Illinois: Spatial Scales of Poverty

Transcription

1 Illinois: Spatial Scales of Poverty Wendy Shaw Professor ABSTRACT Answers gleaned in any study of poverty are in some measure a result of the spatial scale of analysis selected. This paper views poverty in Illinois from three spatial scales; the state, county, and census tract. Mapping census data reveals several facets of Illinois poverty. Illinois as a whole, is average in terms of general poverty levels, although many ofthe poor are severely impoverished. County level analysis indicates that poor rural southern Illinois contrasts with affluent urban areas. Census tract level investigation reveals that seemingly affluent urban counties in reality have a distinct internal spatial structure. The urban poor are concentrated into confined geographic areas in central cities that provide a marked contrast to the affluence enjoyed by other urban residents. Within both rural and urban Illinois high poverty rates are associated with high percentages of African-American population. KEY WORDS: poverty, Illinois, spatial scale, race, population. Department of Geography Box 1459 Southern ljiinois University Edwardsville Edwardsville, IL INTRODUCTION Interest in the geography of poverty in the United States did not substantially emerge until it became clear that not all Americans shared in the national economic growth that came after World War II. John F. Kennedy's visit to Appalachia in 1960 brought stark images of rural poverty into the American consciousness, and sparked a 'War on Poverty' declared by Lyndon B. Johnson in January 1964 (Guiness and Bradshaw, 1985; Batteau, 1990). Academic focus during this time was largely on rural poverty and its regional dimensions. The South was identified to be the most impoverished region in contrast to the more affluent North (Smith, 1972; Mertz, 1978), and southern rural residents were said to be at the most risk of being poor (O'Hare, 1988). This characterization of the South as an impoverished reg ion was often initially based on state level data (Smith, 1972). The concept that it was the rural nature of the southern lifestyle that contributed to 9

2 poverty (Peet, 1972) was supported through the analysis of county level information (Smith, 1987; Porter, 1989). Policy to address deeply entrenched poverty in rural regions such as Appalachia was largely based on such research. Federal, state, and local agencies were established with the goal of fundamental change in the economies oftargeted rural areas, which were spatially constructed by aggregation of counties. Millions of dollars later, many declared the war on poverty won. Indeed rural poverty regions had shrunk somewhat and their impoverished population declined over the decades since 1960 (Shaw, 1996). As poverty appeared to respond to the spate of social programs begun in the 1960s interest in poverty as a social issue waned. However, in recent years it has become obvious that the war on poverty is far from won. By 1994 the 39.7 million Americans that survived below the poverty line constituted the largest group of poor since 1961, prior to the war declared by Johnson (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992). When poverty is defined as falling significantly below t he general level of well-being within a society, as we move toward the twenty first century, even in times of economic prosperity, poverty rates within the United States remain high. In 1997 approximately 35.6 million Americans still lived in poverty and constituted 13.3 percent of the total population (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1998). As interest in poverty reemerged in recent years the focus has been on urban poverty and the changing characteristics of the poor. As migrants flooded from rural America to major cities, urban areas became the focus of modern life. The subsequent decline in industry, that gave American cities their economic base and relatively unskilled rural migrants their jobs, meant that segments of urban areas became the nodes of poverty. The war on poverty was not won, butthe playing field had shifted it seemed from rural to urban America. Loss of relatively well paid industrial sector jobs often meant descent into unemployment or into low level positions within the service sector for city residents (Massey, 1984; Kasarda, 1990; Knox, 1990; Nord and Sheets, 1992). Study of urban poverty has involved a change in the spatial scale from which poverty is viewed. Census tracts, blocks, and neighborhoods have become the spatial units of choice (Hughes, 1990; Kasarda, 1990; O'Regan and Wiseman, 1990; Sheppard, 1990). The use of such spatial units is appropriate; however, the spatial unit selected for study in some measure defines the answers gleaned. For example, studying poverty at the tract level is likely to result in the impression that poverty is an urban phenomena, while county level data are likely to indicate rural areas as poor (Shaw, 1996). Thus, discussions concerning issues of urban versus rural poverty involve issues of scale. Divergent results and explanation may be indicated when viewing poverty at various spatial scales. Each have their own validity and value. Each tell their own story and must be considered together in orderto gain a more complete geographic perspective of poverty. The purpose of this paper is to view the poverties experienced in Illinois from various spatial scales. Doing so may al Iowa relatively complete picture of the geography of poverty in the region to emerge. DATA AND METHODOLOGY The intent of this paper is to view poverty in Illinois from three spatial scales; the state, the county, and the census tract. In order to assess poverty at these various scales some general measure of poverty must be used. Percent of people below the official poverty line is such a measure. While there are some problems with the use of the poverty line as a measure of actual deprivation, including its insensitivity to spatial variations in the cost of living (Shaw, 1996), the rate at which population falls below the official poverty line gives a general sense ofthe extent of deprivation within a given area. Data concerning percent of population with incomes below the poverty line are available at all the spatial scales used within this study. Thus, the number of persons with incomes below the official poverty 10

