University of New Hampshire CARSEY RESEARCH Carsey School of Public Policy National Issue Brief #97 Winter 2016

Child Poverty Higher and More Persistent in Rural America

Andrew Schaefer, Marybeth J. Mattingly, and Kenneth M. Johnson

he negative consequences of growing up in a poor family are well known. Poor children are less likely to have timely immunizations, have Tlower academic achievement, are generally less engaged in school activities, and face higher delinquency rates in adolescent years.1 Each of these has adverse impacts on their health, earnings, and family status in adulthood. Less understood is how the experience of poverty can differ depending on the community context. Being poor in a relatively well-off community with good infrastruc- ture and schools is different from being poor in a place where poverty rates have been high for generations, where economic investment in schools and infrastruc- ture is negligible, and where pathways to success are few.2 The hurdles are even higher in rural areas, where low population density, physical isolation, and the broad spatial distribution of the poor make service delivery and exposure to innovative programs more challenging.

Over the past thirty years, the share of counties with high child poverty increased, rising from 36 to 47 More Poor Children, Especially in percent between 1980 and 1990, falling back to 36 Rural Areas percent in 2000, and then surging to include more than half of all counties (58 percent) in 2010. Figure 1 displays the percent of all U.S. counties with high child poverty from 1980 to 20103 by metropolitan status. Over the past thirty years, the share of counties This brief looks at both the incidence of high child with high child poverty increased, rising from 36 to poverty (20 percent or greater) over the past three 47 percent between 1980 and 1990, falling back to 36 decades and at the places where such high child pov- percent in 2000, and then surging to include more than erty has persisted for all of those decades (see Box 1 for half of all counties (58 percent) in 2010. This pattern was definitions of high and persistent child poverty). Our similar in rural and urban areas (see Box 2 for descrip- analysis documents both that the incidence of high tion of how we define rural and urban), although a larger child poverty is growing nationwide and that rural percentage of rural counties had high child poverty at America includes a disproportionate share of children each time point. By 2010, nearly two-thirds (64 percent) living in counties characterized as having persistent of rural counties had high child poverty, compared to high child poverty. just 47 percent of urban counties. 2 CARSEY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY

Places Where High Child Box 1: Defining High and Persistent Child Poverty In this report, we calculate poverty by comparing a family’s total income Poverty Persists to a poverty threshold that varies by the number of adults and children in The recent economic recession the family (this is often considered the official poverty measure, or OPM). fueled increases in the incidence In 2010, the poverty threshold for a family of two adults and two children of child poverty, though in many 4 was $22,113. If a family’s total income falls below its assigned threshold, instances the recession just made then everyone in the family is considered poor, or in poverty. We con- a bad situation worse: high child sider places where 20 percent or more of resident children are poor in any poverty has persisted in many given year as having high child poverty for that year. Counties with high areas for decades, underscor- child poverty at each of the four time points, spanning three decades, ing that it is not just a short term 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010, are counties with persistent high child pov- result of the recession. Such erty. Note that we use decennial Census data for 1980, 1990, and 2000, persistent poverty merits special while relying on estimates from five years of the American Community attention because it has significant Survey (2008–2012), centered on 2010, for 2010 estimates. There are 755 long-term implications for the (24 percent) counties classified as having persistent high child poverty. families, communities, and insti- It is important to note that poverty calculated this way is limited in that it tutions within its purview. does not take into account other economic resources besides income that are helpful for families such as in-kind benefits and tax credits like the Earned Income and Child Tax Credit. They also don’t take into account differences in necessary expenses including out-of-pocket medical expenses and child Box 2: Defining Rural and Urban care costs. Official poverty measurement also does not adjust the thresholds Researchers define rural and for differences in the cost of living across the nation as a whole. The Census urban in many ways. The Office Bureau has recently started releasing a Supplemental Poverty Measure of Management and Budget 5 (SPM) to account for these limitations. It is currently not possible to use the classifies counties as either met- SPM to estimate child poverty rates for counties going back to 1980. We use ropolitan or nonmetropolitan. the OPM in this report because it allows for nuanced historical analyses. Metropolitan (“urban”) counties are those located within an urban- ized core or any adjacent coun- FIGURE 1. SHARE OF COUNTIES WITH HIGH CHILD POVERTY, 1980, 1990, ties that have a “high degree of 2000, AND 2010 social and economic integration with the core.”6 All other counties are considered nonmetropolitan (“rural”). We use a consistent 2013 definition of metropolitan areas, which avoids problems that would arise from the redefinition of metropolitan and nonmetro- politan areas over time. Our use of the 2013 definition reduces the number of nonmetropolitan counties and increases the num- ber of metropolitan counties compared with earlier definitions. There are 1,167 metropolitan (urban) counties and 1,976 non- metropolitan (rural) counties.

