army“? .’-'-*:-.~ err-
A" . ‘ .0 u .l-

311.31: 4

"s.

0.:1A ‘ - .
LIA-l3 ‘ ' 0:4

13'115“
I' ‘

n.-
'Id‘c.
. .1

.' .._,~e

! u u x. s... ,.‘.
.', 3‘13”“ . -w-!.
—r ,‘I. om

.0. 4

A".

.
0. v.0“: ,
. o. . n

‘9 ~-
r— ’1'»
. - I

5:
I ‘ . 1 «r
. ‘L w I‘- o 7‘ ~
K... .' ..
u . 9: .n.

y , A"
1 .u- .>.
O - ~ . '

.'. :.-.- u
.b‘ Il“"f—.1~
,1 ..

X‘l";t“
. ~ a
We"
» o .'
“a“.p' \F‘..--
,4.” B...
.1. .,
_ .,....1'
.1

i

> I
n . ~ 1
l-. .1 . .. .
v . .I.1.4.s‘..
,o.~ . -

a 9-1.“ '

G

'.
‘

.. .
.u‘ >,-« I“
. 1c ‘4'

. n.1L. .

.. .\ 5., . ..
.,. .-

m ".‘.~“.?.:7"

'1 .

1‘ nu
. ... . -4

. .
.0.~-w---1
‘ v wtc‘
..

 

 

lllllllllllllll\\\\\llllllllll\lllllllll

3 1293 01399 2205 r

.‘1

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

An Analysis of the Socioeconomic Status of

Nonmetropolitan Female-Headed Family Households
presented by

Barbara A. Wells

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M - A - degree in $212199)! .

 

gm ,m gmglewv

Major professor

Date—AM

0-7639 MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Mlchlgan State
Unlverslty

 

 

 

PLACE It RETURN BOX to remove thte checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU leAn Nflmettve Action/Equal Opportmtty lnetttwon
Wane-n1

AN ANALYSIS OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
OF NONMETROPOLITAN FEMALE-HEADED FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS

By

Barbara A. Wells

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1995

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS OF
NONMETROPOLITAN FEMALE-HEADED FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS

BY

Barbara A. Wells

Little research has focused on nonmetropolitan female-headed family
households despite both their increasing numbers and their experience of
substantial economic disadvantage. This paper uses the 1990 Public Use Micro
Sample (PUMS) to analyze the socioeconomic status of a regional population
of nonmetropolitan female-headed family households in Michigan. Thirty-nine
percent of this predominately White sample of female-headed family households
are below the poverty line. The level of economic distress these households
experience varies significantly by the marital status of the householder, that is,
whether the householder is widowed, divorced, separated, or never married.
I use descriptive statistics and contingency table analyses to explore the
relationships between marital groups and socioeconomic indicators such as age,
education, household income, and labor force participation. l discus the role
of spatial context as a dimension of structural inequality, identifying unique
ways in which the rural context operates to the economic disadvantage of

these households.

Copyright by
BARBARA A. WELLS
1995

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am indebted to my advisers, Maxine Baca Zinn and Janet Bokemeier,
for their guidance and encouragement in the many phases of work on this
thesis. In addition, I acknowledge the particular contribution each has made to
my graduate education. I thank Janet Bokemeier for showing me the
importance of spatial context, and for giving me the opportunity to work with
her on a multi-year project researching rural families. I am grateful to Maxine
Baca Zinn for encouraging me, both inside and outside the classroom, to
develop an analytical perspective from which to do family scholarship.

I thank Clifford Broman and Thomas Conner for their willingness to serve
on my thesis committee. I am grateful to Jean Kayitsinga for technical
assistance in accessing the PUMS data. I acknowledge the Agricultural

Experiment Station's partial support of this research (Project # 3337).

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

DATA AND METHOD
Sample
Census Definitions: Poverty, Female-Headed
Family Households, Nonmetropolitan/Rural

RESULTS
Marital Status: Family and Nonfamily Households
Demographic Characteristics: Age, Education, Household
Income, and Employment
Poverty

DISCUSSION
Economic Differences Among Female-Headed Household Groups
Relationship Between the Rural Context and Changing
Family Structure
CONCLUSION

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

vi

(01000

12
12

14
21

23
26

3O
33
35

38

LIST OF TABLES

Marital Status by Household Type
Michigan County Group 11, PUMS 1990 and U.S. 1990 13

Age of Female Householders by Marital Status
Michigan County Group 11, PUMS 1990 15

Educational Attainment by Marital Status and Household Type
Michigan County Group 11, PUMS 1990 and U.S. 1990 16

Total Household Income of Female-Headed Households by Marital Status
Michigan County Group 11, PUMS 1990 and U.S. 1991 18

Labor Force Participation of Female Family Householders by Marital Status
Michigan County Group 11, PUMS 1990 and U.S. 1990 20

Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families by Marital Status
Michigan County Group 11, PUMS 1990 22

vi

INTRODUCTION

If asked to describe female-headed households, it is likely that the
common thread in the responses of many academics and the general public
would be that these households are Black and urban. This response is hardly
surprising given both the high rate of female-headed households among African-
Americans and the accompanying scholarly and media attention. William Julius
Wilson’s influential analysis of the urban underclass (1987) theorizes a
relationship between the decline of central cities and the rising rate of Black
female-headed households. The composite female household head as derived
from Wilson could be described as a Black never-married mother living on
welfare in an urban ghetto. Additionally, media discourse about social problems
often blames urban violence and poverty on changing family structure and
presents racial ethnic representations of female-headed households as culpable
(Baca Zinn 1989).

Consider now an alternative description of a female household head from

Janet Fitchen's Endangetenjnacesjndurimflaces (1991):

Sandy is twenty years old. She lives in a trailer park in a small village
and is sole provider for herself and her one child. The welfare
department wanted her to get a job, and she herself desperately wanted
to get off welfare. The only work she could get was a thirty-hour a
week job, at $4.05 an hour, in a supermarket in town. This leaves her

2

below the poverty level; even with continued food-stamp and medicaid

benefits, she has insufficient income. Sandy interviewed at a fast-food

restaurant for a second part-time job but found it impossible to combine
the shifts of two jobs, as the restaurant would not inform her until each

Friday what her next week’s schedule would be. Besides, she still would

not have had health benefits. She decided not to pursue the job.

Eventually, when she got too far behind in the rent, Sandy moved in

with a friend (p. 132).

Sandy is White and lives in a depressed rural area in upstate New York. Clearly
neither she nor her social world are described by dominant generalizations
about female-headed householders. False universalization occurs when a part
of social reality is appropriated to describe the whole. Such generalized
representations are incomplete, and thereby, inaccurate. In this instance, the
stereotype of female-headed households as Black and urban renders invisible
the experience of a significant number of households.

