The Impact Of The 2021 Expanded Ctc On Child Poverty
Summary
The Impact of the 2021 Expanded Child Tax Credit on Child Poverty is SEHSD Working Paper #2022-241 by Kalee Burns and Liana E. Fox of the Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division of the U.S. Census Bureau. Using the Supplemental Poverty Measure and the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement, it examines how the Child Tax Credit changed under the American Rescue Plan Act for 2021. The paper reports that the credit lifted 2.9 million children out of poverty, 2.1 million of them because of the 2021 expansion, and that SPM child poverty fell from 9.7 percent to 5.2 percent between 2020 and 2021. It breaks results down by child age, race and Hispanic origin, and family structure. The paper closes with tables comparing income-to-poverty ratio distributions with and without the credit.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
The Impact of the 2021 Expanded Child Tax Credit on Child Poverty
Kalee Burns and Liana E. Fox
Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division
U.S. Census Bureau
SEHSD Working Paper #2022-241
Abstract: The Census Bureau produces the Supplemental Poverty Measure annually. This measure of
poverty incorporates money income and non-cash benefits (such as nutritional assistance programs,
housing subsidies, tax credits, and stimulus payments) while subtracting necessary expenses such as
income and payroll taxes and work and medical expenses. This paper examines the impact of the
expanded Child Tax Credit on child poverty. We find that the Child Tax Credit lifted 2.9 million children
out of poverty. Additionally, we find that the 2021 expansion of the Child Tax Credit accounted for 2.1
million of these 2.9 million children lifted above the poverty line.
1
This paper is released to inform interested parties of ongoing research and to encourage discussion of work in progress. Any views expressed
are those of the authors and not those of U.S. Census Bureau. Information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and
definitions is available at <www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/techdocs/cpsmar22.pdf>. The Census Bureau reviewed this data product
for unauthorized disclosure of confidential information and has approved the disclosure avoidance practices applied to this release. This paper
meets all of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Disclosure Review Board (DRB) standards and has been assigned DRB approval number CBDRB-FY23-
SEHSD003-011. This is an updated version of the paper that was originally released in November 2022. One table was removed due to a coding
error in the original version.
1
I. Introduction
In 2011, the U.S. Census Bureau began producing the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) in addition
to the official poverty measure, a measure that has been produced since the 1960s. The SPM is a post-
tax and transfer measure of poverty produced annually in conjunction with the official poverty measure.
It incorporates money income and non-cash benefits (such as nutritional assistance programs, housing
subsidies, tax credits, and stimulus payments) while subtracting necessary expenses such as income and
payroll taxes and work and medical expenses. Income is summed to the SPM-unit level; SPM units are
defined as all related persons, cohabiting partners and their relatives, foster children under the age of
22, and unrelated individuals under age 15 living together in the same household.
The SPM’s inclusion of taxes makes it relevant for analysis given recent legislative changes. For calendar
year 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) included changes to existing tax credits and a third
round of economic impact payments meant to address the economic hardships related to the COVID-19
pandemic. ARPA made several major modifications to existing tax credit programs including the Child
Tax Credit (CTC). The CTC was expanded in 2021 by increasing the value of the credit and making the
credit fully refundable, meaning that more families were able to receive the credit than in 2020. In
addition, ARPA allowed families to receive an advance on their CTC in the form of six monthly payments
totaling 50 percent of their expected credit, with the remaining half distributed upon filing taxes in
2022. The U.S. Treasury estimates that the new expanded CTC affected approximately 88 percent of
children in the U.S. during the 2021 tax calendar year (U.S. Treasury, 2021). While distributing the tax
credit in advance had a meaningful effect on the financial well-being of families, for the purposes of
annual poverty measurement, the first two expansions of CTC are most relevant.
This paper uses the 2021 and 2022 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement
(CPS ASEC), covering calendar years 2020 and 2021, and the Census Bureau’s CPS ASEC Tax Model to
analyze the effect of CTC on child poverty rates overall and by child age, race and Hispanic origin, and
family structure. We estimate poverty status in this paper using the SPM. A key characteristic of the SPM
is its ability to isolate how different social safety net programs and policies lift or push persons out of or
into poverty. We first compare the overall impact of the CTC on poverty for 2020 and 2021 with a focus
on child poverty. Next, we estimate counterfactual child poverty rates in an environment in which the
CTC remained at its original pre-ARPA status for 2021. Additionally, we explore the effect of CTC
expansions on child poverty at different points in the income-to-poverty ratio distribution. By
conducting this counterfactual exercise, we can examine the effect of expansions in the CTC in addition
to the overall impact of the CTC on child poverty.
II. Background
The SPM was developed following decades of research on poverty measurement. Concerns about the
adequacy of the official measure culminated in a Congressional appropriation in 1990 for an
independent scientific study of the concepts, measurement methods, and information needed for a
poverty measure. In response, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) convened a Panel on Poverty
and Family Assistance, which released its report, Measuring Poverty: A New Approach, in 1995 (Citro
and Michael, 1995).
The Interagency Technical Working Group (ITWG) on Developing a Supplemental Poverty Measure was
formed in 2009 and charged with developing a set of initial starting points to permit the Census Bureau,
2
in cooperation with the BLS, to produce the SPM. In 2010, this ITWG (which included representatives
from many U.S. statistical agencies) issued a series of suggestions to the Census Bureau and the BLS on
how to develop the SPM.2 In November 2011, the Census Bureau released the first SPM report,
providing SPM estimates for 2009 and 2010.
The NAS panel and the ITWG recommended that the calculation of resources for poverty measurement
should subtract necessary expenses. The SPM subtracts federal and state income taxes and Social
Security payroll taxes (FICA). The CPS ASEC does not collect information on taxes paid, but instead relies
on a tax calculator to simulate taxes paid. These simulations also use a statistical match to the IRS
Statistics of Income public-use microdata file of tax returns. While SPM units can comprise multiple tax
units, CTC receipt and value are based on tax units.
A hallmark of the SPM is its ability to adapt to policy changes. In 2021, the expansion of the CTC
increased resources for many families. Incorporating changes to the CTC is possible due to the Census
Bureau tax’s model. This model can estimate relevant state and federal taxes based on each individual’s
responses in the CPS ASEC. In doing so, it estimates a tax filer’s expected refunds for various federal tax
programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), the CTC, and the Child and Dependent Care
Credit. Anticipating the impact the expanded CTC would have on the SPM, in 2021 the CPS ASEC
included a question about receipt of CTC. Additionally, the CPS ASEC Tax Model was updated to reflect
the changes to the CTC as well as other credit changes. Finally, the tax model also estimated a family’s
CTC refund under pre-ARPA CTC rules. More information about the changes to the tax model and the
CTC can be found in Bee et al. (2022).
2
Refer to <www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/topics/income/supplemental-poverty-measure/spm-
twgobservations.pdf>.
3
Updates to the Child Tax Credit
The following text table details changes to amounts and eligibility of the Child Tax Credit (Congressional
Research Service, 2021).
