Poor and low-income women: A diverse group.
Age and Marital Status
As they get older, the likelihood that women will be economically disadvantaged diminishes: (39)
* Roughly 20% of adolescent women and of those aged 20--24 are poor, and about another 20% of women in each of these age-groups are low-income.
* By contrast, only 9% of women in their early forties are poor and 14% are low-income.
Since women's economic status improves as they get older, it is not surprising that reproductive-age women who are poor and low-income tend to be younger than higher income women. (40)
* Thirty-eight percent of poor women and 33% of low-income women are in their teens or early twenties, compared with 26% of higher income women.
* On the other hand, only 23% of poor women and 29% of low-income women are in their late thirties and early forties, compared with 38% of higher income women.
The decline in poverty as women get older probably reflects, at least in part, the greater likelihood that as they reach their late twenties and beyond, women are married. (41) Unmarried women are much more likely to be poor or low-income than married women: Thirty-nine percent of never-married women aged 15--44, and even higher proportions of those who are separated, divorced or widowed, are poor or low-income, compared with 24% of those who are married. (42)
Given the relationship between marital status and poverty status, it is unsurprising that the majority of lower income women are unmarried. The contrast between poor and higher income women is especially striking. (43)
* Half of women living in poverty have never married, and only a quarter are currently married.
* Only a third of higher income women, on the other hand, have never married, and 58% are currently married.
* Child support is especially difficult for never-married women to obtain, because they are less likely than divorced women to have a court order directing the father to provide support for his children. (44)
Marriage, of course, is no guarantee against poverty. Many of the partners of poor women are poor themselves. They are unable to find jobs that pay decent wages, either because they lack the necessary education and training, or because they live in areas, such as inner cities or rural areas, where jobs are scarce, or because of racism and prejudice against blacks, Hispanics and other racial and ethnic groups.
Race and Ethnicity
A common misperception persists that poverty is concentrated largely, if not exclusively, among minority populations. In fact, half of all poor women and two-thirds of low-income women are white. At the same time, however, black and Hispanic women are much more likely than whites to be poor or low-income. (45)
* Thirty-four percent of black women and 30% of Hispanic women are poor, compared with 11% of white women.
* Twenty-two percent of black women and 29% of Hispanic women are low-income, compared with 16% of white women.
* As a result of these differences, black and Hispanic women account for a disproportionate share of women who are poor or low-income. (46)
Education and Employment
Level of education is clearly related to women's poverty status. Women who have not graduated from high school--roughly one woman in five aged 15--44--account for close to half of those who live in poverty and nearly 30% of those who are low-income. By contrast, only 14% of higher income women do not have a high school diploma. (47)
* Slightly more than a third of lower income women are high school graduates; another quarter have spent some time in college, although only 6% have a degree.
* By comparison, more than half of higher income women have attended college, and a quarter are college or postcollege graduates.
A large majority of women who are poor neither work outside the home nor are actively looking for work. On the other hand, nearly a third of poor women, and more than half of low-income women, have jobs; some work full time.(48) In part, due to their low levels of education and their family obligations, these working women are unable to command salaries that would lift them out of their disadvantaged circumstances.
Poor and low-income women account for a significant proportion of reproductive-age women in each state, ranging from 17% in Connecticut to 50% in Mississippi (Table 1; see pages 28-33).(49)
* In 26 states and the District of Columbia, at least a third of all reproductive-age women are poor or low-income; in 12 of these states, at least 40% are lower income.
* The states with the highest proportions of poor and low-income women are relatively rural; half are in the South.
* States with the highest proportions of poor and low-income women usually are not the same as those with the largest numbers of such women. On the other hand, states with the largest populations generally also have the highest number of lower income women: California has more than two million; New York and Texas each has more than one million; and Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania each has more than 750,000 (not shown).
Like more affluent women, most lower income women either are childless or have small families (Figure 4; see page 15). (50)
* Forty-one percent of poor women and 38% of low-income women have no children, compared with 46% of higher income women.
* Thirty-three percent of poor women and 40% of low-income women have 1-2 children, compared with 4l% of higher income women.
