Poverty in the United States in 2020

February 10, 2022 R47030

Poverty in the United States in 2020
February 10, 2022
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R47030

Poverty in the United States in 2020

R47030
Poverty in the United States in 2020
February 10, 2022
Calendar year 2020 saw the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and an accompanying rise in the
poverty rate—the percentage of the population living in poverty (economic hardship
Joseph Dalaker
characterized by low income). Under the Census Bureau’s official poverty measure, the nation as
Analyst in Social Policy
a whole was estimated to have 37.2 million people (11.4% of the population) living in poverty in

2020, compared with 34.0 million (10.5%) in 2019.

Comparing recent poverty rates with those from before 2019 is somewhat complicated because of
changes in the way household income data were collected during the pandemic (in-person interviewing was stopped in favor
of telephone-only interviewing in both 2020, which measured 2019 poverty, and 2021, which measured 2020 poverty). This
change in survey procedures is largely believed to have biased the overall poverty rate in 2019 downward by a little over half
a percentage point. That said, the recent poverty rates in 2019 (10.5%) and 2020 (11.4%) are closer to the previous historical
low of 11.1% in 1973 than to the most recent peak of 15.1% in 2010, after the Great Recession.
Between 2019 and 2020, poverty rates rose among the following:
 married-couple families (from 4.0% in 2019 to 4.7% in 2020) and female-householder families (from
22.2% to 23.4%),
 children (from 14.4% to 16.1%) and working-age adults (from 9.4% to 10.4%),
 the Hispanic population (from 15.7% to 17.0%) and White non-Hispanic population (from 7.3% to 8.2%),
and
 both workers (from 4.7% to 5.0%) and nonworkers (from 26.4% to 28.8%) aged 18 to 64.
Work reduces the estimated likelihood of being in poverty but does not eliminate it. For example, among 18-to 64-year-olds
in poverty, 36.8% had jobs. Among jobless 18-to-64-year-olds in poverty, 19.6% had a family member who worked.
Criticisms of the official poverty measure have inspired poverty measurement research and eventually led to the development
of the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM). The SPM uses different definitions of needs and resources than the official
measure.
 The SPM includes the estimated effects of taxes and in-kind benefits (such as housing, energy, and food
assistance) on poverty, while the official measure does not. Because some types of tax credits and noncash
benefits are used to assist the poor, the SPM may be of interest to policymakers.
 For the first time since the SPM was measured, its poverty rate (9.1% in 2020) was lower than that of the
official measure (11.4%). This appears to be explained in large part by stimulus payments and tax credits,
which are measured in the SPM but not in the official measure, and the SPM’s treatment of cohabiting
couples as a single economic unit (which means that resources such as unemployment insurance are
identified as lifting a greater number of people out of poverty in the SPM compared with the official
measure, which treats cohabiting couples as separate economic units).
 Unlike the official measure, the SPM includes adjustments to reflect geographic variations in housing costs.
 Under the SPM, the profile of the poverty population is slightly different than under the official measure.
Compared with the official measure, the estimated child poverty rate under the SPM is lower (largely
because tax credits, which often benefit families with children, are counted in the SPM and not the official
measure, and stimulus payments, which came in the form of tax credits, tended to be higher for families
with children). The SPM poverty rate is higher for those 65 and older than the corresponding official
poverty rate (largely because medical out-of-pocket expenses are subtracted from income in the SPM but
not in the official measure). The SPM also estimated a lower poverty rate among working-age adults than
did the official measure in 2020, largely due to stimulus payments.
Congressional Research Service

Poverty in the United States in 2020

Introduction
Calendar year 2020 saw the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and an accompanying rise in the
poverty rate—the percentage of the population living in poverty (economic hardship
characterized by low income). In 2020, approximately 37.2 million people had incomes below the
official definition of poverty in the United States, which was an increase from 34.0 million people
in 2019. The poverty rate rose to 11.4% from 10.5%. The increase in poverty was especially acute
among the population under age 65, whose work statuses were most likely to have been affected
by the economic fallout of the pandemic.
This report presents a general overview of poverty in the United States. It introduces the concepts
and data sources used in defining and measuring poverty. It then offers a historical perspective on
poverty at the national level by presenting trend data on the official poverty measure. Next, it
focuses on poverty by demographic group, mainly by comparing 2020 estimates with 2019, along
four characteristics:
 family structure, because poverty is defined according to the composition, needs,
and resources of families, and because antipoverty interventions have often been
targeted to families;
 age, because age groups vary in the types and sources of income available to
them, and because congressional policymaking has often focused on children and
the aged population;
 race and Hispanic origin, because poverty rates among these demographic groups
historically have had wide differences; and
 work status, because economic well-being is typically tied to the current or past
work of oneself or one’s family members.
State poverty rates are then presented to provide a geographical perspective on poverty
throughout the United States. Last, the report describes a newer poverty measure, the
Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which improves upon some of the official poverty
measure’s limitations, and illustrates how the SPM offers a different view of poverty from the
official measure. This different view of poverty using the SPM is particularly relevant for
examining the impact on poverty of the refundable tax credits and other measures Congress
undertook to counteract the recession related to the pandemic.
Poverty Data As Estimates: Survey Collection
during the Pandemic, the Official Poverty Measure,
and the Supplemental Poverty Measure
The numbers and percentages of those in poverty presented in this report are based on the Census
Bureau’s estimates.1 While this official measure is often regarded as a statistical yardstick rather

1 The national-level data in this report were obtained from the report by Jessica Semega, Melissa Kollar, Emily A.
Shrider, and John Creamer, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population
Reports number P60-270, September 15, 2020, at https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-
270.html, and the detailed tabulations and the CPS ASEC public use file that accompanied the release of that report.
Details on the Supplemental Poverty Measure, also based primarily on the CPS ASEC, were obtained from Liana Fox,
Congressional Research Service
1

Poverty in the United States in 2020

than a complete description of what people and families need to live,2 it does offer a measure of
economic hardship faced by the low-income population. The poverty measure compares family
income against a dollar amount called a poverty threshold, a level below which the family is
considered to be poor. The Census Bureau releases these poverty estimates every September for
the prior calendar year. Most of the comparisons discussed in this report are year-to-year. The
report only considers a number or percentage to have changed from the previous year, or to be
different from another number or percentage, if the difference has been tested to be statistically
significant at the 90% confidence level.3
Effect of the Pandemic on Survey Collection and Survey Estimates
In addition to affecting people’s poverty statuses, the pandemic also affected the collection of the
data used to measure poverty, which in turn affects how the data may be interpreted. The official,
annual data on income and poverty are measured retrospectively by a Census Bureau survey
conducted in February, March, and April of the following year.4 Data collection for income in
2020 (collected in 2021) and 2019 (collected in 2020) were thus affected by social distancing
measures that began in March 2020 in order to contain the pandemic. As a result, any interviews
that would have been conducted in person, by a field representative visiting respondents at their
homes, were conducted by telephone only.5 The switch to telephone-only interviewing

