Running head: Rural Poverty

Poverty in Americas Rural Communities Liberty University Spring 2011

Running head: Rural Poverty

Abstract This paper discusses the intricacies of poverty in rural America. The main argument of the paper is that rural poverty differs from urban poverty on various levels. Researchers have provided documentation of the causes for rural poverty, one of which being spatial concentration. Various case studies have been conducted that provide evidence of the causes as well as solutions to the causes of persistent poverty in rural America. The author of this paper found that a great deal of rural poverty is caused by the lack of opportunities that are available in urban areas.

Running head: Rural Poverty

Poverty in Americas Rural Communities According to Fisher (2007), poverty rates have long been higher in nonmetropolitan than metropolitan areas (p.56). Lichter & Johnson (2007) came to same general consensus in stating that the concentration of poverty has been historically higher in rural areas. Individuals who reside in nonmetropolitan areas have higher odds of being poor than their metropolitan counterparts. Persistently poor counties, or counties with poverty rates of 20 percent or more in each decennial census, have been mostly nonmetropolitan areas. Various factors, such as unemployment, underemployment or lack of sufficient education, have lead to individuals living impoverished lives. Many factors have been beyond their control. This paper serves to provide a more in depth look into the reasons why such is the case. The inquiry this paper serves to address is the causes for poverty remaining higher in rural areas. It has been hypothesized that issues such as spatial concentration, employment opportunities and educational attainments are some of the culprits to blame for the disproportionate rural poverty rates. Poverty in America For clarification purposes, all individuals with low income should not automatically be classified as poor. According to Heady (2008), If a household has an adequate level of consumption or a reasonable amount of wealth (net worth), it should not be classified as poor, even if its current income is low (p.24). Additionally, it was suggested that a household should only be considered poor if it has low income, low consumption and low wealth (Heady, 2008, p.24). Therefore, the author of this paper is referencing individuals who meet the latter criteria of low income, low consumption and low wealth.

Running head: Rural Poverty

Trends of Poverty Poverty is cyclical in nature. In a study by Hoynes et al (2006), several factors, such as race, and ethnicity, were determined to be linked to poverty in America. In fact, both had a strong correlation to the probability of living in poverty. The number of minority individuals living in poverty is disproportionate in comparison to their white non-Hispanic counterparts. Another factor that could be used to predict a persons likelihood to be poor was their educational level. Of particular note is the fact that being born into poverty increases the likelihood of an individual remaining poor. Lichter and Johnson (2007) stated that rural poverty has an intergenerational dimension; poor children today often become tomorrows poor adults (p.336). In addition to the factors already mentioned, female-headed households, with a poverty rate three to four times that of the general population, is another factor to be considered when attempting to determine ones likelihood of living in poverty (Hoynes, 2006). According to Gorham et al (2005) rural populations are aging and there is an out-migration of young adults along with an in-migration of older adults (p.14). Urban vs. Rural Poverty Fisher (2007) found that one in five nonmetropolitan (rural) counties compared to one in 20 metropolitan (urban) counties were found to be high poverty areas (p.56). Unlike in urban communities, poor individuals in rural communities are more subject to geographical isolation. Studies regarding metro poverty tend to focus on within-county differences while studies regarding rural poverty tend to focus on between-county differences (Lichter & Johnson, 2007). There are several ways in which urban and rural poverty differs. For instance, rural poverty is more persistent and is geographically concentrated. According to the Morrison (2004)

