Poverty in Rural America: What do we know and what do we need to know? Bruce Weber RUPRI Rural Poverty Research Center In the Shadows of Poverty: Strengthening

Poverty in Rural Poverty in Rural America: America: What do we What do we know and what do we know and what do we

need to know?need to know?Bruce WeberBruce Weber

RUPRI Rural Poverty Research CenterRUPRI Rural Poverty Research Center

In the Shadows of Poverty: In the Shadows of Poverty: Strengthening the Rural Poverty Strengthening the Rural Poverty Research Capacity of the SouthResearch Capacity of the South

A Conference co-sponsored by A Conference co-sponsored by Southern Rural Development Center andSouthern Rural Development Center and

RUPRI Rural Poverty Research CenterRUPRI Rural Poverty Research Center

July 21, 2004 Memphis, TN.July 21, 2004 Memphis, TN.

Road MapRoad Map Some stylized facts about poverty and Some stylized facts about poverty and

placeplace Poverty rates across the rural-urban continuumPoverty rates across the rural-urban continuum

Persistent poverty countiesPersistent poverty counties

High poverty census TractsHigh poverty census Tracts

What do we know? A Selective Review What do we know? A Selective Review

Toward a Rural Poverty Research Agenda Toward a Rural Poverty Research Agenda RPRC: a collaboration to build a rural poverty RPRC: a collaboration to build a rural poverty

research agendaresearch agenda

New Rural Poverty Research InitiativesNew Rural Poverty Research Initiatives

Some Stylized Facts Some Stylized Facts about Poverty and Place: about Poverty and Place:

The Rural VersionThe Rural Version

Poverty rates have historically Poverty rates have historically been higher in nonmetropolitan been higher in nonmetropolitan countiescounties

Poverty rates are highest in the Poverty rates are highest in the most remote rural countiesmost remote rural counties

Poverty rates by residence, 1959-2001

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1959

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

Year

Pe

rce

nt

Nonmetro

Metro

RUPRI Rural Poverty Research Center

Poverty Rates Along the Rural Urban Continuum

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Rural Urban Continuum CodeSource: U.S. Census Bureau and ERS, USDA

Metro Counties Nonmetro Counties

Persistent Poverty Persistent Poverty CountiesCounties

There were 382 Persistent Poverty There were 382 Persistent Poverty Counties in 2000. (These counties Counties in 2000. (These counties poverty rates of 20% or higher in poverty rates of 20% or higher in each decennial census between each decennial census between 1960 and 2000)1960 and 2000)

Persistent Poverty Counties are:Persistent Poverty Counties are: Geographically concentrated Geographically concentrated Overwhelmingly rural (95 Overwhelmingly rural (95

percent)percent)

Persistent Poverty Persistent Poverty CountiesCounties

Counties with poverty rates >20 % in 1959, 1969, Counties with poverty rates >20 % in 1959, 1969, 1979, 1989, 19991979, 1989, 1999

RUPRI Rural Poverty Research Center

Percent of Counties in each UrbanPercent of Counties in each UrbanInfluence Code in Persistent PovertyInfluence Code in Persistent Poverty

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Urban Influence CodeSource: U.S. Census Bureau and ERS, USDA

Metro Counties Nonmetro Counties

Persistent Poverty Persistent Poverty Dynamics:Dynamics:

Persistent Poverty Persistent Poverty LeaversLeavers

189 counties were “persistent poverty 189 counties were “persistent poverty leavers”: they left persistent poverty leavers”: they left persistent poverty status between 1990 and 2000status between 1990 and 2000

The The metrometro counties were counties were more likelymore likely to beto be leaversleavers than nonmetro counties than nonmetro counties

Nonmet adjacent countiesNonmet adjacent counties were were more more likelylikely to be leaversto be leavers than nonmet than nonmet nonadjacent countiesnonadjacent counties

Persistent Poverty Persistent Poverty DynamicsDynamics

Persistent Poverty LeaversPersistent Poverty Leavers

Source: U.S. Census Bureau andEconomic Research Service, USDAMap prepared by RUPRI

Persistent Poverty Leavers:Left Persistent Poverty Status between 1989 and 1999

Metro (17)Nomet Adjacent (73)Nonmet Nonadjacent (99)

Percent of Counties in each Urban Percent of Counties in each Urban Influence Category that Left Influence Category that Left

Persistent Poverty StatusPersistent Poverty Status

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Large Metro Small Metro Nonmetro: Adjacentto Large Metro

