LOW-WAGE 

WORKERS

Poverty and Use of 

Selected Federal 

Social Safety Net 

Programs Persist 

among Working 

Families

Report to the Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Primary Health and 

Retirement Security, Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate

September 2017

GAO-17-677

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-677, a report to Ranking 

Member, Subcommittee on Primary Health 

and Retirement Security, Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. 

Senate

September 2017

LOW-WAGE WORKERS

Poverty and Use of Selected Federal Social Safety Net 

Programs Persist among Working Families

What GAO Found

According to GAO’s analysis of data in the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey 

(CPS), on average, low-wage workers worked fewer hours per week, were more highly 

concentrated in a few industries and occupations, and had lower educational attainment 

than workers earning hourly wages above $16 in each year GAO reviewed—1995, 2000, 

2005, 2010, 2015 and 2016. Their percentage of the U.S. workforce also stayed relatively 

constant over time. About 40 percent of the U.S. workforce ages 25 to 64 earned hourly 

wages of $16 or less (in constant 2016 dollars) over the period 1995 through 2016. The 

combination of low wages and few hours worked compounded the income disadvantage 

of low-wage workers and likely contributed to their potential eligibility for federal social 

safety net programs.

About 20 percent of families with a worker earning up to the federal minimum wage 

(currently $7.25 per hour), 13 percent of families with a worker earning above federal 

minimum wage to $12.00 per hour, and 5 percent of families with a worker earning $12.01 

to $16 per hour were in poverty in each year GAO reviewed (see figure).The extent of 

poverty varied considerably by the type of family in which a worker lived. For example, 

single-parent families earning the federal minimum wage or below comprised a higher

percentage of families in poverty. In contrast, married families with no children comprised

the lowest percentage of families in poverty, and generally had family incomes at or above 

the poverty line.

Note: All references to the “federal minimum wage” are based on 110 percent of the hourly federal minimum wage in effect that year or 

the equivalent hourly calculated wage for salaried workers. Brackets are used to represent margins of error of estimated percentages 

at a 95 percent confidence level.

Families with a worker earning $16 or less per hour consistently used selected federally 

funded social safety net programs between 2005 and 2016, with varied factors affecting 

eligible families’ participation. GAO estimated that the percentage of these families 

enrolled in Medicaid rose significantly over the past 2 decades, almost tripling among 

families with a worker earning more than the federal minimum wage between 1995 and 

2016. In contrast, an estimated 5 percent or less of these families received cash 

assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program at least 

once in the prior calendar year from 1995 through 2016. A low-wage worker’s family type 

also influenced the extent that families used selected social safety net programs. For 

example, among families with minimum wage earners in 2016, GAO estimated that about 

half or more married families used none of the programs GAO examined—Medicaid,

TANF, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Earned Income Tax Credit, and 

Additional Child Tax Credit—while more than half of single-parent families used three or 

more. Program officials and others told GAO that eligible working families may not

participate in programs for a variety of reasons, including time needed to apply for 

benefits, low benefit amounts, and assumed ineligibility.

View GAO-17-677. For more information, 

contact Cindy Brown-Barnes at (202) 512-

7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov and Oliver 

Richard at (202) 512-8424 or 

richardo@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

According to the Department of Labor, 

private-sector employers have added 

millions of jobs to the economy since the 

end of the most recent recession in 2009; 

however, many are in low-wage 

occupations. GAO was asked to examine 

several characteristics of low-wage 

workers and their families, including their 

use of federally funded social safety net 

programs over time.

This report answers the following 

questions: (1) What are the 

characteristics of the low-wage workforce 

and how have they changed over time? 

(2) To what extent are families with lowwage workers in poverty? and (3) To 

what extent do families with low-wage 

workers participate in selected social 

safety net programs and what factors

affect their participation?

GAO analyzed CPS data from 1995, 

2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2016 on 

worker characteristics, family poverty, 

and participation in social safety net 

programs. GAO defined low-wage 

workers as those workers ages 25 to 64 

earning $16 or less per hour. In addition, 

GAO interviewed officials with state and 

local social safety net programs and 

other experts in four metropolitan 

areas—Atlanta, San Francisco, Santa 

Fe, and Washington, D.C.—representing 

a range of local minimum wage levels 

relative to the federal minimum wage, 

costs of living, and participation rates in

five selected federally funded social 

safety net programs.
Page i GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Letter 1

Background 5

Characteristics of the Low-Wage Workforce Changed Little from 

1995 through 2016 12

Poverty Persisted among Working Families, Affecting Those with 

Minimum Wage Earners and Children the Most 20

Families of Low-Wage Workers Consistently Use Certain Federal 

Social Safety Net Programs, but Several Factors May Limit 

Eligible Families’ Use 27

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 34

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 36

Appendix II Select Data on the Percentage of Working Families in Poverty 41

Appendix III Select Data on the Number of Working Families in Poverty 45

Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgment 49

Tables

Table 1: Poverty Thresholds in Annual Income, Family Size, and 

Number of Related Children under Age 18, 2016 10

Table 2: Calculated Weekly and Annual Earnings and Potential 

Social Safety Net Program Eligibility for a Hypothetical 

Low-Wage Worker Ages 25 to 64, by Wage Category 

(2016) 16

Table 3: Estimated Percentage of Working Families with Incomes 

Just Above the Poverty Thresholds, 1995 through 2016 26

Table 4: Estimated Percentage of Working Families with Income 

Below or Near the Poverty Threshold, by Family Type, 

and Wage Category, 1995 through 2016 41

Table 5: Estimated Number of Families in Poverty, by Family Type 

and Wage Category, 1995 through 2016 (in thousands) 45

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Figures

Figure 1: Changes in the Federal Minimum Wage Rate, 1980 

through 2016 6

Figure 2: State Minimum Wage Rates as of January 1, 2017 7

Figure 3: Population of Hourly and Minimum-Wage Workers in the 

U.S. Workforce, and U.S. Poverty Trends for Individuals, 

1995 through 2015 8

Figure 4: Estimated Percentage of Low-Wage Workers in the 

Total U.S. Workforce Ages 25 to 64, by Wage Category, 

1995 through 2016 13

Figure 5: Average Hours Worked per Week by Workers Ages 25 

to 64 (Estimated), by Wage Category, 1995 through 2016 15

Figure 6: Top Five Industries Employing Highest Estimated 

Percentage of Workers Ages 25 to 64, by Percentage of 

Wage Category Workforce, 1995 through 2016 18

Figure 7: Occupational Distribution of Low-Wage Workers Ages 

25 to 64 (Estimated), 2016 19

Figure 8: Families with a Low-Wage Worker Ages 25 to 64, With 

Annual Incomes under the Poverty Threshold 

(Estimated), by Wage Category, 1995 through 2016 22

Figure 9: Poverty among Families with a Worker Ages 25 to 64 

Earning the Federal Minimum Wage or Below 

(Estimated), by Family Type, 1995 through 2016 24

Figure 10: Estimated Rates of Medicaid Enrollment among 

Families with a Low-Wage Worker Ages 25 to 64, by 

Wage Category, 1995 through 2016 28

Figure 11: Estimated Percentage of Families with a Minimum 

Wage Worker Using Some Combination of Medicaid, the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families, the Earned Income Tax 

Credit, and the Additional Child Tax Credit, by Family 

Type, 2016 30
Page iii GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Abbreviations

ACTC Additional Child Tax Credit

ASEC Annual Social and Economic Supplement

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

Census Census Bureau

CPS Current Population Survey

EITC Earned Income Tax Credit

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

IRS Internal Revenue Service

SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

SPM Supplemental Poverty Measure

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

September 22, 2017

The Honorable Bernard Sanders

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Primary Health and Retirement Security,

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

United States Senate

Dear Senator Sanders:

According to the Department of Labor, private-sector employers have 

added millions of jobs to the economy since the end of the most recent 

recession in 2009; however, much of this job growth has been 

concentrated in low-wage occupations that are less likely to provide fulltime hours or employer-sponsored benefits. As a result, some workers 

may face difficulty earning enough to meet their families’ basic needs.

Although working families may have one or more employed workers, a 

family’s combined income, if reliant on employment in low-wage 

occupations, may keep the family in poverty. The Census Bureau 

(Census) recently reported that 11.3 percent of families and 6.3 percent 

of workers, including 2.4 percent of full-time workers, were in poverty in 

2015. We previously reported that most people in poverty lived in 

households with at least some earnings.1 By being in poverty, these 

workers and their families may be eligible to participate in one or more 

federally funded social safety net programs provided any other applicable 

eligibility requirements are also met. These programs assist low-income 

individuals and families with cash aid, food, shelter, health care, and other 

support. Some programs are administered by the federal government; 

others are administered by states.

You asked us to examine several aspects of low-wage workers and their 

families including their use of federally funded social safety net programs 

over time. In this report, we answer the following questions: (1) What are 

the characteristics of the low-wage workforce and how have they 

changed over time? (2) To what extent are families with a low-wage 

worker in poverty? and (3) To what extent do families with a low-wage 

 1 GAO, Federal Low-Income Programs: Multiple Programs Target Diverse Populations 

and Needs, GAO-15-516 (Washington, D.C., July 30, 2015).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

worker participate in selected social safety net programs and what factors 

affect their participation?