Running head: Rural Poverty

text, the rural poor are often the working poor, live one illness, accident or plant closing away from financial disaster (p.18). Of particular interest to the author of this paper is that more than one source indicated that the rural poor are less likely to receive public assistance than is the urban poor. In urban communities, poor individuals are able to choose alternate lifestyles that are often illegal as a means of survival, but rural individuals cannot. Besides the fact that such activities are not only illegal, but they are not readily available in rural communities. When such lifestyles are available they are more frowned upon in rural communities due to the social moral fabric of the rural communities. Based on Shermans (2006) text, in rural communities, survival strategies tend to be heavily influenced by local cultural and gender norms (p.892). Historical Data There are various dates given regarding when rural poverty began to exceed urban poverty. However, the general consensus is that rural poverty has been higher than urban poverty for an extended amount of time. Lichter and Johnsons (2007) research suggested that most of Americas high-poverty counties have been poor for several decades (p. 334) and persistently poor counties may have actually become poorer over time (p. 335). Tickamyer and Duncan (1990) stated that in the 1950s rural poverty was far more severe than urban poverty, with over a third of rural residents in poverty compared to 15% in urban areas [but] by the late 1960s rural poverty had fallen to 18% (p. 70). The poverty rate in rural areas continued to decline in the mid-1970, but began to increase again in the 1980s. A further distinction is that rural poverty has always been more heavily concentrated in the South (Tickamyer & Duncan, 1990). During the postwar period of economic growth and prosperity, many rural areas remained pockets of poverty and deprivation (Tickamyer & Duncan, 1990, p. 75).

Running head: Rural Poverty

Causes of Poverty The culture of poverty and social Darwinism are the most often cited views that individual behaviors are the reason for poverty (Segal, 2007, p. 333). Both view ignore societal factors as causes of poverty. In fact Social Darwinism focuses on the survival of the fittest mentality, with the conclusion that those who earn ample incomes and succeed are those who are best able to perform and have successfully done so (p.333). People lack social capital if they are lacking in areas such as education and training. Following are other reasons attributed to the causes of poverty. Spatial Concentration Lichter and Johnson (2007) felt that the rural poor remain in geographically isolated, economically depressed, and often forgotten regions of the country (p.333). Living in areas with high concentrations of poverty compounds the disadvantages the poor population already faces. The isolation and polarization faced by rural communities makes it difficult to reap the benefits from growing or booming urban communities. Fisher (2007) noted that nonmetro places may appeal to those with low-income capacity because of the possibilities for informal work (p.58). Perhaps one can deduct that due to the spatial concentration of individuals with low earning ability could potentially hinder such communities from increasing overall income levels, which in return holds it within a state of poverty. Study A study conducted by Lichter and Johnson (2007) researched spatial inequality and the changing geographic distribution of Americas poor people (p. 335). The study began by emphasizing changes in the population size (poor and non-poor) that were residing in high-

Running head: Rural Poverty

poverty counties. They then examined the changing number of counties with poverty rates of more than 30-40 percent. Those areas were considered as having extremely high poverty rates. The next step consisted of focusing on the total population and the population children. The final step was to calculate the index of dissimilarity that checked to see if the rural poor people are increasingly melding geographically with the non-poor population (Lichter & Johnson, 2007, p. 336). Data All counties within the United States were considered in the study. The counties were determined to be metro or nonmetro based on the 2003 definition of metro. Counties were chosen because they have stable boundaries that allowed the analysis a fixed area in which to examine the changes that occurred over time. Measurement and analysis The study identified the poor population as including individuals who fell below the official poverty income line. An overview of the changing rates in poverty was completed and showed the changing concentration of the population. Findings The study determined that geographically speaking the poor population in America was unevenly distributed with the highest concentrations in rural areas. The result of this spatial concentration magnifies the social and economic impact of poverty on the poor (Lichter & Johnson, 2007, p. 340). Family Structure