The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2019, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports number P60-272,
September 15, 2020, at https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-272.html. State-level data in this
report were obtained from the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS), also conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Details are available in Craig Benson, Poverty: 2018 and 2019, U.S. Census Bureau, ACS Brief number ACSBR/20-
04, September 17, 2020, at https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/acs/acsbr20-04.html.
2 Jessica Semega, Melissa Kollar, Emily A. Shrider, and John Creamer, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019,
U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports number P60-270, September 15, 2020, Appendix B,
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-270.html. The characterization of the poverty measure as a
statistical yardstick goes back decades. See, for example, “U.S. Changes Yardstick on Who Is Poor,” Chicago Tribune,
May 3, 1965, section 1B, p. 4.
3 Not every apparent difference in point estimates is a real difference. The official poverty measure uses information
from the CPS ASEC, which surveys about 95,000 addresses nationwide. All poverty data discussed here are therefore
estimates, which have margins of error. Error in this case refers to a difference from the true data that is caused by
using a sample instead of the entire population, not mistakes in computation or biases from imperfect data collection or
processing. Even if a survey were implemented perfectly and had collected complete and accurate information from all
respondents in the sample, surveying a different sample would likely yield slightly different estimates of the poverty
population or the poverty rate. Thus, even if the true poverty rate were exactly the same in two different years, it is
possible to get survey estimates that appear different. In order to report that a change has occurred in the poverty rate—
that is, that the difference between the estimates is likely not caused by sampling variability—the difference has to be
large enough that fewer than 10% of all possible survey samples would produce a difference that large (and,
conversely, 90% of the samples would not). Such a difference is said to be statistically significant at the 90%
confidence level. Point estimates whose differences are not statistically significant are described as such in this report.
4 The Current Population Survey (CPS), the source of most of the data in this report, asks an extra set of questions (the
Annual Social and Economic Supplement, or ASEC) in February, March, and April, with most of the data collection
taking place in March, in order to obtain detailed information about the previous year’s income. According to the U.S.
Census Bureau, “It was thought that since March is the month before the deadline for filing federal income tax returns,
respondents were likely to have recently prepared tax returns or be in the midst of preparing such returns and could
report income more accurately than at any other time of the year”; U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey:
Design and Methodology, Technical Paper 66, October 2006, Chapter 11, “Current Population Survey Supplemental
Inquiries,” p. 11-5, https://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/tp-66.pdf.
5 The CPS is usually conducted using both telephone interviewing and in-person interviewing. For details, see U.S.
Census Bureau, Current Population Survey: Design and Methodology, Technical Paper 66, October 2006,
https://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/tp-66.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2

Poverty in the United States in 2020

contributed to a lower response rate, which affected the estimates.6 Further, the persons who did
not respond were more likely to have had low incomes than high incomes.7 While data used to
estimate poverty in both 2020 and 2019 were affected by these changes to survey data collection,
this drop in survey response tempers the conclusions that may be drawn from the data,
particularly when examining longer historical trends.8 The information in this report necessarily
uses the official estimates. Detailed experimental estimates that adjust for nonresponse bias
specific to the pandemic are not available for the characteristics discussed in the report.
How the Official Poverty Measure is Computed
The Census Bureau determines a person’s poverty status by comparing his or her resources
against a measure of need. For the official measure, resources is defined as total family income
before taxes, and the measure of need is a dollar amount called a poverty threshold. There are 48
poverty thresholds that vary by family size and composition. If a person lives with other people to
whom he or she is related by birth, marriage, or adoption, the money income from all family
members is used to determine his or her poverty status. If a person does not live with any family
members, his or her own income is used. Only money income before taxes is used in calculating
the official poverty measure, meaning this measure does not treat in-kind benefits such as the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), housing

6 According to Jonathan Rothbaum and Charles Hokayem, “During the onset of the pandemic, response rates fell
sharply to 73.0% in March 2020 and 69.9% in April 2020. In March and April of this year [2021], response rates
climbed to 76.2% and 78.8%, respectively, but were still below the prepandemic trend.” See Jonathan Rothbaum and
Charles Hokayem, “How Did the Pandemic Affect Survey Response: Using Administrative Data to Evaluate
Nonresponse in the 2021 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement,” on the Census
Bureau’s “Research Matters” blog entry for September 14, 2021, at https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/research-
matters/2021/09/pandemic-affect-survey-response.html. This decreased response rate could have many contributing
causes, such as a respondent’s lack of a telephone, difficulties in finding a telephone number associated with a
household selected for the survey, some respondents’ lower willingness to respond to a telephone call than to an in-
person visit, or other reasons. See Jonathan Rothbaum and Adam Bee, Coronavirus Infects Surveys Too: Nonresponse
Bias During the Pandemic in the CPS ASEC, U.S. Census Bureau, working paper number SEHSD WP2020-10,
September 2020, at https://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2020/demo/SEHSD-WP2020-10.html.
7 Every year, when processing the CPS ASEC data, the Census Bureau applies weighting procedures that attempt to
correct for nonresponse, so that totals by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin match independently computed totals
based on administrative data. These procedures reduced but did not eliminate nonresponse bias. In a research paper
(i.e., separate from the official reports), Census Bureau analysts estimated the likely effects of nonresponse bias on the
2019 income and poverty estimates; an updated analysis was published online for the 2020 income and poverty
estimates. For a detailed analysis of the lower response to the CPS ASEC conducted in 2020, see Jonathan Rothbaum
and Adam Bee, Coronavirus Infects Surveys Too: Nonresponse Bias During the Pandemic in the CPS ASEC, U.S.
Census Bureau, working paper number SEHSD WP2020-10, September 2020, at https://www.census.gov/library/
working-papers/2020/demo/SEHSD-WP2020-10.html. A succinct and less technical explanation by Jonathan
Rothbaum is available on the Census Bureau’s “Research Matters” blog at https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/
research-matters/2020/09/pandemic-affect-survey-response.html. The updated analysis for the 2021 CPS ASEC by
Rothbaum and Hokayem is available on the “Research Matters” blog at https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/
research-matters/2021/09/pandemic-affect-survey-response.html.
8 For an analysis of nonresponse in the 2020 estimates, see Jonathan Rothbaum and Charles Hokayem, “How Did the
Pandemic Affect Survey Response: Using Administrative Data to Evaluate Nonresponse in the 2021 Current
Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement,” on the Census Bureau’s “Research Matters” blog entry
for September 14, 2021, at https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/research-matters/2021/09/pandemic-affect-survey-
response.html. In an analysis of the 2019 estimates that attempted to correct for response bias, the U.S. poverty rate was
estimated to have been 11.1% (tying the previous low of 11.1% in 1973), higher than the official 2019 estimate of
10.5%. See Jonathan Rothbaum and Adam Bee, Coronavirus Infects Surveys Too: Nonresponse Bias During the
Pandemic in the CPS ASEC, U.S. Census Bureau, working paper number SEHSD WP2020-10, September 2020, at
https://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2020/demo/SEHSD-WP2020-10.html.
Congressional Research Service
3

