1

CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007

Children Below Poverty Level by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1980-2007

Exercise #2 Problem Definition Paper: Secondary Data Tables
Amanda Powe
Social Work 300-01
J.L. McArthur
January 29, 2010
 2

CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007

Abstract

This paper will take a look into the world of poverty in children. Children living below the poverty

level will be examined by race and origin. The problem when dealing with the subject of poverty is

finding out exactly how proportioned the matter is across the United States racially. The data table

used to research the different categories of race by percentage and number will identify a particular

race as the highest number of cases varying by year. The data table is provided by the U.S. Census

Bureau. The findings will be produced by analyzing the data table and considering the Census's

obstacles in collecting the data.

 3

CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007

z Problem Identification: The problem in identifying poverty levels in the United States

becomes the proportion of races. The level in the case of the data examined, is distributed

among a wide array of races, the numbers and percentages are solid when dealing with their

statistics. The current population in some ways supports individuals touched by poverty but in

some cases the data can be analyzed to examine the findings as a whole. The data contained in

the table looks at children an the problem derived from this data is that there is a significant

amount of Black children who live in poverty over other races.

Other issues exist when looking at the data table is that there is a significant jump for African

Americans and some other races during earlier years. African American

numbers are steady at other times as the table progresses by year. The problem will continue to

be looking a the variants in data and making sense of them. The problems posed by viewing the

table are embedded in reading the data and critically understanding how all the races compare

and contrast. The focus is African Americans and the distribution of data year by year is

fundamentally high across the table.

z Problem Description: Because there are such high levels of poverty dealing with children in

the Black community, special attention must be paid to the statistics of this table. The poverty

level for black children has been steady for the past nine to ten years. Although there has been

some slight changes in data the problem remains the same. Black children are struggling with

poverty before they hit adult hood and the numbers show that this is a serious issue for the

Black community. Support must be given to help ease this issue. Not only are Black Children

suffering but this may be direct resemblance of the problems that their parents or care takers

may be facing.
 4

CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007

Government Officials, politicians, non profit organizations, and the Black

community must find solutions to help these children and their families because

this problem can have a lasting effect on the population of Black living in the United

States. Many politicians have made promises to help the poor, numbers show that

there have only been slight changes as time goes on. Government has implemented

different subsidies, but there should be a special focus devoted to those who are

below the poverty level.

There should also be a discussion that will allow officials, communities, and

organizations to team up and help the nation of children that sit below poverty

level. It is evident that the members of this group are unable to acquire jobs or

even seek temporary employment that can assist them within their situations

because of their age. Attention needs to be paid and there are a number of

individuals who can support and fight to make life better for these children and

their parents of caretakers.

Thought the table does not let us know the exact origin of the Blacks accounted for

in the data. Previous knowledge on the subject allows me to believe that the

majority of these individuals are either in large urban areas or small rural areas

with the majority population being faced with the same issue. Though there is need

to work with these groups there are very few willing and motivated individuals that

can carry out the task of helping these children in need.

 5

CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007

z Findings: The data tables that will be used include, two U.S Census tables, a United States

poverty measurement table, and a table developed by a website called Kidsdata.org. All of th

tables will be referenced and include data that is very important in researching the cause and

effect factors of children living below poverty level. The information included in the tables

come from reliable sources that are affiliated with the government or agencies that are credible.

The first chart that will be used was selected from the census data website and was is titled

“Children Below Poverty Level by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1980 to 2007.” This data table

takes a look at the the percentages and the number of children by race that are below the

poverty level. The next table used from the United States Census looks at the percentage of

people in poverty in the last 12 months by state. I found this table helpful because of the way in

which it worked with the previous table to prove that there is in fact an issue with the poverty

level in relation to children and their parents.

The data table that was developed by the NCCP.org website shows that there is a

the measurement of poverty does help in identifying the way in which children are

found to be below poverty level. The table uses figures such as state and number

per household to guide onlookers. The next table used is from Kidsdata.org. The

the data contained recognizes children as having a serious issue with poverty and

identifies the number of days missed from school as a direct indication of how

poverty changes their lives in the education spectrum

Overall the data that is being used covers number of different areas and is very
 6

CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007

relevant to the research that is being done. In order to look across the board at

different variables the variables have to be seen as important. I have found all the

variables that are being used as important and in order for poverty to be solved one

must develop a large amount of knowledge in each variable and event those that

may not be as evident

z Magnitude: The data supplied by the “Children Below Poverty Level by Race

and Hispanic Origin: 1980 to 2007,” looks closely at the children that are

affected by living below poverty level identifies all races as participating. Blacks

are affected the most and had extremely high numbers from 1980 to 1997. The

numbers and percentagest started to work their way down after this but still

remained high.

Not only were these numbers high, they were the highest Whites

Hispanics, and Asians. The table shows that just as the numbers went

down for other races the same was true for Blacks but not at the same

magnitudes. In 2007 there was a 1.3 change in the data but the

question remains if the way in which these numbers are changing is

due to death birth and any other factors. The table does not give a

direct explanation so only assumptions can be made. Other tables

prove that there are problems dealing with illness and malnutrition

that are changing these numbers.

As far as money is concerned, if there were programs in place the way

 7

CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007

in which the data showed may show up different. There are no direct

indications on cost and how high these numbers could rise given the

current recession, but over the last ten years they have been proven

to be steady. Overall the magnitude of Black children affected by

living below poverty shows that there needs to be an implementation

of support directed to families and the economy as soon as possible.

Magnitude should be looked at through different tables and tables.

This table lets us know that a second look should be given to policy

and the black community as a whole. The data does not deny that

are large numbers of children who are not eating nor being supplied

the basic needs for their development. The Census data can also

develop a number of other problems because of the fact that it is

surveyed data.

z Scope: In order to identify the scope of the issue of children living

below poverty level in the United States, I chose to use more census

data to look diligently into the problem. I viewed the the data table entitled

“Number and Percentage of People in the Past 12 months by State and Puerto

Rico: 2007 and 2008.” The data did not break down by race but most regions

have concentrated numbers of a certain race.

Though the data used does not specify children I found that it would be

useful to identify where these caretakers and parents may have

 8

CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007

classified themselves. The information contained in the data table was

extremely useful for finding out the locations of these children.

Although I am being led by possibility I feel that my tactic is very

resourceful given the data that I was able to find.

Since we know that Blacks are mainly affected by this issue I chose to

look at the states and where exactly the large numbers were. The

table identified to me that the top state with members of the

population living in poverty was in Colorado. Colorado accounted for

4,433,014 of the total cases. Texas, New York, Michigan, Georgia,

Indiana, and other urban and rural states were at the top of the data

table in numbers.

