The Research Supplemental Poverty 

Measure: 2010

BROOKINGS/CENSUS BUREAU MEETING 

ON IMPROVED POVERTY MEASUREMENT

November 7, 2011
Official Poverty 

Measure

•First adopted in 1969

•Continues under OMB 

Statistical Directive 14

•The 2010 official poverty rate 

for the nation was 15.1 percent

•Up from 14.3 percent in 2009

•46.2 million people in poverty

•An increase of 2.6 million since 

2009.

2
3

Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM)

Observations from the Interagency Technical 

Working Group on Developing a Supplemental 

Poverty Measure (ITWG) - March 2, 2010

– Will not replace the official poverty measure

– Will not be used for resource allocation or program eligibility

– Census Bureau and BLS responsible for improving and 

updating the measure

– Continued research and improvement

– Based on National Academy of Sciences expert panel 

recommendations in Measuring Poverty: A New Approach 

(Citro and Michael,1995)

3
Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) 

Differs from Official Poverty Measure

• Unit of analysis 

– Families plus unrelated children (foster children) and cohabiting 

partners and their children

• Threshold differences 

– Based on spending from 5 years of Consumer Expenditure data for 

food, clothing, shelter, and utilities (FCSU)

– Equivalence scales to adjust for family size

– Separate thresholds by housing status

– renters 

– owners with a mortgage

– owners without a mortgage

– Geographic adjustments based on American Community Survey data 

on rent paid using specific metropolitan areas

4
$21,756

$23,854 $24,450

$20,298

$23,874

$22,113

$24,343 $25,018

$20,590

$24,391

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

Official Overall Owners with

mortgages

Owners without

mortgages

Renters

2009

2010

Supplemental Poverty Thresholds

Official and Research SPM Thresholds for 

2 Adults and 2 Children Economic Units: 2009 and 2010

5
Income/Resource Definition

Official

• Gross (before-tax) cash 

income from all sources

Supplemental

• Gross money income: 

• PLUS value of near-money 

federal in-kind benefits for 

FCSU 

– SNAP, school lunch, WIC

– Housing subsidies

– LIHEAP

– Tax credits (EITC)

• MINUS income and payroll 

taxes and other 

nondiscretionary expenses

6 6
Nondiscretionary Expenses

Payroll and state and federal 

income taxes

• New CPS ASEC questions on 

child care expenses paid

• SIPP for other expenses

Medical Out of Pocket 

Expenditures (MOOP)

• New CPS ASEC questions

• New CPS ASEC questions to 

subtract child support paid 

from income

7

Child Support Paid

• Current methods to calculate 

federal and state income tax, 

payroll tax

• Add tax credits such as EITC 

Child care and other work 

related expenses

7
Comparing SPM and Official Poverty Rates

• Many moving parts to consider

• Initial starting point of cash income

• Thresholds

– Higher on average

– Housing status

– Geographic adjustments

• Resources

– Effective benefits

– Effective expenses

8
9

All People Under 18 years 18 to 64 years 65 years and older

Official** 15.2 22.5 13.7 9.0

SPM 16.0 18.2 15.2 15.9

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Percent 

Poverty rates for all people and by age group: 2010

**Includes unrelated individuals under age 15.

Source: Current Population Survey, 2011 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

9
 White, not Hispanic Black Asian Hispanic (any race)

Official** 10.0 27.5 12.1 26.7

SPM 11.1 25.4 16.7 28.2

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Percent 

Poverty rates by race and ethnicity: 2010

**Includes unrelated individuals under age 15.

Source: Current Population Survey, 2011 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

10
Poverty Rates

• For most groups, SPM rates are higher than official 

poverty rates

• The SPM shows lower poverty rates for 

– Children

– Individuals included in new SPM resource units 

– Blacks 

– Renters

– Individuals living outside metropolitan areas

– Individuals living in the Midwest and the South

– Individuals covered by only public health insurance

• Official and SPM poverty rates for people in female 

householder units and the native born are not statistically 

different

11
32.3

42.0

42.3

52.1

40.9

45.3

15.6

17.1

12.5

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total

Official**

SPM

Composition of total and poverty populations by residence: 

2010

 Inside

principal cities

 Outside

principal cities

Outside MSAs

** Includes unrelated individuals under age 15

Source: Current Population Survey, 2011 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

12
17.9

15.1

16.2

21.6

19.8

17.7

37.0

41.2

37.7

23.5

23.8

28.4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Total

Official**

SPM

Composition of total and poverty populations by region: 2010

Northeast

Midwest

South

West

** Includes unrelated individuals under age 15

Source: Current Population Survey, 2011 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