Poverty in the United States in 2020

subsidies, or employer-provided benefits as income. Because the official measure uses income
before taxes, it also excludes refundable tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the
Child Tax Credit, as well as stimulus payments that were made as refundable tax credits.
The poverty threshold dollar amounts vary by the size of the family (from one person not living
in a family, to nine or more family members living together) and the ages of the family members
(how many of the members are children under 18 and whether or not the family head is 65 or
older). Collectively, these poverty thresholds are often referred to as the poverty line. As a rough
guide, the poverty line in 2020 can be thought of as $26,496 for a family of four, $20,591 for a
family of three, $16,733 for a family of two, or $13,171 for an individual not living in a family,
though the official measure is actually much more detailed.9
The threshold dollar amounts are updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index.
Notably, the same thresholds are applied throughout the country: no adjustment is made for
geographic variations in living expenses.10
The official poverty measure used in this report is the federal government’s definition of poverty
for statistical purposes, such as comparing the number or percentage in poverty over time. A
related definition of poverty, the poverty guidelines published by the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), is used for administrative purposes such as eligibility criteria for
assistance programs and will not be discussed in this report.11
The Supplemental Poverty Measure: Its Relevance in Relation to
the Official Measure
Over the past several decades, criticisms of the official poverty measure have led to the
development of an alternative research measure called the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which
the Census Bureau also computes and releases. Statistics comparing the official measure with the
SPM are provided at the conclusion of this report.
The SPM includes adjustments to reflect geographic variations in housing costs, and the
estimated effects of taxes and in-kind benefits (such as housing, energy, and food assistance) on
poverty, while the official measure does not. The SPM also takes a more expansive approach than
the official measure in recognizing relationships among household members, for the purpose of
identifying how those members share costs and pool resources. Furthermore, one-time payments
such as economic stimuli are not considered as part of the official definition of income, but these

9 To provide a general sense of the poverty line, the Census Bureau computes weighted averages of the thresholds
within each family size. For example, a family of three may consist of any of the following combinations: three adults,
two adults and one child, or one adult and two children. Each combination has its own distinct threshold. The $20,591
figure cited represents an average of those family combinations, adjusted to reflect that some types of three-person
families are more common than others. The averages are a convenience for the reader, but are not actually used to
compute poverty status for statistical reports. In actual computations, 48 thresholds are used in the official measure.
10 Unlike the poverty thresholds that are used to compute official poverty statistics, the Health and Human Services
(HHS) poverty guidelines used for administrative purposes do include separate amounts for Alaska and Hawaii.
11 The official poverty measure described in this report was established in the Office of Management and Budget’s
Statistical Policy Directive 14, May 1978, reproduced on the Census Bureau’s website at https://www.census.gov/
topics/income-poverty/poverty/about/history-of-the-poverty-measure/omb-stat-policy-14.html. It states that the official
measure is to be used for statistical purposes, but should not be construed as required for administrative purposes.
Though the poverty guidelines published by HHS use the official thresholds as part of their computation, the HHS
poverty guidelines are collectively a distinct poverty definition and are often used as a criterion in federal assistance
programs. The HHS poverty guidelines are often referred to as the federal poverty level or FPL. See CRS Report
R44780, An Introduction to Poverty Measurement, for further discussion.
Congressional Research Service
4

link to page 9 link to page 4 link to page 5 Poverty in the United States in 2020

payments are considered as resources in the SPM. Because some types of tax credits and noncash
benefits provide financial help to families and individuals in poverty, the SPM may be of interest
to policymakers, particularly in light of the economic stimulus payments and tax credits provided
in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The official measure provides a comparison of the population below poverty over a longer period
than does the SPM, including some years before many current antipoverty assistance programs
had been developed.12 In developing poverty-related legislation and conducting oversight on
programs that aid the low-income population, policymakers may be interested in these historical
trends.
Historical Perspective Under the Official Poverty
Measure
Figure 1 shows a historical perspective of the number and percentage of the population below the
poverty line. The number in poverty and the poverty rates are shown from the earliest year
available (1959) through the most recent year available (2020). Because the total U.S. population
has grown over time, poverty rates are useful for historical comparisons because they control for
population growth.
Poverty rates fell through the 1960s. Since then, they have generally risen and fallen according to
the economic cycle, though during the two most recent expansions poverty rates did not fall
measurably until four to six years into the expansion. Historically notable lows occurred in 1973
(11.1%), 2000 (11.3%), and 2019 (10.5%).13 Poverty rate peaks occurred in 1983 (15.2%), 1993
(15.1%), and 2010 (15.1%).14
Poverty rates tend to rise during and after recessions, as opposed to leading economic indicators
such as new housing construction, whose changes often precede changes in the performance of
the overall economy. The poverty rate’s lag is explainable in part by the way it is measured: it
uses income from the entire calendar year.15

12 While their methodology is not discussed in this report, researchers at Columbia University have developed an
anchored SPM, which estimates what the SPM would have been in previous years before the data necessary for
computing the SPM according to current methods were available. See Christopher Wimer, Liana Fox, Irv Garfinkel,
Neeraj Kaushal, and Jane Waldfogel, “Trends in Poverty with an Anchored Supplemental Poverty Measure,” Institute
for Research on Poverty Discussion Paper No. 1416-13, December 11, 2013, at https://www.irp.wisc.edu/resource/
trends-in-poverty-with-an-anchored-supplemental-poverty-measure/.
13 The rate in 2019 is the lowest numerically, but suffered from nonresponse bias, as was described in the
“Introduction” section. Before 2019, the poverty rates in 1973 and 2000 had been considered to be tied for the lowest
measured poverty rate because they are not statistically different from each other.
14 These poverty rates may not necessarily be distinguishable from the poverty rates in their adjacent years. See
footnote footnote 3 for an explanation of statistical significance.
15 For further historical information about poverty and recessions, see CRS Report R45854, Trends in the U.S. Poverty
Rate after Recessions, by Joseph Dalaker; and CRS Report R46939, Underemployment, Recessions, and Poverty, by
Joseph Dalaker.
Congressional Research Service
5

link to page 4 link to page 15

Poverty in the United States in 2020

Figure 1. Number of Persons in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959 to 2020
(Poverty rates in percentages, number of persons in millions; shaded bars indicate recessions)

