^^

C-ef • •*—

urii%<^~ — - «es

Department of

Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service

Rural Development

Research Report

Number 62

Poverty Among Black

Families in the

Nonmetro South

Linda M. Ghelfi

r>

.'m:j^*
Additional Copies of This Report...

Can be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government

Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20402. Include the title and series

number in your order. Write to the above address for price information, or

call the GPO order desk at (202) 783-3238. You may also charge your purchase by telephone to your VISA, MasterCard, Choice, or GPO Deposit Account. Bulk discounts available. Foreign customers, please add 25 percent

extra for postage.

Microfiche copies ($5.95 each) can be purchased from the National

Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,

VA 22161. Include the title and series number in your order. Enclose check

or money order payable to NTIS; add $3.00 handling charge for each order.

For faster service, call NTIS at (703) 487-4650 and charge your purchase to

your VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or NTIS Deposit Account.

NTIS will ship rush orders within 24 hours for an extra $10; charge your

rush order by calling 800-336-4700.

The Economic Research Service has no copies for free distribution.
Poverty Among Black Families in the Nonmetro South. By Linda M.

Ghelfi, Agriculture and Rural Economies Division. EconomiG Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Rural Development Research Report

No. 62.

Abstract

Nearly all black families in nonmetro areas live in the South. There they

have a higher poverty rate than black families in other regions; 35 percent

had incomes below the poverty threshold in 1979. Poverty is particularly

prevalent among black families in the nonmetro South with a female

householder—56 percent of them were poor in 1979. Income problems of

these families and of their poor white counterparts appear to be related to

factors such as low levels of education, young or old age, and work

disabilities. Those poor black family members who are employed are concentrated in low-wage jobs.

Keywords: Blacks, black families, nonmetropolitan, poverty, South.

Acknowredgitients

The author thanks Priscilla Salant, Thomas Carlin, Robert Hoppe, Peggy

Ross, Leslie Whitener, John Crecink, and Olaf Larson for their critical

reviews of this manuscript. Thanks also to Gerald Wheelock for the special

tabulations from the 1890 Land Grant Institutions' survey of low-income

rural areas of the South.

Washington, DC 20005-4788 August 1986

ni
Contents

Page

Summary / v

Glossary vi

Introduetion 1

Background ........ 1

Black Residence and Migration Patterns, 1790 to 1980 1

Geographic Distribution of the Black Population in 1980 2

Aspects of Poverty . . . . , 3

Families ill the Nonmetro South 5

Family Types < , .....,/. 5

Data Source and Rehabihty 5

Family Income . ., 6

Ratio of Family Income to the Poverty Threshold 6

Amount and Sources of IneoineV., 7

Dependence on PubMc Assistance . 8

Family Member Gomtributions to income ... * 9

Human Capital of Blatík Famiiy Householders 9

Age ..... .......... ... 9

Education 10

Work Disability 11

Single Parents with Preschool Ghildxen 11

Comparison with White Family Householders 11

Labor-Force Status and Employment of Black Family

Householders . 12

Labor-Force Status 13

Occupations of the Employed 14

Weeks Worked in 1979 14

Those Not in the Labor Force . 15

Comparison with White Family Householders 16

Adïdt Black Family^Mennribers 17

Relationship to th^e Householder 17

Age .. ... ... . . 17

Education . 17

Work Disability 18

Labor-Force Status 18

Occupations of the Employed 19

Weeks Worked in 1979 19

Those Not in the Labor Force 19

Gomparison with Adult Members of White Families . 22

Conclusions 23

References . 24

Appendix Tables , . 26

IV
Summary

There were 1.1 million black families living in nonmetro areas in 1980, 1

million (93 percent) of whom lived in the South. Thirty-five percent of these

southern nonmetro black families had incomes below the poverty threshold.

Poverty is an even greater problem among black female householder

families in the nonmetro South, 56 percent of whom had incomes below the

poverty threshold. These poverty rates rival those for families in any central

city of any metropolitan area.

This report examines human capital characteristics and labor-force participation of poor black family householders and other adult members of

these families.

Poor black householders in the nonmetro South do not have high levels of

marketable skills. Black female householders are generally young and have

not completed high school. One-third of them care for preschool-age

children. On the other hand, nearly one-third of the poor "other" (marriedcouple and male, no wife present) family householders were 65 years old or

older and 82 percent had not completed high school. Despite these workinhibiting problems, earnings are still the largest source of income for the

poor.

In the nonmetro South, nearly 20 percent of poor black female family

householders in the labor force were unemployed. The **other" poor black

householders had a 9.3-percent unemployment rate. Poor householders had

unemployment rates well above those of their nonpoor counterparts. These

unemployment rates may reflect the low level of skills among the poor

black householders as well as the lack of employment opportunities in their

communities.

Only in educational attainment, unemployment rate, and occupational

distribution are there major differences between poor black and white

householders in the nonmetro South. Black householders completed fewer

years of school, had higher unemployment rates, and were more concentrated in lower wage service and operator, fabricator, and laborer

occupations.

The income status of families also depends on the contributions of family

members other than the householder. But the human capital characteristics

of these members of poor black families in the nonmetro South show low

levels of marketable skills.

Additional education, work-related training, increased employment opportunities, daycare for preschool children of single parents, and increased

child support from absent parents are possible ways to decrease the poverty

problem among these black families.
Glossary

Adult Persons 16 years old and older.

Central city. The largest eity, or one of the largest cities, in a Standard

MetropoUtan Statistical Area (SMSA],

Disability, Work limiting—a health condition lasting 6 months or longer

which limits the kind or amount of work a person can perform. A person is lijnited in the kind of work he or she can do if the health condition restricts the choice of a job» A person is limited in the amount of

work if he or she cannot woTk full time (35 or more hours per week).

Work preventing—a health condition which prevents a person from

working.

1890 Land Grant Institutions. The historically black colleges estabhshed

through the Morrill Act of 1890. The 1890 Land Grant Institutions that

cooperated on the survey cited rn this report are Alabama A&M UniversityrUniversity of Arkansas, Pine Bhiff; Flarida A&M University; Fort

Valley State College (Georgia); Kentucky State University; Alcorn State

University (Mississippi); North Garolina A&T State University; South

Carolina State College; Tennessee State University; and Virginia State

University,

Family. Two or more persons, including the householder, who are related

by blood, marriage, or legal adoption, and who live together as one

household. If the son or daughter of the householder and the son*s or

daughter's spouse and/or children are members of the household, they

are included in the householder's family. A roomer OT boarder and

his/her spouse who are not related to the householder are not counted

as a family, but as individuals unrelated to the householder.

Family type. Classification of families by the marital status and sex of the

householder, and the presence af the householder's spouse. This report

analyzes female householder families with no husband p^resent and

**other" householder families. "Other" includes married-couple families

and male householder, no wife present, farnilies.

Householder, The person reported in column one of the 1980 Census of

Population and Housing form. This was to be the person in whose

name the home was owned or rented. If there was no such person, any

household member at least 15 years old who was not a roomer, boarder,

or paid employee could he reported.

Income. Total money income reported from wages and salaries; nonfarm

self-employment; farm self-employment; interest, dividends, and net

rentals; Social Security; public assistance; and all other regularly received sources.

Labor*force status. In the labor /orce—persons 16 years old and older who

were either employed or unemployed during the reference week of the

census.

Employed—persons 16 years old and older who were members of the

armed forces or had a job in the civilian labor force during the

reference week.

Unemployed—persons 16 years old and older who were not in the

VI
armed forces and did not have a civilian job, but were actively seeking

employment during the reference week.

Not in the labor /orce—persons 16 years old and older who were not in

the armed forces, did not have a civilian job, and were not seeking

employment during the reference week.

Unemployment rate—total unemployed divided by total in the labor

force.

Metro. Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). Includes counties

containing a city of 50,000 or more people or a city of 25,000 or more

people if the city population plus that of contiguous thickly populated

places equals 50,000 or more. Additional contiguous counties are included if they are economically and socially integrated with the central

city.

Nonmetro. Counties which are not metro.

Poor, Families whose 1979 income was less than the poverty threshold

specified for their family size, age of householder, and number of

children under 18 years old.

Poverty tfireshold. Income cutoff used to determine poverty status. The income cutoffs vary by family size, number of children, and age of the

family householder or unrelated individual. The poverty thresholds used

in this study are those published by the Bureau of the Census (36). For

example, the poverty threshold for a family of four in 1979 was an annual income of $7,412.

Race. Families are identified by the race of the householder.

Region. Northeast—Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,

New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Midwest (formerly North Central)—Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South

Dakota, and Wisconsin.

South—Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida,

Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina,

Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West

Virginia.

West—Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,

Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

Rural. Places populated with fewer than 2,500 people.

Unrelated individual. A householder living alone; a roomer, boarder, partner, roommate, or resident employee not related to the householder; or

a person living in group quarters who is not an inmate of an institution.

Persons living with one or more relatives in a household where the

householder is not related to any of them are classified in the census as

unrelated individuals.

Urban. Places populated with 2,500 or more people. Urban is not

synonymous with metro. One can be both nonmetro and urban. For example, a person living in a city of 2,500 or more inhabitants in a county

outside an SMSA is both nonmetro and urban.

Working^age. Persons 16 to 64 years old.

vn
Poverty Among Black Families

in the Nonmetro South

Linda M. Ghelfr

Introduction

The migration of blacks from the South to the

North and from rural to urban areas has drastically

changed the geographic distribution of the black

population since World War I.^ From a

predominantly rural South population, 80 percent

of blacks now live in metro areas and 50 percent

live outside the South. Despite this migration, 1

million black families lived in the nonmetro South

in 1980. Thirty-five percent of them had incomes

below the poverty threshold, a poverty rate which

rivals that for families in any central city of any

metro area.^

This report profiles poor black families in the

nonmetro South. Data were computed from the

1980 Census of Population and Housing, Public Use

Microdata Sample (PUMS), a 1-percent sample of

the population that permits detailed analysis of the

population living in nonmetro areas [35].^ ^ While

similar data for more recent years are not available,

the general characteristics reported here probably

still exist.

This report analyzes the sources of income and the

income problems of black families in the nonmetro

South. It also describes some characteristics of

family householders and adult family members

related to income-earning capacity, such as age,

education, work disability, labor-force status, occupation, and weeks worked. To illustrate how the

characteristics of these families differ from or coin-

*The author is an economist with the Agriculture and Rural

Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agricuhure.