Although this table does not look closely at the race nor the exact city

the information is useful. The data table shows 2008 information, and

I chose to quote only the data used for 2007 because the original data

was quoted up until the year 2007. The data in this table concludes

that there are a number of areas that are affected and blacks could be

in any number of places identified on the the data table.

z Changes: On the data table produced by the NCCP.org there were

absolute changes that developed in the way that the United States

Government measures poverty. Though overtime the numbers are

stable the reason could be related to the way in which it is measured.

The data table found on the website is looked at for only a brief
 9

CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007

knowledge on calculations. The variables include persons in family

and an income standard.

The standards change and they are also certain guidelines that are

developed that include dividends, net worth, and property. In no way

should these variables be ignored but changes in the numbers over

may be dramatically affected if yearly they change. Changes made in

numbers were very small from 2007 to 2008 as viewed on the

“Number and Percentage of People in Poverty in the last 12 month by

state and Puerto Rico 2007 and 2008.”

In 2008 there was a average of a .1 percent change to a 1.4 percent

change in some areas. The way in which the data was compared

looked at both 2007 and 2008 to subtract and come up with the total

change. The percentages were very small and could possibly pose

some issues for children living below the poverty level and their

families.

This data was very helpful in identifying possible causes for change

going on to look very closely at the percentages of change. The data

was calculated with the possibility of error represented in the last

column. There are some areas that need to bee viewed by different

organizations within the united states for an effort to be placed on

 10

CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007

solutions specifically.

z Disparities: In terms of race the problem of living below poverty

plagues the Black community. Yes, there are other races that are hit

by this issue, but the fact that there are such large numbers on the

data tables may make on think about the causes. The data table that has been

produced by kidsdata.org, recognizes that there is a need for

the problem.

The data collected used in this study does not look at people with

different disabilities or genders. Information contained in the table

does prove that there are a number of problems that will cause these

issues. The table recognizes that there are a number of areas in the

United States that have 0-11days missed from school because of

poverty. The issue then becomes how can one prevent these issues.

Without the proper amount of health care and access to the nutritious

food choices, there may be a growing disparity in the area of children

below poverty level. The data was looked at from the years 2000 to

2006 and may remain evident in the year 2007 and on. The use of

disability, sex, and sexual orientation was not identified but can only

be assumed with the use of region and race.

The data table was helpful in identifying future disparities that may
 11

CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007

exist in the future. Race was found to be the number on problem that

the data compiled showed. Blacks are affected by poverty and even

more important children. The data used for this section shows the

ways in which the information can be used to make predictions for

these children and their families.

 12

CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007

References

Bishaw, A., & Kenwick, T. J. (2009). Poverty:2007 and 2008. In American Community Surveys (Sept.

2009, p. 4). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/acsbr08-1.pdf

Fass, S. (2009, April). Measuring Poverty in the United States Fact Sheet. National Center for Children

in Poverty p.1. http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_876.pdf

Impact of Special Health Care Needs on Children and Families [Fact Sheet]. (n.d.). Retrieved January

27, 2010, from Impact of Special Health Care Needs on Children and Families Kidsdata.org

Web site: http://www.kidsdata.org/cache/pdfs/Kidsdata-Overview_Impact-on-Children-and-

Families-(State-and-U.S.).pdf

US Census Bureau "Children Below Poverty Level by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1980 to 2007".

Retrieved January 27 2010.

 13

CHILDREN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 1980-2007

APPENDIX
 FA C T S H E E T

Measuring Poverty in the United States

Sarah Fass April 2009

This fact sheet discusses how the U.S. government measures poverty,
why the current measure is inadequate, and what alternative ways exist
to measure economic hardship.

How does the U.S. measure poverty?

The U.S. government measures used to determine eligibility for

poverty by a narrow income stan-
dard that does not include other
aspects of economic status, such
as material hardship (for example,
living in substandard housing) or
debt, nor does it consider financial
assets (including savings or prop-
erty). The official poverty measure
is a specific dollar amount that
varies by family size but is the
same across the continental U.S.
According to the guidelines, the
poverty level in 2009 is $22,050
a year for a family of four and
$18,310 for a family of three (see
table).1 The poverty guidelines are
public programs. A similar but
more complex measure is used for
calculating poverty rates.
The current poverty measure was
established in the 1960s and is
now widely acknowledged to be
flawed.2 It was based on research
indicating that families spent
about one-third of their incomes
on food – the official poverty level
was set by multiplying food costs
by three. Since then, the figures
have been updated annually for
inflation but have otherwise re-
mained unchanged.

Federal poverty guidelines, 2009

Persons in family or household 48 contiguous Alaska Hawaii

states and D.C.
1 $10,830 $13,530 $12,460
2 $14,570 $18,210 $16,760
3 $18,310 $22,890 $21,060
4 $22,050 $27,570 $25,360
5 $25,790 $32,250 $29,660
6 $29,530 $36,930 $33,960

215 W. 125th Street, 3rd Floor 7 $33,270 $41,610 $38,260

New York, NY 10027-4426 8 $37,010 $46,290 $42,560
Ph. 646-284-9600
For each additional person add: $3,740 $4,680 $4,300
www.nccp.org
Why is the current poverty measure inadequate?

The current poverty measure is
flawed in two ways.
1) The current poverty level
– that is, the specific dollar
amount – is based on outdated
assumptions about family
expenditures.
Food now comprises only one-
seventh of an average family’s
expenses, while the costs of hous-
ing, child care, health care, and
transportation have grown dis-
proportionately. Thus, the poverty
level does not reflect the true cost
of supporting a family. In addi-
tion, the current poverty measure
is a national standard that does
not adjust for the substantial
variation in the cost of living from
state to state and between urban
and rural areas.
More accurate estimates of typical in-kind government benefits that
family expenses, and adjustments assist low-income families – food
for local costs, would produce stamps, Medicaid, and housing
substantially higher dollar and child care assistance – are not
amounts. taken into account. This means
that official poverty statistics can-
2) The method used to deter- not be used to analyze the effec-
mine whether a family is poor tiveness of these programs.
does not accurately count
family resources.
When determining if a family is
poor, income sources counted
include earnings, interest, divi-
dends, Social Security, and cash
assistance. But income is counted
before subtracting payroll, in-
come, and other taxes, overstat-
ing income for some families.
On the other hand, the federal
Earned Income Tax Credit isn’t
counted either, underestimating
income for other families. Also,

Are there alternative ways to measure poverty?

