The National Center for Children in Poverty has released a brief on how state policies affect low income children and children living in poverty. You can link to the entire report here. Here are the states with the highest and lowest percentages of children who are poor or low income.
10 States With the Highest % Low Income Children (low income is defined as income at or below 200% of the poverty level; this would be under $40,000 for a family of 4 in 2006)
- New Mexico 58%
- Arizona 55%
- Mississippi 55%
- Montana 55%
- Louisiana 53%
- Texas 53%
- West Virginia 50%
- Oklahoma 49%
- Arkansas 49%
- Kentucky 48% (tie)
- Washington, DC 48% (tie)
10 States With the Highest % Children in Poverty (poverty would be below $20,000 for a family of 4 in 2006)
- Washington, DC 30%
- Alabama 29%
- Louisiana 29%
- New Mexico 28%
- Arkansas 26%
- Mississippi 26%
- Texas 26%
- Arizona 25%
- Montana 24%
- Kentucky 24%
10 States With the Lowest % of Low Income Children
- New Hampshire 21%
- Minnesota 26%
- Massachusetts 27%
- Connecticut 28%
- New Jersey 29%
- Hawaii 32%
- Maryland 32%
- Colorado 35%
- Delaware 35%
- Virginia 35%
10 States With the Lowest % of Children in Poverty
- New Hampshire 8%
- Minnesota 10%
- Massachusetts 12%
- Hawaii 12%
- Alaska 13%
- Colorado 13%
- Maryland 13%
- Nevada 14%
- Vermont 14%
- Connecticut 14%
There are is a correlation between the level of poverty among children and the percentage of the population in each state that is Non-Hispanic White. I calculated the correlation between the number of low income children and the % of the population that is Non-Hispanic White. The correlation is r=-.242. Which basically means that there is a negative association between the percent white and the number of low income families, or plainly put–the number of low income families increases as the percentage of the Non-Hispanic white population decreases.
Intuitively I’d expect a link between race and children in poverty but isn’t -.24 a pretty low correlation factor?
For the social sciences, not that low. Social science data tends to by much messier than other data because their are hundreds of variables that can have an impact–for example here are just a few that could impact poverty rates of children: the region of the state, the state’s industrial base, the types of industries that predominate, unemployment rates, % single parent families, the average level of education in the state, availability of job (re)training programs, how rural or urban the state is, government sponsored social welfare programs (which vary greatly from state to state), and I’m sure there are some others I’m leaving out.
I notice that this report takes no account of the cost of living in each state – $40,000 for a family of four goes a lot farther in Alabama than in New Jersey. I’m just throwing that out there.
I’m going to have to agree with ADS. I wonder how much the rankings would change if they had an adjusted poverty/low income rate for states with much higher costs of living. I suspect that SOME of the states with lowest % low income familes would fall off the list and possibly move onto the highest % low income list if they took cost of living into account.
Regional variation, especially in housing, but also food, gas/electric, insurance, etc is tremendous. Although some of the higher COL living states offer higher minimum wages and higher wages overall, it’s not enough to make up for the increased cost of living.
I agree also: a couple I once worked with were offered more than double their respective salaries to move from the IA to MA. They got a rude shock on arrival when they tried to find housing for less than triple what they had paid back home. I know other people who were smart enough to price housing before moving, so they knew what they were (and weren’t) getting.
All that said, the correlation probably still has some validity, and the number of poor families of whatever ethnicity in this country is pretty horrifying. (Random statistic: if/when Roger Clemens actually starts pitching for the Yankees, he will be paid $153,000 per day to do so.)
Yay, Massachusetts! (happydance)
Sailorman,
I think MA might not fair too well if they adjust for COL and had a higher poverty/low income rate.
But then, my perspective is skewed because I’m in Western MA which has a lot of really dilapidated towns/cities. They just haven’t recovered from the manufacturing mass exodous.
ETA: Except the academic communities in North Hampton and Amherst – they are an annomly though.
The really glaring example of that, I think, is Hawaii. Average income in Hawaii is higher than in the rest of the U.S., but it’s more than offset by the higher cost of living. I think anyone who’s spent any time in Hawaii away from tourist areas knows there’s a ton of poverty there. If anything, though, that would tend to reinforce Rachel’s point, since Hawaii is a very multiracial state.
