American Community Survey Briefs

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

census.gov

Public Assistance Receipt: 

2000 to 2012

INTRODUCTION

Public assistance income provides cash payments to 

poor families or individuals and includes Temporary 

Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and General 

Assistance (GA). TANF replaced Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children (AFDC) in 1997 through the 

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996, often referred to as “welfare 

reform.” Unlike AFDC benefits, TANF benefits are timelimited, require most adult recipients to work, and give 

states increased flexibility in program design. GA, also 

known as General Relief in some areas, usually refers 

to programs that provide income support to adults 

without dependents. Public assistance income does 

not include Supplemental Security Income (SSI), noncash benefits from programs such as the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)/Food Stamps, or 

separate payments received for hospital or other medical care.1 To qualify for public assistance benefits, the 

income and assets of an individual or family must fall 

below specified thresholds. 

This report presents data on public assistance receipt 

at the national and state levels based on the 2000 to 

2012 American Community Surveys (ACS).2 In addition, this report discusses the current public assistance 

receipt rates for metropolitan statistical areas with 

1 The Food Stamp Program was renamed the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in 2008. 2 The data for 2000 were obtained from the Census 2000 

Supplementary Survey (C2SS), which was the demonstration stage of 

the ACS. The C2SS was designed to provide accurate estimates for 

housing units and the population for the 50 states and the District of 

Columbia based on a sample of approximately 890,000 housing units. 

This sample did not include people in group quarters. In this report, 

the C2SS is referred to as the 2000 ACS. For more information on the 

accuracy of the data, see <www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads

/data_documentation/Accuracy/accuracy00_C2SS.pdf>.

large populations. The ACS questions on participation 

in public assistance identify households in which one 

or more current members received public assistance 

during the past 12 months. Data are for households, 

not individuals. If any person living at the sample 

address at the time of the interview received public 

assistance in the past 12 months, then the household is included in the estimate of public assistance 

participation. 

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE RECEIPT 2011 TO 2012

Table 1 shows that there was no significant increase 

in 2012 in the number or percentage of American 

households receiving public assistance benefits from 

the previous year. In both the 2011 ACS and the 2012 

ACS, 3.3 million households, or 2.9 percent of all 

households, received public assistance at some point 

in the previous 12 months. In 2012, Alaska, California, 

Maine, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington were among 

the states with the highest rates of public assistance 

participation. Georgia, Louisiana, North Dakota, South 

Carolina, Texas, and Wyoming were among the states 

with the lowest public assistance participation rates.

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia had higher 

public assistance participation rates than the national 

average of 2.9 percent in the 2012 ACS. These states 

were concentrated in the West (Alaska, California, 

Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) and the 

Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New 

York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont). The remaining 

states were Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, and Tennessee.

Issued September 2014

ACSBR/13-13

By Shelley K. Irving 
2 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 1.

Number and Percentage of Households Receiving Public Assistance in the Past 12 Months 

by State and Puerto Rico: 2011 and 2012

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads

/data_documentation/Accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data_2012.pdf)

Area

Public assistance receipt in 2011 Public assistance receipt in 2012 Change in public assistance receipt 

(2012 less 2011)

Number

Margin of 

error1

 (±) Percent

Margin of 

error1 (±) Number

Margin of 

error1 (±) Percent

Margin of 

error1 (±) Number

Margin of 

error1 (±) Percent

Margin of 

error1 (±)

 United States . . 3,309,517 29,887 2.9 0.1 3,341,535 29,968 2.9 0.1 32,018 42,323 0.0 0.0

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . 33,492 2,607 1.8 0.1 35,646 2,944 1.9 0.2 2,154 3,933 0.1 0.2

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,757 1,942 6.1 0.7 16,535 1,654 6.6 0.6 778 2,551 0.4 1.0

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . 64,349 4,366 2.7 0.2 55,881 3,449 2.3 0.1 *–8,468 5,564 *–0.4 0.2

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . 31,304 2,788 2.8 0.2 30,414 2,790 2.7 0.2 –890 3,944 –0.1 0.3

California . . . . . . . . . . . 514,924 12,248 4.1 0.1 514,798 11,319 4.1 0.1 –126 16,678 0.0 0.1

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . 43,971 3,313 2.2 0.2 44,180 3,423 2.2 0.2 209 4,764 0.0 0.2

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . 43,495 3,651 3.2 0.3 42,755 3,406 3.1 0.3 –740 4,993 –0.1 0.4

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . 8,762 1,390 2.6 0.4 9,009 1,202 2.6 0.3 247 1,837 0.0 0.5

District of Columbia . . . 10,065 1,404 3.7 0.5 10,456 1,635 3.9 0.6 391 2,155 0.2 0.8

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139,856 6,921 2.0 0.1 163,237 5,026 2.3 0.1 *23,381 8,554 *0.3 0.1

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . 65,233 4,670 1.9 0.1 65,212 4,014 1.8 0.1 –21 6,158 0.0 0.2

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,471 2,503 4.3 0.5 15,055 1,692 3.4 0.4 *–4,416 3,021 *–1.0 0.7

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,465 2,353 3.5 0.4 17,634 1,748 3.0 0.3 –2,831 2,931 *–0.5 0.5

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115,492 4,594 2.4 0.1 120,276 4,796 2.5 0.1 4,784 6,641 0.1 0.1

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,961 3,903 2.4 0.2 51,433 3,357 2.1 0.1 *–7,528 5,148 *–0.3 0.2

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,124 2,110 2.3 0.2 32,286 2,623 2.6 0.2 *4,162 3,366 *0.3 0.3

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,655 2,396 2.3 0.2 22,980 2,071 2.1 0.2 –2,675 3,167 –0.3 0.3

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . 44,323 3,377 2.7 0.2 47,602 3,202 2.8 0.2 3,279 4,654 0.1 0.3

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . 24,432 2,279 1.4 0.1 26,581 2,339 1.5 0.1 2,149 3,266 0.1 0.2

