Regina S. Baker’s research while affiliated with University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and other places

Many claim a high prevalence of single motherhood plays a significant role in America's high child poverty. Using the Luxembourg Income Study, we compare the “prevalences and penalties” for child poverty across 30 rich democracies and within the United States over time (1979–2019). Several descriptive patterns contradict the importance of single motherhood. The U.S. prevalence of single motherhood is cross-nationally moderate and typical and is historically stable. Also, child poverty and the prevalence of single motherhood have trended in opposite directions in recent decades in the United States. More important than the prevalence of single motherhood, the United States stands out for having the highest penalty across 30 rich democracies. Counterfactual simulations demonstrate that reducing single motherhood would not substantially reduce child poverty. Even if there was zero single motherhood, (1) the United States would not change from having the fourth-highest child poverty rate, (2) the 41-year trend in child poverty would be very similar, and (3) the extreme racial inequalities in child poverty would not decline. Rather than the prevalence of single motherhood, the high penalty for single motherhood and extremely high Black and Latino child poverty rates, which exist regardless of single motherhood, are far more important to America's high child poverty.

Purpose To determine the differential impact of Medicaid expansion on all‐cause mortality between Black, Latino/a, and White populations in rural and urban areas, and assess how expansion impacted mortality disparities between these groups. Methods We employ a county‐level time‐varying heterogenous treatment effects difference‐in‐difference analysis of Medicaid expansion on all‐cause age‐adjusted mortality for those 64 years of age or younger from 2009 to 2019. For all counties within the 50 US States and the District of Columbia, we use restricted‐access vital statistics data to estimate Average Treatment Effect on the Treated (ATET) for all combinations of racial and ethnic group (Black, Latino/a, White), rurality (rural, urban), and sex. We then assess aggregate ATET, as well as how the ATET changed as time from expansion increased. Findings Medicaid expansion led to a reduction in all‐cause age‐adjusted mortality for urban Black populations, but not rural Black populations. Urban White populations experienced mixed effects dependent on years after expansion. Latino/a populations saw no appreciable impact. While no effect was observed for rural Black and Latino/a populations, rural White all‐cause age‐adjusted mortality unexpectedly increased due to Medicaid expansion. These effects reduced rural‐ and urban‐specific Black‐White mortality disparities but did not shrink the rural‐urban mortality gap. Conclusions The mortality‐reducing impact of Medicaid expansion has been uneven across racial and ethnic groups and rural‐urban status; suggesting that many populations—particularly rural individuals—are not seeing the same benefits as others. It is imperative that states work to ensure Medicaid expansion is being appropriately implemented in rural areas.

It is well established that living in a high‐poverty area often leads to lower levels of well‐being for residents. While these deleterious effects of place‐based poverty are well‐documented, the conceptual mechanisms linking poverty of place to negative outcomes remain debated, and the our understanding of the spatial patterning of poverty remains underdeveloped. In this paper, we problematize simple conceptualizations of the negative impacts of poverty exposure by illustrating the dynamic patterns poverty displays across cities on a daily basis. The vast majority of prior research on poverty of place has relied upon data anchored to place of residence. Thus, poverty rates broadly reflect poverty as it exists at night. This bias toward nighttime statistics leaves us with an incomplete understanding of spatial inequalities because daytime poverty rates can differ markedly from nighttime poverty rates due to work‐related commuting patterns. Here, we use novel data from the Census Transportation Planning Products to fully illustrate diurnal patterns in poverty at the census tract level in metropolitan America. Through a combination of descriptive, spatial, and statistical analyses, we show that the majority of census tracts experience changes in poverty throughout the day. Through a series of regression models, we also show that diurnal patterns in poverty are unevenly distributed along the lines of suburbanization, race, economic status, age composition, and industrial structure. Overall, our findings provide analytic insights into properly documenting poverty across space, while further problematizing lingering culture of poverty frameworks.

The socio-historical context surrounding racism in the United States is integral to understanding the state of contemporary families. Yet the scholarship seeking to explain socioeconomic racial disparities across families has primarily focused attention on individual-level factors, particularly family structure. The late sociologist, C. Wright Mills emphasized the importance of macro- and micro-level phenomena in shaping individual lives. Drawing on Mill’s notion of “the sociological imagination,” I argue that it is critical to consider the role of broader historical and social contexts, such as structural racism, in producing and maintaining racial inequalities across families in the United States. Through examining the socio-historical context of race and structural racism, prior research on racial inequality in poverty across families, and empirical and theoretical developments in this area, I underline that more research on structural racism is necessary to effectively address enduring racial gaps.