Child Tax Credit Policy: 2020 and 2021
Year 2020 (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act—TCJA) 2021 (American Rescue Plan Act—ARPA)
Credit $2,000 credit per child under aged 0-16 • $3,600 credit for children aged 0-5
• $3,000 for children aged 6-17
Refundability Partially refundable, up to $1,400/child Fully refundable
Eligibility Must have at least $2,500 in earned No minimum earned income
income
Phase Out Begins to phase out at a rate of $50 for Gradually phases out at a rate of 5 percent as
every $1,000 in additional income over income exceeds specified thresholds until the
income thresholds credit amount equals the TCJA-law maximum
of $2,000 per child
Phase-Out • $200,000 for single/head-of- • $75,000 for single filers
Income household filers • $112,500 for head of household filers
Thresholds • $400,000 for married-joint • $150,000 for married joint filers
filers
III. A Short History of Child Poverty and the SPM
Child poverty rates using the SPM are available back to 2009. Comparisons between SPM and the official
poverty are possible with a consistent universe (official+).3 The SPM child poverty rate has consistently
been lower than official+ child poverty from 2009-2019. The two measures tended to move in the same
directions, as seen in Figure 1.4 However, in 2020 the two measures began to diverge due to the effect
of large anti-poverty programs established or expanded in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as
the stimulus payments, expansions to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the
expansion of the Child Tax Credit.
Child poverty, as measured by the SPM, fell to its lowest recorded level in 2021, declining 46 percent (or
4.5 percentage points) from 2020 to 2021 from 9.7 percent to 5.2 percent. In contrast, child poverty as
3
Unrelated children under the age of 15 are excluded from the official poverty measure universe but included in
the SPM universe. To compare the two measures, unrelated individuals under the age of 15 are assigned an official
poverty status to match that of the reference person of the household in which they reside; we refer to this as
“official+” throughout the rest of the paper. The official poverty status is not recalculated for anyone else in the
household.
4
For historical child poverty data by race and Hispanic origin group, see Creamer et al. (2022).
4
measured by the official+ poverty measure declined only 0.7 percentage points, from 16.0 to 15.3
percent, between 2020 and 2021.
Figure 2 shows historical SPM rates for children by race and Hispanic origin. Figure 2 shows that 2021
had the lowest child poverty rates for all four race and Hispanic origin categories examined, with SPM
rates for Hispanic children falling the most, from 29.1 percent in 2009 to 8.4 percent in 2021.5 From
2009 to 2021, SPM rates for Black children fell by 17.1 percentage points, from 25.2 percent in 2009 to
8.1 percent in 2021.6 In particular, between 2020 and 2021, Black child poverty fell by 8.8 percentage
points. Hispanic child poverty rates fell by 6.3 percentage points between 2020 and 2021.
5
The SPM rate for Asian children in 2021 was not statistically different than its 2020 rate.
6
The SPM rate in 2021 for Black children (8.1 percent) was not statistically different than the SPM rate in 2021 for
Hispanic children (8.4 percent)
5
IV. Characteristics of Individuals Receiving Refundable Child Tax Credit
An individual is considered to have received the refundable CTC if they lived in an SPM unit containing a
tax filer eligible for the refundable portion of the CTC. 7 In 2021, the entire CTC was fully refundable, so
any filer eligible for CTC would be categorized as receiving a refundable CTC. In 2020, only part of the
CTC was refundable, contingent on tax liability (see text table above for details). Table 1 presents results
on characteristics of individuals in SPM units receiving a refundable CTC in 2020 and 2021.8
Overall, 45.8 percent of all people lived in a SPM unit that received a refundable CTC in 2021, compared
to 16.8 percent in 2020. An estimated 97.1 percent of children lived in an SPM unit that received a
refundable CTC in 2021, up from 38.2 percent in 2020.
V. Poverty and the Child Tax Credit in 2021
An important contribution of the SPM is that it allows us to gauge the potential magnitude of the effect
of tax credits and transfers in alleviating poverty. Figure 3 shows the effect that various additions and
subtractions had on the number of people who would have been considered poor in 2021, holding all
else the same and assuming no behavioral changes.9 Additions and subtractions are shown for the total
7
An SPM unit is a resource-sharing unit that includes families, unmarried cohabiting partners and their relatives,
foster children under the age of 22, and unrelated individuals under age 15.
8
All tables located at the end of the paper.
9
More information on various programs and their impact on child poverty status is available in Creamer et al.
(2022).
6
population and for three age groups. Additions shown in the figure include cash benefits like Social
Security that are also included in the official poverty measure, as well as noncash benefits and tax
credits included only in the SPM like SNAP, school lunch, and refundable tax credits like the Child Tax
Credit in 2021.
Figure 3 shows that in 2021, the CTC lifted 5.3 million people out of poverty, including 2.9 million
children. For perspective, in 2020, the refundable portion of CTC lifted 1.2 million people out of poverty,
including 613,000 children.10
Impact by Age and Race/Hispanic Origin
Diving further into the CTC’s poverty alleviation effects, Figure 4 and Table 2 show children lifted out of
poverty by age and race/Hispanic origin. Overall, the CTC lifted 1.0 million children under the age of 6
out of poverty in 2021, decreasing their poverty rate from 9.8 percent to 5.3 percent. The CTC also lifted
1.9 million children aged 6-17 out of poverty in 2021, decreasing their poverty rate from 8.9 percent to
5.2 percent.11
10
In 2020, only a portion of the Child Tax Credit was refundable. For details about each program’s impact on
poverty status in 2020 and 2021, please refer to Table B-8 in “Poverty in the United States: 2021” at
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-275.html.
11
The SPM poverty rate for children under 6 (5.3 percent) in 2021 was not statistically different than the SPM
poverty rate for children between 6 and 17 (5.2 percent) in 2021. Additionally, the decrease in poverty for children
under 6 (4.5 percentage points) was not statistically different than the decrease in poverty for children between 6
and 17 (3.7 percentage points).
7
The inclusion of the CTC significantly decreased the number of children experiencing poverty across
several race and Hispanic origin groups (Figure 4).
The CTC reduced the Black child poverty rate by 6.3 percentage points, from 14.5 percent to 8.1 percent
when included in SPM resources. Overall, this amounts to approximately 716,000 Black children lifted
out of poverty by the inclusion of the CTC. Of the 716,000 Black children, 492,000 were ages 6-17.12
The CTC reduced the Hispanic child poverty rate by 6.3 percentage points, representing 1.2 million
Hispanic children. Additionally, 820,000 White, non-Hispanic children and 110,000 Asian children were
lifted out of poverty by the CTC.13
Impact by Family Structure
Family structure is another important demographic characteristic to consider when looking at the
impact of the CTC. Historically, poverty rates have varied by family structure (i.e., SPM units in which the
reference person is married, a single male or female, or cohabiting).14 In 2021, people living in female-
reference units had higher poverty rates than people living in other family structure types (except
people in male-reference units).15 In 2020, the poverty rate for persons living in female-reference units
12
The number of Black children aged 6 to 17 (492,000) lifted out of poverty by CTC was not statistically different
from the total number of Black children lifted out of poverty by CTC (716,000).
13
The change in non-Hispanic White children (820,000) in poverty was not statistically different than the change in
the number of Black children (716,000) in poverty.
14
SPM rates by family structure are published annually starting in 2011. For more information, please refer to the
SPM publication series <https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/supplemental-poverty-
measure/library/publications.html>.