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on poverty data from Table B-4 of Emily A. Shrider,
Melissa Kol ar, Frances Chen, and Jessica Semega, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2020, U.S. Census
Bureau, Current Population Reports number P60-273, issued September 2021. Recession dates were obtained
from the National Bureau of Economic Research at http://www2.nber.org/cycles/.
Notes: The 2019 and 2020 estimates were biased downward because of increased nonresponse associated with
telephone-only interviewing during the pandemic; for details, see the “Introduction” section. Two estimates are
shown for 2013 because the Census Bureau implemented a change to the CPS ASEC income questions. Some
households received the old questionnaire and others the new, so that it would be possible to see the effect of
changing the questionnaire. The CPS ASEC processing system was also updated for 2017. Those updates did not
affect the overall poverty rate, nor the poverty rates for children or the population aged 18-64, though the 2017
poverty rate for the aged was 0.3 percentage points higher than under the legacy system. For details, see John
Creamer and Ashley Edwards, Examining Poverty in 2016 and 2017 Using the Legacy and Updated Current Population
Survey Processing System, U.S. Census Bureau, Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division, Working Paper
#2019-28, July 30, 2019, https://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2019/demo/SEHSD-WP2019-28.html.
Poverty by Demographic Group
Increases in poverty rates between 2019 and 2020 were widespread, occurring among married-
couple families and female-householder families, children and working-age adults, the Hispanic
and White non-Hispanic populations, and both workers and nonworkers.
Family Structure
Because poverty status is determined at the family level by comparing resources against a
measure of need, vulnerability to poverty may differ among families of different compositions. In
this section, poverty data by family structure are presented using the official poverty measure,
with families defined as persons related by birth, marriage, or adoption to the householder (the
person in whose name the home is owned or rented). In the “Supplemental Poverty Measure”
section of this report, a different definition will be used.
In general, women have higher poverty rates than men: 12.6% compared with 10.2% in 2020.
Both sexes experienced poverty rate increases from 2019 (from 11.5% for women and 9.4% for
men). Historically, families with a female householder and no spouse present (female-
householder families) have had higher poverty rates than both married-couple families and
Congressional Research Service
6

link to page 10

Poverty in the United States in 2020

families with a male householder and no spouse present (male-householder families). This
remained true in 2020: the poverty rate among female-householder families was 23.4%,
compared with 11.4% for male-householder families and 4.7% for married-couple families
(Figure 2).
Female-householder families experienced an increase of 1.2 percentage points in their poverty
rate from 2019. Despite the increase, the 2020 poverty rate for female-householder families was
the second-lowest reported for that group, though those estimates are somewhat lower than would
be expected had in-person interviewing been available. Even though nonresponse affected low-
income families more than high-income families, and female-householder families are more
likely to be low income than the other family types, the 2020 poverty rate is the latest in a series
of lower poverty rates for this group, compared with previous decades.16
Married-couple families experienced a poverty rate increase as well, from 4.0% in 2019 to 4.7%
in 2020. No discernible change was detected for male-householder families, nor for persons
living alone or with non-relatives only (19.1% in 2020).
Figure 2. Poverty Rates of Families by Family Structure: 2020
(Poverty rates in percentages)

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on poverty data from Table B-1 of Emily A. Shrider,
Melissa Kol ar, Frances Chen, and Jessica Semega, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2020, U.S. Census
Bureau, Current Population Reports number P60-273, issued September 2021.
Notes: The poverty rates above include only families with a householder (the survey’s reference person for the
household; typically the person in whose name the home is owned or rented). The Census Bureau defines a
family as those living together related by birth, marriage, or adoption.
Age
When examining poverty by age, the three main groups (under 18, 18 to 64, and 65 and older) are
noteworthy for distinct reasons. People under age 18 are typically dependent on other family
members for income, particularly young children below their state’s legal working age. People
aged 18 to 64 are generally thought of as the working-age population and typically have wages
and salaries as their greatest source of income. People aged 65 and older, referred to as the aged
population, are often eligible for retirement, and those who do retire typically experience a
change in their primary source of income, such as from earnings to Social Security.

16 Poverty rates for female-householder families are available from 1959 onward. Until 1964, the rates for this group
were estimated to be above 40%. From 1964 through 1997, poverty rates for female-householder families were
between 30% and 40%, and from 1998 to 2014, they hovered close to or below 30% except during the years following
the Great Recession, when they peaked above 30%. From 2015 to 2020, the poverty rates for this group remained
below 30%.
Congressional Research Service
7

link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 9 link to page 5 link to page 5

Poverty in the United States in 2020

As shown in Figure 3, poverty rose among children and the working-age population. Among
children, 11.6 million (16.1%) lived in poverty in 2020, up from 10.5 million (14.4%) in 2019.
Among the working-age population, 20.6 million (10.4%) lived in poverty in 2020, up from 18.9
million (9.4%) in 2019. The 65-and-older population experienced no significant change: 9.0%
were below poverty in 2020.
Figure 3 illustrates poverty rates historically by age because the overall poverty rate (seen in
Figure 1) masks the decline in poverty among the aged population. In earlier years, the poverty
rate for those aged 65 and over was the highest of the three age groups. In 1966, people aged 65
and over had a poverty rate of 28.5%, compared with 17.6% for those under 18 and 10.5% for
working-age adults. By 1974, the poverty rate for people aged 65 and over had fallen to 14.6%,
compared with 15.4% for people under 18 and 8.3% for working-age adults. Since then, people
under 18 have had the highest poverty rate of the three groups. Meanwhile, the poverty rate
among the 65-and-older population eventually fell below the poverty rate of the working-age
population, and has trended below that group since the mid-2000s.
Figure 3. Poverty Rates by Age: 1959 to 2020
(Poverty rates in percentages; shaded bars indicate recessions)