^Terms such as the South, poverty, family, householder, and

others are those used by the Bureau of the Census and are

defined in the Glossary.

^The poverty thresholds in this report are those used by the

Bureau of the Census. The poverty threshold for a family of four

in 1979 was an income of $7,412,

^Italicized numbers in parentheses refer to items in the

References section.

^Information on the PUMS computer data tape and estimates

of error for the data tabulated from it are presented in the Data

Source and Reliability section.

cide with those of the majority of southern

nonmetro families, this report compares blacks and

whites by poverty status and family type.

Background

This section provides perspective for the PUMS information. It outlines the changes in the geographic

distribution of the U.S. black population since

World War I. It also places poor black families in

the nonmetro South in national perspective and

presents related research findings on poverty

among black families.

Black Residence and Migration Patterns,

1790 to 19805

During 1790-1910, 90 percent of all blacks lived in

the South. But this percentage began to decline

after 1910 as blacks migrated to the North during

World War I. By 1940, only 75 percent of all blacks

resided in the South. At that time, the migration

stream broadened to include a substantial flow to

the West, particularly to California. The percentage

of blacks living in the South dropped to 50 percent

by 1970, a trend that leveled off to 52 percent by

1980 (34),

The black migration was not only out of the South,

but also from rural areas to urban areas. In 1890

(the first census to record rural-urban residence for

blacks], 80 percent of all blacks lived in rural areas.

By 1970, the situation was completely reversed--80

percent lived in urban areas. Most of this urbanization occurred after 1940, fed by the large influx of

blacks to northern cities from southern rural areas.

In 1980, 85 percent of the black population lived in

urban areas (34).

Many blacks moved northward for economic opportunities in large northern cities; to escape from

^Except for 1980 data, all information in this section was

obtained from [36].
racial discrimination and segregation; or for

employment because agricultural mechanization or

depression left many southern agricultural workers

unemployed.

Whatever the causes of migration prior to 1970» a

new black migration pattern has emerged. Since

1970, the South has experienced a decline in the

volume of black outmigration along with an increase in black inmigration. From 1970 to 1975, the

number of black inmigrants was about the same as

the number of black outmigrants (302,000 entered

the South while 288,000 left).

Geographic Distribution of the

Black Population in 1980

In 1980, 93 percent of blacks living in nonmetro

areas resided in the South. The distribution of

nonmetro blacks is geographically concentrated (as

measured by the percentage of county population

which is black) along the Southeast Coastal Plain,

across Georgia and Alabama, and up through the

Mississippi Delta (fig. 1). The pattern also extends

west across Louisiana into east Texas.

Nearly all nonmetro counties with 10 percent or

more blacks are in the South. Only 10 of these

counties are in the Midwest, 6 of which are in

Missouri and Illinois bordering the Southern States.

No nonmetro counties in the Northeast or West are

comprised of 10 percent or more blacks. Virtually

all blacks outside the South live in metro areas.

Figure 2 shows the residential distribution of black

families. (The metro-nonmetro breakdown is shown

only for the South because there are so few blacks

in nonmetro areas outside the South.) In 1980, 1

million black families lived in the nonmetro

South—almost twice the number of all black

families living in the West (0.5 million) and

somewhat less than those in the Northeast and

Figure 1

Counties in the nonmetro South with at least

10 percent blacic population, 1980

Source Cofnputed from <J^).
Midwest, 1.1 and 1.2 million, respectively.

However, more black families live in the metro

South than in any other area, 2.2 million.

Poor black families by region and residence are

also shown in figure 2. Poverty is more prevalent

among black families in the nonmetro South than

in any other area. Although the nonmetro South

contains only 16.7 percent of all black families, it

contains 22.2 percent of poor black families. The

other areas have a lower percentage of poor black

families than of total black families (see app. table 1

for a breakdown of poverty rates by region and

residence).

Aspects of Poverty

Most personal income in the United States is

earned through wages and salaries; research on the

causes of poverty has thus concentrated on workrelated characteristics of the poor and on the labor

markets in which they work (2, 9, 12, 13, 26],

Causes of poverty are generally grouped into three

categories: work-related characteristics (human

capital) of the poor; the availability of employment

and wage rates in local labor markets; and

discrimination. The combination of these factors

may also determine the persistence of poverty in a

population group, such as blacks, or in a

geographic area, such as the nonmetro South.

Human Capital. Human capital, the skills and

abilities marketable as labor, is usually measured

according to the years of schooling completed.

Although other measures such as years of work experience, on-the-job training, aptitude test scores,

and indicators of motivation have been used, education is the most available measure and usually

shows a strong relationship to income (9, 26]. The

lower educational attainment of the poor is then interpreted as a cause of their low-paying jobs and

low incomes.

FHlure2

Black families by region and residence, 1980

All families

Ibtal: 6.1 million

Poor families

~R7tal: 1.6 million

South-Nonmetro

16.7%

South-Nonmetro

22.2%

Souoe:{S4}.
Disability, family type, and age are other facets of

human capital that may restrict employment.

Physical or mental disabilities which limit the

amount or kind of work a person can perform

restrict income-generating opportunities. The

presence of preschool-age children may restrict the

ability of one parent to work. For single-parent

households, this may mean that there is no adult

able to earn income. If the single parent has few

job skills (little other human capital), he or she may

not be able to pay for child care and support the

family as well The employment disadvantages of

advanced age also limit many people's earnings.

For example, forced retirement and retirement due

to health problems keep many older family

members from earning income.

The population in the nonmetro South, especially

nonmetro blacks, has been found to have low levels

of human capital. A study of four rural southern

counties found that many blacks had low levels of

education, little formal job training, little work experience, or had work-inhibiting health problems

[26). Another study of southern blacks during the

sixties found that plantation agriculture, poor

health, and poor educational systems ill-prepared

rural blacks for nonfarm jobs [19). However, a more

recent study reported that the education levels of

nonmetro blacks have increased, although they still

lag behind those of whites and metro blacks [14).

Local Labor Markets. Characteristics of local labor

markets are also related to poverty. These factors

include the wage level of available jobs, the number

of jobs available compared to the number of persons seeking employment, and the opportunity for

promotion to better paying jobs. High levels of

unemployment and numbers of able persons not in

the labor force {not seeking employment) are seen

as symptoms of deficient demand for labor [28).

Jobs which provide enough income to raise a family

above the poverty threshold may be scarce if local

labor markets primarily provide employment in occupations with low wages and little opportunity for

advancement. Low-wage occupations include farm

laborers, service workers, general laborers, and

many clerical and retail sales personnel.

The nonmetro South has become increasingly industrialized since World War II. However,

economic growth was not evenly distributed across

the region. A study found that during the sixties,

industries bypassed southern rural areas with large

black populations [32). A review of case studies of

industrial plants locating in nonmetro areas from

1945 to 1974 found that minorities were underrepresented in these firms, and where they were

employed, it was in unskilled and semiskilled jobs

(30). This employment pattern could be due to

discrimination in hiring, lack of skills among local

minorities, or both [30).

More recently, the 1890 Land Grant Institutions

conducted a household survey in a sample of lowincome counties in the rural South (12). Over half

of the householders (53 percent) cited limited job

opportunities as a serious problem in securing

employment. Another 34 percent said that limited

opportunities were somewhat a problem. Most of

the respondents also felt there were not enough job

opportunities for the young people in their

communities.

Disúrimination, Discrimination is also perceived to

cause poverty (19, 23, 26, 28). Discrimination

against minorities may prevent them from obtaining

the education necessary to obtain employment and

limit their opportunities for employment.

Discrimination in education and job training in the

sixties was found to be so pervasive among

southern nonmetro blacks that it was hard to judge

the effect of these factors on their employment [19).

There was some evidence, however, that the situation in the early seventies was changing, and

southern blacks started to obtain jobs with potential

for upward mobility (19).

Unpublished tabulations from the 1890 Land Grant

Institutions* survey provide information on whether

the elderly, women, and blacks in low-income areas

of the rural South feel that discrimination by age,

sex, or race is a problem in obtaining employment.^

Seventeen percent of householders over 60 years

old felt age discrimination was a serious problem in

obtaining employment. Combined with the 39 percent who felt it was somewhat of a problem, 56

percent of older householders thought age

discrimination negatively affected employment opportunities. Fifteen percent of female householders

believed that sex discrimination was a serious problem in obtaining employment, and another 35 percent thought it was somewhat of a problem.

Thirty-two percent of black householders viewed

racial discrimination as a serious employment problem. Added to the 40 percent of black householders

who saw racial discrimination as somewhat of a

problem, nearly 75 percent of black householders

felt discrimination negatively affected employment

opportunities.

^These special tabulations of discrimination by householder

characteristics were provided by Dr. Gerald Wheelock, Alabama

A&M UnivBTSity. See (12) for published data from the survey.
A larger percentage of older black female

householders found each type of discrimination to

be a serious problem than did any other age-racesex category of householders, indicating that these

types of discrimination may have cumulative effects. Younger white males were the least likely to

see any type of discrimination as an employment

problem.

Persistence of Poverty, Persistence, or duration, is

another aspect of poverty in the nonmetro South.

Although the profile of the poor changes little from

year to year, the poverty status of particular

families changes.^ Only slightly more than half of

the people with incomes below the poverty level in

one year were poor the next year (9). Considerably

less than half of those who experience poverty remain persistently poor over many years. However,

the incidence of persistent poverty was highest

among blacks, the elderly, rural residents, and

people living in the South (9). Persistent poverty

was particularly high among black female

householder families. Southern nonmetro blacks are

at high risk of being persistently poor because they

fall into many of these categories.

Economic Research Service studies show that counties with per capita incomes which persistently

ranked in the bottom quintile of nonmetro counties

from 1969 to 1979 were located predominantly in

the South (7, 15). These ^'persistently low-income

counties" had higher percentages of minorities and

were more dependent on extractive industries {such

as mining and agriculture) for employment than

were other nonmetro counties.

These studies document the income and employment problems of the rural South's population, particularly for the black population and members of

female householder families. This report further

details the income and poverty status of black

families in the nonmetro South. Although there are

also income problems among unrelated individuals,

this report examines only families.«

Families in the Nonmetro South

The remainder of this report concentrates solely on

families in the nonmetro South. All data and

analysis refer only to that geographic area. Within

the nonmetro South, families are classified by family type and race.

^This study of poverty over time is based on data from the

Panel Study of Income Dynamics conducted by the Survey

Research Center at the University of Michigan (9).