Nonmetro: Adjacentto Small Metro

Nonmetro:Nonadjacent

Urban Influence Category

Per

cen

t of

Cou

nti

es

Source, U.S. Census Bureau and ERS, USDA

High Poverty Census High Poverty Census TractsTracts

Poverty rates of 30% or more in Poverty rates of 30% or more in 19901990 7,030 tracts – 11.7 percent of all 7,030 tracts – 11.7 percent of all

tractstracts Geographically dispersedGeographically dispersed

ERS Rural-Urban Commuting ERS Rural-Urban Commuting Area CodesArea Codes High poverty most prevalent in core High poverty most prevalent in core

area tracts and remote rural areasarea tracts and remote rural areas

High Poverty Census Tracts, High Poverty Census Tracts, 19901990

Percent of Tracts in eachPercent of Tracts in eachRUCA Code in High PovertyRUCA Code in High Poverty

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RUCA CodeSource: U.S. Census Bureau and ERS, USDA

Core Tracts Commuting Tracts Remote Rural Tracts

Poverty Rates by RUCA CodePoverty Rates by RUCA Code

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RUCA CodeSource: U.S. Census Bureau and ERS, USDA

Core Tracts Commuting Tracts Remote Rural Tracts

Alternative Rural Urban Continuum:Alternative Rural Urban Continuum: Central City to Remote Rural CountyCentral City to Remote Rural County

Figure B. Poverty Among Single Mother Families, by Residence: 1992 and 1998

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

central city balance of metro nonmetro adjacent counties nonmetro nonadjacentcounties

Place of residence

Per

cen

t (%

) b

elo

w l

ow

-in

com

e le

vel

1992 1998

Poverty Among Single Mother Familiesby Residence, 1992 and 1998

Stylized Facts about Stylized Facts about Poverty and Place Poverty and Place

Revisited Revisited Poverty rates are highest and Poverty rates are highest and

most persistent in most persistent in urban cores and urban cores and remote rural placesremote rural places

Persistent poverty became Persistent poverty became increasingly concentrated in increasingly concentrated in large urban counties and remote large urban counties and remote rural counties in the 1990srural counties in the 1990s

What do we know about…What do we know about…

rural poverty and its causes?rural poverty and its causes?

reducing rural povertyreducing rural poverty

policies to reduce poverty?policies to reduce poverty?

Articles published in Articles published in Rural SociologyRural Sociology onon

poverty and/or welfare receipt, 1936-poverty and/or welfare receipt, 1936-20032003

012345678

1936 1966 1996

Number per year 3 per. Mov. Avg. (Number per year)

“The People Left Behind”

1967

Gene Summers’ RSS Presidential Address

1991

RSS Poverty

Taskforce Volume

1993

Journal first published at the end of the depression

Welfare

Reform

1996

What Have We Learned What Have We Learned About … About …

rural poverty and its rural poverty and its causes?causes? Qualitative Research: Ethnographic Qualitative Research: Ethnographic

StudiesStudies Quantitative Research: Community Quantitative Research: Community

level studies level studies Counties/tracts are units of analysisCounties/tracts are units of analysis County/tract poverty rates are explained by County/tract poverty rates are explained by

county/tract characteristicscounty/tract characteristics Quantitative Research: Contextual Quantitative Research: Contextual

studiesstudies Individuals/ households are units of Individuals/ households are units of

analysisanalysis Odds of being in poverty are explained by Odds of being in poverty are explained by

individual and community characteristicsindividual and community characteristics

Qualitative researchQualitative research Provides insight into the experience of poverty Provides insight into the experience of poverty

(Rank)(Rank) Having to make Having to make significant compromises regarding significant compromises regarding

daily necessitiesdaily necessities: food, rent, heat, healthcare: food, rent, heat, healthcare

StressStress of living under threat of not being able to of living under threat of not being able to

afford necessities if, for example, car breaks downafford necessities if, for example, car breaks down

Stunted development Stunted development

Provides insight into the underlying social and Provides insight into the underlying social and

economic processeseconomic processes (Duncan)(Duncan) How social class affects economic outcomesHow social class affects economic outcomes

How race affects economic outcomesHow race affects economic outcomes

““Community” StudiesCommunity” Studies

County poverty rates are affected County poverty rates are affected by:by: industry structure, industry structure, individual and family demographics, individual and family demographics, labor market conditions, and labor market conditions, and metro/nonmet residence metro/nonmet residence