* Lower income women are slightly more likely than higher income women to have three children, and they are considerably more likely to have four or more children, although such large families are not common among women in any income group. (51)
Although nine million women of reproductive age live in poverty, only the very poorest of these women qualify for AFDC, because only about six in 10 have had a child and because the state-set income eligibility ceilings for AFDC are so low: The ceiling is below 50% of poverty in 32 states and the District of Columbia; it is below 35% of poverty in 14 State. (52)
About 2.7 million, or 30% of poor women aged 15-44, received AFDC benefits in 1991 (Figure 4). In addition, 5% of low-income women and less than 1% of higher income women reported receiving AFDC in that year; these women were probably on welfare for some period during that year and then moved off because their income increased. Altogether, therefore, about 3.5 million women aged 15-44 were on AFDC at some time in 1991. (Another three million women, including 1.7 million who were poor, were covered by Medicaid although they did not qualify for AFDC.) (53)
Because of their more difficult life circumstances, poor and low-income women often have a harder time than women with higher incomes preventing unintended pregnancies.
(38.) AGI, 1994d.
(39.) AGI, 1994d.
About 18% of women aged 25-29 are poor and 18% are low-income. Among 30-34-year-olds, 16% are poor and 18% are low-income; among 35-39-year-olds, the proportions are 12% and 17%.
(40.) AGI, 1994d.
(41.) Forrest, 1993.
By age 24.3, half of women have married; by age 29, three-quarters have been married. Older women are also more likely to have finished their education and to be working, which is likely to raise their income.
(42.) AGI, 1994d.
Seventy-three percent of women who are separated are poor or low-income, as are 48% of divorced women and 52% of widows.
(43.) AGI, 1994d.
(44.) U.S. General Accounting Office, 1994, p.3.
(45.) AGI, 1994d.
(46.) AGI, 1994d.
Blacks account for 13% of all women aged 15-44, but 29% of those who are poor and 17% of those who are low-income. Hispanics account for 9% of all women, but 18% and 15%, respectively, of those who are poor or low-income.
(47.) AGI, 1994d.
One reason the proportions of those not graduating from high school are so high among poor and low-income women is that they are younger than higher income women and therefore may still be in school.
(48.) AGI, 1994d.
(49.) AGI, 1994h.
(50.) AGI, 1994a.
(51.) AGI, 1994a.
Fourteen percent of poor women, 12% of low-income women and 10% of higher income women have three children; 12%, 10% and 3%, respectively, have four or more children.
(52.) National Governors' Association, 1994, Table 3. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia have eligibility ceilings below 35% of poverty.
(53.) AGI, 1994d.
Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Abortions and the Poor: Private Morality, Public Responsibility, New York, 1979.
-----, "Title X Family Planning Clinic Network," unpublished memorandum, New York, Sept. 16, 1992.
-----, "Even as Politics Improve, Challenges Facing Family Planning Providers Mount," Washington Memo, Jan. 12,1993, pp. 3-4.
-----, tabulations of data from the 1988 National Survey of Family Growth, 1994a.
-----, tabulations of data from the 1987 AGI Survey of Reasons Women Have Abortions, 1994b.
-----, unpublished findings from focus groups conducted with poor women in Atlanta and Philadelphia, Apr.20 and May 12, 1994c.
-----, tabulations of data from the March 1992 Current Population Survey, 1994d.
-----, tabulations of data from the 1987 AGI Abortion Patient Survey, 1994e.
-----, tabulations of data from the 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey, 1994f.
-----, tabulations of data from the 1993 AGI Abortion Provider Survey, 1994g.
-----, data from a special tabulation of the 1990 U.S. Census, 1994h.
-----, Sex and America's Teenagers, New York, 1994i.
Althaus, F.A., and S.K. Henshaw, "The Effect of Mandatory Delay Laws on Abortion Patients and Providers," Family Planning Perspectives, 26:228-231,233,1994.
American Political Network, Inc., "New Mexico: Dept. 'Greatly' Expands State Abortion Funding," The Abortion Report, Nov.29, 1994.
Bachrach, CA., K.S. Stolley and K.A. London, "Relinquishment of Premarital Births: Evidence from National Survey Data," Family Planning Perspectives, 24:2732,1992.
Bane, M.J., and D.T. Ellwood, Welfare Realities: From Rhetoric to Reform, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1994.
Bennett, W.J., and P. Wehner, "End Welfare for Single Women Having Children," USA Today, Feb. 1,1994.
Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, "Federal Court Blocks Pennsylvania Medicaid Restrictions," Reproductive Freedom News, Sept.23, 1994.
Centers for Disease Control (CDC), "Effects of Restricting Federal Funds for Abortion--Texas," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 29:253255, 1980.
Chapin, J., American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, personal communication to J.D. Forrest, June 23, 1993.
CHOICE, "An Unacceptable Burden: The Effects of Pennsylvania's Restrictions on Medical Assistance-Funded Abortions," Philadelphia, Sept. 10, 1993.
