16 States Where Poverty Is Worse Than You Might Think

According to the official poverty measure, 12.7% of the Texas population lives in households with incomes below the poverty threshold. After accounting for factors such as taxes, cost of living, medical costs, and other expenses included in the supplemental poverty measure (SPM), the estimated share of people living in poverty rises to 13.7%. The difference between Texas’ SPM and the official poverty rate is the 16th largest compared to all states. The SPM in Texas is itself the sixth highest in the nation.

One factor driving the higher SPM rate in Texas may be the burden of medical expenses incurred by the state’s large uninsured population. Uninsured Americans are often charged higher medical care costs than individuals with health insurance, and they have more difficulty paying their bills. In Texas, 18.4% of residents do not have health insurance, the highest uninsured rate of any state.

Poverty-relief programs and government subsidies help ameliorate financial stress for people and families with low incomes, thus lowering the true level of poverty compared to the official rate. Such programs are used by relatively more households in Oregon — 14.3% of households use SNAP benefits, the seventh highest share in the nation — and yet the supplemental poverty measure is still higher than the official rate. After accounting for the effects of government subsidies, health care expenses, cost of living and other factors, approximately 47,000 more people in Oregon are living in poverty than measured by the official poverty rate.

As is generally the case in states where poverty is worse than it might seem, the cost of living in Oregon is higher than it is on average across the country.

After adjusting for taxes, medical costs, cost of living, and other expenses, the percentage of Illinois residents living below the poverty line rises from 10.4% to 11.4%.

A Census Bureau study analyzing the effect of various anti-poverty subsidies determined that Social Security had the greatest effect on keeping people above the federal poverty threshold, as measured by the supplemental poverty measure. In Illinois, 29.5% of households receive Social Security income, the 10th smallest share of any state.

Nevada is one of 16 states in which the poverty rate increases after accounting for taxes, medical costs, and other expenses, as well as anti-poverty subsidies such as SNAP, TANF, and unemployment insurance. After adjusting for these costs and subsidies, the poverty rate in Nevada rises from 12.1% — the 15th highest — to 13.4%, the eighth highest.

One factor tied to the high rate of poverty in Nevada may be the low rate of homeownership in the state. Owning a home is one of the most effective ways for low-income families to build long-term wealth and avoid the cycle of poverty. In Nevada, just 56.6% of heads of households own their homes, the third lowest homeownership rate of any state.

After adjusting for expenses such as medical costs and taxes, as well as for anti-poverty subsidies like Social Security and SNAP, approximately 53,000 more people in Connecticut are considered to be living in poverty than measured by the official poverty rate. The difference raises the poverty rate in Connecticut from 9.7% to 11.2% — still lower than the national SPM of 11.7%.

As is the case in many of the states on this list, Connecticut residents are relatively affluent, contributing to the high cost of living across the state. The typical household in the state earns $78,833 annually, the sixth highest median household income in the nation. Just over 13% of households report annual incomes of $200,000 or more, the fifth highest such share of all states. Goods and services cost 6.1% more in Connecticut than they do nationwide, the eighth highest cost of living of any state.

In most states, the official poverty rate is the same or slightly higher than the more accurate SPM. As is generally the case in more affluent states, however, the opposite is true in Virginia. When accounting for the effects of anti-poverty programs as well as the costs of living in the state, approximately 146,000 more state residents are considered to be living in poverty than measured by the official poverty rate.

For those in the state who are on the edge of official poverty thresholds, general expenses and the state’s high cost of living can be the difference between income below above the poverty line. Basic goods and services cost 2% more in Virginia than average prices nationwide, the 12th highest cost of living of all states.

The typical home in Massachusetts is valued at $418,600, the third highest median home value of any state and $178,000 more than the U.S. figure. On average, goods and services in the state cost 9.7 cents more on the dollar than they do nationwide, the fifth highest cost of living of any state.

After adjusting for the high cost of living, as well as other expenses such as out-of-pocket medical costs, taxes, and government aid programs and subsidies, the percentage of residents living in poverty in Massachusetts rises from 9.2% to 11.2% — a difference of 137,000 people.

When accounting for cost of living, as well as other expenses such as out-of-pocket medical costs, taxes, and government aid programs and subsidies, approximately 124,000 more people in Colorado are living in poverty than measured by the official poverty rate. The official rate, which at 9.1% is the 11th lowest of all states, rises would rise to 11.3% — the 22nd highest SPM.

One factor contributing to the increase may be low WIC recipiency. The federal Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program provides grant money to states for food, health care, and nutrition education for low-income women and children and has a significant impact on the share of individuals living below the poverty line. Just 40.7% of eligible women and children in Colorado receive WIC benefits, the fifth smallest share of any state.

In most states where poverty is worse than you might think, the official poverty rate is relatively low, but not in New York. The state’s 12.1% poverty rate is higher than the national rate. The already high level of poverty in New York rises further under the SPM to 14.4% – the fifth highest supplemental poverty rate of all states.

