitan Areas Among Those with the
Highest Poverty Rates: 2012
(Metropolitan Areas with Population of 500,000 and Over)
Poverty Rate


Number Poor
(Percent Poor)
Total
Margin of
Margin of
Metropolitan Area
Population Estimate Errora Estimate Errora
Brownsville-Harlingen, TX
411,003
148,267
+/-9,666
36.1%
+/-2.3%
Laredo, TX
254,758
81,651
+/-7,394
32.1%
+/-2.9%
Visalia-Porterville, CA
444,186
135,194
+/-9,353
30.4%
+/-2.1%
Gainesville, FL
254,375
70,552
+/-5,754
27.7%
+/-2.2%
Las Cruces, NM
209,622
56,903
+/-6,722
27.1%
+/-3.2%
Albany, GA
148,869
40,011
+/-4,170
26.9%
+/-2.8%
Col ege Station-Bryan, TX
219,226
57,006
+/-5,130
26.0%
+/-2.3%
Flagstaff, AZ
127,795
33,191
+/-4,344
26.0%
+/-3.4%
Monroe, LA
168,014
43,435
+/-5,407
25.9%
+/-3.2%
Hattiesburg, MS
143,389
36,577
+/-4,869
25.5%
+/-3.4%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau
2012 American Community Survey (ACS) data, table series S1701: Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months, from
the Census Bureau’s American FactFinder, available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/
index.xhtml.
Notes: Areas are included based on their estimated 2012 poverty rates. Areas shown may not be statistical y
different from one another, or from others not shown in the table.
a. Margin of error of an estimate based on a 90% statistical confidence level. When added to and subtracted
from an estimate, the range reflects a 90% statistical confidence interval bounding the estimate.
Congressional District Poverty Estimates
Poverty estimates for congressional districts are shown in Appendix C. Table C-1 includes
poverty rate estimates for 2012. Congressional districts in 2012 are not directly comparable to
earlier years, due to re-districting.
Congressional Research Service
22

Poverty in the United States: 2012

“Neighborhood” Poverty—Poverty Areas and Areas of
Concentrated and Extreme Poverty

The estimates presented here are based on five years of American Community Survey (ACS)
data (2006-2010 ACS), and will be updated once the Census Bureau releases 5-year ACS
estimates for 2008-2012, in December 2013.
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 poor persons living in census tracts with poverty rates below the national average
(13.8% based on the five-year ACS data), and from 13.8% to less than 20.0%. Poor 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 poor 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.
Congressional Research Service
23

Poverty in the United States: 2012

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.
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 6, 2013, the Census Bureau released its third annual 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

16 Kathleen Short, The Research SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY MEASURE: 2011, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-244,
Washington, DC, November 2012, http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-244.pdf .
Congressional Research Service
24

Poverty in the United States: 2012

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
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.

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
21 Census Bureau to Develop Supplemental Poverty Measure, March 2, 2010 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
25

Poverty in the United States: 2012

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 6.

Table 6. 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
A range around the 33rd percentile
food diet in 1963
(i.e., 30th to 36th percentile) of
expenditures 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
Congressional Research Service
26

Poverty in the United States: 2012


“Official” Poverty Measure
Supplemental Poverty Measure
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
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: 2011
, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-244, Washington, DC, November 2012,
http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-244.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 of a 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
Congressional Research Service
27

Poverty in the United States: 2012

bit more” for everything else. The SPM income/resource thresholds are initially set at a range in
the distribution (30th to 36th 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.
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, between the 30th and 36th 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.

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 a range around 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
28

Poverty in the United States: 2012

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 2012, the official poverty threshold for a family with two adults and two children was
$23,283. In comparison, for a similar family, the SPM poverty threshold for homeowners with a
mortgage was $25,784, $2,501 (10.7%) above the official poverty threshold, and for homeowners
without a mortgage, $21,400, or $1,883 (8.1%) below the official threshold. The SPM poverty
threshold for renters was $25,105 or $1,883 (7.8%), 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: 2012
$30,000
$25,784
$25,105
$25,000
$23,283
$21,400
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
Official
Homeowners with a mortgage
Homeowners without a
Renters
mortgage
Research Supplemental Poverty Measure

Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on Kathleen Short, The Research
SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY MEASURE: 2012, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-247, Washington, DC, November 2013
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-247.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
Congressional Research Service
29

Poverty in the United States: 2012

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).
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; and 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 2012, the overall poverty rate was somewhat higher under the SPM (16.0%), compared to
15.1% under an “official” poverty measure “adjusted” to include unrelated children typically
excluded from the “official” measure.24 In 2012, an estimated 49.7 million people were poor
under the SPM; 2.7 million people more than the 47.0 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 2012. The poverty rate for adults ages 18 to 64 is somewhat
higher under the SPM than under the “official” measure (15.5% 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 (18.0% compared to 22.3%). In contrast, the poverty rate among persons age
65 and over is much higher under the SPM than under the “official” measure (14.8% compared to

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
15.0% in 2012; under the adjusted measure shown in this report, the overall “official” poverty rate in 2012 was 15.1%.
Congressional Research Service
30

Poverty in the United States: 2012

9.1%). 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.
Figure 9. Poverty Rates Under the “Official”* and Research Supplemental Poverty
Measures, by Age: 2012
(Percent poor)
Percent
25%
22.3%
Official*
SPM
20%
18.0%
16.0%
15.5%
15.1%
14.8%
15%
13.7%
10%
9.1%
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: 2012
, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-247, Washington, DC, November 2013
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-247.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
Congressional Research Service
31

Poverty in the United States: 2012

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 15.1% poverty rate as opposed to the published rate of 15.0% in 2012.
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 2012, an estimated 27.9 million persons, 9.0% of the 311.1 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 2012.
Figure 10 shows poverty rates in 2012 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 (10.0% versus 7.5% for persons in
married-couple units, and 23.1% versus 17.9% for persons in male-householder units). Poverty
rates for persons living in female-householder units did not statistically differ from one another,
with about 3 out of 10 persons in such units considered poor under either measure. In contrast,
poverty among persons who were members of “new SPM units” fell by over one-third, from
30.9% under the “official” measure to 18.4% 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
32

Poverty in the United States: 2012

Figure 10. Poverty Rates Under the “Official”* and Research Supplemental Poverty
Measures, by Type of Economic Unit: 2012
(Percent Poor)
Percent
35%
Official*
SPM
30.9%
30%
29.1% 28.9%
25%
23.1%
20%
18.4%
17.9%
16.0%
15.1%
15%
10.0%
10%
7.5%
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: 2012
, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-247, Washington, DC, November 2013
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-247.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 2012 under the SPM with the “official” measure by Census
region. The figure shows that poverty rates in the West are considerably higher (25% higher)
under the SPM (19.0%) than under the “official” measure (15.2%). Poverty rates are about 13%
higher in the Northeast under the SPM (15.5%) compared to the “official” measure (13.1%).
Poverty rates in the Midwest are lower under the SPM than under the “official” measure, and in
the South, essentially equal. 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
33

Poverty in the United States: 2012

Figure 11. Poverty Rates Under the “Official”* and Research Supplemental Poverty
Measures, by Region: 2012
(Percent Poor)
Percent
20%
19.0%
18%
Official*
SPM
16.6% 16.3%
16.0%
16%
15.5%
15.1%
15.2%
13.7%
14%
13.5%
12.4%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
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: 2012
, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-247, Washington, DC, November 2013
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-247.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 2012.26 The figure shows that under the
SPM, the poverty rate for persons living in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) (16.4%) is
somewhat higher than under the “official” measure (14.6%), whereas for persons living outside
MSAs, the poverty rate is lower under the SPM (13.9%) than under the “official” measure
(17.9%). Again, this most likely reflects differences in the cost of housing between MSAs and
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.

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
34

Poverty in the United States: 2012

Figure 12. Poverty Rates Under the “Official”* and Research Supplemental Poverty
Measures, by Residence: 2012
(Percent Poor)
Percent
25%
Official*
SPM
21.1%
19.8%
20%
17.9%
16.4%
16.0%
15.1%
14.6%
15%
13.9%
13.4%
11.3%
10%
5%
0%
Total
Inside MSAs
In MSAs,
In MSAs,
Outside MSAs
Inside principal cities
Outside principal cities
Residence

Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on Kathleen Short, The Research
SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY MEASURE: 2012
, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-247, Washington, DC, November 2013
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-247.pdf.
* Differs from published “official” poverty rates as unrelated individuals under age 15 are included in the
universe.
Poverty by State
Figure 13 depicts states according to whether the state’s SPM poverty rate statistically differs
from its “official” poverty rate.27 Estimates are based on three-year (2010 to 2012) averages of
CPS/ASEC data. Three years of data are combined in order to improve the statistical reliability of
CPS/ASEC estimates at the state level. The figure shows that 13 states (California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Nevada, and Virginia) and the District of Columbia had higher poverty rates under the
SPM than under the “official” measure. Among the 13 states with higher SPM poverty rates than
their respective “official” poverty rate, only Colorado, Illinois, and Nevada were inland, and with
the exception of Florida and Virginia, none were in the South. The figure shows that the SPM
poverty rate was not statistically different than the “official” poverty rate in nine states (Alaska,
Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, and Washington).
Among the 28 remaining states in which their SPM poverty rates were lower than their respective

27 Significant differences based on a 90% statistical confidence level.
Congressional Research Service
35


Poverty in the United States: 2012

“official” poverty rates, nearly all (with Maine being the exception) were either in the South, or
inland.
Figure 13. Difference in Poverty Rates by State Using the “Official”* Measure and
the SPM: Three-Year Average 2010-2012

Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on Kathleen Short, The Research
SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY MEASURE: 2012, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-247, Washington, DC, November 2013
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-247.pdf.
Notes: Within state difference between official and SPM poverty rates determined at a 90% statistical
confidence level.
* Differs from published “official” poverty rates as unrelated individuals under age 15 are included in the
universe.
Figure 14 and Figure 15 depict poverty rates by state under the official poverty measure and the
SPM based on three years of CPS/ASEC data. Estimates are based on three-year (2010 to 2012)
averages to improve the statistical reliability of estimates attainable from CPS/ASEC data at the
state level. The two figures differ only in terms of the order in which states are sorted. In Figure
14
, states are sorted from lowest to highest based on their respective “official” poverty rate point
estimates, whereas in Figure 15 states are sorted from lowest to highest based on their respective
SPM poverty rate point estimates. In neither figure are precise rankings of states possible because
of the depicted margin of error around each state’s estimate. Within a state, a statistically
significant difference28 between a state’s official poverty rate and its SPM poverty rate is signified

28 Significant difference at a 90% statistical confidence level.
Congressional Research Service
36

Poverty in the United States: 2012

by solid-filled markers, indicating the point estimate under each measure, and a line connecting
them, indicating the estimated difference (which is also shown in parentheses after each state
name). The figures show the magnitude of the difference among the 13 states and the District of
Columbia that had statistically significant higher poverty rates under the SPM than under the
“official” measure, as well as for the 28 states in which the state’s SPM rate was lower than its
“official” poverty rate and the 9 states in which the incidence of poverty under the two measures
did not differ statistically.
Differences in state poverty rates based on the SPM compared to the “official” measure may be
due to a variety of factors. Geographic adjustments to SPM poverty income thresholds to account
for differences in housing costs tend to result in higher poverty rates in areas with higher-priced
housing than in areas with lower-priced housing. The mix of housing tenure (e.g., owner
occupied, with or without a mortgage, renter occupied) may account for some of the difference
between “official” and SPM poverty rates, within and between areas. Similarly, taxes may differ
among areas. Also, populations may differ across areas in terms of household composition (e.g.,
share of households with cohabiting partners). The composition of the population based on age,
or health insurance status, may also affect the incidence of SPM poverty relative to “official”
poverty within and between geographic areas, by affecting medical out of pocket spending
(MOOP), which is considered by SPM in estimating poverty.
Among the states with a statistically significant increase in poverty under the SPM, California’s
poverty rate increased by more than any other state’s, increasing from 16.5% under the “official”
measure to 23.8% under the SPM, or 7.3 percentage points. Under the “official” measure,
California’s poverty rate was substantially above the U.S. rate (15.1%), but under the SPM,
California’s poverty rate is estimated as the highest in the nation.
Other states with comparatively large increases in their poverty rates (in the four percentage point
range) under the SPM compared to the “official” measure include Hawaii (an increase from
12.0% to 17.3%), Florida (a 15.5% to 19.5% increase), and New Jersey (a 10.7% to 15.5%
increase).
Three states had decreases in their SPM poverty rate compared to their “official” rate in the four
percentage point range. Mississippi and New Mexico, among the states with the highest “official”
poverty (20.7% and 20.3%, respectively), both have an estimated SPM poverty rate of 16.1%—
just about equal to the U.S. SPM rate (16.0%). West Virginia’s “official” poverty rate (17.2%) is
well above the “official” U.S. rate (15.1%), but its SPM rate (12.9%) falls well below the U.S.
SPM rate (16.0%).
Congressional Research Service
37


Poverty in the United States: 2012


Figure 14. Poverty Rates by State Using the “Official”* Measure and the SPM:
Three-Year Average 2010-2012
(States Ranked in Ascending Order by Official Poverty Rate; Percentage Point Difference in Parentheses)

Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on Kathleen Short, The Research
SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY MEASURE: 2012
, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-247, Washington, DC, November 2013
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-247.pdf.
* Differs from published “official” poverty rates as unrelated individuals under age 15 are included in the universe.
** Within state difference between official and SPM poverty rates determined at a 90% statistical confidence level.


