Female‐Headed Families and Poverty in Rural America*

Abstract

Employing data from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 March supplements of the Current Population Surveys, this study examines changing household and family structure in metro and nonmetro areas and corresponding changes in poverty, emphasizing female‐headed families with children under age 18. We also pay particular attention to the structure and economic conditions of subfamilies with children during this period. Household and family structure in suburban metro and nonmetro areas were quite similar by 2000. In contrast, families and households in nonmetro and metro central city areas were similar in their high prevalence of poverty. Finally, the risk of female‐headed families and subfamilies with children living in poverty is highest for nonmetro residents, and their individual characteristics suppress rather than account for this disadvantage. This pattern persisted across the decades studied, despite economic growth during the 1990s.

Economic Well-being and Cohabitation: Another Nonmetro Disadvantage?

“…Even though family and household structure is now quite similar across residential areas (Snyder & McLaughlin, 2004), the retention of more traditional family values should make cohabitation a somewhat less acceptable family form in more rural areas.…”

“…Poverty rates among nonmetro families with children rival those found in central cities of metropolitan areas. Nonmetro and central city married-couple and female-headed families with children are equally likely to be poor, and poverty among male-headed families with children in nonmetro areas is higher compared to similar families in central cities (Snyder & McLaughlin, 2004). In this economic climate, cohabitation becomes a more necessary economic survival strategy for single mothers (and single fathers) in nonmetro areas even if it is a relatively transitory relationship.…”

“…Current age is included as four categorical age groups (less than 25, 25-34, 35-44, and 45 and older). Age is categorized in this manner because these age groups represent separate stages in the life course that are associated with variations in employment such as earnings and level of job, both of which are associated with poverty, our main outcome of interest (Snyder & McLaughlin, 2004). Keeping age as a continuous variable does not allow for such comparisons.…”

“…While the more traditional family structures in nonmetro areas (i.e., higher proportion of two parent families) are most like those in suburban metro areas, nonmetro families are more likely to be poor, and are not as protected by this traditional family structure. Their economic well-being is most like that of families in the central cities of metro areas (Snyder & McLaughlin, 2004). Thus, family structure may function quite differently across residence in response to different local conditions.…”

Five Personality Types Based on Big Five: A Latent Class Analysis

“…Rural communities, where one in five U.S. residents lives, have become home to growing numbers of racial and ethnic minorities, some of whom left urban centers in search of affordable living, and others who emigrated from rural and urban areas in Latin America in search of employment (Lichter, 2012). Across rural America, the spatial concentration of poverty has also changed (Peters, 2012), affecting family life in multiple ways (e.g., family relations, stress, mental health, access to quality health care, duration of poverty) (Burton, Garrett-Peters, & Eason, 2011;Snyder & McLaughlin, 2004). These contextual factors are linked to risks and disparities in health and well-being (Wolfe, Evans, & Seeman, 2012).…”