Measuring by race, place, and family, this brief highlights poverty rates for two rural groups--young black children and children of single mothers--who each face rates around 50%

Bean, Jessica A.

Mattingly, Marybeth J.

English

UNH Scholars' Repository

Carseyi n s t i t u t eIssue BrIef No. 18Fall 2010		 Key	Findings• Poverty rates are consistently highest among black children, followed by Hispanic and white children. • Children under age 6 who live in rural areas are more likely to be poor than young children in other locales, regardless of race. • Rural poverty rates are as high as 55.8 percent among young black children, 40.4 percent among young Hispanics, and 22.2 percent among young white children. • In central cities, poverty rates are significantly lower than in rural places, at 45.3 percent for young black children, 37.3 percent for young Hispanic children, and 14.1 percent for young white children.• The lowest poverty rates are in the suburbs (31.3 percent of young black children, 24.9 percent of young Hispanic children, and 11.0 percent of young white children are poor).• Single-mother families (including divorced, separated, or widowed) in rural america face the highest poverty rates (49.4 percent), often nearly five times higher than married couples with children in the same areas. • Nearly one in ten married couples with children in rural and urban america are poor. The	unequal	Distribution	of	Child	Poverty:		Highest	rates	among	young	Blacks	and	Children	of	single	Mothers	in	rural	americaMary B e tH 	 J . 	 M at t i ng ly 	 a nD 	 J e s s i C a 	 a . 	 B e anthis	brief	reports	poverty	rates	by	race	and	family	structure	for	all	children	and	by	place	and	region	for	young	children	(those	under	age	6).1	We	use	the	u.s.	Office	of	Management	and	Budget	income	thresholds.	in	2009,	the	poverty	line	for	a	family	of	four	(two	adults,	two	children)	was	$21,756.2	For	all	children,	especially	the	youngest,	the	highest	rates	of	poverty	are	among	blacks,	followed	by	Hispanics	and	whites	(see	table	1).3	This	pattern	persists	across	urban,	suburban,	and	rural	places,	with	estimated	rates	for	children	under	age	18	as	high	as	48.9	percent	for	rural	black	children	and	36.6	percent	for	rural	Hispanic	children.	The	rates	for	rural	white	children	are	significantly	lower	at	18.5	percent—although	still	higher	than	national	averages.	although	all	children	suffer	consequences	of	being	poor,	young	children	are	particularly	vulnerable,	and	the	conse-quences	of	early	poverty	ripple	through	the	life	cycle	in	the	form	of	poorer	life-long	health,	fewer	years	of	completed	schooling,	and	other	disadvantages.4	Our	analyses	reveal	that	poverty	rates	are	typically	higher	among	the	very	young.	Further,	young	white,	black,	and	Hispanic	rural	children	are	more	often	poorer	than	their	urban	and	suburban	coun-terparts.	More	than	one	in	five	young	rural	white	children	are	poor,	as	are	more	than	two	in	five	young	rural	Hispanic	children;	however,	this	affects	a	staggering	one	in	two	young	rural	black	children.	according	to	u.s.	Census	Bureau	data,	nearly	17	million	children	live	in	single-mother	homes.	indeed,	50.2	percent	of	black	children,	24.9	percent	of	Hispanic	children,	and	17.7	percent	of	white	children	are	living	with	only	their	mothers.5	in	all	place	types,	across	all	regions,	single-mother	families	have	dramatically	higher	poverty	rates	(40	percent)	than	married	couples	with	children	(8	percent)	(see	table	2).	There	are	also	important	local	and	regional	distinctions.	nearly	one	in	two	rural	single-mother	families	are	poor,	and	rates	are	highest	in	the	rural	south,	where	more	than	54	percent	of	such	families	live	in	poverty.	Poverty	among	single-mother	families	is	high	in	the	Midwest	as	well,	where	rates	approach	50	percent	in	urban	and	rural	areas.	