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on poverty data from Table B-5 of Emily A. Shrider,
Melissa Kol ar, Frances Chen, and Jessica Semega, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2020, U.S. Census
Bureau, Current Population Reports number P60-273, issued September 2021. Recession dates were obtained
from the National Bureau of Economic Research at http://www2.nber.org/cycles/.
Notes: The 2019 and 2020 estimates were biased downward because of increased nonresponse associated with
telephone-only interviewing during the pandemic; for details, see the “Effect of the Pandemic on Survey
Col ection and Survey Estimates” section. Data are not available from 1960 to 1965 for persons aged 65 and
older and for persons aged 18 to 64. Two estimates are shown for 2013 for each age group because the Census
Bureau implemented a change to the CPS ASEC income questions. Some households received the old
questionnaire and others the new, so that it would be possible to see the effect of changing the questionnaire.
The CPS ASEC processing system was also updated for 2017. Those updates did not affect the overall poverty
rate, nor the poverty rates for children or the population aged 18-64, though the 2017 poverty rate for the aged
was 0.3 percentage points higher than under the legacy system. For details, see John Creamer and Ashley
Edwards, Examining Poverty in 2016 and 2017 Using the Legacy and Updated Current Population Survey Processing
System, U.S. Census Bureau, Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division, Working Paper #2019-28, July 30,
2019, https://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2019/demo/SEHSD-WP2019-28.html.
Congressional Research Service
8

link to page 12

Poverty in the United States in 2020

Race and Hispanic Origin17
Poverty rates vary by race and Hispanic origin, as shown in Figure 4. In surveys, Hispanic origin
is asked about separately from race; accordingly, people identifying as Hispanic may be of any
race. Comparing poverty rates in 2019 and 2020, among the White non-Hispanic population the
poverty rate rose from 7.3% to 8.2%, and among the Hispanic population it rose from 15.7% to
17.0%. No statistical difference was observed among the Black population18 (19.5% in 2020) or
the Asian population19 (8.1% in 2020).
Figure 4. Poverty Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin: 2020
(Poverty rates in percentages)

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on poverty data from Table B-1 of Emily A. Shrider,
Melissa Kol ar, Frances Chen, and Jessica Semega, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2020, U.S. Census
Bureau, Current Population Reports number P60-273, issued September 2021.
Notes: People of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Additionally, respondents may identify with one or more
racial groups. Except for “All persons” and “Hispanic,” the remaining groups shown include those who identified
with one race only. The “non-Hispanic White alone” group includes only the White non-Hispanic population, the
“Black alone” group includes Blacks of Hispanic origin, and the “Asian alone” group includes Asians of Hispanic
origin. Data for Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and the
population of two or more races are not shown separately.
Work Status
While having a job reduced the likelihood of being in poverty, it did not guarantee that a person
or his or her family would avoid poverty. Among the population aged 18 to 64 living in poverty,
36.8% had jobs in 2020. Poverty rates among workers in this age group were 5.0% for all workers
(up from 4.7% in 2019), 1.6% for full-time year-round workers (down from 2.0% in 2019), and
11.3% for part-time or part-year workers (down from 12.0% in 2019). Among those who did not
work at least one week in 2020, 28.8% were poor (up from 26.4% in 2019).

17 Since 2002, federal surveys have asked respondents to identify with one or more races; previously, they could choose
only one. The groups in this section represent those who identified with one race alone. Another approach is to include
those who selected each race group either alone or in combination with one or more other races. Those data are also
available on the Census Bureau’s website at https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-270.html,
where they are published in Appendix B of Emily A. Shrider, Melissa Kollar, Frances Chen, and Jessica Semega,
Income and Poverty in the United States: 2020, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports number P60-273,
issued September 2021; and in accompanying historical data tables.
18 Includes Blacks of Hispanic origin.
19 Includes Asians of Hispanic origin.
Congressional Research Service
9

link to page 14 link to page 5 link to page 14 Poverty in the United States in 2020

Because poverty is a family-based measure, a change in one member’s work status can affect the
poverty status of his or her entire family. Among all 18- to 64-year-olds who did not have jobs in
2020, 59.0% lived in families in which someone else did have a job.20 Among 18- to 64-year-olds
with income below the poverty line and without jobs, 19.6% lived in families where someone else
worked.21
The COVID-19 pandemic and various responses to it, including shutdowns, affected workers. As
a result, large shifts occurred in the work status categories when measured on an annual basis, and
these shifts affected the poverty rates for these groups. The total number of people who worked
full-time year-round fell as a result of some of the shutdowns: in 2019, 112.6 million people
worked full-time year-round, while in 2020 this number was 99.4 million. Conversely, the
number of people who worked, but not full-time year-round, rose from 42.0 million in 2019 to
52.8 million in 2020—a net increase of nearly 11 million workers. However, while many workers
whose status was impacted by the shutdowns fell below poverty, many more did not.
Unemployment insurance eligibility requirements were relaxed and benefit levels increased due
to interventions such as the Family First Coronavirus Response Act and the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security Act, and an estimated 40 million people, or 16.0% of the
population ages 18 and older, received unemployment insurance benefits.22 Furthermore, while
many shutdowns lasted for weeks or months,23 poverty status is computed using income over the
entire year. As a result, while the number of persons working less than full-time year-round and
living in poverty rose by nearly 1 million, the poverty rate for that same group fell (from 12.0% in
2019 to 11.3% in 2020).
Poverty Rates by State24
Poverty is not equally prevalent in all parts of the country. Figure 5 shows states with relatively
high poverty rates across parts of the Appalachians, the Southwest, and the Deep South.
Mississippi’s poverty rate (18.8%), seemingly the highest, was in a statistical tie with Louisiana’s
(17.4%—see footnote 3 for a discussion of statistical significance). The poverty rate in New
Hampshire (5.3%), seemingly the lowest, was not statistically distinguishable from that in Utah
(7.2%). When comparing poverty rates geographically, the official poverty thresholds are not