Potential for ecological fallacyPotential for ecological fallacy

Contextual Studies of Rural Contextual Studies of Rural PovertyPoverty

8 contextual studies of rural poverty 8 contextual studies of rural poverty

6 studies of impact of living in rural 6 studies of impact of living in rural

area on odds of being in poverty area on odds of being in poverty

(McLaughlin/ Jensen; Brown/Hirschl; (McLaughlin/ Jensen; Brown/Hirschl;

Haynie/Gorman; Lichter et al.; Kassab et al.; Haynie/Gorman; Lichter et al.; Kassab et al.;

Cotter)Cotter)

2 studies of impact of living in rural 2 studies of impact of living in rural

area on poverty dynamics (odds of exit area on poverty dynamics (odds of exit

and entry into poverty) and entry into poverty) ( both by ( both by

Jensen/McLaughlin)Jensen/McLaughlin)


Dependent variableDependent variable: log-odds of individual : log-odds of individual /household being poor or entering/exiting /household being poor or entering/exiting povertypoverty

Individual CharacteristicsIndividual Characteristics: age, race, : age, race, education, disability status, family structure, education, disability status, family structure, number of children, employment status of number of children, employment status of head/spousehead/spouse

Community Characteristics: Community Characteristics: tightness of tightness of labor market, industrial/occupational structure labor market, industrial/occupational structure of economy, demographics of labor marketof economy, demographics of labor market


Different levels of “community context”Different levels of “community context”

Rural dummy variable only: 3 studiesRural dummy variable only: 3 studies Rural plus U.S. region: 2 studiesRural plus U.S. region: 2 studies Rural plus U.S. region plus Rural plus U.S. region plus

economic/social structure of labor economic/social structure of labor

market variables : 3 studiesmarket variables : 3 studies

Contextual Studies of Rural Contextual Studies of Rural Poverty:Poverty:

Estimates of “Rural Effect”Estimates of “Rural Effect”Contextual Contextual ControlsControls

Odds ratio Odds ratio

for “rural” variablefor “rural” variable

Rural onlyRural only 1.5 (1989)1.5 (1989)

Rural plus U.S. Rural plus U.S. RegionRegion

1.66-1.68 (1979)1.66-1.68 (1979)

2.12-2.30 (1989)2.12-2.30 (1989)

Rural plus U.S. Rural plus U.S. Region plus Local Region plus Local Labor MarketLabor Market

1.5-2.7 (1985)1.5-2.7 (1985)

1.43 (1989)1.43 (1989)

1.19 (HLM, 1989)1.19 (HLM, 1989)


Effects of Community Effects of Community CharacteristicsCharacteristicsCommunity Community

CharacteristicCharacteristicEffect on individual Effect on individual odds of being poorodds of being poor

Local unemployment Local unemployment raterate

High rate increases High rate increases oddsodds

Job share in Job share in manufacturing manufacturing sectorssectors

High share reduces High share reduces oddsodds

Share of population Share of population without high school without high school degreedegree

High share High share increases oddsincreases odds


Rural InteractionsRural InteractionsInteractionInteraction EffectEffect

Employment Employment statusstatus

Having a job reduces Having a job reduces poverty risk less in poverty risk less in rural areas (3 of 4 rural areas (3 of 4 studies)studies)

Additional Additional hours workedhours worked

Working additional Working additional hours reduces poverty hours reduces poverty risk less in ruralrisk less in rural

Local Local Unemployment Unemployment RateRate

Higher unemployment Higher unemployment rates increase poverty rates increase poverty risk more for rural risk more for rural womenwomen

Major Conclusions from Major Conclusions from Contextual StudiesContextual Studies

People living in a rural area have People living in a rural area have higher odds of being poor, controlling higher odds of being poor, controlling for measured individual and for measured individual and community characteristicscommunity characteristics

Local labor market conditions account Local labor market conditions account for half of the difference in poverty for half of the difference in poverty odds between rural and urban placesodds between rural and urban places

Having an education and a job and Having an education and a job and working more hours has less poverty-working more hours has less poverty-reducing impact in rural areasreducing impact in rural areas

What Have We Learned What Have We Learned About… About…

Reducing Poverty Rates? Reducing Poverty Rates?County level analysis County level analysis (Rupashinga and Goetz, 2003)(Rupashinga and Goetz, 2003) What contributed to What contributed to greater reductions in greater reductions in

poverty ratepoverty rate between 1990 and 2000: between 1990 and 2000: Higher employment rates, greater female labor Higher employment rates, greater female labor

force participation, higher shares of high school force participation, higher shares of high school graduates, higher shares of self-employed, greater graduates, higher shares of self-employed, greater social capitalsocial capital