For	both	family	types,	poverty	is	lowest	in	the	suburban	northeast,	although	the	Total Population Central City Suburban RuralPercentestimateMargin	of		errorPercentestimateMargin	of		errorPercentestimateMargin	of		errorPercentestimateMargin	of		errorChildren Under 6White 14.0 +/-	0.24 14.1 +/-0.53 11.0 +/-0.27 22.2 +/-0.56Black 41.0 +/-0.51 45.3 +/-0.77 31.3 +/-2.79 55.8 +/-1.80Hispanic 33.6 +/-0.41 37.3 +/-0.62 24.9 +/-0.58 40.4 +/-1.52Children Under 18WhiteUnited States 12.0 +/-0.12 12.6 +/-0.29 9.4 +/-0.27 18.5 +/-0.29Northeast 9.7 +/-0.23 14.8 +/-0.78 7.4 +/-0.25 16.4 +/-0.65Midwest 13.1 +/-0.22 15.6 +/-0.61 10.0 +/-0.26 20.0 +/-0.45South 13.0 +/-0.21 11.2 +/-0.47 10.6 +/-0.25 20.6 +/-0.48West 10.5 +/-0.26 10.8 +/-0.44 9.2 +/-0.32 15.3 +/-0.73BlackUnited States 36.3 +/-0.34 41.0 +/-0.97 27.0 +/-0.53 48.9 +/-1.03Northeast 31.1 +/-0.78 34.9 +/-1.06 24.5 +/-1.31 25.2 +/-5.63Midwest 44.1 +/-0.74 49.7 +/-0.90 32.0 +/-1.38 39.9 +/-3.65South 36.2 +/-0.45 40.9 +/-0.77 26.6 +/-0.65 50.3 +/-1.08West 30.3 +/-1.16 33.2 +/-1.52 26.6 +/-1.88 26.4 +/-7.70HispanicUnited States 30.8 +/-0.25 34.8 +/-0.37 25.1 +/-0.39 36.6 +/-0.88Northeast 32.1 +/-0.72 39.7 +/-1.00 23.0 +/-1.01 30.3 +/-8.85Midwest 30.5 +/-0.76 36.5 +/-1.25 22.8 +/-1.18 34.3 +/-1.95South 33.1 +/-0.42 36.3 +/-0.72 28.3 +/-0.53 42.2 +/-1.94West 28.7 +/-0.76 31.6 +/-0.57 25.4 +/-0.92 31.1 +/-3.43a.	unit	of	analysis	is	children.b.	levels	of	urbanization	are	defined	as	follows:	rural	consists	of	aCs	geographic	components	“not	in	metropolitan	or	micropolitan	statistical	area”	and	“in	micropolitan	statistical	area,”	suburban	includes	“in	metropolitcan	statistical	area—not	in	principal	city,”	and	central	city	includes	“in	metropolitan	stastical	area—in	principal	city.”c.	Data	are	based	on	2009	aCs	estimates.	d.	Percentage	points	and	margins	of	error	are	based	on	rounded	percentages	and	may	differ	slightly	from	those	that	would	be	obtained	using	unrounded	figures. Table 1. Child poverty by place type and region in 2009arate	there	for	single	mothers	is	29.9	percent,	nearly	ten	times	the	rate	for	married	couples	(3	percent).	young	children	face	high	rates	of	poverty	in	america,	especially	if	they	are	children	of	color	living	in	rural	areas	or	in	lone-parent	families.	research	has	shown	that	access	to	social	programs,	such	as	Women,	infants,	and	Children’s	(WiC),	Medicaid,	and	home	visiting	can	limit	some	of	the	negative	effects	of	poverty.6	in	addition,	certain	educational	programs,	such	as	early	Head	start,	are	shown	to	have	positive	effects	on	child	development,7	which	could	set	children	up	for	long-term	educational	success.	For	children	in	single-mother	homes,	focusing	on	increased	compliance	with	child	support	orders	may	be	critical	for	lowering	poverty.8	Overall,	access	to	these	types	of	programs	should	be	improved,	particularly	for	families	in	rural	areas,	to	provide	support	for	these	very	young	children	who	are	already	facing	a	challenging	future.			 2	 C a r s e y 	 i n s t i t u t eTotal Population Central City Suburban RuralPercent	estimateMargin	of	errorPercent	estimateMargin	of	errorPercent	estimateMargin	of	errorPercent	estimateMargin	of	errorMarried couples with childrenunited	states 7.5 +/-0.11 10.0 +/-0.27 5.5 +/-0.14 9.9 +/-0.34northeast 5.0 +/-0.26 10.1 +/-0.73 3.1 +/-0.22 6.5 +/-0.56Midwest 6.5 +/-0.20 9.6 +/-0.51 4.4 +/-0.22 8.6 +/-0.52south 8.5 +/-0.20 10.3 +/-0.48 6.5 +/-0.26 12.0 +/-0.57West 8.6 +/-0.25 9.9 +/-0.40 7.4 +/-0.33 9.7 +/-0.87Single mothersunited	states 40.0 +/-0.36 43.8 +/-0.58 33.2 +/-0.49 49.4 +/-0.87northeast 36.6 +/-0.65 43.6 +/-0.84 29.9 +/-1.11 39.8 +/-2.05Midwest 42.2 +/-0.72 48.3 +/-1.37 34.1 +/-1.14 46.8 +/-1.42south 42.1 +/-0.53 44.7 +/-0.68 34.5 +/-0.68 54.0 +/-1.38West 36.4 +/-0.80 38.2 +/-1.13 33.0 +/-1.07 43.9 +/-2.57a.	unit	of	analysis	is	families.	b.	levels	of	urbanization	are	defined	as	follows:	rural	consists	of	aCs	geographic	components	“not	in	metropolitan	or	micropolitan	statistical	area”	and	“in	micropolitan	statistical	area,”	suburban	includes	“in	metropolitcan	statistical	area—not	in	principal	city,”	and	central	city	includes	“in	metropolitan	stastical	area—in	principal	city.”c.	Data	are	based	on	2009	aCs	estimates.	d.	Percentage	points	and	margins	of	error	are	based	on	rounded	percentages	and	may	differ	slightly	from	those	that	would	be	obtained	using	unrounded	figures.	Table 2. Poverty by family structure, place type, and region in 2009aDataThis	analysis	is	based	on	u.s.	