demographic and economic characteristics

Demographic and Economic Characteristics

Claudia J. Heath

Lesley Martinez School of Human Environmental Sciences College of Agriculture

Women of Kentucky Project

2

Table of Contents Page Table of Contents and Recognitions ....................................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary Fact Sheet ............................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 4

Economic Differences ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Marital Differences ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Geographic Differences .................................................................................................................................... 4 Sample and Data Collection ............................................................................................................................. 4 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 4

Age and Racial or Ethnic Background .................................................................................................................... 5 Number of Adults and Children ............................................................................................................................... 6 Education and Employment..................................................................................................................................... 7 Household Income and Public Assistance.............................................................................................................. 8 Current Relationship ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Marital Status and Geographic Place ................................................................................................................... 10 Demographic and Economic Characteristics of Poor and Non-Poor Women of Kentucky ................................ 11 Acknowledgements—Back Cover ......................................................................................................................... 12

________

Recognitions

This project was supported with a grant from the UK Center for Poverty Research (UKCPR) through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; grant number 5 ASPE417-02. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author and should not be construed as representing the opinions or policy of the UKCPR or any agency of the Federal government. In addition to Federal support through the University of Kentucky Center for Poverty Research, the author wishes to acknowledge and express appreciation for funding awarded by the Center for Research on Violence Against Women, University of Kentucky with funds from the Office of the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Additionally, the Research Center for Families and Children, University of Kentucky, provided funding. An additional collaborating partner was the Center for Drug and Alcohol Research, University of Kentucky. Appreciation is expressed to Robert Walker, in the Center for Drug and Alcohol Research. Appreciation is also expressed to Bruce Gale, Director of the Urban Studies Institute Survey Research Center at the University of Louisville for his dedication to collection of these data. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author and should not be construed as representing the opinions or policy of any of the contributing partners or collaborators.

________

Women of Kentucky publication series template by Rae House of House Graphics Marketing

Table of Contents & Recognitions


3

Executive Summary Fact Sheet


Women of Kentucky: Economic Differences


By

Claudia J. Heath, Ph.D. & Lesley Martinez, B.S.

The purpose of this publication is to report findings from a statewide survey of women of Kentucky regarding their demographic and economic characteristics. Research findings are based on data gathered from respondents selected using a standard practice random digit dialing telephone survey procedure that resulted in a statewide sample of 1,000 women, 18 to 62 years of age, where 50% are from households below two times the federal poverty guideline and 50% are from households at or above two times the Federal poverty guideline for a family of their size. These sample eligibility criteria result in the use of the terms poor and non-poor, respectively, which have been derived to reflect a broader range of income inadequacy experienced by individuals and families than the usual reference to poverty.

This study provides an understanding that poor and non-poor women are different. T-test analyses determine statistically significant differences for poor and non-poor respondents.

Mean age of poor respondents is 41 years; while the mean age of non-poor respondents is 43.

Race or ethnic background of poor respondents is 85% Caucasian, with 91% for non-poor respondents.

While both poor and non-poor have 1.98 adult members of the household, poor women’s households have 10% more one-adult household and 15% fewer two-persons households.

There are 9% fewer no children households in poor households and 3% and 6% more 2 and 3 children households, respectively.

Larger percentages of poor women than non-poor women are below the vocational/technical level of education and larger percentages of non-poor women are above the same level.

Twenty-two percent of non-poor women and 8% of poor women report a bachelor's degree with 13% of non-poor and 2% of poor women in Kentucky report a master’s degree.

Regarding employment status, 28% of poor women and 60% of non-poor women are employed full time and 57% of poor women compared to 28% of non-poor women in Kentucky report not being employed due to not choosing to be employed, being unemployed, retired or disabled.

As expected, given that the two subsamples are income based, approximately 60% of poor respondent’s income level is in the range of $10,000—$29,000 compared to approximately 63% of non-poor respondents’ households at $50,000 or higher.