*The proportion of the nonmetro South population living in

families is shown in app. table 2.

Family Types

Families are classified by the marital status and sex

of the householder. Married couples are the

predominant type of family for both blacks and

whites (table 1). However, black families are more

likely to be headed by a female with no husband

present. Female householder families represent 32

percent of all black families, compared with only 9

percent of white families.

Poverty is more prevalent among black families

than white families; black families are three times

as likely to be poor as white families. Poverty is

also more prevalent among female householder

families, particularly among blacks. About half of

poor black families are headed by women with no

husband present. Thus, information on black and

white families will be analyzed using two groupings. Female householder families constitute one

group. The group referred to as "other"

householder families includes married-couple

families and families with a male householder, no

wife present. This "other" group has mostly male

householders, although some married couples

reported the wife as the householder.

Data Source and Reliability

The data presented were computed from the

1-percent Public Use Microdata Sample of the 1980

Census of Population and Housing for metro and

nonmetro areas {35). This sample is the most comprehensive data available on nonmetro residents.

Although it provides the most accurate estimates

Table 1—Families in the nonmetro South by race, type

of householder, and poverty status, 1980

All families Poor families

Race and type Number Percentage Number Percentage

of family of total poor

Thousand Percent Thousand Percent

Total black families 1,019.5 100.0 360.8 35.4

Married couple 639.1 62.7 163.2 25.5

Male householder,

no wife present 54.9 5.4 17.8 32.4

Female householder, no husband present 325.5 31.9 179.8 55.2

Total white families 5,599.5 100.0 668.4 11.9

Married couple 4,954.1 88.5 507.2 10.2

Male householder,

no wife present 143.4 2.6 22.1 15.4

Female householder, no husband present 502.0 9.0 139.1 27.7

Source: Computed from [35].
obtainable for the entire population, it is still subject to errors of estimate.

Standard errors and confidence intervals were computed for the totals and percentages reported. The

standard errors were computed directly from the

sample, using the 100 random groups method [36].

Differences in percentages between poor and nonpoor families and between black and white families

were also tested for statistical significance. All differences reported in the text are statistically significant at the 95-percent confidence level or better.

Wherever comparable, the numbers reported have

been checked against published census data [the

estimates reported here are very close to estimates

of the same characteristics reported in (33 and 34]].

Family Income

Factors underlying income differences must be

understood in order to identify policies that might

increase the income of the poor. This section explores how much additional income it would take

to raise poor families above the poverty threshold;

the sources of their income, including the level of

their dependence upon public assistance; and

which family members contribute to family income.

Ratio of Family Income to the Poverty Threshotd

One measure used to express the relative poverty

status of a family is the ratio of total family income

to the poverty threshold. Black and white families

by type of householder are distributed according to

this ratio in figure 3. The low-income position of

black female householder families is striking: 55

percent have incomes below the poverty threshold.

Nearly 43 percent have incomes below 75 percent

of the poverty threshold—incomes of these families

would have to be increased by at least 33 percent

just to reach the poverty threshold.

Incomes of black "other" householder families and

white female householder families were similarly

Figure 3

Ratio of family income to the poverty threshold, nonmetro South, 1979

90 Percentage nonpoor

60 -

30

30 -

60

90

Poverty threshold

Percentage poor

Race and type off householder

Ratio off income to IXXXl 2.00 or mone

the poverty threshold: ,^,,^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^

1.25 to 1.99 1.00 ÎO 1.24

1^^^^^ 074 or less

Source: Computed fiom {^).
distributed in relation to the poverty threshold. A

little more than 25 percent of each group falls

below the poverty threshold. The white '*other"

householder families are significantly less likely to

be poor than any other group: only 12 percent are

below the poverty threshold, while 65 percent have

incomes two or more times the threshold.

Amount and Sources of Income

child support, and any other regularly received

cash income not elsewhere classified.

The median incomes of black and white poor

families are about equal, but the median income of

nonpoor black families is about $3,600 lower than

that of nonpoor white families (table 2). White

families are twice as likely as black families to have

incomes over $20,000.

Family income includes earned income from wages,

salaries, and self-employment and unearned income

from dividends, interest, and net rentals; Social

Security; public assistance; and other sources. The

other unearned income category includes alimony.

Earned income from wages, salaries, and selfemployment is the largest source of income for

each category of families, poor and nonpoor alike

(fig. 4). Earned income accounts for about 85 percent of the income in nonpoor *'other*' householder

Table 2—Family Income, nonmetro South, 1979

Race and income

Female householder

Poor Nonpoor

"Other" householder

Poor Nonpoor

Thousand

181.0 513,0

Percent

22.5

38.2 1.3

22.5 8.7

11.2 10.9

5.6 48.2

— 21.9

— 9.1

DoJJars

4,299 15,465

Number

4.4 4.0

Thousand

529.3 4,568.2

Percent

26.0

44.7 .8

20.5 6.4

7,4 8.7

1.5 39.8

— 27.1

— 17.2

Dollars

3,844 18,543

Number

All famüies

Poor Nonpoor Total

Black families

Income:

Less than $2,500

$2,500-$4,999

$5,0ü0-$7,499

$7,500-$9,999

$10,000-$19,999

$20,000-$29.999

$30,000 or more

Median family income

Average family size

White families

Income:

Less than $2,500

$2.500-$4,999

$5,000-$7,499

$7,500-$9.999

$10,000-$19,999

$20,000-$29,999

$30,000 or more

Median family income

Average family size

179.8

3,375

4.2

139.1

3,324

3.2

145.7

36,7 —

38.2 2.9

16.6 20.0

6.4 20.7

2.2 44.4

— 8.6

— 3.4

10,109

3.6

362.9

33.9 —

49.1 1.8

14.2 17.7

2.6 19.9

.3 44.2

— 11.5

— 4.9

11,825

2.7 3.5 3,1

360.8

3,839

4.3

668.4

3,726

3.4

658.7

14,349

3.9

4,931.1

17,984

3.1

1,019.5

29.5 — 10.5

38.2 1.6 14.6

19.5 11.2 14.1

8.8 13.0 11.5

3.9 47.4 32.0

— 18.9 12.2

— 7.8 5.1

9,851

4.1

5,599.5

27.6 — 3.3

45,6 .9 6.2

19,2 7.2 8.6

6.3 9.6 9.2

1.2 40.1 35.5

— 25.9 22.8

— 16.3 14.4

16,226

3.2

— = No families in this income category.

Source: Computed from [35].
families. Poor families obtain a lower percentage of

their income from earnings than do the nonpoor,

and among poor families, female householder

families receive the lowest percentage of their income from earnings.

Poor families receive a considerably larger portion

of income from Social Security and public

assistance than do nonpoor families. Poor female

householder families receive about 25 percent of

their income from public assistance, while poor

**other" families are more dependent upon Social

Security income than public assistance.^

Dependence on Public Assistance

While public assistance makes up 25 percent or less

of the income of the poor, some poor families de-

«Percentages of income by source refer to the combined income of families within each group. However, not all families in

each group receive income from all sources. The percentages of

families receiving income from each source are shown in app.

table 3.

pend on this income source much more than

others. Table 3 examines this dependence in more

detail by showing the ratio of cash public assistance

to total family income.^^ Over half of poor black

families reported receiving no public assistance in

1979. Female householder families were more likely

to report some cash assistance largely because Aid

to Famihes with Dependent Children (AFDC), the

largest such program, is designed to assist this

population. Poor black families are more likely to

receive cash assistance than are white families, and

poor black female householder families had the

highest degree of dependence. Many nonpoor black

female householder families (33 percent) receive

some public assistance. This assistance may be the

margin of income they need to stay out of poverty

loQther Government assistance programs provide in-kind

benefits to the poor. Food stamps, Medicaid, and housing

assistance are the largest of these programs. The PUMS data,

which cover only cash income, do not include the value of these

programs' benefits to recipients.

Figure 4

Sources of income for families in the nonmetro South, 1979

Poverty status, race, and type of housetiolder

Poor bl^k female

0 25

Percentage (

Income source: ^1 Earned income^ <^ Social Security | |

t/ Includes wages, salary, and self-emptoyment income.

Source: Computed from {SS).

50 75

)f family income

Public assistance Kyj Other sources

100
Table 3—Family dependence on public assistance, nonmetro South, 1979

Race and dependence Female householder "Other" householder All families

on public assistance Poor Nonpoor Poor Nonpoor Poor Nonpoor Total

Thousand

Black families 179.8 145.7 181.0 513.0

Percent

360.8 658.7 1,019.5

Percentage of income from

public assistance:

100.0 19.4 1.2 5.0 .2 12,2 .4 4.6

25.0-99.9 24.5 9.8 14.3 3.2 19.3 4.6 9.9

0.1-24.9 11.3 22.2 10.5 9.9 10.9 12.6 12.0

0 44.8 66.8 70.1 86.7

Thousand

57.5 82.3 73.5

White families 139.1 362.9 529.3 4,568.2

Percent

668.4 4,931.1 5,599.5

Percentage of income from

public assistance:

100.0 14.2 .4 3.4 .1 5.6 .1 .8

25.0-99.9 15.7 5.4 7,6 1.1 9.3 1.4 2.4

0.1-24.9 8.1 9.3 6.8 2.9 7.1 3.4 3.8

0 61.9 84.9 82.1 95.9 77.9 95.1 93.0

Source: Computed from (35).

because even with the pubUc assistance, many of

these famiUes are very close to the poverty

threshold (fig. 3).

report, the PUMS data only inferentially provide

any indications of labor-market conditions and

discrimination.

Family Member Contributions to Income

Family income, as measured by the Bureau of the

Census, includes the incomes of all family members

at least 16 years old. The low level of income in

poor female householder families appears to be at

least partially due to small contributions of

members other than the householder (table 4). Nonpoor female householder families report much

larger contributions by family members to family

income. Half of nonpoor black female householder

families' income is provided by members other than

the householder. Income of members other than the

householder is less significant in explaining income

differences between poor and nonpoor *'other"

householder families.

While these data show the low-income position of

black female householder families and differences

in income levels, sources, and distributions among

all the family types, they do not explain factors that

contribute to these observed differences. Variations

in human capital, deficient demand for labor in

local labor markets, and race and sex discrimination may all contribute to income differences. While

human capital characteristics are examined in this

Human Capital of Black Family

Householders

Age, education, work disabilities, and caring for

preschool-age children affect the ability of

householders to participate in the labor force. In

this section, these human capital characteristics of

black family householders are compared by family

type and poverty status. Data for white householders are presented in the tables and graphs

throughout the section. Comparisons of the

characteristics of black and white householders are

discussed only in the last subsection.