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,750 2,599 4.8 0.5 28,847 2,548 5.2 0.5 2,097 3,640 0.4 0.6

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . 59,217 4,568 2.8 0.2 56,782 3,609 2.6 0.2 –2,435 5,822 –0.1 0.3

Massachusetts . . . . . . . 76,711 4,926 3.0 0.2 79,566 4,431 3.2 0.2 2,855 6,626 0.1 0.3

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . 150,742 5,086 4.0 0.1 147,791 5,538 3.9 0.1 –2,951 7,519 –0.1 0.2

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . 75,037 3,835 3.6 0.2 79,147 3,828 3.7 0.2 4,110 5,418 0.2 0.3

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . 25,462 2,531 2.4 0.2 37,090 2,782 3.4 0.3 *11,628 3,761 *1.0 0.3

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . 57,152 3,599 2.4 0.2 60,584 3,776 2.6 0.2 3,432 5,217 0.1 0.2

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,647 1,577 2.6 0.4 10,325 1,529 2.5 0.4 –322 2,196 –0.1 0.5

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . 15,031 1,851 2.1 0.3 15,717 1,711 2.1 0.2 686 2,521 0.1 0.3

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,611 3,023 3.3 0.3 32,709 2,513 3.2 0.3 98 3,931 –0.1 0.4

New Hampshire . . . . . . 12,738 1,713 2.5 0.3 15,705 2,197 3.0 0.4 *2,967 2,786 *0.6 0.5

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . 87,824 3,870 2.8 0.1 95,245 4,074 3.0 0.1 *7,421 5,619 *0.2 0.2

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . 22,248 2,279 2.9 0.3 21,184 2,479 2.8 0.3 –1,064 3,368 –0.1 0.4

New York . . . . . . . . . . . 242,414 7,247 3.4 0.1 245,761 7,364 3.4 0.1 3,347 10,332 0.0 0.1

North Carolina . . . . . . . 74,299 5,097 2.0 0.1 75,302 4,378 2.0 0.1 1,003 6,720 0.0 0.2

North Dakota . . . . . . . . 5,235 938 1.8 0.3 4,411 884 1.5 0.3 –824 1,289 –0.3 0.4

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157,297 5,292 3.5 0.1 152,277 5,914 3.3 0.1 –5,020 7,936 –0.1 0.2

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . 52,471 2,672 3.6 0.2 48,674 3,036 3.4 0.2 –3,797 4,044 –0.3 0.3

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52,334 3,987 3.4 0.3 63,241 4,071 4.2 0.3 *10,907 5,698 *0.7 0.4

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . 184,989 5,613 3.7 0.1 184,003 5,866 3.7 0.1 –986 8,119 0.0 0.2

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . 10,590 1,367 2.6 0.3 12,621 1,679 3.1 0.4 2,031 2,165 0.5 0.5

South Carolina . . . . . . . 31,425 3,288 1.8 0.2 29,052 2,751 1.6 0.2 –2,373 4,287 –0.2 0.2

South Dakota . . . . . . . . 7,622 1,265 2.4 0.4 9,427 1,214 2.9 0.4 *1,805 1,753 *0.6 0.5

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . 81,538 5,224 3.3 0.2 84,866 4,815 3.4 0.2 3,328 7,104 0.1 0.3

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167,272 6,103 1.9 0.1 160,952 6,307 1.8 0.1 –6,320 8,776 –0.1 0.1

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,606 1,832 2.1 0.2 21,449 2,174 2.4 0.2 2,843 2,843 0.3 0.3

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,097 1,253 4.3 0.5 11,931 1,494 4.6 0.6 834 1,950 0.3 0.7

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64,798 3,753 2.2 0.1 59,501 3,354 2.0 0.1 *–5,297 5,033 *–0.2 0.2

Washington . . . . . . . . . 114,258 6,419 4.3 0.2 106,169 4,731 4.0 0.2 *–8,089 7,974 *–0.3 0.3

West Virginia . . . . . . . . 17,905 2,038 2.4 0.3 16,105 1,916 2.2 0.3 –1,800 2,797 –0.3 0.4

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . 51,150 2,977 2.2 0.1 49,280 2,838 2.2 0.1 –1,870 4,113 –0.1 0.2

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . 3,916 983 1.8 0.4 3,851 975 1.7 0.4 –65 1,384 0.0 0.6

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . 70,703 3,477 5.6 0.3 74,980 3,916 5.9 0.3 4,277 5,237 0.3 0.4

* Statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level. 1

 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to 

the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 percent confidence interval. Margins 

of error displayed as 0.0 are not actually zero, but round to zero.

Note: Details may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 and 2012 American Community Surveys, 2011 and 2012 Puerto Rico Community Surveys.
U.S. Census Bureau 3

Twenty-two states had lower public 

assistance participation rates compared with the national average of 

2.9 percent in the 2012 ACS. Ten 

of them were located in the South 

(Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 

Louisiana, Maryland, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, 

Virginia, and West Virginia). Eight 

were located in the Midwest 

(Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 

Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, 

and Wisconsin). The remaining 

states were Arizona, Colorado, 

Utah, and Wyoming. 

Seven states (Florida, Iowa, 

Mississippi, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, Oregon, and South Dakota) 

had increases in the number and 

percentage of households receiving 

public assistance from the 2011 

ACS to the 2012 ACS. Five states 

(Arizona, Hawaii, Indiana, Virginia, 

and Washington) had decreases 

in the number and percentage of 

households receiving public assistance from the 2011 ACS to the 

2012 ACS. In Idaho, the percentage of households receiving public 

assistance fell, but there was no 

significant change in the number 

of households receiving public 

assistance from the 2011 ACS to 

the 2012 ACS. In all the remaining 

states, the percentage and the 

number of households receiving 

public assistance in the 2012 ACS 

were not statistically different from 

the 2011 ACS estimates. 

In the 2012 ACS, Puerto Rico had 

a higher public assistance participation rate (5.9 percent) than the 

national average (2.9 percent). 