I’m curious, though. We all know, I think, that poverty is correlated with race in the U.S. Do you think we learn anything new by figuring out that this is true at the state level and not just at the individual level?
I work in the Chicago suburbs for a company HQ’d about 30 miles outside of Little Rock, which is about half-way between rural and suburban (closer to rural). When we go down from the Chicago ‘burbs to visit HQ and go out to lunch with our Arkansas colleagues, a favorite pastime is to compare housing costs, taxes, etc. They are stunned when we describe the size of our homes and then tell them what they cost and what our taxes are. Basically, my house would cost 1/3 of it’s present value to buy down there. And taxes? Forget it. Their taxes are nothing like ours. 40K$ a year goes a lot farther down there than it does up here.
Yeah, but #3 and Goodridge? And the new health insurance plan?
Even with a bit of slippage…. Happydance.
heh ;)
p.s. Anyone else remember “hampster dance?” I now have the song stuck in my head.
That new health insurance plan is really scary to me. It reminds a little too much of No Child Left Behind – lots of new requirements – not enough funding. I’m afraid for the people on the bottom who make too much for Mass Health and not enough for private insurance… I don’t know much more than soundbites at this point so I could definitely be wrong, but I’m skeptical so far.
BUT, I’m getting off topic. Sorry.
ANyway, one reason it is important to look at the correlation of race and poverty by state is because welfare systems are so varied by states. And invariably, the states with the highest poverty and also a lower %white population have the worst welfare systems.
MN has a universal health insurance system – it’s much more expanded than medicaid… the other welfare programs offered in MN are much more progressive than in, say, Mississippi, where there’s a higher concentration of poverty and also more people of color. So, the state variation is important.
Sally, Kate answered from me as to why state level analysis is important :)
As far as cost of living variations, I would add that there is tremendous variation within states. For example a person in upstate New York can rent a 1 bedroom apt. for $500 dollars, person in New York city will be paying $1000 or more dollars for a comparable size apartment.
Or in Massachusetts–where Kate L. lives I’d venture to say a one bedroom is somewhere in the neighborhood of $600, but in Boston the same apartment would be more like $1000.
My brother rents a whole house in small town southeastern Ohio for $400 dollars, and in small town northwestern Ohio, I rented a one bedroom apartment (about 6 years ago) for $360. (It’s probably more than $500 now.)
The COL differences between rural and urban areas are huge, but the ability to get a good paying job is also dramatically different. I think the same thing can be said for states–getting a good paying job in Mississippi is harder than getting a good paying job in California.
Anyway, one reason it is important to look at the correlation of race and poverty by state is because welfare systems are so varied by states. And invariably, the states with the highest poverty and also a lower %white population have the worst welfare systems.
Would it be true that the states with the highest poverty have the smallest economy and thus a lower income/revenue base to tax? You can’t spend money you don’t have.
There are is a correlation between the level of poverty among children and the percentage of the population in each state that is Non-Hispanic White.
IIRC there’s a strong correlation between the level of poverty among children and the percentage of children in single-parent families. I wonder what the correlation is between single-parent families and non-non-Hispanic white families (forgive the double negative, please)? How do these two correlations compare to the one given?
I think actually anyone can qualify for MassHealth — the premium is monthly, on a sliding scale based on income. What I don’t know is what MassHealth provides and how much hassle it is compared to employer-based insurance.
Kate is absolutely right that economically MA is almost like two states east and west of the CT river. (Were you in Northampton last Wed, Kate, by any chance?) The dividing line might even be a little farther east.
To Ron’s last question: I don’t know, but I recall reading during the Clinton-era welfare debate that contrary to popular belief the typical welfare recipient was a white woman with one or two children.
It also seems that it’s much harder to escape poverty if you’re a single parent, or a child in a single-parent family.
MN has a universal health insurance system – it’s much more expanded than medicaid… the other welfare programs offered in MN are much more progressive than in, say, Mississippi, where there’s a higher concentration of poverty and also more people of color. So, the state variation is important.