C.K v. Shalala, "Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction," Docket No. 935354 (NHP), Civil Action, (D.N.J., Apr.26, 1994).
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, "The New Republican Mandate," Nov. 28-29,1994.
Congressional Quarterly, "House GOP Offers Descriptions of Bills to Enact 'Contract'," Nov. 19, 1994, pp. 3366-3379.
Crepps, J., Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, "Status of Funding for Abortion for Pregnant Women Eligible for Medicaid through Expanded Eligibility," memorandum to P. Donovan, Nov. 7, 1994.
Daley, D., and R.B. Gold, "Public Funding for Contraceptive, Sterilization and Abortion Services, Fiscal Year 1992," Family Planning Perspectives, 25:244-251,1993.
Donovan, P., "The People Vote on Abortion Funding: Colorado and Washington," Family Planning Perspectives, 17:155-159, 1985.
-----, "Family Planning Clinics: Facing Higher Costs and Sicker Ptients, "Family Planning Perspectives, 23:198-203, 1991.
-----, Our Daughters' Decisions: The Conflict in State Law on Abortion and Other Issues, AGI, New York, 1992.
-----, "The Restoration of Abortion Services at Cook County Hospital," Family Planning Perspectives, 25:227-231, 1993.
Forrest, J.D., "Timing of Reproductive Life Stages," Obstetrics and Gynecology, 82:105-111, 1993.
-----, "Epidemiology of Unintended Pregnancy and Contraceptive Use," American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 170:1485-1489, 1994.
-----, and S. Singh, "Public Sector Savings Resulting from Expenditures for Contraceptive Services," Family Planning Perspectives, 22:6-15, 1990.
Forste, R., L. Tedrow and K. Tanfer, "Sterilization Among Currently Married Men in the United States, 1991," paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Miami, May 5-7, 1994.
Frost, J.J., "The Availability and Accessibility of the Contraceptive Implant from Family Planning Agencies in the United States, 1991-1992," Family Planning Perspectives, 26:4-10, 1994.
Gold, R.B., "After the Hyde Amendment: Public Funding for Abortion in FY 1978," Family Planning Perspectives, 12:131-134,1980.
-----, AGI, unpublished memorandum to J. Rosoff, Mar. 7, 1994.
Hadley, K., Minnesota Housing Finance, personal communication to P. Donovan, June 30,1994.
Harlap, S., K. Kost and J.D. Forrest, Preventing Pregnancy, Protecting Health, AGI, New York, 1991.
Harris, L., "A Survey of Public Attitudes Toward Planned Parenthood and the Supreme Court Decision in Rust v. Sullivan," Louis Harris and Associates, June 1991, Study 912043.
Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297(1980).
Henshaw, S.K., "The Accessibility of Abortion Services in the United States," Family Planning Perspectives, 23:246-252,263,1991.
-----, "Abortion Trends in 1987 and 1988: Age and Race," Family Planning Perspectives, 24:85-86, 96,1992.
-----, and J. Silverman, "The Characteristics and Prior Contraceptive Use of U.S. Abortion Patients," Family Planning Perspectives, 20:158-168,1988.
-----, and A. Torres, "Family Planning Agencies: Services, Policies and Funding," Family Planning Perspectives, 26:52-59,82, 1994.
-----, and J. Van Vort, "Abortion Services in the United States, 1991 and 1992," Family Planning Perspectives, 26:100-106, 112, 1994.
-----, and L.S. Wallisch, "The Medicaid Cutoff and Abortion Services for the Poor," Family Planning Perspectives, 16:170-180,1984.
Jones, E.F., et al., "Unintended Pregnancy, Contraceptive Practice and Family Planning Services in Developed Countries," Family Planning Perspectives, 20:53-67,1988.
-----, and J.D. Forrest, "Contraceptive Failure Rates Based on the 1988 NSFG," Family Planning Perspectives, 24:12-19, 1992.
Kolbert, K., Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, personal communication to P. Donovan, July 20, 1994.
Kost, K.L. and J.D. Forrest, "Intention Status of U.S. Births in 1988: Differences by Mothers' Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics," forthcoming, Family Planning Perspectives, January/February 1995.
Maherv. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977).
Minnesota Department of Human Services, "A Market Basket Evaluation of the AFDC Standard of Need: A Report to the 1991 Legislature," St. Paul, Dec. 15,1990.
Moore, K.A., "Facts At a Glance," Child Trends, Washington, D.C., Dec. 1993.
