If someone asked you this question, how might you answer?
For many of us living in cities, we might name specific neighborhoods that we
associate with high levels of poverty. But that would only give us part of the answer.
The U.S. Census collects data each year as part of their Current Population Survey (CPS), and it
provides useful information on a number of issues, including poverty rates and
where people in poverty are most likely to live. (As I
blogged about last year, some in Congress want to end funding for CPS and
related surveys).
The largest number of people living below the federal poverty
threshold in 2011 lived in cities, 38.2 million according to the most recent Census data,
or 14.6 percent of the metropolitan
population. By contrast, 8 million people outside of metropolitan areas lived
in poverty, but they comprise 17 percent of the non-metropolitan population.
In
other words, although fewer people live in rural areas, those that do are
slightly more likely to live below the poverty threshold than those in cities. While metropolitan poverty
declined slightly from 2010-2011 (the year for which most recent data are
available), rural poverty increased slightly during that time.
As you can see on the graph above, rural (or “nonmetro”)
poverty has consistently been higher than metropolitan rates, although the gap
has decreased significantly in the last forty years. Of the ten
poorest counties in the U.S., the majority of them are primarily rural. The
graph below details how southern and western states have higher poverty rates
than the Northeast and Midwest, and shows that nonmetro poverty is particularly
high in southern states.
When we think about poverty, many people think about it as
an individual problem. Understanding these geographic patterns helps us to understand
that there are more than just individual factors at work causing poverty.
Understanding state policies and local industries and regional histories can
help us understand the disparities in poverty rates.
Six of the ten poorest U.S. counties are in South or North
Dakota, which have significantly higher Native American populations than many
other states. A recent American
Community Survey (ACS) report noted that in Rapid City, South Dakota,
Native American poverty rates are at nearly 51 percent. ACS also found that
Native Americans have the highest poverty rate
of any racial/ethnic group in the U.S, at 27 percent of the entire Native
American population.
Understanding the history of Native American displacement
and the creation of reservations—and the realities of reservations today—is
essential to understand a large part of rural poverty, particularly in the
plains states. The causes and realities of living in poverty in Appalachian
states, for instance, are quite different and require unique solutions.
Policies to address rural poverty need to take into account
that many of these areas lack basic infrastructure: dependable roads, reliable
sources of clean running water, internet service, or transportation options.
These kinds of concerns are distinct from those that might be part of the
problems of urban poverty, where roads and transportation might exist, but city
services might be lacking and neighborhood violence may be a significant
problem. From this example you can see that rural poverty and urban poverty are
very distinct issues.
Suburban poverty might seem like an oxymoron: if people can
afford to live in a suburb, haven’t they made it out of poverty? Not
necessarily. According
to the CPS, 18.2 million people living within a metropolitan area, but not in
the central city lived in poverty in 2011. Although this represents just
11.3 percent of the suburban population, the number itself is similar to those
living in poverty in central cities, at 20 million. Twenty percent of those in
central cities lived below the poverty line in 2011.
Recent
research from the Brookings Institution suggests that suburban
poverty is overtaking urban poverty in the U.S. It is not simply that poor
people are moving into suburbs in larger numbers, but as the effects of the
Great Recession linger, many people are finding themselves newly poor. As a Los Angeles Times story reports, those who were hit
hardest by the housing
crisis might have purchased their homes at the height of the market and as
a result are now struggling to get by. The Brookings report points out that
those living in suburban areas might be scattered and harder to reach with
social services.
Poverty is not a singular experience; where one lives
affects the kinds of challenges people will face, the resources people can
access, and the possible solutions. Place is a powerful reminder that poverty
is a sociological issue, not just a personal problem.
How else does place matter when understanding poverty? Any
other social issue?
Place also tells you the kind of lifestyle you like to lead. For example in poorer neighbhorhoods television is a relatively inexpensive form of escapism and entertainment. Also those TV who watch excessive TV or certain fare tend to have less than satisfying lives and shorter life spans.
Thanks for the article!