3 line, reported by the United States Census for 1990, is used as the general measure of poverty. Data reported by the 1990 census are the most recent available consistently at the state, county, and census tract levels. Mapping the rate at which population falls below the poverty line results a view of the geographies of poverty experienced in Illinois. The depth of poverty experienced may also be explored by use of data that reports the number of persons so severely impoverished that their income is below 50 percent of the official poverty line. All data were extracted from Wessex data disks (Wessex, 1997). Maps are presented that reveal Illinois' position with respect to other states in the conterminous United States in terms of poverty, that display spatial patterns of poverty at the county level, and finally which illustrate where impoverished tracts are to be found. MAPPING ILLINOIS POVERTY The State Scale The percent of people who exist below the poverty line in the United States shows considerable variation on a state to state basis (Fig. 1). The New England states of New Hampshire and Connecticut show the lowest poverty rates of 6.23 and 6.61 percent respectively. Clearly it is the eastern seaboard states north of the Carolinas that in general have the lowest poverty rates. By contrast the highest rates are found across the South. Mississippi and Louisiana particularly, with poverty rates of and percent, have the greatest proportion oftheir populations with income below the poverty line. It seems that the research of the 1970s, that characterized the South as the most impoverished region, still holds true as we approach the twenty-first century. When viewed in comparison to extremes of poverty at the state scale, illinois holds the middle ground. With a poverty rate of percent Illinois ranks 26th of the 48 states plus the District of Columbia (Table 1). Thus, at the state scale Illinois is one of a swath of states that span the northern half of the country, where poverty can said to be close to the national average. Nineteen states, including Illinois have poverty rates within one half standard deviation from the mean rate of Thus, the geographic information gleaned from use of the state as a spatial unit is confined to some general observations about broad regional variation in poverty rates. Illinois is seen to be little different from neighboring states, and shows no particular characteristics that might capture the interest of those who might be interested in addressing issues of poverty. In one respect, however, Illinois does stand out. Scrutinizing the population that falls below the official poverty line in terms of the proportion who have incomes below 50 percent of that standard, reveals that Illinois has a very high proportion of the poor who are very poor (Fig. 2). The percentage of the impoverished population with incomes below 50 of the poverty lines varies at the state level from to percent. With a rate of percent Illinois is second only to Washington D.C. in this respect (Table 1). While Illinois is average in terms ofthe percent of its population who are considered officially poor, a large proportion of this population may be characterized as very poor. Finally, a somewhat different view of poverty may emerge by examining the sheer numbers of the very poor on a state by state basis (Fig. 3). Such a view is obviously strongly a function of total population. However, if policy is aimed at impacting the greatest number of people poverty rate is not necessarily the main issue. A state may have a low poverty rate but a large population and so may be home to a relatively large percentage of impoverished Americans. Clearly, just a handful of states account for a large proportion of the very poor. Of the over 14 million Americans with incomes less than 50 percent of the poverty line, in excess of 28 percent live in justthree states, California, Texas, and New York. The top 10 states in terms of severely impoverished population account for over 57 percent of the total. Ranking number five in terms of 11

4 Percent Poor Miles --! FIGURE 1. Percentage of population below the poverty line by state, TABLE 1 Some Measures of Poverty for Illinois with Respect to National Means, 1990 Measure Illinois Illinois' Rank National Mean Poverty Rate-% Very Poor Rate-% Number Very Poor (10005) Density of Very Poor (per square mile) sheer numbers of the very poor, Illinois, with some thousand such residents, alone accounts for 4.78 ofthe U.S. total (Table 1). A related statistic, which is also a function of the total size of population amongst other things, is the density of severely impoverished people. By simply calculating the number of people with incomes less than 50 percent of the poverty line per square mile, it is possible to get some broad sense of the spatial concentration of the very poor at the state level. Again, Illinois is indicated to be one ofthe poorest states with respect to the density ofthe severely impoverished. With an av- erage density of 11.9 very poor people per square mile, Illinois ranks 11 th among the forty eight states (Table 1). The County Scale Using data reported at the spatial scale of the county leads to two major observations concerning the geography of poverty within Illinois (Fig. 4). First. in the southern portion of the state the percentage of persons living below the poverty line tends to be higher than in counties in the north. Counties with poverty rates over 18 percent are firmly anchored in the southern tip of the state, in marked contrast to a block of counties with poverty 12