This paper brings rural female-headed households into sharper focus by
an exploratory analysis of a regional population of nonmetropolitan female-
headed family households in Michigan. It describes a group of households on
which very limited scholarly attention has focused despite both their increasing
numbers and their experience of substantial economic disadvantage. While in
1980 female-headed households made up 11.25% of U.S. family households
in nonmetro areas, in 1990 the rate had increased to 13.7% (Bureau of the
U.S. Census, 1982, 1992). The 1990 poverty rate of 43.2% for U.S.

nonmetropolitan female-headed family households is not significantly different

from the poverty rate of 43.8% for U.S. central city female-headed households

3
(Hoppe 1993 p. 32). The limited scholarship on the subject of nonmetro

female-headed family households points to the broader problem of rural family
studies as a neglected area of research. Patricia Garrett and Naurine Lennox
state, “The processes that create and perpetuate poverty among rural families
and children are poorly understood and seldom studied“ (1993, p. 230). This
paper seeks to redress that neglect by an analysis of the socioeconomic status
of rural female-headed family households, examining such economic indicators
as age, fertility, Mien, labor force participation, and income. I suggest that
household socioeconomic status will vary by the circumstances that created the
female-headed household: that is, that the economic well-being of these
“households will differ by whether the female household head is divorced};
separated, widowed, or never married. In addition, I discuss the increase in

rural female-headed households with reference to contextual factors.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Within family studies, a recent body of scholarship attempts to provide
a picture of family life that is sensitive to social differentiations produced by
structural inequalities (see, for example Rapp 1978, Baca Zinn 1990, 1994,
Collins 1990, Thorne 1992). This work views families as socially constructed,
that is, as created in the context of a particular social location. Social location

is defined as '[olne's position in society based on family background, race,

4
socioeconomic status, religion, and other relevant social characteristics" (Baca
Zinn and Eitzen 1993 p. 464). Differing social locations will produce families
configured in different ways. Because American society is highly stratified by
race and class, substantial variation in family form may be expected. Baca Zinn
(1994) finds.

Racial stratification creates distinctive patterns in the way families are

located and embedded in different social environments. It structures

social opportunities differently, and it constructs and positions groups in

systematic ways In. 310).

This paper emphasizes the importance of spatialcpntext as a dimension
of structural inequality. While the body of scholarship connecting race, class,
and families is growing, scholars often ignore the ways in which the rural
context disadvantages some families. I contend that the rural context also
"creates distinctive patterns“ in the social location of families and distributes
social opportunities systematically and unequally, in ways that privilege some
families and disadvantage others. The rural context structures inequality in
unique ways, three of which have particular relevance to this discussion of rural
female-headed households. Inequality is produced structurally by two means:
first, an agriculture-oriented social and economic policy, second, limited
economic opportunity; and culturally by a third: the persistence of conventional
values.

First, nonmetro social policy has ignored the economic concerns of rural

women. Historically, economic issues in nonmetro areas have been addressed

through rural development policy. Between 1960 and 1990 the U.S. rural

5

development policy was synonymous with agricultural policy, even though the
number of counties that could be categorized as farm-dependant continued to
diminish (Buttel, Browne, Christopherson, David, Ehrensaft, Freshwater,
Gaventa, and McMichael 1993). Swanson (1990) refutes the historical causal
model that economically viable family farms lead to rural community well-being.
Rather,

It is conceptually wrong and empirically impossible to argue that farm-

oriented policies will have any impact, much less a favorable one on

community well-being. Indeed, strengthening the rural community

appears to be the best strategy for preserving most family-type farms (p.

33).

Because most nonmetro households are engaged in nonagricultural
employment, rural development policy serves only a small minority of rural
residents.

Women have been uniquely disadvantaged by changes in the
organization of agriculture. Flora (1988) contends that the industrialization of
agriculture as well as seemingly gender-neutral macroeconomic policies for the
regulation of capital have reduced and limited women’s options in agricultural
production (p. 266). Single rural women, then, are likely to be employed in the
non-farm sector where their economic interests are unaddressed. Especially
relevant to the case of female-headed households is the analysis of Tickamyer,
Bokemeier, Feldman, Harris, Jones, and Wenk, which illustrates that rural

development policies have ill-served women and families; ”policies are

consequently formulated for male dominated economic activities, constructing

6
or deepening women’s dependency” (1993 p. 217).

Second, structural limitations of rural labor markets severely diminish the
range of economic opportunity in nonmetro communities. When rural residents
survey local employment opportunities, they find little choice in jobs and
industries. While rural industrialization seemed the solution to declining
employment in agriculture for many communities during the 1960s and 19703,
the results have been ambiguous. As Tickamyer and Duncan observe, ”Since
new jobs were the outcome of a ‘filtering down' process in which mature,
labor-intensive industries at the bottom of the product cycle reduced labor
costs by moving to low-wage, nonunionized areas, the impact on rural poverty
was minimal in most areas" (1990 p. 76). The economic restructuring that
occurred during the 19803 has had a devastating effect on many nonmeto
communities. Because the initial goal of industrial relocation to rural areas was
to decrease labor costs, many of these operations have already moved overseas
(Tickamyef and Duncan 1990).

>—-——__

Althougth’he transformation of the U.S. economy from a manufacturing

 

base to a service base has resulted in growth in the service sector in rural
places, higher wage “producer services” have located in urban areas while the
growth in rural areas has occurred in the areas of 'low wage consumer and
personal services” (Tickamyer and Duncan 1990 p. 78). These low wage jobs
are frequently part-time or temporary. Economic expansion strategies based on

Tickle down“ theory are likely to fail in rural areas because of the

v—

 

7

predominance of secondary sector jobs which have no “job ladders" (Lyson,
Falk, Henry, Hickey, and Warner 1993 p. 118).

Third, the persistence of more conventional values in nonmetro areas
makes rural wgmenfsmecongmic self-sufficiency more difficult to achieve. The
more conventional gender roles and family stereotypes that hold in rural areas
(Bokemeier and Garkovich 1991) undoubtedly work to women’s economic

disadvantage in the rural labor market by discouraging ‘Iiuman capital

 

investment and perpetuating gender—based discrimination in the workplace

 

(McLaughlin and Sachs 1988). Norms promoting the expectation that women
will assume nurturing and caretaking roles result in little attention to education
or career planning. Consequently, rural women are likely to be unqualified for
the relatively few professional job slots available in rural communities. Whether
professionally credentialed or not, rural women face the obstacle of greater
gender segregation by occupation in the workplace than is the case in urban
workplaces (Bokemeier and Tickamyer 1985).

Additionally, some evidence suggests that a strong self-sufficiency ethic
discourages the use of welfare among rural residents. Rank and Hirschl (1988)
found that rural welfare recipients exit from welfare before urban recipients
because of greater stigma attached to welfare use and less opportunity for
interaction with other welfare users. Rural women may well find themselves
in the no-win situation of being unable to support themselves and their

dependents in a limited labor market, but being stigmatized in their communities

for receiving minimal public assistance (Jensen and Eggebeen 1994).

