Fem Paper 6-6-11

8/3/2019 Fem Paper 6-6-11

1/17

Feminization of Poverty

Assessing Feminization of Poverty

in the United States in 2011

Jennifer Chaparro-Maldonado

St. Marys University

1

8/3/2019 Fem Paper 6-6-11

2/17


Assessing the Theory of Feminization of Poverty

In the United States of America in 2010

In a country well-governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of, the ancient

Chinese philosopher, Confucius once state. If we were to follow this logic in the United

States today, then it would seem we are poorly governed. Despite President Lyndon B.

Johnsons deceleration of a War on Poverty over 40 years ago, poverty is alive and

thriving. After such a declaration to combat it, public policymakers should have a clear

picture of poverty and those who experience it, in order to better affect it. Unfortunately,

policymakers seem to remain ineffective in combating this foe. Poverty has not

subsided in the past 40 years since the declaration was proclaimed.6 Poverty, and all its

consequences, is a chronic condition that continues to plague American society.

More alarming, in the United Statesa nation of plenty, that boasts one of the

worlds highest Gross Domestic Products--women and their children are experiencing

higher rates of poverty than men. Single women and their children or female-headed

households, have consistently appeared to be the largest percentage of those living in

poverty in the last 30 years.6 As policy analyst Clark Cochran points out,

the feminization of poverty, as a lived reality represents something larger than

simply a lack of income or a state of financial need for women. While the very

definition of poverty implies the inability to meet basic needs such as food,

clothing or shelter, being poor also implies the absence of choice, the denial of

opportunity, the inability to achieve life goals, and ultimately the loss of hope. 6

This paper assesses the conditions of feminized poverty by looking at the roles of

labor market factors, government assistance through social welfare benefits to women

and their children social and structural changes that have occurred over the past thirty

years that appear to have a positive relationship in perpetuating this gender bias in

poverty.

In the 1960s, as an unpopular war raged in Vietnam and a president quickly lost

favor with the American public, many began questioning American society. A culture

shift began as the Civil Rights and Womens Liberation movements entered the

mainstream of American culture and challenged the structures of American life.

2

8/3/2019 Fem Paper 6-6-11

3/17


Literature Review

Diana Pearce (1978) noted that changes included a shift in the typical nuclear

family, with more women as the sole providers for their families. While many women

gained social equality others became the highest percentage of the poor. Female-headed

households appeared to experience higher rates of poverty than their male counterparts.10

Pearce ultimately concluded that poverty has a close relationship to gender. She argued

that women have a greater risk of poverty because they bear the economic and emotional

burdens of raising children. Women who ear less money then men, are unable to find

adequate childcare, which leads to part-time employment, and in the end to lower wages.

18

Sociologist Elizabeth Kendall (2007) critiques Pearces argument by purporting

that middle and upper class women are not as susceptible to feminized poverty because of

their higher rates of education. She concludes that poverty is not necessarily associated

with gender. However, Kendall is also careful to note that although lack of education and

poverty are highly associated, educational resources remain available to women living in

poverty. While her critique is valid it does not discredit a gender bias in poverty.

Gertrude Goldberg, who comported Pearces theory to her observations in the

United States, concluded that a disproportionate number of female-headed households

were living in the U.S. Goldberg and her team then set out to determine if feminization of

poverty was only an American phenomenon. Goldberg conducted case studies in seven

industrialized countries including five capitalist nations--Canada, France, Japan, Sweden,

and the United States, and two socialist countries and two socialist Poland and the Soviet

Union. 10 In looking at labor market forces, equalization policy (wage equality), social

welfare programs, and demographic factors in the seven nations, Goldberg (1990)

concluded that the feminization of poverty was not uniquely an American phenomenon,

but it was most pronounced in the United States. According to Goldberg, Thehighrates

of poverty of American women come as no surprise after the discussion of adverse labor

market conditions, the failure to mount and sustain a vigorous campaign to reduce gender

and racial inequality in employment, and the very limited antipoverty effects of social

welfare programs. 10

Goldberg argues that these factors contributed to the percentage of female-headed

3

8/3/2019 Fem Paper 6-6-11

4/17


households living in poverty. Yet, throughout her case studies, she omits defining poverty

and instead focuses on unequal employment policies and lack of government assistance.