Age

Age indicates where a person is in the incomeearning cycle. The prime age for earning income

ranges from 25 to 64. Those younger than 25

usually have little job experience or seniority,

which results in lower earnings. Most of those age

65 and older are retired and earn little or no wages

or salary. The distribution of black householders by

age shows that 12 percent of poor female householders are under 25 years old, three times the

percentage of nonpoor female householders under
Table 4—Family members' contributions to family income, nonmetro South, 1979

Race and income provided

by family members

Femnle householder

Poor Nonpoor

"Other"

Poor

householder

Nonpoor

All families

Poor Nonpoor Total

Million dollars

Black family income 658.9 1,896.1 844.6 9,009.8 1,503.5 10,905.9 12,409.4

Percentage contributed by:

Householder

Spouse

Other adult family members^

71.3

NA

28.7

49.3

NA

50.7

64.2

22.5

13.3

Percent

57.6

27.2

15.2

Number

67.3

12.7

20.0

56.1

22.5

21.4

57.5

21.3

21.2

Average number of adult

family members, including

householders and spouses 2.0 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.3 2.7 2.6

White family income 454.7 5,038.8

Percentage contributed by:

Householder 80.0 59.8

Spouse NA NA

Other adult family members^ 20.0 40.2

2.7 2.7

Million dollars

2,014.0 96,178.9

Percent

71,3 72.7

21.2 20.9

7.5 6.4

Average number of adult

family members, including

householders and spouses 1.7 2.0 2.3

Number

2.3

2,468.7 101,217.8 103,686.5

72.9 72.1 72.1

17.3 19.9 19.8

9.8 8.1 8.1

2.2 2.3 2.3

NA = Not applicable.

^16 years old and older.

Source: Computed from [35],

25 (fig. 5). The poor black "other" householders are

more concentrated at the opposite end of the age

distribution—29 percent were at least 65 years old.

This compares with 15 percent age 65 and older

among nonpoor black '*other'' family householders.

These distributions are reflected in the median age

of each group of black householders. Poor black

female householders are the youngest, with a

median age of 39.8 years, while poor black '*other'*

householders are the oldest, with a median age of

51.8 years.

Education

Along with age, years of schooling completed indicate employment and income-earning potential.

Most poor black householders have not completed

high school» increasingly a minimum requirement

for obtaining employment today. Figure 6 uses high

school graduation as the reference point of educational attainment. The most dramatic disparity appears in the distribution of poor black "other"

householders—nearly 30 percent have not completed 5 years of elementary school, and only 20

percent have completed high school.

Education levels of nonmetro blacks have risen

dramatically since the seventies, but prior to then

they had very low levels of education {14), This

helps explain the low median education of the poor

"other" family householders {7J years), in that

many of the "other" householders are older, and

their schooling occurred during a time when

nonmetro blacks did not obtain many years of

education.

The recent rise in education levels also helps explain the much higher education levels of poor

black female householders relative to poor black

"other" householders. Because these female

householders are, on average, younger, they have

completed more years of school. However, their

median education still lagged about half a year

behind that of nonpoor black female householders

(9.6 versus 10,2 years, respectively).

10
Figure 6

Age distribution of family housohoiders,

nonmetro South, 1980

Age

65 and oider

Black female householders

15-24

30 20 10 0 10 20

Black 'other* householders

30

30 20 10 0 10 20

White female householders

30

15-24

30 20 10 10 20 30

White "other" householders

30 20

Source: Computed from iSS).

10 0 10 20 30

Percent

^Poor Nonpoor

Work Disability

Income-earning capacity is also affected by

disabilities which restrict the amount or kind of

work one can perform (limiting disability). Those

who are prevented by a disability from doing any

kind of work have no earning capacity. Of all

groups, the poor black "other" householders (16 to

64 years old) were most affected by disability: over

15 percent were prevented from working and

another 9 percent had a work-limiting disability

(table 5). In contrast, only 6 percent of nonpoor

"other" family householders report a workpreventing disability.

Work disability is not a large factor in explaining

poverty status among working-age female

householders. Over 10 percent of both poor and

nonpoor female householders reported workpreventing disabilities. A lower percentage of each

group reported a work-limiting disability.

Single Parents withi Presciiooi Children

Child care, particularly for preschool children, can

affect a householder's availability for work by inhibiting single parents from entering the labor force

or working full time. About 33 percent of poor

black female householders are single parents with

one or more children under 6 years old (table 6).

Only 11 percent of nonpoor female householders

have children under 6. Since most of the "other"

householders are married, this group contains few

male single parents, and few of them have custody

of children under 6 years old.

Preschool children may pose no employment problem for persons who earn wages high enough to

pay for daycare or for persons with relatives willing to care for the children while the householder

works, but many of the poor may not have either of

these arrangements. It is doubtful that most poor

female householders could pay for daycare and still

earn enough to support the family. This is a particular problem for young black women who have

neither the education or training nor the work experience necessary to obtain higher paying jobs.

Comparison with White Family Householders

Poor black female householders are generally

younger than nonpoor female householders. They

are also much more likely than the nonpoor to have

children under 6 years old. On the other hand, poor

black "other" householders are older and more

likely to have work-preventing disabilities than are

the nonpoor "other" householders. Although some

11
Figure 6

Education of family householders in the nonmetro South, 19B0

Poverty status, race. arKi family type

Poor black female

â4e€San=9.6 years

Nonpoor black female

Ââedimt-X>.2 yearn

Poor black 'other

Me<ÉSfí~Z.^ years

Noripoor black "other'

Atedian=10.4 years

Poor white female

ß4e<Ean=9.9 years

Nortpoor white female

Poor white "other"

aledkirt-S.S years

Nonpoor white "other"

Âiedkut'î^.S years

80 60 40 20

Completed less than high school

0

Percent

20 40 60

Completed high school or moie

80

Schooling eoniplotod: fy^\ Less than 5 years

^^ High school ^aduate

Source: Computed from {S5).

5-8 years

ü^^ 1 or more years college

9-11 years

of the percentages vary slightly, the distributions of

poor and nonpoor white householders by age,

disability, and care of preschool children closely

resemble those of their black counterparts (fig. 5,

tables 5 and 6).

However, there are differences in the years of

schooling completed by black and white

householders. White householders have completed

more years of schooling than have black

householders (fig. 6). There is little difference in

median education between poor black and white

female householders. However, median education

of nonpoor black householders is nearly 2 years

lower than that of nonpoor white householders.

Although the other characteristics do not vary

much by race within poor and nonpoor categories,

these similarities among southern nonmetro black

and white householders by poverty status should

not overshadow the fact that poverty is much more

prevalent among blacks. Black families in the

nonmetro South are three times as likely to be poor

as are white families. Although poor blacks and

whites have similar age, disability, and work-related

characteristics, poor families constitute a much

larger percentage of black families than of white

families. (In each table, the percentages in the "All

families^Total" column are closer to the percentages in the ''All families—Poor'* column for black

householders than they are for white householders.)

Labor-Force Status and Employment of

Black Family Householders

Human capital characteristics show the potentially

marketable skills of the householders and conditions which could limit their employment. Labor12
Table 5—Work disability of working-age family householders, nonmetro South, 1980

Female householder

Poor Nonpoor

"Other"

Poor

householder

Nonpoor

All families

Race and work disability Poor Nonpoor Total

Thousand

Black householders, 16 to 64

years old 152.2 111.6 128.0 433.9

Percent

280.2 545.5 825.7

Work disability:

None 79.6 84.1 75.8 89.3 77.8 88.2 84.7

Work limiting 7.6 5.2 8.7 5.1 8.1 5.2 6.1

Work preventing 12.8 10.8 15.5 5.6

Thousand

14.1 6.7 9.2

White householders, 16 to 64

years old 116.4 260.9 391.7 3,825.7

Percent

508.1 4,086.6 4,594.7

Work disability:

None 77.8 87.4 71.0 88.1 72.6 88.1 86.4

Work limiting 7.2 4.6 10.7 6.0 9.9 5.9 6.3

Work preventing 15.0 7.9 18.3 5.9 17.5 6.0 7.3

Source: Computed from [35]

Table 6—Single parents with preschool children, nonmetro South, 1980

Race, marital status, and Female householder

presence of preschool children Poor Nonpoor

"Other" householder

Poor Nonpoor

Thousand

181.0 513.0

Percent

1.5 1.1

Thousand

529.3 4,568.2

Percent

.6 .2

All families

Poor Nonpoor Total

Black householders

Single parents v^^ith child{ren)

under 6

White householders

Single parents with child(ren)

under 6

179.8 145.7

32.4

139.1

29.0

11.2

362.9

9.1

360.8 658.7 1,019.5

16.9

6.6

3.3 8.1

668.4 4,931.1 5,599.5

.9 1.2

Source: Computed from (35).

force and employment data in this section show the

participation of householders in the labor force and

the types of jobs they hold. The unemployment rate

partially reflects the demand for workers with given

job skills. And, the characteristics of nonworking

householders provide insight into the potential of

these poor family householders to enter the labor

force and increase family income.

Labor-Force Status

Labor-force status is the dominant factor in determining income levels because wages and salaries

are the largest source of personal income. But

limited human capital of poor black householders

limits their participation in the labor force. Poor

black householders are less likely to be employed or

in the labor force than are the nonpoor (table 7).

As expected from their age, education, and disability status, nonpoor black "other" householders

have the highest rate of participation in the labor

force: 76 percent were employed in 1980 and

another 4 percent were unemployed (actively seeking employment). Thus, only 20 percent of nonpoor

black "other" householders were not in the labor

force. In contrast, 57 percent of poor female

householders and 49 percent of poor "other"

householders were not in the labor force.