This paper refines the dominant description of American female-headed
family households by analyzing a rural population. Just as variation among
U.S. female-headed households must be recognized, so we must take into
account diversity within the nonmetropolitan population under study. Is
Fitchen’s informant Sandy, the never married 20 year old mother of one child,
a typical rural female householder? Conventional thinking treats female-headed
households as an undifferentiated category. Using a conventional framework,
one might expect Sandy to be typical. In sharp contrast, a fundamental
premise of this paper is that multiple dynamics in the rural context will produce
and sustain heterogeneity in this group of families. llsuggest that householder
characteristics and household _ socioeconomic status will vary by~_._t_h_e_
circumstances that created the female-headed household. Because the
economic well-being of these households is expected to differ by whether the
female household head is divorced, separated, widowed, or never married, an
analysis by marital status is the strategy proposed for uncovering the multiple.
secial realities Of rural female-headed households. Marital status will indicate
the household’s historical relationship to male earnings. Whether a female-
headed household formerly had the benefit of a male income as a married-
couple household, and if so, the circumstances under which the change to
female-headed household status occurred, will be expected to affect current

economic status.

DATA AND METHOD

Sample

Female-headed family households in a five county nonmetropolitan area
in Michigan are studied. Because this study considers variables related to
household socioeconomic status, much of the analysis is centered on the
household head, as the person within the household most likely to have primary
economic responsibility for its maintenance. This paper analyzes the 1990
Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) of the 1990 U.S. Census of Population
and Housing for County Group 11 within the state of Michigan. The county
group is made up of the following contiguous counties: Lake, Mason, Mecosta,
Newago, and Osceola. The largest of these, Newago County, has a population
of 38,202. While the PUMS subfile has data on 501 female-headed family
households, the 16 households with married household heads (3.2% of the
sample) have been excluded from this study. The analysis sample, then, is 485
households.

This paper uses descriptive statistics and contingency table analyses to
define the particular rural region under study and to assess the relationship
between marital groups and various socioeconomic indicators. l disaggregate
the data by marital status, that is, whether the householder is divorced,
separated, widowed or never married. I compare the marital groups to illumine

differences and similarities among the householders with respect to age,

10

education, household income, poverty status, and labor force participation.

The racial composition of the female householder sample is 93.6%
White, 3.7% Black, and 2.7% other racial groups. Because this regional
population is predominantly White, assumptions will be made and conclusions
drawn throughout this analysis based on a categorization of the population as
White raced. This categorization is nevertheless somewhat inadequate. While
racial ethnic minorities are few in number in this region, their social experience
is ”whitewashed" when the population is summarized as predominantly White.
As a result of their membership in subordinated racial groups, the social worlds
of racial ethnic female-headed households will be structured in fundamentally
different ways from White female-headed households. These differences will
not be explored in this analysis.
Census Definitions: Poverty, Female-Headed Family Households,
Nonmetropolitan/Rural

The standard for determining poverty status is the official U.S.
government threshold. This threshold varies by family size, with, for example,
the 1990 threshold for a family of two at 88,509 and a family of four at
$13,359 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1993 p. 441) Family income from all
sources, including public assistance, is included when determining poverty
status. Family income is compared to a range of points relative to the poverty
line (75%, 100%, 125%, and 150%) to assess the depth of disadvantage

these households experience.

11

The population studied in this research is nonmetropolitan female-headed
family households. Unfortunately considerable confusion exists in popular (and
perhaps scholarly) discourse due to the failure to specify precisely the
population under consideration when discussing female-headed households.

3/ According to the U.S. Census, female—headed households may be of the family
or nonfamily variety, and furthermore, within family households, the presence
of minor children is not the determinant for family household classification.
Rather, a family household refers to two or more persons related by marriage,
birth, or adoption who live together (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1993 p. 5)‘
While the female-headed family household population targeted in conservative
religious and political discourse is likely the never married mother and her minor
children, the female-headed family household designation equally fits widowed
sisters who live together or an elderly woman who is cared for by a live-in
family member.

While the terms rural and nonmetropolitan are used interchangeably in
this paper, nonmetropolitan areas, as defined by the U.S. Census, are the focus
of this study. Nonmetropolitan areas are those areas outside Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSAs) or Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas
lCSMAs). and are designated on a county by county basis. Less than one-fifth
of nonmetro counties are farm-dependent, defined as at least 20% of county
income and labor involved in agriculture (Buttel et al. 1993). Nonmetropolitan

areas are of focal interest because of their isolation from economic and

12

educational opportunities available in more populous locations. Rural places
(population less than 2,500, U.S. Bureau of the Census 1993 p.4) may exist
within MSAs, sometimes as exurbs of central cities from which residents
commute to jobs in the urban center; these areas would not be included in this

study.
RESULTS

Marital Status: Family and Non family Households

Table 1 situates female-headed family households in the larger social
context of households in the multi-county region under study by categorizing
all households according to family or nonfamily type, comparing regional data
to US household data, and classifying households by marital status. Female-
headed family households make up 8.1% of this population of households.
Among the family households in this region, there is a lower rate of female-
headed households and a much higher rate of married couple households
(64.5%) than in the U.S. population at large (55%). The largest marital group
of female-headed family householders is divorced women, 45.9%: followed by
widowed, 24.8%; never married, 16.6%; separated, 9.6%: and married, 3.2%.
As noted previously, married female-headed householders are excluded from
this analysis (due to small sample size) and will not appear in subsequent

tables. It is noteworthy that more female-headed households are of the

13

 

.« .3.» 5.3.3.835 5.83.... 1...... 28.3.... .. 2.8.0 o... .328 .5 .. 3...... 3...:
.3.... 5......» 2.3.2.2 8.. 8...... 63. 9.2.... a... 5.5.... .. 82.8 .326 2.. .. 3...... .3... .

 

 

 

 

3838
321......
.32 .3 .3. .3 .3. .2. .3 .3.. .o... 2
.3.... .3.. .3... .3.. .3... .3.. .3... .3... e...- :58...
.3... mm 3» 3. mm. .3 3. «mm 52.8....“
.3...
3... {1.2.1.12
4:...—
2mm . - .33.... .1... 3
.3... .3. 3 s .3 .3.: .33 .3.... .3.. .3... .33
o... a... 3 8. o: 33 3. 3 3 3.3.5.8..
.3.. .3.. .3.. .3.. .3.. .3... .3... .3.. .3...
8. 3 . . . n 3 3 3 n. 3......
.3.: .3... .3... .3.: .3.... .3..» .3.. 13...... .3....
3. 3. 2 3 p 3 3. .3 .3 3 .88....
.3. 3 .33 .3. z .3.... .3.. .3.: s . .3 .33 .3. . .
3.. 3.. 2 3.. s 3 3. 3. 3 39...:
.33 .3.. .3.. .3.. .3... .3.... .3.. .3.. .3....
.3.. 3 a. a 2 a 3.. a. s 33 1......
3...... 18...... .82 2...: 33...... 8.2.55 1.112.... 8.3.8... .1...
.2 5...... .3... .5... 2...... .3... .1: .1... .2... 3...... .1... .35..
.22 I... . 33933.... 2.32.... .2.» 8.9.3.6.. al.... .3... 1......