From the 2011 ACS to the 2012 

ACS, there was no change in the 

number or percentage of Puerto 

Rican households that received 

public assistance in the past 12 

months. 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

TX

CA

MT

AZ

ID

NV

KS

CO

NM

OR

UT

SD

IL

WY

NE IA

FL

MN

OK

ND

WI

WA

AL GA

MO

PA

AR

LA

NC

MS

NY

IN

MI

VA

TN

KY

SC

OH

ME

WV

VT

NH

NJ

MD

MA

CT

DE

RI

DC

AK

PR HI

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey, 

2012 Puerto Rico Community Survey.

0 500 Miles

0 100 Miles

0 100 Miles 0 50 Miles

Percent by state

4.0 or more

3.0 to 3.9

2.0 to 2.9

Less than 2.0

Percentage of Households Receiving Public Assistance

in the Past 12 Months by State and Puerto Rico: 2012

U.S. average is 2.9 percent

Figure 1.

United States percentage 

does not include data for 

Puerto Rico.
4 U.S. Census Bureau

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

RECEIPT 2000 TO 2012

Table 2 shows the estimated 

number and percentage of households receiving public assistance 

benefits in 2000 and 2012 and the 

change between the periods for the 

nation, states, and the District of 

Columbia. According to the 2000 

ACS, about 2.7 million households, 

or 2.6 percent of all households, 

received public assistance at some 

point in the past 12 months. In 

2012, the number of households 

receiving public assistance income 

increased to about 3.3 million or 

2.9 percent of all households. 

Twenty-six states experienced an 

increase in both the number and 

percentage of households receiving public assistance. In two states 

(Georgia and North Carolina), there 

was an increase in the number 

of households receiving public 

assistance but the change in the 

percentage of households receiving public assistance was not 

statistically significant. Four states 

(Hawaii, New Mexico, New York, 

and Rhode Island) experienced a 

decrease in the number and percentage of households receiving 

public assistance from the 2000 

ACS to the 2012 ACS. In three 

states (Nebraska, North Dakota, 

and Texas), there was a decrease 

in the percentage of households 

receiving public assistance but the 

change in the number of households receiving public assistance 

was not statistically significant. In 

16 states, there was no significant 

change in the number or percentage of households receiving public 

assistance from the 2000 ACS to 

the 2012 ACS.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

TX

CA

MT

AZ

ID

NV

KS

CO

NM

OR

UT

SD

IL

WY

NE IA

FL

MN

OK

ND

WI

WA

AL GA

MO

PA

AR

LA

NC

MS

NY

IN

MI

VA

TN

KY

SC

OH

ME

WV

VT

NH

NJ

MD

MA

CT

DE

RI

DC

AK

PR HI

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 and 2012 American Community Survey, 

2011 and 2012 Puerto Rico Community Survey.

0 500 Miles

0 100 Miles

0 100 Miles 0 50 Miles

Statistically signifcant

change by state

Increased

Unchanged

Decreased

Change in the Percentage of Households Receiving Public Assistance 

in the Past 12 Months by State and Puerto Rico: 2011 to 2012

Figure 2.
U.S. Census Bureau 5

Table 2.

Number and Percentage of Households Receiving Public Assistance in the Past 12 Months 

by State: 2000 and 2012

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data

_documentation/Accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data_2012.pdf)

Area

Public assistance receipt in 2000 Public assistance receipt in 2012 Change in public assistance receipt 

(2012 less 2000)

Number

Margin of 

error1

 (±) Percent

Margin of 

error1 (±) Number

Margin of 

error1 (±) Percent

Margin of 

error1 (±) Number

Margin of 

error1 (±) Percent

Margin of 

error1 (±)

 United States . . 2,738,475 50,952 2.6 0.0 3,341,535 29,968 2.9 0.1 *603,060 58,978 *0.3 0.1

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . 26,901 5,645 1.6 0.3 35,646 2,944 1.9 0.2 *8,745 6,351 *0.4 0.4

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,085 2,659 7.2 1.2 16,535 1,654 6.6 0.6 450 3,124 –0.7 1.3

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,757 6,951 2.7 0.3 55,881 3,449 2.3 0.1 5,124 7,740 –0.3 0.4

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . 18,581 4,125 1.8 0.4 30,414 2,790 2.7 0.2 *11,833 4,969 *0.9 0.4

California . . . . . . . . . . . 489,843 24,309 4.3 0.2 514,798 11,319 4.1 0.1 24,955 26,748 –0.2 0.2

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . 26,949 6,723 1.6 0.4 44,180 3,423 2.2 0.2 *17,231 7,526 *0.6 0.4

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . 40,111 7,551 3.1 0.6 42,755 3,406 3.1 0.3 2,644 8,262 0.0 0.7

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . 7,099 1,633 2.4 0.6 9,009 1,202 2.6 0.3 1,910 2,024 0.2 0.6

District of Columbia . . . 10,604 1,990 4.3 0.8 10,456 1,635 3.9 0.6 –148 2,571 –0.4 1.0

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97,461 9,132 1.5 0.1 163,237 5,026 2.3 0.1 *65,776 10,400 *0.7 0.2

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,052 8,104 1.6 0.3 65,212 4,014 1.8 0.1 *17,160 9,022 0.2 0.3

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,742 2,406 5.9 0.6 15,055 1,692 3.4 0.4 *–7,687 2,935 *–2.5 0.7

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,900 1,994 1.9 0.4 17,634 1,748 3.0 0.3 *8,734 2,647 *1.1 0.5

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102,467 11,150 2.3 0.2 120,276 4,796 2.5 0.1 *17,809 12,106 *0.3 0.3

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49,013 5,726 2.1 0.2 51,433 3,357 2.1 0.1 2,420 6,622 –0.1 0.3

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,552 3,681 2.6 0.3 32,286 2,623 2.6 0.2 2,734 4,511 0.0 0.4

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,752 5,434 1.8 0.5 22,980 2,071 2.1 0.2 4,228 5,800 0.3 0.6