13
Table 7—Labor-force status of family hotiseholders, nonmetro South, 1980

Female hi

Poor

Duseholder

Nonpoor

"Other"

Poor

householder

Nonpoor

All families

Race and labor-force status Poor Nonpoor Total

Thousand

Black householders 179.8 145.7 181.0 513.0

Percent

360.8 658.7 1,019.5

Labor-force status:

In the labor forceEmployed

Unemployed

Not in the labor force

34.7

8.5

56.8

56.4

4.0

39.6

46.6

4,8

48.6

76.4

3.6

20,0

40.7

6.6

52.7

72.0

3.7

24.3

60.9

4.7

34.4

Unemployment rate^ 19.7 6.6 9,2 4.6

Thousand

14.0 4.9 7.2

White householders 139.1 362.9 529.3 4,568.2

Percent

668.4 4,931.1 5,599.5

Labor-force status:

In the labor forceEmployed

Unemployed

Not in the labor force

32.9

6.6

60.5

55,6

2.3

42.1

47.8

5.6

46.7

76.1

2.4

21.4

44.7

5.8

49.6

74.6

2-4

23.0

71.0

2.8

26.1

Unemployment rate* 16.7 4.0 10.4 3.1 11.4 3.2 3.8

^The unemployment rate is total unemployed divided by total in the labor force.

Source: Computed from [35].

Unemployment rates for the various groups may indicate the employabihty of members of the group as

well as the lack of employment opportunities in

their communities. Nearly 20 percent of poor

female householders in the labor force were

unemployed. And, 9.3 percent of poor *'other"

householders were unemployed. Unemployment

rates for nonpoor female and '^other" householders

were well below those for their poor counterparts.

Occupations of the Employed

Being employed may not always raise a family out

of poverty. For example, a full-time worker earning

the minimum wage does not earn enough to support a family of four above the poverty threshold.

Among the major occupational groups shown in

table 8, managerial and professional, and precision

production, craft, and repair are the relatively

higher wage occupations. Although incomes for

technical, sales, and administrative support occupations vary widely, this category contains many lowwage clerical occupations. The service; farming,

forestry, and fishing; and operator, fabricator, and

laborer classifications contain mostly low-wage

jobs.

Black women have historically been employed in

service occupations (38). Over half of employed

poor female householders worked in service occupations In 1980 (table 8). Along with 27 percent

in operator, fabricator, and laborer jobs, and 12 percent in technical, sales, and administrative support

positions, these three occupational groups accDunt

for nearly 90 percent of poor female householders'

occupations.

Employed poor black **other" householders are concentrated in operator, fabricator, and laborer occupations, the historically predominant occupations

for black men [38], The 46 percent employed in this

group, combined with the 24 percent in farming,

forestry, and fishing occupations, account for 70

percent of employment of poor black **other*'

householders.

Employed nonpoor black householders are also concentrated in lower wage occupations. However, 14

percent of black female householders and 9 percent

of black "other" householders are employed in

managerial and professional occupations, about

three times the percentage of poor black

householders employed in these occupations.

Weeks Worked in 1979

Earnings also depend on the duration of employment. Part-time workers could have low earnings in

14
Table 8—Occupations of employed family householders, nonmetro South, 1980^

Female householder

Poor Nonpoor

"Other"

Poor

householder

Nonpoor

All families

Race and occupation Poor Nonpoor Total

Thousand

Employed black householders 62.1 82.0 83.3 384.4

Perceni

145.4 466.4 611.8

Occupation:

Managerial/professional 4.2 13.8 3.0 8.5 3.5 9.4 8.0

Technical/sales/administrative

support 12.1 14.5 3.7 7.0 7.3 8.3 8.1

Service 51.0 34.9 10.7 11.8 27.9 15.9 18.7

Farming/forestry/fishing 3.1 1.9 24.0 7.3 15.1 6.4 8.4

Precision craft/repair/production 3.1 2.3 12.8 19.1 8.7 16.2 14.4

Operators/fabricators/laborers 26.6 32.6 45.7 46.3

Thousand

37.6 43.8 42.4

Employed white householders

Occupation:

Managerial/professional

Technical/sales/administrative

support

Service

Farming/forestry/fishing

Precision craft/repair/production

Operators/fabricators/laborers

45.8

7.9

200.8

17.9

249.6

7.1

3,426.0

Percent

19.6

295.4

7.2

3,626.8

19.5

3,922.2

18.6

32.8 37.7 9.1 15.9 12.7 17.1 16.8

30.8 15.9 6.2 5.3 10.0 5.9 6.2

.6 .8 23.2 7.7 19.7 7.4 8.3

2.2 4.0 25.6 27.0 22.0 25.7 25.4

25,8 23.7 28.8 24.5 28.3 24,5 24.8

^Employed in the civilian labor force.

Source: Computed from (35).

higher wage jobs. Labor-force status and occupation

reported by the census are for the week prior to the

one in which the respondent completed the census

questionnaire (generally the last week of March or

the first week of April, 1980). The amount of income families report for the previous year (1979)

determines the poverty status of families. Although

it is not known whether respondents held the same

jobs in 1979 as they did in 1980, data are available

on the number of weeks individuals were employed

during the previous year.

Twenty-seven percent of poor black householders

worked 40 or more weeks in 1979, compared with

65 percent of nonpoor black householders (table 9).

This disparity is largely due to the high percentage

of the poor family householders who did not work

at all. For the poor black householders who did

work, the median weeks worked was not much

lower than the median weeks worked by nonpoor

householders (41.5 and 45.2 weeks, respectively).

Those Not in the Labor Force

The income level of many poor families would be

raised if the family head were employed, but many

householders are unable to work for a variety of

reasons.

Most family householders are not in the labor force

because they are 65 years old or older or have a

work disability which prevents them from working.

Seventy-six percent of poor black *'other"

householders and 44 percent of poor black female

householders not in the labor force meet these

criteria (table 10). Nonpoor householders not in the

labor force are even more concentrated in these

two groups than are their poor counterparts: 81

percent of black **other" and 72 percent of black

female householders are aged and/or disabled.

Although 56 percent of poor black female

householders not in the labor force are neither aged

nor totally disabled, other factors, such as care for

preschool children, limited education, or a worklimiting disability, may restrict their employment.

Although none of these conditions is an absolute

block to employment, they all affect the ability to

work, the hours available to work, or the qualifications for occupations. These circumstances, combined with age and total disability, affect all but 6

percent of poor black female householders who are

not in the labor force.

About 95 percent of poor black householders not in

the labor force have one or more of these

characteristics. For many poor black householders,

15
Table 9^Weeks worked by family householders^ nonmetro South, 1979

Race and weeks Female householder

Poor Nonpoor

•'Other'*

Poor

householder

Nonpoor

All families

worked in 1979 Poor Nonpoor Total

Thousand

Black householders 179.8 145.7 181.0 513.0

Percent

360.8 658.7 1.019.5

Weeks worked:

None 56.4 35.5 49.8 17.3 53.1 21.3 32.6

1-13 weeks 8.7 3.8 5.9 2.7 7.3 2.9 4.5

14-26 weeks 7.2 4.0 6.2 4.2 6.7 4.2 5.1

27-39 weeks 6.1 7.5 6.6 5.8 6.3 6.2 6.2

40-52 weeks 21.6 49.1 31.5 69.9

Number

26.6 65.3 51.6

Median weeks for those who

worked 39.6 44.5 42.7 45.3

Thousand

41.5 45.2 44.5

White householders 139.1 362.9 529.3 4,568.2

Percent

668.4 4,931.1 5,599.5

Weeks worked:

None 58.5 3ao 45.6 17.8 48.3 19.3 22.8

1-13 weeks 8.9 2.6 6.4 2.2 7.0 2.3 2.8

14-26 weeks 9.8 3.4 7.1 3.3 1.7 3.3 3.9

27-39 weeks 5.8 5.3 6.5 4.4 6.3 4.4 4.7

40-52 weeks 17.0 50.7 34.3 72.3

Number

30.7 70.7 65.9

Median weeks for those who

worked 31.6 45.1 42.7 45.6 42.1 45.6 45.4

Source: Computed from {35}.

employment is not an available means to increase

income. For others it could be if daycare, further

education or job training, or other services were

available.

Comparison with White Family Householders

Poor black householders were less likely to be

employed than were the nonpoor. The poor black

householders who were employed in 1979 worked

slightly fewer weeks than did the nonpoor. And,

nearly all of the black householders who were not

in the labor force, regardless of poverty status, had

human capital characteristics which limited or

prevented employment. The same was true for poor

and nonpoor white family householders; iabor-force

status, weeks worked, and characteristics of those

not in the labor force were strikingly similar to

those characteristics of their black counterparts

{tables 7, 9, and 10).

However, there are major differences in the

unemployment rates and occupational distributions

of black and white family householders. The overall

unemployment rate for white householders was 3.8

percent, compared with 7.2 percent for black

householders (table 7). This higher unemplcryment

rate is due primarily to the high unemployment rate

for poor black female householders (19.7 percent).

Although the 16.7-percent unemployment rate for

poor white female householders was notmuch

lower, black female householders constitute a much

larger percentage of all black family householders

and have a larger effect on the overall black

unemployment rate than white female householders

have on the overall rate for whites.

Employed white female householders are less concentrated in low-wage service occupations than are

blacks (table 8). A larger percentage of white

women are in technical, sales, and administrative

support occupations. Ahhough not service jobs,

these are still generally low-wage, traditionally

female, occupations. White "other" householders

are less concentrated in operator, febricator, and

laborer occupations than are blacks. A higher

percentage of white "other" householders hold professional and managerial or precision jobs than do

blacks, perhaps due to the higher educational

attainment of whites.

16
Table 10—Selected characteristics of family householders not In the labor force, nonmetro South, 1980

Race and selected characteristics

Female householder

Poor Nonpoor

lack householders not in the

labor force 102.0 57.7

Characteristic:^

65 years old or older 24.9 51.1

Work-preventing disability mi 20.8

Work-limiting disability 4.4 2.4

Less than 5 years of education 3.8 2.6

Single parent with preschool child 25.1 5.4

5-11 years of education 17,0 13.5

None of the above 5.7 4.2

White householders not in the

labor force

Characteristic:i

65 years old or older

Work-preventing disability

Work-limiting disability

Less than 5 years of education

Single parent with preschool child

5-11 years of education

None of the above

84,0 152.7

26.0 60.5

20.8 13.5

3.9 1.7

2.6 1.8

21.0 2.6

16.0 11.5

9.6 8.3

"Other" householder

Poor Nonpoor

88.0

247.0

Thousand

102.5

Percent

53.2 56.9

22.6 23.7

2.6 2.0

5.1 2.1

.3 .1

11.8 9.6

4.3 5.6

Thousand

979.0

Percent

50.7 58.5

28.9 22.9

3,3 2.2

2.3 .7

.3 * *

9.3 6.5

5.1 9.1

190.0

331.0

All families

Poor Nonpoor Total

160.2

1,131.7

350.2

38.0 54.8 45.7

20.7 22.6 21.6

3.6 2.1 2.9

4.4 2.3 3.5

13.6 2.0 8.3

14.6 ILO 12.9

5.1 5,1 5.1

1,462.7

44.5 58.8 55.6

26.9 21.6 22.8

3.4 2.1 2.4

2.4 .9 1.2

5.5 .4 1.5

11.0 7.1 8.0

6.3 9.0 8.4

^Characteristics are not mutually exclusive groups. So that a person does not appear in more than one category, each category takes

precedence over all those below it,

** = Less than 0.1 percent.

Source: Computed from (35).