Source: 1980–2000 U.S. Decennial Census; 2008–2012 American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates CARSEY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY 3

Figure 2 shows the distribution counties had persistent high The incidence of high child pov- of persistent child poverty across child poverty compared to just erty varies considerably by region. It the United States by metropolitan 15 percent (174) of metropolitan is clustered in Appalachian coun- status. Some 755 counties—24 counties. Furthermore, a dispro- ties in West Virginia and Kentucky, percent of the total—had persis- portionate share of poor children throughout the Mississippi Delta, tent high child poverty between live in rural places. Only 14.3 per- across much of the Southeast, and in 1980 and 2010. Rural areas are cent of the total child population parts of the Southwest, and there are much more likely to experience resides in a rural county, but these scattered pockets in the Great Plains, persistent child poverty than counties contain 17.2 percent of particularly proximate to Native urban areas: 77 percent of counties the nation’s poor children. In con- American reservations. In contrast, with persistent high child pov- trast, urban counties contain 85.6 high child poverty is largely absent erty are nonmetropolitan, and 29 percent of all children but only from the Northeast, the Great Lakes, percent (581) of nonmetropolitan 82.7 percent of poor children. and the rest of the Great Plains.

FIGURE 2. PERSISTENT CHILD POVERTY BY METROPOLITAN STATUS, 1980–2010

Source: 1980–2000 U.S. Decennial Census; 2008–2012 American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates 4 CARSEY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY

Populations for Whom groups each exceed 10 percent are Some child poverty clusters contain 7 High Child Poverty Persists identified as multi-ethnic. diverse child populations. In east Persistent high child poverty is Texas, a large cluster of counties Persistent child poverty touches concentrated in counties in the old with persistent high child poverty both minority and non-Hispanic plantation south and in the emerg- has a diverse population of Hispanic, white children. Figure 3 overlays ing colonias along the Texas–Mexico black, and white children. Further persistent high child poverty data border, where Hispanic children west, in Arizona and New Mexico, on the distribution of minor- make up a large proportion of persistent high child poverty is ity children in 2010. A county is all children. Additional clusters evident in places with a large pres- identified as having a concentration exist on Native American reserva- ence of both Hispanic and Native of minority children if more than tions in southeastern Oklahoma, American children. A smaller 10 percent of its children are from Arizona, New Mexico, Montana, cluster is emerging in coastal North any one minority group (African and the Dakotas. Large clusters in Carolina, where traditionally black American, Asian, Native American, the Ozarks and Appalachia contain areas are beginning to see significant or Hispanic). Counties in which child populations that are almost growth in the Hispanic child popu- children from two or more minority exclusively non-Hispanic white. lation with high poverty rates.

FIGURE 3. PERSISTENT CHILD POVERTY, 1980–2010 AND MINORITY CHILD POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, 2010

Source: 1980–2010 U.S. Decennial Census; 2008–2012 American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates CARSEY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY 5