15
Poverty rates for all people by family structure are available in Creamer et al. (2022).
8
was 18.2 percent. In 2021, this rate decreased to 11.7 percent. This 6.4-percentage-point decrease was
the largest by family structure type (Creamer et al., 2022).16
In similar fashion to Figure 4, Figure 5 details how many children were pushed above their respective
poverty threshold by the inclusion of the CTC in their SPM unit resources.
Children in female-reference units were among the largest group of children kept above the poverty line
by the inclusion of the CTC in their respective unit resources, with 1.3 million children in this group being
kept above the poverty line. In other unit types, 1.1 million children in married-couple units were lifted
out of poverty due to the CTC.17 Further details can be found in Table 2.
Distributional Impact of Child Tax Credit
Next, we focus on how the CTC affects the distribution of children across income-to-poverty ratios. The
CTC provides benefits to millions of children both above and below the SPM poverty threshold, not just
those slightly below their poverty threshold. The widespread impact can be observed by examining
income-to-poverty ratios.
An income-to-poverty ratio represents how much income (both cash and non-cash and net of taxes and
other necessary expenses) an individual or family receives in relation to its poverty threshold.
Individuals whose income is equal to their poverty threshold have an income-to-poverty ratio of 1.00
(100 percent). Ratios below 1.00 indicate income below the poverty level, and ratios of greater than
16
While SPM units can comprise multiple tax units, CTC receipt and value is based on tax units.
17
There difference between the 1.3 million children in female reference units and 1.1 million children in married
units was not statistically different.
9
1.00 indicate income above the poverty level. For example, a ratio of 0.50 means that income was 50
percent of the poverty threshold.
Figure 6 and the first panel of Table 3 show the share of children living in specified income-to-poverty
ratio categories both including and excluding the value of the CTC from resources.
The CTC reduced the proportion of children in the lowest income-to-poverty ratio category (those with
income less than 50 percent of the poverty threshold) by 1.1 percentage points, from 2.5 percent to 1.4
percent.
The CTC also reduced the proportion of children in SPM units with resources between 50 percent to 99
percent of the poverty threshold by 2.8 percentage points, from 6.6 percent to 3.8 percent.
While not captured in the SPM rate, the CTC also reduced the share of children slightly above poverty.
Children in the 1.00 to 1.49 category are just above the poverty threshold and can be considered “near-
poverty.” The percentage of children in near poverty declined 6.0 percentage points, from 18.1 percent
without including the CTC to 12.1 percent with the inclusion of the CTC.
Including the value of the CTC shifts the income-to-poverty ratio distribution to the right: More children
fall into higher income-to-poverty ratio categories. For instance, including the CTC increases the share of
children in the second highest income-to-poverty ratio category (200 to 399 percent of the poverty
threshold) by 5.8 percentage points, to 44.1 percent.
10
VI. Expanded Child Tax Credit and Its Impact on Poverty
As previously mentioned, ARPA greatly expanded both the value of, and eligibility for, the refundable
CTC. While the previous analysis estimated the total impact of the refundable CTC, this section focuses
on the impact of the expansion of the CTC. To see the effect of the policy expansion rather than the total
effect of the program, we re-estimate poverty using pre-ARPA CTC law.18 This counterfactual exercise
reveals that the 2021 expansions of the CTC lifted 2.1 million children out of poverty. These results can
be seen in Table 4. As a reminder, the total impact of the CTC on child poverty was 2.9 million children
pulled out of poverty (see Table 2).
All else equal, if the CTC had not been expanded in 2021, child poverty would have been 8.1 percent, 2.9
percentage points higher than it actually was in 2021. This exercise assumes that the CTC was held at its
2020 credit levels, refundability, and eligibility rules.
Impact of Expansion by Race and Hispanic Origin.
Figure 7 features expanded race and Hispanic origin groups for children. Here we can see how many
children were lifted out of poverty by the expansion of the CTC.
18
This counterfactual environment creates a set of alternative tax variables using the CPS ASEC tax model. A
public-use research file extract for the 2022 CPS ASEC is available here:
<https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2022/demo/income-poverty/child-tax-credit.html>.
11
This shows that 649,000 non-Hispanic White, 600,000 Black, 56,000 Asian, and 752,000 Hispanic
children were lifted above the poverty line due to the CTC expansion.19,20
Impact of Expansion by Family Structure
Figure 8 and Table 4 show the number and percentage of children lifted out of poverty due to the
expansion of the CTC by family structure. Recall that Figure 5 showed that 1.3 million children in female
reference units were lifted out of poverty due to the CTC. Of these 1.3 million children, 1.0 million
children (as seen in Figure 8) were lifted out due to the CTC expansion. The CTC expansion was
important to female-reference units as it removed minimum earned income thresholds for eligibility and
was no longer limited in value by tax liability.
Distributional Impact of Expanded Child Tax Credit
Similar to Figure 6, Figure 9 shows the impact of CTC expansions on the income-to-poverty ratio
distribution. Instead of focusing on income-to-poverty ratio distribution with and without the CTC,
Figure 9 shows income-to-poverty ratio distribution under the two tax regimes. Light blue bars
represent 2021 data with pre-ARPA CTC laws, while darker blue bars represent 2021 data with ARPA CTC
laws. In Figure 9 and the second panel of Table 3, we can see that the share of children in the lowest
three categories decreased by 1.0 percentage point, 1.9 percentage points, and 3.0 percentage points
respectively. Conversely, the share of children in the 4th and 5th highest groups increased under ARPA
19
There was no statistical difference between the changes for non-Hispanic White (649,000), Black (600,000), and
Hispanic (752,000) children.
20
Difference in number of Asian children is due to rounding in Figure 7.
12
CTC, while the share of children above 400% of their poverty threshold was not statistically different
across CTC tax regimes.21
VII. Robustness Analyses: Supplemental Poverty Measure Without Stimulus
Between 2020 and 2021, three rounds of economic impact payments, or stimulus checks, were sent to
U.S. households to alleviate some of the economic hardships associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
As such, the 2020 SPM included the first two rounds of stimulus in its measure of resources, and the
2021 SPM included the third round of stimulus payments. In 2021, stimulus payments lifted 2.3 million
children out of poverty, decreasing the child poverty rate by 3.1 percentage points (Creamer et al.
2022). To separate the effect of the CTC (and the ARPA expansion of the CTC) from the anti-poverty
impact of stimulus payments, we estimate poverty rates for 2021 without the inclusion of any stimulus
payments.
21
The change for the 1.50 to 1.99 quantile (2.2 percentage points) was not statistically different than the change
for the 2.00 to 3.99 quantile (3.1 percentage points).
13
By excluding stimulus payments from resources, more individuals fell below their poverty threshold and
therefore could potentially be lifted out of poverty by the inclusion of the CTC. Table 5 shows that
without stimulus payments, the child poverty rate in 2021 would have been 8.3 percent. Including the
total value of the CTC decreased the child poverty rate by 6.6 percentage points. In other words, in the
absence of stimulus payments in 2021, the CTC would have lifted 4.8 million children out of poverty (as
displayed in the bottom half of Figure 10).