In the end, Goldberg and her team concluded that families headed by women appeared to

be the largest percentage of the poor.

Goldbergs methodology incorporates of Pearces original theory. Her case

studies were constructed using a four-factor framework for a cross-national analysis of

the feminization of poverty:

Labor market factors such as womens participation in the labor force,

part-time employment, and ratio- of womens to mens wages.

Policies to promote the labor market equality of women such as equal pay

legislation to promote economic equality.

Social welfare programs or government income transfers.

Demographic factors such as rates of divorce, remarriage, unmarried

motherhood and teenage pregnancy. 10

The Feminization of Poverty

In assessing the feminization of poverty in present-day America, this paper

applies Goldbergs four-factor framework: factors of labor market factors, policies to

promote labor market equality, social welfare programs, and demographics, factors. The

data presented in the remainder of this paper are based on secondary sources, from

various government agencies such as the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Health

& Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Labor. While it may be impossible to

know the exact numbers of those living in poverty or the exact employment and

unemployment rates these, numbers provide an estimate in quantifying poverty, labor

market factors and social demographics. Although there are no definite answers as to the

why there is an apparent gender bias in poverty. Before proceeding with our four-factor

analysis, it is important to define poverty before attempting to produce effective policy to

ultimately eliminate its gender bias in poverty.

Defining Poverty

Websters dictionary defines poverty as the state of one who lacks a usual or

4

8/3/2019 Fem Paper 6-6-11

5/17


socially acceptable amount of money or material measures. 11 In contrast Policy analyst

Clark Cochran (2009) defines poverty in two ways as absolute poverty or relative

poverty. Cochran defines absolute poverty as an income sufficient to maintain a minimal

level of well being in nutrition, shelter clothing and health. However, some social policy

experts believe that poverty should be defined in relative terms. The relative definition of

poverty does not specify a particular level of material well-being, but compares the poor

to other members of society. By this definition, a family is poor if its resources place it

well below the average standard of living.6 Using the absolute method, defining poverty

becomes nothing more than a quantitative process, whereas under the more abstract

definition of relative poverty, many more individuals or households fall within the

poverty threshold. The U.S. government uses the absolute definition of poverty. The U.S.

Census Bureau is the agency tasked to set the thresholds and guidelines.

Absolute Poverty

In 1964, Molly Orshansky, a Social Security Administration researcher,

developed poverty thresholds. Orshansky began by setting the threshold of a minimally

adequate food budget calculated for families of various sizes. The poverty thresholds

were the dollar amounts before taxes and including earnings, unemployment

compensations, workers compensation, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income.

Noncash benefits such as food stamps and housing subsidies were not included.

Orshanky determined these thresholds by using the Department of Agricultures food

budget for families; food purchases represented about one-third of after-tax income for

the typical family. This relationship yielded a multiplier of three; the minimally

adequate food budgets were then multiplied by a factor of three to obtain 124 poverty

thresholds that differed by family size, number of children, age and sex of head of

household. 25

Orshankys thresholds, though no updated since the 1960s, are nevertheless used

today throughout the United States.14 In addition, the thresholds do not vary

geographically, which many would argue poses a problem, because the cost of living

varies from state to state. These thresholds are set on a sliding scale for annual inflation

by using the Consumer Price Index (an index of the cost of all goods and services to a

5

8/3/2019 Fem Paper 6-6-11

6/17


typical consumer). 25 The thresholds are updated annually for price changes, and so are

not changed in real (constant-dollar) terms; in other words, the 2008 weighted average

poverty threshold of $22,025 for a family of four represents the same purchasing power

as the corresponding 1963 threshold of $3,128.13 Also, the threshold does not take into

account such expenses as shelter, clothing, transportation, healthcare, or childcare

services.