Adult Black Family Members

Although family householders provide the majority

of family income, adult members other than the

householder provided about a third of poor black

families' income in the nonmetro South in 1979

(table 4). The human capital characteristics and

labor-force status of adult family members are then

important in analyzing the income-earning capacity

of these families. As in the discussion of householders, black family members are discussed first,

followed by comparisons with white family members.

Relationship to the Householder

Regardless of poverty status, 70 percent of the adult

members of black female householder families are

children of the householder, indicating the low

level of human capital most of these members bring

to the labor market {fig. 7). The average age of these

householders is about 48, so most of their children

would be under 25 years old, with many under 19.

The distributions of adult members in poor and

nonpoor "other" householder families are also identical. Fifty-four percent of adult family members of

both groups are spouses of the householders and

another 36 percent are their children.

Age

As would be expected from the youth of many poor

black female householders, members of their

families are also very young. Seventy percent of the

adult members of these families were between 16

and 24 years old (fig. 8). Most adult members of

nonpoor female hoxiseholder families were under

25, but a larger percentage fell in the 25- to 34-yearold category.

Adult members of poor black **other" householder

families are more evenly distributed among the age

categories. However, 40 percent were under 25 and

another 13 percent were 65 or older.

Education

This age distribution is reflected in the years of

schooling completed by adult family members (fig.

9). A lower percentage of poor than nonpoor black

family members completed high school. Many adult

family members in black female householder

families are not old enough to have completed high

17
Figure 7

Relationship of adult family mdmtiers to tlie house

nonmetro South, 1980

Mefñbers of black female

householder families

Poor Nonpoor

Members of black "other"

householder lamilies

Poor Nonpoor

Other

peiative

Sppüse

Members of white female

ftouseholder families

Poor Nonpoor

Other

relative

Ctûld

Members of white "other"

householder iamilles

Poor Nonpoor

ornó

other

reiattve

Spouse

Source-^ Computed fiom {SS).

school. In the "other'' family group, the large

percentage of black family members with Mmited

education reflects the low educational attainment of

older blacks in the nonmetro South. However,

regardless of the age of the person, if high school

graduation is a prerequisite to employment, a much

smaller percentage of poor blaek family members

would qualify than would their nonpoor

counterparts.

Work Disability

Work disability is also a problem for some poor

black "other" family members of working age; 11

percent were prevented from working and an additional 4 percent had work-limiting disabilities {table

11). Working-age members of black female householder families have the same incidence of disability regardless of poverty status—about 8 percent

were prevented from working.

Labor-Force Status

As would be expected from their lower average age

and edueational attainment and their higher

disability Täte, poor Mack family members are not

as likely to participate in the labor force as are nonpoor fam%rnemb€TS. About 07 percent of poor

black female householder family members and 70

percent of poor black "^^other" iatnily members are

not in the labor force (table 12). About 40 percent

of nonpoor family members are not in the labor

force.

Poor black family members also appear to have a

harder time flnding employment than do nonpoor

black family membèrsv The unemployment rate

shows that 34 percent of members of poor black

feinale householder families and 23 percent of

members of poor black "other" families who are in

the labor force cannot find a job, compared with 14

18
F^jure 8

Age distribution of adult family members,

nonmetro South, 1980

Age Members of black female householder families

65 and older

80 40 0 40 80

Members of black 'other' householder families

65 and older

55-64

45-54

35-44

25-34

16-24

80 40 0 40 80

ambers of white female householder families

80 40 0 40 80

Members of white 'other' householder families

65 and older

55-64

45-54

35-44

25-34

16-24

L J_

80

SOUR» Coniputed fiom {Jff).

40

^Poor

0

Percent

percent for nonpoor black female householder family members and 10 percent for nonpoor black

'*other" householder family members.

Occupations of the Employed

The majority of employed black family members,

whether poor or nonpoor, were concentrated in service, or operator, fabricator, and laborer occupations (table 13). Nonpoor "other" family members

were somewhat less concentrated in these occupations than were members of the remaining groups,

and were more likely to hold managerial and professional jobs. The majority of these adult family

members are spouses in married-couple famihes.

Spouses are similar to the householder in age and

education, and therefore, are more likely than the

adult members of female householder families

(mostly children of the householder) to have better

jobs.

Although the percentages are not large, members of

poor black families are more likely than nonpoor

black family members to be employed in farming,

forestry, or fishing occupations, 10.5 percent of the

poor compared with 3.5 percent of the nonpoor.

Poor black family members are also more concentrated in service occupations than are the nonpoor.

Weeks Worked in 1979

The number of weeks worked by adult black family

members also indicates their contribution to family

income. Nonpoor black family members had a

higher incidence of working 40 to 52 weeks; 37 percent of those in female householder families and 41

percent of those in "other" householder families

(table 14). This contrasts sharply with the poor

black family members* weeks worked: only 9 percent of those in female householder families and 11

percent of those in "other" householder families

worked 40 to 52 weeks. The high incidence of the

poor not having worked at all in 1979 also points to

the small effect of family members on the income

of many poor families. With only about 30 percent

of adult family members working, earned income

for many poor families depended largely on the

householder working.

Those Not in tlie Labor Force

As in the case of family householders, there are

valid reasons why many adult black family

members are not in the labor force. Many of them

are under 19 years old and in school. Some are

totally disabled, and others are 65 years old or

older. These three groups account for 63 percent of

19
Figure 9

&luGation of adult family mentbersv iionmetro South, 1980

Poverty status, race, and family type

Poor biacK femaie

Meafanrlû.6 years

Nonpoor black female

Medkm=t0.4 yems

Poor black 'other*

Medkm-IOJ years

Nonpoor black 'other'

JUècKÊ^~rf,/ years

Poor white female

Med^~9.8 years

Nonpoor white female

Mecgan~1t.S years

Poor white "other"

Me^Ên=9.8 years

Nonpoor white "other*

Me<San~^.2 years

80 60 40 20

Completed less than high school

Schooling completed: XX\ Less than % ^ears

^^ High school graduate

Souree: Oomputed from {35).

0

Percent

20 40 60

Completed high school or more

5-8 yeare

1^^ 1 or more

9-11 years

years college

80

Table 11—Work disability of wôfkmg^age family menibers, nonmetro South, 1980

Female hóuséboldet

Poor Nonpoor

"Other"'

Poor

householder

Nonpoor

All families

Race and wock disability Poor Nonpoor Total

Thousand

Black family members,

16 to 64 years old 175.B 205.4 263.2 808.6

Percent

439.0 1,014.0 1,453,0

Work disability:

None 88.5 88.3 84.7 91.5 86.2 90.9 89.5

Work limiting 3.0 3.9 4.1 3.3 3.7 3,4 3.5

Work preventing 8.5 7.8 11.2 5.2

Thousand

10.1 5.7 7.0

White family members.

16 to 64 years old 87.6 324.8 582.1 5,482.1

Percent

669.7 5,806.9 6,476.6

Work disability:

None 79.2 85.4 82.7 91.5 82.2 91.2 90.3

Work limiting 5.6 4.5 4.2 3.4 4.4 3.4 3.5

Work preventing 15.3 10.1 13.1 5.1 13.4 5.4 6.2

Source: Computed from {^ñ)

20
Table 12—Labor-force status of adult family members, nonmetro South, 1980

Race and labor-force status

Female householder

Poor Nonpoor

"Other" householder

Poor Nonpoor

All families

Poor Nonpoor Total

Adult black family members

Labor-force status:

In the labor forceEmployed

Unemployed

Not in the labor force

Unemployment rate^

Adult white family members

Labor-force status:

In the labor forceEmployed

Unemployed

Not in the labor force

Unemployment rate^

184.6 221.8 302.4

Thousand

877.9

Percent

487.0 1,099.7 1,586.7

22,0 48.2 23,2 53.5 22.8 52.4 43.3

11.3 7.7 6.9 6.2 8.6 6.5 7.2

66.6 44.0 69.9 40.3 68.6 41.0 49.5

33.9 13.8 23.1 10.4

Thousand

27.4 11.1 14.2

94.3 375.8 689.8 6,107.8

Percent

784.1 6,483.6 7,267.7

23.4 50.6 20.2 47.1 20.6 47.3 44.3

9.1 6.2 4.3 3.5 4.9 3.7 3.8

67.4 43.1 75,4 49.4 74.5 49.0 51.8

28.0 10.9 17.6 7.0 19.2 7.3 8.0

^The unemployment rate is total unemployed divided by total in the labor force.

Source: Computed from (35).

Table 13—Occupations of employed adult family members, nonmetro South, 1980V

Female householder

Poor Nonpoor

"Other"

Poor

householder

Nonpoor

All families

Race and occupation Poor Nonpoor Total

Thousand

Employed black family members 40.4 106.6 69.9 467.3

Percent

110.3 573.9 684.2

Occupation:

Managerial/professional

Technical/sales/administrative

5.4 7.9 5.7 12.6 5.6 11.7 10.8

support 10.1 13.6 9.2 15.1 9.5 14.8 13.9

Service 32.2 20.4 34.8 24.6 33,8 23.8 25.4

Farming/forestry/fishing

Precision craft/repair/production

Operators/fabricators/laborers

10.9

3.5

37.9

5.7

7.5

44.9

10.3

4.9

35.2

3.0

5.8

38.9

Thousand

10.5

4.4

36.2

3.5

6.1

40.0

4.6

5.8

39.4

Employed white family members 22.1 190.0 139.5 2,869.9

Percent

161.6 3,059.9 3,221.5

Occupation:

Managerial/professional

Technical/sales/administrative

3.2 10.1 7.6 16.9 7.0 16.5 16.0

support 16,3 25.0 23.5 36.7 22.5 36.0 35.3

Service 24.9 13.4 24.5 13.6 24,6 13,6 14.1

Farming/forestry/fishing

Precision craft/repair/production

Operators/fabricators/laborers

12.2

12,7

30,8

5.8

13.6

32.1

10.2

5.4

28.7

3.1

6.3

23.4

10.5

6.4

29.0

3.3

6.8

23.9

3.6

6.8

24.2

^Employed in the civiHan labor force.