Table 6 shows the impact of the ARPA expansion to the CTC, excluding stimulus payments. Of the 4.8
million children lifted out of poverty by the CTC (excluding stimulus payments), 3.1 million children were
lifted out of poverty due to the expansion of the CTC. Tables 5 and 6 contain additional estimates of the
number and percentage of children lifted out of poverty by the CTC and the ARPA expansion, excluding
stimulus payments.
Finally, Table 7 contains income-to-poverty ratios for children excluding stimulus payments from
resources. The top panel displays the distribution of income-to-poverty ratios for children including and
excluding the total value of the CTC. The bottom panel compares income-to-poverty ratios under the
two tax regimes: the CTC under ARPA and the CTC pre-ARPA.
VIII. Conclusion
This paper examines the impact of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) on child poverty for calendar year 2021.
Due to temporary legislative changes in 2021, the value of the credit was increased, and eligibility was
expanded. Most notably, the value of the credit increased from $2,000 to $3,600 for children aged 0 to 5
and $3,000 for children aged 6 to 17. Furthermore, the credit was temporarily made fully refundable.
The temporarily expanded CTC had a significant impact on child poverty, as measured by the
Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), in 2021. An estimated 2.9 million children were kept above the
14
poverty line due to the CTC payments, including 716,000 Black children and 1.2 million Hispanic (of any
race) children. The expansion of the CTC kept 2.1 million of these 2.9 million children from falling below
the poverty line. When looking at the CTC’s effect on poverty by family structure, 1.3 million children in
female-reference units were kept above the poverty line.
The expansion in the CTC also shifted the share of children in the lowest income-to-poverty ratio
category. The share of children in the lowest income-to poverty ratio category, with incomes below 50
percent of their poverty threshold, would have been 2.5 percent in 2021 if the pre-ARPA CTC rules had
been applied, compared to 1.4 percent under ARPA CTC amounts and eligibility. Finally, the impact of
the CTC is further amplified when adjusting SPM resources to exclude stimulus payments. Under this
scenario, the CTC kept 4.8 million children above the poverty line.
At the time of this writing, the changes to the CTC in ARPA were temporary and were only made
available for the 2021 tax year. The CTC is expected to revert to pre-ARPA values and requirements for
the 2022 tax year.
15
References
Bee, C. Adam, Charles Hokayem, and Daniel Lin. “Modeling the 2021 Child Tax Credit in the CPS ASEC.”
SEHSD Working Paper No. FY-2022-17, September 2022, available at
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2022/demo/sehsd-wp2022-
17.pdf
Citro, Constance F., and Robert T. Michael (eds.), Measuring Poverty: A New Approach, National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1995, available at
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2011/demo/SEHSD-
WP2011-24.pdf
Creamer, John, Emily A. Shrider, Kalee Burns, and Frances Chen. “Poverty in the United States: 2021.”
Current Population Reports, P60-277, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, September 2022,
available at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-
275.pdf
H.R.1 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018. (2017, December 22).
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1/text
H.R.1319 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. (2021, March 11).
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1319/text
U.S. Treasury. “Treasury and IRS Announce Families of 88 percent of Children in the U.S. to
Automatically Receive Monthly Payment of Refundable Child Tax Credit.” U.S. Department of the
Treasury Press Release, May 17, 2021, available at https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-
releases/jy0177
16
TABLES
Table 1. Number and Percentage of People Receiving Refundable Child Tax Credit: 2020 and 2021
(Numbers in thousands. Margins of error in thousands or percentage points as appropriate. People as of March of the following year. Information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and
definitions is available at <https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/techdocs/cpsmar22.pdf>)
2021 `20201
People in a SPM unit receiving People in a SPM unit receiving Difference
Characteristic refundable CTC refundable CTC
Total Total Percentage
2 2 2 2
Population Number MOE (±) Percent MOE (±) Population Number MOE (±) Percent MOE (±) Estimates Point
All People 328,700 150,500 900 45.8 0.2 328,100 55,100 600 16.8 0.2 95,400 * 29.0 *
Sex
Male 162,100 72,800 700 44.9 0.3 161,800 25,800 400 15.9 0.2 47,000 * 29.0 *
Female 166,600 77,700 700 46.7 0.3 166,200 29,300 400 17.6 0.2 48,400 * 29.0 *
Age
Under 18 years 73,500 71,300 700 97.1 0.2 74,000 28,300 400 38.2 0.5 43,000 * 58.9 *
18 to 64 years 199,100 76,200 700 38.3 0.3 199,800 25,800 400 12.9 0.2 50,500 * 25.4 *
65 years and older 56,200 3,000 100 5.3 0.2 54,300 1,000 100 1.9 0.1 2,000 * 3.4 *
3
Race and Hispanic Origin
White 249,300 109,500 800 43.9 0.3 249,400 38,300 500 15.3 0.2 71,200 * 28.6 *
White, not Hispanic 194,500 76,600 700 39.4 0.3 195,300 20,600 300 10.5 0.2 56,000 * 28.8 *
Black 44,100 21,800 400 49.5 0.7 43,800 10,400 300 23.8 0.6 11,400 * 25.7 *
Asian 20,700 10,000 300 48.5 0.9 20,400 2,500 100 12.4 0.6 7,500 * 36.1 *
American Indian and Alaska Native 4,100 2,400 100 57.0 2.1 4,000 1,100 100 27.6 1.8 1,300 * 29.4 *
Two or more races 9,200 6,000 200 65.7 1.4 9,300 2,400 100 25.8 1.3 3,700 * 39.8 *
Hispanic (any race) 62,700 38,000 500 60.6 0.5 61,900 20,200 400 32.7 0.5 17,800 * 28.0 *
Family Structure
Married couple unit 193,800 103,600 800 53.5 0.3 194,200 30,100 400 15.5 0.2 73,500 * 38.0 *
Cohabiting partner unit 29,300 14,300 300 48.8 0.8 29,000 7,500 200 25.8 0.7 6,900 * 23.1 *
Female reference person unit 42,200 26,000 400 61.5 0.7 42,900 14,700 300 34.3 0.6 11,300 * 27.2 *
Male reference person unit 16,500 6,700 200 40.4 1.1 15,900 2,800 100 17.7 0.8 3,800 * 22.7 *
* An asterisk following an estimate indicates change is statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level.
1
Implementation of 2020 Census-based population controls.
2
A margin of error (MOE) is a measure of an estimate's variability. The larger the MOE in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. This number,
when added to and subtracted from the estimate, forms the 90 percent confidence interval. MOEs shown in this table are based on standard errors calculated using replicate weights.
3
Federal surveys give respondents the option of reporting more than one race. Therefore, two basic ways of defining a race group are possible. A group, such as Asian, may be defined as those who reported Asian and no
other race (the race-alone or single-race concept) or as those who reported Asian regardless of whether they also reported another race (the race-alone-or-in-combination concept). This table shows estimates for the race-
alone population and the Two or More Races population. The primary use of the single-race population does not imply that it is the preferred method of presenting or analyzing data. The Census Bureau presents data on race
in a variety of ways. Estimates for Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders are not shown separately due to sample size.
Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding; SPM- Supplemental Poverty Measure; CTC-Child Tax Credit.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2021 and 2022 Annual Social and Economic Supplements (CPS ASEC).
17
Table 2. Total Impact of the Child Tax Credit on Supplemental Poverty Status: 2021
(Numbers in thousands. Margins of error in thousands or percentage points as appropriate. People as of March of the following year. Information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions is available at
<https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/techdocs/cpsmar22.pdf>)
SPM Rate--Age 0-17 SPM Rate--Age 0-5 SPM Rate--Age 6-17
Characteristic SPM SPM SPM SPM SPM SPM
Difference Difference Difference
(including CTC) (excluding CTC) (including CTC) (excluding CTC) (including CTC) (excluding CTC)
(Percentage (Percentage (Percentage
Panel A: Percent in Poverty Percent MOE1 (±) Percent MOE1 (±) Point) Percent MOE1 (±) Percent MOE1 (±) Point) Percent MOE1 (±) Percent MOE1 (±) Point)
All Children 5.2 0.4 9.2 0.5 -4.0 * 5.3 0.5 9.8 0.7 -4.5 * 5.2 0.4 8.9 0.5 -3.7 *
Race2 and Hispanic Origin
White 4.5 0.4 8.0 0.5 -3.5 * 4.2 0.6 8.2 0.7 -4.1 * 4.6 0.4 7.8 0.5 -3.2 *
White, not Hispanic 2.7 0.3 5.0 0.4 -2.3 * 2.4 0.5 5.1 0.7 -2.7 * 2.9 0.4 4.9 0.5 -2.1 *
Black 8.1 1.3 14.5 1.6 -6.3 * 9.7 2.2 15.9 2.6 -6.3 * 7.4 1.2 13.8 1.6 -6.4 *
Asian 5.1 1.4 7.7 1.6 -2.6 * 5.2 2.0 9.0 2.7 -3.9 * 5.1 1.6 7.1 1.8 -2.0 *
American Indian and Alaska Native 7.4 2.7 14.2 4.2 -6.8 * 6.4 3.7 13.3 6.0 -7.0 * 7.9 3.2 14.6 4.6 -6.7 *
Two or More Races 5.0 1.5 9.7 2.1 -4.7 * 5.9 2.2 11.0 3.2 -5.1 * 4.5 1.8 9.1 2.4 -4.6 *
Hispanic (any race) 8.4 0.8 14.6 1.2 -6.3 * 8.1 1.2 15.1 1.6 -7.0 * 8.5 0.9 14.4 1.3 -5.9 *
Family Structure
Married couple unit 2.8 0.3 5.0 0.4 -2.2 * 3.0 0.5 5.4 0.6 -2.4 * 2.7 0.4 4.8 0.4 -2.1 *
Cohabiting partner unit 7.5 1.4 13.4 1.9 -5.9 * 8.6 2.0 15.8 2.5 -7.2 * 6.8 1.5 11.8 2.0 -5.0 *
Female reference person unit 11.1 1.1 19.9 1.4 -8.9 * 11.5 1.8 22.5 2.5 -11.1 * 11.0 1.1 19.0 1.4 -8.1 *
Male reference person unit 8.9 1.7 14.0 2.3 -5.1 * 11.2 3.6 17.5 4.6 -6.2 * 8.4 1.9 13.2 2.5 -4.8 *
Panel B: Number in Poverty Estimate MOE1 (±) Estimate MOE1 (±) Difference Estimate MOE1 (±) Estimate MOE1 (±) Difference Estimate MOE1 (±) Estimate MOE1 (±) Difference
All Children 3,829 264 6,748 338 -2,919 * 1,196 120 2,212 159 -1,016 * 2,633 192 4,536 245 -1,904 *
Race2 and Hispanic Origin
White 2,347 197 4,142 267 -1,795 * 655 86 1,289 117 -634 * 1,692 150 2,853 200 -1,161 *
White, not Hispanic 976 116 1,796 157 -820 * 254 49 547 71 -293 * 723 95 1,249 125 -526 *
Black 917 143 1,633 177 -716 * 346 80 569 94 -224 * 571 96 1,063 125 -492 *
Asian 217 58 327 69 -110 * 70 27 122 37 -52 * 147 47 204 53 -57 *
American Indian and Alaska Native 87 34 167 53 -79 * 22 13 45 22 -24 * 65 28 121 42 -56 *
Two or More Races 220 68 427 94 -208 * 91 34 168 50 -78 * 129 53 259 70 -130 *
Hispanic (any race) 1,575 155 2,755 220 -1,180 * 476 69 888 95 -412 * 1,099 117 1,867 166 -768 *
Family Structure
Married couple unit 1,376 160 2,464 205 -1,088 * 471 77 843 96 -372 * 905 119 1,621 148 -716 *
Cohabiting partner unit 487 97 870 130 -383 * 223 55 410 72 -187 * 264 61 461 82 -197 *
Female reference person unit 1,599 166 2,876 223 -1,277 * 433 72 851 105 -418 * 1,166 123 2,025 166 -859 *
Male reference person unit 302 59 473 84 -171 * 70 24 108 34 -39 * 232 53 365 75 -132 *
* An asterisk following an estimate indicates change is statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level.
1
A margin of error (MOE) is a measure of an estimate's variability. The larger the MOE in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. This number,
when added to and subtracted from the estimate, forms the 90 percent confidence interval. MOEs shown in this table are based on standard errors calculated using replicate weights.
2
Federal surveys give respondents the option of reporting more than one race. Therefore, two basic ways of defining a race group are possible. A group, such as Asian, may be defined as those who reported Asian and no other race (the race-alone or single-race
concept) or as those who reported Asian regardless of whether they also reported another race (the race-alone-or-in-combination concept). This table shows estimates for the race-alone population and the Two or More Races population. The primary use of the
single-race population does not imply that it is the preferred method of presenting or analyzing data. The Census Bureau presents data on race in a variety of ways. Estimates for Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders are not shown separately due to sample
size.
Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding; SPM-Supplemental Poverty Measure; CTC-Child Tax Credit.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2022 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC).
18
Table 3. Percentage of Children by Income-to-Poverty Ratio, Total Impact and
Expansion Impact: 2021
(Margins of error in percentage points. People as of March of the following year. Information on confidentiality protection,
sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions is available at <https://www2.census.gov/programs-
surveys/cps/techdocs/cpsmar22.pdf>)
Panel A: Total Impact
Including CTC Excluding CTC Difference
Ratio Group Share in Group Share in Group (Percentage
Percent MOE1 (±) Percent MOE1 (±) Point)
Under 0.50 1.4 0.2 2.5 0.3 -1.1 *
0.50 to 0.99 3.8 0.3 6.6 0.4 -2.8 *
1.00 to 1.49 12.1 0.5 18.1 0.6 -6.0 *
1.50 to 1.99 19.3 0.6 17.0 0.5 2.3 *
2.00 to 3.99 44.1 0.7 38.3 0.7 5.8 *
4.00 and above 19.3 0.5 17.4 0.5 1.8 *
Panel B: Expansion Impact
ARPA CTC Pre-ARPA CTC Difference
Ratio Group Share in Group Share in Group (Percentage
Percent MOE1 (±) Percent MOE1 (±) Point)
Under 0.50 1.4 0.2 2.5 0.3 -1.0 *
0.50 to 0.99 3.8 0.3 5.7 0.4 -1.9 *
1.00 to 1.49 12.1 0.5 15.1 0.5 -3.0 *
1.50 to 1.99 19.3 0.6 17.1 0.6 2.2 *
2.00 to 3.99 44.1 0.7 41.0 0.7 3.1 *
4.00 and above 19.3 0.5 18.6 0.5 0.6
* An asterisk following an estimate indicates change is statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level.
