Material Hardship Among Material Hardship Among Families with ChildrenFamilies with Children

Jane Mosley, Truman School of Public Affairs, University of Missouri-Columbia

Kathleen Miller, RUPRI, University of Missouri-Columbia

Heather Koball, National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University

This research was supported by the RUPRI Rural Poverty Research Center, one of three Area Poverty Research Centers funded by ASPE/HHS.

Concept of Material Hardship

Mayer and Jencks 1989

Beverly 2001

Short 2004

Similar, but clearly distinct from income poverty

Research Questions

Does the experience of material hardship vary across the US by region?

Does the experience of material hardship vary by residence (metro/nonmetro)?

How does experience of material hardship coincide with or vary from poverty?

Do differences still exist when controlling for demographic characteristics and other factors?

Challenges for this Topic

Data

Good geographic variables and good material hardship measures aren’t always available together

Material hardship measures in major data sets (PUMS, CPS, SIPP)

Geographic representation (for regional estimates)

Residential representation (met/nonmet estimates)

Defining material hardship/common measures

Data used in this Analysis

PUMS—2000 5% Sample

CPS—3 year averages, 2001-2003

Hardship Measures

PUMS—focused primarily on housing issues

Lack of plumbing facilities

Lack of kitchen facilities

Moderate or severe crowding

Lack of phone

More than 30% of income spent on rent/mortgage

Current Population Survey

Broader measures of hardship (but sacrifice geographic depth)

Food Insecurity

Lack of child health insurance

Transient housing

Lack of telephone

Results

Different measures of hardship have different geographic patterns

Housing hardships and food insecurity are most prevalent in the West

Other CPS hardship measures (lack of child health insurance, transient housing, phone access) are most prevalent in the South and Southwest

Central City residents experience the highest levels of hardship

Hardship and poverty patterns across place are similar but not identical

Regions used in this Analysis

Northeast

South

Midwest

West

Percent of Families with Children Experiencing at Least One Housing Hardship, by Region (PUMS)Crowding, Rent/Mort. > 30% inc., lack of kitchen, plumbing, phone

15.7%

34.8%

23.6%23.6%

20.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Northeast South Midwest West U.S.

Per

cen

t of

Fam

ilies

Data Source: PUMS, 2000

Percent of Families with Children Experiencing at Least One Hardship, by Region (CPS)Lack of child health insurance, lack of phone, transient housing

21.0%

12.5%

17.1%13.5%

18.2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Northeast South Midwest West U.S.

Per

cen

t of

Fam

ilies

Source: Current Population Survey, 2001-2003

Data Source: PUMS, 2000

Percent of Families Experiencing any Housing Hardship by Metropolitan Status (PUMS)Crowding, Rent/Mort. > 30% inc., lack of kitchen, plumbing, phone

19.3%17.2%

40.6%

22.3% 23.6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Central CityOnly

Mix of CC/Metro& Balance of

Metro

Mix ofMetro/Nonmetro

NonmetroOnly

Total

Per

cen

t of

Fam

ilie

s

Percent of Families with Children Experiencing at Least One Hardship, by Metropolitan Status (CPS)Lack of child health insurance, lack of phone, transient housing

21.4%

16.9% 17.1%

18.7%

14.2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Central City Balance ofMetro

Nonmetro Unidentified Total

Pe

rcen

t o

f F

am

ilie

s

Source: Current Population Survey, 2001-2003

Data Source: PUMS, 2000

Percent of Families with Children Experiencing at Least One Hardship, by Metropolitan Status and Region (PUMS)Crowding, Rent/Mort. > 30% inc., lack of kitchen, plumbing, phone

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Northeast South Midwest West Nation

Central City OnlyMix of CC/Metro & Balance of MetroMix of Metro/NonmetroNonmetro Only

Percent of Families with Children Experiencing at Least One Hardship, by Metropolitan Status and Region (CPS)Lack of child health insurance, lack of phone, transient housing

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Northeast South Midwest West Nation

Central City Only

Balance of Metro

Nonmetro

Unidentified

Data Source: Current Population Survey, 2001-2003

State Poverty Rates for Families with Children: 2000

Data Source: PUMS, 2000

Percent of Families with Children Experiencing any Housing Hardship, by State (PUMS)Crowding, Rent/Mort. > 30% inc., lack of kitchen, plumbing, phone

Data Source: PUMS, 2000

Less than 15%

15% - 19.9%

20% or more

Percent of Families with Children Experiencing any Hardship (CPS)Lack of child health insurance, lack of phone, transient housing

Data Source: Current Population Survey; 2001, 2002, 2003

Data Source: Current Population Survey; 1999, 2001, 2002

Percent of Families Experiencing Food Insecurity with Hunger (CPS)

Percent of Families in each PUMA Experiencing anyHousing HardshipCrowding, Rent/Mort. > 30% inc., lack of kitchen, plumbing, phone

Data Source: PUMS, 2000

Metro (37)Nonmet Adjacent (173)Nonmet Nonadjacent (284)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau andEconomic Research Service, USDAMap prepared by RUPRI

High Poverty Counties, 1999Counties with Poverty Rates of 20% or Higher

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000

Counties with Poverty Rates of 20 percent or Higher, 1999

Experience of Housing Hardship by Income LevelCrowding, Rent/Mort. > 30% inc., lack of kitchen, plumbing, phone

40.8%

10.0%

65.8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Income belowPoverty

Income 100%-200%of Poverty

Income 200% or moreof Poverty

Logistic Regression (PUMS data) Families with Children

Dependent variable:Experiencing at least one Housing Hardship

Age of Household Head

Race / Ethnicity of Household Head

Educational Attainment of Household Head

Family Type (married couple vs. single parent)

Number of Children in Household

Number of Workers in Family

Income/Poverty ratio

Metropolitan Status

Region

Control variables:

Regression Results: Families with Children

Residents of completely nonmetropolitan PUMAs less likely to experience hardship than other residents (log odds=.679)

Residents of the South less likely to experience hardship than other regions (log odds=.808)

Married couple families less likely to experience hardship than single parent families (log odds=.840)

Number of children in HH positively associated with hardship (log odds =1.385)

Income/Poverty ratio negatively associated with hardship (log odds=.574)

Number of workers negatively associated with hardship (log odds=.675)

Next steps

Add additional years of data

Additional multivariate regression / refine models

Examination of material hardship among all families (not just families with children)

Explore additional data sources