20 Author’s tabulation using 2021 CPS ASEC public use file.
21 Ibid.
22 For a discussion, see Patrick Carey, Jeffrey A. Groen, Bradley A. Jensen, Thomas J. Krolik, and Anne E. Polivka,
“Applying for and receiving unemployment insurance benefits during the coronavirus pandemic,” Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Monthly Labor Review, September 2021, at https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2021/article/applying-for-and-
receiving-unemployment-insurance-benefits-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic.htm.
23 The National Bureau of Economic Research determined the recession in 2020 to have begun in February (the
business cycle peak) and ended in April (the business cycle trough), meaning that the contraction in the economy had
stopped. For details, see https://www.nber.org/research/business-cycle-dating.
24 These state estimates are based on multi-year averages using 2018-2021 CPS ASEC data, rather than from the 2021
CPS ASEC alone. Because the CPS ASEC surveys 90,000 to 100,000 addresses nationwide, it is sometimes difficult to
obtain reliable estimates for small populations or small geographic areas—the sample may not have selected enough
people from that group or area to provide a meaningful estimate. Using multi-year averages therefore affords greater
statistical precision for comparing state areas. Three-year averages for 2018-2020 are used in Figure 5 and in
comparing poverty rates across states. For measuring poverty rate changes within a single state, two two-year averages
were used: the 2017-2018 average and the 2019-2020 average. Alternatively, the American Community Survey (ACS)
is typically recommended by the Census Bureau for estimates at the state level and smaller areas; however, as of the
cover date of this report, the available data for 2020 from the ACS are experimental estimates. Official ACS estimates
for 2020 have not yet been released. For details, see Ceci A. Villa Ross, Hyon Shin, and Matthew C. Marlay,
“Pandemic Impact on 2020 American Community Survey 1-Year Data” at https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/
random-samplings/2021/10/pandemic-impact-on-2020-acs-1-year-data.html.
Congressional Research Service
10

link to page 13

Poverty in the United States in 2020

adjusted for geographic variations in the cost of living—the same thresholds are used nationwide.
As such, an area with a lower cost of living accompanied by lower wages will appear to have a
higher poverty rate than an area with a higher cost of living and higher wages, even if individuals’
purchasing power were exactly the same in both areas.
Figure 5. Three-Year Average State Poverty Rates: 2018-2020
(Poverty rates in percentages)

Source: Congressional Research Service, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey,
2019-2021 Annual Social and Economic Supplements, “Interrelationships of Three Year Average State Poverty
Rates: 2018–2020,” supplementary table to accompany Emily A. Shrider, Melissa Kol ar, Frances Chen, and
Jessica Semega, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2020, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports
number P60-273, issued September 2021; see https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/p60/273/
Interrelationships3yrAvg.xls.
Notes: Data by state are based on three-year averages in order to reduce sampling error.
Sixteen states experienced statistically significant declines in their poverty rates, comparing their
2019-2020 average to their 2017-2018 average, and one experienced an increase. Among those
that experienced decreases, three were in the Northeast (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and
New Jersey), four were in the Midwest (Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, and North Dakota), four
were in the South (North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia), and five were in the West
(Arizona, California, New Mexico, Washington, and Wyoming). Delaware, the only state with an
increase, is in the South region. These decreases appear to run counter to the poverty rate
increases discussed in earlier sections because these state estimates compare two consecutive
two-year averages, while the national estimates discussed earlier compared 2019 with 2020 (see
footnote 24).
Congressional Research Service
11

Poverty in the United States in 2020

Supplemental Poverty Measure
Criticisms of the official poverty measure led to the development of the SPM. Described below
are the development of the official measure, its limitations, attempts to remedy those limitations,
the research efforts that eventually led to the SPM’s first release in November 2011, and a
comparison of poverty rates in 2020 based on the SPM and the official measure.25
How the Official Poverty Measure Was Developed
The poverty thresholds were originally developed in the early 1960s by Mollie Orshansky of the
Social Security Administration. Rather than attempt to compute a family budget by using prices
for all essential items that low-income families need to live, Orshansky focused on food costs.26
Unlike other goods and services such as housing or transportation, which did not have a generally
agreed-upon level of adequacy, minimum standards for nutrition were known and widely
accepted. According to a 1955 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) food consumption survey,
the average amount of their income that families spent on food was roughly one-third. Therefore,
using the cost of a minimum food budget and multiplying that figure by three yielded a figure for
total family income. That computation was possible because USDA had already published
recommended food budgets as a way to address the nutritional needs of families experiencing
economic stress. Some additional adjustments were made to derive poverty thresholds for two-
person families and individuals not living in families to reflect the relatively higher fixed costs of
smaller households.
Motivation for a Supplemental Measure
While the official poverty measure has been used for nearly 60 years as the source of official
statistics on poverty in the United States, it has received criticism over the years for several
reasons. First, it does not take into account benefits from most of the largest programs that aid the
low-income population. For instance, it uses money income before taxes—meaning that it does
not necessarily measure the income available for individuals to spend, which for most people is
after-tax income. Therefore, any effects of tax credits designed to assist persons with low income
are not captured by the official measure. The focus on money income also does not account for
in-kind benefit programs designed to help the poor, such as SNAP or housing assistance.
The official measure has also been criticized for the way it characterizes families’ and
individuals’ needs in the poverty thresholds. That is, the method used to compute the dollar
amounts used in the thresholds, which were originally based on food expenditures in the 1950s
and food costs in the 1960s, does not accurately reflect current needs and available goods and
services.27 The official measure also does not take account of the sharing of expenses and income

25 For a more thorough discussion of the SPM’s development and methodology, see CRS Report R45031, The
Supplemental Poverty Measure: Its Core Concepts, Development, and Use.
26 While Orshansky did not attempt to compute a complete basket of goods and services, her focus on food costs was
already a more detailed empirical approach to poverty measurement than were the dollar amounts used in the 1964
Economic Report of the President, issued by the Council of Economic Advisers (chapter 2, “The Problem of Poverty in
America”). In that report, a flat figure of $3,000 was used for all families and $1,500 for unrelated individuals. See also
Economic Report of the President (1964), https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/45#8135. For a thorough history of the
official poverty measure, see Gordon Fisher, The Development of the Orshansky Thresholds and Their Subsequent
History as the Official U.S. Poverty Measure, 1992, rev. 1997, reproduced on the Census Bureau’s website at
https://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/1997/demo/fisher-02.html.
27 Criticisms have been discussed in the mainstream press as well as academia. A 1988 article (Spencer Rich, “Drawing
Congressional Research Service
12

link to page 16 Poverty in the United States in 2020

among household members not related by birth, marriage, or adoption. And, as mentioned earlier,
the official thresholds do not take account of geographic variations in the cost of living.
In 1995, a panel from the National Academy of Sciences issued a report, Measuring Poverty: A
New Approach, which recommended improvements to the poverty measure.28 Among the
suggested improvements were to have the poverty thresholds reflect the costs of food, clothing,
shelter, utilities, and a little bit extra to allow for miscellaneous needs; to broaden the definition of
family; to include geographic adjustments as part of the measure’s computation; to include the
out-of-pocket costs of medical expenses in the measure’s computation; and to subtract work-
related expenses from income. An overarching goal of the recommendations was to make the
poverty measure more closely aligned with the real-life needs and available resources of the low-
income population, as well as the changes that have taken place over time in their circumstances,
owing to changes in the nation’s economy, society, and public policies (see Table 1).
After over a decade and a half of research to implement and refine the methodology suggested by
the panel, conducted both from within the Census Bureau as well as by other federal agencies and
the academic community, the Census Bureau issued the first report using the SPM in November
2011.29
Table 1. Differences Between the Official and Supplemental Poverty Measures