5 Percent o Under 35 I'}'f;d [:ftffil _ Over45 I Miles FIGURE 2. Percentage of the population below the poverty line with incomes less than 50 percent ofthe poverty level, by state, Under 388, , , ,001-1,132,000 Over 1,132,000 I Miles FIGURE 3. Number of people with incomes less than 50 percent of the poverty level, by state,

6 rates below 6 percent clustered in the northeast. This north-south distinction within Illinois represents an historic pattern. The southern Illinois' economy has been anchored in farming and coal mining, in contrast to the manufacturing economy in northern portions of the state. The second point that is clearly visually displayed is the association between low rates of poverty and large urban areas. Five of the six counties with poverty rates below 6 percent are tucked in the northeast corner of the state, and are part of the Chicago metropolitan area. The remaining low poverty county is part of the St. Louis metropolitan area. Conversely, no county with a poverty rate over 18 percent is located within a metropolitan area. Of the 40 counties with poverty rates between 12 and 18 percent only 8 are in urban areas; of these 8 all but one have rates of 14 percent or less. Only one county, St. Clair the southern most metropolitan county in Illinois, has a poverty rate (17.07) approaching those to be found in the southern rural counties. Thus, Illinois' 28 counties that are included in metropolitan areas appear to experience relatively low rates of poverty. Exploring the depth of poverty experienced, by mapping the percent of the impoverished population with incomes below 50 percent of the poverty line, shows a mixed pattern (Fig. 5). There are a few counties with very high poverty rates that also have a majority of that impoverished population with incomes less than 50 percent of the poverty line. There are also counties with relatively low rates of poverty, but where many of the poor are severely impoverished. One general observation may be made. In most met- Percent Poor Over c:::::1iiiliiiii ::::::= Miles FIGURE 4. Percentage of Illinois population below the poverty line by county, Percent D Under Over Miles - FIGURE 5. Percentage of the Illinois population below the poverty line with incomes less than 50 percent ofthe poverty level, by county,

7 ropolitan counties in the Chicago area a majority of those who are poor are severely impoverished. This is true of Cook County with a high poverty rate of almost 14 percent and where over 54 percent of the poor have incomes less than 50 percent of the poverty line. It is also true of counties such as Will where overall poverty rates are less than 6 percent, but where over 47 percent of those who are poor may be characterized as severely deprived. In the southern rural counties with high overall rates of poverty the pattern is mixed. In several counties in the southwest with poverty rates over 18 percent a large percentage of the poor are severely impoverished; in Alexander, Jackson, Pope, Pulaski, and Saline counties over 44 percent of the poor have incomes less than 50 percent of the official poverty line. In other counties with very high poverty rates, such as Franklin, Gallatin, Hamilton, Hardin, and White, relatively low percentages of the poor may be characterized as deeply impoverished. In terms of absolute numbers of the severely impoverished one county within Illinois dominates (Fig. 6). Over 57 percent of all Illinois residents with incomes less than 50 percent of poverty line levels reside in Cook County. The county with the next largest severely impoverished population is St. Clair, but this represents only 3.4 percent of the Illinois total. The 10 most populous of Illinois' 102 counties, in terms of severely impoverished population, account for over 75 percent of such people. Several counties with high poverty rates, such as Pope and Hardin, actually have very few severely impoverished residents. It is clearly illustrated, when viewing the density of severely impoverished people at the spatial scale of the county, that severe impoverishment is not evenly distributed spatially. In contrast to the state average of 11.9 very poor persons per square mile, the poorest 10 counties, which embrace over 75 percent of such persons and extend over just 11.9 percent of the total land area of Illinois, have a density of severely impoverished residents per square mile. It is interesting to note that examining Under ,000 10, Over 200, Miles I -FIGURE 6. Number of people with incomes less than 50 percent of the poverty level, by Illinois county, poverty at the county level begins to provide some hints of a possible link between race and poverty, although the pattern is less than clear. It cannot help be noticed that the two urban counties with the highest poverty rates (Cook and St. Clair) also have the highest percentages of African-American population within Illinois' urban areas. The two rural counties located at the southern tip of Illinois where the black population is the highest proportion in the state, constituting al most one third of total population, also have the highest poverty rates statewide. Alexander County which is 32.9 percent black has a poverty rate of 32 percent, while Pulaski County is 32.8 percent black with a poverty rate of 29.9 percent. In addition, as has already been mentioned, a high percentage of the poor in these two counties are severely impoverished. 15