Congressional Research Service
38


Poverty in the United States: 2012

Figure 15. Poverty Rates by State Using the “Official”* Measure and the SPM: Three-
Year Average 2010-2012
(States Ranked in Ascending Order by SPM Poverty Rate; Percentage Point Difference in Parentheses)

Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on Kathleen Short, The Research
SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY MEASURE: 2012
, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-247, Washington, DC, November 2013
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-247.pdf
* Differs from published “official” poverty rates as unrelated individuals under age 15 are included in the universe.
** Within state difference between official and SPM poverty rates determined at a 90% statistical confidence level.

Congressional Research Service
39

Poverty in the United States: 2012

Marginal Effects of Counting Specified Resources and Expenses on Poverty
Under the SPM

Figure 16 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
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 3.0 percentage points. The EITC is followed by SNAP benefits (1.6 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 (1.6 percentage point increase) than federal income taxes, as do work expenses
(1.9 percentage points). Among all of the expense elements presented, medical out of pocket
expenses (MOOP) contribute to the largest increase in poverty (3.4 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. The
EITC has a greater effect of reducing poverty among children (6.7 percentage point reduction)
than any of the other added SPM resources.
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 6.4 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
40

Poverty in the United States: 2012

Figure 16. Percentage Point Change in Poverty Rates Attributable to Selected
Income and Expenditure Elements Under the Research Supplemental Poverty
Measure, by Age Group: 2012
Percentage point change
in poverty rate
8
7
4
6.

All Persons
Under 18
18 to 64
65 and older
6
5
4
4
3.

1
3.

9
6
2.
3
2.
9
0
Resources
6
6
1.
2.
2
1.
1.
2
1.

6
1
4
3
4
EITC
SNAP
Housing
School
WIC
LIHEAP
1
2
2
0.
0.
2
2
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
subsidies
lunch
.1
.1
0.
0
-0
-0
0
0
.1
.1
0.
.1
.1
.2
.2
0.
Child
Federal
FICA
Work
MOOP
.4
-0
.3
-0
-0
-0
-0
-1
.6
-0
-0
support
income tax
expenses
.8
.9
-0
-0
.9
.2
-0
-0
.2
paid
before
.4
-0
-2
.6
-1
-1
credits
-1
-1
.2
-2

-3
Expenses
.0
.0
-3
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
.7
-6


Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on Kathleen Short, The Research
SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY MEASURE: 2012
, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-247, Washington, DC, November 2013
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-247.pdf.
Distribution of the Population by Ratio of Income/Resources
Relative to Poverty

Figure 17 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 (4.7% compared to 10.3%). As shown
earlier, the SPM child poverty rate (18.0%) is lower than the “official” rate (22.3%). 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 (33.7% and 21.9%).
Altogether, well over half of the children live in “families” having income/resources below twice
the poverty line under the SPM (55.7%) compared to over two-fifths (44.2%) under the “official”
measure. Thus, while the SPM appears to result in fewer children being counted as poor than
Congressional Research Service
41

Poverty in the United States: 2012

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 (14.8% compared to 9.1%), and a greater share are in “deep poverty”
under the SPM (4.7%) than under the “official” measure (2.7%). In contrast to the “official”
measure, under which about one-third (32.3%) of the aged have income below 200% of poverty,
almost half (47.1%) have income/resources below that level under the SPM.
Figure 17. Distribution of the Population by Income/Resources to Poverty Ratios
Under the “Official”* and Research Supplemental Poverty Measures, by Age Group:
2012
(Percent distribution)
Percent distribution
100
4.0 or more
11.7
2.0 to 3.99
18.2
90
20.3
19.7
1.0 to 1.99
26.9
32.6
0.5 to 0.99
35.7
80
39.7
Less than 0.5
32.7
70
34.6
33.1
35.7
60
29.0
50
30.0
33.7
29.5
40
37.7
21.9
31.2
30
7
28.5
32.3
55.
19.2
2
.1
.2
47.
17.1
.0
24.6
47
20
44
44
.3
7
34
12.0
7
33.
30.
.3
8.4
10.8
13.3
10
0
22
0
7.4
10.1
6
10.1
.1
8
18.
.6
15
16.
10.3
15.
1
6.4
13
14.
6.7
5.2
4.7
6.2
5.4
9.
2.7
4.7
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: 2012
, U.S. Census Bureau, P60-247, Washington, DC, November 2013
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-247.pdf.
* Differs from published “official” poverty rates as unrelated individuals under age 15 are included in the
universe.
Congressional Research Service
42

Poverty in the United States: 2012

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 16). 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 child 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 16). 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
43

Poverty in the United States: 2012

Appendix A. U.S. Poverty Statistics: 1959-2012
Table A-1. Poverty Rates (Percent Poor) for Selected Groups, 1959-2012
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
2012
15.0 21.3
47.2
12.5 13.7 9.1 12.7b
9.7b 27.2b
25.6 11.7b
2011
15.0 21.4
47.6
12.1 13.7 8.7 12.8b
9.8b 27.6b
25.3 12.3b
2010r
15.1 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
Congressional Research Service
44

Poverty in the United States: 2012

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
1982
15.0 21.3
56.0
13.0 12.0 14.6 12.0
10.6 35.6
29.9
n/a
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
45


Appendix B. Metropolitan Area Poverty Estimates
Table B-1. Metropolitan Area Poverty: 2012


Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Difference
2011 vs.
2010
Total
Poverty
Margin of
Poverty
Metropolitan Area
Population
Estimate
Margin of Errora
Rate
Errora
Rateb Rankc
Abilene, TX
156,020
31,991
+/-4,101
20.5%
+/-2.6%
3.6% ▲
61
Akron, OH
687,031
107,952
+/-7,892
15.7%
+/-1.1%
-0.9%

205
Albany, GA
148,869
40,011
+/-4,170
26.9%
+/-2.8%
-1.5%

8
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY
843,802
93,228
+/-6,350
11.0%
+/-0.8%
-0.4%

335
Albuquerque, NM
887,938
164,484
+/-9,170
18.5%
+/-1.0%
-1.9% ▼
107
Alexandria, LA
146,869
32,184
+/-4,402
21.9%
+/-3.0%
-1.3%

42
Al entown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ
804,602
84,127
+/-6,553
10.5%
+/-0.8%
-1.4% ▼
346
Altoona, PA
124,522
15,955
+/-2,286
12.8%
+/-1.8%
-1.5%

297
Amarillo, TX
245,710 43,548
+/-5,530 17.7% +/-2.2% 2.2%
133
Ames, IA
82,352
17,880
+/-2,472
21.7%
+/-3.0%
-2.3%

44
Anchorage, AK
384,749
33,353
+/-4,104
8.7%
+/-1.1%
-0.1%

361
Anderson, IN
123,288
18,763
+/-2,891
15.2%
+/-2.3%
-4.3% ▼
224
Anderson, SC
186,924
33,612
+/-4,647
18.0%
+/-2.5%
3.2%

124
Ann Arbor, MI
334,662
55,178
+/-5,538
16.5%
+/-1.6%
-0.5%

171
Anniston-Oxford, AL
114,001
25,270
+/-3,403
22.2%
+/-3.0%
1.0%

38
Appleton, WI
225,045
18,885
+/-2,630
8.4%
+/-1.2%
1.0%

362
Asheville, NC
422,827 66,980
+/-5,197 15.8% +/-1.2% -1.1%
201
Athens-Clarke County, GA
183,413
44,991
+/-3,612
24.5%
+/-1.9%
-5.4% ▼
16
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA
5,352,236
887,901
+/-29,846
16.6%
+/-0.6%
-0.2%

166
CRS-46




Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Difference
2011 vs.
2010
Total
Poverty
Margin of
Poverty
Metropolitan Area
Population
Estimate
Margin of Errora
Rate
Errora
Rateb
Rankc
Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ
269,061
39,381
+/-5,807
14.6%
+/-2.2%
1.2%

246
Auburn-Opelika, AL
141,938
34,970
+/-3,720
24.6%
+/-2.6%
1.7%

15
Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC
553,981
112,218
+/-8,963
20.3%
+/-1.6%
1.3%

66
Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX
1,795,080
278,461
+/-16,086
15.5%
+/-0.9%
0.3%

211
Bakersfield-Delano, CA
825,020
196,625
+/-13,837
23.8%
+/-1.7%
-0.7%

23
Baltimore-Towson, MD
2,685,159
303,704
+/-14,893
11.3%
+/-0.6%
-0.3%

329
Bangor, ME
146,973
26,664
+/-3,346
18.1%
+/-2.3%
0.6%

118
Barnstable Town, MA
212,878
21,947
+/-3,653
10.3%
+/-1.7%
1.1%

350
Baton Rouge, LA
791,990
148,176
+/-10,354
18.7%
+/-1.3%
1.1%

103
Battle Creek, MI
131,723
23,569
+/-3,069
17.9%
+/-2.3%
-1.7%

129
Bay City, MI
105,729
13,622
+/-2,199
12.9%
+/-2.1%
0.4%

293
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
371,641
71,066
+/-6,392
19.1%
+/-1.7%
1.6%

95
Bellingham, WA
199,626 33,039
+/-4,080 16.6% +/-2.0% 0.9%
169
Bend, OR
161,035
27,003
+/-5,184
16.8%
+/-3.2%
3.5%

163
Billings, MT
157,398
19,325
+/-2,698
12.3%
+/-1.7%
-0.5%

307
Binghamton, NY
238,176
36,879
+/-3,933
15.5%
+/-1.6%
-0.6%

213
Birmingham-Hoover, AL
1,114,744
186,891
+/-11,466
16.8%
+/-1.0%
0.2%

164
Bismarck, ND
110,290
7,266
+/-1,572
6.6%
+/-1.4%
-2.2%

365
Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA
152,492
36,188
+/-3,820
23.7%
+/-2.4%
2.4%

24
Bloomington, IN
180,522
41,518
+/-4,489
23.0%
+/-2.5%
1.2%

30
Bloomington-Normal, IL
163,412
25,664
+/-2,990
15.7%
+/-1.8%
-0.2%

206
Boise City-Nampa, ID
624,906
96,368
+/-10,276
15.4%
+/-1.6%
-0.8%

217
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH
4,486,468
479,126
+/-15,238
10.7%
+/-0.3%
0.0%

343
CRS-47




Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Difference
2011 vs.
2010
Total
Poverty
Margin of
Poverty
Metropolitan Area
Population
Estimate
Margin of Errora
Rate
Errora
Rateb
Rankc
Boulder, CO
295,728
42,978
+/-4,392
14.5%
+/-1.5%
0.5%

252
Bowling Green, KY
121,147
23,918
+/-3,162
19.7%
+/-2.6%
1.3%

86
Bremerton-Silverdale, WA
246,659
27,164
+/-4,015
11.0%
+/-1.6%
0.3%

336
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT
915,813
81,629
+/-7,143
8.9%
+/-0.8%
-0.5%

358
Brownsville-Harlingen, TX
411,003 148,267
+/-9,666 36.1% +/-2.3% 2.0%

1
Brunswick, GA
108,902
20,221
+/-3,440
18.6%
+/-3.1%
0.1%

105
Buffalo-Niagara Fal s, NY
1,104,704
157,407
+/-8,287
14.2%
+/-0.7%
-0.5%

263
Burlington, NC
150,197
30,525
+/-3,985
20.3%
+/-2.7%
1.8%

64
Burlington-South Burlington, VT
202,994
22,433
+/-2,554
11.1%
+/-1.3%
0.0%

334
Canton-Massillon, OH
393,938 57,474
+/-4,951 14.6% +/-1.3% -1.9%
250
Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL
636,067
97,210
+/-7,188
15.3%
+/-1.1%
-0.1%