Eighty-eight percent of non-poor women compared to 75% of poor women report currently being in a relationship with another person.

Among poor respondents, 25% report no relationship, 53% report being married, and 8% report living together.

Among non-poor respondents, 12% report no relationship, 74% report being married, and 3% report a living together relationship.

Among poor Kentucky women in the sample, 35% have never married, 12% have been previously married and 53% are currently married.

Among non-poor women Kentucky women in the sample, 19% have never been married, 7% have been previously married, and 74% are currently married.

Regarding geographic density of place of residence, 60% of poor women report rural residence with ± 20% for suburban and urban areas.

Forty-four percent of non-poor women report a rural residence with 41% indicating a suburban residence.

Based on these findings, Extension specialists and family life educators can develop programs that take into account the demographic and economic differences between poor and non-poor populations of women.

4

Introduction The overall purpose of the Women of Kentucky publication series is to provide information about women in Kentucky that is not otherwise available. This publication reports findings of a statewide survey of poor and non-poor women and also poor and non-poor women who are married or not-married. See the publication Women of Kentucky Economic Differences: Introduction and Overview (Heath, 2008) for study details.

Economic Differences Economic differences are defined as poor and non-poor economic status. Women who are poor live in a household where the total dollar income of the household is less than two times the federally determined poverty guideline amount for the size and composition of their family. Alternatively, women who are non-poor live in a household where the total dollar income of the household is equal to or greater than two times the federally determined poverty guideline amount for the size and composition of their family. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povdef.html) For the purpose of these publications, the use of the terms poor and non-poor have been derived to reflect a broader range of income inadequacy experienced by individuals and families than the usual reference to poverty.

Marital Differences

The relevance of marital status derives from the language and aims of the same welfare legislation that determines benefits for eligible families. States can use TANF funding for programs that strengthen and encourage two-parent families. (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/goals.htm) Additionally, the Deficit Reduction Act provides funding of $150 million per year for healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood initiatives.(http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/mission.htm). Given the emphasis on supporting and promoting healthy marriages funded by welfare reform legislated funding, the importance of the combined status—whether a woman is currently married, or alternatively, currently not married, is especially relevant to a woman’s economic status.

Geographic Differences In this publication, differences for women who reside in the Appalachian area of the state compared to the Non-Appalachian area of Kentucky are reported. Geographic location reflects differential 1] access to products and services; 2] levels of economic development, employment, and income sources; and 3] cultural orientations. These are important influences when discussing economic and marital status differences of women.

Sample and Data Collection Research findings are based on data gathered in spring 2004 through telephone interviews conducted by the University of Louisville Urban Studies Institute Survey Research Center. The data were gathered from respondents selected using a standard practice random digit dialing procedure that resulted in a statewide sample of 1,000 women between the ages of 18 and 62 with the additional eligibility criterion that 50% (n = 500) of the respondents be from a household below two times the Federal poverty guideline amount and 50% (n = 500) from households at or above two times the Federal poverty guideline amount where an income to need ratio below 200% indicates poor, low-income persons.

References Heath, C. J. (2008). Women of Kentucky: Economic

Differences. Introduction and overview. Health Education through Extension Leadership (HEEL) Publication. University of Kentucky.

Office of Family Assistance, Goal Statement of The Office of Family Assistance administers the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) programs. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/goals.htm. Available October 1, 2008.

Office of Family Assistance, Mission Statement of The Office of Family Assistance administers the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) programs. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/mission.htm. Available October 1, 2008.

U.S. Census Bureau, Measures of Need (Poverty Thresholds). http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povdef.html . Available October 1, 2008

Introduction


http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povdef.html


http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/goals.htm

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/mission.htm







5


The sub-sample of poor women is younger than the sub-sample of non-poor women. Mean age for poor respondents is 41

years and the mean age of non-poor respondents is 43 years (p ≤ .01) .