2......— 6... a... .82 as... .3 as... :58 52......
2...» 221...... .5 2...... 1......
p .3...

14
nonfamily type (13.5%) than of the family type (8.1 %) on which this paper

focuses.

Demographic Characteristics: Age, Education, Household Income, and
Employment

The mean age of female householders is 43 years (Table 2), a figure
higher than might be anticipated, but attributable in part to a substantial
number of widows in this group. It is noteworthy that there are more widowed
householders 55 years and older in this sample (19.4%) than never married
householders of any age (17.1%). Table 2 illustrates the need to acknowledge
multiple realities; if we typify the rural female householder as young and never
married we present not only a partial picture but also an inaccurate one. She
is more likely to be widowed and mature than young and never married; she is
most likely to be divorced and between the ages of 25 and 44 (35.1%).

While the age of female-headed householders was found to vary
considerably by marital status, there is little variation in college completion rate
among these householders (Table 3). The sample college completion rate of
4.5% is well under one-third the rate of all U.S. white females (16.9%), a
finding which conforms to the national pattern of lower educational attainment
in rural areas. Rural youth have limited access to institutions of higher
education in their immediate locale. In addition, the limited employment
opportunity structure of rural areas often necessitates that college-educated

nonmetro young adults migrate to metro areas for appropriate employment.

Tabla 2

15

Ago of Female Householders by Marital Status
Michigan County Group 11. PUMS 1990

 

 

Ans Widowsd Divotcad W New Totd
Mania!

<20 1 9 10
0.4% 10.6% 2.1 96

20-24 1 7 6 21 35
0.6% 3.0% 12.5% 25.3% 7.2%

25-34 4 76 16 36 131
3.2% 33.0% 31 .396 43.4% 27.0%

35-44 6 94 19 14 133
4.6% 40.9% 39.6% 16.996 27.4%

45-54 19 36 7 62
15.3% 1 5.7% 14.6% . 12.6%

5564 30 12 1 43
24.296 5.2% 1 .216 6.9%

65 & ova: 64 4 1 2 71
61.6% 1 .796 2.1% 2.4% 14.6%
All ages 754 230 48 as 435"
25.696 47.4% 9.996 17.1% 1 00.0%

Mean ago 63.2 years 36.7 years 36.3 yam 26.7 yasrs 43 years

Note: Chi-Squats Significancs: P<.001

Soutcs: U.S. Bumu of the Census. Census of Papulation and Housing. 1990:

Public Uss Microdata Samplss U.S.

16

$8—

8&6—

*odw

$.me

«and.

camp
.83....“—

3....$ .a .3

8—

$060
on

80.00
on

$9;
3

$0.0
m
90.2.!
.282

 

en—

«3.:
@—

fiadu
ow

8 flan
av

8 pin
mm

68.2....

o:o.< 9......- 3.2.3“.
09.2.3.6... 2.52:3.

.42 .3.» .82 32% 3.5 2.. .a 82:2 .6835 3:28 .5 .o :83 .m... ..
.m.= lip-Om 0~§§2 0»: 0.3: "amp 6:330: 20 pagan-30¢ .0 030600 632.30 22 ‘0 30050 .m.= s

woe

89¢
NN

iodu
n:

80.2.”
a:

x 3m
.3
E...
.23

 

"-858

.8. Va ".38.; 238.20 832

no

80d

fiadu
cu

«rude
mm

85.0"
p N
3...:
.252

6.2.8.5: 3...... 38:635.“.

av
8N...
$Nd~
3

8'60
up

80.8
m-

.8536

23
3N6
~—

$0.09
on

imam
8

80. —N
at

3.20:5

cm—
80.1
m

$5.0—
up

8 fun
ow

find?
on

338.;

39—.

338
332..

So a
.85. .3.:

Boson—.02
55 3...

2.092 6.... to. some @231 .p p .520 3:300 5330.5
23... 22.025... too 335 .83.... 3 E23533 .oco..oo:tm

n 03-...

17

Conflicting with the limited opportunity hypothesis, however, is the
college completion rate of never married females living alone (35%). Intriguing
theoretical questions arise as to the relationship between high educational
attainment and the never married status. For example, do women who aspire
to a college education have opportunities and challenges that keep them from
finding marriage and motherhood to be their best considered option?
Alternatively, do women choose to live alone or outside a family relationship
because they are economically viable? Are the higher marriage rates of less
educated women associated with economic dependence? A full discussion of
the issues raised by the disparity of college completion rates between the
female-headed family householders and never married women living alone is
beyond the scope of this paper.

An examination of household income by marital status reveals a
multiplicity of economic contexts (Table 4). While mean household income is
$17,615, income varies widely by marital group. Mean income of widowed
households is $23,289, an amount that is 221% of mean income of separated
households ($10,538). Mean income of divorced households is $17,482 and
mean income of never married households is $13,604. The modal household
income category is $5,000 to $9,999. Household income includes householder
earnings, earnings of other household members, public assistance, investment
income, and alimony. When examining householder income alone, We find that

38.1 96 of householders have no earned wages (table not furnished). The modal

18

*mfi

30.n—

ind—

.8th

8a.».

$20.

#9.».

52.8.3...
61...... .e .:

.oNh 03... .nmm— 338m 03...: a... .o 82.22 30.3.35 632.80 Q... .o 3350 6.: o.
.m... 3.358 8322.2 cm: 0.3.... 53. 6526... o..- co..o.:oo.. .o 3260 .3280 o... 3 32.6 .m... .

m—oK—o

Dov

3m;
Q.

3 Vs
cm

i”:
am

$M.NN
oo—

.3.:
no

iméu
pup

3...;
cm

1:...

#00.» p o

no

#0.»
a

30.0
m

#06
a

30.0—
m

*h.—N
op

*sKN
MN

«aqua
mp

.3.-I!
.262

8.6.. «at... .. .368
me on“ «N.
.. ..~ .2... .3...
. e e
8... .3.:
n. o.
.3.. .3.». .8. .u
a pm mu
.3.! .3..“ .3...
a 8 «N
.26. .3.: .8...
o 2. a.
1...; .33 $2.
on on 3
.8... .3.. .36
a o. o
3.288 822.6 338.!

3858

.8. v._ 85:23 £3.46 832

2.852....

625.. :83.

Inch

32.6086»

unqmvégdm

mam.¢n.§.m~

mmmiuégfi p

08‘ p.865 p

80.0. .0......—

.58...

.0309 6.: a... comma a: .2. g 3.590 5030.2
.330 ‘83! 5 889.025... >35... tote-2.015... .9 058:. 32.028... 1:;

v 03-h

19
category for householders with earnings is $1 to $4,999 (17.9% of the

sample); the mean of earnings for female family householders is $6,855.

I find a negative association between household income by marital status
and presence of minor children in the household; a ranking of households by
percent with children is precisely the inverse of a ranking by mean family
income. The percentage of female-headed family households with minor
children is as follows: separated, 87.5%; never married 84.7%; divorced
79.6%; and widowed 16.9%. See Table 4 for mean family income.

