Poverty, Welfare, and the Livelihood Strategies of Nonmetropolitan Single Mothers*

Abstract

Using the National Survey of Family Growth, we document nonmetropolitan and metropolitan single mothers' economic livelihood strategies. We have three objectives: (1) examine differences in employment, cohabitation, co‐residence with other adults, and welfare receipt; (2) evaluate how these livelihood strategies are associated with economic well‐being; and (3) identify key metro‐nonmetro differences in the effectiveness of these livelihood strategies in improving the economic well‐being of single mothers. We find surprisingly similar livelihood strategies in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan areas. Employment, cohabitation, and co‐residence are strongly associated with economic well‐being. However, nonmetro single mothers are less likely than metropolitan mothers to benefit economically from full‐time employment. Given our results, “work‐first” policies are likely to be less efficacious in nonmetropolitan areas. Indeed, nonmetropolitan single mothers are often “triply disadvantaged” compared to their metro counterparts; they experience higher rates of poverty, higher barriers to welfare receipt, and lower economic returns from other livelihood strategies.

The Significance of Employment for Chronic Stress and Psychological Distress among Rural Single Mothers

“…This proportion is slightly higher than the 60.6% of single mothers employed in non-metropolitan areas in the United States as a whole, based on data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) (Brown and Lichter 2004). While the slightly higher levels of employment in the New England sample may reflect some regional advantages, it may also reflect historical variations.…”

Economic Well-being and Cohabitation: Another Nonmetro Disadvantage?

“…Four recent studies using the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) find that current cohabitation among single mothers is not as common in nonmetro compared to metro areas (Brown & Lichter, 2004), that nonmetro women are less likely than suburban or central city women to cohabit either as a first union type or a birth context Snyder, 2006), and that nonmetro women make quicker transitions out of first cohabiting unions (Brown & Snyder, 2006). Beyond these studies that focus mostly on union formation, however, basic information about who cohabits in nonmetro America, how they compare to cohabitors in suburban and central city areas, and the economic consequences of cohabitation across residence areas, remains unknown.…”

“…Nonmetro cohabiting women come from more traditional (two parent) family backgrounds, are less likely to become pregnant during cohabitation, have cohabiting unions of shorter duration, and are more likely to make the transition to marriage, compared to those in metro areas (Brown & Snyder, 2006). Nonmetro women are less likely to cohabit as a first union or birth context (Snyder, 2006;, but are more likely to be previously married and to have prior children (Brown & Lichter, 2004;Brown & Snyder, 2006). These studies suggest that cohabitation in nonmetro areas may be used as a transitional family form-a bridge between formal/legal marital unions, rather than as a stage in the family formation process.…”

“…Cohabiting families fare better than single mother families perhaps in part because, in addition to the income contribution from two partners, cohabitation also allows retention of support from government programs for single parents with children (Brown & Lichter, 2004;Edin & Lein, 1997;Moffitt, Reville, & Winkler, 1998). However, earlier studies suggest that nonmetro populations do not access public resources to the extent that they could.…”

Dependence patterns in consumer behavior: exploration and refinement of a concept

“…Displaced homemakers (women whose principal job had been homemaking and who have lost their main source of income) often live in subfamilies, secondary families, or doubled-up families (two or more people related by blood, marriage, or adoption but who do not themselves own or rent the housing in which they live). Some of these doubled-up families then go on to accept another family into their housing situation to create a ''tripled-up'' family (Henderson and Miller, 1990;Brown and Lichter, 2004). The nature of these living arrangements may not be reflected in Census data.…”