Rural Child Poverty across Immigrant Generations in New Destination States Brian Thiede, The Pennsylvania State University Leif Jensen, The Pennsylvania State University March 22, 2018 Rural Poverty Fifty Years after The People Left Behind Washington, D.C. 1
Overall goal To understand patterns of poverty among children in rural areas of new immigrant destination states. We address the following questions: How steep is the gradient in child poverty between immigrant generations in new, rural destinations? What explains this gradient? How do these patterns vary across contexts? 2
Rural America as an immigrant destination Rural America has (historically) been more raciallyand ethnically-diverse than commonly assumed. Still, substantial changes in the racial and ethnic composition of the rural population have occurred over recent decades. Growth of first- and second-generation immigrant populations (Crowley & Lichter 2009; Jensen 2006; Lichter 2012). Spatially-concentrated change (Sharp & Lee 2017). 3
Poverty among rural children Renewed attention to patterns of rural child poverty is merited in the context of growing racial and ethnic diversity. Rural children face disproportionate poverty risks, which are amplified among racial and ethnic minorities (Farrigan 2017). Less is known about variation in rural child poverty by immigrant generation and geographic context (Crowley et al. 2006; Lichter et al. 2015). 4
This paper This paper addresses the following objectives: 1. Estimate rates of poverty for first-, second-, and third+generation children in rural and urban areas of newand established-destination states. 2. Evaluate whether the generation-specific risk of child poverty varies across destination types. 3. Identify the social and demographic factors that explain inter-generational differences in child poverty across destination types. 5
Data Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) Years 2011-2017 Analytic sample: Children (individuals <18 years) All rotating groups 6
Measures Poverty Official Poverty Measure Immigrant generation First Second Both parents foreign-born One foreign-born parent, one native-born parent Third+ Third+ First Second, two foreignborn parents Second, one foreignborn parent Figure 1 Share of sample by immigrant generation 7
Measures Destination type State-level measure (Massey & Capoferro 2008) New vs. established Stratified by metropolitan status Residual other category 8 Massey & Capoferro (2008)
Measures Figure 2 Percentage change in share of children ages 0-17 from first and second generations, 1995 to 2015 Destination type State-level measure (Massey & Capoferro 2008) New vs. established Stratified by metropolitan status Residual other category 9
Measures Social and demographic characteristics Child race and ethnicity Family head: age, sex, marital status, and education Family size Family employment Mean FTEs worked by adult family members (25-64 years) Census region of residence Table 1 Child and family characteristics by immigrant generation Percentage, Mean (Standard Deviation) First Both parents One parent foreign born foreign born Third+ Child Race/ethnicity Non-Hispanic white 22.0 10.6 28.4 66.4 Non-Hispanic black 11.0 8.6 6.6 15.3 Hispanic 39.5 59.7 50.0 12.2 Asian and Pacific Islander 25.4 20.4 5.7 0.9 Other 2.1 0.8 9.4 5.2 Family head Age 41.61 39.77 38.80 39.34 (9.36) (8.89) (9.39) (9.53) Sex = female 43.8 49.6 55.1 54.9 Marital status = married 82.5 78.3 72.7 69.2 Education <High school 25.0 35.1 12.8 7.9 HS diploma 28.9 33.9 39.8 45.5 Associate degree 5.8 5.6 10.2 12.0 Bachelor's degree+ 40.3 25.5 37.2 34.6 Family Family size 4.36 4.52 4.18 4.21 Work among adults ages 24-64 years (FTE/adults) Region (1.40) (1.36) (1.34) (1.36) 0.76 0.78 0.87 0.88 (0.41) (0.41) (0.44) (0.45) Northeast 19.4 18.6 17.2 15.5 Midwest 14.3 11.6 13.0 25.0 South 38.7 33.7 34.1 39.2 West 27.7 36.1 35.8 20.3 N (unweighted) 12,358 45,701 22,174 254,966 10
Analysis Today I will present results from: Descriptive analyses of child poverty rates Linear probability models of child poverty Nested to evaluate whether differences in social and demographic characteristics explain inter-generational disparities Overall Stratified by destination type 11
Results Figure 3 Share of children in poverty, by generation and destination type 12
Results Table 2 Contribution of variable(s) to inter-generational disparities in child poverty (ref = third+ generation) First Both parents foreign born One parent foreign born Model A Race and ethnicity + + + Model B Family head education + + + Model C Family employment + + ø Model D Family head age Family head sex Family head marital status Family size - - - Figure 4 Coefficient estimates, linear probability models of child poverty 13
Results Figure 5 Predicted probability of child poverty by immigration generation and destination type 14
Results Figure 6 Coefficient estimates, linear probability models of child poverty by destination type 15
Results Figure 6 Coefficient estimates, linear probability models of child poverty by destination type 16
Results Figure 6 Coefficient estimates, linear probability models of child poverty by destination type 17
Results Figure 6 Coefficient estimates, linear probability models of child poverty by destination type 18
Conclusions Child poverty varies systematically by immigrant generation. Overall risk greatest among (a) first generation and (b) second generation with two foreign-born parents. Children in rural areas of new destination states face disproportionately high rates of poverty. Exceptionally high poverty rates among secondgeneration children with two foreign-born parents; limited differences among other immigrant generations. 19
Conclusions Results point to challenges of economic integration among immigrants in new, rural destinations. And into rural areas more broadly, where the reference third+ generation is characterized by high child poverty rates. Analyses do not evaluate the extent to which the safety net is catching the at-risk children identified here. Merits further research and attention by policymakers. 20
Thank you Contact Brian Thiede E-mail: bct11@psu.edu Phone: 814-865-2561 Acknowledgements Thiede and Jensen acknowledge assistance provided by the Population Research Institute at Penn State University, which is supported by an infrastructure grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P2CHD041025). This work is also conducted as part of Thiede and Jensen s participation in the USDA Multistate Research Project W4001: Social, Economic and Environmental Causes and Consequences of Demographic Change in Rural America. Thiede also acknowledges the support of the University of Wisconsin s Institute for Research on Poverty. 21