Separated households experience severe economic disadvantage. My
original intention had been to combine the divorced and separated marital
status categories for this analysis. But, the data revealed that the two groups
differ markedly and should be analyzed independently. One explanation for the
economic distress of separated women is their low labor force participation.
Only 37.5% of separated householders are employed, compared to 66.5% of
divorced householders, 51.8% of never married householders, and 26.6% of
widowed householders (Table 5). The low labor force participation of widowed
householders is attributable to high age (mean age 63.2). Furthermore, among
the employed female householders, the separated group has the highest rate
of part-time workers (defined as working fewer than 35 hours per week). Fully
half of all employed separated householders work part-time; this compares is
17.6% of divorced workers, 27.3% of widowed workers, and 37.2% of never

married workers.

20

$0.:

*m.N¢

.36

$90...

00.0.00”.
.m.: ..<

mac

$0.00
23

find
3.

ommdm
hcw

.05 ..

 

.mum 030... .3.: "00.05 000.03 05 .0 «00.3.2 30.00305 .3300 05 .0 000:5 .m.3 o.

.m.3 aO-QEflm QHMUORSQ‘ 3»: 333m "Omar .Gcmm3OI 3:0 COflD-3QOQ *0 ”3.0.300 .n3aCOU 05 b0 300.30 .23 s

owns.”
op
$mdo
mm

mm

.x. —.mm
on

80d—
0.

8m. 3
me

00.002
.052

"000.00m

gov... "000000.005 0.003-...0 "0.02

we . 02 em — .05...
$0.00 $0.0m $0.00 00.0. .000.
cm S om 0. 5:
30d— ...hd $0...
0 cu m 005.0500:
$0.00 $0.0. $0.3
m R m 05.3.00
$0.00 81$ 80.:
m mm . 0m 080-.....
$0.5 $0.8 $0.3
0— . mm. mm 005.005
005.008 000.030 00300.2.

.3009. 6.3 0:0 0002. 223.. .5. 0005 >550 00020.2
00.06 .0255. >0 0.00.0525... 2.0.0.. 0.050.. .0 00.000.02.00 005.. 500..

m 2...:

2 1
Poverty

As a group, this population of female-headed households has a poverty
rate of 39% (Table 6). Disaggregating by marital status reveals wide variation
in poverty rates, ranging from 16.9% of widowed households to 68.8% of
separated households. Never married and separated households are clearly
most severely disadvantaged, with at least half of these households living at
less that 75% of the poverty line. In comparison, the socioeconomic status of
widowed female-headed family households is relatively advantaged. This
advantage, however, does not reflect earned income, but rather investment
income, pensions, and social security. Divorced householders have high labor
force attachment, substantial poverty, but have apparently moved past the
severe disadvantage observed in separated households. Separated households
are in a transitional stage characterized by economic crisis. While some
separated female householders remain separated long-term and others reconcile
with their spouses, most of these women become divorced (Wineberg and
McCarthy 1993). Lower poverty rates in the divorced group lead us to expect
that these householders will make an adaptation to "no husband present"
status by higher labor force participation and becoming full-time workers as are
the divorced women.

While the income-based poverty rates at all levels measured are in no
case as high in never-married households as in separated households, never

married households experience greater disadvantage on other measures

Table 6

22

Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families by Marital Status
Michigan County Group 11. PUMS 1990

Widowed
Household income
<.75 poverty line 1 1 .3%
Household income
< poverty line 16.9%
Household income
< 1.25 poverty line 28.2%
Household income
< 1.5 poverty line 33.9%

1990 Poverty threshold for a family of two - 88.509.
1990 Poverty threshold for a family of three - 810.419.
1990 Poverty threshold for a family of four - 813.359.

Nate: Chi-Square Significance for all comparisons: P<.001

26.1%
39.1%
49.1%

55.7%

Divorced Separated

56.3%

66.8%

79.2%

65.4%

Never

Married

50.6%

55.4%

62.7%

66.7%

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population and Housing, 1990:

Public Use Microdata Samples U.S.

Total

29.5%

39.0%

49.1%

55.3%

23

indicative of quality of life. This group experiences the highest residential
mobility; 53% of never married households moved in 1989 or 1990, compared
to 43.8% of separated households, 29.1% of divorced households, and 8.9%
of widowed households. In addition, 32.5% of never married households do
not have a telephone (compared to 22.9% of separated households, 14.8% of
divorced households, and 5.6% of widowed households), and 26.5% do not
have an automobile available (compared to 14.6% of separated households,
14.8% of divorced households, and 5.6% of widowed households). These
conditions present serious difficulties to the rural householder, first, because
decent and affordable rural housing may be nearly impossible to secure (Fitchen
1992), and second, the lack of telephone and automobile transportation may

exacerbate the social and spatial isolation that rural residents often experience.
DISCUSSION

Female-headed households have been scapegoated by the American
middle-class as responsible for social and economic changes that have occurred
in the United States. The formation of female-headed households is seen as
symptomatic of society's declining commitment to God and country. Female—
headed households are blamed for unsafe neighborhoods, guns in schools, and
high taxes. A different picture of female-headed households emerges from this

exploratory analysis. Widowed householders 65 years and older make up

24

13.2% of the sample. Two-thirds of the sample receive no public assistance
income. The contention that female-headed households are formed due to a
high rate of births to very young unmarried women is not supported. Rather,
only 6.2% of the female household heads are never married women 24 years
or younger. These make up less than half of one percent of all households in
the county group (0.48%). Further, none of these groups of female-headed
family households can be characterized as having many children in the
household. The sample mean number of own or adopted children is 1.1; the
breakdown of subgroup means by marital status of the householder is the
following: separated, 2.0; divorced, 1 .4; never married, 1 .1 ; and widowed, .23.

While a retreat from marriage is sometimes identified as a trend in
American society, the data on female-headed households in this analysis do not
support that position. Although rates of nonmarital fertility and divorce have
increased in nonmetro areas, the data point toward a strong commitment to
marriage. Only 9.9% of female-headed households are in the never married
group, which is fewer than are in the widowed group (11.9%). In fact, within
the multi-county region at large, there are more men and women who are
widowed householders than divorced householders (Table 1).

Janet Fitchen finds in her qualitative work in rural upstate New York with
a White population that while in the 1970s, for unmarried young mothers the
”expectation, and the eventual reality in most cases, was marriage, though not

necessarily to the father of the baby," by the late 19803 that expectation had

25

changed and single-parent families had become more common (1991 p. 142).
While our data indicate a very low rate of never married female-headed
households, this finding does not necessarily conflict with Fitchen. Rather, it
is possible that it is not financially feasible for unmarried women with children
to establish a separate household due to such factors in the rural context as
low welfare benefits, the scarcity of low-cost housing, and inadequate
employment. These women and children may be forced to double-up, living
with relatives or others as sub-families, thereby avoiding the classification of
female-headed household. The PUMS data set identifies 492 individuals as
living in sub-families, distributed as follows: 305 (62%) are associated with
married couple families, 156 (31.7%) with female-headed households, and 31
(6.3%) with male householder families.