Yes, we have one, but it’s kinda crappy now, due to less state funds. There’s a giant donut hole at the $1000 mark. Basically if you get sick, make sure it costs less than $1K or is really really expensive, or you’re hosed. It’s better than some states, but it’s not what it used to be.
Also, from the way people complain about Teh Mexicans and Teh Somalis around here, you’d think the state was 90% nonwhite. I used to try and remind people of all the white, American-born people who use welfare, but it didn’t work; eventually I just started telling them I don’t work for the INS.
To Ron’s last question: I don’t know, but I recall reading during the Clinton-era welfare debate that contrary to popular belief the typical welfare recipient was a white woman with one or two children.
IIRC more white people than any other ethnic group are on welfare, but there are a lower proportion of whites on welfare than on other ethnic groups. I remember talking to my late father-in-law on this topic and he found the first statement very hard to believe.
Did you explain to your FIL how that whole “math” concept operates? 10% of 80% is 8%. 20% of 20% is 4%. If nonwhites are twice as likely to be on welfare, there will be twice as many whites as nonwhites on welfare.
At least as of last year, this was not true. My family was on Mass Health for a while. You have to be below 200% of the poverty line to qualify. Better than medicaid, yes, but not an overall sliding fee scale – unless it has changed since last year.
No, I wasn’t in North Hampton last weekend :) We only get up that way once every couple of months. I do love me some Bueno Y Sano though – I’m glad they opened one there in addition to the one in Amherst :)
what happened in noho last weekend?
Big WEBS/Yarn Harlot bash.
You’re right, Kate, sorry, I was thinking of CommonHealth, which is for people with disabilities and has premiums but no income limits.
IIRC more white people than any other ethnic group are on welfare, but there are a lower proportion of whites on welfare than on other ethnic groups. I remember talking to my late father-in-law on this topic and he found the first statement very hard to believe.
I think that’s right, Ron, and your FIL had/has a lot of company. Some years ago I worked with a woman who was convinced that every African-American woman had 5 kids by age 18 and then spent the rest of her life happily on welfare. (This was before AFDC became TANF.) Pointing out to her that specific African-American women we personally knew were demonstrably not on welfare (they worked in another office of the same company) had no effect.
I would be interested in knowing what effect AFDC -> TANF has had on family and child poverty, in the population as a whole and broken down by ethnicity. I could probably look this up, but, Rachel, do you have anything up your sleeve?
One reason for the racial distortions in people’s perceptions of welfare recepients in media. This excellent book by Martin Gilens includes empircal analysis of media coverage of welfare.
It’s been a few years since I read the book, but I remember somewhere are 65-75% of the people pictured in association with welfare coverage in news media were black. Blacks were even further overrepresented in stories about the “undeserving poor”–for example drug users who spend their welfare checks to get high, single mothers who have never been employed are teenage mothers, have multiple “baby daddies”, etc.
The stories of the “deserving” poor–widows, disabled veterans, married couples laid off at their jobs, etc– had a much higher percentage of whites.
My late father-in-law had a problem with the whole concept of white people being on welfare in general – that picture did not fit his worldview.
Rachel, your Gilens link doesn’t appear to be a link. Are you referring to his book Why Americans Hate Welfare?
For those of us who don’t feel like tracking down and buying the book, I did find this very interesting bit (PDF), a transcript of a short talk by Gilens in which he summarizes some of his findings on media representations of poor people. You are correct that African-Americans are overrepresented in stories about the “undeserving” poor, but Gilens also found that 1) this overrepresentation is even greater in relatively good economic times (reinforcing the stereotype that poor African-Americans could get jobs if they really wanted them) 2) ordinary middle-class African-Americans are just about invisible in the media.
Sorry about the link problem–I fixed it. Yeah, that was the book.
It should correlate well with the lack of ‘marital status’ as well.
When you have people making babies without making preparations to raising them. Cases like one man with 9 kids by 5 different women – and an income that barely supports one.
A lot of this has to do with values. White people are taught that money is more important than anything else in the world. Therefore it appears that white life is better (try not to think materialistic; can you do it?).