Source: Computed from (35).

21
Table 14^Weekswork€Kl by aduttfamtfy members, nonmetro South, 1979

Race and weeks Female householder

Poor Nonpoor

"Other''

Poor

householder

Nonpoor

All families

worked in 1979 Poor Nonpoor Total

Thousand

Adult black family

members 184.6 221.8 302.4 877.9

Perceni

487.0 1,099.7 1,586.7

Weeks worked:

None 67.0 39.2 70.4 37.1 69.1 37.6 47.3

1-13 weeks 13,0 9.2 10.2 7.4 11.3 7.8 8.9

14-26 weeks 6.9 7.5 5.1 6.8 5.7 7.0 6.6

27-39 weeks 3.7 7.4 3.3 8.1 3.4 8.0 6.6

40-52 weeks 9.4 36.7 11.0 40.5

Number

10.4 39.7 30.7

Median weeks for those who

worked 2€.6 42.2 25.8 42.9

Thousand

23,4 42.8 41.8

Aduit white family

members 94v3 375.8 689.8 6,107.8

Percent

784.1 6,483.6 7,267.7

Weeks worked:

None 63.2 37.0 72.9 42.6 71.7 42.2 45.4

1-13 weeks 16.1 8.6 9.0 7.8 10.0 7.8 8.0

14-26 weeks 8.2 9.1 5.9 7.5 6.2 7.5 7.4

27-39 weeks 4.7 7.3 2.9 6.7 3.1 6.8 6.4

40-52 weeks 7.8 37.9 9.3 35.5

Number

9.1 35.6 32,8

Median weeks for those who

worked 17.6 42.2 24.1 42.5 23.2 42.5 42.2

Source: Computed from [35).

members of poor black female householder families

and 56 percent of poor black "other" householder

family members who are not in the labor force

(table 15). When the remaining eircumstances are

also considered, about 88 percent of all black family

members who were not in the labor force appear to

have some work-inhibiting characteristic.

Comparison with Adult Members of

White Families

While the characteristics of black and white

householders were quite similar, the characteristics

of their adult family members were more divergent.

In every type of family (except poor female

householder families), the median age of white

adult family members was at least 3 years higher

than that of black family members (fig. 8). In poor

black female householder families, 70 percent of the

members were under 25 years old, compared with

57 percent of members of poor white female

householder families (fig. 8)* Fewer members of

poor black families were in the prime incomeearning age categories than were poor white family

members.

Black family members are more equal to white

family members in years of education than are

black and white householders. While median education of nonpoor black family members is lower than

that of nonpoor white family members, poor black

family members have a higher median education

than poor white family members (fig. 9). Although

the median for all groups except white nonpoor

** other" family members was less than high school

graduation, many members of these families were

still in school.

Black family members had much higher unemployment rates than did whites in all poverty status and

family type categories (table 12). Unemployment,

coupled with the concentration of employed Wack

family members in low-wage occupations ftable 13),

demonstrates the difficulty some black family

members have in finding employment to help bring

family income above the poverty level.

22
Table 15—Selected characteristics of adult family members not in the labor force, nonmetro South, 1980

Race and selected characteristics

Female householder

Poor Nonpoor

'*Other" householder

Poor Nonpoor

All families

Poor Nonpoor Total

Adult black family members

not in the labor force

Characteristic:^

65 years old or older

Work-preventing disability

Work-limiting disability

Less than 5 years of education

In school

Spouse with preschool child

5-11 years of education

None of the above

Adult white family members

not in the labor force

Characteristic:^

65 years old or older

Work-preventing disability

Work-limiting disability

Less than 5 years of education

In school

Spouse with preschool child

5-11 years of education

None of the above

123.0

63.6

97.7

6.7 15.5

12.2 16.4

2.0 1.8

1.5 .9

43.9 38.8

NA NA

20.2 13.9

13.4 12.7

162.1

10.2 29.2

21.1 20.2

3.1 2.7

3.1 .7

29,4 27.1

NA NA

24.4 10.1

8.6 9.9

211.3

520.3

Thousand

353.6

Percent

17.8 17.1

13.9 11.9

1.9 2.1

3.0 2.1

23.9 31.4

10.6 8.7

18,5 14.7

10.3 12.0

Thousand

3,016.5

Percent

20.1 19.0

14.7 9.2

2.3 2.3

3.1 1.1

11.9 15.9

17.4 15.8

21.0 16.7

9.5 20.1

334.3

583.9

451.3

3,178.6

785.6

13,7 16.7 15.4

13.3 12.9 13.0

2.0 2.1 2.0

2,4 1.9 2.1

31.3 33.0 32.3

6.7 6.8 6.8

19.1 14.5 16.5

11.5 12.1 11.8

3,762.5

19.0 19.5 19.4

15.4 9,8 10.7

2.4 2.3 2.3

3.1 1.1 1.4

13.8 16.5 16.1

15.5 15.0 15,1

21,4 16.3 17.1

9.4 19.6 18.0

NA = Not applicable.

^Characteristics are not mutually exclusive groups. So that a person does not appear in more than one category, each category takes

precedence over all those below it.

Source: Computed from {35).

Conclusions

Southern nonmetro black families, especially female

householder families, continue to have a high incidence of poverty. However, poor black householders and other adult femily members exhibit

human capital characteristics similar to those of

poor whites. This suggests that measures to increase work-related skills would improve the income situation of both groups.

Factors associated with poverty among black

families include low educational attainment, high

unemployment rates, low-wage occupations, and

lack of participation in the labor force. Educational

attainment of black family householders is lower

than that of white family householders. Part of this

disparity may be due to the low educational attainment of older black householders. Many black

householders in the nonmetro South need additional education and work-related training to compete in the job market. Their family members are

becoming better educated, so future needs for

remedial education may be reduced. However, not

only is nonmetro black educational attainment

lower than that of nonmetro whites, but educational

attainment of nonmetro residents is lower than that

of metro residents {34). Therefore, if poor blacks in

the nonmetro South are to compete in the national

labor market, they will have to increase their

schooling even more to match that of metro

residents.

Expectations that better education will result in a

more skilled labor force and a higher wage

economy have led many Southern States to reform

their education systems. Many of those States have

recently instituted more stringent teacher certification testing, increased the number of high school

credits necessary for graduation, increased teacher

salaries, and raised per-pupil expenditures (24).

The high unemployment rates for black family

members in general and for poor blacks in particular show that the local economies were not able

to provide enough employment or employment appropriate to these persons* skills. The 1890 Land

Grant Institutions' survey found thatTack of

23
employment opportunities was a serioiis problem in

low-income areas of the rural South (12). The

survey also found that racial discrimination is still

perceived as a hindrance in finding employment.

Blacks in the nonmetro South are affected both by

policies that affect the distribution of jobs and by

policies that affect national economic structure and

growth. The concentration of nonmetro blacks in

service and laborer occupations demonstrates not

only the lower skill levels among poor blacks but

also the inability of local economies to provide advancement into more specialized, higher paying occupations. Rural development initiatives could be

undertaken to attract business and industry to

nonmetro areas with poverty and employment problems. Economic development programs, such as the

proposed Enterprise Zones (which would offer tax

incentives to industries locating or expanding in

depressed areas), might attract new jobs to

chronically low-income areas [20]. However, the effects of such programs might be mitigated by structural changes in the U.S. economy such as the recent decline in manufacturing employment. Many

nonmetro communities in the South depend on

manufacturing for their economic base.

Job training may also be necessary for the poor,

especially the unemployed, those employed in lowwage occupations, and those not in the labor force

who are poorly educated, because new businesses

with higher paying jobs are not likely to locate in

areas with an under-trained labor force (1). If lack

of child care keeps single parents from working,

then public or private daycare could also facilitate

employment.

Improvements in public assistance programs would

benefit those unable to work or increase the

amount of work they are doing. A study of participation in the Supplemental Security Income

(SSI) program found that only about 55 percent of

the elderly who are eligible to participate in the program (39). If many poor elderly black householders

are among these eligible nonparticipants, then SSI

participation could increase their incomes.

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) is

a joint Federal/State program designed to assist

poor female householder families. Each State

establishes its own needs standard (amount of

money a family needs to meet a predetermined

standard of living) and payment standard (amount

of the needs standard the State will provide). These

needs standards vary by size of family and other

family characteristics. However, the payment standard in each State reflects, among other factors, the

State's ability to finance the program and itij

philosophy about such support. The Southern States

generally have the lowest AFDC payments in the

Nation. There have been proposals to provide a

single set of national minimum-benefit levels—most

proposals having benefits considerably above those

currently paid in the South. If such a proposal were

implemented, the incomes of many poor female

householder families in the nonmetro South would

be improved.

The recently enacted child-support law should increase the incomes of many female householder

families. This law provides national enforcement of

judicially assessed child-support payments, including the right of the courts to order employers

to withhold child-support money from paychecks of

fathers who are delinquent in their payments (4).

However, a much lower percentage of divorced

black women are awarded child support compared

with the percentage of white women awarded support (11), so the prospects for many nonmetro black

women receiving payments due to this law may be

lower than those of white women.

References

(1) Abt Associates, Inc. The IndustriaJization of

Southern Rural Areas. Study conducted for

the Office of Economic Research, Economic

Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (under Contract No.

7-35482), 1968.

(2) Bawden, D.L. "Work Behavior of Low-Income

Rural Nonfarm Wage Earners,'* American

Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 56,

No. 5 {Dec. 1974), pp. 1076-83.

(3) Christensen, T.L. "The Urban Bias of the

Poverty Program," in D.B. James, Analyzing

Poverty Policy. Lexington, MA: Lexington

Books, 1975, pp. 145-54.

(4) The Christian Science Monitor. "Ensuring

Child Support." Editorial, Aug. 20, 1984, p.

17.

(5) Corcoran, M., and GJ. Duncan. "Work

History, Labor Force Attachment, and Earnings Differences Between the Races and

Sexes,'* JournaJ of Human Resources, Vol.