Economic restructuring has had a meaning somewhat different in the
rural context than in the urban context largely because rural areas never had
high wage, unionized, manufacturing jobs from which men could be displaced
(Amott 1993). Yet phenomenally, the results of restructuring for women in
rural and urban areas are similar; increasing numbers of women are joining the
labor force taking the service sector jobs available to them in their communities.
While the opening of 3 either a Pizza Hut or a video rental store in a small town,
or the opening of a Wal-Mart in the county seat, may be heralded as economic
growth, these types of enterprises offer low pay, part-time, no benefit work to

most employees. The majority of these jobs will be taken by women, some of

26

whom are female householders with primary economic responsibility for other
family members. Polakow (1993) contends that the minimum wage "is a set—
up for destitution, a bipartisan legislative act grievously implicated in the
continuing construction of poverty and, more specifically, of mothers’ and
children's poverty“ (p. 92).

Bokemeier and Tickamyer (1985) find that when the limited opportunity
structure in rural areas is combined with women’s relegation to secondary
sector jobs, "the result is that restriction on opportunity within nonmetro areas
has a major impact on women’s work Iives" (p. 68). My findings support their
conclusion; I find the earnings of female-headed householders to be startlingly
low and mean family income to be shockingly inadequate. But low wages are
not only associated with female-headed householder status [female family
householder mean income is $6,855 (p. 15)]: nonmetro women in all household
types receive low wages. Mean earned income for women in married couple
households is $6,559, for women living alone is $4,634, and for female heads

of nonfamily households is $8,547.

Economic Differences Among Female-Headed Household Groups

Poverty rates and household income vary significantly by marital status.
Current differences may be conceptualized as related to a household's past
relationship to a male's earnings. Widowed female-headed family households

have the lowest poverty rates and the highest mean household income (Table

27

4, Table 6). However, these households are not likely to be supported by the
widow's earnings, but rather by assets accumulated during the course of the
husband’s labor force participation, and further, in the case of an elderly
widow, by private pension and social security payments, the size of which will
be affected by the husband’s income bracket. The relatively privileged
economic status of widowed households is derived from the widow's tie to
male earnings, a tie that was broken, not deliberately, but by death. If minor
children are household members, they receive federally funded survivor's
benefits that are adjusted for increases in the cost of living. Government
support of these households is not construed as dependency, but rather
entitlement.

Female-headed households with divorced heads are less well off
financially than widowed households, but are much better off than the
separated and never married households. Divorced households had the benefit
of male earnings for a time and have now made an adjustment to the loss of
male income by high rates of both labor force participation (66.5%) and full-
time employment (82.4%). This high labor force attachment occurs despite
1.4 children per household.

Separated households have the lowest mean family income and the
highest rates of poverty of all marital groups. While the time spent in this
marital status may be relatively short [Norton and Moorman (1987) find the

median years from separation to divorce to be 1.2;], it is a time of severe

28

economic disadvantage. These households are likely making the adjustment to
the at least partial loss of male earnings and may be unprepared to be
economically self-sufficient. Furthermore, this group has the highest mean
number of children, 2.0, which may be associated with its low rate of labor
force participation (37.5%), and high rate of part-time employment (50% of
those working).

Never married households differ from the other marital groups insofar as
they have never received the benefits of male earnings, at least not in an
institutionalized manner through marriage. In the case of divorced and
separated groups, it is likely that male earnings, while temporary, provided an
asset base that has cushioned the transition to female-headed household status
and still benefits them. For example, a divorced or separated female household
would likely retain much of the marital household property: some furniture,
household items, and perhaps a car. If the formerly married couple owned a
home or trailer, the woman may be able to stay in the home, or if it is sold, she
will receive half of the proceeds. If the family rented housing, and she stays
on in the housing unit, she will not need to post an additional security deposit.
Her relationship with power and telephone companies can likely continue
without interruption if she continues to pay her bills. I suggest that the entire
absence of male earnings provides at least a partial explanation for never
married households experiencing the highest rates of residential mobility and of

households without telephones or cars, despite incomes higher than, and

29

poverty rates lower than, separated female-headed households.

The limited opportunity structure that characterizes rural areas and the
low educational attainment of this female-headed household population are
undoubtedly associated. Valli (1988) finds in her study of high school
cooperative education in the area of clerical training, that the mundane and
routine nature of the work discourages young women from acquiring a strong
wage-earner identity. Valli suggests that when women choose to work
temporary or part-time jobs, the effect 'is the self-distancing from the market
economy which eventually forces dependence on someone, generally a
husband, who earns a family wage" (p. 101). Likewise, when young rural
women look pragmatically at the available labor force options in their
communities and see low-satisfaction, part-time, low wage work as their most
likely prospect, they too may be likely to “bail out" of the public paid labor
force. The scarcity of meaningful, well-paying work encourages rural young
women to invest in domesticity and motherhood as their primary loci of identity
and satisfaction. This investment serves to preserve conventional gender roles,
to perpetuate women's economic dependency, and results in low educational
attainment. In such cases, when the transition to female-headed household
status occurs, women are ill-prepared by way of qualifications or experience to

provide for themselves and their children.

30

The Rural Context and Changing Family Structure

This analysis has focused on the relationship between nonmetropolitan
places and female-headed households. l have asked, in effect, how does the
rural context structure female-headed households differently than the urban
context? This view sees households and families as products of material,
political, and economic circumstances (Baca Zinn 1994). As these
circumstances change, so families will be altered. In the case of rural families,
the growing incidence of female-headed households is attributable to a changed
rural context.

A perspective of the family as socially constructed leads us to expect to
find American families configured in a number of different ways. Prior to
discussing contemporary variation, however, it is important to acknowledge
that historically, family configuration has varied by social location. Minorities
and White working class families have, in general, been unable to achieve a
nuclear family ideal where the husband fulfilled the public sphere, breadwinner
role, while the wife fulfilled the private sphere, domestic and caretaking roles.
It was never a matter of choice; this ideal assumed a family wage which
accrued to only certain job slots, jobs that White middle-class men filled. The
jobs open to minorities and White working class men generally did not pay a
family wage, without which, women worked, out of necessity, for their
families’ survival. Fernandez-Kelly (1990) captures the relationship between

social class and family structure:

31

Class accounts largely for the extent to which notions about the family
can be upheld or not. The conditions necessary for the maintenance of
long-term stable unions where men act as providers and women as
caretakers of children have been available among the middle and upper
classes but absent among the poor. Nuclear households are destabilized
by high levels of unemployment and underemployment or by public
policy making it more advantageous for women with children to accept
welfare payments than to remain dependent upon an irregularly
employed man. The poor often live in highly flexible households where

adherence to the norms of the patriarchal family are unattainable (p.

185).

Given the high underemployment and low wages in nonmetro areas, instability
in nuclear families would be predicted and the increasing incidence of
alternative household arrangements would be anticipated.