Considerable research has been
conducted on better methods to
measure income poverty. In the
early 1990s, Congress asked the
National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) to investigate alterna-
tive measures. The NAS panel of
experts issued a report in 1995
that recommended revising the
poverty level and the method of
determining which families are
poor.3 The panel’s recommenda-
tions included the following:
▶ Create new poverty thresholds
that more accurately reflect
the cost of food, clothing, and
shelter.
▶ Adjust thresholds by region to
account for variation in the cost
of living.
▶ When counting families’
resources to determine whether
they fall below the poverty line:
– use families’ post-tax income;
– include earned income tax
credits and the value of
near-cash benefits (such as
food stamps and housing
assistance); and
– subtract the cost of work-
related expenses (such as
child care and transportation)
and medical care.
If the NAS recommendations
were adopted, millions more
people would be considered
officially poor. But even these rec-
ommendations underestimate the
cost of family expenses and thus
produce poverty thresholds well
below what it takes to make ends
meet, for example, increasing the
poverty level for a family of four
by only about $3,000 annually.4
 Measuring Poverty in the United States

How much does it really take to make ends meet?

Given that the federal poverty

level grossly understates how Basic needs budgets for a family of four, in selected urban,
much it takes to support a fam- suburban, and rural localities*
ily, researchers have developed
Urban Urban Suburban Rural
budgets that realistically quantify New York, Houston, Aurora, Decatur
basic living costs in specific locali- NY TX IL County, IA
ties.5 Building on earlier efforts, Rent and utilities $15,816 $10,224 $11,328 $6,324
NCCP has developed Basic Needs Food $7,878 $7,878 $7,878 $7,878
Budgets that include only the
Child care $20,684 $15,422 $18,793 $11,682
most basic daily living expenses
Health insurance premiums $2,609 $2,834 $2,265 $2,436
and are based on modest assump-
Out-of-pocket medical $732 $732 $732 $732
tions about costs. For example,
Transportation $1,824 $4,808 $4,808 $6,288
the budgets in the table at right
assume that family members have Other necessities $6,397 $4,887 $5,185 $3,834

employer-sponsored health cov- Payroll taxes $5,113 $3,873 $4,437 $3,270

erage, even though the majority Income taxes (includes credits) $5,787 -$34 $2,572 $304
of low-wage workers do not have TOTAL $66,840 $50,624 $57,998 $42,748
employer coverage.6 NCCP’s Basic Percent of federal poverty level 315% 239% 274% 202%
Needs Budgets do not include *Assumes two-parent family with one preschool-aged and one school-aged child.
money to purchase life or dis- Source: NCCP’s Basic Needs Budget Calculator (available online at www.nccp.org/tools/budget).
ability insurance or to create a Results are based on the following assumptions: children are in center-based care settings while their
parents work (the older child is in after-school care); family members have access to employer-based
rainy-day fund that would help health insurance; in New York family relies on public transportation, in all other locations, costs reflect
a family withstand a job loss or private transportation.

other financial crisis. Nor do they

allow for investments in a fam-
ily’s future financial success, such
In short, even if the official
as savings to buy a home or for a Basic Needs Budget Calculator
poverty measure is revised along
child’s education. In short, these
the lines suggested by the NAS, NCCP’s Basic Needs Budget Calculator
budgets indicate what it takes for provides access to budgets for nearly
it would remain a measure of
a family to cover their most basic 100 localities across 14 states, with
deprivation and severe hardship.
living expenses – enough to get more states coming soon. Users select the
In contrast, Basic Needs Budgets number of parents and number and ages
by but not enough to get ahead.
provide a way to think about what of the family’s children. Budgets assume
families need to maintain a mini- that all families include at least one full-
Across the country, families typi- time worker; for two-parent families, users
mally decent standard of living. make choices about the employment
cally need an income of at least
status of the other parent. Users may
twice the official poverty level to also substitute their own numbers for
meet basic needs. In high-cost cit- one or more expense estimates, and the
ies such as New York, it may take Calculator adjusts the family’s tax liability
an income of over three times the and overall budget totals accordingly.

poverty level to make ends meet, See <www.nccp.org/tools/budget>.

whereas in some rural areas, the
figure may be under double the
poverty level.7
Endnotes
1. The federal poverty guidelines are
used for administrative purposes, such
as determining financial eligibility for
benefit programs. For statistical purposes,
researchers use a different – but quite
similar – version of the federal poverty
measure, the federal poverty thresholds,
issued by the U.S. Census Bureau. Both
the guidelines and the thresholds are
commonly referred to as the federal
poverty level (FPL).
2. Cauthen, Nancy K. 2007. Testimony on
Measuring Poverty in America. Testi-
mony before the House Subcommittee
on Income Security and Family Support,
Committee on Ways and Means. Aug. 1,
2007. Available at www.nccp.org/publi-
cations/pub_752.html.
3. Betson, David M.; Citro, Constance
F.; Michael, Robert T. 2000. Recent De-
velopments for Poverty Measurement in
U.S. Official Statistics. Journal of Official
Statistics 16(2): 87-111.
NCCP wishes to give special acknowledgement to Nancy K. Cauthen, PhD,
principal author of the original iteration of this fact sheet.
4. Bernstein, Jared. 2007. More Poverty
than Meets the Eye (Economic Snap-
shots, April 11, 2007). Washington, DC:
Economic Policy Institute. Accessed April
23, 2007 at <www.epi.org/content.cfm/
webfeatures_snapshots_20070411>.
5. These efforts include Self-Sufficiency
Standards developed by Diana Pearce for
Wider Opportunities for Women and the
Economic Policy Institute’s Basic Family
Budgets.
6. Only 59 percent of all workers have ac-
cess to employer-sponsored health cover-
age; the proportion is much lower among
low-wage workers. Krugman, Paul. 2007.
The Conscience of a Liberal. New York,
NY: W.W. Norton& Co.
7. Dinan, Kinsey Alden. 2009. Budgeting
for Basic Needs: A Struggle for Working
Families. New York, NY: National Center
for Children in Poverty, Columbia Uni-
versity, Mailman School of Public Health.
Poverty: 2007 and 2008
American Community Surveys
American Community Survey Reports
Introduction
This report is one of a series produced
to highlight results from the 2008
American Community Survey (ACS),
focusing on changes between the 2007
ACS and the 2008 ACS. The report
series is designed to cover a variety of
economic topics, such as poverty, occu-
pation, home values, and labor force
participation. This series provides infor-
mation about the changing economic
characteristics of the nation and states,
the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico. The ACS also provides detailed
estimates of demographic, social,
economic, and housing characteristics
for congressional districts, counties,
places, and other localities every year.
A description of the ACS is provided
in the text box “What Is the American
­Community Survey?”
This report provides comparisons at
the national and state levels for poverty
during the 2007 to 2008 time period.
Such comparisons should be interpreted
with caution. Since adjacent ACS years
have income reference months in com-
mon, comparing the 2008 ACS with
the 2007 ACS estimates is not an exact
comparison of the economic conditions
in 2008 with those in 2007.1
1
For a discussion of this and related issues,
see Hogan, Howard, “Measuring Population Change
Using the American Community Survey,” Applied
Demography in the 21st Century, eds. Steven
H. Murdock and David A. Swanson. Springer
­Netherlands, 2008.
USCENSUSBUREAU
Helping You Make Informed Decisions
Issued September 2009
ACSBR/08-1
By
Alemayehu Bishaw
What Is the American and Trudi J. Renwick
Community Survey?
The American Community Survey (ACS)
is a nationwide survey designed to
provide communities with reliable and
timely demographic, social, economic,
and housing data every year. It has an
annual sample size of about 3 million
addresses across the United States and
Puerto Rico and includes both housing
units and group quarters. The ACS is
conducted in every county throughout
the nation and every municipio in Puerto
Rico, where it is called the Puerto Rico
­Community Survey.
Beginning in 2006, ACS data for 2005
were released for geographic areas with
populations of 65,000 and greater. In
2008, the first set of multiyear estimates
was released for data collected between
January 2005 and December 2007.
These 3-year estimates were published
for ­geographic areas with populations
of 20,000 and greater. The U.S. Census
Bureau is planning to release the first
5-year estimates in late 2010 for the
smallest geographic areas based on data
collected between January 2005 and
December 2009.
The data contained in this report are
based on the ACS sample interviewed in
2007 and 2008. For information on the
ACS sample design and other topics, visit
<www.census.gov/acs/www>.
U.S. Department of Commerce
Economics and Statistics Administration
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
 Percentage of People in Poverty in the Past 12 Months by
AK State and Puerto Rico: 2008