What contributed to What contributed to smaller reductions in smaller reductions in poverty ratepoverty rate between 1990 and 2000: between 1990 and 2000: Being a small remote rural county (Beale code 7 and Being a small remote rural county (Beale code 7 and

9), having a high share of population under 18 years 9), having a high share of population under 18 years of age and having a high share of non-Black of age and having a high share of non-Black minority populationminority population

What Have We Learned What Have We Learned About… Reducing About… Reducing

Poverty Rates?Poverty Rates? Tract level analysis Tract level analysis (Crandall and (Crandall and

Weber, 2004) Weber, 2004) What contributed to What contributed to greater reductions in poverty rate greater reductions in poverty rate between 1990 and 2000between 1990 and 2000

• Higher employment growth rateHigher employment growth rate• Higher shares of high school graduatesHigher shares of high school graduates• Higher shares of college graduatesHigher shares of college graduates• Greater social capitalGreater social capital

What contributed to smaller reductions in What contributed to smaller reductions in poverty rate between 1990 and 2000poverty rate between 1990 and 2000• Being surrounded by other high poverty tractsBeing surrounded by other high poverty tracts


Policy Impacts? Policy Impacts? Quasi-Experimental Research Quasi-Experimental Research on on

welfare policy changes in 1990’s welfare policy changes in 1990’s (McKernan et al., Weber et al.)(McKernan et al., Weber et al.) Both studies find positive policy Both studies find positive policy

impacts on impacts on employmentemployment; one study ; one study found met/nonmet differences found met/nonmet differences (impact in nonmet is greater)(impact in nonmet is greater)

Weber et al. find no policy impact Weber et al. find no policy impact on on povertypoverty in either met or nonmet in either met or nonmet


Policy Impacts?Policy Impacts?

Experimental Research:Experimental Research: Minnesota Minnesota Family Independence Program Family Independence Program Experiment (Gennetian et al.)Experiment (Gennetian et al.) Impacts of MFIP (welfare reform) on Impacts of MFIP (welfare reform) on

employment and earnings larger in employment and earnings larger in metropolitan countiesmetropolitan counties

Toward a Rural Poverty Toward a Rural Poverty Research AgendaResearch Agenda

Good research requires Good research requires passion,passion, rigor, and a rigor, and a

supportive communitysupportive community

Passion Passion focuses research on the right focuses research on the right

questionsquestions

Rigor Rigor supports getting the right answerssupports getting the right answers Theoretical and Methodological ChallengesTheoretical and Methodological Challenges Data ChallengesData Challenges

A community of scholars and practitioners A community of scholars and practitioners keeps the passion alive and enforces the keeps the passion alive and enforces the rigorrigor

Rural Poverty Research Rural Poverty Research CenterCenter

A community of policymakers, A community of policymakers, practitioners and researchers seeking practitioners and researchers seeking to understand how policy and practice to understand how policy and practice can reduce poverty across the rural-can reduce poverty across the rural-urban continuum. urban continuum.

Co-located inCo-located in RUPRI in the Truman School of Public RUPRI in the Truman School of Public

Affairs, Affairs, University of MissouriUniversity of Missouri The Department of Agricultural The Department of Agricultural

Resource and Economics at Resource and Economics at Oregon Oregon State UniversityState University

Collaboration with the Regional Collaboration with the Regional Rural Development CentersRural Development Centers

RPRC ResearchRPRC Research RPRC projects: 2004-05RPRC projects: 2004-05

““Neighborhood Effects” in Rural Neighborhood Effects” in Rural Communities: Concentrated Poverty Communities: Concentrated Poverty and Employment Outcomesand Employment Outcomes

What Reduces Poverty in What Reduces Poverty in Persistently Poor Rural Areas?Persistently Poor Rural Areas?