To answer these questions, we analyzed data from 1995 through 2016 

included in the Current Population Survey (CPS)—a national survey 

designed and administered jointly by Census and the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) that serves as a key source of official government 

statistics on employment and unemployment in the United States. After 

discussions with Census and BLS officials, we selected the CPS and a 

supplemental CPS survey—the Annual Social and Economic Supplement 

(ASEC)—as the data sources best suited to answer our research 

questions because together they included hourly wage data, large sample 

sizes, data over time, and data on eligibility for and participation in social 

safety net programs. We selected these years to provide a historical view 

of the workforce at certain points in time extending across 2 decades. We 

assessed the reliability of the CPS and ASEC data by reviewing data 

documentation and interviewing officials at BLS and Census who use and 

maintain the dataset. We determined that the data from these sources 

were reliable for the purposes of our report. For the purposes of our 

analysis, we defined a “worker” as a wage or salary earner ages 25 to 64 

in the civilian labor force with positive weekly earnings. We defined a “low 

wage” worker to be an individual who earned $16 per hour or less, 

measured in constant 2016 dollars. We divided low-wage workers into 

three mutually exclusive categories, based on their estimated hourly 

wages:

• federal minimum wage or below; 2

• above federal minimum wage to $12.00; and

• $12.01 to $16.00.3

 2 The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour was last increased in 2009. In our 

analysis of CPS data, we developed estimates using the federal minimum wage in each 

year that we reviewed. Employers may pay some workers—such as restaurant workers 

and others who receive tip income—hourly wages below this amount without violating 

federal minimum wage laws. To allow for the possibility that a worker earning minimum 

wage had average earnings above the minimum wage rate (e.g., by working overtime), we 

included in this wage category all hourly wage workers earning 110 percent of the federal 

minimum wage or below (e.g., $7.98 per hour in 2017). For the purposes of our analysis, 

we excluded state and local minimum wage levels, which in some cases exceed the 

federal minimum wage, and focused solely on the federal minimum wage. As a result, 

some individuals paid at their state or local minimum wage level may appear in the data 

as earning above the federal minimum wage.
Page 3 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

For the first objective, we used CPS and ASEC data to describe selected 

characteristics of low-wage workers, including the industries in which they 

worked, their occupations, the number of jobs that they held, and the 

number of hours that they worked. To determine if the characteristics of 

low-wage workers changed over time, we examined these variables using 

every fifth year of data from 1995 to 2015 (i.e., 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 

and 2015), as well as the most recent CPS data from 2016.

For the second objective, because poverty is determined on the basis of 

annual family income we used “families” as the unit of analysis.4 We 

examined four different types of families with a low-wage worker: (1) 

married families with children; (2) married families without children; (3) 

single-parent families with children; and (4) other families. The “other 

families” category covers a wide variety of living situations, such as single 

adults living alone, but does not include married couples or a single 

parent living with children. We determined the extent of poverty among 

families with a low-wage worker using CPS variables on two poverty 

measures—the official poverty measure and the Supplemental Poverty 

Measure (SPM).5 Our dataset derived from CPS data included families 

with at least one low-wage worker. We placed families with more than 

one low-wage worker in one or more of the categories we examined, 

depending on that worker’s wages. For example, we included the family 

in both groups if a family had low-wage workers in more than one 

category (such as a worker earning the federal minimum wage and a 

worker earning between $12.01 and 16). To estimate the number and 

 3 Because definitions of low-wage workers can vary, we chose to examine multiple hourly 

wage thresholds in addition to our lowest wage category of 110 percent of the federal 

minimum wage. Our threshold of $12 per hour represents approximately the 20th 

percentile of hourly wage workers ages 25 to 64 in 2016, and is approximately equivalent 

to the wage rate of a worker working full-time (i.e., about 2,000 hours per year) to support 

a family of four at the poverty line (approximately $24,000 per year for a family of four with 

two children in 2016). Our threshold of $16 per hour, represents approximately the 40th 

percentile of hourly wage workers ages 25 to 64 in 2016, and is approximately equivalent 

the wage rate of a full-time worker supporting a family of six at the poverty level (or 

approximately $32,000 per year for a family of six with four children in 2016).

4 CPS divides households into smaller units, including family groups of related individuals. 

Individuals belonging to an unrelated subfamily were analyzed as part of the unrelated 

subfamily.

5 The SPM is not used to determine program eligibility; however, it provides more 

information than the official poverty measure on household resources available to meet 

living expenses. We compared household incomes to the official poverty measure from 

1995 to 2016 and to the SPM for 2010 and 2015. The SPM includes the family plus 

cohabiting partners and their relatives, as well as any unrelated children in a household.
Page 4 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

percentage of families in our sample that were in poverty, we relied on the 

CPS poverty variable which uses a modified poverty index adopted by a 

Federal Interagency Committee in 1969 to provide a range of income 

cutoffs or “poverty thresholds” adjusted to take into account family size, 

number of children, and age of the family householder or unrelated 

individual. We calculated the percentage and number of these families in 

poverty in each of the 6 years we analyzed from 1995 through 2016.

For the third objective, we used the same CPS dataset on families with a 

low-wage worker to examine the extent to which families with a low-wage 

worker participated in five social safety net programs for low-income 

individuals: (1) Medicaid (health care); (2) the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP) (formerly food stamps); (3) Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (cash assistance); (4) the Earned 

Income Tax Credit (EITC); and (5) the Additional Child Tax Credit 

(ACTC).6 We selected these five programs because they were large or 

well known, and were included in the CPS data. For each of the selected 

programs, we determined the number and types of families in each of our 

three wage categories that, according to CPS, reported participating in 

the program. We also analyzed whether families with a low-wage worker 

participated in more than one of these programs and which combinations 

of programs they used. We compared our results to existing reports, and 

interviewed staff at BLS and Census. To examine what is known about 

the reasons eligible working families do not participate in these selected 

programs, we conducted a literature review and interviewed public policy 

researchers and officials at state and local benefit agencies and/or 

community nonprofit organizations, including interviews in four 

metropolitan areas. We selected four locations—Atlanta, San Francisco, 

Santa Fe, and Washington, D.C.—because they represented a range of 

local minimum wage levels relative to the federal minimum wage, costs of 

living, and participation rates in our five selected social safety net 

programs. The content of our interviews and literature review is not

generalizable, but provides examples of factors affecting working families 

who are eligible for, but do not receive assistance from social safety net 

programs.

 6 CPS participation rates for TANF include only cash assistance. CPS data do not include 

information on families who were recipients of the other services funded by the TANF 

block grant, such as vocational training or childcare. As a result, when we discuss TANF 

in this report, we are referring only to TANF cash assistance.
Page 5 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Although CPS is a widely used source of labor force information, it is 

important to note that these data have some limitations. CPS is selfreported survey data collected from a probability sample. We did not 

independently verify the accuracy of the self-reported data. Specifically, 

CPS data on program participation are known to be underreported, for 

reasons that are not fully understood.7 In addition, Census officials told us 

that CPS data on EITC and ACTC are modeled on who would be eligible 

rather than reported participation in these tax credit programs. All 

estimates produced from samples, such as the CPS data, are subject to 

sampling error. In addition to percentage estimates, we calculated 

margins of errors and include them in figures and tables. We include 

standard errors associated with certain poverty and program participation 

estimates in appendix II. The differences we discuss are statistically 

significant unless otherwise noted. For additional information on the 

methodology used in this report, see appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2016 to September 2017 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The lowest wage that a worker can earn is generally the federal minimum 

wage.8 The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 first established a minimum 

wage of 25 cents per hour, which has been raised numerous times 

eventually reaching its current level of $7.25 per hour. Since 1980 the 

federal government has increased the federal minimum wage various 

times; however, the actual purchase power after adjusting for inflation 

 7 For example, we previously reported that the Urban Institute found that in 2012, CPS 

data captured about 61 percent of people receiving TANF cash assistance and 57 percent 

of those receiving SNAP benefits. GAO-15-516.

8 Employers may pay some workers—such as restaurant workers and others who receive 

tip income—hourly wages below the federal minimum wage without violating federal 

minimum wage laws.

Background

Federal Minimum Wage
Page 6 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

(i.e., the real value) of the minimum wage has trended downward (see fig. 

1).

Figure 1: Changes in the Federal Minimum Wage Rate, 1980 through 2016

Many states have enacted their own minimum wage laws, and under the 

provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, an individual is 

generally covered by the higher of the state or federal minimum-wage 

rates. As of January 1, 2017, according to the Department of Labor, 29 

states and the District of Columbia had minimum wage rates above the 

federal minimum rate, and 2 states had minimum wage rates below the 

federal minimum rate. State minimum wages ranged from $5.15 per hour 
Page 7 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

in Georgia and Wyoming to $11.50 per hour in the District of Columbia 

(see fig. 2).9

Figure 2: State Minimum Wage Rates as of January 1, 2017

 9 States and localities may set minimum wages above, equivalent to, or below the federal 

minimum wage. However, the federal minimum wage rate applies in states and localities 

with minimum wage rates lower than the federal wage.
Page 8 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

According to BLS data, hourly workers earning at or below the federal 

minimum wage of $7.25 per hour made up 1.6 percent of total wage and 

salary workers.in 2016. The number of minimum wage workers since 

1995 ranged from a low of 1.7 million in 2006 to a high of 4.8 million in 

1997 (see fig. 3).

Figure 3: Population of Hourly and Minimum-Wage Workers in the U.S. Workforce, and U.S. Poverty Trends for Individuals,

1995 through 2015

Note: Employers may pay some workers—such as restaurant workers and others who receive tip 

income—hourly wages below the federal minimum wage without violating federal minimum wage 

laws.

According to BLS, more than one-half of hourly workers earning the 

federal minimum wage were employed part-time in 2016, in contrast to 

about one-quarter of all hourly workers. By working part-time—defined by 

BLS as 1 to 34 hours per week—these workers are less likely to receive 
Page 9 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

health insurance and other benefits from their employers.10 Research has 

also shown that many contingent workers, including some part-time 

workers, experience fluctuations in their earnings and employment status, 

making them more likely to seek assistance from federally funded social 

safety net programs, if eligible.11

As we previously reported, the official poverty measure used to provide 

information on how many people are “in poverty” in the United States was 

developed in the 1960s, based on the cost of food at that time.12 Each 

year Census updates its poverty thresholds—the income thresholds by 

which households are considered to be in poverty depending on family 

size. In 2016, the poverty thresholds ranged from $11,511 to $53,413, 

depending on family size and the age of the head of household (see table 

1).

 10 For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires large employers 

to provide health insurance for employees who work 30 hours or more per week or to pay 

annual tax penalties. They are not obligated to provide this benefit for part-time workers. 