14, No. 1 (Winter 1979), pp.3-20.

(6) Danzinger, S., I. Garflnkel, and R. Haveman.

"Poverty, Welfare, and Earnings: A New

24
Approach," Challenge, Vol. 22, No. 4

(Sept./Oct. 1979), pp. 28-34.

(7) Davis, T.F. Persistent Low-Income Counties in

Nonmetro Amenca. RDRR-12. U.S. Dept.

Agr., Econ. Stat. Coop. Serv., May 1979.

(8) Dennis, W.J., Jr. Enterprise Zones: The Small

Business Perspective. Washington, DC: National Federation of Independent Business,

undated.

(9] Duncan, G.J. Years of Poverty, Years of Plenty.

Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. Michigan, Institute

for Social Research, Survey Research

Center, 1984.

(10) Eddleman, B.R. *'Policy Implications of Alternative Theoretical Frameworks for Viewing

Rural Poverty and Income Distribution," in

R.O. Coppedge and C.G. Davis (eds.), Rural

Poverty and the Policy Crisis. Ames, IA:

Iowa State Univ. Press, 1977, pp. 152-59.

(11) Ehrenreich, B., and K. Stallard. "The Nouveau

Poor," Ms. Magazine, Vol. 12, No. 1

Quly/Aug. 1982), pp. 217-24.

(12) 1890 Land Grant Institutions and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Isolation of Factors

Related to Levels and Patterns of Living in

Low-income Areas of the Rural South. 1890

Land Grant Regional Research Publication

No. 1, 1983.

(13) Ferleger, L. ^'Explaining Away Black Poverty:

The Structural Determinants of Black

Employment," in R. Goldstein and S.M.

Sachs (eds.), Applied Poverty Research.

Totowa, N): Rowman and Allanheld, 1984,

pp. 148-74.

(14) Fratoe, F. The Education of Nonmetro Blacks.

RDRR-21. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ., Stat.,

Coop. Serv., July 1980.

(15) Hoppe, R.A. Economic Structure and Change

in Persistently Low-Income Nonmetro Counties. RDRR-50. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res.

Serv., Oct. 1985.

(16) Housing Assistance Council. Taking Stock,

Rural People and Poverty from 1970 to 1983.

Washington, D.C., July 1984.

(17) King, A. "Labor Market Discrimination

Against Black Women," Review of Black

Political Economy. Vol. 8, No. 4 (Fall 1978),

pp. 325-35.

(18) Kuvlesky, W.P., C.S. Knowlton, T.J. Durant,

Jr., and W.C. Payne, Jr. ''Minorities/' in

D.A. Dillman and D.J. Hobbs (eds.), Rural

Society in the U.S.; Issues for the 1980's.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1982, pp.

103-23.

(19) Marshal, R., and V.L. Christian, Jr. Employment of Blacks in the South, A Perspective on

the 1960's. Austin, TX: Univ. Texas Press,

1978.

(20) Miller, J.P. "Rural Enterprise Zones: What Are

They? Are They Needed and Will They

Work?" Paper presented at the Southwestern

Social Science Association Meeting, San Antonio, TX, March 17-20, 1982.

(21) Moland, J.J., Jr., and A.T. Page. "Poverty," in

D.A. Dillman and D.J. Hobbs (eds.), Rural

Society in the U.S.; Issues for the 1980's.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1982, pp.

136-42.

(22) Owens, E.W. "Survey of Poverty Issues and

Programs: Can We Improve the Performance?" in R.O. Coppedge and C.G. Davis

(eds.), Rural Poverty and the Policy Crisis,

Ames, lA: Iowa State Univ. Press, 1977, pp.

163-80.

(23) Patterson, J.J. America's Struggle Against

Poverty, 1900-1980. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Univ. Press, 1981.

(24) Richburg, K.R. "Today's Lesson in the South:

Better Schools Mean Better Jobs," The

Washington Post National Weekly Edition,

VoL 2, No. 47 (Sept. 23, 1985), pp. 31-32.

(25) Ross, A.H., and H. Hill, eds. Employment,

Race, and Poverty. NY: Harcourt, Brace, and

World, 1967.

(26) Rungeling, B., L.H. Smith, V.M. Briggs, Jr.,

and J.F. Adams. Employment, Income and

Welfare in the Rural South. NY: Praeger

Pubhshers, 1977.

(27) Schaub, J.D. The Nonmetro Labor Force in the

Seventies. RDRR-33. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ.

Res. Serv., Nov. 1981.

(28) Schiller, B.R. The Economics of Poverty and

Discrimination, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976.

25
(29) Smeeding, T.M. "The Anti-Poverty Effect of

In-Kind Transfers: A *Good Idea' Gone Too

Far?" in R. Goldstein and S.M. Sachs (eds.),

Applied Poverty Research. Totowa, NJ:

Rowman and Allanheld, 1984, pp. 148-74.

(30) Summers, G.F., S.D. Evans, F. Clemente, E.M.

Beck, and I. Minkoff. Industrial Invasion of

Nonmetropolitan America, A Quarter Century

of Experience. NY: Praeger Publishers, 1976.

(31) Thomas, G. Poverty in the Nonmetropolitan

South, Research Monograph, Univ, Georgia,

Regional Institute for Social Welfare

Research, Nov. 1971.

(32) Till, T.E. * Industrialization and Poverty in

Southern Nonmetropolitan Labor Markets,"

Growth and Change, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Jan.

1974), pp. 18-24.

(33) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census. 1980 Census of Population, Vol. 1:

Characteristics of the Population, Chap. B:

General Population Characteristics, Part 1:

United States Summary, PC80-1-B1. May

1983.

(34)

(35)

(36)

(37)

1980 Census of Population,

Vol. 1: Characteristics of the Population,

Chap. C: General Social and Economic

Characteristics, Part 1: United States Summary, PC80-1-C1. Dec. 1983.

. 1980 Census o/Population

and Housing: Public Use Microdata Sample

B, computer tape.

_^ 1980 Census of Population

and Housing: Public Use Microdata Samples,

Technical Documentation. Feb. 1983.

. 1980 Census of Population

and Housing: Summary Tape File 3, computer tape.

(38) . "The Social and Economic

Status of the Black Population in the United

States: An Historical View, 1790-1978," Current Population Reports. Special Studies,

Series P-23, No. 80, 1979.

(39) Warlick, J. "Participation of the Aged in SSI,"

Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 17, No. 2

(Spring 1982), pp. 236-60.

Appendix table 1—Poverty status of families by race and residence, 1980

Region and residence

U.S. families Black families White fiimilies

All Percentage

poor

All Percentage

poor

All Percentage

poor

Thousand Percent Thousand Percent Thousand Perceni

59,190.1

43,918,9

15,271.2

9.6

8.7

12.0

6,105.7

5,006.8

1,098.9

26,5

24.7

34.3

50,644.9

36,840.1

13,804.8

7.0

6.0

9.9

12,731.6

10,788.7

1,942.9

8.7

8.8

8.1

1,136.8

1,118.8

18.0

25.3

25.3

21.4

11,167.7

9,256.1

1,911.6

6.2

5.9

7,9

15,424.5

10,817.6

4,606.9

8.0

7.5

9.2

1,234.9

1,189.2

45.8

24.6

24.6

24.7

13,921.1

9,409.4

4,511.7

6.3

5.1

8.8

20,009.7

13,274.8

6,734.9

11.9

10.1

15.5

3,201.0

2,179.3

1,021.7

28.6

25.6

35.1

16,318.1

10,712.3

5,605.9

8.4

6.7

11,7

11,024.3

9,037.8

1,986.5

8.5

8.1

10.4

533.0

519.5

13.4

20.3

20.3

22.8

9,237.9

7,462.3

1,775,6

6.7

6.2

8.7

U.S. total

Metro

Nonmetro

Northeast

Metro

Nonmetro

Midwest

Metro

Nonmetro

South

Metro

Nonmetro

West

Metro

Nonmetro

Source: [34).

26
Appendix table 2—Persons by family status, nontnetro South, 1980

Family status

and relationship

to householder

Total population Blacks Whites

Total persons

In families

Householder

Spouse

Child

Other relative

Not in families

Householder

Nonrelative

In group quarters

Number Perceni

25,005,370 100.0

22,150,888 88,6

6,710,942 26.8

5,616,141 22.5

8,444,015 33,8

1,379,790 5.5

2,854,482 11.4

1,874.528 7.5

360,374 1.4

619.580 2.5

Number Percent

4,632,117 100.0

4,092,778 88.4

1,013,372 21.9

619,901 13.4

1,894,882 40.9

564,623 12.2

539,339 11.6

311,992 6.7

85,096 1.8

142,251 3.1

Number Percent

19,867,549 100.0

17,611,875 88.6

5,590,449 28.1

4,901,970 24.7

6,339,920 31.9

779,536 3.9

2,255,674 11.4

1,538,300 7.7

262,694 1.3

454,680 2.3

Source: (33).

Appendix table 3—Families by source of income, nonmetro South, 1979

Female householder ''Other" householder All families

Race and source of income

Poor Nonpoor Poor Nonpoor Poor Nonpoor Total

Thousand

Total black families 179.8 145.7 181.0 513.0

Percent

360.8 658.7 1,019.5

With income fromr^

Earnings^ 57.5 89.8 65.1 93.9 61.3 93.0 81.8

Interest, dividends, or rentals^ 1:9 7.3 3.3 10.5 2.6 9.8 3.6

Social Security 26.4 39.2 37.7 23.8 32.1 27.2 28.9

Public assistance 55.2 33.2 29.9 13.3 42.5 17.7 26.5

Other sources 18.0 27.2 16.1 22.4

Thousand

17.0 23.5 21.2

Total white families 139.1 362.9 529.3 4,568.2

Percent

668.4 4,931.1 5,599.5

With income from:^

Earnings^ 55.3 85.5 63.0 89.9 61.4 89.6 86.2

Interest, dividends, or rentals^ 5.5 30,2 12.2 37.4 10.8 36.9 33.8

Social Security 28.0 45.7 35.0 24.1 33.5 25.7 26.6

Public assistance 38.1 15.1 17.9 4.1 22.1 4.9 7.0

Other sources 23.0 39.5 15.7 24.3 17.2 25.4 24.4

^Categories are not mutually exclusive. Families may have income from multiple sources.

^Includes families with net losses.

Source: Computed from [35).

î^U.S. Government Printing Office : 1986 -490-918/40478 27