WA
ME
NH
MT ND VT

OR MN
ID MA
WI NY
SD
WY MI
RI
PA CT
IA
NE
NV NJ
IL OH
IN DE
UT
CA CO WV MD
VA
KS MO KY DC* Percentage of
NC
people living below
TN poverty level
AZ OK
NM AR
SC 16.0 or more
MS AL GA
13.0 to 15.9
TX
LA 11.0 to 12.9

FL
Less than 11.0

United States =
13.2 percent
HI
PR

* DC is represented at 4.5 times the scale of other continental states.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008; and Puerto Rico Community Survey, 2008.

The data contained in this report
are based on ACS samples that
were selected for interview in
2007 and 2008 and are estimates
of the actual figures that could
have been obtained by interview-
ing the entire population using
the same methodology. All com-
parisons presented in this report
have taken sampling error into
account and are significant at the
90 percent confidence level unless
noted otherwise. Due to round-
ing, some details may not sum to
totals. For information on sampling
and estimation methods, confiden-
tiality protection, and sampling
and nonsampling errors, please
see the “2008 ACS Accuracy of the
Data” document located at <www​
.­census.gov/acs/www/­Downloads
/ACS/accuracy2008.pdf>.
Poverty family and every individual in it
are considered to be in poverty.
The 2008 ACS data show that an
Poverty status is determined for all
estimated 13.2 percent of the U.S.
people except unrelated children
population had income below the
under 15 and individuals living in
poverty threshold in the past 12
institutions, military group quar-
months. This is 0.2 percentage
ters, and college dormitories.2
points higher than the 13.0 percent
poverty rate estimated for 2007. The table shows the number and
The estimated number of people in percentage of people in poverty by
poverty increased by 1.1 million to state for the 2007 ACS and 2008
39.1 million in 2008. ACS. The map displays the varia-
tion in poverty rates by state for
This report presents data on pov-
2008.
erty at the national and state levels
based on the 2007 ACS and 2008 Poverty rates among the 50 states
ACS. Poverty estimates compare and the District of Columbia
family income to a set of thresholds ranged from a low of 7.6 percent in
that vary by family size and com-
position and age of householder. If
a family’s total pretax cash income
2
For more information, see “How Poverty
is less than the dollar value of the Is Calculated in the ACS” at <www.census
appropriate threshold, then that .gov/hhes/www/poverty/definitions.html>.

2 U.S. Census Bureau

New Hampshire to a high of 21.2
percent in Mississippi.3
Seven states (California,
Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii,
Indiana, Oregon, and Pennsylvania)
had increases in the number
and percentage of people in
poverty between 2007 and 2008.
In ­Michigan, the poverty rate
increased, but the number of
people in poverty did not show
a significant change. In Arizona,
Georgia, and South Carolina, the
number of people in poverty
increased, but the rate was
statistically unchanged. In Alabama,
both the number and percentage
of people in poverty went down. In
Louisiana and Texas, there was a
decline in the poverty rate but no
significant change in the number of
people in poverty. All the remaining
states and the District of Columbia
had 2008 estimates of poverty
3
New Hampshire’s 2008 ACS poverty
rate was not statistically different from the
poverty rates for Maryland (8.1 percent) and
Alaska (8.4 percent).
U.S. Census Bureau 3
rates and the number of people in The Census Bureau also publishes
poverty that were not statistically poverty estimates based on the
different from the 2007 estimates. Current Population Survey Annual
Social and Economic Supplement
These poverty statistics only
(CPS ASEC).6 Following the
partially reflect the impact of the
standard specified by the Office
current economic downturn on
of Management and Budget (OMB)
2008 personal income. According
in Statistical Policy Directive 14,
to the National Bureau of Economic
data from the CPS ASEC are used
Research, the recession began
to estimate the official national
in December 2007.4 The income
poverty rate, which can be found
reported in the 2008 ACS spans the
in the report Income, Poverty, and
period from January 2007 through
Health Insurance Coverage in the
November 2008, which includes
United States: 2008, available at
the months in 2007 before the
<www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs
official start of the recession.5
/p60-236.pdf>.
4
The Business Cycle ­Dating ­Committee 6
For information on poverty estimates
of the National Bureau of ­Economic Research from the ACS and how they differ from those
determined that a peak in economic activity based on the CPS ASEC, see “­Differences
occurred in the U.S. ­economy in December Between the Income and Poverty Estimates
2007. The peak marks the end of the expan- From the American Community Survey
sion that began in November 2001 and the and the Annual Social and Economic
beginning of a ­recession. ­Supplement to the Current Population Survey”
at <www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty
5
Between January and December 2008, /factsheet.html>.
people 15 years and older were asked about
income for the previous 12-month period.
For example, income data collected in ­January
2008 referred to the period from January
2007 to December 2007, while data collected
in December 2008 referred to the period
December 2007 to November 2008.
Number and Percentage of People in Poverty in the Past 12 Months by State and Puerto
Rico: 2007 and 2008
(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/ACS
/accuracy2008.pdf)
Change in poverty
Below poverty in 2007 Below poverty in 2008
(2008 less 2007)