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . 44,327 6,135 2.8 0.4 47,602 3,202 2.8 0.2 3,275 6,904 0.0 0.4

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . 30,448 4,911 1.8 0.3 26,581 2,339 1.5 0.1 –3,867 5,426 –0.3 0.3

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,230 3,334 3.5 0.6 28,847 2,548 5.2 0.5 *10,617 4,188 *1.7 0.8

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . 32,754 6,633 1.7 0.3 56,782 3,609 2.6 0.2 *24,028 7,533 *1.0 0.4

Massachusetts . . . . . . . 53,237 7,039 2.2 0.3 79,566 4,431 3.2 0.2 *26,329 8,299 *0.9 0.4

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . 102,844 10,392 2.7 0.3 147,791 5,538 3.9 0.1 *44,947 11,747 *1.2 0.3

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . 47,469 6,684 2.5 0.3 79,147 3,828 3.7 0.2 *31,678 7,685 *1.3 0.4

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . 17,653 2,285 1.7 0.2 37,090 2,782 3.4 0.3 *19,437 3,595 *1.7 0.4

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . 45,675 7,621 2.0 0.3 60,584 3,776 2.6 0.2 *14,909 8,485 *0.5 0.4

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,122 1,607 2.8 0.4 10,325 1,529 2.5 0.4 203 2,214 –0.3 0.6

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . 17,811 3,292 2.7 0.5 15,717 1,711 2.1 0.2 –2,094 3,702 *–0.5 0.5

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,351 3,783 1.9 0.5 32,709 2,513 3.2 0.3 *18,358 4,532 *1.3 0.6

New Hampshire . . . . . . 8,532 2,068 1.8 0.4 15,705 2,197 3.0 0.4 *7,173 3,013 *1.2 0.6

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . 66,837 9,319 2.2 0.3 95,245 4,074 3.0 0.1 *28,408 10,145 *0.8 0.3

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . 27,562 4,695 4.2 0.7 21,184 2,479 2.8 0.3 *–6,378 5,297 *–1.4 0.8

New York . . . . . . . . . . . 292,031 17,816 4.2 0.3 245,761 7,364 3.4 0.1 *–46,270 19,228 *–0.8 0.3

North Carolina . . . . . . . 53,033 10,164 1.7 0.3 75,302 4,378 2.0 0.1 *22,269 11,039 0.3 0.3

North Dakota . . . . . . . . 5,562 1,198 2.2 0.5 4,411 884 1.5 0.3 –1,151 1,486 *–0.7 0.6

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127,520 12,801 2.9 0.3 152,277 5,914 3.3 0.1 *24,757 14,065 *0.4 0.3

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . 41,254 9,063 3.1 0.7 48,674 3,036 3.4 0.2 7,420 9,532 0.2 0.7

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,378 5,568 3.2 0.4 63,241 4,071 4.2 0.3 *19,863 6,884 *1.0 0.5

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . 130,764 11,756 2.8 0.2 184,003 5,866 3.7 0.1 *53,239 13,107 *0.9 0.3

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . 18,855 2,926 4.6 0.7 12,621 1,679 3.1 0.4 *–6,234 3,366 *–1.6 0.8

South Carolina . . . . . . . 19,001 4,055 1.3 0.3 29,052 2,751 1.6 0.2 *10,051 4,890 *0.4 0.3

South Dakota . . . . . . . . 4,078 1,273 1.4 0.4 9,427 1,214 2.9 0.4 *5,349 1,757 *1.5 0.6

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . 51,206 8,265 2.3 0.4 84,866 4,815 3.4 0.2 *33,660 9,544 *1.1 0.4

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161,059 10,853 2.2 0.1 160,952 6,307 1.8 0.1 –107 12,524 *–0.4 0.2

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,962 4,114 1.7 0.6 21,449 2,174 2.4 0.2 *9,487 4,642 *0.7 0.6

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,014 1,944 4.6 0.8 11,931 1,494 4.6 0.6 917 2,447 0.0 1.0

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,369 6,118 1.4 0.2 59,501 3,354 2.0 0.1 *23,132 6,960 *0.6 0.3

Washington . . . . . . . . . 79,844 7,386 3.5 0.3 106,169 4,731 4.0 0.2 *26,325 8,752 *0.5 0.4

West Virginia . . . . . . . . 18,763 4,068 2.6 0.6 16,105 1,916 2.2 0.3 –2,658 4,485 –0.4 0.7

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . 27,415 6,410 1.3 0.3 49,280 2,838 2.2 0.1 *21,865 6,992 *0.8 0.3

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . 3,646 1,143 1.9 0.6 3,851 975 1.7 0.4 205 1,500 –0.2 0.7

* Statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level. 1

 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to 

the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 percent confidence interval. Margins of 

error displayed as 0.0 are not actually zero, but round to zero.

Note: Details may not sum to totals because of rounding. Puerto Rico was not added to the ACS until 2005. Thus, no comparison between 2000 and 2012 may be made for 

Puerto Rico.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2012 American Community Surveys.
6 U.S. Census Bureau

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

TX

CA

MT

AZ

ID

NV

KS

CO

NM

OR

UT

SD

IL

WY

NE IA

FL

MN

OK

ND

WI

WA

AL GA

MO

PA

AR

LA

NC

MS

NY

IN

MI

VA

TN

KY

SC

OH

ME

WV

VT

NH

NJ

MD

MA

CT

DE

RI

DC

AK

HI

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2012 American Community Survey.

