New federal tax credits were authorized in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, P.L. 111-148, as amended), to help certain individuals pay for health insurance coverage, beginning in 2014. ACA requires "American Health Benefit Exchanges" to be established in every state by January 1, 2014, either by the state itself or by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). Exchanges will not be insurers, but will provide eligible individuals and small businesses with access to private health insurance plans. Generally, the plans offered through the exchanges will provide comprehensive coverage and meet all ACA market reforms, as applicable. One of the requirements that most exchange plans must meet is to provide a certain level of coverage generosity based on actuarial value. Each level of coverage generosity is designated according to a precious metal and corresponds to a specific actuarial value: Bronze (actuarial value of 60%), Silver (70%), Gold (80%), and Platinum (90%). To make exchange coverage more affordable, certain individuals will receive premium assistance in the form of federal tax credits. The premium credit will be an advanceable, refundable tax credit, meaning taxpayers need not wait until the end of the tax year in order to benefit from the credit, and may claim the full credit amount even if they have little or no federal income tax liability. Although the premium credits will not be available until 2014, the illustrations provided in this report are based on current federal poverty levels, to reflect how the estimated premium credit amounts compare to current income levels. Under ACA, the amount received in premium credits is based on income tax returns. These amounts are reconciled in the next year and can result in overpayment of premium credits if income increases, which must be repaid to the federal government. ACA limited the amount of required repayments. Since the enactment of ACA, these limits have been increased in order to raise revenues for other legislative initiatives (e.g., P.L. 111-309 and P.L. 112-9). Most recently, on June 7, 2012, the House passed H.R. 436, the Health Care Cost Reduction Act of 2012, which includes a measure that would remove all limits on repayment, making individuals fully liable for the full amount of any premium credit overpayment. Relative affordability of health insurance premiums individuals and families might face within health insurance exchanges will likely vary from exchange to exchange based on a host of factors, including enrollees' age, the varying prices paid by plans for medical goods and services, the breadth of the provider network, the provisions regarding how out-of-network care is paid for (or not), and the use of tools by the plan to reduce health care utilization (e.g., prior authorization for certain tests). Examples provided in the Appendix of this report depict a range by which premiums might reasonably be expected to vary based on enrollees' age, and variation in medical costs across geographic areas, for purposes of illustration only. Actual premiums will likely vary among health insurance exchanges based on a wide range of factors other than those depicted in this report.

In 2011, 46.2 million people were counted as poor in the United States, the same number as in 2010 and the largest number of persons counted as poor in the measure's 53-year recorded history. The poverty rate, or percent of the population considered poor under the official definition, was reported at 15.0% in 2011, statistically unchanged from 2010. The 2011 poverty rate of 15.0% is well above its most recent pre-recession low of 12.3% in 2006, and has reached the highest level seen in the past 18 years (1993). The increase in poverty over the past four years reflects the effects of the economic recession that began in December 2007. Some analysts expect poverty to remain above pre-recessionary levels for as long as a decade, and perhaps longer, given the depth of the recession and slow pace of economic recovery. The pre-recession poverty rate of 12.3% in 2006 was well above the 11.3% rate at the beginning of the decade, in 2000, which marked a historical low previously attained in 1973 (11.1%, a rate statistically tied with the 2000 poverty rate). The incidence of poverty varies widely across the population according to age, education, labor force attachment, family living arrangements, and area of residence, among other factors. Under the official poverty definition, an average family of four was considered poor in 2011 if its pretax cash income for the year was below $23,021. The measure of poverty currently in use was developed nearly 50 years ago, and was adopted as the "official" U.S. statistical measure of poverty in 1969. Except for minor technical changes, and adjustments for price changes in the economy, the "poverty line" (i.e., the income thresholds by which families or individuals with incomes that fall below are deemed to be poor) is the same as that developed nearly a half century ago, reflecting a notion of economic need based on living standards that prevailed in the mid-1950s. Moreover, poverty as it is currently measured only counts families' and individuals' pre-tax money income against the poverty line in determining whether or not they are poor. In-kind benefits, such as benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly named the Food Stamp program) and housing assistance are not accounted for under the "official" poverty definition, nor are the effects of taxes or tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or Child Tax Credit (CTC). In this sense, the "official" measure fails to capture the effects of a variety of programs and policies specifically designed to address income poverty. A congressionally commissioned study conducted by a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel of experts recommended, some 16 years ago, that a new U.S. poverty measure be developed, offering a number of specific recommendations. The Census Bureau, in partnership with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), has developed a Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) designed to implement many of the NAS panel recommendations. The SPM is to be considered a "research" measure, to supplement the "official" poverty measure. Guided by new research, the Census Bureau and BLS intend to improve the SPM over time. The "official" statistical poverty measure will continue to be used by programs that use it as the basis for allocating funds under formula and matching grant programs. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will continue to issue poverty income guidelines derived from "official" Census Bureau poverty thresholds. HHS poverty guidelines are used in determining individual and family income eligibility under a number of federal and state programs. Estimates from the SPM differ from the "official" poverty measure and are presented in a final section of this report.