The poverty guidelines, also know as the federal poverty level (FPL), determine

whether or not a household is eligible for federal assistance (See Table 1). The typical

characteristic of a one person household is a young individual living in a rental property,

typically without health insurance or a stable living, for whom the FPL annual income

maximum is $10,890.19 The federal poverty level for a family of four is $21,200. A family

of four making $25,000 is not eligible for any aid. Nevertheless, $25,000 dollars annually

for a family is not sufficient to maintain healthy lives for a four-person household. These

numbers are issued each year in the Federal Register by the Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS). They are a simplification of the poverty thresholds and are used

for administrative purposes.13 The Department of Health and Human Services sets these

guidelines based on the number of people estimated to be living in poverty by the U.S.

Census Bureau.

At the same time, the cost of living has dramatically increased since the 1960s.For example, in the late 1960s a gallon of milk cost $1.07 and a gallon of gas, $0.34. As

of May 2009, according to the Associated Press, a gallon of milk cost the average family

$4.00 and a gallon of gas $2.97.9 Now, we see the rise of more female-headed households

trying to meet these needs on a single income. The cost of living for every American has

more than doubled since the 1960s, a crushing impact when one considers housing,

healthcare, childcare, and automobile expenses. Although we cannot determine the actual

number of individuals living in poverty, the absolute measures give some idea. However,

if we take into account the minimum need for an adequate living standard, poverty then

becomes difficult to gauge. That is the question facing public administrators and

sociologists. How may we aid those living in poverty if there are no absolutes in defining

it? That is why many social policy administrators advocate an amendment to adjust

poverty thresholds and guidelines to current prices, in combination with relative

6

8/3/2019 Fem Paper 6-6-11

7/17


measures, and to include such essentials as shelter, clothing, transportation, healthcare,

and childcare services.

Relative Poverty

According to policy analyst Clarke Cochran (2009), relative poverty should focus

on the inequality of wealth in the U.S. and on closing the gap of economic inequality. He

states that a family is poor if its income is insufficient to bring it close to the current

median standard of living. Thus, Cochran (2009, p. 225) would consider a household of

four living on $25,000 to be poor. He states that during 50 years, a constant one-fifth of

the population has been in poverty. Cochran also notes that 20 percent of families are

currently earning less than half the median income. The poor are those with significantly

less access to income and wealth than others in their society.6 The median income for

2006 through 2008, calculated by the American Community Survey of the U.S. Census

Bureau, was $52,175. In contrast if one follows Cochrans logic of relative poverty, a

household of four would be poor earning $25,000 to $30,000 annuallyan income

amounting to about half the national median.

In the U.S. an estimated 40 million individuals live in poverty (See Table 2).22

Examining their characteristics children under the age of 18 make up the largest age

group of the poor. According to the National Center for Children in Poverty by October

2008, an estimated fifty-four percent of children who live in low-income to poor families

are from female-headed households. From 2006 through 2008 in the United States of

America women constituted the majority of those individuals living in poverty (See Table

3).

According to Table 3, married-couple families experience the lowest rare of

poverty: 5.9 percent. In contrast, female-headed households experience poverty five

times as often: 31.9 percent. Some 23.7 percent of female only (non-family) households

are poor. Table 3 shows that female-headed households experience higher rates of

poverty than households headed by males.

Labor Market Factors

As unemployment rates rise, less-educated workers who are more likely to lose

their jobs move into part-time work or leave the labor force (Blank, 2009). In such

7

8/3/2019 Fem Paper 6-6-11

8/17


circumstances how much a woman works, how often, and what types of jobs are

available to her all have an effect on her economic-well being.

