On August 29th, the U.S. Census Bureau released new data on child poverty that show a disturbing increase in rural child poverty rates in many states. The child poverty rate is the most widely used indicator of child well-being because poverty is closely linked to undesirable outcomes in areas such as health, education, emotional welfare, and delinquency. Changes in child poverty signal important changes in children's quality of life and life chances

Sarah Savage

William P. O'Hare

IssueLab

  C A R S E Y  I N S T I T U T ECARSEYI N S T I T U T EFACT SHEET NO. 1SUMMER 2006Child Poverty in Rural America: New Data Shows Increases in 41 States W I L L I A M  P.  O ’ H A R E  A N D  S A R A H  S AVA G E  On August 29th, the U.S. Census Bureau released new data on child poverty that show a disturbing increase in rural child poverty rates in many states. Th e child poverty rate is the most widely used indicator of child well-being because poverty is closely linked to undesirable outcomes in areas such as health, education, emotional welfare, and delinquency. Changes in child poverty signal important changes in children’s quality of life and life chances. Table 1 shows how child poverty rates have changed between 2000 and 2005 for the children living outside metropolitan areas in each state. (Data are collected in 2000 and 2005, but they actually reﬂ ect poverty in 1999 and 2004.) Release of data from the Census Bureau’s new American Community Survey provide the ﬁ rst chance we have had to look at state-by-state changes in rural child poverty since the 2000 Census data provided rural child poverty data for the 1990 to 2000 period. Th e data shown here are based on the oﬃ  cial poverty measure as determined by the U.S. Oﬃ  ce of Management and Budget. Th e oﬃ  cial poverty measure consists of a series of income thresholds based on family size and composition. Th e 2005 poverty line was $19,806 for a family of two adults and two children. A U T H O R SDr. William P. O’Hare (bbohare@comcast.net) is a visiting senior fellow at the Carsey Institute. Sarah Savage (ssavage@cisunix.unh.edu) is a research assistant at the Carsey Institute.Huddleston Hall, 73 Main Street, Durham, NH  03824(603) 862-2821 • www.carseyinstitute.unh.eduTh e Carsey Institute Reports on Rural America are supported by the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s initiative to strengthen rural families, the Ford Foundation, and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.Key results include: • Rural child poverty rates increased between 2000 and 2005 in forty-one of the ﬁ ft y states (data were not available in four states). • In eighteen states, the increase in the rural child poverty rate was higher than the increase in the overall U.S. rural child poverty rates between 2000 and 2005. • Th e state with the biggest percentage point increase in rural child poverty between 2000 and 2005 was Maine (+ 7.4 percentage points), followed by North Carolina (+ 6.7 percentage points), and Mississippi (+ 6.1 percentage points). • Only six states showed a decrease in the rural child poverty rate, lead by Wyoming with a 4.2 percentage point decrease. • Five states (Maine, North Carolina, Mississippi, Ohio and Indiana) experienced increases of 5 per-centage points or more in the rural child poverty rate between 2000 and 2005. • Th e rural child poverty rate in 2005 ranges from a low of just over 6 percent in Connecticut to a high of nearly 37 percent in Mississippi. • Five states (Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, Arizona, and Alabama) all had rural child poverty rates above 30 percent in 2005, which reﬂ ects the pervasive child poverty in the rural South.Building Knowledge for Families and Communities in the 21st Century  C A R S E Y  I N S T I T U T ETable 1. Child poverty in non-metropolitan areas1 by state: 2000 and 2005 2000 Census   2005 American Community Survey Population under Population