221
Cape Girardeau-Jackson, MO-IL
92,459
16,386
+/-2,696
17.7%
+/-2.9%
-0.7%

134
Carson City, NV
52,680
8,987
+/-2,353
17.1%
+/-4.5%
3.6%

153
Casper, WY
76,446
9,816
+/-1,839
12.8%
+/-2.4%
1.7%

295
Cedar Rapids, IA
254,225
24,150
+/-3,246
9.5%
+/-1.3%
-0.9%

355
Champaign-Urbana, IL
217,140
42,982
+/-4,172
19.8%
+/-1.9%
-3.0% ▼
84
Charleston, WV
300,542
45,089
+/-4,874
15.0%
+/-1.6%
-3.2% ▼
236
Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC
679,648 103,056
+/-7,728 15.2% +/-1.1% -1.8%
225
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC
1,801,914
272,027
+/-12,223
15.1%
+/-0.7%
-0.6%

231
Charlottesville, VA
193,616 26,922
+/-4,417 13.9% +/-2.3% 0.9%
269
Chattanooga, TN-GA
524,863
83,083
+/-7,256
15.8%
+/-1.4%
-1.8%

202
Cheyenne, WY
91,949
9,822
+/-2,954
10.7%
+/-3.2%
1.6%

342
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
9,372,358
1,362,635
+/-30,184
14.5%
+/-0.3%
-0.2%

251
CRS-48




Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Difference
2011 vs.
2010
Total
Poverty
Margin of
Poverty
Metropolitan Area
Population
Estimate
Margin of Errora
Rate
Errora
Rateb
Rankc
Chico, CA
216,391
47,693
+/-5,041
22.0%
+/-2.3%
-1.0%

40
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN
2,100,460
313,902
+/-13,545
14.9%
+/-0.6%
0.7%

238
Clarksville, TN-KY
277,225 53,501
+/-6,208 19.3% +/-2.2% 0.9%
94
Cleveland, TN
115,747
22,933
+/-4,094
19.8%
+/-3.5%
-1.2%

83
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH
2,021,864
314,832
+/-11,325
15.6%
+/-0.6%
-0.4%

208
Coeur d'Alene, ID
140,564
16,630
+/-3,373
11.8%
+/-2.4%
-4.8% ▼
320
Col ege Station-Bryan, TX
219,226
57,006
+/-5,130
26.0%
+/-2.3%
-3.9% ▼
9
Colorado Springs, CO
649,651
83,308
+/-8,024
12.8%
+/-1.2%
-0.1%

296
Columbia, MO
167,502
32,391
+/-3,877
19.3%
+/-2.3%
-1.5%

93
Columbia, SC
751,020
122,507
+/-9,448
16.3%
+/-1.3%
-1.3%

184
Columbus, GA-AL
291,315
54,555
+/-5,654
18.7%
+/-1.9%
1.6%

102
Columbus, IN
77,948
10,107
+/-3,297
13.0%
+/-4.2%
-0.5%

291
Columbus, OH
1,828,401
275,385
+/-14,679
15.1%
+/-0.8%
-0.3%

233
Corpus Christi, TX
428,154
69,385
+/-6,938
16.2%
+/-1.6%
-3.8% ▼
188
Corvallis, OR
81,776
18,961
+/-3,400
23.2%
+/-4.1%
-2.2%

27
Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL
184,163
25,349
+/-4,122
13.8%
+/-2.2%
-1.1%

276
Cumberland, MD-WV
93,858
15,330
+/-2,516
16.3%
+/-2.7%
-2.9%

181
Dal as-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
6,561,480
984,719
+/-23,684
15.0%
+/-0.4%
-0.8% ▼
235
Dalton, GA
141,605
30,654
+/-4,636
21.6%
+/-3.3%
1.7%

46
Danville, IL
77,863
14,165
+/-2,986
18.2%
+/-3.8%
-1.5%

116
Danville, VA
103,108 18,218
+/-2,893 17.7% +/-2.8% -1.4%
138
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL
372,959
43,774
+/-3,939
11.7%
+/-1.1%
-0.9%

321
Dayton, OH
815,446
137,732
+/-10,406
16.9%
+/-1.3%
-0.7%

158
CRS-49




Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Difference
2011 vs.
2010
Total
Poverty
Margin of
Poverty
Metropolitan Area
Population
Estimate
Margin of Errora
Rate
Errora
Rateb
Rankc
Decatur, AL
152,271
26,929
+/-4,140
17.7%
+/-2.7%
0.7%

137
Decatur, IL
106,872
24,953
+/-2,901
23.3%
+/-2.7%
9.5% ▲
26
Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL
486,465
96,125
+/-7,463
19.8%
+/-1.5%
2.6% ▲
85
Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO
2,608,939
332,043
+/-15,260
12.7%
+/-0.6%
-0.1%

299
Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA
577,570
70,870
+/-7,393
12.3%
+/-1.3%
1.1%

308
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI
4,248,945
740,712
+/-20,248
17.4%
+/-0.5%
-0.6%

144
Dothan, AL
145,259
28,928
+/-2,460
19.9%
+/-1.7%
1.2%

79
Dover, DE
162,155
19,330
+/-3,763
11.9%
+/-2.3%
-2.5%

312
Dubuque, IA
91,565
11,447
+/-2,024
12.5%
+/-2.2%
3.3% ▲
305
Duluth, MN-WI
268,927
41,082
+/-3,386
15.3%
+/-1.3%
-1.4%

222
Durham-Chapel Hill, NC
498,686 89,222
+/-7,518 17.9% +/-1.5% -0.5%
130
Eau Claire, WI
155,515
21,478
+/-2,737
13.8%
+/-1.8%
1.4%

272
El Centro, CA
164,473
37,332
+/-5,169
22.7%
+/-3.1%
-4.1%

31
El Paso, TX
812,645
195,247
+/-10,809
24.0%
+/-1.3%
-0.6%

21
Elizabethtown, KY
116,810
17,635
+/-3,210
15.1%
+/-2.7%
-0.5%

230
Elkhart-Goshen, IN
195,801
30,249
+/-4,738
15.4%
+/-2.4%
-5.1% ▼
215
Elmira, NY
83,915
12,243
+/-2,120
14.6%
+/-2.5%
-1.4%

249
Erie, PA
267,909
42,462
+/-3,860
15.8%
+/-1.4%
-0.6%

200
Eugene-Springfield, OR
347,917
78,203
+/-6,911
22.5%
+/-2.0%
1.1%

34
Evansville, IN-KY
347,895 48,616
+/-5,690 14.0% +/-1.6% -0.3%
268
Fairbanks, AK
96,529
6,646
+/-1,813
6.9%
+/-1.9%
-3.5%

364
Fargo, ND-MN
208,133
22,118
+/-2,954
10.6%
+/-1.4%
-3.5% ▼
344
Farmington, NM
126,992
26,324
+/-3,243
20.7%
+/-2.6%
3.6%

59
CRS-50




Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Difference
2011 vs.
2010
Total
Poverty
Margin of
Poverty
Metropolitan Area
Population
Estimate
Margin of Errora
Rate
Errora
Rateb
Rankc
Fayetteville, NC
362,499 61,869
+/-5,946 17.1% +/-1.6% -1.5%
152
Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO
470,725 82,980
+/-8,224 17.6% +/-1.7% 0.4%
139
Flagstaff, AZ
127,795
33,191
+/-4,344
26.0%
+/-3.4%
4.1%

10
Flint, MI
412,418
88,137
+/-6,951
21.4%
+/-1.7%
0.8%

49
Florence, SC
201,858
43,134
+/-4,783
21.4%
+/-2.4%
-0.1%

50
Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL
144,910
27,196
+/-3,724
18.8%
+/-2.6%
2.3%

101
Fond du Lac, WI
98,703
8,608
+/-1,938
8.7%
+/-2.0%
-0.9%

360
Fort Col ins-Loveland, CO
302,392
42,316
+/-4,411
14.0%
+/-1.5%
-0.2%

267
Fort Smith, AR-OK
292,035
66,011
+/-5,561
22.6%
+/-1.9%
2.1%

32
Fort Wayne, IN
414,634
62,557
+/-5,884
15.1%
+/-1.4%
-1.0%

232
Fresno, CA
930,872
264,738
+/-13,321
28.4%
+/-1.4%
2.7% ▲
5
Gadsden, AL
102,682
21,819
+/-3,915
21.2%
+/-3.8%
0.3%

52
Gainesville, FL
254,375 70,552
+/-5,754 27.7% +/-2.2% 3.6% ▲
6
Gainesville, GA
182,805 37,000
+/-5,945 20.2% +/-3.3% 2.8%
67
Glens Fal s, NY
124,271
14,242
+/-2,612
11.5%
+/-2.1%
-3.1%

328
Goldsboro, NC
121,372
30,174
+/-4,262
24.9%
+/-3.5%
1.5%

14
Grand Forks, ND-MN
93,134
16,629
+/-2,265
17.9%
+/-2.4%
3.0%

132
Grand Junction, CO
144,569
23,285
+/-4,260
16.1%
+/-2.9%
4.8% ▲
192
Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI
770,026
126,882
+/-9,164
16.5%
+/-1.2%
1.8% ▲
173
Great Fal s, MT
79,862
15,919
+/-2,657
19.9%
+/-3.3%
4.3%

76
Greeley, CO
255,850
37,734
+/-5,186
14.7%
+/-2.0%
0.0%

242
Green Bay, WI
303,843
34,897
+/-3,993
11.5%
+/-1.3%
1.2%

327
Greensboro-High Point, NC
718,572
130,400
+/-8,783
18.1%
+/-1.2%
0.5%

117
CRS-51




Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Difference
2011 vs.
2010
Total
Poverty
Margin of
Poverty
Metropolitan Area
Population
Estimate
Margin of Errora
Rate
Errora
Rateb
Rankc
Greenville, NC
185,538 45,060
+/-4,358 24.3% +/-2.3% -1.1%
19
Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC
630,562 111,529
+/-8,864 17.7% +/-1.4% 0.2%
136
Gulfport-Biloxi, MS
250,861
50,407
+/-6,494
20.1%
+/-2.6%
-1.7%

69
Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV
263,149
38,424
+/-6,225
14.6%
+/-2.4%
1.0%

247
Hanford-Corcoran, CA
131,214
27,819
+/-4,294
21.2%
+/-3.3%
0.7%

53
Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA
536,028
66,476
+/-6,615
12.4%
+/-1.2%
1.9% ▲
306
Harrisonburg, VA
119,527
26,436
+/-3,424
22.1%
+/-2.9%
6.4% ▲
39
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT
1,169,356
127,371
+/-7,291
10.9%
+/-0.6%
-0.5%

338
Hattiesburg, MS
143,389
36,577
+/-4,869
25.5%
+/-3.4%
1.2%

12
Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC
355,419
71,802
+/-6,072
20.2%
+/-1.7%
1.8%

68
Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA
81,660
13,250
+/-2,842
16.2%
+/-3.4%
-2.7%

187
Hol and-Grand Haven, MI
259,849
29,263
+/-4,634
11.3%
+/-1.8%
-0.8%

330
Honolulu, HI
945,975
97,754
+/-8,616
10.3%
+/-0.9%
0.2%

349
Hot Springs, AR
95,147
18,951
+/-3,488
19.9%
+/-3.7%
-1.9%

78
Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA
205,153
32,847
+/-4,949
16.0%
+/-2.4%
-2.9%

194
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX
6,123,358
1,005,192
+/-32,475
16.4%
+/-0.5%
-1.0% ▼
176
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH
277,846
50,941
+/-4,448
18.3%
+/-1.6%
-1.5%

112
Huntsville, AL
419,921 50,052
+/-6,323 11.9% +/-1.5% -2.1%
313
Idaho Fal s, ID
132,174
18,157
+/-3,400
13.7%
+/-2.6%
0.0%

277
Indianapolis-Carmel, IN
1,764,733
253,758
+/-13,144
14.4%
+/-0.7%
0.3%

256
Iowa City, IA
149,364
22,596
+/-2,802
15.1%
+/-1.9%
-3.6% ▼
226
Ithaca, NY
89,419
16,194
+/-2,444
18.1%
+/-2.7%
-2.9%