Official Poverty Measure

Supplemental Poverty Measure
Resource units
People related by birth, marriage, or adoption
People related by birth, marriage, adoption, plus
(families)
(official Census Bureau definition of family).
unrelated and foster children, and cohabiting
People aged 15 and older not related to anyone
partners and their children or other relatives (if
else in the household are considered as their
any) are considered as “SPM resource units”
own economic units.
(sharing resources and expenses together).

the Line Between Rich, Poor,” The Washington Post, September 23, 1988, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/
politics/1988/09/23/drawing-the-line-between-rich-poor/60f5dbeb-dab3-4a42-819a-2dea34e7854e/) documented
dissatisfaction about the official measure. This came from both those claiming it was too high, citing its failure to
capture the effects of in-kind benefits for the poor and its overstatement of inflation, and those claiming it was too low,
based on the fact that if the thresholds were derived using more recent household consumption data, they would be
based on roughly five times the cost of food, not three times as Orshansky had computed in the early 1960s.
28 Constance F. Citro and Robert T. Michael, eds., Measuring Poverty: A New Approach, Panel on Poverty and Family
Assistance: Concepts, Information Needs, and Measurement Methods, Committee on National Statistics, National
Research Council (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1995), available at https://www.nap.edu/read/4759/
chapter/1.
29 The effort to consolidate the previous research and create the SPM was done under the auspices of an Interagency
Technical Working Group (ITWG) led by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and received public
commentary via a Federal Register notice (Federal Register, vol. 75 no. 101, Wednesday, May 26, 2010, pp. 29513-
29514, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/05/26/2010-12628/developing-a-supplemental-poverty-
measure). The Federal Register notice referenced a report by the ITWG ("Observations from the Interagency Technical
Working Group on Developing a Supplemental Poverty Measure”), which has since been moved to a new URL at
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/topics/income/supplemental-poverty-measure/spm-twgobservations.pdf.
The comments that the Census Bureau received on that report are available on the Census Bureau’s website at
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/topics/income/supplemental-poverty-measure/redactedcomments.pdf.
These and additional methodological documents on the SPM are available at https://www.census.gov/topics/income-
poverty/supplemental-poverty-measure/guidance/methodology.html.
Congressional Research Service
13

link to page 15 Poverty in the United States in 2020

Official Poverty Measure

Supplemental Poverty Measure
Needs
 Vary according to family size and ages of
 Vary according to the size and composition of
(thresholds)
family members.
the resource unit (see above).
 Dol ar amounts based on the cost of a food
 Dol ar amounts based on consumer expenditure
plan for families in economic stress in the
data for food, clothing, shelter, and utilities, with
early 1960s, times three (with adjustments
adjustments by homeownership and mortgage or
for two-person families and individuals).
rental status.
 Updated for inflation using the Consumer
 Based on five years of consumer expenditure
Price Index.
data (not fixed at one point and trended

forward), lagged one year from the most recent
No geographic cost adjustments.
for consistency with the CPS ASEC data available
for computing in-kind benefit amounts for the
SPM thresholds.
 Housing costs geographically adjusted for
individual metropolitan areas and the entire
nonmetropolitan area within states.
Resources
Money income before taxes (includes 18 private
Money income (both private and government
and government sources of income, including
sources) after taxes
Social Security, cash assistance, and other

Minus: work expenses, child care expenses,
sources of cash income).
child support paid, out-of-pocket medical
expenses.

Plus: tax credits (such as the Child Tax
Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit)
and the value of in-kind benefits (such as food
and housing subsidies).
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) summary of methodological discussion in Liana Fox and Kalee
Burns, The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2020, U.S. Census Bureau, September 2021, http://www.census.gov/
content/dam/Census/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-275.pdf.
Notes: For caveats, see the “Supplemental Poverty Measure” section of this report.
Official and Supplemental Poverty Findings for 202030
Compared with the official measure, the SPM takes into account greater detail of individuals’ and
families’ living arrangements and provides a more up-to-date accounting of the costs and
resources available to them. Because the SPM recognizes greater detail in relationships among
household members and geographically adjusts housing costs, it provides an updated rendering,
compared with the official measure, of the circumstances in which the poor live. In that context,
some point out that the SPM’s measurement of taxes, transfers, and expenses may offer
policymakers a clearer view of how government policies affect the population living in poverty
today. However, the SPM was developed as a research measure, and the Office of Management
and Budget set the expectation that it would be revised periodically to incorporate improved
measurement methods and newer sources of data as they became available; it was not developed
for administrative purposes. The fact that tax liabilities and credits are modeled, or that in-kind

30 Data in this section are available in Liana Fox and Kalee Burns, The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2020, U.S.
Census Bureau, September 2021, Appendix Table 1, Appendix Table 2, and Appendix Table 6, at
http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-275.pdf (hereinafter, “Fox and
Burns”).
Congressional Research Service
14

link to page 6 Poverty in the United States in 2020

benefits are estimated using limited data, can be useful to bear in mind when comparing SPM
estimates with official poverty estimates, or when any changes to the SPM methodology become
implemented in the future.31 Conversely, the official measure’s consistency over a longer time
span makes it easier for policymakers and researchers to make historical comparisons.
Under the SPM, the profile of the poverty population is slightly different than under the official
measure. The SPM poverty rate was 2.3 percentage points lower in 2020 than the official poverty
rate (9.1%, compared with 11.4%; see Figure 6).32
This comparison is the opposite of what has been seen in previous years—before 2020, SPM
poverty rates had been higher than official poverty rates. Two factors help to explain this reversal,
and both highlight policy responses to the economic downturn in 2020. First, the SPM counts
some resources that the official measure does not, such as refundable tax credits (which include
stimulus payments).33 Second, the SPM defines families differently from the official measure, and
this can make cash payments like unemployment insurance—which are included in both
measures—appear to have larger antipoverty effects in the SPM because more people in a family
are counted as having received them.34 The sharp increase in unemployment insurance payments
in 2020, in response to layoffs related to the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighted how the SPM’s
family definition makes a difference in who gets classified as poor. Among the over 14 million
persons classified as poor in 2020 under the SPM but not under official measure, approximately 2
million lived in families that received unemployment compensation according to the official
definition of family, but 2.6 million received it according to the SPM’s definition of family.35 In
the previous year (2019), fewer unemployment compensation payments were made, and the
differences between the poverty measures in who received them were less stark: then,
approximately 9.2 million were poor under the official measure but not the SPM, and of these,