11 Eligibility for federal social safety net programs is often linked to individual, family, or 

household income, as well as other factors. Some families with a low-wage worker may 

not qualify to participate in these programs if their income exceeds the maximum 

threshold for the program.

12 GAO-15-516. Census sets the official poverty measure following the Office of 

Management and Budget’s Statistical Policy Directive 14. See Office of Management and 

Budget, Definition of Poverty for Statistical Purposes, Statistical Policy Directive No. 14 

(May 1978).

Poverty Measurement
Page 10 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Table 1: Poverty Thresholds in Annual Income, Family Size, and Number of Related Children under Age 18, 2016

Poverty threshold based on number of related children under 18 years

Size of family unit None One Two Three Four Five Six Seven

Eight

or more

One person (unrelated individual):

Under age 65 12,486

Aged 65 and older 11,511

Two people:

Householder under age 65 16,072 16,543

Householder aged 65 and

older 14,507 16,480

Three people 18,774 19,318 19,337

Four people 24,755 25,160 24,339 24,424

Five people 29,854 30,288 29,360 28,643 28,205

Six people 34,337 34,473 33,763 33,082 32,070 31,470

Seven people 39,509 39,756 38,905 38,313 37,208 35,920 34,507

Eight people 44,188 44,578 43,776 43,072 42,075 40,809 39,491 39,156

Nine people or more 53,155 53,413 52,702 52,106 51,127 49,779 48,561 48,259 46,400

Source: U.S. Census Bureau | GAO-17-677

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) uses these 

poverty thresholds to update its poverty guidelines each year. These 

guidelines are used as an eligibility criterion of a number of federal 

programs, including certain low-income programs.13

We also previously reported that the official poverty measure had not 

changed substantially since it was first developed, and concerns about its 

 13 HHS states that its poverty guidelines are a simplified version of the Census Bureau’s 

poverty thresholds. However, there are some differences between the two. For instance,

HHS’s poverty guidelines vary by family size; while the Census poverty thresholds also 

vary by number of children, and, for households with one or two people, whether these 

members are elderly. Additionally, while HHS’s poverty guidelines are higher in Alaska 

and Hawaii than in the contiguous United States, the Census poverty thresholds are the 

same across all states. Furthermore, due to differences in when each measure is updated, 

HHS’s poverty guidelines approximate the Census poverty thresholds for the prior year. 

For HHS’s most recent poverty guidelines, see Annual Update of the HHS Poverty 

Guidelines, 82 Fed. Reg. 8831 (Jan. 31, 2017).
Page 11 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

inadequacies had resulted in efforts to develop a new measure.14 For 

example, poverty threshold (the income level used to determine who is “in 

poverty” each year) is based on three times the cost of food and does not 

take into account the cost of other basic necessities, such as shelter and 

utilities. Additionally, the official poverty measure considers cash income 

in determining a household’s income, but does not include additions to 

income based on the value of noncash assistance (e.g., food assistance) 

or reductions based on other necessary living expenses (e.g., medical 

expenses or taxes paid). A National Academy of Sciences panel on 

poverty and an interagency technical working group suggested ways that 

a new poverty measure could address some of these concerns. Based on 

these suggestions, Census, with support from BLS, developed a new 

poverty measure—the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM)—in 2010. 

Unlike the official poverty measure, the SPM adds other forms of noncash benefits, such as tax credits and SNAP benefits, and subtracts 

expenses, such as federal, state, and local income taxes, when 

calculating a household’s resources.

We have previously reported that federally funded social safety net 

programs generally provide targeted assistance to specific groups within 

the low-income population, such as people with disabilities and workers 

with children.15 In 2015, we identified more than 80 federal programs 

(including 6 tax expenditures) that provided aid to individuals and families 

who may earn too little to meet their basic needs, cannot support 

themselves through work, or are disadvantaged in other ways. According 

to the Congressional Research Service, five of these programs—

Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, EITC, and ACTC—accounted for $551.2 billion 

in spending in fiscal year 2015, or two-thirds of total federal spending on 

low-income assistance programs in that year.16

Eligibility criteria vary for these five federally funded programs and can 

include both financial and nonfinancial criteria. As we have previously 

reported, some programs are administered by states, which may apply 

 14 GAO-15-516.

15 Ibid.

16 Congressional Research Service, Federal Benefits and Services for People with Low 

Income: Overview of Spending Trends, FY2008-FY2015. (Washington, D.C.: July 29, 

2016).

Federally Funded Social 

Safety Net Programs
Page 12 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

their own eligibility criteria.17 Assistance may be provided to an individual, 

a family, or household. More recently, we reported that these programs’

eligibility criteria varied significantly in terms of the income limits used.18

In addition, we found that programs differed in the ways they measured 

applicants’ income, the standards and methods used to determine the 

income limit (i.e., the maximum income an applicant may have and still be 

eligible for the program), whether this limit is set nationwide or varies by 

state or locality, and the amount of the income limit itself. We also found 

that rules for determining the maximum allowable income that an 

applicant may have a recipient could earn and still be eligible, the 

amounts themselves, and whether they are set nationwide or vary by 

state or locality, also varied significantly. For example, in TANF, income 

limits are determined by states. We found that some states use HHS’s 

poverty guidelines, which are adjusted annually, while others had a limit 

set in state law, which is not adjusted. In addition to having income tests, 

we found that some programs limit assets that an eligible individual or 

family may hold, while others do not. Furthermore, we found that 

programs may have ongoing requirements that families must satisfy to 

remain enrolled and receiving assistance. For example, we found that 

some programs periodically require participants to recertify that their 

income remains below the income limit.

About 40 percent of U.S. workers ages 25 to 64 earned hourly wages of 

$16 or less (in constant 2016 dollars) over the period 1995 through 2016, 

according to our analysis of CPS data (see fig. 4). In each of the 6 years 

we reviewed, an estimated 1 to 5 percent of these workers earned an 

hourly wage or less of that year’s federal minimum wage, about 17 

 17 GAO-15-516.

18 GAO, Federal Low-Income Programs: Eligibility and Benefits Differ for Selected 

Programs Due to Complex and Varied Rules, GAO-17-558 (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 

2017).

Characteristics of the 

Low-Wage Workforce 

Changed Little from 

1995 through 2016

Low-Wage Workers 

Comprised About 40 

Percent of the U.S. 

Workforce Ages 25 to 64
Page 13 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

percent earned above federal minimum wage to $12 per hour, and about 

18 percent earned above $12 per hour to $16 per hour.19

Figure 4: Estimated Percentage of Low-Wage Workers in the Total U.S. Workforce 

Ages 25 to 64, by Wage Category, 1995 through 2016

Note: All references to the “federal minimum wage” are based on 110 percent of the hourly federal 

minimum wage in effect that year or the equivalent hourly calculated wage for salaried workers. All 

dollar amounts are in constant 2016 dollars. Percentage estimates have a margin of error of +/- 3 

percentage points or less for percentage estimates at the 95 percent confidence level.

The stagnation of low-wage workers in the workforce as depicted in our 

analysis of CPS data is also consistent with the literature on income 

inequality. Recent studies have found that while average wages 

experienced little or no change from 1973 through 2011 (when held in 

 19 The hourly wages that we calculated from reported earnings are estimates and 

therefore may be imprecise, We made our measure of the federal minimum wage is 

equivalent to 110 percent of the federal minimum wage in a given year to account for this 

imprecision and to allow for minimum wage workers who may have earned overtime 

making their average wage slightly above the minimum wage rate. For example, in 2016, 

the federal minimum wage was $7.25 per hour, but our analysis included minimum wage 

workers who earned $7.98 per hour or less. The nominal federal minimum wage was 

$4.25 in 1995, $5.15 in 2000 and 2005, and $7.25 in 2010 through 2017.
Page 14 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

constant 2011 dollars), income inequality increased as a result of income 

growth among high-wage workers.20

Low-wage workers, on average, worked fewer hours per week from 1995 

through 2016 than similar workers earning higher wages, according to our 

analysis of CPS data. In each of the years we reviewed, our estimates 

showed that workers who earned the federal minimum wage or less 

worked an average of about 30 hours per week, workers earning above 

the federal minimum wage to $12 per hour worked an average of about 

33 hours per week, and those earning $12.01 to $16 per hour worked an 

average of about 37 hours per week (see fig. 5).

 20 An Economic Policy Institute study found that the 20th percentile of hourly wages for all 

workers went from $9.75 in 1973 to $9.86 in 2011 (in 2011 dollars). See Economic Policy 

Institute, The State of Working America (2012). Similarly, a Pew Research Center study 

found that the lowest and lower middle income households made up 27 percent of all 

households in 1991 and 29 percent in 2015. See Pew Research Center, The American 

Middle Class is Losing Ground (2015). Lastly, a BLS published study found that the hourly 

wage of the lowest 10 percent of workers went from $8.87 in 2007 to $8.57 in 2014 (in 

2014 dollars). See Kristen Monaco and Brooks Pierce, "Compensation inequality: 

evidence from the National Compensation Survey," Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, July 2015.

Limited Hours 

Compounded Low-Wage 

Workers’ Income 

Disadvantage
Page 15 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Figure 5: Average Hours Worked per Week by Workers Ages 25 to 64 (Estimated), by Wage Category, 1995 through 2016

Note: All references to the “federal minimum wage” are based on110 percent of the federal minimum 

wage in effect that year or the equivalent hourly calculated wage for salaried workers. All dollar 

amounts are in constant 2016 dollars. Bars represent the margin of error for the 95 percent 

confidence interval of each estimate.

One option that a worker has to increase earnings is working multiple 

jobs. Our analysis of CPS data found that few low-wage workers held 

multiple jobs and low-wage workers tended to work multiple jobs at the 

same rate as workers earning higher wages. Specifically, our estimates 

showed that about 5 percent of low-wage workers in each low-wage 

category worked multiple jobs, or about the same percent as workers 

earning more than $16 per hour in each of the years we reviewed.