In 2008, in the labor force included 59.5 percent of women a proportion which

has remained stable over the past several years. According to the Department of Labor

approximately 1.5 million women were paid at an hourly rate, often at or below the

prevailing Federal minimum wage. Lower-skilled women paid at an hourly rate

comprised 4 percent of that 59.5 percent of total women in the workforce.

In 2008, 25 percent of employed women worked part-time (fewer than 35 hours

per week) compared to only 11 percent of men, likely reflecting, in part, the unpaid labor

responsibilities of being a custodial parent and affecting women living at or below the

poverty line (Solis, 2009, p. 2).

Since the 1960s, women have entered the labor force at unprecedented rates,

while with results less remunerative than for men. Table 3 shows that male-headed

households experience poverty less than female-head households. Women who worked

full-time in wage and salary jobs had median weekly earnings of $638 in 2008 about 80

percent of mens median weekly earnings of $798.21 Part-time and lower-skill

employment, and the uneven distribution of wages in wage and salary jobs, may result in

higher levels of poverty for women.

Social Welfare Policies

If a household meets the given poverty guideline (See Table 1), such as a family

of three making at or below $18, 310, the household may qualify for social welfare

programs. From 1996 through 1999, 36 million people, or 13 percent of the nations

residents, took part in one or more major means-tested government assistance programs.

The programs included Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families.19 According to Cochran (2009) public assistance programs come in two forms:

cash assistance and in-kind assistance. Cash assistance is simply a transfer of money from

a government agency to an individual. In-kind assistance refers to programs, which

provide a tangible benefit. Two examples would be food stamps (food aid) and Medicaid.

Opponents of in-kind benefits claim that such benefits have a demoralizing affect,

stripping the recipient of responsibility. On the other hand, these programs often could

8

8/3/2019 Fem Paper 6-6-11

9/17


make the difference between a female-headed household living in poverty or moving out

of poverty.

Government social welfare assistance dramatically changed in 1996 under the

Clinton administration. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996

turned the responsibility of cash assistance over to the states. The 1996 Reform also

mandated work requirements for all cash recipients.6 Three main cash assistance

programs help those who meet the poverty measure: Temporary Assistance to Needy

Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and the Earned Income Credit

(EIC) (Cochran, 2009). Advocates of the relative poverty standard argue that work

requirements are a problem for women, custodial parents with young children. The

requirements, set by the states, are especially problematic if childcare is not available to

the custodial parent. Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) provides about

$16 billion in aid to states in the form of block grants. TANF requirements are ultimately

set by state governments, which can turn over funding to counties and municipalities.

Single parents of TANF recipients must work at least 30 hours a week within two years

of when they begin the program. Adults who have received welfare for more than a

lifetime cumulative five years are ineligible for TANF. Moreover, states may pass the

responsibility over to counties and municipalities, which have placed responsibility

stipulations in order to qualify.6 For example, states have used some of the federal

TANF monies to set up workshops that encourage marriage, because of the lower

percentage of married-couple households living in poverty. States may also deny

assistance to unwed mothers under eighteen, and to children born to TANF recipients 5,

making likely many women will remain living in poverty. Since implementation of the

act of 1996, it is more difficult for female-headed households, custodial parent

households to receive aid that might move them in to more stable earnings.

Moreover, female-headed households with no husband present and considered

low-skill labor may explain the gender bias in poverty: without adequate childcare, how

can a female householder find and accept steady work? Yet, childcare aid, too, has been

severely restricted under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996. It includes a provision that encourages states to contract with

not-for-profit groups, including religious organizations, to provide childcare, work

9

8/3/2019 Fem Paper 6-6-11

10/17


training and other social services to TANF recipients.3

In-kind benefits can be substantial to households headed by women. A household

that meets the federal poverty guideline is eligible to receive food stamps; the household

head is actively seeking employment of at least twenty hours per week. Since the federal

government has handed over administrative responsibilities to state and local

governments for the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, a

programmatic goal has become aligning TANF and food stamps under the same

requirements, so that if one qualifies for TANF, one may qualify for food stamps.