1
A margin of error (MOE) is a measure of an estimate's variability. The larger the MOE in relation to the size of the estimate, the less
reliable the estimate. This number, when added to and subtracted from the estimate, forms the 90 percent confidence interval.
MOEs shown in this table are based on standard errors calculated using replicate weights.
Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding; CTC-Child Tax Credit; ARPA- American Rescue Plan Act.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2022 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC).
19
Table 4. Impact of the Expansion of Child Tax Credit on Supplemental Poverty Measure Status: 2021
(Numbers in thousands. Margins of error in thousands or percentage points as appropriate. People as of March of the following year. Information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions is available at
<https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/techdocs/cpsmar22.pdf>)
SPM Rate--Age 0-17 SPM Rate--Age 0-5 SPM Rate--Age 6-17
Characteristic SPM SPM SPM SPM SPM SPM
Difference Difference Difference
(ARPA CTC) (Pre-ARPA CTC) (ARPA CTC) (Pre-ARPA CTC) (ARPA CTC) (Pre-ARPA CTC)
(Percentage (Percentage (Percentage
1 1 1 1 1 1
Panel A: Percent in Poverty Percent MOE (±) Percent MOE (±) Point) Percent MOE (±) Percent MOE (±) Point) Percent MOE (±) Percent MOE (±) Point)
All Children 5.2 0.4 8.1 0.4 -2.9 * 5.3 0.5 8.5 0.7 -3.2 * 5.2 0.4 7.9 0.5 -2.8 *
Race2 and Hispanic Origin
White 4.5 0.4 6.9 0.5 -2.4 * 4.2 0.6 7.0 0.7 -2.8 * 4.6 0.4 6.9 0.5 -2.2 *
White, not Hispanic 2.7 0.3 4.5 0.4 -1.8 * 2.4 0.5 4.5 0.6 -2.1 * 2.9 0.4 4.5 0.5 -1.7 *
Black 8.1 1.3 13.4 1.5 -5.3 * 9.7 2.2 14.9 2.6 -5.3 * 7.4 1.2 12.7 1.6 -5.3 *
Asian 5.1 1.4 6.5 1.5 -1.3 * 5.2 2.0 7.1 2.4 -2.0 * 5.1 1.6 6.2 1.7 -1.0 *
American Indian and Alaska Native 7.4 2.7 12.3 3.9 -4.9 * 6.4 3.7 13.3 6.0 -6.9 * 7.9 3.2 11.9 4.1 -4.1 *
Two or More Races 5.0 1.5 8.7 2.0 -3.7 * 5.9 2.2 8.9 2.7 -3.0 * 4.5 1.8 8.6 2.4 -4.1 *
Hispanic (any race) 8.4 0.8 12.4 1.1 -4.0 * 8.1 1.2 12.6 1.5 -4.5 * 8.5 0.9 12.2 1.2 -3.8 *
Family Structure
Married couple unit 2.8 0.3 4.1 0.4 -1.2 * 3.0 0.5 4.3 0.6 -1.3 * 2.7 0.4 3.9 0.4 -1.2 *
Cohabiting partner unit 7.5 1.4 12.9 1.9 -5.4 * 8.6 2.0 15.3 2.5 -6.6 * 6.8 1.5 11.3 1.9 -4.6 *
Female reference person unit 11.1 1.1 18.3 1.3 -7.2 * 11.5 1.8 20.4 2.3 -9.0 * 11.0 1.1 17.6 1.4 -6.6 *
Male reference person unit 8.9 1.7 12.5 2.0 -3.5 * 11.2 3.6 14.0 3.9 -2.8 * 8.4 1.9 12.1 2.2 -3.7 *
1 1 1 1 1 1
Panel B: Number in Poverty Estimate MOE (±) Estimate MOE (±) Difference Estimate MOE (±) Estimate MOE (±) Difference Estimate MOE (±) Estimate MOE (±) Difference
All Children 3,829 264 5,958 320 -2,129 * 1,196 120 1,924 151 -727 * 2,633 192 4,034 229 -1,402 *
Race2 and Hispanic Origin
White 2,347 197 3,594 243 -1,247 * 655 86 1,095 111 -439 * 1,692 150 2,500 178 -808 *
White, not Hispanic 976 116 1,626 152 -649 * 254 49 483 68 -229 * 723 95 1,143 121 -420 *
Black 917 143 1,517 175 -600 * 346 80 534 92 -188 * 571 96 982 123 -411 *
Asian 217 58 273 64 -56 * 70 27 97 33 -27 * 147 47 177 49 -30 *
American Indian and Alaska Native 87 34 145 49 -57 * 22 13 45 22 -23 * 65 28 100 37 -34 *
Two or More Races 220 68 381 91 -161 * 91 34 136 42 -45 * 129 53 245 69 -116 *
Hispanic (any race) 1,575 155 2,327 199 -752 * 476 69 742 91 -265 * 1,099 117 1,585 150 -487 *
Family Structure
Married couple unit 1,376 160 1,990 179 -614 * 471 77 671 87 -200 * 905 119 1,319 132 -414 *
Cohabiting partner unit 487 97 838 128 -351 * 223 55 395 71 -172 * 264 61 442 79 -179 *
Female reference person unit 1,599 166 2,645 214 -1,046 * 433 72 770 99 -338 * 1,166 123 1,874 160 -708 *
Male reference person unit 302 59 421 74 -119 * 70 24 87 26 -17 * 232 53 334 66 -102 *
* An asterisk following an estimate indicates change is statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level.
1
A margin of error (MOE) is a measure of an estimate's variability. The larger the MOE in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. This number,
when added to and subtracted from the estimate, forms the 90 percent confidence interval. MOEs shown in this table are based on standard errors calculated using replicate weights.
2
Federal surveys give respondents the option of reporting more than one race. Therefore, two basic ways of defining a race group are possible. A group, such as Asian, may be defined as those who reported Asian and no other race (the race-alone or single-race
concept) or as those who reported Asian regardless of whether they also reported another race (the race-alone-or-in-combination concept). This table shows estimates for the race-alone population and the Two or More Races population. The primary use of the
single-race population does not imply that it is the preferred method of presenting or analyzing data. The Census Bureau presents data on race in a variety of ways. Estimates for Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders are not shown separately due to sample
size.
Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding; SPM- Supplemental Poverty Measure; CTC-Child Tax Credit; ARPA- American Rescue Plan Act.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2022 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC).