The combination of low wages and limited hours can affect a worker’s 

earnings and potential eligibility for federal social safety net programs. 

The reported growth of involuntary part-time workers—workers who 

would prefer to work more hours but are limited by economic conditions 

such as employers cutting hours or lack of full-time job opportunities—has 

likely reduced the average hours that low-wage workers can work.21

According to BLS, the number of these involuntary part-time workers 

peaked during the Great Recession and has yet to return to pre-recession 

levels. In 2016, BLS estimated that 5.6 million workers were involuntary 

 21 Involuntary part-time workers are also referred to as underemployed workers.
Page 16 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

part-time workers, of which about 61 percent said they were part-time 

because of business conditions and 34 percent said they could only find 

part-time employment.22 In previous reports, we found that low-wage 

workers employed on a contingent basis were more likely to earn low 

wages, less likely to have employer-sponsored benefits, and more likely 

to rely on social safety net programs.23 Low-wage workers who provide 

the sole income for a family may have income that is low enough to 

qualify them for federally funded social safety net programs. As shown in 

table 2, a hypothetical low-wage single parent who served as the sole 

income provider for a family of three would qualify for several programs of 

the five that we included in our analysis provided any other applicable 

eligibility requirements were also met. 24

Table 2: Calculated Weekly and Annual Earnings and Potential Social Safety Net Program Eligibility for a Hypothetical LowWage Worker Ages 25 to 64, by Wage Category (2016) 

Wage category

Average

hours per week

(estimated)

Calculated

weekly earningsa Calculatedannual earningsb

Potential eligibility for

social safety net programs

(based solely on income)c

Federal minimum wage 

or belowd 30 $239.25 $12,441 Medicaid, SNAP, EITC, and ACTC

Above federal minimum 

wage to $12.00

33 $396 $20,592 Medicaid, SNAP, EITC, and 

ACTC

$12.01 - $16.00 37 $592 $30,784 EITC and ACTC

Source: GAO analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) data | GAO-17-677

a

This assumes a worker earns the maximum wage and works the average hours for the respective 

wage level.

b

Annual earnings are derived by multiplying weekly earnings by 52 weeks.

c

The programs we analyzed are Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and the 

Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC).This assumes no other source of family income in a family 

consisting of a single parent and two children. States may have different eligibility requirements for 

certain programs, and for this hypothetical, we generally compared to the federal eligibility rules.

None of our hypothetical scenarios qualified for TANF cash assistance when compared to the 

average threshold of the 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C. For SNAP, we use SNAP 

eligibility rules used by states that have not adopted SNAP’s broad-based categorical eligibility. To 

determine potential eligibility for SNAP, we assumed that the calculated earning amount represented 

 22 BLS, The Employment Situation – April 2017 (Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2017). 

23 GAO, Contingent Workforce: Size, Characteristics, Earnings, and Benefits. 

GAO-15-168R (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 20, 2015) and GAO, Contingent Workers: Incomes 

and Benefits Lag Behind Those of Rest of Workforce, HEHS-00-76 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 30, 2000).

24 For this review, we only considered the federal income-based requirements for these 

programs, and did not assess any other eligibility requirements.
Page 17 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

gross earnings under SNAP rules. To be eligible for SNAP, most households must meet gross and 

net income tests. Households cannot have gross monthly income (total, non-excluded income before 

any deductions) higher than 130 percent of HHS’s poverty guidelines. They also cannot have net 

monthly income (gross income minus deductions) higher than 100 percent of HHS’s poverty 

guidelines, or $1,680 per month for a household of three under standard program eligibility rules). 

Medicaid eligibility criteria are based on those used in GAO-17-558 and focus on individuals eligible 

for Medicaid under Modified Adjusted Gross Income rules. Medicaid income eligibility requirements 

may vary among states. In the case of TANF cash assistance, where eligibility is set by the states, we 

use the July 2015 median state eligibility requirement for the 48 contiguous states and District of 

Columbia ($817 per month), as reported in GAO-17-558.

d

All references to the “federal minimum wage” are based on 110 percent of the hourly federal 

minimum wage in effect in 2016 or the equivalent hourly calculated wage for salaried workers.

The same five industries consistently employed the majority of low-wage 

workers from 1995 through 2016—leisure and hospitality, education and 

health, professional and business services, wholesale and retail trade, 

and manufacturing. Specifically, in each of the years we reviewed, these 

five industries employed approximately 70 percent of low-wage workers. 

Comparatively, these five industries also employed about 62 percent of 

workers earning more than $16. (See fig. 6). Our estimates showed the 

highest concentration of low-wage workers to be in the health and 

education industry with an estimated 22 to 25 percent of workers in each 

of our wage categories in this industry.

Low-Wage Workers 

Remained Highly 

Concentrated in Five 

Industries and Six 

Occupations
Page 18 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Figure 6: Top Five Industries Employing Highest Estimated Percentage of Workers 

Ages 25 to 64, by Percentage of Wage Category Workforce, 1995 through 2016

Note: The five industries employing the majority of low-wage workers were leisure and hospitality, 

education and health, professional and business services, wholesale and retail trade, and 

manufacturing. All references to the “federal minimum wage” are based on 110 percent of the hourly 

federal minimum wage in effect that year or the equivalent hourly calculated wage for salaried 

workers. All dollar amounts are in constant 2016 dollars. Percentage estimates have a margin of error 

of +/- 4 percentage points or less for percentage estimates at the 95 percent confidence level.
Page 19 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Occupational Concentration of Low-Wage Workers

The following six occupational categories employed the majority of low-wage 

workers:

• Food preparation and serving - fast food workers, cafeteria, and restaurant 

workers

• Sales - cashiers, retail salespersons, and sales representatives 

• Office and administrative support - secretaries and administrative 

assistants, payroll and time-keeping clerks, and mail carriers 

• Building grounds cleaning and maintenance - janitors and building keepers, 

maids and housekeeping workers, and grounds maintenance workers

• Personal care and service - hairdressers and barbers, child care workers, 

and home care aides

• Transportation and materials moving - bus drivers, taxi drivers, ambulance 

drivers, and parking lot attendants

Source: Current Population Survey (CPS). | GAO-17-677

Low-wage workers were also highly concentrated in six occupational 

categories in 2016—food preparation and serving, sales, office and 

administrative support, building and grounds cleaning and maintenance, 

personal care and service, and transportation and material moving. (See 

textbox above for more detailed descriptions of these occupational 

categories). Our estimates showed that half or more of low-wage workers 

were employed in one of these six occupational categories in 2016 

whereas 26 percent of higher-wage workers were employed in these 

categories (see fig. 7).

Figure 7: Occupational Distribution of Low-Wage Workers Ages 25 to 64 

(Estimated), 2016

Note: The six occupations employing the majority of low-wage workers were food service and 

preparation, sales, office and administrative support, building and grounds cleaning and maintenance, 

personal care and service, and transportation and material moving. All references to the “federal 

minimum wage” are based on 110 percent of the hourly federal minimum wage in effect that year or 

the equivalent hourly calculated wage for salaried workers. All dollar amounts are in constant 2016 

dollars. Percentage estimates have a margin of error of +/- 4 percentage points or less for percentage 

estimates at the 95 percent confidence level.
Page 20 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Although low-wage workers were concentrated in these six occupations, 

the amount of concentration varied by the amount of wages earned. For 

example, our estimates showed that workers earning hourly wages of 

federal minimum wage or below in 2016 were most concentrated in 

personal care and services, sales, and food service and preparation, with 

an estimated 11 to 12 percent of these workers participating in each 

occupation. In contrast, our estimates showed that workers earning 

$12.01 to $16 per hour were concentrated in office and administrative 

support occupations, with an estimated 18 percent of these workers 

participating in this occupation.

While low-wage workers had lower levels of education, on average, than 

workers earning higher wages, increases in their educational attainment 

from 1995 through 2016 generally did not lead to higher wages. 

Specifically, in each year we reviewed, about 68 percent of low-wage 

workers and about half of higher-wage workers had a high school 

diploma. However, the proportion of low-wage workers with college 

degrees also increased during this time. Our estimates showed that the 

percentage of workers earning $12.01 to $16 per hour with college 

degrees increased from 16 percent in 1995 to 22 percent in 2016. A 

similar trend occurred in the other low-wage categories. For example, the 

percentage of workers who had at least a high-school diploma yet earned 

the federal minimum wage or below increased from an estimated 70 

percent in 1995 to 80 percent in 2016.

Families with a low-wage worker ages 25 to 64 shared several common 

characteristics, according to our estimates based on CPS data. For 

example, our estimates showed that the majority of these families were 

not in poverty, had just one low-wage worker, and derived 80 percent or 

more of their family income from wages and salaries. In addition, on 

average, married families had two workers (contributing to a family 

income that often exceeded the poverty threshold); families with children 

had two children; and between 5 and 9 percent of families included 

someone over age 65.

Increases in Educational 

Attainment Have Not Led 

to Higher Wages

Poverty Persisted 

among Working 

Families, Affecting 

Those with Minimum 

Wage Earners and 

Children the Most
Page 21 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

The majority of families with a low-wage worker were not in poverty, yet 

the percentage of families that were in poverty persisted in each of the 

years we reviewed and in each of the low-wage categories we 

examined.25 While higher wages were generally associated with a lower 

percentage of families in poverty in a given year, poverty levels among 

families of low-wage workers changed little in the past 2 decades across 

all three wage categories that we examined.26 (See fig. 8.)

 25 Poverty in the United States has fluctuated between about 10 and 15 percent since 

about 1970. The official U.S. poverty rate generally increases when the economy is in 

recession but recent experience suggests that it stays within a narrow range. For the 

period of 1995 to 2015, the U.S. poverty rate ranged from a low of 11.3 percent in 2000 to 

a high of 15.1 percent in 2010. 

26 A recent report published by BLS that examined poverty among low-wage workers had 

similar findings. Specifically, it found that in 2013 workers earning up to $9.25 had poverty 

rates of 21 percent and workers earning between $9.26 and $10.75 had poverty rates of 

13 percent. Vincent A. Fusaro and H. Luke Shaefer, “How should we define “low-wage” 

work? An analysis using the Current Population Survey,” Monthly Labor Review

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 2016).

Percentage of Working 

Families in Poverty Has 

Remained Relatively 

Constant
Page 22 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Figure 8: Families with a Low-Wage Worker Ages 25 to 64, With Annual Incomes under the Poverty Threshold (Estimated), by 

Wage Category, 1995 through 2016

Note: All wage categories represent estimated hourly wages based on wage data reported by the 

survey respondent or imputed by CPS. All references to the “federal minimum wage” are based on 

110 percent of the hourly federal minimum wage in effect that year or the equivalent hourly calculated 

wage for salaried workers. All estimates including dollar amounts are reported in constant 2016 

dollars. Brackets are used to represent margins of error of estimated percentages at a 95 percent 

confidence level.
Page 23 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

In almost all of the years we reviewed, the presence of a child in a family 

with a low-wage worker was associated with higher rates of poverty 

regardless of the worker’s wage category or marital status. For example, 

across all low-wage categories we examined from 1995 through 2016, 4 

to 20 percent of married families with children were in poverty compared 

to 7 percent or fewer of married families without children. However, in 

1995 the higher rate of poverty was not statistically different based on 

children for unmarried households in all of the wage categories. In 

addition, while poverty was most prevalent among families with a worker 

earning the federal minimum wage or below, it was most prevalent among 

single-parent families earning this amount.27 (See fig. 9.)

 27 See appendixes II and III for additional information on the estimated percentage and 

number of working families in poverty.

Poverty Was Most 

Prevalent among Families 

with Minimum Wage 

Earners and Children
Page 24 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Figure 9: Poverty among Families with a Worker Ages 25 to 64 Earning the Federal Minimum Wage or Below (Estimated), by 

Family Type, 1995 through 2016

Note: All references to the “federal minimum wage” are based on 110 percent of the hourly federal 

minimum wage in effect that year or the equivalent hourly calculated wage for salaried workers. The 

“other families” category includes families in CPS that consist of related and certain unrelated 

individuals who live together, including cohabiting partners and foster children, and may consist of a 

single individual. Across all of our low-wage thresholds, we found that married families with children, 

married families without children, and other families each made up about 30 percent of families 
Page 25 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

across all of our low-wage categories. Single-parent families made up the remaining 10 percent. 

Brackets are used to represent margins of error of estimated percentages at a 95 percent confidence 

level.

Our analysis of CPS data found sizeable percentages of families with a 

low-wage worker who had incomes just above the poverty threshold, 

potentially limiting their access to certain federal social safety net 

programs.28 The estimated percentage of families with incomes placing 

them just beyond the poverty thresholds remained relatively unchanged 

across the years we reviewed (see table 3).29

 28 The percentage of families with a low-wage worker in poverty can vary depending on 

the measure used to calculate them. Our analysis of CPS data for 2010 and 2015—the 

only years when we performed our analysis for which CPS included both the official 

poverty measure and the SPM—found statistically significant differences in the estimates 

reported under each measure. For example, using the SPM—which adjusts for various 

taxes paid and government benefits received (e.g., SNAP benefits)—instead of the official 

poverty measure significantly increased the poverty percentage for married couples 

without children in each of our low-wage categories. In contrast, use of the SPM 

significantly decreased the percentage of single-parent families with a worker earning 

$12.01 to $16 per hour in poverty, but the decrease was statistically significant only in 

2015.

29 See appendixes II and III for additional data on the percentage and number of working 

families in poverty.
Page 26 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Table 3: Estimated Percentage of Working Families with Incomes Just Above the 

Poverty Thresholds, 1995 through 2016

Wage 

category Year

Family income relative to the poverty threshold

100-149% 150-199%

Federal minimum wage or belowa

1995 13 15

2000 16 9

2005 11 12

2010 15 11

2015 11 11

2016 11 9

Above federal minimum wage to $12.00a

1995 15 14

2000 14 15

2005 13 14

2010 14 14

2015 13 14

2016 13 13

$12.01 to $16.00

1995 6 10

2000 8 10

2005 8 10

2010 8 11

2015 9 11

2016 8 10

Source: GAO analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) data. | GAO-17-677

Note: All dollar amounts are reported in constant 2016 dollars. Percentage estimates have a margin 

of error of +/- 4 percentage points or less for percentage estimates at the 95 percent confidence level.

a

All references to the “federal minimum wage” are based on 110 percent the hourly federal minimum 

wage in effect that year or the equivalent hourly calculated wage for salaried workers.
Page 27 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Families with a low-wage worker may be eligible for and use one or more 

federal social safety net programs. The largest of these programs is 

Medicaid, which HHS reported had 69 million individuals enrolled in April 

2017. Our estimates based on CPS data found that the percentage of 

families with a low-wage worker enrolled in Medicaid rose significantly 

over the past 2 decades, almost tripling for families with a worker earning 

more than the federal minimum wage between 1995 and 2016 (see fig. 

10). In 2016, about 29 percent of families with a worker earning federal 

minimum wage or below, 31 percent of families with a worker earning 

above federal minimum wage to $12 per hour, and 21 percent of families 

with a worker earning $12.01 to $16 per hour were enrolled in Medicaid. 

This growth in enrollment coincided with a rise in overall Medicaid 

enrollment (i.e., not just families with a low-wage worker), which 

according to HHS, doubled during this time frame. Researchers have 

noted that key factors affecting the growth in Medicaid enrollment in the 

past decade were the 2008 recession and the expansion of Medicaid in 

some states under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.30

 30 Robin Rudowitz, Allison Valentine, and Vernon K. Smith, Medicaid Enrollment and 

Spending Growth: FY 2016 and 2017 (Washington, D.C., Kaiser Commission on Medicaid 

and the Uninsured, Oct. 2016). Under the Affordable Care Act, states had authority to 

expand Medicaid eligibility under their state plans to cover nearly all adults with incomes 

at or below a specified percentage of the official poverty thresholds. According to the 

Kaiser Family Foundation, as of September 2016, 32 states expanded their Medicaid 

eligibility criteria, increasing the number of individuals who were eligible to enroll. 

Families of LowWage Workers 

Consistently Use 

Certain Federal 

Social Safety Net 

Programs, but 

Several Factors May 

Limit Eligible Families’

Use
Page 28 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Figure 10: Estimated Rates of Medicaid Enrollment among Families with a LowWage Worker Ages 25 to 64, by Wage Category, 1995 through 2016

Note: All references to the “federal minimum wage” are based on 110 percent of the hourly federal 

minimum wage in effect that year or the equivalent hourly calculated wage for salaried workers. All 

dollar amounts are in constant 2016 dollars. Percentage estimates have a margin of error of +/- 4 

percentage points or less for percentage estimates at the 95 percent confidence level.

Families with a low-wage worker may also be eligible for and use other 

federal social safety net programs (e.g., TANF, SNAP, EITC, and ACTC). 

Our estimates showed that 5 percent or less of families with a low-wage 

worker received TANF cash assistance at least once in the prior calendar 

year from 1995 through 2016.31 In previous work, we reported that as of 

July 2015, TANF income eligibility thresholds for a family of three ranged 

from $0 to $1,660 per month, depending on the state, with a median 

 31 CPS participation rates for TANF include only cash assistance. CPS data do not include 

information on families who were recipients of the other services funded by the TANF 

block grant, such as vocational training or childcare.
Page 29 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

income threshold of $817.32 Given these thresholds, most low-wage 

workers, including workers earning federal minimum wage or below, 

would generally earn too much to qualify for TANF cash assistance in 

most states. In this report, our estimates showed that the percentage of 

families with a worker earning more than the federal minimum wage 

receiving SNAP benefits at least once in a calendar year doubled from 

1995 to 2016. In 2016, about 16 percent of families with a worker earning 

federal minimum wage or below, 15 percent of families with a worker 

earning above federal minimum wage to $12 per hour, and 8 percent of 

families with a worker earning $12.01 to $16 per hour received SNAP 

benefits.33 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which administers 

SNAP, has reported that the overall increase in SNAP enrollment from 

1995 to 2014 was influenced by economic conditions, such as higher 

poverty rates during recessionary periods, and policy changes, such as 

increases the value of a vehicle that could be excluded when calculating 

a family’s income.34 Finally, our estimates showed that EITC eligibility 

generally increased among families with a worker earning above federal 

minimum wage over this time frame, with an estimated 23 to 35 percent 

of those families eligible in 2016; whereas eligibility for the ACTC 

generally remained unchanged among families with a low-wage worker.35

A low-wage worker’s family type also influenced the extent that families 

used social safety net programs. When comparing program usage across 

different family types, we generally found that regardless of the low-wage 

workers’ wages, a greater percentage of single-parent families used 

selected programs than the other family types we examined. For 

example, among families with a worker earning federal minimum wage or 

below in 2016, our estimates showed that two-thirds of married families 

without children and about half of married families with children used 

 32 GAO-17-558. July 2015 data were the most recent data available at the time of that 

review.

33 The margin of error of these estimates for SNAP usage in 20016, reflecting a 95 

percent confidence interval, is 3 percent or below.

34 Kelsey Gray and Karen Cunnyngham, Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program Participation Rates: Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014, Report submitted to 

the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, 

June 2016).

35 The margin of error of these estimates for EITC eligibility, reflecting a 95 percent 

confidence interval, is 1 percent or below.
Page 30 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

none of the aforementioned programs. In contrast, more than half of 

single-parent families used three or more of the programs (see fig. 11).