Persistent-high-child poverty poor compared to 32 percent of Summary and Conclusion counties are disproportionately non-Hispanic white children. The minority. About 77 percent of gap is largest in counties where non- The incidence of high child poverty persistent-high-child-poverty Hispanic black children are the only has increased over the past three counties have a substantial minor- minority group comprising more decades. In 1980, 36 percent of ity child population, compared to than 10 percent of the child popula- counties had at least 20 percent of just 54 percent of all counties. tion. In such counties, 50 percent of children in poverty, but by 2010 the How do minority child poverty minority children are poor, on aver- share of such counties had grown to and white, non-Hispanic child age, compared to just 18 percent of 58 percent. Rural counties consis- poverty rates vary in each of these non-Hispanic white children. tently have a much higher incidence types of counties? Figure 4 provides of child poverty than urban coun- the 2010 mean child poverty rate for ties; in 2010, roughly two-thirds of rural counties had high child poverty minority children and non-Hispanic The situation of children is of white children in all counties, in all compared to about half of urban particular concern in the 755 U.S. counties. The situation of children is persistent-high-child-poverty coun- counties that have experienced ties, and in persistent-high-child- of particular concern in the 755 U.S. high child poverty persistently for poverty counties with and without counties (24 percent of the total) that substantial minority populations. three decades. In these areas, at have experienced high child poverty The figure illustrates that poverty least two generations of children persistently for three decades. In among non-Hispanic white children and the families, organizations, these areas, at least two generations is consistently lower than among and institutions that support of children and the families, organi- minority children in each category. them have been challenged to zations, and institutions that support The gap is smallest in persistent- grow and develop under difficult them have been challenged to grow and develop under difficult financial high-child-poverty counties with financial circumstances. few minority children. Here, 42 circumstances. Prior research sug- percent of minority children are gests that, in many of these counties,

FIGURE 4. MEAN PERCENT POOR IN COUNTIES WITH PERSISTENT HIGH CHILD POVERTY, BY RACIAL-ETHNIC COMPOSITION IN 2010

Source: 1980–2010 U.S. Decennial Census; 2008–2012 American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates 6 CARSEY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY

child poverty has been high for lon- Data and Methods ger than the past three decades.8 The overwhelming focus of This brief updates past work9 on In addition to having higher welfare programs in the United rates of child poverty generally, the uneven spatial distribution of States is urban, but the fact that rural America contains a dispro- persistent child poverty across U.S. portionate share of the counties a rural child is more than twice counties. We examine child pov- with persistent high child poverty. as likely as an urban child to live erty using decennial census data Approximately 28 percent of all in the vicinity of persistent high from 1980, 1990, and 2000, as well rural children live in persistently child poverty underscores that as American Community Survey poor counties, compared to just any national discussion of child (ACS) five-year estimates from 2008 13 percent of urban children. poverty must address the chal- to 2012. Counties have high child poverty if 20 percent or more of all Persistent child poverty is not lenges faced by children living limited to a few isolated pockets children under 18 live in families in isolated rural areas. 10 of the country, nor is it limited below the official poverty line. to minority children. Our maps Counties have persistent high child poverty if they have high child pov- demonstrate that it is wide- to comprehensive food stores with erty at each of the four time points: spread in the largely white areas fresh fruits and vegetables creates 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010.11 of Appalachia and the Ozarks food deserts in rural areas, espe- We use counties12 as the unit of as well as in historically black cially for the rural poor with limited analysis because they constitute a counties deep in the Mississippi access to reliable transportation. historically consistent set of enti- Delta, in Hispanic enclaves in That these persistently poor rural ties for which child poverty and the Rio Grande Valley, and in areas exist far from the media and demographic data have been col- parts of the Dakotas with large governmental centers of a metro- lected over time. Thus, we are able Native American populations. centric nation may make it difficult to identify persistent child poverty Nonetheless, poverty rates for for policy makers, the media, and in counties and examine varia- non-Hispanic white children are the public to appreciate the extent tion over both time and location. substantially lower than for their and depths of rural poverty. minority counterparts, on average, Although the county is the best regardless of the racial-ethnic or unit of analysis for our purposes, it persistent child poverty status of has some limitations. Because large the county. This disparity is great- metropolitan counties include sub- est in counties that have a large stantial populations, some contain minority concentration. large numbers of poor children. The overwhelming focus of wel- Yet, though the absolute numbers fare programs in the United States is may be large, the percentage of poor urban, but the fact that a rural child children may be relatively modest. is more than twice as likely as an Another limitation of using counties urban child to live in the vicinity of is that it may preclude a focus on persistent high child poverty under- large spatial pockets of concentrated scores that any national discussion poverty within large urban counties. of child poverty must address the challenges faced by children living in isolated rural areas. The problems with which all poor people struggle are exacerbated in rural areas by remoteness and lack of support services. For instance, limited access CARSEY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY 7