This report examines the antipoverty effects of unemployment insurance benefits during the past recession and the economic recovery. The analysis highlights the impact of the additional and expanded unemployment insurance (UI) benefits available to unemployed workers through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) and the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08) program (Title IV of P.L. 110-252). In 2011, approximately 56% of all unemployed individuals were receiving UI benefits (down from a high of 66% in 2010) and thus were directly affected by legislative changes to the UI system. UI benefits appear to have a large poverty-reducing effect among unemployed workers who receive them. Given the extended length of unemployment among jobless workers, the additional weeks of UI benefits beyond the regular program's 26-week limit appear to have had an especially important effect in poverty reduction. Estimates presented in this report are based on Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of 25 years of data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS/ASEC), administered from 1988 to 2012. The period examined includes the three most recent economic recessions. This report contributes to recent research on the antipoverty effects of unemployment insurance in several ways. Its period of analysis allows comparisons across the three most recent recessions. The report includes estimates of the effects on the poverty rate for the unemployed, for those receiving UI, and for families that report at least one family member receiving UI. It also estimates how much of reported UI benefits went directly to decreasing family poverty levels. This report's analysis shows that UI benefits appear to reduce the prevalance of poverty significantly among the population that receives them. The UI benefits' poverty reduction effects appear to be especially important during and immediately after recessions. The analysis also finds that there was a markedly higher impact on poverty in the most recent recession than in the previous two recessionary periods. The estimated antipoverty effects of UI benefits in 2011 were about 50% higher than that of two previous peak years of unemployment-1993 and 2003. In 2011, over one quarter (26.5%) of unemployed people who received UI benefits would have been considered poor prior to taking UI benefits into account; after counting UI benefits, their poverty rate decreased by just under half, to 13.8%. UI receipt affects not only the poverty status of the person receiving the benefit, but the poverty status of all related family members, as well. In 2011, while an estimated 10.2 million people reported UI receipt during the year, an additional 15.8 million family members lived with the 10.2 million receiving the benefit. Consequently, UI receipt in 2011 affected the income status of some 26.0 million persons. In 2011, the poverty rate for persons in families who had received unemployment benefits was almost 40% less than it otherwise would have been. In 2011, UI benefits lifted an estimated 2.3 million people out of poverty, of which well over one quarter (26.8%; 620,000) were children living with a family member who received UI benefits.

Sure to raise the hackles of many across the nation is any mention of welfare and federal entitlement programs. All agree that no one should be on welfare, but the question is what to do about those who really need the income provided by the federal government. In 1996, welfare reform legislation enacted the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which is a block grant provided to the state with a chief purpose of ending the dependence of needy families on government assistance. Among the principal groups impacted by the welfare reform legislation are female headed families with children. Recent analyses have revealed that single mothers are more likely to be working than in the past and that welfare receipt among poor families with women at the head has declined. Despite these trends, single mothers' net income has shown no increase, suggesting that full-time work may not be enough to eliminate poverty and welfare dependency among female families. This book reports on several current trends in the economic status of female headed families, providing an overview of federal programs and their effects along with several useful charts based on Census Bureau information. The combination of statistics and evaluation make for an important contribution to the study of initiatives to defeat poverty and income deficiencies in a significant part of the population.

Family and work structure most Americans' lives. Work provides the principal means by which most families support themselves, and public policies directed at low-income families with children have generally attempted to encourage and support work. Family structure also has been a focus of public policy because an increasing number of children live with a single parent, and poverty rates for such children are much higher than for those in married-couple families. Families with children, regardless of marital status, are at greater risk of poverty, with child poverty rates higher than those for either non-aged or aged adults.