8 Attempts to support a link between race and percent of the population statistically were less than successful. Data pertaining to race are not normally distributed, and attempts to model the relationship using transformed data did not result in any statistically significant relationship. The Census Tract Scale Census tracts are defined to normally encompass populations between 2,500 and 8,000 but do not cross county boundaries. The result is to subdivide counties- the larger the population of the county the greater the number oftracts is likely to be. Urban counties, with their large population, become segmented into numerous tracts, many of which extend over a small area. The 102 Illinois counties are subdivided into a total of 2,840 tracts. Using the census tract as the spatial unit brings the geography of poverty into a different focus. Viewed from the census tract level, the rural areas within southern Illinois identified as poor at the spatial scale of the county remain poor (Fig. 7). This is not surprising since in many cases the areal extent of rural counties versus tracts is not widely disparate. An additional coherent area that suffers high rates of poverty, that may be characterized as rural, comes into focus when tract level data are mapped. This additional poor rural region is located to the north-northwest ofthe St. Louis metropolitan area centered in Pike and Greene counties. It is within urban areas, however, that tract level analysis reveals a substantially different view of poverty than county level data can provide. When mapping tract-level data, urban areas are no longer displayed as affluent; within urban counties are concentrated areas that experience high poverty. Thus, urban counties that appeared relatively affluent are revealed as having an internal spatial structure of poverty. Two excellent examples of such counties are Lake and Will count ies in the Chicago metropolitan area where overall rates of poverty are less than 6 percent, but where certain tracts suffer rates as high as 45 percent (Fig. 8). Percent Poor Over 18 I Miles FIGURE 7. Percentage of Illinois population below the poverty line by census tract, These poor tracts are concentrated in the cities of Waukegan and Joliet. This internal structure of poverty is also readily apparent within urban counties that have relatively high overall poverty rates. The eight urban counties with poverty rates between 12 and 18 percent in reality have substantial areas within them were poverty rates are less than 6 percent, but also contain clear nodes where rates are much higher (Figs. 9 and 10). In the five such counties outside the Chicago area (Peoria, St. Clair, Macon, Champaign, and Rock Island) tracts with poverty rates over 18 percent are very spatially clustered, and are a part of the central city areas of Peoria, East St. Louis, Decatur, Champaign/Urbana, and Rock Island/Moline (Fig. 9). A similar concentration of tracts with high poverty rates can 16

9 A - Will County B - Lake County Percent Poor Over 18 FIGURE 8. Percentage of population below the poverty line within selected affluent counties, by census tract, be observed in the three Chicago area counties (Fig. 10). In De Kalb and Kankakee counties poor tracts are found in the cities of De Kalb and Kankakee, although an additional poor tract is observable within Kankakee County in the southeastern corner. Cook County has 481 tracts with over 18 percent poverty rates primarily located within the city of Chicago. The fact that counties with overall low rates of poverty have within them severely impoverished tracts and that counties that are affluent embrace poor tracts supports the notion of economic segregation. The maps of the various urban counties focused upon (Figs. 8, 9, 10) show clearly that deeply impoverished tracts are frequently located in clusters that combine to constitute a larger impoverished area. In addition, adjacent areas often provide a stark contrast and are relatively affluent. The spatial patterns of rich and poor tracts point to the geographic expression of polarization in terms of economic well-being. Mapping both the percent of Hie impoverished population with incomes below 50 percent of the poverty line (Fig. 11) and the absolute numbers of the severely impoverished (Fig. 12) at the tract level confirms the concentration of the very poor in Illinois urban areas. The Chicago area stands out in this respect. Of the 1,153 tracts statewide where over 50 percent ofthe poor have income less than 50 percent of the poverty line, 881 are 10-17

10 Iowa A - Peoria County B - St. Clair County C - Macon County D - Champaign County E - Rock Island County Percent Poor I >~ I ~. ~~ ~~ _ Over 18 FIGURE 9. Percentage of population below the poverty line within selected metropolitan counties, by census tract,