State Margin Margin Margin Margin Margin Margin

of of of of of of
error2 Per- error2 error2 Per- error2 error2 Per- error2
Number1 (±) centage1 (±) Number1 (±) centage1 (±) Number1 (±) centage1 (±)

United States . . . 38,052,247 222,964 13.0 0.1 39,108,422 249,680 13.2 0.1 *1,056,175 334,744 *0.2 0.1

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 759,835 22,998 16.9 0.5 712,835 22,418 15.7 0.5 *–47,000 32,117 *–1.2 0.7
Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59,625 5,440 8.9 0.8 56,396 5,471 8.4 0.8 –3,229 7,715 –0.5 1.2
Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881,257 31,475 14.2 0.5 938,924 27,514 14.7 0.4 *57,667 41,804 0.5 0.7
Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492,052 16,318 17.9 0.6 480,551 18,818 17.3 0.7 –11,501 24,909 –0.6 0.9
California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,433,014 63,400 12.4 0.2 4,778,118 75,892 13.3 0.2 *345,104 98,889 *0.9 0.3
Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569,386 19,957 12.0 0.4 552,889 22,387 11.4 0.5 –16,497 29,992 –0.6 0.6
Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . 268,880 12,898 7.9 0.4 314,806 14,745 9.3 0.4 *45,926 19,590 *1.4 0.6
Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87,956 7,512 10.5 0.9 85,094 7,055 10.0 0.8 –2,862 10,306 –0.5 1.2
District of Columbia . . . . . . 91,934 7,937 16.4 1.4 96,769 7,324 17.2 1.3 4,835 10,799 0.8 1.9
Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,158,832 38,730 12.1 0.2 2,370,808 41,243 13.2 0.2 *211,976 56,578 *1.1 0.3

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,323,828 31,219 14.3 0.3 1,380,842 31,340 14.7 0.3 *57,014 44,236 0.4 0.5
Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,051 6,916 8.0 0.5 115,131 8,921 9.1 0.7 *15,080 11,288 *1.1 0.9
Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177,806 9,436 12.1 0.6 187,805 12,824 12.6 0.9 9,999 15,922 0.5 1.1
Illinois. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,496,248 34,817 11.9 0.3 1,532,238 26,674 12.2 0.2 35,990 43,861 0.3 0.3
Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757,813 19,999 12.3 0.3 807,506 21,723 13.1 0.4 *49,693 29,528 *0.8 0.5
Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317,946 14,131 11.0 0.5 334,919 13,360 11.5 0.5 16,973 19,447 0.5 0.7
Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,210 13,334 11.2 0.5 307,478 12,785 11.3 0.5 7,268 18,473 0.1 0.7
Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714,080 22,283 17.3 0.5 720,586 21,372 17.3 0.5 6,506 30,875 – 0.7
Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 775,425 20,200 18.6 0.5 744,218 23,972 17.3 0.6 –31,207 31,349 *–1.3 0.7
Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154,224 8,137 12.0 0.6 157,553 8,278 12.3 0.6 3,329 11,607 0.3 0.9

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453,699 20,647 8.3 0.4 442,994 15,596 8.1 0.3 –10,705 25,876 –0.2 0.5
Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . . 621,286 20,753 9.9 0.3 626,670 19,668 10.0 0.3 5,384 28,592 0.1 0.5
Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,376,658 27,786 14.0 0.3 1,410,276 24,724 14.4 0.3 33,618 37,193 *0.4 0.4
Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481,947 15,332 9.5 0.3 490,911 14,694 9.6 0.3 8,964 21,237 0.1 0.4
Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581,534 18,361 20.6 0.7 601,617 24,259 21.2 0.9 20,083 30,424 0.6 1.1
Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 742,486 20,360 13.0 0.4 768,092 18,921 13.4 0.3 25,606 27,794 0.4 0.5
Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131,790 7,822 14.1 0.8 139,707 8,881 14.8 0.9 7,917 11,834 0.7 1.3
Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192,822 8,554 11.2 0.5 186,727 9,256 10.8 0.5 –6,095 12,602 –0.4 0.7
Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269,953 16,905 10.7 0.7 290,197 15,922 11.3 0.6 20,244 23,222 0.6 0.9
New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . 90,204 7,516 7.1 0.6 97,158 7,932 7.6 0.6 6,954 10,928 0.5 0.9

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . 729,211 23,123 8.6 0.3 741,472 23,119 8.7 0.3 12,261 32,698 0.1 0.4
New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . 349,159 15,809 18.1 0.8 332,769 14,316 17.1 0.7 –16,390 21,327 –1.0 1.1
New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,570,014 41,542 13.7 0.2 2,581,491 39,884 13.6 0.2 11,477 57,588 –0.1 0.3
North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 1,258,988 29,318 14.3 0.3 1,301,929 34,042 14.6 0.4 42,941 44,927 0.3 0.5
North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 74,035 5,225 12.1 0.9 73,622 5,620 12.0 0.9 –413 7,674 –0.1 1.3
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,464,133 29,352 13.1 0.3 1,492,154 29,624 13.4 0.3 28,021 41,702 0.3 0.4
Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557,030 16,561 15.9 0.5 561,666 18,584 15.9 0.5 4,636 24,892 – 0.7
Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474,189 18,770 12.9 0.5 506,145 17,700 13.6 0.5 *31,956 25,800 *0.7 0.7
Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . 1,393,026 32,592 11.6 0.3 1,458,394 26,463 12.1 0.2 *65,368 41,982 *0.5 0.3
Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . 122,128 9,249 12.0 0.9 118,556 8,064 11.7 0.8 –3,572 12,270 –0.3 1.2

