Research project combats stereotypes about where poverty exists in America; interactive map shows county-level data

Click here for interactive map of Index of Deep Disadvantage

Researchers from the University of Michigan and Princeton University recently released research that combats common misconceptions about poverty being mainly an urban problem. The Index of Deep Disadvantage measures income, health and social mobility in each U.S. county along with the 500 largest cities. "While the most advantaged communities in the U.S. rank alongside the most developed parts of the world, those struggling the hardest measure up with countries like North Korea and Bangladesh," Jan Pytalski reports for The Daily Yonder.

Of the 100 most disadvantaged communities, 80 are rural. Of the top 100 most disadvantaged counties, 21 contained tribal lands, and 19 were in rural Mississippi and had majority African American populations, Pytalski reports.

Luke Shaefar, a faculty director of Poverty Solutions at the University of Michigan and one of the project's lead researchers, said the findings revealed misconceptions of rural poverty that must be corrected before effective solutions can be designed. He noted that funding dedicated to reducing poverty is disproportionately distributed to urban areas.

"We were really struck when we put [our] map up against the map of the concentration of enslavement. Not just the overall clusterings are the same, but even the concentration is the same," Shaefer told Pytalski. These correlations have long been known to those familiar with the history of plantation slavery, the Mississippi Delta and the Black Belt (a term both geologic and demographic), and the correlations don't fit in Kentucky and Tennessee, which have smaller black populations.

Index of Deep Disadvantage in the South next to a map showing slavery distribution across southern states.
(source: University of Michigan)

In addition to statistical work, the researchers conducted direct research. "Researchers were sent to the communities, staying for several weeks at a time, collecting stories and learning first hand of people’s experiences. It allowed for a fresh and eye-opening perspective," Pytalski reports.

Direct engagement was important, Shaefer said, because without it, the researchers might miss important parts of the picture. For instance, researchers found that some households couldn't participate in disaster relief and other programs because the owners had inherited their homes without a clear title proving ownership. Another researcher found that a free health clinic wasn't helping some people in need because they didn't have the transportation to get there, Pytalski reports. And many rural residents had little trust in the government or its ability to help.