11 A - De Kalb County B - Kankakee County C - Cook County o IS Percent Poor Over 18 FIGURE 10. Percentage of population below the poverty line within selected Chicago area metropolitan counties, by census tract, cated within the nine county Chicago metropolitan statistical area. Of these Chicago tracts where the majority of the poor are severely impoverished, 378 also suffer high general poverty rates of over 12 percent out of a statewide total of 525 such tracts. In terms of absolute numbers of the poor, the 378 Chicago metropolitan area tracts with high poverty rates and high rates of severely impoverished poor residents are home to almost 30 percent of Illinois' poor and 36.7 percent of the state's severely impoverished. Within the Chicago metropolitan area Cook County is perhaps the area where the concentration of the poor in a limited number of tracts can be seen most clearly. The 481 Cook County tracts with over 18 percent poverty rates are home to just 12.4 percent of Illinois' population yet include 36.7 percent of the state's poor and 41.4 percent of the very poor. These poorest 481 of Cook County's 1,352 tracts span only 12.8 percent of the county's area yet are home to almost 68 percent of Cook County's poor and over 71 percent of county residents whose earnings are less than 50 percent of the poverty standard. This concentration of the poor in certain Cook County tracts gives very high densities of impoverished residents. In the 481 Cook County tracts with over 18 percent poverty rates there are 3,931 poor residents per square mile; 2,240 of these people may be classified as severely impoverished. 19

12 Percent c=j 0-25 c:=j ~~~1* all ==-_ -===: Miles FIGURE 11. Percentage of the Illinois Population Below the Poverty Line With Incomes Less than 50 Percent of the Poverty Level, by Census Tract, 1990 At the census tract scale, attempts to link poverty and race statistically remain unsuccessful. Thus, any discussion of poverty and race must remain anecdotal. However, it seems worthwhile to make the following observations. In Chicago area tracts with poverty rates over 12 percent and where a majority of the poor are severely impoverished, an average of 64 percent of residents are black. These tracts provide a contrast to a subgroup of tracts in the Chicago area that may be viewed as relatively affluent. Of the 190 tracts statewide with low poverty rates (less than 6 percent) and where less than 25 percent of those who are poor may be viewed as severely impoverished, 111 are located in the Chicago metropolitan area. These tracts are home to 458,035 resi- People D \ WiWJlli a 751-5, I FIGURE 12. Number of People With Incomes Less than 50 Percent of the Poverty Level, by Illinois Census Tract, 1990 dents, yet only 1,806 are severely impoverished. Racially these tracts are overwhelming white, with an average of only 3.62 percent of black residents. The Chicago area, it seems, suggests a polarization of poor black residents and affluent white residents which may be seen expressed geographically at the tract level. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS When viewed from the state spatial scale Illinois does not stand out in terms of overall levels of poverty. Illinois appears to be just one of a large group of states that span the northern half of the United States, that constitute a region where poverty rates are close to the national average, but that provide a contrast 20