Endnotes 9. Marybeth J. Mattingly, Kenneth About the Authors 1. Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Greg J. M. Johnson, and Andrew Schaefer, Andrew Schaefer is a vulnerable Duncan, and Nancy Maritato, “Poor “More Poor Kids in More Poor Places: families research associate at the Families, Poor Outcomes: The Well- Children Increasingly Live Where Carsey School of Public Policy and Poverty Persists,” Issue Brief No. 38 Being of Children and Youth,” in Greg a doctoral candidate in sociology at J. Duncan and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, (Durham, NH: Carsey Institute, 2011). the University of New Hampshire eds., Consequences of Growing Up 10. Our use of “all” children is a slight ([email protected]). Poor (New York, NY: Russell Sage departure from the definition used in Foundation, 1997). previous work. In our past work using the Beth Mattingly is director of research 2. Cynthia M. Duncan, Worlds Apart: 1980, 1990, and 2000 censuses, we looked on vulnerable families at the Carsey Why Poverty Persists in Rural America only at “related” children under 18, i.e., School of Public Policy and a research (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, those children who are related in some assistant professor of sociology at the way to the household or family reference 1999). University of New Hampshire (beth. person. When using the 2005–2009 ACS 3. Data for 2010 come from the 2008– [email protected]). 2012 American Community Survey estimates, we looked at “all” children under (ACS) five-year estimates that center 18, a category that includes related children Ken Johnson is senior demogra- as defined above as well as unrelated around the year 2010. pher at the Carsey School of Public children over age 15. For consistency, in 4. See here for more on Census poverty this brief we analyze data on all children Policy and professor of sociology at thresholds: https://www.census.gov/ under 18 at each time point. the University of New Hampshire hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/. ([email protected]). 11. Our definition of persistent child 5. See the U.S. Census Bureau, poverty differs from research recently Acknowledgments Experimental Poverty Measures: http:// published by the Economic Research This work was supported by the www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/ Service (ERS) in three ways. First, the methodology/supplemental/overview. ERS looks only at data on “related” Annie E. Casey Foundation, the W. html. children under age 18, whereas we K. Kellogg Foundation, and anony- 6. See the Office of Management and analyze data on “all” children under age mous donors. The authors thank Budget report, “Revised Delineations 18. Second, its measure of persistent Carsey School colleagues Barbara of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, high child poverty uses slightly older Cook for creating the maps, Michele Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and data for the final time point (the 2007– Dillon, Michael Ettlinger, Curt Combined Statistical Areas, and 2011 ACS five-year estimates, versus Grimm, and Amy Sterndale for Guidance on Uses of the Delineations the 2008–2012 ACS estimates). Third, reading earlier drafts; Laurel Lloyd of These Areas,” https://www. the ERS combines many of the Virginia and Bianca Nicolosi for their layout independent cities with surrounding whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/ assistance; and Patrick Watson for bulletins/2013/b-13-01.pdf. counties to create an aggregate poverty editorial assistance. 7. Note, however, that these definitions rate for the total area before calculating exclude counties where the total persistent high child poverty status. minority population is over 10 We make no such calculation and treat percent but no single minority group Virginia independent cities as county comprises more than 10 percent. equivalents. The ERS analysis yields 708 Thus, hypothetically, if a county is persistent related child poverty counties 80 percent white, 9 percent black, 6 compared to our 755 persistent child percent Hispanic, 3 percent Asian, and poverty counties. We replicated our 2 percent Native American, it is still analyses using the ERS measure with no coded as having relatively few minority substantial change in the findings. children as no one group reaches the 10 12. In this analysis, Virginia percent threshold. independent cities are treated as 8. William P. O’Hare and Kenneth counties. In addition, we have estimated M. Johnson, “Child Poverty in Rural poverty levels for Cibola County in America,” Population Reference Bureau New Mexico, La Paz County in Arizona, Reports on America 4, no. 1 (2004). and Lake and Peninsula Borough in Alaska because these delineations did not exist at the time of the 1980 census. 8 CARSEY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY

University of New Hampshire Carsey School of Public Policy

The Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire is nationally recognized for its research, policy education, and engagement. The school takes on the pressing issues of the twenty-first century, striving for innovative, responsive, and equitable solutions. Huddleston Hall • 73 Main Street • Durham, NH 03824 (603) 862-2821 TTY Users: dial 7-1-1 or 1-800-735-2964 (Relay N.H.) carsey.unh.edu