0 500 Miles

0 100 Miles

0 100 Miles

Statistically signifcant

change by state

Increased

Unchanged

Decreased

Change in the Percentage of Households Receiving Public Assistance

in the Past 12 Months by State: 2000 to 2012

Figure 3.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

RECEIPT IN METROPOLITAN 

AREAS

More than 80 percent of the 

U.S. population lives in the 366 

metropolitan areas and about 40 

percent of the total population 

reside in the largest 25 metropolitan areas.3 Using 2011 and 2012 

ACS data, this report analyzes 

public assistance receipt for the 

3 Metropolitan statistical areas contain at 

least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more 

population and consist of one or more whole 

counties or county equivalents. Metro areas 

are delineated by the Office of Management 

and Budget as of December 2009. The list 

in Table 3 contains the 25 most populous 

metro areas based on statistics from the 2012 

American Community Survey.

largest 25 metropolitan areas. Table 

3 shows the number and percentage of households receiving public 

assistance for the 25 largest metropolitan areas. In 2012, the rate of 

public assistance receipt in these 

areas ranged from a low of 1.6 to a 

high of 4.7 percent.

Between 2011 and 2012, there was 

no statistically significant change 

in the number and percentage 

of households receiving public 

assistance for 18 of the 25 largest 

metropolitan areas. In five metro 

areas—Miami-Fort LauderdalePompano Beach, FL Metro Area; 

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area; 

Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, 

OR-WA Metro Area; San DiegoCarlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metro 

Area; and Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL Metro Area—both 

the number and percentage of 

households receiving public 

assistance increased from the 

2011 ACS to the 2012 ACS. In the 

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, 

DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area, the number of households receiving public 

assistance declined but the change 

in the percentage was not statistically significant.
U.S. Census Bureau

7

Table 3.Number and Percentage of Households Receiving Public Assistance in the Past 12 Months for Top 25 Metropolitan Statistical Areas: 2011 and 2012(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data_2012.pdf)

Metropolitan statistical area1

Public assistance receipt in 2011 Public assistance receipt in 2012 Change in public assistance receipt (2012 less 2011)

Number

Margin of 

error2 (±) Percent

Margin of 

error2 (±) Number

Margin of 

error2 (±) Percent

Margin of 

error2 (±) Number

Margin of 

error2 (±) Percent

Margin of 

error2 (±)

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,309,517 29,887 2.9 0.1 3,341,535 29,968 2.9 0.1 32,018 42,323 0.0 0.0

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,456 3,886 1.9 0.2 33,631 3,378 1.7 0.2 –1,825 5,149 –0.1 0.3Baltimore-Towson, MD Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,339 3,815 3.7 0.4 34,072 3,017 3.3 0.3 –3,267 4,864 –0.4 0.5Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47,742 3,395 2.7 0.2 48,310 3,085 2.7 0.2 568 4,587 0.0 0.3Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88,979 4,389 2.6 0.1 92,970 4,399 2.7 0.1 3,991 6,214 0.1 0.2Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39,238 3,976 1.7 0.2 39,453 2,377 1.7 0.1 215 4,632 0.0 0.2Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,855 2,358 2.1 0.2 21,129 2,217 2.1 0.2 274 3,237 0.0 0.3Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64,674 3,311 4.0 0.2 61,591 3,281 3.7 0.2 –3,083 4,661 –0.2 0.3Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,123 3,483 1.6 0.2 32,680 3,009 1.6 0.1 –443 4,602 0.0 0.2Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171,962 6,788 4.1 0.2 165,027 5,276 3.9 0.1 –6,935 8,598 –0.2 0.2Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,797 2,967 1.7 0.1 38,511 3,182 1.9 0.2 *4,714 4,351 *0.2 0.2Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,410 3,281 3.6 0.3 50,712 3,169 3.9 0.2 4,302 4,561 0.3 0.4New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area..... 215,624 6,104 3.2 0.1 222,879 7,057 3.2 0.1 7,255 9,330 0.1 0.1Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,913 2,192 1.9 0.3 16,316 2,093 2.1 0.3 1,403 3,031 0.1 0.4Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area . . . . . . . . 90,551 4,393 4.1 0.2 99,650 4,690 4.5 0.2 *9,099 6,426 *0.4 0.3Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,101 3,427 2.4 0.2 34,193 2,920 2.2 0.2 –1,908 4,502 –0.2 0.3Pittsburgh, PA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,703 2,519 3.4 0.3 31,140 2,141 3.1 0.2 –2,563 3,306 –0.3 0.3Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,685 3,069 3.4 0.4 37,350 2,785 4.3 0.3 *7,665 4,145 *0.9 0.5Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62,814 4,769 4.9 0.4 60,300 3,876 4.7 0.3 –2,514 6,145 –0.2 0.5San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,049 2,103 2.2 0.3 14,668 1,894 1.9 0.2 –2,381 2,830 –0.3 0.4San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,547 2,489 2.7 0.2 34,184 2,945 3.2 0.3 *5,637 3,856 *0.5 0.4San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,605 3,828 3.2 0.2 49,275 3,484 3.0 0.2 –2,330 5,177 –0.2 0.3Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metro Area......................... 51,202 4,384 3.8 0.3 46,752 3,278 3.4 0.2 –4,450 5,474 –0.4 0.4St. Louis, MO-IL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,674 2,343 2.1 0.2 23,885 2,302 2.2 0.2 1,211 3,285 0.1 0.3Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,571 2,605 2.5 0.2 36,459 2,418 3.2 0.2 *8,888 554 *0.7 0.3Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area . . . . . . . . 38,416 3,092 1.9 0.2 36,145 2,886 1.7 0.1 *–2,271 890 –0.1 0.2

* Statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level.1 Metropolitan statistical areas are delineated by the Office of Management and Budget as of December 2009.2 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate.

When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 percent confidence interval. Margins of error displayed as 0.0 are not actually zero, but round to zero.

Note: Details may not sum to totals because of rounding.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 and 2012 American Community Surveys.
8 U.S. Census Bureau

SOURCE AND ACCURACY

Data presented in this report are 

based on the ACS sample interviewed from January 1, 2012, 

through December 31, 2012 (2012 

ACS), the ACS sample interviewed 

from January 1, 2011, through 

December 31, 2011 (2011 ACS), 

and the sample interviewed in 

2000 from the Census 2000 

Supplementary Survey (C2SS). The 

estimates based on these samples 

describe the actual average values 

of person, household, and housing unit characteristics over this 

period of collection. Sampling 

error is the uncertainty between an 

estimate based on a sample and 

the corresponding value that would 

obtained if the estimate were based 

on the entire population (as from 

a census). Measures of sampling 

error are provided in the form of 

margins of error for all estimates 

included in this report. All comparisons presented in this report 

have taken sampling error into 

account and are significant at the 

90 percent confidence level unless 

otherwise noted. In addition to 

sampling error, nonsampling error 

may be introduced during any of 

the operations used to collect and 

process survey data such as editing, reviewing, or keying data from 

questionnaires. Due to rounding, 

some details may not sum to totals. 