13
14

EITC SNAP Hsg

subsidy

School

lunch WIC LIHEAP Childsupport

Federal

income tax FICA Workexpense

MOOP

2010 -2.0 -1.6 -0.9 -0.3 -0.1 -0.1 0.2 0.5 1.5 1.5 3.4

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Percentage point difference

Difference in SPM rate after including each element: 2010

Source: Current Population Survey, 2010 and 2011 Annual Social and Economic 
15

EITC SNAP Hsg

subsidy

School

lunch WIC LIHEAP Childsupport

Federal

income

tax

FICA Work

expense

MOOP

Under 18 years -4.2 -3.0 -1.3 -0.8 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.3 1.9 2.0 2.8

65 years and older -0.1 -0.8 -1.2 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 7.3

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

Difference in SPM rate after including each element for 

two age groups: 2010 
16

6.8 5.4

8.4 10.7

18.8

31.8

30.2

34.8

35.8

17.3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Official** SPM

Distribution of People by Ratio of Resources to Poverty 

Threshold: 2010

4 or more

2.0 to 3.99

1.0 to 1.99

0.5 to 0.99

less than 0.5

** Includes unrelated individuals under age 15.

Source: Current Population Survey, 2011 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
17

10.4

5.3

12.1

12.8

21.4

38.6

29.2

32.5

26.8

10.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Official** SPM

Distribution of People Under Age 18 

by Ratio of Resources to Poverty Threshold: 2010

4 or more

2.0 to 3.99

1.0 to 1.99

0.5 to 0.99

less than 0.5

** Includes unrelated individuals under age 15.

Source: Current Population Survey, 2011 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
18

2.5 4.6

6.5

11.3

25.6

33.1

34

32.5

31.4

18.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Official** SPM

Distribution of People 65 Years of Age and Over 

by Ratio of Resources to Poverty Threshold: 2010

4 or more

2.0 to 3.99

1.0 to 1.99

0.5 to 0.99

less than 0.5

** Includes unrelated individuals under age 15.

Source: Current Population Survey, 2011 Annual Social and Economic 

18
19

EITC SNAP Hsg

subsidy

School

lunch WIC LIHEAP Childsupport

Federal

income tax FICA Workexpense

MOOP

2009 -1.9 -1.5 -0.8 -0.3 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.5 1.6 3.3

2010 -2.0 -1.6 -0.9 -0.3 -0.1 -0.1 0.2 0.5 1.5 1.5 3.4

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Percentage point difference

Difference in SPM rate after including each element: 

2009 and 2010

Source: Current Population Survey, 2010 and 2011 Annual Social and Economic 
All People Under 18 years 18 to 64 years 65 years and older

SPM 2009 15.3 17.3 14.4 15.5

SPM 2010 16.0 18.2 15.2 15.9

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

percent poor

SPM rates for all people and by age group: 2009 and 2010

**Includes unrelated individuals under age 15.

20
SPM: 2009 to 2010

• In 2010 SPM rate rose to 16.0 percent from 15.3 percent in 2009

• The number poor rose from 46.5 million in 2009 to 49.1 million in 

2010

• Between the two years, poverty rates increased for all groups except 

for these (no statistically significant change from 2009)

– 65 years of age and over

– In married couple, male householder, and new SPM units

– Asians and Hispanics

– Foreign born

– Homeowners with and without mortgages

– Residing outside MSAs

– In the West

– No health insurance

• Poverty rates did not decrease for any group we examined

21
SPM and Official: 2009 to 2010

• Changes in SPM rates were not different from changes 

in official rates for most groups, except the following

– Homeowners with no mortgage

– Renters

– With private health insurance

– Living in the South 

• Among other things, these differences reflect the 

different changes in SPM thresholds by housing status 

between 2009 and 2010

22
23

Summary

• Changes in SPM rates from 2009 to 2010 are not different from the 

change in official poverty rates for the same time period, for most 

groups examined.

• SPM rates were higher than official 

poverty rates in 2010, overall and for 

most groups

• A few groups had lower rates

– New economic unit

– Received more In-kind benefits

– Lived where housing costs were 

low

– Owned home with no mortgage

• Resource-to-poverty threshold ratio 

categories more concentrated in 

middle groups

– In-kind benefits reduce share in 

lowest group

– Expenses reduce share in 

highest income group

– Percent of the population in 

‘extreme poverty’ is lower for 

most groups
Next steps

• Continue research on SPM

– Measurement of the poverty thresholds 

– Geographic adjustments

– Collection and valuation of necessary expenses, such as 

medical and commuting expenses 

– Adjustments for under-reporting of benefits, expenses, and the 

sources of cash income 

• Consider production of public use micro-data

• Consider earlier release date to coincide with release of 

official measure

24