Mosher, W.D., "Contraceptive Practice in the United States, 1982-1988," Family Planning Perspectives, 22:198-205,1990.
Murray, C., "The Coming White Underclass," Wall Street Journal, Oct. 29,1993.
National Governors' Association, "State Coverage of Pregnant Women and Children--July 1994," MCH Update, Washington, D.C., Aug. 1994.
National Network of Abortion Funds, "Summary of Fund Profiles," Hadley, Mass., May 7, 1994.
New York Times, "The Harm in Family Welfare Caps," June 9, 1994.
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1987.
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1989.
Richard Day Research, Inc., "The Chicago Metro Survey: Attitudes Toward Abortion and Family Issues," Sept. 22-Oct. 2,1994.
Silverman, J., A. Torres and J.D. Forrest, "Barriers to Contraceptive Services," Family Planning Perspectives, 19:94-102,1987.
Standard of Need Advisory Committee, "Report to the Commissioner of Human Services," N.J., Oct. 1990.
Tietze, C., and S.K. Henshaw, Induced Abortion. A World Review, 1986, AGI, New York, 1986.
Torres, A., and J.D. Forrest, "Why Do Women Have Abortions?" Family Planning Perspectives, 20:169-176, 1988.
-----, et al., "Public Benefits and Costs of Government Funding for Abortion," Family Planning Perspectives, 18:111-118,1986.
Trussell, J., etal., "The Impact of Restricting Medicaid Financing for Abortion," Family Planning Perspectives, 12:120-130,1980.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Characteristics of the Low-Income Population, 1970," Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 81, 1971.
-----,"Poverty in the United States: 1992," Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 185,1993.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Federal Percentages and Federal Medical Assistance Percentages, Effective October 1, 1994 September 30,1995 (Fiscal Year 1995)," Federal Register, 58:66363, 1993.
-----,"Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guide-lines," Federal Register, 59:6277-6278, 1994.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "Schedule B-Fair Market Rents for Existing Housing," Federal Register, 58:51415-51469,1993.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Families on Welfare: Sharp Rise in Never-Married Women Reflects Societal Trend, GAO/HEHS-94-92, Washington, D.C., May 31,1994.
U.S. House of Representatives, Overview of Entitlement Programs: 1994 Green Book, Washington, D.C., July 15,1994.
FIGURE 3 Demographics Compared with higher income women, poor and low-income women are more likely to be... Women aged 15-44, 1992: 58,680,000 ...young PERCENTAGE BY AGE Poor Low-Income Higher income 15-24 38 33 26 25-34 39 38 36 35-44 23 29 38 Note: Table made from bar graph ...unmarried PERCENTAGE BY MARITAL STATUS Poor Low-income Higher income Never Married 50 36 33 Separated 11 5 1 Divorced 13 11 7 Windowed 1 1 1 Married 25 47 58 Note: Table made from bar graph ...black or Hispanic PERCENTAGE BY RACE/ETHNICITY Poor Low-income Higher income Black 29 17 9 Hispanic 18 15 6 White/other 52 68 85 Note: Table made from bar graph ...unemployed PERCENTAGE BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS Poor Low-income Higher income Not in labor force 60 36 23 Looking for work 10 7 4 Part-time job 15 19 18 Full-time job 16 38 56 Women aged 15-44, 1992: 58,680,000 Source: AGI, tabulations of data from the March 1992 Current Population Survey, 1994. Note: Table made from bar graph More Demographics Contrary to popular stereotype, most poor women... ...are childless or have small families Five children or more (6%) Four children (6%) Three children (14%) Two children (17%) No Children (41%) One child (16%) Poor women aged 15-44, 1988: 8,298,300 Note: Table mode from pie chart FIGURE 4 ...and are not on welfare AFDC and Medicaid (30%) No AFDC, Medicaid (18%) No AFDC, no Medicaid (52%) Poor women aged 15-44, 1992: 9,096,000 Sources: Number of children--AGI, tabulations of data from the 1988 National Survey of Family Growth, 1994; AFDC and Medicaid status--AGI, tabulations of data from the March 1992 Current Population Survey, 1994. Notes: The figure on welfare represents proportions of women who reported receiving AFDC and/or Medicaid at any time during 1991; as a result, proportions are higher than the proportions participating in either program at any given time. Note: Table made from pie chart
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||The Politics of Blame: Family Planning, Abortion and the Poor|
|Article Type:||Topic Overview|
|Date:||Jan 1, 1995|
|Previous Article:||Women and poverty.|
|Next Article:||Efforts to avoid an unplanned pregnancy.|