Race or ethnic background for poor respondents is 85 percent white/Caucasian and 91 percent for non-poor respondents

(p ≤ .01). Eleven percent of poor respondents indicate they are African American compared to 7 percent for non-poor

respondents.

Age & Racial or Ethnic Background

Chart 2: Respondent’s Racial or Ethnic Background

White African-

American Hispanic Asian

Or some other

description

Poor Women 85.0% 11.2% 0.2% 0.4% 3.2%

Non-Poor Women 90.6% 6.6% 0.8% 0.8% 1.2%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Poor Women

Non-Poor Women

Respondent's Racial or Ethnic Background

3%

9%

13%

10%

13%

12%

9%

11%

12%

7%

2%

5%

7%

11%

12%

13%

18%

16%

10%

5%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

18-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-62

Poor Women

Non-Poor Women

Age of Respondent

Chart 1: Age of Respondent

6


Poor and non-poor households have a mean of 1.98 adult members; however, the distribution indicates that for poor women’s

households there are 10 percent more one-adult households and 15 percent fewer two-adult households. In poor

households, the number of related children is 9 percent fewer no children households and 3 percent and 6 percent more 2

and 3 children households, respectively (1.23 children for poor and 0.93 children for non-poor women’s households p ≤ .001).

Number of Adults & Children

Chart 3: Number of Adults in Respondent’s Household

Chart 4: Number of Children in Respondent’s Household

1 2 3 4 5 6

Poor Women 29.2% 51.2% 13.4% 4.8% 1.0% 0.4%

Non-Poor Women 19.0% 66.6% 12.6% 1.2% 0.2% 0.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Poor Women

Non-Poor Women

Number of Adults Residing in the Respondent's Household

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Poor Women 37.2% 24.4% 23.0% 10.6% 3.4% 1.0% 0.2% 0.2%

Non-Poor Women 46.0% 25.8% 20.8% 4.6% 2.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Poor Women

Non-Poor Women

Number of Children 18 and Under in Respondent's Household

7


The education level of poor women is lower than the education level of non-poor women. For poor women, a GED or high

school diploma indicates the mean level of education; while for non-poor women, post-secondary education at the vocational/

technical level is the mean education level (p ≤ .001). The dividing line regarding education level is the vocational/technical

level. Larger percentages of poor women than non-poor women are below this level and greater percentages of non-poor

women are above that level as illustrated above.

5.4%

13.2%

10.4%

45.7%

13.6%

8.4%

2.2%1.0%0.4%

2.8%4.6%

41.6%

13.0%

21.8%

12.8%

3.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Poor Women

Non-Poor Women

Respondent's Education Level

C o m p a r i s o n o f employment status

between poor and non-poor women indicates 28 percent of poor and 60 percent of non-poor women are employed full-time (p

≤ .001), with 57 percent of poor women and 28 percent of non-poor women not employed due to no employment,

20%

37%

15%

28%

4%

24%

12%

60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Disabled Retired or unemployed

Employed part-time

Employed full-time

Poor Women

Non-Poor Women

Employment

Education & Employment

Chart 6: Employment

Chart 5: Respondent’s Education Level

8


Average household income for the poor sub-sample is in the range of $15,000 - $24,999 with 25 percent of the sub-sample in

these two categories. Approximately 60 percent of poor respondents are in the range of $10,000 - $29,999. For non-poor

households the mean is in the range of $45,000 - $59,999 with 20 percent of the sub-sample in this range. Approximately 63

percent of the non-poor respondents are at $50,000 or greater household income. Household income, as one would expect,

is statistically significant between poor and non-poor sub-samples (p ≤ .001).

7.1%

10.9%

15.8% 16.0%

18.9%

11.4%

8.0%

5.8%

2.2% 1.8%0.9%

0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4%0.4%1.3% 1.1% 0.9%

4.2%

6.0%

4.6%

6.0%5.3%

6.4%

14.3%

12.6%

10.6%

6.8%

19.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Poor Women

Non-Poor Women

Household Income of Respondents

A count of current utilization of government services—Food Stamps, Medicaid, and Disability payment mean values of 77

percent of poor and 8 percent of non-poor respondents indicates percent who currently receive designated government

services (p ≤ .001).

