Overview
Unprecedented
economic growth during the 1990s benefited rural areas. Rural real per
capita income grew from $16,506 in 1993 to $21,831 in 2000, and the percentage
of rural people in poverty fell from 17.1 to 13.4 percent over that period.
Welfare policy changes (including time limits on assistance and stiffer
work requirements) and the growing economy contributed to declines in
food stamps, assistance to needy families, and unemployment insurance
payments. But, the 2001 recession caused rural income growth to slow
and poverty and assistance payments to creep back up. More
overview...
Features
Farm Poverty Lowest in U.S. History—Today farm poverty is at its lowest level in the Nation's
history, thanks to the availability of remunerative off-farm employment coupled with onfarm gains
in labor productivity. The well-being of farm families has improved significantly and depends much
less on the outcome of the farm business. Thus, general safety net programs, such as food stamps
or Medicaid, may be the more appropriate policy prescription for reducing farm poverty than traditional
commodity programs. This Amber Waves article presents an examination of the statistical and demographic
dimensions of contemporary farm poverty.
 Rural Poverty At A Glance—This publication provides the most recent information on poverty trends and demographic characteristics of the rural poor. The rate of poverty is not only an important social indicator of the well-being of the least well off, but it is also widely used as an input in shaping Federal policies and targeting program benefits. While metro and nonmetro areas have shared similar patterns of reductions and increases in poverty rates over time, there continues to exist a wide and persistent gap between nonmetro and metro poverty rates. The report also documents large metro-nonmetro gaps when poverty is analyzed by race, ethnicity, age, and family structure. Other reports in this series look at rural education and rural America (see all At A Glance reports).
Anatomy
of Nonmetro High-Poverty Areas: Common in Plight, Distinctive in Nature—For
the most part, nonmetro areas of high poverty are of long standing, with
conditions stemming from a complex of social and economic factors. This
Amber Waves article identifies a typology of high-poverty counties
that reflect racial/ethnic and regional differences in major characteristics
such as education, employment, family structure, incidence of disability,
and language proficiency that are relevant to programs of poverty alleviation.
Of the more than 400 nonmetro counties classified as high-poverty counties
in 2000 (based on 1999 income), three-fourths reflect the low income of
racial and ethnic minorities and are classified as Black, Native American,
or Hispanic high-poverty counties. The remaining quarter of high-poverty
counties are mostly located in the Southern Highlands, and the poor are
predominantly non-Hispanic Whites. See also the chapter
on high-poverty counties for more information and lists of these counties.
Comparisons of Metropolitan-Nonmetropolitan
Poverty During the 1990s—While the greater incidence of poverty
in nonmetro relative to metro areas is well documented, there is little
research as to whether it is deeper or more severe in nonmetro areas.
This report examines metro-nonmetro differences in U.S. poverty rates,
using data from Current Population Surveys (1991-2000) and poverty measures
that are sensitive to income distribution. A related feature, Nonmetro
Poverty: Assessing the Effect of the 1990s, appears in the September
2003 issue of Amber Waves.
Recommended Readings
Food Stamp and Family
Assistance Benefits Sharply Decline in the Post-Welfare-Reform Era—Influenced
by a robust economy, growth rates in overall per capita transfers slowed
to 2-3 percent annually in metro and nonmetro areas between 1994 and 1997.
Per capita food stamp benefits declined more rapidly in metro areas, while
benefits for family assistance declined more rapidly in nonmetro areas.
Rural
Dimensions of Welfare Reform—The Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) dramatically altered the
social safety net for poor Americans. But there is reason to believe that
welfare reform outcomes may be different for many of the 7.5 million people
living in poverty in rural areas. This book presents the first comprehensive
analysis of PRWORA's impact on caseloads, employment, earnings, and food
assistance in rural areas. It is the result of a conference—held
in May of 2000—that was jointly sponsored by the Economic Research
Service, the Joint Center for Poverty Research, and the Rural Policy Research
Institute, and funded by ERS's Food and Nutrition Research Program (FANRP). More
information is available at W.E.
Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
A Safety Net for Farm Households—There
are many ways to provide support to the agricultural sector. ERS examined
four different scenarios for government assistance to agriculture and
found that only one scenario would generate lower costs than the current
direct government payments to farms. However, any of the safety net scenarios
would dramatically change the distribution of total program benefits by
type of farm and region.
See
all recommended readings...
Recommended Data Products
ERS Typology Codes—These codes identify persistently poor counties, population loss counties, and other policy-relevant county types.
Poverty estimates—State- and county-level
poverty estimates for all individuals and related children under 18. Sort
and rank States, and the counties within a State on these indicators.
Data come from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Unemployment and median household income
estimates—State- and county-level unemployment rates for the
latest 6 years, and the latest median household income figures for States
and counties. Sort and rank States, and the counties within a State on
these indicators; view a county's income as a percentage of the State's
income. Data come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census
Bureau.
Recent Research Developments
Most Persistently
Poor Rural Counties in the South Remained Poor in 1995—Estimates
for 1995 suggest that only a few persistently poor counties in the South
may have reduced their poverty rate to less than 20 percent during the
early 1990s, despite the overall strength of the rural economy.
Does It Cost Less To
Live In Rural Areas? Evidence From New Data on Food Security and Hunger—Living
in rural areas is estimated to cost about 16 percent less, on average,
than living in urban areas. This difference implies that the official
poverty rate overstates rural economic hardship compared with that in
urban areas. This study uses data about food insecurity and hunger collected
by the Census Bureau for USDA to estimate differences in the cost of living
between rural and urban areas. For more information, contact Mark
Nord.
Related Briefing Rooms
Related Links
Bureau of Economic
Analysis, Local Area Personal Income—Provides county-level data on income by source, employment
by industry, and transfer payments by program.
U.S. Census Bureau,
income page—Provides access to reports and data that cover
county-level or nonmetro area estimates of income.
U.S. Census Bureau,
poverty page—Provides access to reports and data
that cover county-level or nonmetro area estimates of poverty.
See all related links…
Images and Maps Gallery
Rural Gallery—Charts and maps depict information on rural indicators, including population and migration; labor and education; income, poverty, and welfare; housing; and industry.
|