Cochran (2009, p. 212)

That these programs, intended to aid families who live in poverty, place many

moral requirements and stipulations is another example of the stigma many female-

headed households facethe misconception that they have children in order to

perpetuate their reliance on government aid. By itself, this stigma can be detrimental to a

woman who is seeking assistance (Cochran, 2009, p.212).

Demographics

Single-mothers are about five times more to be poor than married-parent families

(Cancian, 2009, 227). Single-motherhood rates have increased, whether by teeange

pregancy, death of a spouse, absentee father, or divorce. Having a child before marriage

is associated with an increased likelihood of poverty (Cancian, 2009, 23). On the other

hand, living in poverty also raises the likelihood of non-marital childbearing.2 Higher

rates of divorce and an increase in teenage pregnancy both are associated with the

feminization of poverty.

A female-headed household with no husband or partner present is more likely to

reside in poverty than a male-headed household without a wife or partner present. 2

Having a husband or partner affects the likelihood of living in poverty.

Moreover, poverty can be closely associated with childrearing (Cancian 2009,

25). With the trend toward single-motherhood and changing family structure, women are

now the majority of custodial parents, taking full responsibility for the household. For a

household headed by a single mother, having children increases the chances of living in

poverty because more resources are needed to keep that household afloat (Cancian, 2009,

10

8/3/2019 Fem Paper 6-6-11

11/17


p. 25). Stacking uneven work wages with property rights sometimes inferior to those of

men, too, help to account for the gender bias in poverty.

Other demographics associated with higher rates of poverty for women are race

and ethnicity. According to (Goldberg, 1990 34) single-motherhood is three times more

prevalent among African-American women, compared to white women. It also seems to

be the case for Hispanic women.10 With the recent rise of undocumented immigration

Hispanic women are quickly adding to the rise in the feminization of poverty (Solis,

2009, pg 51). Faced with economic hardship, language barriers, a lack of viable

employment opportunities, and in some cases uncertain legal status, the likelihood that

women will be able to achieve livable wage is minuscule (Thibos, 2007 pg 1). A sharp

increase in the racial feminization of poverty by race may be associated with being

marginalized or disenfranchised, both as a minority, and as a woman. Educational

attainment for minorities, too, comes at a slower pace than for whites. (Goldberg,1990 p.

36).

Conclusion

Poverty may never be completely eradicated: that seems the unfortunate social

reality of our society. What remains troubling however, is the continuing marginalization

of women, the gender bias in poverty. After nearly two generations of research, the trend

is clear.

To comprehend the trend Defining poverty is key. Using absolute measures of

poverty, the federal government determines who is poor, and what type of aid they will

receive. Labor-market factors affect whether a household will reside in poverty; there is a

strong relationship between female-headed households living in poverty and their access

to part-time and low-skilled employment. One factor that is clear in the labor market is

the uneven wages for women. Exacerbating the problem of social welfare programs and

government assistance under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996. Before the act, healthier programmatic assistance formerly

provided substantial aid to female-headed households, possibly aiding them from further

poverty.6 Finally, married-couple families are poor much less often than female-headed

households with no husband or partner. And minority status appears to greatly exacerbate

the association between gender and poverty.

11

8/3/2019 Fem Paper 6-6-11

12/17


Under the existing social structure, the feminization of poverty seems to be

perpetuated and very difficult to alleviate. To change it will require policies to aid

women specifically, through education, family planning and equal pay. Children who

grow up in poverty have less access to stable living conditions, adequate food, clothing,

and healthcare, all of which are likely to affect access to educationa strong indicator of

the likelihood of winning a stable job with higher wages. In contrast, households with no

husband present but in which the woman has a bachelors degree, experience poverty at

much lower rates (Solis, 2009 pg 23). It would appear that stronger education policy and

a more reasonable definition of poverty are both are essential in mounting to attack

poverty.