There are compelling reasons to expect the trend toward female-headed
households in nonmetropolitan areas to continue. While some find that female-
headed households create poverty (Lichter and Eggebeen 1992), Morrissey
(1987) contends that poverty creates female-headed households. The
formation of female-headed households may be seen to be a rational and
adaptive choice. One of Morrissey’s points is particularly relevant to the rural
context. In lower income couples, the difference between women's and men's
wages is smaller than the difference between women’s and men’s wages in
higher income couples. In an unsatisfactory relationship, the lower income
woman may be more likely to choose to live independent of her spouse than
might a higher income woman, because the lower income woman has less to

lose economically. In other words, higher income women have greater

incentives to remain in bad relationships. Rural men have been negatively

32

affected by economic restructuring, which has resulted in a large group of
working poor. In 1990, 44.4% of the nonmetro poor were members of
married-couple families. (In contrast, married-couple families make up 34.6%
of the total U.S. poor.) Perhaps some low-income nonmetro women make a
rational choice to continue to be poor, but to be poor outside an unsatisfactory
marriage. Such a scenario could account for rising divorce rates in nonmetro
areas and increasing numbers of female-headed households.

Bokemeier and Garkovich (1991) direct attention to the unique ways in
which the rural context disadvantages families. They offer another reason to
expect continuing changes in nonmetro family structure.

We will argue that the characteristics of the rural social environment, to

a greater degree than the urban, generate chronic stresses that pile up

and produce strains. While all families experience stresses, on the

average rural families more continuously face a greater variety of
stresses, and with fewer coping resources or supporting services than

do urban families. (pp. 114-115).

These stressors, ”financial instability, inadequate housing, and inadequate,
inaccessible, and inappropriate social services,“ (0. 115) make long-term
relationships difficult to sustain and contribute to higher divorce rates. The
interrelation of these negative aspects of rural social life and family structure
provides an illustration of the ways in which economic, material, and political
conditions shape families.

I asserted early in this paper that spatial context is a dimension of

structural inequality. I suggested that as racial stratification restricts the access

of disadvantaged racial groups to social opportunity, so the rural context

33

restricts opportunity for some groups. I return now to the subject of race,
suggesting that we look to racial ethnic families to predict the direction of
change in the structure of other families in American society. Baca Zinn
contends, 'With respect to single-parent families, teenage childbirth, working
mothers, and a host of other behaviors, Black families serve as barometers of
social change and as forerunners of adaptive patterns that will be progressively
experienced by the more privileged sectors of American society" (1990 p. 79).
Looking to Black family adaptation to inform our predictions of future rural
family adaptation seems reasonable given the deep poverty of many rural areas.
The vocabulary some scholars now use to discuss the rural economic crisis has
more commonly been applied to urban decay; Davidson (1990) describes the
"ghettoization" of the American Heartland, and O'Hara and Curry-White ask,
"Is There a Rural Underclass?" (1992). Economically marginalized rural families
may well adapt to their context in similar ways as have Black families, with
higher rates of divorce and female-headed households. Therefore, we look to
the current experience of minority families to predict the future direction of

household configuration for White nonmetro families.
CONCLUSION

I found tremendous diversity in the population of nonmetropolitan female-

headed households studied. Differentiating this group by marital status proved

34
a fruitful strategy for illumining significant differences in this group of
households. Despite all the difference, however, an overarching point must be
made: most rural women are unable to earn sufficient income for a decent
standard of living. Both rural residents and the public perceive rural areas as
”family-oriented" places where family ties are thought to be stronger than in
urban areas (Seebach 1993). But if “family-oriented” means adherence to an
ideology of The Family that upholds an unchanging nuclear family ideal, the
economic effects for all women may be devastating. Thorne explains:
[Tlhe ideology of The Family extends beyond families of that specific
type to infuse general understandings (emphasis added) of women’s
"proper place.” Beliefs that most people live in nuclear families, that
adult women usually have husbands to support them, and that
motherhood is women's central vocation have been used to legitimate
the subordination of women in the economy. Women's lower wages
and their disadvantaged position in the labor force have been justified by
the assumption that their paid work is secondary to that of men. . . . In
short, the ideology of The Family has reinforced the economic
exploitation of all women. (1992 p. 7)
The assumption that families are socially constructed has guided this analysis.
A highly differentiated society will require a multiplicity of family and nonfamily
forms, which will vary by the social location of the household. In most of these
households women engage in paid and unpaid work. The recognition that
women, as well as men, have provider roles could allow for women’s paid work
to be adequately valued and appropriately compensated. Women could then

provide for themselves and their dependents, whether in female-headed

households, nuclear families, or other arrangements.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The intent of this paper is to focus attention on the socioeconomic
situation of rural female-headed households. We find substantial economic
deprivation and have discussed ways in which the rural context structures
economic inequality, that is, ways in which the fact of rural residence
contributes to the likelihood that rural female-headed households will be poor.
Along the way many issues were raised which could not be addressed in this
paper without diverting its focus. I make several recommendations for further
research.

Additional analysis could be done on the inter-relationship of educational
attainment, employment, and family formation. This study found widely
divergent college completion rates between female heads of family households
and women living alone. A comparison of these groups to women in married-
couple families with respect to college completion, income, and labor force
participation could provide valuable data to advance the conversation about the
relationship of women’s economic dependence and family formation.

Another relevant direction of inquiry is an assessment of the contribution
to household income of wage earners other than the household head. Jensen
and Tienda (1989) found that earnings by family members other than the head
were an important determinant of a rural minority family's ability to raise family

income to above-poverty level. In this case, 27% of female-headed households

35

36

have more than one wage earner. Using this data set to determine who these
additional earners are, and how great is their contribution to household income,
would further illumine the economic realities of this group of households.
The data indicate that 8.1 % of family households within the country
group have female heads. While I consider this rate to be low and suggested
previously that the high rate of married-couple family households within the
county group (Table 1) points to a strong commitment to marriage, other issues
remain to be raised. It is possible that individuals, for their perceived economic
and emotional benefit, prefer to be married rather than unmarried, but that the
tendency is toward serial monogamy rather than long-term marriage. The
PUMS data set cannot provide this information, but regional divorce statistics
might allow us to ascertain a direction in this regard. Further, cohabiting rather
than marriage may be a trend worthy of investigation. The incidence of
unmarried partners is distributed among the householder categories as follows:
male family householders, 31.9%; female family householders, 9.8%; male
nonfamily householders, 44.3%; and female nonfamily householders, 33.7%.
Finally, I have used the 1990 PUMS to bring into sharper focus the
current socioeconomic status of nonmetropolitan female-headed households.
Contextualizing this study with a comparative analysis to the 1980 PUMS
would provide a more comprehensive understanding of this little-studied
population. Comparisons between 1980 and 1990 on variables such as

poverty rates, occupational structure, labor force participation, part time work,

37

and adjusted mean income would provide additional valuable data. Further,
including men and other women within the region in the analysis would allow
for a better understanding of the current low socioeconomic status of female-

headed households with respect to community-wide stability or change.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amott. Theresa. 1993. W
May. New YorkzMonthly Review Press.