Figure 11: Estimated Percentage of Families with a Minimum Wage Worker Using 

Some Combination of Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the 

Additional Child Tax Credit, by Family Type, 2016

Note: This figure includes participation in Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families cash assistance, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), 

and the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC). Families may have also participated in other programs 

not included here. All dollar amounts are in constant 2016 dollars. Minimum wage families are defined 

as families with at least one worker earning up to 110 percent of the hourly federal minimum wage in 

effect in 2016 ($7.98), or the equivalent hourly calculated wage for salaried workers. The “other 

families” category includes families in the Current Population Survey (CPS) that consist of related and 

certain unrelated individuals who live together, including cohabiting partners and foster children, and 

may consist of a single individual. CPS estimates of EITC and ACTC eligibility are used as a proxy for 

participation because CPS does not estimate participation. Brackets are used to represent margins of

error of estimated percentages at a 95 percent confidence level.
Page 31 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Agencies that administer the selected social safety net programs 

indicated that eligible working families participate in these programs at a 

lower rate than the total eligible population for reasons that are not well 

known. For example, IRS reported that in 2013, 80 percent of eligible 

filers—all of whom had earnings—claimed the EITC, with state rates

ranging from 72 percent in the District of Columbia to 85 percent in 

Hawaii.36 Additionally, USDA estimates show that a significantly smaller 

percentage of eligible households with a wage earner participated in 

SNAP than other eligible households—70 percent compared to 83 

percent in fiscal year 2014.37 Although some research has examined the 

reasons why eligible people choose not to participate in social safety net 

programs, our literature review found few studies that focused specifically 

on working families rather than the general eligible population, none of 

which had findings that were generalizable to the experiences of working 

families nationwide.38

Our interviews with state and local officials for the selected social safety 

net programs, representatives from nonprofit organizations, and 

researchers helped provide additional context for the experiences of 

working families. Specifically, the officials we interviewed identified 

several reasons why families with a low-wage worker may decline to 

participate in assistance programs for which they are eligible.

 36 IRS-ACS Match, Center for Administrative Records Research and Applications, U.S. 

Census Bureau in collaboration with IRS, tax year 2013.

https://www.eitc.irs.gov/EITC-Central/Participation-Rate (downloaded on July 7, 2017).

37 The report also found that eligible working families’ participation in SNAP varied widely 

by state, from an estimated 97 percent in Wisconsin to about 49 percent in the District of 

Columbia, and they were significantly lower than those of other eligible families in 37 

states and the District of Columbia. Karen Cunnyngham, Reaching Those in Need: State 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates in 2014, Report submitted 

to the USDA Food and Nutrition Service, (Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, 

Jan. 2017). In GAO-17-558, we reported that in 2012, approximately 28 percent of all 

eligible families participated in TANF cash assistance. We did not report separate 

participation rates for families with a low-wage worker. Medicaid program data do not track 

recipients with earnings, and the Internal Revenue Service has not published ACTC 

participation rates.

38 Reasons that could apply to all individuals include lack of information or misconceptions 

about programs and eligibility; language barriers or immigration status; lack of childcare or 

transportation during appointments; program requirements such as work participation that 

applicants may find difficult or do not wish to fulfill; and others. See GAO-17-558 and 

GAO, Means Tested Programs: Information on Program Access Can Be an Important 

Management Tool, GAO-05-221 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 11, 2005). 

Several Factors May Affect 

Eligible Families’

Participation in Social 

Safety Net Programs
Page 32 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

• Assumed ineligibility. Some workers may assume that earning 

income at a job automatically makes them ineligible for benefits, even 

if their earnings are low enough to qualify for assistance. A program 

official in Atlanta told us that eligible families are generally aware of 

the existence of a program, but assume they have to hit “rock bottom”

before they can qualify for assistance. A researcher also told us that 

families that had exceeded the eligibility threshold in the past may 

assume they remain ineligible, even if their income has decreased.

• Lack of time. Some workers may find it difficult to take time off from 

work to apply for benefits in person at a program office, if required. 

Some states have implemented online or phone application processes 

to make programs more accessible to working families.39 However, as 

a nonprofit director in Santa Fe cautioned, not all families have 

Internet access and the proficiency required to complete an 

application online.

• Complex program requirements. Some families may find program 

documentation requirements complex and difficult to fulfill. For 

example, the state TANF application in one city we reviewed requires 

applicants to provide information verifying their earned and unearned 

income, money in the bank, immigration status, identity, vehicle 

registration, and immunizations of children under 7 years of age. 

Other program documents state that beneficiaries must also resubmit 

financial information, along with verification of their children’s school 

attendance, semi-annually or whenever changes occur that would 

affect their eligibility. Researchers have found that recent changes in 

the SNAP income documentation requirements, such as requiring less 

frequent recertification of income and eligibility, increased participation 

and retention of SNAP benefits.40 In addition, some states have 

 39 GAO-17-558 provides additional information on actions that federal agencies and states 

have taken to streamline eligibility rules for federal low-income programs.

40 For example, see GAO, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Improved 

Oversight of State Eligibility Expansions Needed, GAO-12-670 (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 26, 

2012) and Caroline Ratcliffe, Signe‐Mary McKernan and Kenneth Finegold, “Effects of 

Food Stamp and TANF Policies on Food Stamp Receipt,” Social Service Review, Vol. 82, 

No. 2 (June 2008), 291-334. 
Page 33 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

• combined applications for TANF, SNAP, and/or Medicaid into a single 

form, reducing the amount of paperwork that applicants must 

submit.41

• Stigma. Some working families may be especially sensitive to the 

stigma associated with some social safety net programs, because 

their earnings did not make them as self-sufficient as they hoped. To 

avoid this stigma, according to several officials we interviewed, 

eligible working families may choose not to participate in a program if 

their income is sufficient for them to survive without assistance. For 

example, a 2007 study of 115 EITC recipients in the Boston area 

found that respondents who had received TANF benefits desired to 

leave the program as soon as possible.42 In contrast, according to a 

caseworker in San Francisco, while unemployed families face the 

same stigma, they cannot afford to refuse any benefits for which they 

qualify.

• Minimal benefit amounts. SNAP, TANF, EITC, and ACTC have 

means-tested structures that may reduce benefit levels as recipients’

incomes increase. Several officials told us that at some point the 

benefits may become too small to be worth the effort of obtaining 

them. For example, a study of low-income customers of a large tax 

preparation service in two counties in California during the 2007 tax 

season found that 16 percent of those who had previously applied for 

SNAP had stopped pursuing the benefits because the “hassle was not 

worth it.”43

 41 GAO, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: More Information on Promising 

Practices Could Enhance States' Use of Data Matching for Eligibility, GAO-17-111 

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 19, 2016).

42 In contrast, respondents considered EITC to be a reward for hard work. J. Sykes, K. 

Kriz, K. Edin, and S. Halpern-Meekin, “Dignity and Dreams: What the Earned Income Tax 

Credit (EITC) Means to Low-Income Families,” American Sociological Review 2015, Vol. 

80(2) 243–267. Additionally, another study found that the belief that poverty was caused 

by laziness increased the degree to which respondents internalized stigma when utilizing 

Medicaid. This older study was based on 1,405 interviews in 10 states and the District of 

Columbia in 1999, and the results of its regression models hold all other variables 

constant, J. Stuber, and M. Schlesinger, “Sources of Stigma for Means-Tested 

Government Programs,” Social Science & Medicine 63 (2006) 933–945.

43 The study surveyed over 16,000 clients in San Francisco and Alameda counties with 

incomes low enough that they appeared to be eligible for SNAP. Diane Whitmore 

Schanzenbach, “Experimental Estimates of the Barriers to Food Stamp Enrollment,” 

Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Paper no. 1367-09, Sept. 2009.
Page 34 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

• Confusing tax rules. Some families may find the process of claiming 

the EITC and ACTC on their tax returns to be confusing. For example, 

a nonprofit director in the District of Columbia told us that applying for 

these tax credits can be complex, especially the requirements for 

qualifying children and filing status, and families claiming the credits 

may need high quality and costly assistance to prepare their taxes. To 

help mitigate this complexity, IRS encourages individuals who may 

qualify for the tax credits to visit one of the more than 12,000 free tax 

help locations across the country, but this task may also interfere with 

some individuals’ working hours.44

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Labor and the 

Secretary of Commerce for comment. Each agency provided technical 

comments, which we incorporated in the report, as appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Department of Labor, 

the Department of Commerce, and other interested parties. In addition, 

the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

Cindy Brown-Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or Oliver Richard at (202) 512-

8424.You may also reach us by e-mail at brownbarnesc@gao.gov or 

richardo@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

 44 IRS’s Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program offers free tax help to people who 

generally make $54,000 or less, persons with disabilities and limited English speaking 

taxpayers who need assistance in preparing their own tax returns. IRS-certified volunteers 

provide free basic income tax return preparation with electronic filing to qualified 

individuals. At select tax sites, taxpayers also have an option to prepare their own basic 

federal and state tax return for free using Web-based tax preparation software with an 

IRS-certified volunteer to help guide them through the process.

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 35 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

GAO staff who contributed to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,

Cindy Brown-Barnes

Director, Education, Workforce,

 and Income Security

Oliver Richard

Director, Applied Research and Methods
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Our review focused on the following questions: (1) what are the 

characteristics of the low-wage workforce and how have they changed 

over time, (2) to what extent are families with low-wage workers in 

poverty, and (3) to what extent do families with low-wage workers 

participate in selected social safety net programs and what factors affect 

their participation.

After discussions with agency officials, we identified the Current 

Population Survey (CPS) as the data source best suited to answer our 

research questions. The CPS is a national survey designed and 

administered jointly by the Census Bureau (Census) and the Department 

of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and it contains data on 

individual earnings, as well as poverty rates of families and individuals. 

CPS is a key source of official government statistics on employment and 

unemployment in the United States and is the data source for several 

BLS and Census reports addressing issues similar to those in our 

objectives. For example, it is used to produce a BLS report on the 

characteristics of minimum wage workers and a Census report on the 

supplemental poverty rate.1

The CPS is conducted on a monthly basis, but different questions are 

asked in different months during the year. Respondents are surveyed 

over two separate 4-month periods. Information on hourly wages and 

other labor force topics are collected on a monthly basis of a sub-sample 

of respondents. Information on poverty, program participation and income 

over the prior calendar year is collected annually in the Annual Social and 

Economic Supplement (ASEC), conducted in March. In consultation with 

Census officials, we combined information on hourly wages and poverty 

and program participation, by linking respondents of the ASEC to the 

months those respondents answered questions about hourly wages 

(March, April, May, and June).2 We used the CPS years 1995, 2000, 

2005, 2010, 2015 and 2016.