Sentinel Communities: Tracking Sentinel Communities: Tracking and Explaining Community and Explaining Community Capacity in Rural PlacesCapacity in Rural Places

Material Hardship in Rural and Material Hardship in Rural and Urban PlacesUrban Places

Small Grants Program 2004-05Small Grants Program 2004-05

Research ConferencesResearch Conferences National Agenda Setting Conference : National Agenda Setting Conference : The The

Importance of Place in Poverty Research and Importance of Place in Poverty Research and Policy Policy March 3-4, 2004 in Washington DCMarch 3-4, 2004 in Washington DC

North Central Regional Research Conference: North Central Regional Research Conference: Culture, Governance and Rural PovertyCulture, Governance and Rural Poverty (w/NCRCRD) May 25-27, 2004 Chicago(w/NCRCRD) May 25-27, 2004 Chicago

Southern Regional Research Conference: Southern Regional Research Conference: In In the Shadows of Povertythe Shadows of Poverty (w/ SRDC) July 21-23, (w/ SRDC) July 21-23, 2004 Memphis2004 Memphis

Northeastern and Western Regional Research Northeastern and Western Regional Research Conferences: Winter 2005Conferences: Winter 2005

RPRC MentoringRPRC Mentoring

Postdoctoral Research Fellowships Postdoctoral Research Fellowships

Rural Poverty Dissertation Rural Poverty Dissertation FellowshipsFellowships

Undergraduate Leadership ProgramUndergraduate Leadership Program

Professional Development Travel Professional Development Travel FundFund

RPRC DisseminationRPRC Dissemination

Quarterly Newsletter: Quarterly Newsletter: Perspectives Perspectives on Poverty, Policy and Placeon Poverty, Policy and Place

Working Paper SeriesWorking Paper Series

Research BriefsResearch Briefs

RPRC UPDATE (quarterly email)RPRC UPDATE (quarterly email)

RPRC websiteRPRC website

What do we need to What do we need to know?know?

What are the What are the individual processesindividual processes & & community/ neighborhood processescommunity/ neighborhood processes & & institutional mechanismsinstitutional mechanisms that that generate and maintain poverty?generate and maintain poverty?

What What community strategiescommunity strategies have been have been most successful in reducing poverty, most successful in reducing poverty, and how does this vary across and how does this vary across community types?community types?

How does policy interactHow does policy interact with these with these community-level processes to affect community-level processes to affect poverty?poverty?

Macro-economy

Policies

Individual characteristicsAgeEducationGenderOccupationMarital Status# childrenEmployment status

Community Characteristics•Structural composition

%U%Professional%HS grads%Mfg%Single FH householdsghetto (>40% poverty)

•Social Organization/Institutional Influences•Cultural Processes

Rural

Employment process

Marital Process

Public

Assistance

Process

Family Formation

Process

Poverty Status

New Rural Poverty New Rural Poverty Research InitiativesResearch Initiatives

Long-term multi-method studies Long-term multi-method studies

in rural placesin rural places of low-income of low-income

family, social-safety-net and work family, social-safety-net and work

dynamics: a “multi-rural-dynamics: a “multi-rural-

community study of poverty and community study of poverty and

inequality”inequality”

Policy experiments in diverse Policy experiments in diverse

rural placesrural places

““Musical Chairs” Musical Chairs” HypothesisHypothesis

Our economic system is a game of Our economic system is a game of musical chairs: no matter how much musical chairs: no matter how much we increase people’s agility and we increase people’s agility and speed in getting into a seat, there speed in getting into a seat, there will never be enough chairs for will never be enough chairs for people to sit in.people to sit in.

The implication is that we need to The implication is that we need to increase the number of chairs increase the number of chairs and/or change the rules so and/or change the rules so everybody doesn’t need a seat to everybody doesn’t need a seat to live well.live well.

Implications for Rural Implications for Rural Poverty ResearchPoverty Research

Researchers have spent a lot of time Researchers have spent a lot of time trying to show that there are fewer trying to show that there are fewer chairs in rural areas. chairs in rural areas.

We need to spend more effort figuring We need to spend more effort figuring out out how communities in urban and rural places how communities in urban and rural places

can build more chairs, and can build more chairs, and how national policy can be changed so how national policy can be changed so

people can get by when they can’t find a people can get by when they can’t find a chair.chair.

““Think of every piece of Think of every piece of research you do as a research you do as a

political activity. political activity. Research should Research should movemove

the conversationthe conversation, not just , not just inform it”inform it”

(Stauber)

Rural Policy Research InstituteRural Policy Research InstituteRural Poverty Research CenterRural Poverty Research Center

www.rprconline.org

Core funding for RPRC is provided by the Core funding for RPRC is provided by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)

of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Servicesof the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

RUPRI Rural Poverty Research Center is one of three RUPRI Rural Poverty Research Center is one of three Area Poverty Research Centers funded by ASPE/HHSArea Poverty Research Centers funded by ASPE/HHS

www.rprconline.orgwww.rprconline.org

Documents

Poverty in Rural America: What do we know and what do we need to know? Bruce Weber RUPRI Rural Poverty Research Center In the Shadows of Poverty: Strengthening