13 to generally higher rates across the south. However, although poverty rates are average a high percentage ofthe poor in Illinois may be viewed as very poor. In addition, since Illinois has a relatively large overall population, even average poverty rates mean that in terms of absolute numbers Illinois is home to a large number of impoverished Americans. What seems clear, switching focus from overall state levels of poverty to the general poverty rates at the scale of the county, is that poverty in Illinois is a rural phenomenon. Southern rural areas within Illinois suffer high general poverty rates and provide a contrast to urban areas that are seen as generally affluent. However, the concentration of overall population in urban counties results in greater absolute numbers of the impoverished living in urban counties, despite observed lower poverty rates. It is also interesting to note that while in some rural counties with high poverty rates, few of the poor are very poor, the same is not true of urban counties. Within all urban counties, including those with relatively low or high overall rates of poverty, a high percentage of residents who are poor may be characterized as very poor. Southern rural Illinois may be characterized as a poor place even though the absolute number of poor does not approach that found in urban counties. This suggests that policy to address the poverty of southern counties, where poverty is the average condition, should focus on the structure of the economy in that region. Southern Illinois is not part of the high production agricultural region as are counties further to the north (Price, 1996). Nor are southern portions of the state home to appreciable concentrations of industry. Most industry within Illinois is concentrated in the Chicago area and other cities to the north, and to a lesser extent Illinois portions of the St. Louis metropolitan area (Nelson, 1996). It seems rural southern counties lack any vibrant economic base that might be expected to lift residents out of poverty. Tract-level analysis confirms the high poverty rates indicated in southern rural areas at the county scale. However, a much more meaningful picture of urban counties emerges at the spatial scale of the tract. Urban counties are revealed to have an internal spatial structure of poverty that is masked in county level analysis. Poor residents are concentrated within certain tracts in the urban counties. Impoverished tracts are overwhelmingly concentrated in central cities and provide a marked contrast to areas outside the city that are affluent. A very high percentage of the poor who live in tracts with high poverty rates may be considered very poor. Impoverished urban tracts represent an intense spatial clustering of the very poor in Illinois, that is indicated by the extremely high poverty densities in tracts such as those in the city of Chicago. Thus, census tract level data supports the notion of economic segregation. Policy aimed at addressing urban poverty must deal not so much with issues of economic structure as is the case in poor rural counties, but with the possible exclusion of certain segments of the population from the economic opportunities available. Thus, a picture of poverty in Illinois emerges. In a state where poverty levels are average, both rural poverty regions, and concentrated nodes of poverty in central city areas can be identified. Rural areas in the extreme south of Illinois are poor compared to general levels of poverty in northern Illinois, particularly within urban areas. Yet, urban areas are far from homogeneously affluent. Intense urban nodes of poverty exist, and it is within these nodes that most of Illinois' poor residents reside. One factor appears to link both rural and urban poverty within Illinois, and that is race. Whether living in rural southern Illinois or within one of Illinois' metropolitan areas, high poverty rates are often found in conjunction with concentrations of African-American population. It seems likely that Illinois has a poor southern black population who live in rural areas where poverty is the norm. The state is also characterized by metropolitan areas where there is a very distinct geographic polarization between affluent white areas and poor black areas. A majority of the poor in Illinois appeared to be densely 21

14 packed into small areas within the state's inner cities where African-Americans constitute a majority of the population. REFERENCES CITED Batteau, A. W The Invention of Appalachia. Tucson: U. of Arizona Press. Guinness, P. and Bradshaw, M North America: A Human Geography. Totowa: Barnes and Noble. Hughes, M. A Formation of the Impacted Ghetto: Evidence From Large Metropolitan Areas. Urban Geography 11 (3): Kasarda, J. D Structural Factors Affecting the Location and Timing of Urban Underclass Growth. Urban Geography 11 (3): Knox, P. L The New Poor and a New Urban Geography. Urban Geography 11 (3) : Mertz, P. E New Deal and Southern Rural Poverty, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Massey, D Spatial Divisions of Labour, Social Structures in the Geography of Production. London: MacMillan. Nelson, R. E An Introduction to the Prairie State. In: Illinois: A Geographical Survey. R. E. Nelson (Ed.), Illinois Geographical Society, Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co Nord, S. and Sheets, R. G Service Industries and the Working Poor in Major Metropolitan Areas in the United States. In: Sources of Metropolitan Growth. E. S. Mills and J. F. McDonald (Eds.). New Brunswick. N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research. O'Hare, W. P The Rise of Poverty in Rural America. Population Reference Bureau, Population Trends and Public Policy, Occasional Paper 15, July. O'Regan, K. and Wiseman, M Using Birth Weights to Chart the Spatial Distribution of Urban Poverty. Urban Geography 11 (3): Peet, R Some Issues in the Social Geography of American Poverty. Antipode Monographs in Social Geography 1, Geographical Perspectives on American Poverty: Porter, K Poverty in Rural America. A National Overview. Washington D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Price, D. A Farms and Farming. In: illinois: A Geographical Survey. R. E. Nelson (Ed.), Illinois Geographical Society, Kendall/ Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa: Shaw, W The Geography of United States Poverty. Patterns of Deprivation, New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Sheppard, E Ecological Analysis of the 'Urban Underclass': Commentary Hughes, Kasarda, O'Regan and Wiseman. Urban Geography 11 (3): Smith, D. M Towards a Geography of Social Well-being: Inter-state Variations in the United States. Antipode Monographs in Social Geography 1, Geographical Perspectives on American Poverty: Smith, D. M Geography, Inequality and Society. New York: Cambridge University Press. U.S. Department of Commerce Poverty in the United States: Bureau ofthe Census, Current Population Reports Series P-60, No. 181, June. U.S. Department of Commerce Poverty in the United States: Bureau ofthe Census, Current Population Reports Series P-60, No. 201, Sept. Wessex, Demographic Data. STF 1A, 3A, 38. Winnetka: Wessex, Inc. 22