119
Jackson, MI
150,510
29,934
+/-3,371
19.9%
+/-2.2%
4.6% ▲
81
CRS-52




Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Difference
2011 vs.
2010
Total
Poverty
Margin of
Poverty
Metropolitan Area
Population
Estimate
Margin of Errora
Rate
Errora
Rateb
Rankc
Jackson, MS
531,354
117,984
+/-8,520
22.2%
+/-1.6%
3.7% ▲
36
Jackson, TN
110,454
19,155
+/-3,275
17.3%
+/-2.9%
-3.3%

146
Jacksonville, FL
1,349,273
211,746 +/-12,970
15.7%
+/-1.0%
0.5%

207
Jacksonville, NC
169,165 20,586
+/-4,627 12.2% +/-2.7% -3.1%
309
Janesville, WI
156,384 24,314
+/-3,399 15.5% +/-2.2% 0.5%
210
Jefferson City, MO
139,737
21,555
+/-4,364
15.4%
+/-3.1%
3.1%

216
Johnson City, TN
194,031
37,682
+/-4,368
19.4%
+/-2.2%
-0.3%

91
Johnstown, PA
133,355
19,334
+/-1,996
14.5%
+/-1.5%
0.5%

253
Jonesboro, AR
118,862
23,465
+/-2,594
19.7%
+/-2.2%
-2.8%

87
Joplin, MO
170,601
30,537
+/-3,179
17.9%
+/-1.9%
2.4%

128
Kalamazoo-Portage, MI
321,649
58,206
+/-5,144
18.1%
+/-1.6%
-2.7% ▼
120
Kankakee-Bradley, IL
108,498
19,501
+/-3,052
18.0%
+/-2.8%
1.3%

125
Kansas City, MO-KS
2,028,356
261,177
+/-12,866
12.9%
+/-0.6%
-0.6%

294
Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA
263,116
38,061
+/-5,468
14.5%
+/-2.1%
-2.2%

254
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
396,374
59,346
+/-7,124
15.0%
+/-1.8%
-0.6%

237
Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA
303,555
49,814
+/-4,486
16.4%
+/-1.5%
0.3%

177
Kingston, NY
174,348
23,289
+/-3,333
13.4%
+/-1.9%
-1.3%

284
Knoxville, TN
692,519 114,308
+/-8,259 16.5% +/-1.2% 2.3% ▲
170
Kokomo, IN
96,226
16,312
+/-2,692
17.0%
+/-2.8%
0.2%

155
La Crosse, WI-MN
130,138
18,643
+/-2,428
14.3%
+/-1.9%
-0.4%

259
Lafayette, IN
192,060
37,781
+/-4,160
19.7%
+/-2.2%
-1.4%

89
Lafayette, LA
274,176
48,959
+/-5,542
17.9%
+/-2.0%
-0.7%

131
Lake Charles, LA
196,595
32,376
+/-5,320
16.5%
+/-2.7%
-2.1%

175
CRS-53




Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Difference
2011 vs.
2010
Total
Poverty
Margin of
Poverty
Metropolitan Area
Population
Estimate
Margin of Errora
Rate
Errora
Rateb
Rankc
Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ
188,318
40,839
+/-5,092
21.7%
+/-2.7%
0.0%

45
Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL
600,528
107,634
+/-9,321
17.9%
+/-1.5%
-1.5%

127
Lancaster, PA
512,363
60,668
+/-6,325
11.8%
+/-1.2%
0.9%

317
Lansing-East Lansing, MI
444,349
88,802
+/-6,259
20.0%
+/-1.4%
1.4%

73
Laredo, TX
254,758
81,651
+/-7,394
32.1%
+/-2.9%
-0.8%

3
Las Cruces, NM
209,622
56,903
+/-6,722
27.1%
+/-3.2%
-3.6%

7
Las Vegas-Paradise, NV
1,975,043
323,075
+/-17,482
16.4%
+/-0.9%
-0.5%

179
Lawrence, KS
103,379
21,682
+/-3,136
21.0%
+/-3.0%
4.3% ▲
58
Lawton, OK
116,943
19,673
+/-3,289
16.8%
+/-2.8%
-0.2%

161
Lebanon, PA
132,340
17,214
+/-3,310
13.0%
+/-2.5%
1.9%

288
Lewiston, ID-WA
60,012
6,228
+/-1,172
10.4%
+/-1.9%
-2.6%

348
Lewiston-Auburn, ME
104,067
16,593
+/-3,308
15.9%
+/-3.2%
-0.5%

196
Lexington-Fayette, KY
465,971
73,317
+/-5,342
15.7%
+/-1.1%
-1.6%

204
Lima, OH
101,238
20,634
+/-2,501
20.4%
+/-2.5%
1.1%

63
Lincoln, NE
295,065
39,122
+/-4,057
13.3%
+/-1.4%
-1.6%

285
Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR
702,794
106,269
+/-9,483
15.1%
+/-1.3%
0.4%

227
Logan, UT-ID
124,385
20,341
+/-3,271
16.4%
+/-2.6%
-0.3%

180
Longview, TX
207,901
39,312
+/-5,783
18.9%
+/-2.8%
2.7%

99
Longview, WA
100,232
16,756
+/-2,587
16.7%
+/-2.6%
-3.8%

165
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
12,862,222
2,266,193
+/-42,491
17.6%
+/-0.3%
0.6% ▲
140
Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN
1,276,908
205,800 +/-11,405
16.1%
+/-0.9%
0.8%

191
Lubbock, TX
280,353
63,145
+/-6,022
22.5%
+/-2.1%
1.6%

33
Lynchburg, VA
245,012
41,295
+/-4,526
16.9%
+/-1.8%
0.8%

159
CRS-54




Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Difference
2011 vs.
2010
Total
Poverty
Margin of
Poverty
Metropolitan Area
Population
Estimate
Margin of Errora
Rate
Errora
Rateb
Rankc
Macon, GA
223,684
51,844
+/-5,327
23.2%
+/-2.4%
0.4%

28
Madera-Chowchilla, CA
144,053 33,936
+/-5,216 23.6% +/-3.6% -0.7%
25
Madison, WI
568,248
72,210
+/-6,056
12.7%
+/-1.1%
0.1%

300
Manchester-Nashua, NH
394,445
38,552
+/-5,913
9.8%
+/-1.5%
1.5%

354
Manhattan, KS
126,071
18,782
+/-2,587
14.9%
+/-2.0%
-2.1%

240
Mankato-North Mankato, MN
91,630
14,261
+/-2,180
15.6%
+/-2.4%
-1.6%

209
Mansfield, OH
114,896
21,729
+/-3,694
18.9%
+/-3.2%
1.9%

98
McAl en-Edinburg-Mission, TX
796,479
274,713
+/-17,146
34.5%
+/-2.2%
-3.3% ▼
2
Medford, OR
204,278
36,200
+/-4,410
17.7%
+/-2.2%
-2.5%

135
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
1,307,830
259,780
+/-10,892
19.9%
+/-0.8%
0.6%

82
Merced, CA
256,771
62,448
+/-6,157
24.3%
+/-2.4%
-3.1%

18
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL
5,691,607
993,904
+/-25,832
17.5%
+/-0.5%
-0.3%

143
Michigan City-La Porte, IN
101,470
18,234
+/-3,042
18.0%
+/-3.0%
0.0%

126
Midland, TX
145,188
9,086
+/-2,649
6.3%
+/-1.8%
-5.5% ▼
366
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI
1,538,274
244,236 +/-10,721
15.9%
+/-0.7%
0.7%

198
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI
3,299,784
352,560
+/-14,086
10.7%
+/-0.4%
-0.4%

341
Missoula, MT
107,931
14,875
+/-2,691
13.8%
+/-2.5%
-3.6%

274
Mobile, AL
403,118
84,891
+/-7,046
21.1%
+/-1.7%
1.6%

54
Modesto, CA
515,955
104,559
+/-10,039
20.3%
+/-1.9%
-3.5% ▼
65
Monroe, LA
168,014
43,435
+/-5,407
25.9%
+/-3.2%
-2.0%

11
Monroe, MI
149,901
17,822
+/-3,208
11.9%
+/-2.1%
-0.3%

316
Montgomery, AL
365,843
65,904
+/-5,630
18.0%
+/-1.5%
-2.3%

122
Morgantown, WV
124,165
26,783
+/-3,774
21.6%
+/-3.0%
3.5%

47
CRS-55




Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Difference
2011 vs.
2010
Total
Poverty
Margin of
Poverty
Metropolitan Area
Population
Estimate
Margin of Errora
Rate
Errora
Rateb
Rankc
Morristown, TN
134,219
28,636
+/-4,274
21.3%
+/-3.2%
1.3%

51
Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA
116,756
17,129
+/-3,180
14.7%
+/-2.7%
-0.5%

244
Muncie, IN
108,782
24,147
+/-2,799
22.2%
+/-2.5%
-0.8%

37
Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI
163,408
35,899
+/-3,251
22.0%
+/-2.0%
2.0%

41
Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC
279,367
55,937
+/-5,642
20.0%
+/-2.0%
1.2%

71
Napa, CA
135,439
11,996
+/-2,747
8.9%
+/-2.0%
-5.7% ▼
359
Naples-Marco Island, FL
328,790
45,297
+/-6,294
13.8%
+/-1.9%
-3.2% ▼
275
Nashville-Davidson—Murfreesboro—Franklin, TN
1,608,546
229,686 +/-11,403
14.3%
+/-0.7%
-0.4%

262
New Haven-Milford, CT
838,123
113,308
+/-9,061
13.5%
+/-1.1%
0.3%

280
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA
1,185,940
230,153
+/-12,716
19.4%
+/-1.1%
-0.1%

92
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA
18,842,228
2,785,196
+/-40,070
14.8%
+/-0.2%
0.4% ▲
241
Niles-Benton Harbor, MI
151,403
31,081
+/-3,413
20.5%
+/-2.2%
3.5% ▲
60
North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL
710,287
98,127
+/-8,323
13.8%
+/-1.2%
0.4%

271
Norwich-New London, CT
262,896
24,105
+/-3,537
9.2%
+/-1.3%
0.4%

356
Ocala, FL
326,435
59,762
+/-6,936
18.3%
+/-2.1%
1.2%

113
Ocean City, NJ
93,825
8,392
+/-2,201
8.9%
+/-2.3%
-2.4%

357
Odessa, TX
142,261
17,866
+/-3,799
12.6%
+/-2.7%
-1.4%

304
Ogden-Clearfield, UT
556,266
56,638
+/-7,028
10.2%
+/-1.3%
0.1%

352
Oklahoma City, OK
1,266,689
204,759
+/-8,652
16.2%
+/-0.7%
-0.4%

190
Olympia, WA
255,368
32,269
+/-5,460
12.6%
+/-2.1%
-0.4%

302
Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA
867,442
112,533
+/-7,709
13.0%
+/-0.9%
0.3%

290
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL
2,184,723
369,925
+/-18,528
16.9%
+/-0.8%
1.0%

156
Oshkosh-Neenah, WI
158,389
17,772
+/-3,003
11.2%
+/-1.9%
-2.1%

331
CRS-56




Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Difference
2011 vs.
2010
Total
Poverty
Margin of
Poverty
Metropolitan Area
Population
Estimate
Margin of Errora
Rate
Errora
Rateb
Rankc
Owensboro, KY
114,458
19,260
+/-2,882
16.8%
+/-2.5%
1.4%

160
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA
824,845
94,910
+/-8,051
11.5%
+/-1.0%
0.3%

326
Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL
540,315 79,606
+/-7,462 14.7% +/-1.4% 0.7%
243
Palm Coast, FL
97,650
18,105
+/-4,402
18.5%
+/-4.5%
-0.5%

106
Panama City-Lynn Haven-Panama City Beach, FL
168,972
27,335
+/-3,863
16.2%
+/-2.3%
3.6%

189
Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH
158,978
27,078
+/-3,745
17.0%
+/-2.3%
0.5%

154
Pascagoula, MS
161,607
27,744
+/-5,015
17.2%
+/-3.1%
-0.2%

151
Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL
436,684
66,789
+/-7,128
15.3%
+/-1.6%
-0.1%

220
Peoria, IL
371,694
51,431
+/-4,800
13.8%
+/-1.3%
-1.1%

270
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD
5,872,433
787,217
+/-20,430
13.4%
+/-0.3%
-0.1%

282
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ
4,256,978
741,322
+/-19,794
17.4%
+/-0.5%
0.1%