Running head: Rural Poverty

Poverty strongly relates to family structure. Female-headed households are more likely to be poor than family comprised of other dynamics, such as married couples or male-headed households. Women in rural areas are at a larger disadvantage due to job availability, sex segregation of occupations, and other common barriers to employment such as transportation and childcare (Snyder & McLaughlin, 2004, p. 130). Research has documented that rural femaleheaded households with children are now most likely to live in poverty and are twice as likely to be impoverished compared to those in suburban areas (Snyder & McLaughlin, 2004, p. 145). Employment According to Morrison (2004) lower real income is the result of remoteness. Rural areas tend to possess fewer employment opportunities. Nonetheless, when employment opportunities are accessible, they are more likely to be low-skill occupations with low pay. Fisher (2007) stated that low-skill occupations make up a higher percentage of the total nonmetropolitan jobs than in the nation as a whole. An added issue is the fact that even once any form of employment is attained, there is not much probability for advancement. Snyder and McLaughlin (2004) stated that people who work in rural areas are more likely to be poor (p. 129). Education A strong prediction of poverty status, according to Hoynes et al (2006), is educational levels. For instance, research showed that among individuals living in families in which the head has less than a high school education, 31.3 percent are below the poverty line, compared to just 9.6 percent of those whose head has at least a high school education (Hoyne et al, 2006, p. 49). To take it a step further, income levels are strongly influenced by educational levels. There must be an increase in the educational levels of individuals in rural communities.

Running head: Rural Poverty

Transportation Public transportation is generally limited or completely unavailable in rural areas. The lack of such creates a barrier to employment that would generate income in the home. Individuals without their own means of transportation are faced with the obstacle of either attempting to pay others for transportation or simply miss employment opportunities. With rural communities being so geographically vast and widely spread, residents are not able to walk to work as their urban counterparts that lack transportation could easily do. Coping with Rural Poverty Individuals in rural communities are most likely to choose coping mechanisms based on the social norms. The different coping strategies utilized in the rural community carries various levels of moral capital. Sherman (2006) conducted a study of the coping skills of rural communities. The sample community chosen was a place called Golden Valley, which was an ideal site because of its isolation and historical dependence on a single industry, now in decline (p. 894). The researcher collected data via various interviews with the native residents of the area. The number of interviewees was split even between male and female residents. The researcher found that wealth was not the key to respectability in the community; instead it was having a male earner in the home whose job allowed him to provide as much as possible. Having a small wage carried little shame, but there was a stigma attached to being a welfare recipient. The unemployed individuals chose survival skills based upon social norms and the moral capital the survival skill carried. Government assistance was the last resort and there were levels of acceptance of those benefits. Coping strategies such as drug dealing were not socially acceptable means of survival. In rural communities, the past of individuals with low moral

Running head: Rural Poverty

10

capital, the stigma of their past and presents became barriers to their futures (Sherman, 2006, p. 900). The moral capital concept in rural communities is almost a system of identifying the worthy poor from the unworthy poor, with more rewards going to those deemed as the worthy poor. Trussell and Mair (2010) quoted S.W. Klitzings work as showing leisure as a coping mechanism to help alleviate stress caused by poverty and homelessness (p.514). The leisure in mentioned refers to places such as community-based social service organizations. The judgment free spaces offer a method for the individuals to become, and remain, connected to the broader community (Trussell & Mair, 2010, p. 521) and seeking them emphasizes the participants desire to have a sense of an ordinary life and feel connected to the community (p.529). Individual residing in poverty already feel marginalized and such places can provide a sense of normalcy to an otherwise stressful existence. Solutions for Rural Poverty As previously stated, one of the major cause of poverty in rural communities is the lack of sufficient educational levels. One of the first steps one can take to alleviate poverty is to increase educational levels. The higher the educational attainment, the higher the earning potential one possesses. Per Morrison (2004), access to higher education and training opportunities may prove to be an additional tactic for reducing isolation (p.33). It has been shown by research that access to technology training and higher education through local institutions contributes to the reduction of poverty in nonmetro areas (Morrison, 2004, p. 36). Policy 61 is a formal commitment of Library Services for the Poor (de la Pena McCook, 2005, p.117). The objective of research published by in 1999 by Library & Information Science