Estimates produced from CPS data are subject to sampling error. For all 

of our estimates we weighted observations based on the monthly weight 

 1 For example, see BLS, “Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers” (Washington, D.C.: 

April 2017) and. Census, “The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2015” (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 13, 2016).

2 For 1995 and 2000, we were only able to use the individuals in the month of March, 

because of difficulty matching the individuals across months.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Analysis of Current 

Population Survey Data
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 37 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

and generated standard errors under the assumption of with replacement 

sampling using state as a stratification variable.3 To the extent possible, 

we compared our estimates of values published by Census derived from 

our weighting procedures and standard errors to reported values for that 

year and found them to be consistent. In addition to estimates, we 

generated standard errors or the margin of error for the 95 percent 

confidence interval, and report them with estimates in figures and tables. 

Based on our data checks, review of documentation and interviews with 

agency officials, we found the CPS data to be sufficiently reliable for our 

purposes. However, our method of estimating variance results in standard 

errors that are relatively conservative; that is, the 95 percent confidence 

intervals are wider than those resulting from the use of replicate weights.

We relied on the monthly CPS information to obtain information about 

individual hourly wages to determine whether an individual was a lowwage worker. We relied on estimated hourly wages to determine the 

wage rate of salaried individuals, though in some cases we used reported 

hourly wages; to estimate hourly wages we used a method provided by 

BLS economists. This method included observations of (1) workers who 

reported an hourly wage and (2) salaried workers who reported weekly 

wages. We included both types of workers in our sample to obtain a 

broader spectrum of low-wage workers. This method also takes into 

account potential overtime hours worked and individuals working multiple 

jobs. We identified three mutually exclusive categories of low-wage 

workers earning:

• 110 percent of the federal minimum wage or below (salaried and 

hourly). This group consisted of workers that earned 110 percent of 

the federal minimum wage or below (based on the federal minimum 

wage in each of the years that we reviewed).

• Above 110 percent of the federal minimum wage to $12.00. This 

group consisted of workers that earned above110 percent of the 

federal minimum wage in that year but not more than $12.00 (in 

constant 2016 dollars).

• $12.01 to $16.00. This group consisted of workers that earned 

between $12.01 and $16.00 (in constant 2016 dollars).

 3 This procedure results in confidence intervals that are generally conservative (i.e., wider) 

than those based on replicate weights, and helps to ensure that we do not overstate the 

precision of our estimates based on the matched monthly CPS and ASEC data.

Analysis of Low-Wage Workers
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

To define these groups, we only included workers ages 25 to 64—a 

definition used in prior GAO work on the low-wage workforce.4 We used 

this definition to ensure that our sample included workers who were more 

likely to be independent, out of school, and less likely to be earning a 

retirement pension.

For the groups described above, we reported the following statistics: 

occupation, industry, whether an individual worked multiple jobs, 

education level, and total number of hours worked at all jobs.

As stated above, we relied on the ASEC to obtain information about the 

poverty rate and program participation of families.

• Family type: The unit of analysis within the CPS data was the “family 

record.” We examined four different family types: (1) married couple 

families with children; (2) married couple families without children; (3) 

single-parent families with children; and (4) other families. The “other 

families” category covers a wide variety of living situations, such as 

single adults living alone, but does not include married couples or a 

single-parent living with children.

• Poverty: We relied on Census’ determination within the ASEC survey 

to determine whether a family was in poverty. We used two different 

poverty measures. The official poverty measure measures a family’s 

resources against a poverty threshold that varies by the number of 

supported adults and children. However, it excludes certain types of 

resources, such as in-kind assistance (such as Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program benefits). We also used the Supplemental 

Poverty Measure, which is also provided by Census. The 

Supplemental Poverty Measure includes some in-kind assistance, but 

also deducts certain expenses such as child care from family 

resources. In 2016, Census reported that overall, the national rates of 

poverty are similar based on the two measures.

• Program participation: We relied on Census’ determination within 

the ASEC survey to determine whether a family participated in the 

following federal social safety net programs: EITC, ACTC, Medicaid, 

SNAP, and TANF cash assistance. Specifically, we measured the use 

of programs in the following ways:

• Medicaid enrollment: Anyone in the family enrolled in Medicaid, 

based on self-report.

 4 GAO-12-10.

Analysis of Families with a 

Low-Wage Worker
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

• SNAP participation: The family received SNAP benefits during 

the prior calendar year, based on self-report.

• TANF participation: Anyone in the family received TANF cash 

assistance during the prior calendar year, based on self-report.5

• EITC eligibility: Anyone in the family eligible for EITC receipt 

during the prior calendar year. Census determines EITC eligibility 

based on income and family structure.

• ACTC eligibility: Anyone in the family eligible for ACTC receipt 

during the prior calendar year. Census determines ACTC eligibility 

based on income and family structure.

An important limitation to our analysis on program participation is that the 

use of the programs reported by CPS has been noted by researchers to 

be imprecise. The sources of imprecision are not fully known, and likely 

depend on the program. In the cases of Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF cash 

assistance, where benefit receipt is self-reported, CPS data are known to 

underreport program benefits, perhaps because a stigma is associated 

with its use. In addition, we reported that the Urban Institute staff found 

that CPS data captured about 61 percent of TANF cash assistance 

benefits received and 57 percent of SNAP benefits received in 2012.

6 In 

the case of EITC and ACTC, Census imputes eligibility for the credits 

from reported income and other information about the family. According to 

researchers, in some cases the CPS will overstate usage of the EITC, by 

imputing the credit to those that do not claim it. In other cases, they will 

understate usage because they will fail to assign the credit to those that 

do claim it.7 However, as noted earlier, we used these data because they 

were the best available for the analysis we wished to conduct.

 5 A Census official told us that while Census reports SNAP participation at the household 

level in the ASEC, it prorates the benefits across families with multiple families in a 

household. 

6 GAO, Federal Low-Income Programs: Multiple Programs Target Diverse Populations 

and Needs, GAO-15-516 (Washington, D.C., July 30, 2015).

7 For discussion of the lack of concordance between actual program use and reported 

program use in the CPS, see Bruce D. Meyer and Robert M. Goerge, “Errors in Survey 

Reporting and Imputation and their Effects on Estimates of Food Stamp Program 

Participation,” U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper No. CES-WP-11-

14 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 2011).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 40 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

To examine what is known about the reasons eligible working families do 

not participate in the five selected federal programs, we conducted a 

literature review of academic, government, and think tank reports 

published from 2006 to 2016. We excluded reports that we determined 

did not have sufficient methodological rigor.

To gather examples and current information on factors influencing 

families’ decisions in a variety of settings, we interviewed researchers and 

industry groups as well as state and local officials at the selected social 

safety net programs and community nonprofit organizations that work with 

low-wage working families. We selected organizations from four 

metropolitan areas: Atlanta, San Francisco, Santa Fe, and Washington, 

D.C. The metropolitan areas represent a range of local minimum wage 

levels relative to the federal minimum wage, costs of living, and 

participation rates in the selected social safety net programs. We 

interviewed one to two state or local government or nonprofit agencies in 

each of these locations, but did not cover all five programs in each of the 

four locations.

We conducted a content analysis of the reports identified during our 

literature review and information gained in our interviews to identify 

factors that applied specifically to families with a low-wage worker. The 

information we gathered from the literature and interviews is not 

generalizable, but is used to provide examples of factors affecting 

working families who are eligible for, but not receiving, assistance from 

social safety net programs.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2016 to September 2017 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

Analysis of Factors 

Affecting Program 

Participation Decisions of 

Families with a Low-Wage 

Worker
Appendix II: Select Data on the Percentage of 

Working Families in Poverty

Page 41 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Table 4: Estimated Percentage of Working Families with Income Below or Near the Poverty Threshold, by Family Type, and 

Wage Category, 1995 through 2016 

Wage Category Year

Family income relative

to the poverty threshold

Margins of error for 95 percent 

confidence interval (+/-)

<100% 100-149% 150-199% <100% 100-149% 150-199%

Married families without children

Federal minimum wage or belowa

1995 7 6 11 4 4 7

2000 5 7 6 6 6 5

2005 5 7 8 3 4 4

2010 6 7 9 3 3 3

2015 3 5 6 2 3 3

2016 5 7 8 3 3 4

Above federal minimum wage to $12.00a

1995 3 4 8 1 2 3

2000 3 6 6 2 2 2

2005 3 5 6 1 1 1

2010 4 5 7 1 1 1

2015 4 6 7 1 1 1

2016 3 5 6 1 1 1

$12.01 to $16.00

1995 1 2 3 1 1 1

2000 1 1 5 1 1 2

2005 2 2 4 1 1 1

2010 1 2 4 -- 1 1

2015 1 3 5 1 1 1

2016 2 3 5 1 1 1

Married families with children

Federal minimum wage or belowa

1995 16 15 20 7 6 7

2000 20 11 11 8 6 5

2005 12 9 13 5 5 5

2010 19 15 11 4 4 3

2015 15 11 13 5 4 4

2016 14 11 9 5 5 4

Appendix II: Select Data on the Percentage 

of Working Families in Poverty
Appendix II: Select Data on the Percentage of 

Working Families in Poverty

Page 42 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Wage Category Year

Family income relative

to the poverty threshold

Margins of error for 95 percent 

confidence interval (+/-)