Census	Bureau	estimates	from	the	2009	american	Community	survey	released	on	september	28,	2010.9	tables	were	produced	by	aggregat-ing	information	from	detailed	tables	available	on	american	FactFinder	(http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en).	These	estimates	are	meant	to	give	perspec-tive	on	child	poverty,	but	because	they	are	based	on	survey	data,	caution	must	be	used	in	comparing	across	years	or	places,	as	the	margin	of	error	may	indicate	that	seemingly	disparate	numbers	fall	within	sampling	error.10	Differences	highlighted	in	this	brief	are	statistically	significant	at	the	5	percent	level.	e n DnOt e s1.	The	american	Community	survey	(aCs)	data	released	in	september	2010	allow	nuanced	analyses	of	child	poverty.2.	see	http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html,	and	“u.s.	Census	Bureau,	septem-ber	2010	Poverty:	2009	Highlights.”	3.	sampling	size	limitations	preclude	racial/ethnic	break-downs	more	refined	than	the	three	groups	(white,	black,	Hispanic)	we	use.	4.	see	robert	H.	Bradley	et	al.,	“The	Home	environments	of	Children	in	the	united	states,	Part	i:	Variations	by	age,	ethnicity,	and	Poverty	status,”	Child Development	72	(2001):	1844–1886;	Jeanne	Brooks-gunn	and	greg.	J.	Duncan,	“The	effects	of	Poverty	on	Children,”	The Future of Children 7	(1997):	55–71;	Vonnie	C.	Mcloyd,	“socioeconomic	Disad-vantages	and	Child	Development,”	American Psychologist	53	(1998):	185–204;	anne	Case,	angela	Fertig,	and	Christina	Paxson,	“The	lasting	impact	of	Childhood	Health	and	Cir-cumstance,”	Journal of Health Economics	24	(2005):	365–389.5.	see	u.s.	Census	Bureau,	“america’s	Family	and	living	ar-rangements:	2009,	Current	Population	survey,	annual	social	and	economic	supplement,	table	C9,”	available	at	www.cen-sus.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2009.html.		 C a r s e y 	 i n s t i t u t e 	 3Building	knowledge	for	families	and	communitiesThe	Carsey	institute	conducts	policy	research	on	vulnerable		children,	youth,	and	families	and	on	sustainable	community		development.	We	give	policy	makers	and	practitioners	timely,		independent	resources	to	effect	change	in	their	communities.	This	work	was	supported	by	the	annie	e.	Casey	Foundation,	the	W.	K.	Kellogg	Foundation,	and	an	anonymous	donor.Huddleston	Hall73	Main	street	Durham,	nH	03824(603)	862-2821www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu6.	see	Caroline	ratcliffe	and	signe-Mary	McKernan,	“Help	Children	Born	into	Poverty”	(Washington,	DC:	The	urban	institute,	2010).	7.	John	M.	love	et	al.,	“Making	a	Difference	in	the	lives	of	infants	and	toddlers	and	Their	Families:	The	impacts	of	early	Head	start”	(Princeton,	nJ:	Mathematica	Policy	research,	2009).8.	Kristin	anderson	Moore	et	al.	“Children	in	Poverty:	trends,	Consequences,	and	Policy	Options,”	research	Brief	no.	2009-11	(Washington,	DC:	Child	trends,	2009).	9.	For	more	information,	see	http://factfinder.cen-sus.gov/servlet/DtgeosearchBylistservlet?ds_name=aCs_2007_3yr_g00_&_lang=en&_ts=268570514748.10.	refer	to	the	u.s.	Census	Bureau’s	published	tables	for	detailed	margins	of	error.a B Ou t 	 t H e 	 au tHOr sMarybeth	J.	Mattingly	is	director	of	research	on	vulner-able	families	at	the	Carsey	institute	and	a	research	assistant	professor	of	sociology	at	the	university	of	new	Hampshire	(beth.mattingly@unh.edu).Jessica	a.	Bean	is	a	vulnerable	families	research	associate	at	the	Carsey	institute	(jessica.bean@unh.edu).aC KnOWl eD gMen t sThe	authors	thank	Michelle	stransky	and	sara	Dilling-ham,	students	working	at	the	Carsey	institute,	for	their	assistance	in	preparing	this	brief;	Mil	Duncan,	Kenneth	Johnson,	terri	rippett,	and	amy	sterndale	at	the	Carsey	institute;	Barbara	ray	at	The	Hired	Pen;	and	leif	Jensen	and	Diane	Mclaughlin	at	Pennsylvania	state	university	for	comments	and	suggestions.			 4	 C a r s e y 	 i n s t i t u t e

The unequal distribution of child poverty: highest rates among young blacks and children of single mothers in rural America

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1123&context=carsey

The unequal distribution of child poverty: highest rates among young blacks and children of single mothers in rural America

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNH Scholars' Repository