under Percent of population Population under Population under Percent of population Percentage point  age 18*  age 18  under age 18  age 18*  age 18   under age 18  change in poverty rate    below poverty below poverty  below poverty below poverty from 2000 to 2005U.S. 13,742,721 2,644,052 19.2 11,336,476 2,552,591 22.5 3.3Alabama  332,749 87,110 26.2 305,855 92,525 30.3 4.1Alaska  112,840 15,180 13.5 63,005 11,281 17.9 4.5Arizona  167,417 49,343 29.5 171,709 52,966 30.8 1.4Arkansas  331,938 81,708 24.6 267,433 78,474 29.3 4.7California  282,892 62,521 22.1 176,776 36,399 20.6 -1.5Colorado  167,164 24,106 14.4 150,298 23,964 15.9 1.5Connecticut  34,966 2,336 6.7 67,820 4,270 6.3 -0.4Delaware  34,417 5,273 15.3 36,240 6,595 18.2 2.9District of Columbia  N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AFlorida  241,825 55,002 22.7 224,488 54,076 24.1 1.3Georgia  651,551 150,267 23.1 420,562 115,467 27.5 4.4Hawaii  84,919 14,387 16.9 89,365 14,304 16.0 -0.9Idaho  220,968 34,694 15.7 125,259 24,631 19.7 4.0Illinois  437,147 64,090 14.7 369,445 68,454 18.5 3.9Indiana  428,843 49,635 11.6 343,648 58,494 17.0 5.4Iowa  391,775 43,773 11.2 291,437 40,536 13.9 2.7Kansas  297,659 42,243 14.2 234,632 41,680 17.8 3.6Kentucky  498,717 127,783 25.6 400,978 116,053 28.9 3.3Louisiana  296,626 92,517 31.2 281,915 88,837 31.5 0.3Maine 188,129 28,321 15.1 108,732 24,410 22.4 7.4Maryland  91,722 13,636 14.9 65,515 11,159 17.0 2.2Massachusetts  54,791 5,654 10.3 N/A N/A N/A N/AMichigan  426,474 57,527 13.5 413,720 73,203 17.7 4.2Minnesota  365,389 41,266 11.3 309,143 41,452 13.4 2.1Mississippi  491,699 150,376 30.6 417,931 153,366 36.7 6.1Missouri 437,843 88,848 20.3 339,942 83,511 24.6 4.3Montana  150,910 30,806 20.4 131,011 27,475 21.0 0.6Nebraska  209,175 28,292 13.5 176,518 27,184 15.4 1.9Nevada  65,920 8,101 12.3 60,330 9,414 15.6 3.3 New Hampshire  115,543 10,126 8.8 102,684 10,408 10.1 1.4New Jersey  N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico  229,836 68,609 29.9 172,450 53,217 30.9 1.0New York  350,537 60,687 17.3 334,081 61,107 18.3 1.0North Carolina  620,149 128,003 20.6 631,052 172,761 27.4 6.7North Dakota  90,858 15,228 16.8 71,923 9,868 13.7 -3.0Ohio  545,599 73,234 13.4 527,004 100,002 19.0 5.6Oklahoma  336,924 77,161 22.9 291,120 72,117 24.8 1.9Oregon  221,997 39,533 17.8 180,715 39,541 21.9 4.1Pennsylvania  433,571 65,103 15.0 416,020 74,612 17.9 2.9Rhode Island  13,897 1,668 12.0 N/A N/A N/A N/ASouth Carolina  304,110 72,489 23.8 247,714 65,833 26.6 2.7South Dakota  130,019 26,332 20.3 100,750 19,833 19.7 -0.6Tennessee  426,258 83,870 19.7 354,727 86,580 24.4 4.7Texas  827,383 205,766 24.9 726,242 206,081 28.4 3.5Utah  170,771 22,891 13.4 80,364 11,196 13.9 0.5Vermont  105,163 13,244 12.6 86,217 12,912 15.0 2.4Virginia  334,054 56,893 17.0 227,005 46,541 20.5 3.5Washington  250,389 49,332 19.7 168,512 34,747 20.6 0.9West Virginia  227,053 62,977 27.7 164,114 45,996 28.0 0.3Wisconsin  423,362 43,238 10.2 329,572 41,164 12.5 2.3Wyoming  88,783 12,873 14.5 75,480 7,801 10.3 -4.2N/A = Not applicable.1. Metropolitan areas are deﬁ ned based on the the U.S. Census Bureau’s deﬁ nitions as of June 1999.  The full list of counties and New England towns used to deﬁ ne metropolitan areas is available online at: http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/99mﬁ ps.txt. *for whom poverty is determined C

Child Poverty in Rural America: New Data Shows Increases in 41 States

A study by the Carsey Institute, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, found that in forty-one states, a higher percentage of rural children live in poverty than did in 2000. While the poverty level in 2006 was relatively stagnant compared to 2005\u27s poverty level, the situation is clearly becoming worse for rural kids

Child Poverty in Rural America: New Data Shows Increases in 41 States

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

IssueLab

UNH Scholars' Repository