Intergenerational social mobility studies have largely explored the relationship between one aspect of parent background (e.g., education, income, occupational status, wealth, or neighborhood context) and the corresponding aspect of that parent's child once they reach adulthood. Studies examining these various measures have provided differing conclusions about the extent that social origins constrain attainment in the U.S. In contrast, the persistence of racial inequality in intergenerational mobility is one consistent finding. For instance, across various measures, research demonstrates Black individuals are more likely than White individuals to experience downward mobility, and less likely to exceed the socioeconomic standings of their parents. In this article, we argue that a more holistic measure of both origin and destination, one that combines the above‐mentioned indicators, is necessary to advance our understanding of the extent that origin constrains future attainment. We summarize lessons gleaned from one‐dimensional estimates, and from other approaches that either combine some dimensions of socioeconomic background or attempt to capture a more holistic background in other ways. We then make a recommendation for methodological interventions to accomplish this more holistic approach and conclude with research and policy implications.

Empirical studies link high racial inequality in U.S. child poverty to the higher prevalence of single motherhood among certain racial groups. But a growing literature is demonstrating how the impact of single parenthood and family structure on children varies by racial group, including evidence that Black children experience smaller single motherhood “penalties” for some outcomes, like education. I use Luxembourg Income Study data for the United States from 1995 to 2018 to further investigations of ethno-racial variation in single motherhood penalties for child poverty. I provide a descriptive portrait of the levels and trends of children living in single-mother households and of the poverty penalties associated with children living in such households. I also show that, on average, Black children experience smaller penalties from single motherhood and Latino children experience larger penalties, both compared to White children. I conclude with discussion of potential reasons for this variation and future directions for research.

Objective To assess whether an indicator of structural racism—the legacy of slavery—impacts racial inequality in poverty among individuals within the same family structure. Background Family structure is a dominant explanation for racial inequality in poverty. This overemphasis on an “individual‐level” variable results in relatively less attention to the role of structural factors. Yet, structural factors, like the legacy of slavery, may be key to understanding how race and family structure intersect in the context of poverty. Method The authors use data from the Luxembourg Income Study, the American Community Survey, and the Historical 1860 Census. Multilevel models link individual‐ and state‐level data and separate models focus on counties. The authors assess whether a proxy of the legacy of slavery (i.e., the historical concentration of enslaved people in 1860) relates to Black–White inequality in poverty among single mother households and among married with children households in the US South. Results There is an impact of the legacy of slavery on Black–White inequality in poverty even within‐family type, but the legacy of slavery appears to be more consequential for married with children households than single mother households. Among married parent households, the racial gap in poverty is more pronounced where the legacy of slavery is stronger. Conclusion Results suggest the link between family structure and racial inequality in poverty is overstated and more indirect, operating—at least partially—through structural racism. Implications This study challenges the perception of marriage as an anti‐poverty mechanism. It also underscores the limitations of viewing family structure from an individual‐level perspective when explaining racial inequality. Local manifestations of structural racism are part of how family structure matters for inequality in poverty.

Ethno-racial inequality in poverty is an enduring but misunderstood problem. Most prior research relies on the flawed official poverty measure, data with underreported income, and models omitting essential predictors. Using the Current Population Survey, we adjust for benefit underreporting and estimate levels and trends in both relative and Supplemental Poverty Measure poverty rates for ethno-racial groups relative to White individuals in the U.S. from 1993 to 2017. We then focus on the five most recent years (2013–2017) and decompose Black–White, Latino–White, and Asian–White poverty gaps. We expand prior decomposition analyses by better incorporating employment and geographic context and better measuring immigration. Our findings show ethno-racial inequalities in poverty declined from 1993 to 2017 but remained large. Our estimates of relative poverty reveal that millions more Black and Latino individuals are poor than with the official measure—even after adjusting for benefit underreporting. By 2013–2017, Black and Latino individuals remain about twice as likely to be poor as White individuals. By contrast, the evidence is mixed on Asian–White differences. Decomposition results show employment explains the largest share of the Black–White gap, whereas immigration matters most for the Latino–White and Asian–White gaps. Geographical context also explains a significant portion of each racial gap and is particularly central to Asian–White gaps. Compared to prior decompositions, which would explain roughly half of the Black–White gap in poverty, our models explain more than three quarters. Beyond the novel empirical description, this study encourages structural, political, and critical race theories of poverty over behavioral explanations.

Family structure remains a dominant explanation for understanding racial inequality in poverty. Yet, empirical studies show family structure does not fully account for this association. We present racial stratification as an alternative perspective emphasizing the social construction of race and how race contributes to the unequal distribution of resources. To illustrate the link between racial stratification and poverty, we rely on risk research and conceptualize risk in terms of prevalences (the percentage of people with risks) and penalties (the probability of poverty associated with risks). We assess whether family structure and risks intersect by racialized groups, and if so, whether the penalties for risks among Black and Latinx mothers, relative to white mothers, converge (i.e., smaller gap in penalties) or diverge (i.e., larger gap in penalties). Using panel data, our results revealed Black mothers had higher risk prevalence than both Latinx and white mothers. Moreover, a dramatic divergence in the penalties for risks emerged between racialized groups whereby Black and Latinx mothers experience greater disadvantage from risks than white mothers, regardless of family structure. We conclude family structure is not only an oversimplified explanation but also contributes to obscuring structural and systemic sources of racial inequality in poverty.