145
Pine Bluff, AR
87,796
21,394
+/-2,992
24.4%
+/-3.4%
2.1%

17
Pittsburgh, PA
2,300,959
279,386
+/-12,179
12.1%
+/-0.5%
-0.5%

310
Pittsfield, MA
124,178
17,437
+/-2,447
14.0%
+/-2.0%
0.7%

265
Pocatel o, ID
88,548
13,734
+/-2,142
15.5%
+/-2.4%
-3.1%

212
Port St. Lucie, FL
426,978
70,337
+/-7,757
16.5%
+/-1.8%
-1.8%

174
Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME
506,847
58,872
+/-5,826
11.6%
+/-1.1%
0.1%

324
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA
2,257,880
316,515 +/-12,596
14.0%
+/-0.6%
-1.0% ▼
266
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY
643,519
71,386 +/-5,981
11.1%
+/-0.9%
-1.1%

333
Prescott, AZ
210,176
30,085
+/-5,607
14.3%
+/-2.7%
-4.7% ▼
260
Providence-New Bedford-Fal River, RI-MA
1,544,740
209,423
+/-10,189
13.6%
+/-0.7%
-0.2%

279
Provo-Orem, UT
537,006
77,026
+/-8,274
14.3%
+/-1.5%
0.2%

257
Pueblo, CO
156,967
31,445
+/-5,020
20.0%
+/-3.2%
1.4%

70
CRS-57




Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Difference
2011 vs.
2010
Total
Poverty
Margin of
Poverty
Metropolitan Area
Population
Estimate
Margin of Errora
Rate
Errora
Rateb
Rankc
Punta Gorda, FL
158,767
19,977
+/-3,576
12.6%
+/-2.3%
0.7%

303
Racine, WI
190,124
25,180
+/-3,648
13.2%
+/-1.9%
0.6%

286
Raleigh-Cary, NC
1,161,708
147,281
+/-12,117
12.7%
+/-1.0%
0.4%

301
Rapid City, SD
127,702
14,306
+/-2,631
11.2%
+/-2.1%
-1.6%

332
Reading, PA
400,861
58,702
+/-5,194
14.6%
+/-1.3%
0.9%

245
Redding, CA
175,830
29,131
+/-4,288
16.6%
+/-2.4%
-3.5%

168
Reno-Sparks, NV
428,289
78,085
+/-7,350
18.2%
+/-1.7%
5.2% ▲
114
Richmond, VA
1,241,253
147,786
+/-10,798
11.9%
+/-0.9%
-0.5%

314
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA
4,269,169
813,251
+/-22,351
19.0%
+/-0.5%
1.1% ▲
96
Roanoke, VA
301,201
40,557
+/-5,319
13.5%
+/-1.8%
1.0%

281
Rochester, MN
185,704
18,663
+/-2,731
10.0%
+/-1.5%
2.8% ▲
353
Rochester, NY
1,017,927
146,943
+/-7,553
14.4%
+/-0.7%
-1.1%

255
Rockford, IL
340,208
51,876
+/-5,534
15.2%
+/-1.6%
-3.0% ▼
223
Rocky Mount, NC
147,370
35,431
+/-4,414
24.0%
+/-3.0%
2.3%

20
Rome, GA
92,236
22,067
+/-3,478
23.9%
+/-3.8%
4.3%

22
Sacramento—Arden-Arcade—Roseville, CA
2,164,537
366,076 +/-16,655
16.9%
+/-0.8%
0.8%

157
Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI
191,832
36,311
+/-4,179
18.9%
+/-2.2%
-0.5%

97
Salem, OR
387,397
77,184
+/-7,952
19.9%
+/-2.1%
0.4%

77
Salinas, CA
407,594
74,981
+/-7,735
18.4%
+/-1.9%
1.0%

108
Salisbury, MD
114,402
20,986
+/-3,855
18.3%
+/-3.3%
-0.9%

111
Salt Lake City, UT
1,146,949
146,232
+/-11,394
12.7%
+/-1.0%
-1.2%

298
San Angelo, TX
108,960
17,531
+/-3,452
16.1%
+/-3.1%
-1.5%

193
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX
2,191,061
378,226
+/-16,970
17.3%
+/-0.8%
0.7%

148
CRS-58




Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Difference
2011 vs.
2010
Total
Poverty
Margin of
Poverty
Metropolitan Area
Population
Estimate
Margin of Errora
Rate
Errora
Rateb
Rankc
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA
3,098,088
465,295
+/-20,161
15.0%
+/-0.7%
-0.1%

234
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA
4,390,239
522,229
+/-18,993
11.9%
+/-0.4%
0.0%

315
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA
1,868,187
202,357
+/-12,662
10.8%
+/-0.7%
0.2%

339
San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA
258,424
35,434
+/-4,476
13.7%
+/-1.7%
-1.5%

278
Sandusky, OH
75,482
7,849
+/-1,769
10.4%
+/-2.3%
-1.0%

347
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA
412,871
67,359
+/-6,548
16.3%
+/-1.6%
1.2%

183
Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA
255,592 34,204
+/-5,394 13.4% +/-2.1% -1.4%
283
Santa Fe, NM
143,611
26,410
+/-3,893
18.4%
+/-2.7%
0.6%

109
Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA
485,037
58,686
+/-7,459
12.1%
+/-1.5%
-0.1%

311
Savannah, GA
350,631
63,101
+/-7,239
18.0%
+/-2.1%
-1.0%

123
Scranton—Wilkes-Barre, PA
543,553
84,047
+/-5,818
15.5%
+/-1.1%
0.9%

214
Seattle-Tacoma-Bel evue, WA
3,495,234
409,239
+/-19,482
11.7%
+/-0.6%
-0.1%

322
Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL
138,273
23,747
+/-4,407
17.2%
+/-3.2%
3.7%

150
Sheboygan, WI
111,966
12,895
+/-2,804
11.5%
+/-2.5%
4.2% ▲
325
Sherman-Denison, TX
118,535
19,940
+/-3,613
16.8%
+/-3.0%
0.1%

162
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
398,842
72,109
+/-6,763
18.1%
+/-1.7%
-0.8%

121
Sioux City, IA-NE-SD
140,363
22,280
+/-4,123
15.9%
+/-2.9%
1.5%

199
Sioux Fal s, SD
232,585
23,762
+/-3,095
10.2%
+/-1.3%
0.9%

351
South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI
306,264
49,851
+/-4,717
16.3%
+/-1.5%
-1.7%

186
Spartanburg, SC
281,542
56,214
+/-6,233
20.0%
+/-2.2%
0.5%

75
Spokane, WA
460,580
73,314
+/-7,265
15.9%
+/-1.6%
1.0%

197
Springfield, IL
207,526
29,759
+/-3,814
14.3%
+/-1.8%
-2.4%

258
Springfield, MA
659,621
113,402
+/-7,393
17.2%
+/-1.1%
1.6%

149
CRS-59




Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Difference
2011 vs.
2010
Total
Poverty
Margin of
Poverty
Metropolitan Area
Population
Estimate
Margin of Errora
Rate
Errora
Rateb
Rankc
Springfield, MO
429,273
75,104
+/-6,517
17.5%
+/-1.5%
0.3%

142
Springfield, OH
134,297
27,462
+/-3,221
20.4%
+/-2.4%
0.9%

62
St. Cloud, MN
182,590
23,689
+/-3,121
13.0%
+/-1.7%
-1.0%

289
St. George, UT
141,984
23,127
+/-4,777
16.3%
+/-3.4%
0.7%

185
St. Joseph, MO-KS
119,694
19,727
+/-3,299
16.5%
+/-2.7%
1.3%

172
St. Louis, MO-IL
2,760,219
394,288
+/-15,820
14.3%
+/-0.6%
0.6%

261
State Col ege, PA
138,830
29,123
+/-3,421
21.0%
+/-2.5%
0.3%

57
Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV
118,196 18,878
+/-3,464 16.0% +/-2.9% -0.7%
195
Stockton, CA
688,873
126,610
+/-9,990
18.4%
+/-1.4%
0.3%

110
Sumter, SC
104,867
19,100
+/-4,094
18.2%
+/-3.9%
4.0%

115
Syracuse, NY
632,179
96,710
+/-5,663
15.3%
+/-0.9%
-0.9%

219
Tal ahassee, FL
355,496
79,698
+/-6,974
22.4%
+/-2.0%
-0.4%

35
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
2,800,206
458,689
+/-17,744
16.4%
+/-0.6%
0.0%

178
Terre Haute, IN
160,903
31,421
+/-3,844
19.5%
+/-2.4%
2.5%

90
Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR
129,485
25,899
+/-3,579
20.0%
+/-2.7%
0.9%

72
Toledo, OH
630,598
125,508
+/-7,513
19.9%
+/-1.2%
-0.3%

80
Topeka, KS
229,172
34,186
+/-4,117
14.9%
+/-1.8%
2.3%

239
Trenton-Ewing, NJ
349,813
36,603
+/-4,606
10.5%
+/-1.3%
-1.0%

345
Tucson, AZ
968,447
193,466
+/-11,146
20.0%
+/-1.1%
-0.5%

74
Tulsa, OK
934,873
141,326
+/-6,152
15.1%
+/-0.7%
-0.2%

228
Tuscaloosa, AL
212,412
44,598
+/-4,731
21.0%
+/-2.2%
-1.0%

56
Tyler, TX
210,667
37,075
+/-5,207
17.6%
+/-2.5%
0.1%

141
Utica-Rome, NY
285,830
43,824
+/-3,549
15.3%
+/-1.2%
-1.8%

218
CRS-60




Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Difference
2011 vs.
2010
Total
Poverty
Margin of
Poverty
Metropolitan Area
Population
Estimate
Margin of Errora
Rate
Errora
Rateb
Rankc
Valdosta, GA
141,423
35,793
+/-4,891
25.3%
+/-3.4%
-2.3%

13
Val ejo-Fairfield, CA
407,797
59,515
+/-5,383
14.6%
+/-1.3%
0.7%

248
Victoria, TX
117,067
19,401
+/-3,355
16.6%
+/-2.9%
-3.6%

167
Vineland-Mil vil e-Bridgeton, NJ
144,656
27,197
+/-3,841
18.8%
+/-2.6%
2.7%

100
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC
1,626,361
212,979
+/-9,984
13.1%
+/-0.6%
1.4% ▲
287
Visalia-Porterville, CA
444,186
135,194
+/-9,353
30.4%
+/-2.1%
4.7% ▲
4
Waco, TX
229,172
45,165
+/-5,494
19.7%
+/-2.4%
-4.7% ▼
88
Warner Robins, GA
144,513
26,938
+/-4,533
18.6%
+/-3.1%
4.7% ▲
104
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV
5,702,639
477,661
+/-17,577
8.4%
+/-0.3%
0.1%

363
Waterloo-Cedar Fal s, IA
160,359
18,654
+/-2,583
11.6%
+/-1.6%
-3.0% ▼
323
Wausau, WI
132,121
14,459
+/-2,968
10.9%
+/-2.2%
-0.2%

337
Wenatchee-East Wenatchee, WA
111,898
15,450
+/-3,367
13.8%
+/-3.0%
-2.6%

273
Wheeling, WV-OH
139,509
22,078
+/-2,682
15.8%
+/-1.9%
1.4%

203
Wichita Fal s, TX
136,506
19,432
+/-2,908
14.2%
+/-2.1%
0.4%

264
Wichita, KS
617,291
93,248
+/-7,402
15.1%
+/-1.2%
0.3%

229
Wil iamsport, PA
111,533
14,419
+/-2,792
12.9%
+/-2.5%
-1.0%

292
Wilmington, NC
368,099
60,100
+/-6,701
16.3%
+/-1.8%
-2.0%

182
Winchester, VA-WV
127,564
15,102
+/-2,939
11.8%
+/-2.3%
-2.7%

318
Winston-Salem, NC
473,311
99,551
+/-7,275
21.0%
+/-1.5%
2.9% ▲
55
Worcester, MA
781,577
92,497
+/-7,889
11.8%
+/-1.0%
0.2%

319
Yakima, WA
242,336
55,924
+/-5,630
23.1%
+/-2.3%
0.1%

29
York-Hanover, PA
429,553
45,934
+/-5,477
10.7%
+/-1.3%
-0.4%

340
Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA
538,148
93,322
+/-5,882
17.3%
+/-1.1%
1.2%

147
CRS-61




Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Difference
2011 vs.
2010
Total
Poverty
Margin of
Poverty
Metropolitan Area
Population
Estimate
Margin of Errora
Rate
Errora
Rateb
Rankc
Yuba City, CA
165,603
36,260
+/-4,743
21.9%
+/-2.9%
5.6% ▲
43
Yuma, AZ
191,534
41,313
+/-5,377
21.6%
+/-2.8%
-0.3%

