Supplemental Poverty Measure Brief: 2009-2012

This brief summarizes data released by the Census Bureau on the research supplemental poverty measure. Cited statistics include poverty rates from 2009-2012 using both the official poverty measure and the supplemental poverty measure; the anti-poverty effectiveness of select social safety net programs for all persons and children 0-17; changes in poverty between 2009 and 2012 by age, race and ethnicity, family type, region, and residence; and changes in the SPM rate from 2009 to 2012 for selected demographic characteristics. The data are based on information collected in the 2013 and earlier Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplements (CPS ASEC) conducted by the Census Bureau.

The Census Bureau has released data on the research supplemental poverty measure (SPM) indicating that 16.0 percent of the U.S. population in 2012 was poor, representing 49.7 million individuals. This compares to 15.1 percent of the U.S. population, or 47.0 million individuals, under the official measure.[1] Both the official poverty rate and the SPM poverty rate remained statistically unchanged from 2011 to 2012.

The SPM adds greater refinement and thus differs from the official measure in both the measurement of needs (or thresholds used to define the poverty level) and resources available to meet those needs. In particular, the SPM accounts for the ways that the social safety net helps families by counting non-cash benefits and tax credits as income. The official poverty measure counts only cash benefits and other cash income.

Between 2009 and 2012, the percentage of the U.S. population that was poor using the SPM increased from 15.3 percent to 16.0 percent. This increase followed a similar trend as the official poverty measure, which increased from 14.3 percent to 15.1 percent over the same time period.

Figure 1. Poverty Rates from 2009-2012

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements.

With the SPM, it is possible to show the effects that social safety net programs had on the poverty rate in 2009 and 2012, holding all else the same and assuming no behavioral changes. Poverty rate reductions for social safety net programs that are included only in the supplemental measure and not in the official measure are shown for the total population and for all children under the age of 18.

Figure 2. Anti-Poverty Effectiveness of Select Social Safety Net Programs, 2009 and 2012

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements.  

Figure 3. Children Ages 0-17: Anti-Poverty Effectiveness of Select Social Safety Net Programs, 2009 and 2012

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements.

• Refundable tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits show the largest poverty reduction effects of the social safety net programs included in the SPM but not included in the official poverty measure. In 2012, family receipt of refundable tax credits (alone) reduced the poverty rate for all persons by 3.0 percentage points and receipt of SNAP benefits (alone) reduced the poverty rate for all persons by 1.6 percentage points.
• The School Lunch program, the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) also reduced poverty levels in 2012 but to a comparatively less degree than refundable tax credits and SNAP.
• Poverty reductions associated with social safety net programs that are included only in the supplemental measure and not in the official measure were even greater for children than for all persons. In 2012, refundable tax credits (alone) reduced the child poverty rate by 6.7 percentage points and SNAP benefits (alone) reduced the child poverty rate by 3.0 percentage points.
• Including the value of School Lunch (alone) reduced poverty for children by 0.9 percentage points. The poverty reduction effects for the WIC program (alone) and LIHEAP (alone) were much smaller.
• For refundable tax credits, SNAP, and School Lunch, poverty reductions were greater in 2012 than in 2009 for all persons as well as for children. Note that the 2009 poverty reductions associated with refundable tax credits include only the effect of the EITC, while the 2012 poverty reductions include the refundable portion of the child tax credit in addition to the EITC. This difference likely accounts for some portion of the change in the effect of tax credits between 2009 and 2012.