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 641,758 19,916 15.0 0.5 679,584 21,508 15.7 0.5 *37,826 29,314 0.7 0.7
South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 100,699 5,842 13.1 0.8 96,490 6,997 12.5 0.9 –4,209 9,115 –0.6 1.2
Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953,865 28,631 15.9 0.5 938,077 26,905 15.5 0.4 –15,788 39,289 –0.4 0.7
Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,791,183 49,333 16.3 0.2 3,760,431 54,049 15.8 0.2 –30,752 73,179 *–0.5 0.3
Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251,084 13,213 9.7 0.5 257,649 13,167 9.6 0.5 6,565 18,653 –0.1 0.7
Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,589 5,292 10.1 0.9 63,288 5,151 10.6 0.9 2,699 7,384 0.5 1.2
Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 742,680 23,107 9.9 0.3 768,031 24,701 10.2 0.3 2,5351 33,824 0.3 0.4
Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . 725,172 19,934 11.4 0.3 728,323 21,530 11.3 0.3 3,151 29,342 –0.1 0.5
West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . 298,172 11,487 16.9 0.6 300,670 13,037 17.0 0.7 2,498 17,376 0.1 1.0
Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588,287 17,948 10.8 0.3 569,090 17,752 10.4 0.3 –19,197 25,244 –0.4 0.5
Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44,064 5,986 8.7 1.2 48,776 4,527 9.4 0.9 4,712 7,504 0.7 1.5

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,763,078 26,535 45.5 0.7 1,750,559 28,973 44.8 0.7 –12,519 39,288 –0.7 1.0
* Statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level.
– Represents or rounds to zero.
1
Poverty status determined for individuals in housing units and noninstitutionalized group quarters except people living in college dormitories or military baracks. Unrelated individuals
under 15 years old are also excluded from the poverty universe.
2
Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to the size of the
estimate, the less reliable the estimate. This number when added to and subtracted from the estimate forms the 90 percent confidence interval.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2007 and 2008; and Puerto Rico Community Survey, 2007 and 2008.

4 U.S. Census Bureau

 Impact of Special Health Care Needs on
Children and Families
An overview from kidsdata.org

Note: This PDF provides a summary of this topic. For more data on this and other topics, visit www.kidsdata.org.

Severity of Conditions Among Children with Special Health Care Needs: 2005-2006

United States: Percent

California: Percent

Definition: Percentage of children ages 0-17 with special health care needs, by the severity of the difficulties
caused by the child's health conditions.
Kidsdata.org - Impact of Special Health Care Needs on Children and Families Page 1 of 8
Data Source: Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. National Survey of Children with Special
Health Care Needs, Data Resource Center. http://cshcndata.org/Content/Default.aspx Retrieved 11/05/2008.
 California: Percent

Definition: Percentage of children ages 0-17 with special health care needs, by the severity of the difficulties
caused by the child's health conditions.

Data Source: Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. National Survey of Children with Special
Health Care Needs, Data Resource Center. http://cshcndata.org/Content/Default.aspx Retrieved 11/05/2008.

Footnote: Children with special health care needs are those who have or are at increased risk for a chronic
physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who also require health and related services of a
type or amount beyond that required by children generally. Percentages are weighted to population
characteristics.

Effect on Daily Activities Among Children with Special Health Care Needs: 2005-
2006

United States: Percent

California: Percent

Kidsdata.org - Impact of Special Health Care Needs on Children and Families Page 2 of 8
 California: Percent

Definition: Percentage of children ages 0-17 with special health care needs, by how much their condition affects
their daily activities.

Data Source: Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. National Survey of Children with Special
Health Care Needs, Data Resource Center. http://cshcndata.org/Content/Default.aspx Retrieved 11/05/2008.

Footnote: Children with special health care needs are those who have or are at increased risk for a chronic
physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who also require health and related services of a
type or amount beyond that required by children generally. Percentages are weighted to population
characteristics.

Emotional or Behavioral Difficulties Among Children with Special Health Care

Needs: 2005-2006

United States: Percent

California: Percent

Kidsdata.org - Impact of Special Health Care Needs on Children and Families Page 3 of 8
 California: Percent

Definition: Percentage of children ages 0-17 with special health care needs who have one or more of the
following emotional or behavioral difficulties: anxiety or depression; behavior problems such as acting out or
bullying; making and keeping friends.

Data Source: Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. National Survey of Children with Special
Health Care Needs, Data Resource Center. http://cshcndata.org/Content/Default.aspx Retrieved 11/05/2008.

Footnote: Children with special health care needs are those who have or are at increased risk for a chronic
physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who also require health and related services of a
type or amount beyond that required by children generally. Percentages are weighted to population
characteristics.

Limitations on Activities Among Children with Special Health Care Needs: 2005-
2006

United States Percent

No Difficulties Involving
50.7%
Activities

One or More Difficulties

49.3%
Involving Activities

California Percent

No Difficulties Involving
49.5%
Activities

One or More Difficulties

50.5%
Involving Activities

Definition: Percentage of children ages 0-17 with special health care needs who face limitations in activities or
participation in ordinary situations due to one or more of the following: self-care; coordination and movement;
using hands; learning, understanding, or paying attention; speaking, communicating, or being understood.

Data Source: Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. National Survey of Children with Special
Health Care Needs, Data Resource Center. http://cshcndata.org/Content/Default.aspx Retrieved 11/05/2008.

Footnote: Children with special health care needs are those who have or are at increased risk for a chronic
physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who also require health and related services of a
type or amount beyond that required by children generally. Percentages are weighted to population
characteristics.

Kidsdata.org - Impact of Special

School Days Health Care Among
Missed Needs onChildren
Children and Families
with Special Health Care Needs: 2000-2001 - Page 4 of 8
2005-2006
 Health Care Needs, Data Resource Center. http://cshcndata.org/Content/Default.aspx Retrieved 11/05/2008.

Footnote: Children with special health care needs are those who have or are at increased risk for a chronic
physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who also require health and related services of a
type or amount beyond that required by children generally. Percentages are weighted to population
characteristics.

School Days Missed Among Children with Special Health Care Needs: 2000-2001 -
2005-2006

United States

Number of School Days Missed

2000-2001 2005-2006
Due to Illness

0-3 Days Per Year 50.7% 51.7%

4-6 Days 20.3% 21.3%

7-10 Days 13.2% 12.6%

11 Days or More 15.8% 14.3%

California

Number of School Days Missed

2000-2001 2005-2006
Due to Illness

0-3 Days Per Year 49.8% 53.5%

4-6 Days 18.8% 19.8%

7-10 Days 15.1% 11.3%

11 Days or More 16.2% 15.4%

Definition: Percentage of children ages 0-17 with special health care needs, by number of school days missed
due to illness during the past 12 months.

Data Source: Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. National Survey of Children with Special
Health Care Needs, Data Resource Center. http://cshcndata.org/Content/Default.aspx Retrieved 11/05/2008.