<100% 100-149% 150-199% <100% 100-149% 150-199%

Above federal minimum wage to $12.00a

1995 12 13 13 3 3 3

2000 14 11 12 3 3 3

2005 12 13 15 2 2 2

2010 14 14 15 2 2 2

2015 15 12 14 2 2 2

2016 12 15 13 2 2 2

$12.01 to $16.00

1995 4 9 12 2 2 3

2000 5 11 11 2 3 3

2005 5 9 12 1 1 1

2010 6 11 11 1 2 2

2015 7 11 12 1 2 2

2016 6 10 11 1 2 2

Single-parent families

Federal minimum wage or belowa

1995 46 21 6 16 14 7

2000 69 15 4 15 11 5

2005 48 15 15 12 9 9

2010 62 13 9 7 5 4

2015 45 21 12 10 8 6

2016 48 22 12 12 9 8

Above federal minimum wage to $12.00a

1995 40 34 12 8 7 5

2000 32 34 19 8 8 6

2005 41 25 15 4 3 3

2010 41 31 12 4 4 3

2015 42 23 14 4 3 3

2016 37 27 17 4 4 3

$12.01 to $16.00

1995 9 22 25 5 7 8

2000 17 24 19 6 7 6

2005 18 19 24 3 3 4

2010 15 23 21 3 4 4

2015 19 27 22 3 4 4
Appendix II: Select Data on the Percentage of 

Working Families in Poverty

Page 43 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Wage Category Year

Family income relative

to the poverty threshold

Margins of error for 95 percent 

confidence interval (+/-)

<100% 100-149% 150-199% <100% 100-149% 150-199%

2016 17 25 23 4 4 4

Other familiesb

Federal minimum wage or belowa

1995 43 16 15 9 6 6

2000 14 29 11 7 9 6

2005 28 16 13 6 5 5

2010 27 23 12 4 4 3

2015 22 12 12 5 4 4

2016 22 13 10 6 4 4

Above federal minimum wage to $12.00a

1995 15 21 23 3 4 4

2000 12 16 25 3 4 4

2005 14 14 19 2 2 2

2010 16 16 19 2 2 2

2015 17 16 17 2 2 2

2016 15 14 18 2 2 2

$12.01 to $16.00

1995 5 3 11 2 2 3

2000 3 6 9 1 2 3

2005 6 7 10 1 1 1

2010 6 8 14 1 1 2

2015 7 8 14 1 1 2

2016 6 6 10 1 1 1

Total

Federal minimum wage or belowa

1995 25 13 15 4 3 4

2000 21 16 9 5 4 3

2005 19 11 12 3 3 3

2010 23 15 11 2 2 2

2015 18 11 11 3 2 2

2016 17 11 9 3 2 2
Appendix II: Select Data on the Percentage of 

Working Families in Poverty

Page 44 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Wage Category Year

Family income relative

to the poverty threshold

Margins of error for 95 percent 

confidence interval (+/-)

<100% 100-149% 150-199% <100% 100-149% 150-199%

Above federal minimum wage to $12.00a

1995 13 15 14 2 2 2

2000 12 14 15 2 2 2

2005 14 13 14 1 1 1

2010 15 14 14 1 1 1

2015 16 13 14 1 1 1

2016 14 13 13 1 1 1

$12.01 to $16.00

1995 4 6 10 1 1 2

2000 4 8 10 1 1 2

2005 6 8 10 1 1 1

2010 5 8 11 1 1 1

2015 6 9 11 1 1 1

2016 6 8 10 1 1 1

Source: GAO analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) data. | GAO-17-677

a

All references to the “federal minimum wage” are based on 110 percent the hourly federal minimum 

wage in effect that year or the equivalent hourly calculated wage for salaried workers,

b

The “other families” category includes families in CPS that consist of related and certain unrelated 

individuals who live together, including cohabiting partners and foster children, and may consist of a 

single individual.
Appendix III: Select Data on the Number of 

Working Families in Poverty

Page 45 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

The following table presents the estimated total number of families with a 

worker ages 25 to 64 and the estimated number of these families in 

poverty. The table provides estimates based on the type of the worker’s 

family type and hourly wage. As discussed in appendix I, to develop these 

estimates, we merged multiple months of Current Population Survey 

(CPS) survey data with data from the Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement (ASEC) survey to CPS to estimate poverty among families 

with low-wage workers. When we performed this procedure, the match 

rate between the datasets in each year was at least 90 percent, but 

varied by year. As a result, the estimates of the populations included in 

the table below may underestimate the actual number of families in 

poverty by as much as 10 percent. Because the extent of underestimation 

varied by year, conclusions based on comparisons of the estimates 

across years should be avoided.

In addition, the margin of error was larger than the estimated number in 

many cases, which limited what we could report. Specifically, we did not 

report the number of families with incomes less than 50 percent of the 

poverty threshold. We did report estimates of the percentage of families 

with incomes less than 50 percent, by family type. Table 5 provides the 

estimated numbers for this group, with the margins of error that were not 

included in the body of the report.

Table 5: Estimated Number of Families in Poverty, by Family Type and Wage Category, 1995 through 2016 (in thousands)

Total families Families in poverty

Wage Category Year Number (+/-) Number (+/-)

Total

Federal minimum wage or belowa

1995 4,018 390 1,004 209

2000 3,489 381 740 183

2005 1,731 138 325 60

2010 4,482 224 1,052 112

2015 2,806 185 494 78

2016 2,211 168 370 71

Above federal minimum wage to $12.00a

1995 17,357 761 2,261 309

2000 15,133 753 1,827 284

2005 14,933 387 2,026 152

2010 13,175 369 1,956 150

2015 15,527 418 2,514 179

Appendix III: Select Data on the Number of 

Working Families in Poverty
Appendix III: Select Data on the Number of 

Working Families in Poverty

Page 46 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Total families Families in poverty

Wage Category Year Number (+/-) Number (+/-)

2016 15,668 424 2,120 167

$12.01 to $16.00

1995 15,088 717 561 146

2000 16,487 785 726 182

2005 17,230 409 967 104

2010 15,722 395 845 99

2015 17,318 437 1,119 119

2016 15,373 418 879 107

Married families without children

Federal minimum wage or belowa

1995 1,002 189 66 46

2000 725 171 33 42

2005 523 75 27 18

2010 1,157 114 67 30

2015 760 97 25 16

2016 667 92 31 22

Above federal minimum wage to $12.00a

1995 4,626 409 125 67

2000 4,191 418 113 75

2005 3,954 205 116 35

2010 3,464 195 124 39

2015 3,958 219 141 42

2016 4,304 231 124 41

$12.01 to $16.00

1995 4,282 389 58 42

2000 4,465 425 51 47

2005 4,949 228 79 30

2010 4,921 230 48 24

2015 5,067 246 66 29

2016 4,464 233 75 32

Married families with children

Federal minimum wage or belowa

1995 1,348 234 215 99

2000 1,253 235 254 112

2005 480 73 59 28

2010 1,318 126 250 57
Appendix III: Select Data on the Number of 

Working Families in Poverty

Page 47 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Total families Families in poverty

Wage Category Year Number (+/-) Number (+/-)

2015 826 103 125 41

2016 668 96 92 37

Above federal minimum wage to $12.00a

1995 6,236 489 759 186

2000 4,819 446 673 175

2005 4,423 225 538 82

2010 3,836 212 541 83

2015 4,005 226 582 90

2016 3,884 225 469 80

$12.01 to $16.00

1995 5,740 472 220 93

2000 5,536 484 287 115

2005 5,686 251 311 62

2010 4,756 232 307 63

2015 5,008 250 339 67

2016 4,241 233 265 60

Single-parent families

Federal minimum wage or belowa

1995 323 101 148 67

2000 433 139 297 116

2005 186 46 89 31

2010 559 80 348 65

2015 310 61 141 41

2016 222 52 106 36

Above federal minimum wage to $12.00a

1995 1,665 252 662 165

2000 1,575 257 510 145

2005 1,716 138 708 90

2010 1,417 125 581 81

2015 1,968 156 828 102

2016 1,860 155 693 96
Appendix III: Select Data on the Number of 

Working Families in Poverty

Page 48 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Total families Families in poverty

Wage Category Year Number (+/-) Number (+/-)

$12.01 to $16.00

1995 1,129 208 104 63

2000 1,592 262 264 112

2005 1,502 128 277 54

2010 1,251 117 188 45

2015 1,626 140 314 62

2016 1,401 133 245 55

Other familiesb

Federal minimum wage or belowa

1995 1,346 234 575 166

2000 1,078 212 156 77

2005 541 77 150 39

2010 1,448 127 387 67

2015 910 105 204 50

2016 654 90 141 44

Above federal minimum wage to $12.00a

1995 4,829 423 714 175

2000 4,549 433 532 157

2005 4,840 230 665 86

2010 4,458 221 710 89

2015 5,596 257 962 110

2016 5,620 262 834 105

$12.01 to $16.00

1995 3,938 381 178 84

2000 4,894 449 123 73

2005 5,092 233 300 57

2010 4,795 225 302 57

2015 5,616 258 400 71

2016 5,267 253 294 61

Source: GAO analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) data. | GAO-17-677

a

All references to the “federal minimum wage” are based on 110 percent the hourly federal minimum 

wage in effect that year or the equivalent hourly calculated wage for salaried workers.

b

The “other families” category includes families in CPS that consist of related and certain unrelated 

individuals who live together, including cohabiting partners and foster children, and may consist of a 

single individual.
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgment

Page 49 GAO-17-677 Low-Wage Working Families

Cindy Brown-Barnes (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov

Oliver Richard (202) 512-8424 or richardo@gao.gov

In addition to those named above, Kimberley Granger and Benjamin 

Bolitzer, Assistant Directors; Andrea Dawson and Jonathan S. McMurray, 

Analysts-in-Charge; Brittni Milam, Michael Naretta, Anna Maria Ortiz, 

Rhiannon Patterson, and Amanda Pritchard made key contributions to 

this report. Also contributing to this report were Susan Aschoff, Rachel 

Frisk, Alexander Galuten, Grant Mallie, Joel Marus, Sheila McCoy, Jean 

McSween, Mimi Nguyen, Jessica Nierenberg, Michelle Rosenberg, and 

Almeta Spencer.

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgment

GAO Contacts

Staff 

Acknowledgment

(100837)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.