48
Number of metropolitan areas with a statistically significant change in poverty from 2011 to 2012:
Increase
▲ 26






Decrease
▼ 25
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau 2012 and 2011 American Community Survey (ACS) data,
table series S1701: Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months, from the Census Bureau’s American FactFinder, available on the Internet at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/
jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
a. Margin of error of an estimate based on a 90% statistical confidence level. When added to and subtracted from an estimate, the range reflects a 90% statistical
confidence interval bounding the estimate.
b. Statistical y significant increase in poverty at the 90% statistical confidence level: ▲. Statistically significant decrease in poverty at the 90% statistical confidence level: ▼.
c. Ranks are based on areas’ poverty rate estimates for 2011. Because of sampling variability, an area’s rank does not statistically differ from other areas with overlapping
margins of error.
CRS-62

Poverty in the United States: 2012

Appendix C. Poverty Estimates by Congressional
District

Table C-1. Poverty by Congressional District: 2012


Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Congressional
Total
Margin of
Margin of
District
Population
Estimate
Errora
Estimate
Errora
Rankb
Alabama






1st 676,609
130,649
+/-8,345
19.3%
1.2%
104
2nd 663,476
127,765
+/-7,179
19.3%
1.1%
104
3rd
675,905 148,090
+/-9,664 21.9% 1.4% 67
4th 672,170
128,918
+/-9,118
19.2%
1.4%
108
5th 682,028
96,033
+/-8,233
14.1%
1.2%
254
6th 677,886
73,189
+/-7,066
10.8%
1.0%
357
7th
658,904 187,920
+/-10,141 28.5% 1.4% 17







Alaska






(at Large)
715,608
72,400
+/-5,190
10.1%
0.7%
374







Arizona






1st
695,794 152,487
+/-8,214 21.9% 1.1% 67
2nd 705,345
117,221
+/-8,290
16.6%
1.1%
174
3rd
693,235 174,597
+/-13,094 25.2% 1.7% 36
4th 689,367
113,908
+/-11,515
16.5%
1.6%
178
5th 733,015
71,479
+/-7,721
9.8%
1.0%
378
6th 718,323
94,570
+/-10,433
13.2%
1.3%
281
7th 725,159
263,298
+/-12,104
36.3%
1.6%
3
8th 718,476
67,993
+/-6,728
9.5%
0.9%
385
9th 722,559
138,953
+/-11,779
19.2%
1.6%
108







Arkansas






1st
700,063 154,691
+/-8,708 22.1% 1.3% 60
2nd 731,940
121,956
+/-9,669
16.7%
1.3%
171
3rd 736,689
137,947
+/-8,851
18.7%
1.2%
121
4th
696,406 153,471
+/-8,346 22.0% 1.2% 64
Congressional Research Service
63

Poverty in the United States: 2012



Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Congressional
Total
Margin of
Margin of
District
Population
Estimate
Errora
Estimate
Errora
Rankb
California






1st 689,144
127,862
+/-9,617
18.6%
1.4%
122
2nd 687,342
93,852
+/-6,481
13.7%
0.9%
266
3rd 689,519
122,750
+/-9,503
17.8%
1.4%
149
4th 692,082
74,698
+/-8,377
10.8%
1.2%
357
5th 704,362
91,086
+/-7,690
12.9%
1.1%
291
6th
706,841 168,979
+/-10,560 23.9% 1.4% 46
7th 708,853
108,182
+/-9,523
15.3%
1.3%
209
8th
690,267 166,240
+/-13,322 24.1% 1.9% 44
9th 713,639
130,861
+/-10,608
18.3%
1.5%
132
10th 703,775
124,240
+/-11,074
17.7%
1.6%
152
11th 718,213
91,058
+/-9,735
12.7%
1.3%
299
12th 705,993
105,694
+/-8,440
15.0%
1.1%
222
13th 700,707
123,485
+/-8,330
17.6%
1.2%
156
14th 718,542
69,511
+/-7,500
9.7%
1.0%
380
15th 722,379
65,209
+/-6,212
9.0%
0.9%
392
16th 696,824
219,915
+/-11,765
31.6%
1.5%
7
17th 711,893
61,582
+/-8,456
8.7%
1.2%
397
18th 723,289
53,567
+/-5,704
7.4%
0.8%
420
19th 704,736
100,484
+/-7,902
14.3%
1.1%
242
20th 691,893
117,282
+/-10,227
17.0%
1.5%
167
21st 668,049
209,012
+/-11,618
31.3%
1.6%
8
22nd
707,203 166,252
+/-13,593 23.5% 1.7% 50
23rd 692,520
132,054
+/-12,510
19.1%
1.7%
112
24th 682,216
105,159
+/-7,306
15.4%
1.1%
205
25th 705,022
114,612
+/-9,605
16.3%
1.3%
180
26th 701,681
82,431
+/-7,749
11.7%
1.1%
334
27th 699,048
86,217
+/-8,030
12.3%
1.1%
316
28th 722,438
117,701
+/-8,333
16.3%
1.1%
180
29th
714,921 169,736
+/-11,962 23.7% 1.5% 48
30th 720,239
91,833
+/-9,277
12.8%
1.2%
296
31st
708,296 144,480
+/-10,618 20.4% 1.5% 82
32nd 707,524
105,916
+/-9,182
15.0%
1.3%
222
33rd 681,740
60,822
+/-5,962
8.9%
0.9%
394
34th 692,893
206,176
+/-12,226
29.8%
1.6%
9
Congressional Research Service
64

Poverty in the United States: 2012



Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Congressional
Total
Margin of
Margin of
District
Population
Estimate
Errora
Estimate
Errora
Rankb
35th 700,898
127,234
+/-12,498
18.2%
1.7%
136
36th
701,988 154,852
+/-10,948 22.1% 1.5% 60
37th
703,123 164,669
+/-12,158 23.4% 1.5% 52
38th 707,001
95,743
+/-7,409
13.5%
1.0%
273
39th 711,830
74,272
+/-7,800
10.4%
1.1%
365
40th
689,588 201,746
+/-12,781 29.3% 1.6% 12
41st
713,695 156,762
+/-11,029 22.0% 1.5% 64
42nd 737,152
81,528
+/-9,973
11.1%
1.4%
351
43rd
688,928 140,891
+/-8,409 20.5% 1.1% 81
44th
706,530 177,254
+/-11,313 25.1% 1.5% 37
45th 715,291
60,097
+/-6,778
8.4%
0.9%
399
46th
702,019 139,347
+/-9,883 19.8% 1.4% 96
47th 715,431
139,437
+/-10,340
19.5%
1.4%
100
48th 712,933
76,416
+/-7,636
10.7%
1.0%
360
49th 692,263
81,897
+/-8,077
11.8%
1.2%
331
50th 716,105
112,661
+/-11,544
15.7%
1.6%
196
51st
704,825 174,803
+/-11,350 24.8% 1.5% 40
52nd 683,708
60,789
+/-7,010
8.9%
1.0%
394
53rd 715,875
95,983
+/-8,718
13.4%
1.2%
278







Colorado






1st 737,921
131,952
+/-8,254
17.9%
1.1%
143
2nd 725,067
89,148
+/-6,172
12.3%
0.8%
316
3rd 703,743
117,691
+/-9,306
16.7%
1.3%
171
4th 719,106
89,425
+/-8,256
12.4%
1.1%
313
5th 710,194
92,466
+/-8,949
13.0%
1.3%
289
6th 740,881
82,638
+/-7,116
11.2%
1.0%
348
7th 732,159
91,522
+/-8,698
12.5%
1.2%
309







Connecticut






1st 708,207
87,135
+/-6,856
12.3%
1.0%
316
2nd 671,223
53,776
+/-5,017
8.0%
0.7%
406
3rd 688,707
83,544
+/-6,949
12.1%
1.0%
322
4th 715,943
68,567
+/-6,765
9.6%
0.9%
383
5th 700,098
79,368
+/-6,415
11.3%
0.9%
344
Congressional Research Service
65

Poverty in the United States: 2012



Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Congressional
Total
Margin of
Margin of
District
Population
Estimate
Errora
Estimate
Errora
Rankb







Delaware






(at Large)
890,738
107,307
+/-7,877
12.0%
0.9%
327







District of






Columbia
Delegate District
598,151 108,732
+/-7,746 18.2% 1.3% 136
(at Large)







Florida






1st 688,243
105,427
+/-8,363
15.3%
1.2%
209
2nd
659,760 132,329
+/-9,610 20.1% 1.4% 90
3rd
664,128 135,279
+/-11,765 20.4% 1.7% 82
4th 688,250
88,268
+/-9,166
12.8%
1.3%
296
5th
696,603 196,707
+/-14,655 28.2% 1.7% 20
6th 697,635
120,509
+/-8,745
17.3%
1.2%
162
7th 699,230
101,104
+/-10,415
14.5%
1.4%
236
8th 694,193
105,439
+/-9,283
15.2%
1.3%
215
9th 727,426
138,152
+/-13,332
19.0%
1.7%
115
10th 712,761
103,003
+/-10,923
14.5%
1.5%
236
11th 682,125
120,282
+/-9,177
17.6%
1.3%
156
12th 686,651
78,423
+/-7,348
11.4%
1.0%
341
13th 691,141
91,076
+/-8,021
13.2%
1.1%
281
14th
726,663 180,189
+/-13,337 24.8% 1.7% 40
15th 689,811
108,281
+/-8,995
15.7%
1.2%
196
16th 704,435
96,755
+/-8,384
13.7%
1.2%
266
17th 688,530
123,506
+/-11,269
17.9%
1.5%
143
18th 703,827
97,577
+/-10,639
13.9%
1.5%
257
19th 711,333
98,726
+/-7,543
13.9%
1.0%
257
20th
714,377 165,867
+/-13,255 23.2% 1.7% 53
21st 714,851
79,327
+/-7,769
11.1%
1.1%
351
22nd 692,931
99,591
+/-8,695
14.4%
1.2%
239
23rd 724,621
102,593
+/-9,784
14.2%
1.4%
247
24th
712,946 182,532
+/-13,479 25.6% 1.7% 34
25th 707,017
117,394
+/-9,432
16.6%
1.3%
174
26th 715,896
116,829
+/-10,908
16.3%
1.4%
180
Congressional Research Service
66

Poverty in the United States: 2012



Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Congressional
Total
Margin of
Margin of
District
Population
Estimate
Errora
Estimate
Errora
Rankb
27th
717,095 153,416
+/-11,348 21.4% 1.5% 72







Georgia






1st 690,455
126,391
+/-8,479
18.3%
1.2%
132
2nd
653,169 185,101
+/-8,304 28.3% 1.3% 18
3rd 691,331
113,054
+/-10,064
16.4%
1.4%
179
4th
707,173 141,794
+/-13,685 20.1% 1.8% 90
5th
693,605 182,143
+/-11,442 26.3% 1.6% 31
6th 714,317
74,617
+/-9,072
10.4%
1.2%
365
7th 710,922
92,032
+/-11,076
12.9%
1.5%
291
8th
677,554 147,963
+/-10,029 21.8% 1.5% 69
9th 691,318
128,041
+/-9,544
18.5%
1.4%
127
10th 683,685
128,934
+/-8,906
18.9%
1.3%
117
11th 694,853
87,315
+/-10,902
12.6%
1.5%
303
12th
666,610 165,669
+/-9,704 24.9% 1.4% 38
13th
699,598 145,643
+/-12,268 20.8% 1.6% 79
14th 678,006
129,836
+/-10,081
19.1%
1.5%
112







Hawaii






1st 674,348
67,252
+/-6,798
10.0%
1.0%
376
2nd 682,474
89,991
+/-7,548
13.2%
1.1%
281







Idaho






1st 783,009
123,748
+/-9,660
15.8%
1.2%
194
2nd 782,502
124,746
+/-9,762
15.9%
1.2%
192







Illinois






1st
697,333 143,852
+/-11,064 20.6% 1.4% 80
2nd
700,318 158,034
+/-10,050 22.6% 1.4% 58
3rd 694,448
83,155
+/-9,528
12.0%
1.3%
327
4th
708,675 154,012
+/-10,643 21.7% 1.4% 70
5th 708,786
80,640
+/-8,030
11.4%
1.0%
341
6th 716,448
41,945
+/-5,809
5.9%
0.8%
430
7th
715,934 196,478
+/-11,969 27.4% 1.5% 26
8th 720,719
71,925
+/-7,187
10.0%
1.0%
376
Congressional Research Service
67