Footnote: Children with special health care needs are those who have or are at increased risk for a chronic
physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who also require health and related services of a
type or amount beyond that required by children generally. Percentages are weighted to population
characteristics.

Family Time Spent on Health Care for Children with Special Health Care Needs:
2005-2006

United States: Percent

Kidsdata.org - Impact of Special Health Care Needs on Children and Families Page 5 of 8
 Family Time Spent on Health Care for Children with Special Health Care Needs:
2005-2006

United States: Percent

California: Percent

Definition: Percentage of children ages 0-17 with special health care needs, by number of hours per week
family spends providing and/or coordinating health care for child. Use caution in comparing 2001 and 2006
results as the question was changed substantially.

Data Source: Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. National Survey of Children with Special
Health Care Needs, Data Resource Center. http://cshcndata.org/Content/Default.aspx Retrieved 11/05/2008.

Footnote: Children with special health care needs are those who have or are at increased risk for a chronic
physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who also require health and related services of a
type or amount beyond that required by children generally. Percentages are weighted to population
characteristics.

Impact of Child's Special Health Care Needs on Parental Employment: 2005-2006

United States: Percent

Kidsdata.org - Impact of Special Health Care Needs on Children and Families Page 6 of 8
 Impact of Child's Special Health Care Needs on Parental Employment: 2005-2006

United States: Percent

California: Percent

Definition: Percentage of families of children ages 0-17 with special health care needs, by effect of child's health
needs on parental employment. Use caution in comparing 2001 and 2006 results as the question was changed
substantially.

Data Source: Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. National Survey of Children with Special
Health Care Needs, Data Resource Center. http://cshcndata.org/Content/Default.aspx Retrieved 11/05/2008.

Footnote: Children with special health care needs are those who have or are at increased risk for a chronic
physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who also require health and related services of a
type or amount beyond that required by children generally. Percentages are weighted to population
characteristics.

What It Is
Children with special health care needs have, or are at increased risk for, a chronic physical, developmental, behavioral,
or emotional condition, and they require health and related services of a type or amount beyond that required by children
generally. On kidsdata.org, indicators related to children with special health care needs include data on demographic
characteristics, the impact of chronic conditions on children's functioning, and access to health care and other services.
These
Kidsdata.org - Impact data come
of Special from
Health the
Care National
Needs Survey and
on Children of Children
Familieswith Special Health Care Needs, and are available only at the state Page 7 of 8
and national level. The survey is conducted through telephone interviews with parents of children with special health care
 What It Is
Children with special health care needs have, or are at increased risk for, a chronic physical, developmental, behavioral,
or emotional condition, and they require health and related services of a type or amount beyond that required by children
generally. On kidsdata.org, indicators related to children with special health care needs include data on demographic
characteristics, the impact of chronic conditions on children's functioning, and access to health care and other services.
These data come from the National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs, and are available only at the state
and national level. The survey is conducted through telephone interviews with parents of children with special health care
needs.

Why This Topic Is Important

Chronic conditions can affect a child's ability to function and participate in activities important to his or her development.
In some cases, these conditions even can shorten a child's life. While some chronic conditions of childhood have
decreased since 1960, due to advances in medicine and better prevention efforts, the overall occurrence of chronic
conditions among children has grown in the U.S., with significant increases in asthma, attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder (ADD/ADHD), diabetes, and depression. (2) Medical advances also have enhanced survival rates for children with
severe conditions, dramatically increasing the likelihood that disabled children will survive to adulthood, and changing the
focus of their care from survival to improving the quality of life. (3) Children with special health care needs comprise 15-
18% of U.S. children, and account for 80% of medical expenditures on children. (4) Some studies have shown that chronic
illnesses and conditions are more prevalent among low-income children and children of color. (5)

How Children Are Faring

In 2006, 12.1% of children with special health care needs in California had no functional difficulties (e.g. difficulty seeing,
hearing, breathing, moving around, self-care, learning, paying attention, or making friends) caused by their health
condition; 44.3% had minor difficulties; 36.0% had moderate difficulties; and 7.6% had severe difficulties. However, daily
activities, for most children with special health care needs were affected by their condition, with 41.5% having those daily
activities moderately affected and 23.6% severely affected. For just over one-third of these children (34.8%), daily
activities were not affected by their condition. About half (53.5%) of the children missed 0-3 days of school in the previous
12-month period; 19.8% missed 4-6 days; 11.3% missed 7-10 days; and 15.4% missed 11 days or more.

Impact of Conditions on Family: In 2006, 52.2% of children with special health care needs in California had family members
who spent more than one hour per week coordinating and/or providing care for the child, with 9.1% spending 11 or more
hours per week coordinating and/or providing care. About one in four of these children, in California and the U.S, had a
parent who cut back or stopped working due to the child's health needs.

More Data: www.kidsdata.org

This PDF Overview: http://www.kidsdata.org/pdf/default.aspx?ind=87
More Data Summaries: www.kidsdata.org/factsheets.aspx
Sign Up for Data Updates: www.kidsdata.org/signup.aspx
This PDF was generated on: Jan 29, 2010

Kidsdata.org is a program of the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health

www.lpfch.org - (650) 724-5778

Kidsdata.org - Impact of Special Health Care Needs on Children and Families Page 8 of 8
Table 696. Children Below Poverty Level by Race and Hispanic Origin:
1980 to 2007
[11,114 represents 11,114,000. Persons as of March of the following year. Covers only related children in families under 18 years
old. Based on Current Population Survey; see text, this section and Section 1, and Appendix III. For data collection changes over
time, see <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/hstchg.html>]

Number below poverty level (1,000) Percent below poverty level

Asian Asian
Year and and
All Pacific His- All Pacific His-
races 1 White 2
Black 3
Islander 4 panic 5 races 1 White 2
Black 3
Islander 4 panic 5
1980 . . . . . 11,114 6,817 3,906 (NA) 1,718 17.9 13.4 42.1 (NA) 33.0
1985 . . . . . 12,483 7,838 4,057 (NA) 2,512 20.1 15.6 43.1 (NA) 39.6
1988 . . . . . 11,935 7,095 4,148 458 2,576 19.0 14.0 42.8 23.5 37.3
1989 . . . . . 12,001 7,164 4,257 368 2,496 19.0 14.1 43.2 18.9 35.5
1990 . . . . . 12,715 7,696 4,412 356 2,750 19.9 15.1 44.2 17.0 37.7
1991 . . . . . 13,658 8,316 4,637 348 2,977 21.1 16.1 45.6 17.1 39.8
6
1992 . . . . 14,521 8,752 5,015 352 3,440 21.6 16.5 46.3 16.0 39.0
7
1993 . . . . 14,961 9,123 5,030 358 3,666 22.0 17.0 45.9 17.6 39.9
1994 . . . . . 14,610 8,826 4,787 308 3,956 21.2 16.3 43.3 17.9 41.1
1995 . . . . . 13,999 8,474 4,644 532 3,938 20.2 15.5 41.5 18.6 39.3
1996 . . . . . 13,764 8,488 4,411 553 4,090 19.8 15.5 39.5 19.1 39.9
1997 . . . . . 13,422 8,441 4,116 608 3,865 19.2 15.4 36.8 19.9 36.4
1998 . . . . . 12,845 7,935 4,073 542 3,670 18.3 14.4 36.4 17.5 33.6
8
1999 . . . . 11,678 7,194 3,698 367 3,561 16.6 13.1 32.8 11.5 29.9
9
2000 . . . . 11,005 6,834 3,495 407 3,342 15.6 12.4 30.9 12.5 27.6
2001 . . . . . 11,175 7,086 3,423 353 3,433 15.8 12.8 30.0 11.1 27.4
10
2002 . . . 11,646 7,203 3,570 302 3,653 16.3 13.1 32.1 11.4 28.2
2003 .. . . . 12,340 7,624 3,750 331 3,982 17.2 13.9 33.6 12.1 29.5
11
2004 . . . 12,473 7,876 3,702 265 3,985 17.3 14.3 33.4 9.4 28.6
2005 .. . . . 12,335 7,652 3,743 312 3,977 17.1 13.9 34.2 11.0 27.7
2006 .. . . . 12,299 7,522 3,690 351 3,959 16.9 13.6 33.0 12.0 26.6
2007 .. . . . 12,802 8,002 3,838 345 4,348 17.6 14.4 34.3 11.8 28.3
NA Not available. 1 Includes other races not shown separately. 2 Beginning 2002, data represent White alone, which
refers to people who reported White and did not report any other race category. 3 Beginning 2002, data represent Black alone,
which refers to people who reported Black and did not report any other race category. 4 Beginning 2002, data represent Asian
alone, which refers to people who reported Asian and did not report any other race category. 5 People of Hispanic origin may
be any race. 6 Implementation of 1990 census population controls. 7 The March 1994 income supplement was revised to allow
for the coding of different income amounts on selected questionnaire items. Limits either increased or decreased in the following
categories: earnings increased to $999,999; social security increased to $49,999; supplemental security income and public
assistance increased to $24,999; veterans’ benefits increased to $99,999; child support and alimony decreased to $49,999.
8 9
Implementation of Census 2000-based population controls. Implementation of sample expansion to 28,000 households.
10
Beginning with the 2003 Current Population Survey (CPS), the questionnaire allowed respondents to choose more than one
race. For 2002 and later, data represent persons who selected this race group only and excludes persons reporting more than one
race. The CPS in prior years allowed respondents to report only one race group. See also comments on race in the text for Section
1. 11 Data have been revised to reflect a correction to the weights in the 2005 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-235 (published August 2008). See also <http://www.census.gov
/prod/2008pubs /p60-235.pdf> and <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov3.xls>.
Table 697. Persons Below Poverty Level by Selected Characteristics: 2007
[37,276 represents 37,276,000. People as of March 2008. Based on Current Population Survey (CPS); see text, this section and
Section 1, and Appendix III. The 2008 CPS allowed respondents to choose more than one race. For 2007, data represent persons
who selected this race group only and exclude persons reporting more than one race. The CPS in prior years allowed respondents
to report only one race group. See also comments on race in the text for Section 1. For composition of regions, see map, inside
front cover]

Number below poverty level (1,000) Percent below poverty level

Characteristic All White Black Asian His- All White Black Asian His-
races 1 alone alone alone panic 2 races 1 alone alone alone panic 2
Total . . . . . . . . . . 37,276 25,120 9,237 1,349 9,890 12.5 10.5 24.5 10.2 21.5
Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,302 11,090 3,907 615 4,627 11.1 9.4 22.3 9.7 19.6
Female. . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,973 14,030 5,330 734 5,263 13.8 11.6 26.5 10.7 23.6
Under 18 years old . . . . . 13,324 8,395 3,904 374 4,482 18.0 14.9 34.5 12.5 28.6
18 to 24 years old . . . . . 4,901 3,376 1,134 159 1,105 17.3 15.3 27.6 13.6 22.0
25 to 34 years old . . . . . 4,930 3,353 1,151 230 1,516 12.3 10.7 21.8 10.1 18.6
35 to 44 years old . . . . . 3,971 2,756 892 174 1,154 9.4 8.2 17.0 7.4 16.7
45 to 54 years old . . . . . 3,722 2,632 810 142 760 8.5 7.3 15.6 7.5 15.6
55 to 59 years old . . . . . 1,471 989 368 58 241 8.0 6.5 18.5 7.6 15.0
60 to 64 years old . . . . . 1,402 1,028 247 70 194 9.4 8.1 17.9 12.7 16.4
65 years old and over . . . 3,556 2,590 731 143 438 9.7 8.1 23.2 11.3 17.1
65 to 74 years old . . . . 1,726 1,168 431 71 253 8.8 7.0 23.5 9.4 16.5
75 years old and over . 1,829 1,422 301 72 185 10.6 9.4 22.8 14.1 18.0
Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . 6,166 4,181 1,469 377 1,512 11.4 9.6 22.2 13.1 24.5
Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,237 4,849 1,887 150 839 11.1 8.7 28.3 9.5 20.9
South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,501 9,505 5,207 264 3,616 14.2 11.4 25.0 9.4 22.0
West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,372 6,585 674 558 3,923 12.0 11.6 19.2 9.3 20.3
Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,126 20,630 8,661 438 5,975 11.9 9.6 25.1 9.1 21.3
Foreign born . . . . . . . . . 6,150 4,489 575 911 3,915 16.5 18.1 18.1 10.8 22.0
Naturalized citizen. . . . 1,426 873 171 352 629 9.5 9.6 11.8 8.2 13.0
Not a citizen. . . . . . . . 4,724 3,616 405 560 3,286 21.3 23.1 23.4 13.4 25.3
1 2
Includes other races not shown separately. Persons of Hispanic origin may be any race.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-235 (published August 2008). See also <http://www.census.gov
/hhes/www/macro/032008/pov/toc.htm>.

Income, Expenditures, Poverty, and Wealth 457

U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2010