Child poverty high in rural America

O’Hare, William P.; Savage, Sarah

doi:10.34051/p/2020.28

Cited by 18 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Poverty rates are exceptionally high, for example, among African Americans in the Mississippi Delta and ''Black Belt'' crescent (Lee and Singelmann 2005;Parisi et al 2005), Mexican-origin Hispanics in the colonias of the lower Rio Grande Valley (Saenz 1997;Saenz and Thomas 1991), and Native American Indians living on reservations on the Great Plains. In communities on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota, poverty rates are often in excess of 50 percent (O'Hare and Johnson 2004). To be sure, disadvantaged racial and immigrant minorities remain heavily concentrated in inner-city neighborhoods of major metro cities, but some of America's most impoverished minorities live in geographically isolated rural areas.…”

Section: Poor People In Impoverished Rural Placesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, we focus both on the total population and the population of children, including minority children. Rural poverty has an intergenerational dimension (Duncan 1996;Fitchen 1991); poor children today often become tomorrow's poor adults (Lichter et al 2005;O'Hare and Johnson 2004). It therefore is important to understand whether the current age distribution of the rural poor has built-in momentum for continuing poverty in the future, or if rural poor children today are less heavily concentrated in the poorest counties (because of the outmigration of adults of childbearing age and poor families with children).…”

Section: Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Changing Spatial Concentration of America's Rural Poor Population*

Lichter

Johnson²

2007

Rural Sociology

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper documents changing patterns of concentrated poverty in nonmetro areas. Data from the Decennial U.S. Census Summary Files show that poverty rates—both overall and for children—declined more rapidly in nonmetro than metro counties in the 1990s. The 1990s also brought large reductions in the number of high‐poverty nonmetro counties and declines in the share of rural people, including rural poor people, who were living in them. This suggests that America's rural pockets of poverty may be “drying up” and that spatial inequality in nonmetro America declined over the 1990s, at least at the county level. On a less optimistic note, concentrated poverty among rural minorities remains exceptionally high. Roughly one‐half of all rural blacks and one‐third of rural Hispanics live in poor counties. Poor minorities are even more highly concentrated in poor areas. Rural children—especially rural minority children—have poverty rates well above national and nonmetro rates, the concentration of rural minority children is often extreme (i.e., over 80% lived in high‐poverty counties), and the number of nonmetro counties with high levels of persistent child poverty remains high (over 600 counties). Rural poor children may be more disadvantaged than ever, especially if measured by their lack of access to opportunities and divergence with children living elsewhere. Patterns of poverty among rural children—who often grow up to be poor adults— suggest that recent declines in concentrated rural poverty may be short‐lived.

show abstract

Section: Poor People In Impoverished Rural Placesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Changing Spatial Concentration of America's Rural Poor Population*

Lichter

Johnson²

2007

Rural Sociology

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The nonmetropolitan poor are also more likely to live in a family where the head is working either part-or full-time (Brown and Hirschl 1995;Lichter, Johnston, and McLaughlin 1994;O'Hare 1988;Shapiro 1989); rural workers are more likely than metro workers to be earning poverty-level wages (Gorham 1992); and each of these phenomena increased in the 1980s (Lichter et al 1994). This last set of facts is especially important to this paper, i which I examine the degree to which employment provides a route out of poverty for families in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.…”

Section: Rural Sociology and Rural Povertymentioning

confidence: 99%

Poor People in Poor Places: Local Opportunity Structures and Household Poverty*

Cotter

2002

Rural Sociology

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accounts of poverty generally fall into either “individualist” or “structuralist” camps. Often these are seen as irreconcilable and incompatible competing perspectives. This paper integrates individualist and structuralist accounts of poverty by examining the relationship between “person poverty” and “place poverty” in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan labor markets, using a multilevel framework. I fashion a general model of poverty production and allocation, drawing on the labor market ecology perspective. After a discussion of this perspective, I develop a multilevel framework for analyzing data from the 1990 Census PUMS‐L sample, STF‐3c, and other sources to show how compositional and contextual factors affect households' likelihoods of being in poverty. These multilevel models also allow us to estimate the degree to which labor market conditions influence the magnitude of household labor supply characteristics. Results suggest that both compositional and contextual factors contribute to the metro‐nonmetro difference in poverty rates, and that the effects of employment vary in accordance with labor market characteristics.

show abstract

“…These economic changes are occurring against a backdrop of already high poverty rates. Child-poverty rates are higher for rural children than for urban children of every racial and ethnic group, and the highest poverty rates are in the most rural places (O'Hare and Johnson 2004). Arguably, such circumstances contribute meaningfully to youths' sense of community cohesion and well-being.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Community Cohesion and the Stress Process in Youth

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using survey data from two youth samples, one rural and one urban, we examine the role and significance of perceived community cohesion in the stress process. In particular, we assess the extent to which community attachment and detachment are related to depressed mood, problem substance use, and delinquency net of social statuses, stress exposure, and personal attributes. In addition, we explore the degree to which those dimensions of community cohesion explain or condition the links between the above stress‐process components (e.g., social statuses, stress exposure, and personal attributes) and well‐being. We find remarkably similar results across samples: community attachment is related to lower odds of problem substance use and delinquency; community detachment is related to higher levels of depressed mood, problem substance use, and delinquency; and community attachment buffers the link between stress and problem substance use. With respect to depressed mood, however, the rural youth show greater vulnerability to stress than the urban youth and unique benefits from community attachment compared to the latter. Our findings highlight the roles of community attachment and detachment in the stress process and underscore the importance of each for youth well‐being in rural and urban settings.

show abstract

Child poverty high in rural America

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

The Changing Spatial Concentration of America's Rural Poor Population*

The Changing Spatial Concentration of America's Rural Poor Population*

Poor People in Poor Places: Local Opportunity Structures and Household Poverty*

Perceived Community Cohesion and the Stress Process in Youth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About