55.2%

20.4%16.2%

8.2%

94.2%

3.8%1.6% 0.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1 2 3

Poor Women

Non-Poor Women

Number of Types of Public Assistance Currently Received by Respondents

Household Income & Public Assistance

Chart 7: Respondent’s Education Level

Chart 8: Number of Types of Public Assistance

9


Approximately 25 percent of poor women report not being in a relationship with another person compared to 12 percent of

non-poor women (p ≤ .001).

25%

75%

12%

88%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

No Yes

Poor Women

Non-Poor Women

Whether Currently in a Relationship with Another Person

24.8%

52.8%

8.2% 8.8%

0.6% 1.0%3.6%

0.2%

12.0%

73.5%

3.0%

7.8%

0.6% 0.2%2.0% 0.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Poor Women

Non-Poor Women

Definition of Respondent's Current Relationship

Approximately 25 percent of poor women report not being in a relationship with another person compared to 12 percent of

non-poor women (p ≤ .001). Fifty-three percent of poor women are married with 74 percent of non-poor women married (p

≤ .001). Of poor women, 8 percent are living together with someone compared to 3 percent of non-poor women.

Current Relationship

Chart 9: Whether Currently in a Relationship

Chart 10: Definition of Respondent’s Current Relationship

10


60%

19%21%

44%41%

16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Rural Suburban Urban

Poor Women

Non-Poor Women

Density of Place

Fifty-three percent of the poor women are married with 74 percent of non-poor women married ( p ≤ .001). The age of

respondents at first marriage is younger for poor women with 54 percent married by age 18 (42% for non-poor women); 17

percent of poor women indicated being married by 16 years of age (15% of non-poor women were married by 16 years of age).

35.4%

11.8%

52.8%

19.0%

7.4%

73.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Never married Other Married

Poor Women

Non-Poor Women

Marital Status of the Respondent

Poor women report greater percentages than for non-poor women for rural (60%) and for urban (21%) with 19 percent of poor

women reporting suburban residences. Non-poor women report a lower percentage of residences as rural (44%) than poor

women. Non-poor women indicate a greater percentage of residences as suburban (41%) than do poor women (p ≤ .05).

Marital Status & Geographic Place

Chart 11: Respondent’s Marital Status

Chart 12: Density of Place

11


In order to create customized tables, with variables specific to your needs, a link to the Current Population Survey Table Creator has been provided. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstc/cps_table_creator.html


Poor Women Non-Poor Women

Married Not Married Poor Women Non-Poor Not Married Married

Age 18-19 0.0% 8.3% 3.2% 2.2% 6.0% 0.8% 20-24 3.0% 10.6% 8.8% 5.0% 12.8% 5.3% 25-29 6.5% 8.3% 13.0% 7.0% 12.8% 13.3% 30-34 12.0% 8.3% 10.2% 11.0% 7.2% 12.9% 35-39 13.4% 7.6% 13.0% 11.8% 9.8% 15.9% 40-44 13.9% 12.1% 12.2% 13.4% 12.8% 11.7% 45-49 18.8% 15.9% 9.4% 18.0% 8.9% 9.8% 50-54 15.0% 17.4% 11.0% 15.8% 11.5% 10.6% 55-59 11.2% 8.3% 12.0% 10.4% 11.9% 12.1% 60-62 6.3% 3.0% 7.0% 5.4% 6.4% 7.6%

Race or Ethnic Background White 92.3% 85.6% 85.0% 90.6% 75.8% 93.2%

African-American 4.9% 11.4% 11.2% 6.6% 19.5% 3.8% Hispanic 0.8% 0.8% 0.2% 0.8% 0.0% 0.4%