For information on sampling and 

estimation methods, confidentiality protection, and sampling and 

nonsampling errors, please see the 

“2012 ACS Accuracy of the Data” 

document located at 

<www.census.gov/acs

/www/Downloads/data

_documentation/Accuracy/ACS

_Accuracy_of_Data_2012.pdf> and 

the “2000 Accuracy of the Data” 

document located at 

<www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation

/Accuracy/accuracy00_C2SS.pdf>.

WHAT IS THE AMERICAN 

COMMUNITY SURVEY?

The American Community 

Survey (ACS) is a nationwide survey 

designed to provide communities 

with reliable and timely demographic, social, economic, and 

housing data for the nation, states, 

congressional districts, counties, 

places, and other localities every 

year. It has an annual sample size 

of about 3 million addresses across 

the United States and Puerto Rico 

and includes both housing units 

and group quarters (e.g., nursing 

facilities and prisons). The ACS is 

conducted in every county throughout the nation and every municipio 

in Puerto Rico, where it is called 

the Puerto Rico Community Survey. 

Beginning in 2006, 1-year ACS data 

were released for geographic areas 

with populations of 65,000 and 

higher. 

The demonstration stage of the 

ACS, initially called the Census 

2000 Supplementary Survey (C2SS) 

was conducted in 2000 in 1,239 

counties with a sample size of 

866,000 housing units. The C2SS 

was designed to provide accurate 

estimates for the housing units and 

population for the 50 states and 

the District of Columbia.

For information on the ACS sample 

design and other topics, visit 

<www.census.gov/acs/www>.
U.S. Census Bureau 

9

Appendix Table 1.Percentage of Households Receiving Public Assistance in the Past 12 Months by State: 2000 to 2012—Con.(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data_2012.pdf)

Area

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Estimate

Margin of 

error1

(±)

Estimate

Margin of 

error1

(±)

Estimate

Margin of 

error1

(±)

Estimate

Margin of 

error1

(±)

Estimate

Margin of 

error1

(±)

Estimate

Margin of 

error1

(±)

Estimate

Margin of 

error1

(±)

Estimate

Margin of 

error1

(±)

Estimate

Margin of 

error1

(±)

Estimate

Margin of 

error1

(±)

Estimate

Margin of 

error1

(±)

Estimate

Margin of 

error1

(±)

Estimate

Margin of 

error1

(±)

United States . . 2.6 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.4 0.1 2.5 0.0 2.4 0.1 2.6 0.1 2.4 0.1 2.1 0.1 2.3 0.1 2.6 0.1 2.9 0.1 2.9 0.1 2.9 0.1