20
Table 5. Total Impact of the Child Tax Credit on Supplemental Poverty Status, Excluding Stimulus Payments: 2021
(Numbers in thousands. Margins of error in thousands or percentage points as appropriate. People as of March of the following year. Information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions is available at
<https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/techdocs/cpsmar22.pdf>)
SPM Rate--Age 0-17 SPM Rate--Age 0-5 SPM Rate--Age 6-17
Characteristic SPM SPM SPM SPM SPM SPM
Difference Difference Difference
(including CTC) (excluding CTC) (including CTC) (excluding CTC) (excluding CTC) (including CTC)
(Percentage (Percentage (Percentage
Panel A: Percent in Poverty Percent MOE1 (±) Percent MOE1 (±) Point) Percent MOE1 (±) Percent MOE1 (±) Point) Percent MOE1 (±) Percent MOE1 (±) Point)
All Children 8.3 0.4 14.9 0.6 -6.6 * 8.6 0.7 15.8 0.8 -7.2 * 8.2 0.5 14.5 0.6 -6.3 *
Race2 and Hispanic Origin
White 7.3 0.5 13.1 0.6 -5.8 * 7.2 0.7 13.7 0.9 -6.5 * 7.3 0.5 12.9 0.7 -5.5 *
White, not Hispanic 4.4 0.4 8.2 0.6 -3.8 * 4.2 0.6 8.7 0.9 -4.4 * 4.4 0.5 8.0 0.6 -3.6 *
Black 12.7 1.5 23.0 2.0 -10.3 * 13.9 2.5 25.4 3.1 -11.4 * 12.2 1.6 21.9 2.1 -9.8 *
Asian 7.6 1.5 12.3 2.0 -4.6 * 8.4 2.6 13.9 3.1 -5.5 * 7.3 1.8 11.5 2.3 -4.2 *
American Indian and Alaska Native 12.2 3.7 24.4 5.2 -12.3 * 12.7 5.9 21.0 6.9 -8.3 * 12.0 4.0 25.8 5.7 -13.9 *
Two or More Races 7.7 1.9 14.3 2.5 -6.6 * 8.3 2.6 14.9 3.7 -6.6 * 7.4 2.2 13.9 2.9 -6.6 *
Hispanic (any race) 13.7 1.1 23.7 1.5 -10.1 * 13.6 1.6 23.8 2.1 -10.2 * 13.7 1.2 23.7 1.6 -10.0 *
Family Structure
Married couple unit 4.7 0.4 9.0 0.5 -4.3 * 4.9 0.6 9.5 0.7 -4.6 * 4.6 0.4 8.8 0.5 -4.1 *
Cohabiting partner unit 11.9 1.8 20.7 2.0 -8.8 * 14.0 2.5 22.7 2.7 -8.8 * 10.5 2.0 19.4 2.4 -8.9 *
Female reference person unit 17.5 1.4 30.7 1.6 -13.2 * 19.1 2.3 35.3 2.7 -16.1 * 16.9 1.4 29.1 1.7 -12.2 *
Male reference person unit 12.5 2.1 19.9 2.8 -7.4 * 14.1 4.0 26.9 6.6 -12.8 * 12.1 2.3 18.3 2.8 -6.2 *
Panel B: Number in Poverty Estimate MOE1 (±) Estimate MOE1 (±) Difference Estimate MOE1 (±) Estimate MOE1 (±) Difference Estimate MOE1 (±) Estimate MOE1 (±) Difference
All Children 6,099 312 10,920 427 -4,820 * 1,933 150 3,557 190 -1,625 * 4,166 233 7,362 305 -3,196 *
Race2 and Hispanic Origin
White 3,806 248 6,824 328 -3,018 * 1,132 112 2,142 146 -1,010 * 2,674 188 4,682 246 -2,008 *
White, not Hispanic 1,575 143 2,956 210 -1,381 * 456 65 932 98 -477 * 1,119 116 2,024 157 -905 *
Black 1,440 171 2,602 223 -1,162 * 498 91 907 111 -409 * 941 123 1,695 161 -754 *
Asian 323 66 518 87 -196 * 115 35 189 43 -75 * 208 52 329 68 -121 *
American Indian and Alaska Native 143 47 287 67 -144 * 43 22 71 27 -28 * 100 37 215 56 -116 *
Two or More Races 337 83 626 115 -288 * 128 41 228 58 -101 * 210 63 398 86 -188 *
Hispanic (any race) 2,574 202 4,466 280 -1,892 * 800 94 1,400 124 -599 * 1,774 153 3,066 206 -1,292 *
Family Structure
Married couple unit 2,316 183 4,407 258 -2,090 * 761 89 1,470 120 -709 * 1,555 139 2,936 185 -1,381 *
Cohabiting partner unit 773 122 1,346 150 -573 * 362 68 589 82 -227 * 410 81 757 103 -346 *
Female reference person unit 2,523 211 4,430 277 -1,907 * 722 96 1,331 128 -609 * 1,801 160 3,099 202 -1,298 *
Male reference person unit 422 75 673 108 -250 * 87 27 167 55 -80 * 335 67 505 87 -170 *
* An asterisk following an estimate indicates change is statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level.
1
A margin of error (MOE) is a measure of an estimate's variability. The larger the MOE in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. This number,
when added to and subtracted from the estimate, forms the 90 percent confidence interval. MOEs shown in this table are based on standard errors calculated using replicate weights.
2
Federal surveys give respondents the option of reporting more than one race. Therefore, two basic ways of defining a race group are possible. A group, such as Asian, may be defined as those who reported Asian and no other race (the race-alone or single-race
concept) or as those who reported Asian regardless of whether they also reported another race (the race-alone-or-in-combination concept). This table shows estimates for the race-alone population and the Two or More Races population. The primary use of the
single-race population does not imply that it is the preferred method of presenting or analyzing data. The Census Bureau presents data on race in a variety of ways. Estimates for Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders are not shown separately due to sample
size.
Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding; SPM- Supplemental Poverty Measure; CTC-Child Tax Credit.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2022 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC).