High rents in New York City — where over 40% of the state’s population lives — are likely one factor driving the high SPM rate. The typical home in New York state costs $338,700, the eighth highest median home value of any state. Overall, goods and services cost 16.4% more in the state than they do on average nationwide, the second highest cost of living in the country.

According to the official poverty measure, 12.9% of Florida residents live in households with income below the poverty threshold. After accounting for factors like taxes, cost of living, and other expenses included in the supplemental poverty measure, however, the percentage of residents living in poverty rises to 15.4% — the third highest SPM of any state. Under the revised measure, approximately 541,000 more people in Florida are living in poverty than measured by the official poverty rate.

One expense contributing to the high SPM in Florida may be the medical costs incurred by the state’s large uninsured population. Uninsured Americans are often subject to higher medical care costs than individuals with health insurance, and it is more difficult for them to pay their bills. In Florida, approximately 13.2% of residents do not have health insurance, the fourth highest uninsured rate of any state.

While reporting the sixth largest difference between its official and supplemental poverty rates, New Hampshire appears to have one of the most manageable poverty problems of all states. The state’s official poverty rate and SPM are 5.6% and 8.3%, respectively, the lowest and 7seventh lowest rates in the nation.

The Census Bureau identified the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as the third most impactful anti-poverty program after Social Security and refundable tax credits, as measured by the difference between the official poverty rate and supplemental poverty measure. In New Hampshire, likely because of how relatively few people in the state are living in poverty, only 6.9% of households receive SNAP benefits, the third lowest such share of all states.

The high cost of living in New Hampshire, where prices are estimated at 6.0% higher than average costs of goods and services nationwide, is likely one of the main drivers of the large difference in the state’s official and supplemental poverty measures.

More than one in four children in Delaware live in households that receive supplemental security income, cash public assistance income, or SNAP benefits — the ninth largest share of all states.

Despite the broad usage of these benefits, after adjusting for such anti-poverty subsidies as well as medical expenses and taxes, the percentage of Delaware residents in poverty increases from 7.6%, the fifth lowest rate, to an SPM rate of 11.9%. While the state’s SPM is 21st lowest compared to other states, the difference from the official rate is larger than in all but four other states.

The SPM takes into account regional geographic variations in housing costs to better understand how many individuals are struggling financially in a given area. Hawaii has the most expensive housing market in the country, with the typical home valued at a stunning $669,200 — nearly three times the U.S. median home value of $240,500. Goods and services cost 18.1% more in Hawaii than they do on average nationwide, the highest cost of living of any state.

When accounting for these factors, approximately 56,000 more people in Hawaii are living in poverty than measured by the official poverty rate. This difference results in the fourth largest percentage point difference between the state’s official and supplemental poverty measures, which at 9.4% and 13.4% are the 13th lowest and 8th highest rates in the nation, respectively.

After adjusting for medical costs, work expenses, taxes, and other factors included in the supplemental poverty measure, the percentage of New Jersey residents considered living below the poverty line rises from 8.2% — the sixth lowest poverty rate of any state — to 12.5%, the 15th highest supplemental poverty rate.

One factor accounting for the large spike may be the high cost of living in New Jersey. Goods and services cost 15.2% more in the state than they do on average nationwide, the fourth highest markup of any state. Despite the high cost of living, the average SNAP benefit payout is $111 per household member per month, the ninth lowest amount. Just 74.0% of eligible individuals receive SNAP, also the ninth smallest such figure.

Based on median household income, Maryland residents are the wealthiest in the nation. The typical household brings in $86,738 annually, compared to the median income nationwide of $65,712. The typical home in Maryland is worth $332,500, the ninth highest median home value of any state and over $90,000 more than the U.S. median. On average, goods and services cost 8.4% more in Maryland than they do on average nationwide, the sixth highest cost of living of any state.

High pre-tax incomes, home values, and cost of living correspond with a low official poverty rate of 7.6%, which is common among states on this list where the official poverty rate underestimates the level of financial distress. When accounting for these additional factors affecting family budgets, approximately 267,000 more people in Maryland are living in poverty than measured by the official poverty rate.

Under the official rate, 11.4% of California residents are considered to be living below the poverty line, roughly in line with the 11.5% national poverty rate. After adjusting for medical costs, taxes, and other expenses as well as government aid programs and subsidies, however, the percentage of people living in poverty rises to 17.2% — the highest supplemental poverty measure rate of any state and the largest gap between the two measures.

A Census Bureau study analyzing the impact of various anti-poverty subsidies determined that Social Security and SNAP have the largest and third largest effect of any program on keeping individuals above the federal poverty line. In California, however, just 28.4% of eligible households receive Social Security benefits, the sixth smallest share of any state. Similarly, fewer than 10% of households receive SNAP benefits, the 13th smallest share.