Alabama . . . . . . . . . 1.6 0.3 1.3 0.3 1.2 0.2 1.7 0.3 1.6 0.3 1.4 0.1 1.6 0.2 1.2 0.1 1.3 0.1 1.6 0.1 1.6 0.1 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.2Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 1.2 5.9 1.2 5.7 1.2 7.7 0.8 6.9 0.7 6.6 0.8 6.3 0.7 6.1 0.6 6.1 0.7 6.3 0.9 6.7 0.7 6.1 0.7 6.6 0.6Arizona . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 0.3 2.2 0.2 2.3 0.4 2.6 0.4 2.5 0.3 2.3 0.2 1.9 0.2 1.8 0.2 2.1 0.2 2.5 0.2 2.8 0.2 2.7 0.2 2.3 0.1Arkansas . . . . . . . . . 1.8 0.4 1.6 0.5 2.0 0.4 2.1 0.3 1.8 0.4 1.7 0.2 1.8 0.2 1.6 0.2 2.0 0.2 2.1 0.2 1.8 0.2 2.8 0.2 2.7 0.2California . . . . . . . . . 4.3 0.2 3.7 0.2 3.6 0.2 3.6 0.2 3.5 0.2 3.4 0.1 3.2 0.1 3.0 0.1 3.2 0.1 3.7 0.1 4.0 0.1 4.1 0.1 4.1 0.1Colorado . . . . . . . . . 1.6 0.4 1.6 0.4 1.8 0.5 1.9 0.4 1.8 0.5 2.1 0.2 1.7 0.1 1.7 0.2 1.8 0.2 2.0 0.2 2.2 0.2 2.2 0.2 2.2 0.2Connecticut . . . . . . . 3.1 0.6 2.1 0.4 2.4 0.5 2.4 0.4 2.6 0.4 2.7 0.3 2.1 0.2 2.1 0.2 2.8 0.2 2.9 0.2 3.1 0.2 3.2 0.3 3.1 0.3Delaware . . . . . . . . . 2.4 0.6 2.3 0.4 2.7 0.5 2.2 0.5 2.5 0.5 2.3 0.4 2.2 0.4 1.7 0.4 2.1 0.4 2.6 0.5 2.6 0.4 2.6 0.4 2.6 0.3District of Columbia . . 4.3 0.8 3.7 0.6 4.4 0.9 6.4 0.8 4.8 0.8 4.6 0.6 4.0 0.6 4.1 0.7 4.3 0.6 5.3 0.8 4.7 0.7 3.7 0.5 3.9 0.6Florida . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 0.1 1.5 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.6 0.2 1.4 0.1 1.6 0.1 1.3 0.1 1.1 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.7 0.1 2.0 0.1 2.0 0.1 2.3 0.1Georgia . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 0.3 1.7 0.2 1.7 0.2 1.8 0.3 1.6 0.3 1.8 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.1 0.1 1.3 0.1 1.7 0.1 1.9 0.1 1.9 0.1 1.8 0.1Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 0.6 4.9 0.7 4.9 0.8 4.6 0.6 4.0 0.8 3.5 0.5 3.5 0.5 2.9 0.4 3.1 0.4 3.7 0.5 3.3 0.4 4.3 0.5 3.4 0.4Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 0.4 2.1 0.5 2.1 0.5 2.4 0.6 3.0 0.6 2.6 0.3 2.5 0.3 2.2 0.3 2.5 0.3 2.7 0.3 2.7 0.3 3.5 0.4 3.0 0.3Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 0.2 2.1 0.2 2.1 0.3 1.9 0.2 1.7 0.2 2.3 0.1 1.8 0.1 1.7 0.1 1.8 0.1 2.3 0.1 2.5 0.1 2.4 0.1 2.5 0.1Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 0.2 2.1 0.3 2.9 0.5 2.6 0.4 2.3 0.2 2.6 0.2 2.5 0.2 2.3 0.1 2.6 0.2 2.8 0.2 2.7 0.2 2.4 0.2 2.1 0.1Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 0.3 2.5 0.3 2.9 0.4 3.0 0.6 2.3 0.4 2.8 0.3 2.8 0.2 2.1 0.2 2.2 0.2 2.4 0.2 2.7 0.2 2.3 0.2 2.6 0.2Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 0.5 2.0 0.3 2.5 0.5 2.3 0.5 2.3 0.3 2.5 0.2 2.4 0.2 2.0 0.2 2.3 0.2 2.6 0.2 2.5 0.3 2.3 0.2 2.1 0.2Kentucky . . . . . . . . . 2.8 0.4 2.1 0.4 2.2 0.4 2.0 0.3 2.2 0.4 2.3 0.2 2.2 0.2 2.0 0.2 2.4 0.2 2.5 0.2 2.4 0.2 2.7 0.2 2.8 0.2Louisiana . . . . . . . . . 1.8 0.3 2.0 0.3 1.5 0.3 1.8 0.3 1.4 0.3 2.0 0.2 2.6 0.2 1.3 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.3 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.5 0.1Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 0.6 2.9 0.6 3.4 0.6 4.1 0.6 4.9 0.9 4.9 0.4 4.3 0.4 4.3 0.4 4.8 0.5 4.9 0.4 5.2 0.4 4.8 0.5 5.2 0.5Maryland . . . . . . . . . 1.7 0.3 1.5 0.3 2.1 0.3 1.6 0.3 2.1 0.3 1.9 0.2 2.0 0.2 1.6 0.2 1.6 0.1 2.0 0.2 2.5 0.2 2.8 0.2 2.6 0.2Massachusetts . . . . . 2.2 0.3 2.3 0.3 2.5 0.3 2.9 0.4 2.4 0.3 2.4 0.2 2.5 0.2 2.6 0.2 2.7 0.2 2.8 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.2 0.2Michigan . . . . . . . . . 2.7 0.3 2.7 0.2 3.1 0.3 3.0 0.3 2.8 0.3 3.2 0.2 3.2 0.2 3.1 0.1 3.4 0.1 3.9 0.2 4.1 0.1 4.0 0.1 3.9 0.1Minnesota . . . . . . . . 2.5 0.3 3.4 0.4 3.3 0.3 3.1 0.3 3.4 0.3 3.1 0.2 3.1 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.1 0.2 3.2 0.2 3.4 0.2 3.6 0.2 3.7 0.2Mississippi . . . . . . . . 1.7 0.2 1.7 0.3 2.0 0.4 2.0 0.3 2.4 0.4 2.6 0.2 2.6 0.3 1.6 0.2 1.8 0.2 2.5 0.2 2.4 0.2 2.4 0.2 3.4 0.3Missouri . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 0.3 2.7 0.3 2.1 0.3 2.3 0.3 2.1 0.3 2.6 0.2 2.1 0.2 2.3 0.1 2.3 0.2 2.4 0.2 2.4 0.1 2.4 0.2 2.6 0.2Montana . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 0.4 2.7 0.4 2.6 0.7 3.1 0.4 2.7 0.4 2.3 0.4 1.7 0.3 2.0 0.3 2.2 0.4 2.3 0.3 2.4 0.3 2.6 0.4 2.5 0.4Nebraska . . . . . . . . . 2.7 0.5 2.6 0.5 2.7 0.5 2.7 0.4 3.3 0.7 2.8 0.3 2.5 0.3 2.0 0.2 2.3 0.3 2.2 0.3 2.2 0.2 2.1 0.3 2.1 0.2Nevada . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 0.5 1.4 0.3 2.0 0.6 2.0 0.4 2.4 0.4 1.9 0.3 1.7 0.2 1.7 0.2 2.2 0.2 2.7 0.3 3.0 0.3 3.3 0.3 3.2 0.3New Hampshire . . . . 1.8 0.4 2.1 0.4 1.9 0.4 2.0 0.4 2.7 0.5 2.7 0.4 2.6 0.4 2.4 0.3 2.4 0.3 2.9 0.4 3.2 0.4 2.5 0.3 3.0 0.4New Jersey . . . . . . . 2.2 0.3 1.8 0.3 2.2 0.3 2.2 0.3 2.2 0.3 2.1 0.2 2.1 0.1 1.9 0.1 2.1 0.1 2.4 0.1 2.7 0.2 2.8 0.1 3.0 0.1New Mexico . . . . . . . 4.2 0.7 2.9 0.7 3.2 0.7 3.3 0.6 2.7 0.4 3.1 0.3 2.2 0.3 2.3 0.3 2.4 0.3 2.4 0.3 2.8 0.3 2.9 0.3 2.8 0.3New York . . . . . . . . . 4.2 0.3 3.7 0.2 3.4 0.2 3.4 0.2 3.6 0.2 3.4 0.1 3.1 0.1 2.8 0.1 3.0 0.1 3.1 0.1 3.4 0.1 3.4 0.1 3.4 0.1North Carolina . . . . . 1.7 0.3 1.5 0.1 1.8 0.3 1.8 0.2 1.7 0.3 1.8 0.1 1.6 0.1 1.6 0.1 1.5 0.1 1.8 0.1 2.1 0.1 2.0 0.1 2.0 0.1North Dakota . . . . . . 2.2 0.5 2.2 0.5 1.8 0.4 2.1 0.4 2.2 0.4 1.9 0.4 2.2 0.4 1.8 0.3 1.9 0.4 2.2 0.4 2.1 0.4 1.8 0.3 1.5 0.3Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 0.3 2.6 0.2 2.4 0.2 2.7 0.2 2.6 0.3 2.6 0.1 2.6 0.1 2.6 0.1 2.6 0.1 3.3 0.1 3.6 0.1 3.5 0.1 3.3 0.1Oklahoma . . . . . . . . 3.1 0.7 3.8 0.4 4.2 0.7 4.0 0.5 3.3 0.5 3.7 0.2 3.7 0.2 3.3 0.2 3.3 0.2 3.3 0.2 3.3 0.2 3.6 0.2 3.4 0.2Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 0.4 2.8 0.7 2.8 0.3 2.9 0.2 3.0 0.6 2.8 0.2 2.7 0.2 2.3 0.2 2.4 0.2 3.4 0.3 3.6 0.2 3.4 0.3 4.2 0.3Pennsylvania . . . . . . 2.8 0.2 2.3 0.2 2.6 0.3 2.7 0.2 2.6 0.2 3.2 0.1 3.0 0.1 3.0 0.1 3.2 0.1 3.3 0.1 3.7 0.2 3.7 0.1 3.7 0.1Rhode Island . . . . . . 4.6 0.7 4.3 0.7 3.5 0.7 3.4 0.6 4.0 0.7 2.7 0.4 3.3 0.5 2.6 0.4 2.8 0.4 2.3 0.3 2.8 0.4 2.6 0.3 3.1 0.4