Poverty in the United States: 2012



Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Congressional
Total
Margin of
Margin of
District
Population
Estimate
Errora
Estimate
Errora
Rankb
9th 700,161
94,600
+/-9,628
13.5%
1.3%
273
10th 689,660
71,662
+/-7,492
10.4%
1.1%
365
11th 714,183
78,426
+/-8,211
11.0%
1.2%
354
12th 687,871
126,683
+/-7,174
18.4%
1.0%
129
13th 664,086
125,568
+/-7,760
18.9%
1.1%
117
14th 716,042
46,646
+/-6,793
6.5%
1.0%
426
15th 680,098
100,239
+/-7,047
14.7%
1.0%
227
16th 683,788
82,859
+/-6,380
12.1%
0.9%
322
17th 682,072
122,252
+/-5,953
17.9%
0.8%
143
18th 693,054
71,586
+/-5,802
10.3%
0.8%
369







Indiana






1st 703,029
124,823
+/-9,093
17.8%
1.3%
149
2nd 695,790
105,380
+/-8,404
15.1%
1.2%
218
3rd 711,671
104,830
+/-7,842
14.7%
1.1%
227
4th 702,183
93,809
+/-6,442
13.4%
0.9%
278
5th 716,607
64,543
+/-6,415
9.0%
0.9%
392
6th 697,681
110,078
+/-7,147
15.8%
1.0%
194
7th
720,385 175,849
+/-11,361 24.4% 1.5% 43
8th 690,935
101,500
+/-7,483
14.7%
1.1%
227
9th 704,142
109,513
+/-6,835
15.6%
0.9%
200







Iowa






1st 738,176
81,782
+/-5,188
11.1%
0.7%
351
2nd 743,195
105,364
+/-6,182
14.2%
0.8%
247
3rd 762,670
91,998
+/-8,183
12.1%
1.1%
322
4th 730,184
98,340
+/-6,356
13.5%
0.9%
273







Kansas






1st 694,414
96,605
+/-6,681
13.9%
1.0%
257
2nd 682,707
113,104
+/-7,042
16.6%
1.0%
174
3rd 723,006
74,616
+/-6,452
10.3%
0.9%
369
4th 702,080
107,409
+/-7,777
15.3%
1.1%
209







Congressional Research Service
68

Poverty in the United States: 2012



Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Congressional
Total
Margin of
Margin of
District
Population
Estimate
Errora
Estimate
Errora
Rankb
Kentucky






1st
699,397 140,495
+/-8,073 20.1% 1.1% 90
2nd 710,130
124,063
+/-8,418
17.5%
1.2%
159
3rd 719,003
132,171
+/-9,076
18.4%
1.3%
129
4th 717,267
105,068
+/-8,029
14.6%
1.1%
232
5th
692,823 190,713
+/-10,303 27.5% 1.5% 24
6th 708,483
130,687
+/-8,915
18.4%
1.2%
129







Louisiana






1st
699,397 140,495
+/-8,073 20.1% 1.1% 90
2nd 710,130
124,063
+/-8,418
17.5%
1.2%
159
3rd 719,003
132,171
+/-9,076
18.4%
1.3%
129
4th 717,267
105,068
+/-8,029
14.6%
1.1%
232
5th
692,823 190,713
+/-10,303 27.5% 1.5% 24
6th 708,483
130,687
+/-8,915
18.4%
1.2%
129







Maine






1st 650,449
81,891
+/-7,036
12.6%
1.1%
303
2nd 643,008
107,895
+/-7,136
16.8%
1.1%
169







Maryland






1st 708,143
73,635
+/-6,877
10.4%
1.0%
365
2nd 713,531
90,176
+/-8,593
12.6%
1.1%
303
3rd 705,600
57,045
+/-6,684
8.1%
0.9%
403
4th 725,479
69,932
+/-6,740
9.6%
0.9%
383
5th 716,527
54,966
+/-6,877
7.7%
0.9%
415
6th 722,666
67,629
+/-6,074
9.4%
0.9%
389
7th 715,061
127,932
+/-8,982
17.9%
1.2%
143
8th 737,438
49,488
+/-5,889
6.7%
0.8%
424







Massachusetts






1st 700,591
113,390
+/-7,681
16.2%
1.1%
186
2nd 707,029
90,167
+/-7,901
12.8%
1.1%
296
3rd 716,733
91,302
+/-9,025
12.7%
1.3%
299
4th 707,925
55,732
+/-5,792
7.9%
0.8%
411
Congressional Research Service
69

Poverty in the United States: 2012



Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Congressional
Total
Margin of
Margin of
District
Population
Estimate
Errora
Estimate
Errora
Rankb
5th 716,981
60,448
+/-6,237
8.4%
0.9%
399
6th 728,714
58,295
+/-5,684
8.0%
0.8%
406
7th
694,284 147,787
+/-9,695 21.3% 1.4% 75
8th 727,811
70,537
+/-7,353
9.7%
1.0%
380
9th 714,694
74,987
+/-5,983
10.5%
0.8%
362







Michigan






1st 677,503
104,488
+/-5,801
15.4%
0.8%
205
2nd 690,343
112,751
+/-7,428
16.3%
1.1%
180
3rd 698,624
117,769
+/-8,371
16.9%
1.2%
168
4th 674,517
117,246
+/-7,484
17.4%
1.1%
161
5th
687,424 140,231
+/-8,179 20.4% 1.2% 82
6th 693,214
122,724
+/-7,517
17.7%
1.1%
152
7th 679,746
91,436
+/-6,174
13.5%
0.9%
273
8th 686,960
94,508
+/-6,454
13.8%
0.9%
262
9th 706,069
96,451
+/-7,642
13.7%
1.1%
266
10th 694,228
77,810
+/-5,212
11.2%
0.7%
348
11th 710,800
55,848
+/-5,488
7.9%
0.8%
411
12th 689,178
130,962
+/-8,689
19.0%
1.2%
115
13th 688,257
230,880
+/-11,840
33.5%
1.6%
4
14th
686,897 192,074
+/-11,943 28.0% 1.6% 21







Minnesota






1st 643,739
75,074
+/-5,409
11.7%
0.8%
334
2nd 662,264
47,739
+/-4,935
7.2%
0.7%
422
3rd 673,470
45,966
+/-5,109
6.8%
0.8%
423
4th 661,977
93,466
+/-5,999
14.1%
0.9%
254
5th 665,875
123,217
+/-7,583
18.5%
1.1%
127
6th 662,919
52,480
+/-4,768
7.9%
0.7%
411
7th 642,977
75,097
+/-3,737
11.7%
0.6%
334
8th 644,222
85,332
+/-4,498
13.2%
0.7%
281







Mississippi






1st
731,105 147,955
+/-9,226 20.2% 1.2% 86
2nd 698,141
226,545
+/-10,816
32.4%
1.5%
6
Congressional Research Service
70

Poverty in the United States: 2012



Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Congressional
Total
Margin of
Margin of
District
Population
Estimate
Errora
Estimate
Errora
Rankb
3rd
725,942 160,309
+/-10,556 22.1% 1.4% 60
4th
735,702 163,443
+/-11,011 22.2% 1.5% 59







Missouri






1st
718,265 172,959
+/-10,029 24.1% 1.4% 44
2nd 747,083
48,691
+/-5,977
6.5%
0.8%
426
3rd 735,959
95,467
+/-9,436
13.0%
1.3%
289
4th 716,487
123,770
+/-7,136
17.3%
1.0%
162
5th 738,266
143,544
+/-8,889
19.4%
1.2%
103
6th 725,542
84,418
+/-6,881
11.6%
0.9%
338
7th 734,955
136,899
+/-8,262
18.6%
1.1%
122
8th
721,451 142,044
+/-7,419 19.7% 1.0% 98







Montana






(at Large)
980,594
152,199
+/-8,004
15.5%
0.8%
201







Nebraska






1st 599,561
75,024
+/-6,296
12.5%
1.0%
309
2nd 613,521
85,350
+/-6,395
13.9%
1.0%
257
3rd 587,822
73,599
+/-4,596
12.5%
0.8%
309







Nevada






1st
663,180 156,130
+/-11,181 23.5% 1.6% 50
2nd 675,424
113,211
+/-8,921
16.8%
1.3%
169
3rd 706,700
62,437
+/-8,791
8.8%
1.2%
396
4th
673,261 115,062
+/-9,991 17.1% 1.5% 165







New Hampshire






1st 641,872
67,610
+/-7,372
10.5%
1.2%
362
2nd 638,155
60,856
+/-7,179
9.5%
1.1%
385







New Jersey






1st 719,015
86,078
+/-7,870
12.0%
1.1%
327
2nd 710,671
90,165
+/-8,117
12.7%
1.1%
299
3rd 727,214
48,527
+/-5,466
6.7%
0.8%
424
Congressional Research Service
71

Poverty in the United States: 2012



Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Congressional
Total
Margin of
Margin of
District
Population
Estimate
Errora
Estimate
Errora
Rankb
4th 723,605
68,879
+/-7,577
9.5%
1.0%
385
5th 729,002
42,698
+/-6,006
5.9%
0.8%
430
6th 714,808
77,573
+/-6,980
10.9%
1.0%
355
7th 735,414
36,228
+/-5,120
4.9%
0.7%
436
8th 750,467
132,305
+/-9,479
17.6%
1.3%
156
9th 741,848
111,406
+/-9,336
15.0%
1.3%
222
10th
701,721 141,521
+/-8,682 20.2% 1.2% 86
11th 715,572
31,021
+/-4,588
4.3%
0.6%
437
12th 722,336
68,542
+/-8,105
9.5%
1.1%
385







New Mexico






1st 682,060
130,830
+/-9,858
19.2%
1.4%
108
2nd
679,970 157,479
+/-9,774 23.2% 1.4% 53
3rd
682,748 137,936
+/-6,781 20.2% 1.0% 86







New York






1st 701,977
52,081
+/-8,134
7.4%
1.2%
420
2nd 715,982
43,357
+/-6,355
6.1%
0.9%
429
3rd 703,367
40,731
+/-6,534
5.8%
0.9%
432
4th 711,464
54,786
+/-7,419
7.7%
1.0%
415
5th 744,436
113,951
+/-9,669
15.3%
1.2%
209
6th 718,016
108,636
+/-10,658
15.1%
1.4%
218
7th
743,170 219,015
+/-12,229 29.5% 1.4% 10
8th
716,323 175,873
+/-10,595 24.6% 1.3% 42
9th
726,691 144,479
+/-11,685 19.9% 1.5% 95
10th 705,022
117,770
+/-9,334
16.7%
1.2%
171
11th 723,626
99,680
+/-8,737
13.8%
1.2%
262
12th 683,519
82,653
+/-8,773
12.1%
1.2%
322
13th
747,166 211,491
+/-14,013 28.3% 1.7% 18
14th 708,425
132,848
+/-11,483
18.8%
1.5%
119
15th 714,454
293,196
+/-12,261
41.0%
1.6%
2
16th 713,039
102,064
+/-7,936
14.3%
1.1%
242
17th 713,627
82,291
+/-7,445
11.5%
1.1%
340
18th 692,091
71,329
+/-6,300
10.3%
0.9%
369
19th 680,646
85,899
+/-5,298
12.6%
0.8%
303
Congressional Research Service
72

Poverty in the United States: 2012



Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Congressional
Total
Margin of
Margin of
District
Population
Estimate
Errora
Estimate
Errora
Rankb
20th 694,840
85,219
+/-5,791
12.3%
0.8%
316
21st 678,292
93,116
+/-7,026
13.7%
1.0%
266
22nd 682,661
105,839
+/-6,654
15.5%
0.9%
201
23rd 675,791
112,369
+/-5,895
16.6%
0.9%
174
24th 684,084
99,676
+/-6,531
14.6%
0.9%
232
25th 698,243
107,280
+/-6,423
15.4%
0.9%
205
26th 693,890
129,249
+/-7,462
18.6%
1.1%
122
27th 693,222
60,138
+/-5,789
8.7%
0.8%
397







North Carolina






1st
702,539 201,661
+/-11,692 28.7% 1.6% 13
2nd 751,063
113,158
+/-7,650
15.1%
1.0%
218
3rd 713,733
115,326
+/-9,206
16.2%
1.2%
186
4th 724,081
132,558
+/-10,840
18.3%
1.4%
132
5th 721,961
138,292
+/-10,576
19.2%
1.4%
108
6th 723,116
102,710
+/-9,247
14.2%
1.2%
247
7th 738,207
133,212
+/-11,407
18.0%
1.5%
142
8th
723,921 152,569
+/-8,559 21.1% 1.2% 77
9th 755,552
60,758
+/-7,311
8.0%
0.9%
406
10th 727,845
131,579
+/-9,026
18.1%
1.2%
140
11th 716,698
133,351
+/-7,947
18.6%
1.1%
122
12th
749,706 206,306
+/-13,029 27.5% 1.6% 24
13th 750,571
91,652
+/-9,414
12.2%
1.2%
321