21
Table 6. Impact of the Expansion of Child Tax Credit on Supplemental Poverty Measure Status, Excluding Stimulus Payments: 2021
(Numbers in thousands. Margins of error in thousands or percentage points as appropriate. People as of March of the following year. Information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions is available at
<https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/techdocs/cpsmar22.pdf>)
SPM Rate--Age 0-17 SPM Rate--Age 0-5 SPM Rate--Age 6-17
Characteristic SPM SPM SPM SPM SPM SPM
Difference Difference Difference
(ARPA CTC) (Pre-ARPA CTC) (ARPA CTC) (Pre-ARPA CTC) (ARPA CTC) (Pre-ARPA CTC)
(Percentage (Percentage (Percentage
Panel A: Percent in Poverty Percent MOE1 (±) Percent MOE1 (±) Point) Percent MOE1 (±) Percent MOE1 (±) Point) Percent MOE1 (±) Percent MOE1 (±) Point)
All Children 8.3 0.4 12.6 0.6 -4.3 * 8.6 0.7 13.5 0.8 -4.9 * 8.2 0.5 12.2 0.6 -4.0 *
2
Race and Hispanic Origin
White 7.3 0.5 10.9 0.6 -3.6 * 7.2 0.7 11.4 0.9 -4.2 * 7.3 0.5 10.6 0.6 -3.3 *
White, not Hispanic 4.4 0.4 6.8 0.5 -2.5 * 4.2 0.6 7.2 0.8 -3.0 * 4.4 0.5 6.7 0.6 -2.2 *
Black 12.7 1.5 20.2 1.9 -7.4 * 13.9 2.5 22.4 3.1 -8.4 * 12.2 1.6 19.1 1.9 -7.0 *
Asian 7.6 1.5 10.3 1.8 -2.7 * 8.4 2.6 12.8 3.1 -4.3 * 7.3 1.8 9.1 2.0 -1.9 *
American Indian and Alaska Native 12.2 3.7 21.4 4.9 -9.2 * 12.7 5.9 16.6 5.8 -3.9 * 12.0 4.0 23.3 5.7 -11.3 *
Two or More Races 7.7 1.9 12.2 2.4 -4.5 * 8.3 2.6 13.0 3.5 -4.7 * 7.4 2.2 11.8 2.7 -4.5 *
Hispanic (any race) 13.7 1.1 19.9 1.4 -6.3 * 13.6 1.6 20.3 1.9 -6.6 * 13.7 1.2 19.8 1.5 -6.1 *
Family Structure
Married couple unit 4.7 0.4 6.7 0.5 -2.0 * 4.9 0.6 7.2 0.7 -2.3 * 4.6 0.4 6.5 0.5 -1.9 *
Cohabiting partner unit 11.9 1.8 19.6 2.0 -7.7 * 14.0 2.5 22.0 2.8 -8.0 * 10.5 2.0 18.0 2.3 -7.4 *
Female reference person unit 17.5 1.4 27.7 1.6 -10.2 * 19.1 2.3 32.5 2.8 -13.4 * 16.9 1.4 26.0 1.6 -9.1 *
Male reference person unit 12.5 2.1 17.4 2.5 -4.9 * 14.1 4.0 18.8 4.8 -4.7 * 12.1 2.3 17.1 2.8 -5.0 *
Panel B: Number in Poverty Estimate MOE1 (±) Estimate MOE1 (±) Difference Estimate MOE1 (±) Estimate MOE1 (±) Difference Estimate MOE1 (±) Estimate MOE1 (±) Difference
All Children 6,099 312 9,226 414 -3,127 * 1,933 150 3,035 189 -1,103 * 4,166 233 6,190 288 -2,024 *
Race2 and Hispanic Origin
White 3,806 248 5,662 317 -1,856 * 1,132 112 1,787 140 -655 * 2,674 188 3,875 232 -1,201 *
White, not Hispanic 1,575 143 2,466 188 -891 * 456 65 777 84 -321 * 1,119 116 1,688 144 -569 *
Black 1,440 171 2,279 215 -839 * 498 91 800 111 -301 * 941 123 1,479 149 -538 *
Asian 323 66 435 80 -112 * 115 35 174 42 -59 * 208 52 262 58 -54 *
American Indian and Alaska Native 143 47 251 63 -108 * 43 22 56 23 -13 * 100 37 194 54 -95 *
Two or More Races 337 83 537 109 -200 * 128 41 199 55 -71 * 210 63 338 81 -128 *
Hispanic (any race) 2,574 202 3,753 267 -1,178 * 800 94 1,190 115 -390 * 1,774 153 2,562 196 -788 *
Family Structure
Married couple unit 2,316 183 3,304 233 -987 * 761 89 1,124 110 -363 * 1,555 139 2,180 162 -624 *
Cohabiting partner unit 773 122 1,269 149 -497 * 362 68 569 83 -206 * 410 81 701 99 -290 *
Female reference person unit 2,523 211 3,998 270 -1,475 * 722 96 1,226 128 -504 * 1,801 160 2,772 193 -971 *
Male reference person unit 422 75 590 96 -167 * 87 27 117 35 -29 * 335 67 473 85 -138 *
* An asterisk following an estimate indicates change is statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level.
1
A margin of error (MOE) is a measure of an estimate's variability. The larger the MOE in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. This number,
when added to and subtracted from the estimate, forms the 90 percent confidence interval. MOEs shown in this table are based on standard errors calculated using replicate weights.
2
Federal surveys give respondents the option of reporting more than one race. Therefore, two basic ways of defining a race group are possible. A group, such as Asian, may be defined as those who reported Asian and no other race (the race-alone or single-race
concept) or as those who reported Asian regardless of whether they also reported another race (the race-alone-or-in-combination concept). This table shows estimates for the race-alone population and the Two or More Races population. The primary use of the
single-race population does not imply that it is the preferred method of presenting or analyzing data. The Census Bureau presents data on race in a variety of ways. Estimates for Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders are not shown separately due to
sample size.
Note:Details may not sum to totals due to rounding; SPM-Supplemental Poverty Measure CTC-Child Tax Credit; ARPA- American Rescue Plan Act.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2022 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC).
22
Table 7. Percentage of Children by Income-to-Poverty Ratio Excluding Stimulus
Payments, Total Impact and Expansion Impact: 2021
(Margins of error in percentage points. People as of March of the following year. Information on confidentiality protection, sampling
error, nonsampling error, and definitions is available at <https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/techdocs/cpsmar22.pdf>)
Panel A: Total Impact
Including CTC Excluding CTC
Share in Group Share in Group
Ratio Group
Difference
1 1
Percent MOE (±) Percent MOE (±) (Percentage Point)
Under 0.50 2.2 0.2 3.9 0.3 -1.7 *
0.50 to 0.99 6.1 0.4 10.9 0.5 -4.9 *
1.00 to 1.49 16.9 0.5 19.4 0.6 -2.6 *
1.50 to 1.99 17.8 0.6 15.1 0.5 2.7 *
2.00 to 3.99 38.7 0.7 34.0 0.7 4.7 *
4.00 and above 18.3 0.5 16.7 0.5 1.6 *
Panel B: Expansion Impact
ARPA CTC Pre-ARPA CTC
Ratio Group Share in Group Share in Group Difference
1 1
Percent MOE (±) Percent MOE (±) (Percentage Point)
Under 0.50 2.2 0.2 3.7 0.3 -1.5 *
0.50 to 0.99 6.1 0.4 8.9 0.5 -2.8 *
1.00 to 1.49 16.9 0.5 17.6 0.6 -0.8 *
1.50 to 1.99 17.8 0.6 15.9 0.5 1.9 *
2.00 to 3.99 38.7 0.7 36.1 0.6 2.6 *
4.00 and above 18.3 0.5 17.8 0.5 0.5
* An asterisk following an estimate indicates change is statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level.
1
A margin of error (MOE) is a measure of an estimate's variability. The larger the MOE in relation to the size of the estimate, the less
reliable the estimate. This number, when added to and subtracted from the estimate, forms the 90 percent confidence interval.
MOEs shown in this table are based on standard errors calculated using replicate weights.
Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding; CTC-Child Tax Credit; ARPA- American Rescue Plan Act.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2022 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC).
23
File and source
- File
- the-impact-of-the-2021-expanded-ctc-on-child-poverty.pdf
- Size
- 1,214,729 bytes
- SHA-256
- f0fff556e37e1d08c90967f2a33914e6e621478e50b73f6d8d2b4c6eb27ac01a
- Original
- www.census.gov