Baca Zinn, Maxine. 1990. “Family, Feminism, and Race in America." Gender
andjggjm 4(1):68-82.

Baca Zinn, Maxine. 1989. ”Family, Race, and Poverty in the Eighties.” Sign;
14(4):856—874.

Baca Zinn, Maxine. 1994. "Feminist Rethinking from Racial- Ethnic Families."
In Maxine Baca Zinn and Bonnie Thornton Dill (eds. ), Women of Col gr
Mm. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Baca Zinn, Maxine and D. Stanley Eitzen. 1993. W. 3d ed.
New York:HarperCollins.

Bokemeier, Janet L., and Ann R. Tickamyer. 1985. "Labor Force Experiences
of Nonmetropolitan Women." W 50(1):51-73.

Bokemeier, Janet L, and Lorraine E. Garkovich.1991. "Meeting Rural Family
Needs. " In Cornelia 8. Flora and James A. Christenson (eds. ), flugaj

W. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Buttel, Frederick H., William P. Browne, Susan Christopherson, Donald
Davis, Philip Ehrensaft, David Freshwater, John Gaventa, and Philip
McMichael.1993. ”The State, Rural Policy, and Rural Poverty. " In
Rural Sociological Society Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty,

WWW Boulder. CO: Westview Press

Cautley, Eleanor and Doris P. Slesinger. 1989. "Labor Force Participation
and Poverty Status among Rural and Urban Women Who Head
Families. " In Harrell R. Rodgers, Jr. ., and Gregory Weiher (eds. ), Rural

W Pp 41 -65 Westeort

CT: Greenwood Press.

38

39

Collins. Patricia Hill 1990 Wee.

WWW vol 2 Cambridge.
MA: Unwin Hyman.

Davmsona Osha Grav- 1990. BrelseetleenlaedeejiseeLAmetieeLLBeLal
$113119. New Yorszhe Free Press.

Fernandez-Kelly, M. Patricia. 1990. "Delicate Transactions: Gender, Home,
and Employment Among Hispanic Women.” In Faye Ginsberg and
Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing (eds.), Wang. Boston:Beacon
Press.

Fitchen. JanetM 1991 W
ldemituediumixaflnfiumLAmeflea Boulder CO: Westview Press

Fitchen, Janet M. 1992. "On the Edge of Homelessness: Rural Poverty and
Housing Insecurity." mm! 57(2):173-193.

Flora, Cornelia Butler. 1988. "Public Policy and Women in Agricultural
Production: A Comparative and Historical Analysis. " ln Haney, Wava

G and Jane B Knowles (eds..l W
W. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Garrett, Patricia. and Naurine Lennox. 1993. ”Rural Families and
Children in Poverty. " In Rural Sociological Society Task Force on

Persistent Rural Poverty, WWW. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.

Hoppe, Robert. 1993. “Poverty in Rural America: Trends and Demographic
Characteristics. " In Rural Sociological Society Task Force on

Persistent Rural Poverty, WWW. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.

Jensen, Leif, and David J. Eggebeen. 1994. ”Nonmetropolitan Poor Children
and Reliance on Public Assistance.” fiurajjggigjggx 59(1):45-65.

Jensen, Leif, and Marta Tienda. 1989. "Nonmetropolitan Minority Families in
the United States: Trends in Racial and Ethnic Economic Stratification,

1959-1986. Wag! 54(4):509-532.

Lichter, Daniel T., and David J. Eggebeen. 1992. "Child Poverty and the
Changing Rural Family.” BuLaLSQQinggy 57(2):151-172.

Lyson, Thomas A., William W. Falk, Mark Henry, Jo Ann Hickey, and

4o

Mildred Warner. 1993. "Spatial Location of Economic Activities,
Uneven Development, and Rural Poverty." In Rural Sociological
Society Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty, W
W. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

Morrissey, Marietta. 1987. "Female-Headed Families: Poor Women and
Choice." In Naomi Gerstel and Harriet Gross (eds.), Eamflieiand
Mk. Pp. 302-314. PhiladelphiazTempIe University Press.

McLaughlin, Diane K. and Carolyn Sachs. 1988. "Poverty in Female-
Headed Households: Residential Differences." BuLaLSgciQIng
53(3): 287- 306.

Norton, Arthur J., and Jeanne E. Moorman. 1987. "Current Trends in
Marriage and Divorce among American Women." mmmamaga

Miami)! 49:49:3—14.

O'Hare, William P., and Brenda Curry-White. 1992. "Is There A Rural
Underclass?" mm 20(3):6-8.

Polakow Valerie 1993 L_esee_tbe_Eeee.$Jeele_Me.tlJeLs_aed_t_elr
Children in the char America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rank, Mark R., and Thomas A. Hirschl. 1988. "A Rural-Urban Comparison of
Welfare Exits: The Importance of Population Density." Rural

599101991 53(2lz190-206.

Rapp, Rayna. 1978. "Family and Class in Contemporary America: Notes

toward an Understanding of Ideology." W 42:278-
300.

Seebach, Michelle. 1992. "Small Towns have a Rosy Image." American
W 14(10Iz19.

Swanson, Louis E. 1990. "Rethinking Assumptions About Farm and
Community." In Luloff, A. E., and Louis E. Swanson (eds.), American

W. Boulder, CO:Westview.

Thorne, Barrie. 1992. "Feminism and the Family: Two Decades of Thought."

In Thorne, Barrie, and Marilyn Yalom (eds. ), Batmgkjflgmgjamily;
Wm. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Tickamyer, Ann, Janet Bokemeier, Shelly Feldman, Rosalind Harris, John
Paul Jones, and DeeAnn Wenk. 1993. "Women and Persistent Rural

41

Poverty." In Rural Sociological Society Task Force on Persistent Rural

P0vertv.Eensjstent_Eexer1y_in_BuraLAmeLiee Boulder CO: Westview

Press.

Tickamyer, Ann R. and Cynthia M. Duncan. 1990. "Poverty and Opportunity
Structure in Rural America." MW 16: 67- 86.

US. Bureau of the Census. 1992. W

W [machine-readable data files]
Washington, DC.

U 3 Bureau of the Census 1982 Wren

-I’- rii r 'H_-PI :o

Characteristics. Table 46. Washington, DC.

U 5 Bureau of the Census 1992 W01
Eeeelatienfineraeteflsfieemnedfimee Table 2 Washington. DC.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1993. Wales:
]_9_9_3_ 113th ed. Washington, DC.

Valli, Linda. 1988. "Gender Identity and the Technology of Office

Education." In Lois Weis led ) Wm
Educatjcn. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Wilson, William Julius. 1987. W. Chicago,
lL:University of Chicago Press.

Wineberg, Howard and James McCarthy. 1993. "Separation and
Reconciliation in American Marriages." MW
Bemarrjage 20:21-42.

I‘IICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES

III III III

III” III III

31293013992205