Asian 0.5% 1.5% 0.4% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% Other 1.4% 0.8% 3.2% 1.2% 4.2% 2.3%

Education

Less than HS 7.9% 7.6% 29.1% 7.8% 30.1% 28.1% HS Diploma or Vo-tech 55.6% 52.3% 59.3% 54.6% 59.3% 59.3%

B.S. 19.3% 28.0% 8.4% 21.8% 8.9% 8.0% Graduate or Professional Degree 17.2% 12.1% 3.2% 15.8% 1.7% 4.6%

Employment

Disabled 3.8% 5.3% 20.1% 4.2% 28.1% 12.9%

Not Employed, or Unemployed 28.7% 12.1% 37.1% 24.2% 28.5% 44.9% Employed Part-Time 13.1% 8.3% 14.7% 11.8% 12.3% 16.7% Employed Full-Time 54.4% 74.2% 28.1% 59.7% 31.1% 25.5%

Place (Self defined) Rural 47.2% 34.5% 59.8% 43.6% 47.2% 69.5%

Suburban 41.2% 39.5% 19.1% 40.7% 21.5% 17.4% Urban 11.6% 26.1% 21.0% 15.7% 31.3% 13.1%

Marital Status

Never Married 0.0% 72.0% 35.4% 19.0% 75.0% 0.0% Other 0.0% 28.0% 11.8% 7.4% 25.0% 0.0%

Married 100.0% 0.0% 52.8% 73.5% 0.0% 100.0%

Income Less than $9,999 .3% 5.8% 18.0% 1.7% 30.1% 7.5% $10,000-$14,999 .6% 2.5% 15.8% 1.1% 24.4% 8.3% $15,000-$19,999 .3% 2.5% 16.0% 0.9% 19.1% 13.3% $20,000-$24,999 2.1% 9.9% 18.9% 4.2% 11.0% 25.8% $25,000-$29,999 3.9% 11.6% 11.4% 6.0% 8.1% 14.2% $30,000-$34,999 3.3% 8.3% 8.0% 4.6% 2.9% 12.5% $35,000-$39,999 6.6% 4.1% 5.8% 6.0% 2.9% 8.3% $40,000-$44,999 3.9% 8.3% 2.2% 5.3% .5% 3.8% $45,000-$49,999 5.7% 8.3% 1.8% 6.4% .5% 2.9% $50,000-$59,999 14.8% 13.2% .9% 14.3% .5% 1.2% $60,000-$69,999 15.1% 5.8% .2% 12.6% 0% .4% $70,000 $79,999 13.0% 4.1% .2% 10.6% 0% .4%

$80,000 $89,999 8.2% 3.3% .2% 6.8% 0% .4%

$90,000 or more 22.1% 12.4% .4% 19.4% 0% .8%

Table 1: Means of Background Characteristics by Economic, Geographic, and Marital Status Characteristics


https://exchange.uky.edu/owa/redir.aspx?URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.census.gov%2fhhes%2fwww%2fcpstc%2fcps_table_creator.html

12

Acknowledgements

Authors

Claudia J. Heath, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Family Studies

Affiliate of the University of Kentucky Center for Poverty Research Faculty Associate of the Center for Drug and Alcohol Research

University of Kentucky

&

Lesley Martinez, B.S. Master’s Student, Department of Family Studies


________

Acknowledgement and appreciation for research funding and support

James P. Ziliak, Ph.D., Director UK Center for Poverty Research (UKCPR)


Carol E. Jordan, Director Center for Research on Violence Against Women (CRVAW)


Robert Walker, M.S.W., L.C.S.W., M.Div., Assistant Professor Center for Drug and Alcohol Research (CDAR)


Bruce Gale, Ph.D., Director Urban Studies Institute Survey Research Center

University of Louisville

________

The publication series titled

Women of Kentucky: Economic Differences was supported by

HEEL Health Education through Extension Leadership

School of Human Environmental Sciences College of Agriculture


demographic and economic characteristics

Documents