North Dakota






(at Large)
674,852
75,703
+/-4,270
11.2%
0.6%
348







Ohio






1st 711,840
129,122
+/-7,753
18.1%
1.0%
140
2nd 701,728
110,085
+/-8,490
15.7%
1.1%
196
3rd
712,972 169,589
+/-10,869 23.8% 1.5% 47
4th 687,594
99,274
+/-7,180
14.4%
1.1%
239
5th 707,281
97,188
+/-6,938
13.7%
1.0%
266
6th 693,005
112,371
+/-8,050
16.2%
1.1%
186
7th 709,830
93,903
+/-7,178
13.2%
1.0%
281
Congressional Research Service
73

Poverty in the United States: 2012



Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Congressional
Total
Margin of
Margin of
District
Population
Estimate
Errora
Estimate
Errora
Rankb
8th 707,376
105,171
+/-7,360
14.9%
1.0%
226
9th
693,929 158,035
+/-8,423 22.8% 1.1% 56
10th 695,215
122,787
+/-9,295
17.7%
1.3%
152
11th
678,366 186,993
+/-9,329 27.6% 1.3% 22
12th 719,437
81,492
+/-7,181
11.3%
1.0%
344
13th 693,471
135,004
+/-7,562
19.5%
1.1%
100
14th 709,504
68,614
+/-6,341
9.7%
0.9%
380
15th 694,971
101,994
+/-7,861
14.7%
1.1%
227
16th 710,963
53,006
+/-6,289
7.5%
0.9%
419







Oklahoma






1st 752,052
115,981
+/-5,777
15.4%
0.8%
205
2nd
722,645 155,342
+/-6,301 21.5% 0.9% 71
3rd 726,375
106,677
+/-7,776
14.7%
1.1%
227
4th 743,691
106,418
+/-6,985
14.3%
0.9%
242
5th
754,890 153,011
+/-7,820 20.3% 1.0% 85







Oregon






1st 777,086
107,498
+/-9,839
13.8%
1.3%
262
2nd 756,558
138,119
+/-9,067
18.3%
1.2%
132
3rd 775,068
135,606
+/-9,087
17.5%
1.2%
159
4th
754,174 160,941
+/-10,081 21.3% 1.3% 75
5th 763,512
116,195
+/-9,357
15.2%
1.2%
215







Pennsylvania






1st
694,928 177,972
+/-13,028 25.6% 1.7% 34
2nd
682,233 195,552
+/-11,307 28.7% 1.5% 13
3rd 675,649
93,557
+/-5,085
13.8%
0.7%
262
4th 692,259
81,450
+/-7,526
11.8%
1.1%
331
5th 657,341
103,067
+/-6,055
15.7%
0.9%
196
6th 702,574
56,813
+/-6,214
8.1%
0.9%
403
7th 693,713
44,474
+/-5,342
6.4%
0.8%
428
8th 701,486
37,390
+/-4,455
5.3%
0.6%
435
9th 684,936
103,275
+/-5,772
15.1%
0.8%
218
10th 678,535
96,163
+/-7,476
14.2%
1.1%
247
Congressional Research Service
74

Poverty in the United States: 2012



Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Congressional
Total
Margin of
Margin of
District
Population
Estimate
Errora
Estimate
Errora
Rankb
11th 673,464
83,737
+/-6,083
12.4%
0.9%
313
12th 686,656
64,703
+/-5,394
9.4%
0.8%
389
13th 705,851
100,456
+/-10,048
14.2%
1.3%
247
14th 684,186
124,287
+/-7,409
18.2%
1.1%
136
15th 686,301
78,406
+/-6,510
11.4%
1.0%
341
16th 687,523
104,692
+/-8,487
15.2%
1.2%
215
17th 682,298
92,723
+/-7,351
13.6%
1.1%
271
18th 683,934
54,568
+/-5,729
8.0%
0.8%
406







Puerto Rico






Resident
3,633,892 1,632,533
+/-27,010
44.9%
0.7%
1
Commissioner
District (at Large)







Rhode Island






1st 513,714
82,717
+/-6,573
16.1%
1.3%
189
2nd 496,735
56,190
+/-5,442
11.3%
1.1%
344







South Carolina






1st 688,883
81,973
+/-8,007
11.9%
1.1%
330
2nd 653,014
93,046
+/-9,135
14.2%
1.4%
247
3rd 642,671
124,218
+/-9,203
19.3%
1.4%
104
4th 656,127
117,464
+/-9,012
17.9%
1.3%
143
5th 661,102
118,057
+/-9,506
17.9%
1.4%
143
6th
624,208 161,887
+/-7,913 25.9% 1.2% 33
7th
659,449 141,125
+/-9,162 21.4% 1.4% 72







South Dakota






(at Large)
804,310
107,846
+/-5,355
13.4%
0.7%
278







Tennessee






1st 694,785
135,472
+/-9,287
19.5%
1.3%
100
2nd 695,352
113,657
+/-7,644
16.3%
1.1%
180
3rd 693,756
119,764
+/-7,751
17.3%
1.1%
162
4th 704,373
120,450
+/-7,496
17.1%
1.1%
165
5th 701,692
131,716
+/-9,197
18.8%
1.3%
119
Congressional Research Service
75

Poverty in the United States: 2012



Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Congressional
Total
Margin of
Margin of
District
Population
Estimate
Errora
Estimate
Errora
Rankb
6th 712,354
106,622
+/-7,449
15.0%
1.0%
222
7th 705,399
115,116
+/-8,767
16.3%
1.2%
180
8th 686,751
95,688
+/-7,299
13.9%
1.1%
257
9th
701,532 190,845
+/-10,199 27.2% 1.5% 27







Texas






1st 686,626
132,633
+/-8,731
19.3%
1.3%
104
2nd 735,559
80,473
+/-10,464
10.9%
1.3%
355
3rd 743,221
58,944
+/-9,199
7.9%
1.2%
411
4th 685,420
121,083
+/-6,702
17.7%
1.0%
152
5th
686,893 151,407
+/-10,355 22.0% 1.5% 64
6th 713,424
87,809
+/-9,286
12.3%
1.3%
316
7th 716,136
76,927
+/-10,122
10.7%
1.3%
360
8th 705,717
100,759
+/-12,304
14.3%
1.7%
242
9th
735,236 174,569
+/-13,397 23.7% 1.8% 48
10th 692,729
91,446
+/-9,570
13.2%
1.3%
281
11th 694,987
97,153
+/-6,618
14.0%
1.0%
256
12th 712,788
92,145
+/-9,332
12.9%
1.2%
291
13th 669,921
107,798
+/-8,461
16.1%
1.2%
189
14th 672,407
102,657
+/-7,909
15.3%
1.2%
209
15th
703,090 201,440
+/-14,333 28.7% 1.9% 13
16th
708,994 156,524
+/-10,480 22.1% 1.5% 60
17th
685,958 137,611
+/-9,994 20.1% 1.4% 90
18th
712,473 192,572
+/-13,952 27.0% 1.7% 29
19th
669,161 131,061
+/-8,040 19.6% 1.2% 99
20th
707,547 151,767
+/-11,496 21.4% 1.5% 72
21st 716,699
94,145
+/-8,141
13.1%
1.1%
288
22nd 744,596
62,307
+/-9,572
8.4%
1.2%
399
23rd
695,340 146,751
+/-11,677 21.1% 1.5% 77
24th 729,154
82,467
+/-10,331
11.3%
1.3%
344
25th 699,066
102,216
+/-9,642
14.6%
1.3%
232
26th 736,511
59,062
+/-8,131
8.0%
1.1%
406
27th 697,373
110,691
+/-7,763
15.9%
1.1%
192
28th
722,981 199,542
+/-12,876 27.6% 1.7% 22
29th
692,970 199,225
+/-16,001 28.7% 1.9% 13
Congressional Research Service
76

Poverty in the United States: 2012



Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Congressional
Total
Margin of
Margin of
District
Population
Estimate
Errora
Estimate
Errora
Rankb
30th
710,670 163,565
+/-10,680 23.0% 1.4% 55
31st 724,994
75,033
+/-6,475
10.3%
0.9%
369
32nd 728,358
95,892
+/-10,577
13.2%
1.4%
281
33rd
696,998 205,237
+/-12,199 29.4% 1.5% 11
34th 695,220
226,937
+/-15,470
32.6%
2.2%
5
35th
728,310 191,327
+/-15,862 26.3% 1.9% 31
36th 692,991
101,177
+/-9,430
14.6%
1.3%
232







Utah






1st 700,960
81,475
+/-8,448
11.6%
1.2%
338
2nd 689,516
98,982
+/-8,903
14.4%
1.3%
239
3rd 697,053
89,983
+/-8,387
12.9%
1.2%
291
4th 718,491
89,577
+/-9,334
12.5%
1.3%
309







Vermont






(at Large)
601,611
71,084
+/-4,549
11.8%
0.8%
331







Virginia






1st 726,362
58,886
+/-6,992
8.1%
0.9%
403
2nd 691,193
74,617
+/-6,667
10.8%
0.9%
357
3rd
720,367 163,174
+/-11,407 22.7% 1.5% 57
4th 707,354
74,418
+/-6,928
10.5%
1.0%
362
5th 694,475
111,993
+/-8,143
16.1%
1.2%
189
6th 704,295
109,294
+/-8,174
15.5%
1.2%
201
7th 725,755
55,075
+/-6,263
7.6%
0.9%
418
8th 760,783
58,944
+/-6,710
7.7%
0.9%
415
9th
691,893 138,566
+/-7,286 20.0% 1.1% 94
10th 751,811
42,448
+/-5,677
5.6%
0.7%
434
11th 762,615
44,390
+/-6,062
5.8%
0.8%
432







Washington






1st 684,375
62,325
+/-5,678
9.1%
0.8%
391
2nd 676,276
85,290
+/-7,859
12.6%
1.1%
303
3rd 678,767
92,153
+/-8,157
13.6%
1.2%
271
4th 683,388
127,216
+/-9,095
18.6%
1.3%
122
Congressional Research Service
77

Poverty in the United States: 2012



Number Poor
Poverty Rate (Percent Poor)
Congressional
Total
Margin of
Margin of
District
Population
Estimate
Errora
Estimate
Errora
Rankb
5th 649,717
115,344
+/-8,437
17.8%
1.3%
149
6th 666,992
90,315
+/-5,771
13.5%
0.9%
273
7th 678,739
81,918
+/-7,414
12.1%
1.1%
322
8th 682,722
68,891
+/-7,143
10.1%
1.0%
374
9th 685,058
104,837
+/-9,663
15.3%
1.3%
209
10th 675,900
86,989
+/-9,044
12.9%
1.3%
291







West Virginia






1st 589,496
112,314
+/-7,464
19.1%
1.3%
112
2nd 614,627
87,053
+/-7,001
14.2%
1.1%
247
3rd
597,008 120,688
+/-7,731 20.2% 1.3% 86







Wisconsin






1st 698,439
81,787
+/-6,891
11.7%
1.0%
334
2nd 711,444
90,226
+/-6,152
12.7%
0.9%
299
3rd 679,199
97,089
+/-5,401
14.3%
0.8%
242
4th
698,342 185,095
+/-9,515 26.5% 1.4% 30
5th 702,524
57,786
+/-6,225
8.2%
0.9%
402
6th 682,445
66,944
+/-5,424
9.8%
0.8%
378
7th 696,531
86,069
+/-5,576
12.4%
0.8%
313
8th 704,210
72,360
+/-5,428
10.3%
0.8%
369







Wyoming






(at Large)
561,445
71,019
+/-6,087
12.6%
1.1%
303
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau
2012 American Community Survey (ACS) data, table series S1701: Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months, from
the Census Bureau’s American FactFinder, available on the Internet at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/
pages/index.xhtml.
a. Margin of error of an estimate based on a 90% statistical confidence level. When added to and subtracted
from an estimate, the range reflects a 90% statistical confidence interval bounding the estimate.
b. Ranks are based on the Congressional Districts’ poverty rate estimates for 2012. Because of sampling
variability, a District’s rank does not statistically differ from other areas with overlapping margins of error.
Congressional Research Service
78

Poverty in the United States: 2012



Author Contact Information

Thomas Gabe

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

Congressional Research Service
79