31 For instance, work expenses such as commuting costs can be difficult to pin down precisely for every person or
family, because they often influence and are influenced by a person’s or family’s decision about where to live. Rather
than attempting to estimate the relevant work expenses for every family, in the SPM a flat amount is assigned to
workers, multiplied by the number of weeks they worked. Some researchers have also found that the tax model used in
the SPM underestimates refundable tax credits, in comparison with administrative data, which particularly affects
families with children. Therefore, refinements to the SPM methodology based on the ongoing SPM research may not
be trivial. Working papers that present results of research into SPM methodology may be found on the Census Bureau’s
website at https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/supplemental-poverty-measure/library/working-papers.html.
32 To establish a more accurate comparison with the SPM, a set of poverty estimates using the official measure was
recomputed to include unrelated individuals under age 15 (such as foster children) who are not normally included in the
official measure. Additionally, both the SPM and the official poverty measure were affected by increased rates of
nonresponse in the CPS ASEC in 2021 and 2020 (see footnote 6 for detailed references). After adjusting for the
increase in nonresponse bias, the SPM poverty rate in 2019 (based on the 2020 CPS ASEC) was 11.9% compared with
11.1% for the official poverty rate. As with the estimates based on the official measure, the SPM estimates discussed in
this report will use the estimates as published, because adjusted estimates are not available for the characteristics
examined in the report.
33 The 2020 SPM poverty rate would have been 3.6 percentage points higher if the first two rounds of 2020 stimulus
payments had not been included in that measure; these payments did not exist in 2019. Combining stimulus payments
with other types of refundable tax credits, the 2020 SPM poverty rate would have been 5.2 percentage points higher if
these payments were not included in the measure. In contrast, the 2019 SPM poverty rate would have been 2.4
percentage points higher if refundable tax credits were not included (see Fox and Burns, Appendix Table 6).
34 The official measure does not treat cohabiting partners as being in the same family unit, while the SPM does. As a
result, the antipoverty effects of unemployment insurance payments are greater as measured under the SPM. Among
members of cohabiting partner families, the SPM counted approximately 4.2 million fewer persons in poverty in 2020
compared with the official measure (see Fox and Burns, Appendix Table 1). In 2019, the corresponding figure was 2.6
million (see Liana Fox, The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2019, U.S. Census Bureau, September 2020, Appendix
Table 1, at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-272.pdf).
35 Author’s computations, using data from the 2021 CPS ASEC.
Congressional Research Service
15

Poverty in the United States in 2020

approximately 0.2 million lived in families that received unemployment compensation payments
according to the official measure, while 0.3 million received them under the SPM’s family
definition.36
Fewer people aged 18 to 64 were in poverty under the SPM (8.8%, compared with 10.4% under
the official measure), as were people under age 18 (9.7%, compared with 16.0%, with foster
children included). The poverty rate for people age 65 and older was higher under the SPM
(9.5%) than under the official measure (9.0%).37
As with the overall poverty rate, the results for working-age adults in 2020 run counter to the
usual comparisons between the SPM and the official measure, again, likely due in large part to
refundable tax credits, including stimulus payments.38 Working-age adults usually have a higher
SPM poverty rate than official poverty rate because the SPM deducts work expenses and child
care expenses from income, but in 2020 the increase in refundable tax credits (including stimulus
payments) made the SPM poverty rate lower for that group than under the official measure.
Further, while children under 18 have consistently already had SPM poverty rates below the
official rate (because refundable tax credits are often targeted to families with children), in 2020
the stimulus payments seem to have made this difference even more striking.39
While geographically adjusted thresholds usually result in regional differences in how the SPM
and official poverty rates compare, reflecting the differences in housing costs by region, that was
not the case in 2020. The poverty rate in 2020 was lower under the SPM than under the official
measure for all four major geographic regions of the country. In the Northeast, the SPM poverty
rate was 8.5% compared with 10.1% under the official measure; for the Midwest, 6.7% compared
with 10.1%; for the South, 10.1% compared with 13.3%; and in the West, 10.1% compared with
10.6%.

36 Author’s computations, using data from the 2020 CPS ASEC. The impact on the SPM of the increase in
unemployment insurance payments between 2019 and 2020 can also be seen by recomputing SPM poverty rates
without including these payments. If unemployment insurance payments were not counted in the SPM, the 2020 SPM
poverty rate would have been 1.7 percentage points higher; in contrast, the 2019 SPM poverty rate would have been
approximately 0.2 percentage points higher (see Fox and Burns, Appendix Table 6).
37 The SPM deducts medical out-of-pocket expenses from income, while the official measure does not. Adults 65 and
older are more likely to incur those expenses than are other age groups; hence, SPM poverty rates for those 65 and
older are typically higher under the SPM than the official measure.
38 The SPM counts refundable tax credits, including two stimulus payments in 2020, but the official measure does not.
If the SPM had not included stimulus payments and other types of refundable tax credits, the 2020 SPM poverty rate
among 18- to 64-year-olds would have been 4.5 percentage points higher; in contrast, the corresponding 2019 SPM
poverty rate would have been approximately 1.8 percentage points higher (Fox and Burns, Appendix Table 6).
39 The 2020 SPM poverty rate among children would have been approximately 8.2 percentage points higher if stimulus
payments and other types of refundable tax credits were not included. The 2019 SPM poverty rate for children would
have been approximately 5.7 percentage points higher if refundable tax credits were not included (there were no
stimulus payments that year). See Fox and Burns, Appendix Table 6.
Congressional Research Service
16

Poverty in the United States in 2020

Figure 6. Poverty Rates Under Official Measure and Supplemental Poverty Measure
for the United States, by Age and by Region: 2020
(Poverty rates in percentages)

Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data from Liana Fox and Kalee Burns, The Supplemental
Poverty Measure: 2020, U.S. Census Bureau, September 2021, Appendix Table 2, at
http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-275.pdf.
Notes: Figures include unrelated individuals under age 15 (such as foster children), who are not usually included
in official poverty estimates.

Author Information

Joseph Dalaker

Analyst in Social Policy

Acknowledgments
The author is grateful for the expertise of Amber Hope Wilhelm, CRS Visual Information Specialist, and
her assistance with the figures.
Congressional Research Service
17

Poverty in the United States in 2020

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47030 · VERSION 1 · NEW
18

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Feb. 10, 2022

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Domestic Social Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON