8 2003 The Southern Rural Development Center. This material may be copied for nonprofit educational useprovided that credit is given to the original source and that a brief note explaining the use is sent to theSouthern Rural Development Center, Box 9656, Mississippi State, MS 39762, or bonniet@srdc.msstate.edu.

INTRODUCTIONWhen children are poor, the whole society sustains dramatic short term and long term

losses. Schools pay when they have to provide services to children with special needsand when children repeat grades. Hospitals, insurers and social services pay when chil-dren’s mental and physical disabilities require costly care [21]. Taxpayers pay for theseremedial programs through higher taxes to compensate for higher costs of social servicesand medical care and to compensate for the lowered contributions that poor people areable to make by virtue of their much reduced earnings potential [21]. Businesses pay“when poor children grow up to become less educated, less productive workers” [21:14].They pay when workers with low skill and reading ability need more training or whencostly mistakes are made in services to customers or in the operation of machinery [21].It is projected that the loss in our country’s future economic output resulting from theimpoverishment of 14.5 million American children approaches $130 billion dollars [21].

Concerns about the impacts of poverty on children living in the South are particularlyurgent. As far back as statistical and narrative accounts have existed, poverty has affect-ed the lives of a disproportionate number of families and children in the South. Childpoverty is especially pronounced in southern Appalachia, the Black Belt and the Deltaareas of the South [22]. Current patterns of social and economic inequalities are tied tothe ways in which the economies of these regions were organized over a century agoaround plantation agriculture and coal mining [5].

For years, the economy of the South was dependent upon low-wage, low-skilled man-ufacturing. However, the shift to a global marketplace has significantly altered the ruraleconomy of the South. To remain competitive, the manufacturing sector is now seekingindividuals who have higher levels of education and good job-related skills. In order tofind the right pool of workers, many manufacturing firms are now moving to urban cen-ters of the region [13] or shifting their operations to overseas locations that offer lowercost labor [14]. The end result is that those who are poor — many with limited job skillsand low educational levels — are having a difficult time securing steady employment.As such, these individuals and their families find themselves more deeply entrenched inpoverty with little hope of escape any time soon.

This report examines child and family poverty within the rural South, the forces thatperpetuate poverty, and the long term consequences of poverty for children, families,communities and the region as a whole. The report concludes with an exploration of pol-icy considerations for addressing the challenges facing families in poverty in the ruralSouth.

THE FACES OF POVERTY ARE THE FACES OF POOR CHILDRENThe South compares less favorably with other regions of the United States when it

comes to child poverty. For children under the age of 18, poverty rates are highest in theSouth (18.9 percent) than in any other region of the United States (Table 1). Unique cul-tural, historical and economic factors have combined with the traditional reluctance of

Economic & Workforce Development

SRDC Policy Series November 2003, No. 2

ROSALIND P. HARRIS AND JULIE N. ZIMMERMANUniversity of Kentucky

Children and Poverty in the Rural South

Photos courtesy of www.usda.gov

Southern state and local governments toinvest in community and public servicesto produce the most notable deficits inchild welfare of any region in the country[12]. As a consequence, Southern babiesare more likely than those in other partsof the country to have low birth-weightsand to die before their first birthdays.Moreover, Southern teens are more likelyto get pregnant and to drop out of school[12]. The magnitude of the differencebetween the South and the rest of thecountry is made clear when one of the“hypothetical additional risks childrenassume simply by living in the South”means that 580,000 more children willlive in poverty in the South [12].

Child poverty rates have also been his-torically higher in nonmetro areas of the

United States. For children under 18, thepoverty rate for nonmetropolitan areas is20.3 percent compared to 16.3 percent forthe United States as a whole. But, if thefocus shifts strictly to children living inrural areas, the South emerges as the mostimpoverished rural region of the country.The poverty rates for children living innonmetropolitan areas of the South was24.9 percent, which is not only higherthan any other region but also higher thanany child poverty rate in metropolitanareas of any region. Moreover, of all chil-dren living in poverty, 42.7 percent live inthe South compared to 36.8 percent of allchildren above and below poverty.Moreover, a larger share of poor childrenin the rural South are severely poor (fami-ly income less than 50 percent of the

poverty level) when compared to poorchildren residing in other regions of theUnited States (41 percent versus 33 per-cent) [17].

THE COLOR OF CHILD POVERTYAlthough a majority of poor children

in the rural South are white, the povertyrates for Native American children, Latinochildren and African American childrenare especially high relative to those forwhite children [22]. Table 2 offers a snap-shot of this. Child poverty rates are thehighest among black and Hispanic chil-dren nationwide (30.2 and 28 percentrespectively compared to 13.4 percent forwhite children). The impact of racial dis-parities grows dramatically for black chil-dren living in the rural areas where childpoverty rates are the highest at 40.5 per-cent. The legacy of policies and socialand institutional arrangements that hasleft Native Americans, Latinos andAfrican Americans relatively landless andresourceless, and with much weaker con-nections to educational resources andlabor markets than whites, has served tomake children of color more vulnerable topoverty in the rural South. NativeAmerican poverty is particularly concen-trated among Native American childrenliving on reservations and tribal trustlands, while Latino poverty is concentrat-ed within the colonias of the Southwest.

African American children in the Southare two times more likely than white chil-dren to be poor. The disparity remains forAfrican American children living in ruralareas of the South. This fact highlights thedramatic impact that historical forceshave had in continuing to influence thelife chances of African American familiesin the rural South, especially when thefocus is the Black Belt, the largestexpanse of poverty within the nation. TheBlack Belt spreads from East Texas,Louisiana and Arkansas across toMississippi, West Tennessee, Alabama,Georgia, North Florida, North and SouthCarolina, and Virginia. This is the areathat has been historically dominated bythe plantation-slave economy. Today, theBlack Belt contains 83 percent of the non-metropolitan African American U.S. pop-ulation and 46 percent of all African

2

Southern babies are more likely than those in other parts of thecountry to have low birth-weights and to die before their firstbirthdays.

Total Child Poverty Rate

18.914.713.316.016.3

Metro ChildPoverty Rate

17.314.113.415.315.4

NonMetro ChildPoverty Rate

24.920.113.020.920.3

Area

SouthNortheastMidwestWestUnited States

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2002 Current Population Survey, Table 4.

Child Poverty Rates (under 18 Years Old) by Region andResidence, 2001.

Table 1.

3

Americans in the U.S. population [25].The Black Belt is also home to 34 percentof the nation’s poor, and 43 percent of therural poor. In 1990, 90 percent of the non-metro rural African American poor werelocated in the Black Belt [25]. It is withinthe Black Belt that the deeply rooted con-nection between poverty of place andpoverty of people is made very clear.

POVERTY OF PLACE: POORFAMILIES, POOR CHILDREN ANDREGIONAL RURAL ECONOMIES

What makes some places persistentlypoorer than others, places that make itmore difficult for families and children toescape from poverty? The case of therural South is instructive in this regard.Historically, the slow transition fromplantation agriculture and other extractionbased economies (e.g., coal, timber) tomanufacturing, together with historicallyweak investments in basic education andskills training, have produced distinctivepatterns of low-wage industries and low-skill workforces in rural communities. Asthe rural South loses manufacturing gainsrealized during the 1970s and 1980s, be itto the urban South or to other countries,and is less able to compete for jobsdemanding better educated and technolog-ically skilled workers, job expansion hasbeen principally tied to service sector pro-ducing jobs [14]. Unfortunately, such jobsdo not offer the higher wages and morecomprehensive benefits typically found inmanufacturing and higher quality servicesector jobs [4].

Regrettably, this trend has only exacer-bated long standing patterns of workingpoverty in the rural South. Workingpoverty is characterized by more part-time and seasonal employment and thelowest wage scales in the country [10].The skill and resource characteristics ofpoor families in the rural South reflect thelimitations of the educational and skillbuilding opportunities and wage earningopportunities available within the regionaleconomy. The parents of poor children inthe rural South are younger and less edu-cated than the parents of poor children inthe rest of the nation [19]. By virtue ofwhat they lack in education — skills andexperience — these parents face great dif-ficulty in finding and qualifying for stablework at a livable wage. These challengesare greater for women, who are excludedfrom the labor force at higher rates thanmen and segregated into lower paying,low or no benefit jobs. This is why chil-dren in mother-only families, that areincreasing dramatically within the region,are more likely than children in two-par-ent families to live in poverty. For chil-dren living in two parent families in therural and urban South, poverty rates were16 and 8 percent respectively compared to50 and 43 percent for children living inmother-only families [19].

When parents’ chances of earning anadequate wage are hurt by the very natureof the regional economy, children suffersince family income remains the singlemost important factor for determining theoverall quality of a child’s present life and

long term well-being. The type of neigh-borhood, quality of housing, educationalachievement, social opportunities, accessto quality health care, and entry points tothe labor market are all impacted by fami-ly income [16].

For children whose parents face theseongoing challenges to economic security,living in poverty means that there is agreater likelihood of growing up in envi-ronments that are filled with conflict andstress. The struggle to make ends meet ona daily basis leaves little time and energyfor the development of close, nurturingrelationships between a parent and childthat are vital to the healthy developmentof children [2]. The emotional strains andmultiple stresses in the face of repeated failures so characteristic of impoverish-ment lead to hopelessness and despair forparents [26]. Furthermore, these stressesare intensified for single heads of house-holds who have the sole responsibility forresponding to the range of child rearingneeds and demands. This sense of hope-lessness is often passed on to children,leaving them with limited aspirations forthe future [7]. This outlook on life, shapedin the early stages of their upbringing,translates into children with few tools to

Children in mother-only families are more likely thanchildren in two-parent familiesto live in poverty.

Child Poverty Rates (under 18 Years Old) by Residence, Race andEthnicity, 2001.

Table 2.

All Races

16.320.315.4

18.924.917.3

Area

United StatesNonMetroMetro

Southern RegionNonMetroMetro

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2002 Current Population Survey, Table 4.

Black

30.240.528.7

30.539.828.1

White

13.417.012.6

15.019.813.6

Hispanic

28.032.327.5

29.631.929.2

succeed in school or to transition success-fully into the workforce once they reachadulthood.

No doubt poor children face consider-able obstacles to securing the educationthey need. Learning opportunities at homeare limited as a result of strained parent-child relations, a lack of home-basedlearning materials such as books andcomputers, and environmental problemssuch as bad lighting [21]. When combinedwith such factors as limited access todecent child care and adequate nutrition,poor school performance and high schooldropout levels are almost assured. Thesemajor setbacks will prevent poor childrenfrom gaining access to the knowledge andskills necessary for qualifying for ade-quate employment and decent wages. Theend result is the continuation of the cycleof poverty from one generation to thenext.

WELFARE REFORM AND CHILDPOVERTY

Historically, the rural South hasdepended heavily on public assistanceprograms to compensate families for theweaknesses in the economy. In fact, of the580 nonmetro counties in the top 25 per-cent of counties dependent on Aid toFamilies with Dependent Children(AFDC) in 1995, 347 (60 percent) wererural counties in the South. In 1996, theU.S. Congress passed the PersonalResponsibility and Work OpportunitiesReconciliation Act (PRWORA), an ambi-tious change in our Nation’s welfare sys-tem. This legislation dramatically alteredthe way in which the federal governmentresponds to the challenges that poor chil-dren and their parents face in meetingtheir basic needs by eliminating the feder-al entitlement to benefits. The TemporaryAssistance for Needy Families (TANF)program was organized around the ideathat if welfare recipients could be movedinto jobs and model family values in theirlifestyles, they would no longer need pub-lic assistance. While federal law sets a 60month lifetime limit for recipients onassistance and requires recipients to par-ticipate in work or work related activitieswithin 24 months, states can set shortertime limits. TANF is rigid in that it sets a

single block grant amount in funding foreach state for five years, regardless ofeconomic changes at the state or federallevels. It is flexible in that it allows statesto use TANF funds to provide a broaderrange of benefits and services than underAFDC.

The presumption that employment willhelp poor families to work their way outof poverty is already challenged by thelarge numbers of working poor families inthe rural South. While results of studies

on the impact of welfare reform on chil-dren are mixed, there is one straightfor-ward conclusion that emerges. When par-ents are forced to leave welfare for low-paying jobs, they remain poor, and condi-tions often worsen without the benefit ofMedicaid for health care and food stampsfor adequate nutrition. This does not leadto the creation of better environments forchildren [11]. The difficulties parents inthe rural South face in combining child-rearing with employment, in the contextof economic hardships, are made consid-erably more difficult by the longstandinglack of support services in the forms oftransportation, child care, drug and vio-

lence counseling, and prevention pro-grams, etc. in rural communities.

Recent studies indicate that positiveimpacts of welfare reform on children arerealized when local welfare to work pro-grams are able to provide for wage subsi-dies, child care subsidies, transportationprovisions, job and skill building services,and mental health interventions [15].Programs that count educational activitiesin the form of high school/GED comple-tion or community college/universitydegrees as work are found to be especial-ly valuable in enhancing the individual’spotential for the kind of long rangeemployment that will pay an adequatewage. Currently, states in the South areless likely to allow post-secondary educa-tion to count as a work activity [27].Using PRWORA’s flexibility to makeeducation and training possible for thosemaking the transition from welfare towork within the region could be importantfor strengthening the overall human capi-tal of the region. This would help makethe region more attractive to good compa-nies that come prepared to offer decentjobs, paying good wages and benefits.

Within the South, the rate of decline inwelfare caseloads has been greater thanthe national average in all states exceptTennessee. The rates of decline are espe-cially significant in states that continue toshow very low per capita incomes andcontain a large proportion of the Nation’spersistent poverty counties [9]. In all like-lihood, the decline in welfare recipients isnot simply a product of positive changesin the economy, but also of the increasinggap between the benefits associated withwork and those realized by staying onwelfare. The South has the lowest benefitlevels in the Nation, ranging from $164 to$280 a month for a family of three withno assets [1]. Welfare declines in theSouth could also be the result of strongersanctions for not complying with TANFrules. Already families in the rural Southare more likely to face losing benefits as aresult of sanctions for not complying withTANF requirements. Of the 14 states withstrong sanctions, eight are in the South[9]. Sanctions can range from the with-holding of the parent’s share of the TANFbenefit to withholding the full amount for

4

Family income remains the single most important factorfor determining the overallquality of a child’s present lifeand long term well-being.

5

specified periods of time, thereby directlyimpacting the support for children. Lowbenefit levels, punitive sanctions alongwith the growth in low end jobs could beencouraging parents wearied by the has-sles associated with TANF to turn increas-ingly to work.

Ultimately, Southern states are facedwith making decisions about how to useTANF block grants in ways that allowthem to respond to the unique conditionsthat make it difficult for families in ruralcommunities to leave cash assistance [28].Some states have opted to make use ofthe flexibility afforded them by PRWO-RA. This has resulted in programsdesigned to provide a mix of services forbuilding the education and skill levels ofparents making the transition from TANFto work and to provide assistance in theforms of childcare subsidies and trans-portation and counseling support withincommunities. Most notably these pro-grams acknowledge the weaknesses with-in the Southern rural economy by system-atically subsidizing the wages and bene-fits of workers.

RACE, CLASS AND PERSISTENTPOVERTY

Persistent race and class inequalitieswork in a feedback relationship withweakened economies to keep communi-ties and families poor. For instance,observations on urban poverty made byWilson [23] shows that the loss of jobs

due to the flight of industries from theNortheast and Midwest between 1970-80and the flight of black and white middleclasses from the cities accelerated long-standing race and class inequalities. Theresult is that poverty deepened and per-sisted in the inner city African Americancommunities of the North.

In looking at the case of persistentpoverty in the rural South, Duncan [5]observed how the plantation economy ofthe Delta and coal economy ofAppalachia were organized on the basis ofrace and class inequalities. She noted thatby restricting access to wealth and powerto themselves, wealthy white classes havebeen able to prevent poor families fromhaving access to the type of social andcultural resources or institutions that canhelp to make a real difference in theirlives. For instance, poor children are oftenconfined to poor performing schools withlimited course offerings. As a result, theyleave these schools lacking the knowledgeand skills needed to move out of poverty.It is not a matter of lacking the will or tal-ent to succeed academically. Rather, it is amatter of being denied the opportunitiesto develop the skills, habits, work routinesand social networks that would supporttheir efforts to move beyond poverty.

The impact of one class or race deny-ing others the access to importantresources can give the appearance of per-petuating a culture of poverty. For exam-ple, a child growing up where he or she

experiences low educational attainmentand joblessness, as a result of severelyrestricted opportunities, will likely be partof a network of kin and friends thatincludes a high proportion of peopleexperiencing the same lack of access toopportunities. Under these conditions, it isunlikely that he or she will develop thehabits and disciplines required for gettingor keeping a job in the future. The conse-quences for the individual child are oftenself blame, low self-esteem and low self-confidence. When these consequencesbecome the normal experience for a siz-able number of individuals within a com-munity, a collective sense of communityinertia and disempowerment can result.

Duncan [5] suggests that if bridgescould be built between classes and racialgroups, social isolation could be reduced,thus making it easier for poor families inthe rural South to gain access to the com-munity resources that would help themmove out of poverty. Duncan [5] high-lights the positive efforts of a sizable andcivically engaged middle class in her casestudy of a rural New England communityto make resources and opportunities, usu-ally controlled by wealthier classes, avail-able to low-income community members.

It is clear from this picture that thechallenges Southern rural families face inmoving out of poverty are very complex.The feedback relationship between longstanding problems within the economyand long standing class and race inequali-ties has served to keep many families inthe region impoverished. Breaking thiscycle will be possible through a mixtureof creative and hard hitting policies. It isto this matter that we now turn.

POLICY CONSIDERATIONSThe United States compares unfavor-

ably with other industrial countries whenit comes to lifting children out of povertyand in preventing child impoverishment.Many countries have implemented strongpolicies for boosting family income whenemployment alone is unable to providefamilies with a basic livelihood. Becausethe United States does not have such poli-cies, a child in the United States is twiceas likely as a child in Britain, three timesmore likely than a child in France or

Poor children are often confined to poor performing schools.

Germany, and 60 percent more likely thana child in Canada, to be poor [21].

What becomes clear through this typeof comparison is that the United States ingeneral, and the South in particular, doesnot have long range comprehensive fami-ly policies for helping families cope withweaknesses in the economy. Since familyincome is the single most important factorfor ensuring a family’s economic securityand for providing the conditions underwhich children will move on to both edu-cational and work experiences, it is vitalthat this type of policy initiative be takenon full force.

Currently, the federal earned incometax credit (EITC) provides the best modelfor developing such a policy. It offers taxcredits to “low and moderate incomeworkers, primarily those with children, tooffset the burden of Social Security pay-roll taxes, supplement earnings and com-plement efforts to help families make thetransition from welfare to work” [8:25].By establishing state level EITCs to com-plement the federal EITC, states will sig-nificantly increase their income taxthresholds (i.e., the income level at whicha family begins to owe taxes). States alsocan opt to develop more state-funded-onlyprograms from the flexible portion oftheir TANF grants. Separate state pro-grams allow states more flexibility, suchas subsidizing wages through cash assis-tance programs and providing for an arrayof support services for working parentsand parents preparing to work, withouttriggering time limits and work participa-tion requirements.

Southern states with depressedeconomies could raise the state minimumwage above the federal level. The weightof recent evidence challenges the argu-ment that such a move would have anadverse impact on employment by scaringaway firms [8]. In fact, recent studies sug-gest that when the minimum wage wasraised, employment trends were morepositive. Raising the minimum wage maydiscourage turnover and make it easier foremployers to find qualified workers [8].

Appeals to implement policies that willassist poor families and children in mov-ing out of poverty and prevent family andchild impoverishment within the region

typically focus on the benefits that will begained by individual families and childrenthrough these changes. A perspective thatmakes explicit the ties between alleviatingthe poverty of individual families andpromoting regional economic develop-ment provides a realistic and compellingrationale for promoting policies that willchange the long standing social relationsand institutional practices that have pro-duced low levels of education and highlevels of unequal access to employment.

Job skill and re-employment trainingcan be critical components of a compre-hensive state plan to confront unemploy-ment and underemployment in the wakeof the up-skill restructuring of the econo-my within the South. Compensatingadults for educational and skills trainingthey may not have secured as a result ofweak ties to educational institutionsstrengthens the whole community to suc-cessfully compete for jobs with firmsseeking more highly skilled workers.Such educational and skill enhancingstrategies can be coordinated with TANF

work readiness programs. In some states,for instance, TANF programs haveworked together with companies to pro-vide workers with opportunities to bothwork and strengthen basic education andskill levels in preparation for full timeemployment. This comprehensiveapproach to work preparation could alsobe linked to employment in public worksprojects that both strengthen local infra-structures as well as the individual andcollective self confidence of those whohave been on the margins. These policieswould have the further effect of creatingpositive models for mentoring andencouraging children and youth by firstproviding their parents with access toresources, skills and work routines.Children would follow, acquiring impor-tant cultural resources for moving beyondpoverty [5].

Schools are a point of contact for par-ents and children. National initiatives toprovide a quality public school educationfor all insures access to the culturalresources needed to make a difference ina child’s life, no matter what the family’seconomic circumstances. Schools alsooffer potential as place-based resourcesfor meeting many needs in the communi-ty. School-based family resource centersoffer a range of services, from early inter-vention programs designed to enhancechild, maternal and family functioning, toteen intervention/counseling and adulteducation programs [3]. There are alsocommunities that address broader com-munity development and building needsthrough programs offered through school-based resource centers [3].

Since longstanding patterns of classand race inequalities continue to haveprofound impacts on a family’s pathwaysout of poverty in the rural South, it isextremely important that the federal gov-ernment provide sensitive and strategicmediation and oversight in order to openaccess to resources and institutions. Forexample, federal oversight is needed toinsure that both resources and decision-making flexibility are allocated to theschool systems in every community toaddress the range of needs for assuringboth quality training and education, andpathways to quality lives. Federal over-

6

A child in the United States istwice as likely as a child inBritain, three times more likelythan a child in France orGermany, and 60 percent morelikley than a child in Canada,to be poor.

7

sight of access to resources and institu-tions can also work through communitybuilding projects, outside of the schoolsystems. For example, health interventionprojects could serve as empowermentmodels that employ local, low incomepeople to identify and address problemsand to ultimately work toward addressinga broader range of community problemsby drawing upon the involvement of othercommunity members.

CONCLUSIONThe disproportionate share of child

poverty in the rural South draws attentionto historical weaknesses in Southerneconomies and systems of education.These weaknesses have resulted in highlevels of unemployment and underem-ployment, high concentrations of workersin low-wage jobs, and heavy dependenceof families on public assistance programs.As a consequence, livelihood options forparents have been limited. Gender andrace serve to make these difficultiesworse. Families headed by women aresignificantly disadvantaged becausewomen are excluded from the labor forceat higher rates and segregated into thelowest paying jobs. Moreover, persistentpatterns of racial discrimination haveserved to exclude African Americans,Latinos and Native Americans fromreceiving the education and training thatwould prepare them to earn a living wage,thus giving these groups significantlyhigher unemployment and underemploy-ment rates within the region [14]. Theseinequalities are reflected in the dispropor-tionate share of poverty experienced byAfrican American, Latino and NativeAmerican children. The feedback relation-ship between weak rural economies andclass and race inequalities in the Southhas made it difficult for many communi-ties and families to break out of the cyclesof poverty that severely limit the socialand economic possibilities for their chil-dren. Since the proportions of women andnonwhite workers are increasing withinthe Southern rural workforce, continuedgender and race inequalities with regardto access to adequate educational trainingand employment could further compro-mise the well-being of an increasing

number of children, as well as the overallstrength of the regional economy.

This policy brief has highlighted thecomplex nature of child and family pover-ty within the rural South. However, theweight of evidence shows a direct rela-tionship between parental education,employment and child well-being.Presently, there are a number of creativeand strategic efforts that states can coordi-nate between TANF programs and localbusinesses and institutions to ensure thatparents receive living wages and haveaccess to necessary support programs,such as childcare and educational pro-grams that can help them provide forthemselves and their children. By pursu-ing such strategies Southern states canmake a genuine commitment to breakingthe cycle of poverty for families, commu-nities and the region. By doing so, astrengthening of the overall humanresource base and the economy of theSouth and its states can be realized.

REFERENCES[1] Administration for Families andChildren. 2000. “Temporary Assistancefor Needy Families (TANF) Program.”Third Annual Report to Congress. U.S.Department of Health and HumanServices, Administration for Children andFamilies. Office of Planning Research andEvaluation. Washington, DC. Available athttp://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/director.htm.[2] Antonucci, T.C., and H. Akiyama.1994. “Convoys of Attachment and SocialRelations in Children, Adolescents, andAdults.” Pp. 37-53 in F. Nesterman andK. Hurelman (eds.), Social Networks andSocial Support in Childhood andAdolescence. New York: Walter deGruyter.[3] Bridger, J.C. 2000. “Low IncomeFamilies and Social Isolation: ResearchFindings and Intervention Strategies.”Report to the Robert Woods JohnsonFoundation, Princeton, NJ.[4] Beaulieu, L.J., M.A. Barfield, andK.L. Stone. 2001. “Educated Workforce,Quality Jobs: Still Elusive Goals in theRural South.” Rural America 15(4):28-35.[5] Duncan, C.M. 1999. Worlds Apart:Why Poverty Persists in Rural America.

New Haven: Yale University Press.[6] Fitchen, J.M. 1991. EndangeredSpaces, Enduring Places, Change,Identity and Survival in Rural America.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.[7] Fitchen, J.M. 1981. Poverty in RuralAmerica: A Case Study. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.[8] FitzPatrick, C.S. 1999. “PovertyDespite Work in Kentucky.” Washington,DC: Center on Budget and PolicyPriorities with Kentucky YouthAdvocates.[9] Henry, M.S. and W. Lewis. 2001.“Welfare Reform: Remedy for PersistentPoverty in the Rural South?” RuralAmerica 15(4):59-67.[10] Jensen, L. 1999. “Underemploymentin the South.” Southern Perspectives 3(1).Available at http://srdc.msstate.edu/publi-cations/springsp99.pdf.[11] Kalil, A., R. Dunifon, and S.Danziger. 2001. “When Single MothersWork — Effects on Child Development.”Poverty Research News 5(4):9-11.[12] Kentucky Youth Advocates and KidsCount Partners. 1997. “Ending theSouthern Deficit: Designing a Future forthe South’s Children.” Frankfort, KY:Kentucky Youth Advocate’s Inc.[13] McGranahan, D.A. 1999. “TheGeography of New ManufacturingTechnology: Implications for the RuralSouth.” Southern Perspectives 3(1).Available at http://srdc.msstate.edu/publi-cations/springsp99.pdf.[14] MDC Research Committee. 2000.“The State of the South 2000.” ChapelHill: MDC, Inc.[15] Morris, P., G.J. Duncan, and L.Chase-Lansdale. 2001. “Welfare Reform’sEffects on Children.” Poverty ResearchNews 5(4):5-8.[16] National Research Council. 1993.“Losing Generations: Adolescents inHigh-Risk Settings.” Washington, DC:National Academy Press.[17] Rogers, C.C. 2000a. “Child Povertyin the Rural South.” SouthernPerspectives 4(2). Available athttp://srdc.msstate.edu/publications/spring2000.pdf.[18] Rogers, C.C. 2000b. “Child Povertyin Nonmetro Areas in the 1990s.” RuralAmerica 15(1):28-36.

[19] Rogers, C.C. 2001. “FactorsAffecting High Child Poverty in the RuralSouth.” Rural America 15(4):50-58.[20] Rural Sociological Society TaskForce on Persistent Rural Poverty. 1993.Persistent Poverty in Rural America.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.[21] Sherman, A. 1997. “Poverty Matters:The Cost of Child Poverty in America.”Washington, DC: Children’s DefenseFund.[22] Sherman, A. 1992. “Falling by theWayside: Children in Rural America.”Washington, DC: Children’s DefenseFund.

[23] Wilson, W.J. 1996. “Jobless Ghettosand the Social Outcomes of Youngsters.”Pp. 527-544 in P. Moen, G.H. Elder, Jr.,and K. Luscher (eds.), Examining Lives inContext. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.[24] Wimberley, R.C. and L.V. Morris.1997. “The Southern Black Belt: ANational Perspective.” The University ofKentucky: TVA Rural Studies Series.[25] Wimberley, R.C. and L.V. Morris.2002. “The Regionalization of Poverty:Assistance for the Black Belt South.”Southern Rural Sociology 18(1):294-306.[26] Zill, N. 1990.“U.S. Children and

Their Families: Current Conditions andRecent Trends.” Washington, DC: ChildTrends.[27] Zimmerman, J.N. and N. Breazeale.2002. “Decisions, Dollars, and Declines:Welfare Reform and the South.” SouthernRural Sociological Association AnnualMeeting, Orlando, FL.[28] Zimmerman, J.N. 2002.“Contextualizing Cash Assistance and theSouth.” Southern Rural Sociology18(1):1-20.

NONPROFIT ORG.U.S. Postage

PAIDPermit No. 39

Mississippi State, MS

PUBLISHED BY

Southern Rural Development Center

Lionel J. Beaulieu, Director(ljb@srdc.msstate.edu) or

Emily Shaw, Editor(emilye@srdc.msstate.edu)

Michelle R. Yankee, Publications Assistantmyankee@srdc.msstate.edu

Box 9656Mississippi State, MS 39762662-325-3207662-325-8915 (fax)http://srdc.msstate.edu

Rosalind P. Harris is an associate professor in the Department of Community and Leadership Development in the College ofAgriculture at the University of Kentucky. Her research has focused on spatial inequality and rural poverty with a particular focuson gender inequality and the impacts of poverty on children and youth.

Julie N. Zimmerman is an associate professor in the Department of Community and Leadership Development in the College ofAgriculture at the University of Kentucky. As a rural sociologist, she works in research and Cooperative Extension. Her overallfocus is on rural development and inequality. Most recently, she has been the guest editor for a special issue of Southern RuralSociology, which focused on welfare reform in the South.

AUTHOR PROFILE