See notes at end of table.
10 U.S. Census Bureau Appendix Table 1. Percentage of Households Receiving Public Assistance in the Past 12 Months by State: 2000 to 2012—Con. (For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of _Data_2012.pdf) Area 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Esti- mate Mar- gin of error1 (±) Esti- mate Mar- gin of error1 (±) Esti- mate Mar- gin of error1 (±) Esti- mate Mar- gin of error1 (±) Esti- mate Mar- gin of error1 (±) Esti- mate Mar- gin of error1 (±) Esti- mate Mar- gin of error1 (±) Esti- mate Mar- gin of error1 (±) Esti- mate Mar- gin of error1 (±) Esti- mate Mar- gin of error1 (±) Esti- mate Mar- gin of error1 (±) Esti- mate Mar- gin of error1 (±) Esti- mate Mar- gin of error1 (±) South Carolina . . . . . 1.3 0.3 1.1 0.2 1.2 0.2 1.8 0.5 1.4 0.3 1.5 0.2 1.6 0.2 1.3 0.1 1.7 0.1 1.7 0.2 1.8 0.1 1.8 0.2 1.6 0.2 South Dakota . . . . . . 1.4 0.4 1.7 0.2 1.3 0.2 1.4 0.4 1.1 0.2 2.4 0.3 2.2 0.4 2.5 0.4 2.1 0.3 2.4 0.3 2.9 0.5 2.4 0.4 2.9 0.4 Tennessee . . . . . . . . 2.3 0.4 2.3 0.3 2.1 0.5 2.6 0.3 2.3 0.4 2.8 0.2 2.9 0.2 2.6 0.2 2.4 0.1 2.7 0.2 2.9 0.2 3.3 0.2 3.4 0.2 Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 0.1 1.8 0.1 1.7 0.2 2.1 0.2 1.8 0.2 1.9 0.1 1.5 0.1 1.2 0.1 1.6 0.1 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.1 1.9 0.1 1.8 0.1 Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 0.6 2.7 0.6 2.1 0.5 2.0 0.4 2.5 0.5 2.2 0.3 2.0 0.3 1.3 0.2 1.5 0.2 2.2 0.2 2.4 0.2 2.1 0.2 2.4 0.2 Vermont . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 0.8 3.2 0.5 3.4 0.6 4.2 0.5 3.1 0.5 4.2 0.6 3.1 0.5 2.6 0.4 2.9 0.5 3.6 0.6 4.9 0.6 4.3 0.5 4.6 0.6 Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 0.2 1.1 0.2 1.5 0.3 1.8 0.2 1.9 0.3 1.9 0.1 1.7 0.1 1.7 0.1 1.6 0.1 2.0 0.1 1.9 0.1 2.2 0.1 2.0 0.1 Washington . . . . . . . 3.5 0.3 3.4 0.4 3.1 0.5 2.9 0.3 3.3 0.4 3.8 0.2 3.2 0.2 3.1 0.2 3.4 0.2 4.1 0.2 4.6 0.2 4.3 0.2 4.0 0.2 West Virginia . . . . . . 2.6 0.6 2.7 0.5 2.4 0.5 3.1 0.5 2.0 0.4 2.1 0.3 2.1 0.2 2.1 0.2 2.3 0.2 2.7 0.3 2.3 0.3 2.4 0.3 2.2 0.3 Wisconsin . . . . . . . . 1.3 0.3 1.6 0.3 1.2 0.2 1.6 0.3 1.4 0.2 1.7 0.1 1.6 0.1 1.5 0.1 1.7 0.1 1.9 0.1 2.2 0.1 2.2 0.1 2.2 0.1 Wyoming . . . . . . . . . 1.9 0.6 1.5 0.4 1.4 0.3 1.4 0.4 1.3 0.4 1.7 0.4 1.8 0.5 2.1 0.5 1.3 0.4 1.5 0.4 1.7 0.4 1.8 0.4 1.7 0.4 1 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 percent confidence interval. Margins of error displayed as 0.0 are not actually zero, but round to zero. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 to 2012 American Community Surveys.