Running head: Rural Poverty

11

Research was to ensure that library outlets will be successful Internet access points for the economically-disadvantaged within the United States (de la Pena McCook, 2005, p. 118). One might assume that government assistance would help in the alleviation of poverty. However, Hoynes et al (2006) stated that Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) would increase the incomes of the poor. However, it is expected to have little effect on the poverty rate because TANF transferred are phased out at income levels significantly below the poverty line (p.61). In other words, such programs may slightly ease the financial burdens of families, but it will not move them out of poverty. Migration out of poverty-stricken geographically isolated areas has been suggested as a solution to rural poverty. More often than not rural communities are tight-knit communities and leaving is like leaving families, which impact the reasons why most choose to stay. However, with the opportunities in rural communities being limited, outmigration could become an inevitable solution to rural poverty. Early research by Tickamyer and Duncan (1990) stated that outmigration had increased and that those remaining often worked intermittently in odd jobs, bartering goods and services in the informal sector to piece together a living from miscellaneous sources (pp. 80-81). According to Gorham et al (2005), poverty-stricken families residing in rural areas may experience a sense of hopelessness due to the lack of employment, economic support, and socialization opportunities (p.14). Individuals need to feel empowered to change their own situation, which will make them invest in the outcome of their future. Gorham et al (2005) stated that educating individuals and families about economic best practices can empower families to overcome hardships. Informed families develop a sense of mastery needed to endure the chronic

Running head: Rural Poverty

12

adversity of poverty and give them hope for a better future life (p.16) and decreasing economic adversity and increasing the strength of families is vitally important in promoting the well-being of rural America (p.16). As previously stated poverty tends to be intergenerational and children born into poor families tend to grow up to be poor adults. However, if they are introduced to better practices and empowered to feel that they can break the cycle of poverty, then they are more likely to do better and begin the journey to break the chains of poverty. Of course, it will not happen overnight, but gradual changes will lead to bigger and more permanent changes in the quest to alleviate poverty. Conclusion Poverty has historically existed disproportionately in rural communities with various factors being the cause. However, when it is all said and done, poverty is not an us or them (urban or rural) problem. It is a problem for the nation as a whole because regardless of where it is located, it impacts America in general. Even though poverty has been shown to exist more prevalently in rural communities no community is completely exempt from the threat or possibility of poverty. It is not a matter of whether the poverty exists in an urban area or in a rural area because poverty anywhere is a problem everywhere. References De la Pena McCook, K. (2005). Poverty, poor people, and our priorities. Reference & User Quarterly, 45(2), 117-121. Fisher, M. (2007). Why is US poverty higher in nonmetropolitan areas than in metropolitan areas? Growth and Change, 38(1), 56-76.

Running head: Rural Poverty

13

Gorham, E.E., Daniels, A.M., & Enevoldsen, B.L. (2005). Empowering rural families to create secure communities. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 97(1), 14-17. Heady, B. (2007). Poverty is low consumption and low wealth, not just low income. Social Indicators Research, 89(1), 23-29. Hoynes, H.W., Page, M.E., & Stevens, A.H. (2006). Poverty in America: Trends and explanations. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 47-68. Lichter, D.T., & Johnson, K.M. (2007). The changing spatial concentration of Americas rural poor population. Rural Sociology, 72(3), 331-358. Morrison, K.B. (2004). The ties that bind: The impact of isolation on income in rural America. Journal of Public Affairs, 7(1), 17-38. Segal, E.A. (2007). Social empathy: A tool to address the contradiction of working but still poor. Families in Society, 88(3), 333-337. Sherman, J. (2006). Coping with rural poverty: Economic survival and moral capital in rural America. Social Forces, 85(2), 891-913.

References Snyder, A. R., & McLaughlin, D.K. (2004). Female-headed families and poverty in rural America. Rural Sociology, 69(1), 127-149. Tickamyer, A.R., & Duncan, C.M. (1990). Poverty and opportunity structure in rural America. Annual Reviews Inc., 16, 67-86.

Running head: Rural Poverty

14

Trussell, D.E., & Mair, H. (2010). Seeking judgment free spaces: Poverty, leisure, and social inclusion. Journal of Leisure Research, 42(4), 513-533.