The data suggests that poverty may be alleviated, or at least reduced, by

education. But as this paper argues, broader reforms are urgently needed to acknowledge

the extent to which poverty in the United States has been feminized, marginalizing not

only women, but their children. By making the reforms suggested by the four-factor

framework, perhaps, the cycle of poverty can be reduced and eliminated. At that point,

as Confucius suggested, perhaps we might claim the title of a country well-governed,

content not to live with poverty in our own shame.

12

8/3/2019 Fem Paper 6-6-11

13/17


Table 1U.S. Poverty Guidelines, 2008

Size of Family Unit Poverty Guidelines

1 $10,830

2 14,570

3 18,310

4 22,050

5 25,790

6 29,430

7 33,2270

8 37,010

Source: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/)

Table 2U.S. Poverty in 2006-2008

Characteristic Number in (000) Poverty Rate

All 39,829 13.2

Age

Under 18 14,068 19.0

18-64 22,105 11.7

65 and over 3,656 9.7

Race/EthnicityWhite, not Hispanic 17,027 8.6

Black alone or inCombination

9,379 24.7

Hispanic origin 10,987 23.2

Asian alone or incombination

1,576 11.8

Source: U.S Census Bureau Current Population Survey, 2009

13
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/

8/3/2019 Fem Paper 6-6-11

14/17


(http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html)

Table 3U.S. Poverty by Family Type

Poverty Rate Share of the Poor Average PovertyGap

Married CoupleFamily

5.9 29.8 $8,590

Male-HeadedFamily

14.7 5.4 $8,301

Female-HeadedFamily

31.9 40.8 $9,839

Male (non-family) 18.4 11.9 $6,107Female (non-family) 23.7 12.1 $6,310

Source: U.S Census Bureau Current Population Survey 2006-2008(http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/datasources/index.html)

14
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.htmlhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/datasources/index.htmlhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.htmlhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/datasources/index.html

8/3/2019 Fem Paper 6-6-11

15/17


References

1. Blank, R. M. (2009). Economic change and the structure of opportunity for less-Skilled

workers.Focus 26 (2009): 14-18.Institute for Research on Poverty. Web. 12 Apr.

2010. .

2. Cancian, M. (n.d.). Family structure, childbearing, and parental employment:

Implications for the level and trend in poverty.Focus, 26(2), 2009th ser., 21-25.

Retrieved April 8, 2010.

3. Chapter 1. (2002). In S. Verba, K. L. Schlozman, & H. E. Brady (Authors), Voice and

equality: civic voluntarism in American politics (pp. 17-20). Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.

4. Chapter 9, 10,11. (2010). In G. S. Goldberg (Author),Poor women in rich countries:

the feminization of poverty over the life course. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

5. Caro, Robert A. Master of the Senate. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002. Print.

6. Cochran, C. E. (2009).American public policy: an introduction. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

7. Fisher, G. M. (1997, September). The Development of the Orshansky Poverty

Thresholds and Their Subsequent History as the Official U.S. Poverty Measure.

Retrieved March 11, 2010.

8. Food and Nutrition Service. (2009, November 2). Retrieved April 10, 2010.

9. Forget Worries About Gas. (2009, May 20). Retrieved April 19, 2010.

15

8/3/2019 Fem Paper 6-6-11

16/17


10. Goldberg, G. S., & Kremen, E. (1990). New York, NY: Praeger.

11. Gove, P. B. (1961). Poverty [Def. 1a]. In Webster's third new international dictionary

of the English language, unabridged. A Merriam-Webster. Springfield, Mass.: G.

& C. Merriam.

12. Hall, A. D. (2008, October). Basic Facts about Low-Income Children. Retrieved

March 11, 2010.

13. How Poverty is Measured in the United States. (2008). Retrieved April 1, 2010.

14. How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty. U.S. Census Bureau. Web.

.

(2009, September 29). Retrieved March 7, 2010.

15. Kendall, D. E. (2007). Sociology in our times. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

16. McLanahan, S. S. (1994). The Feminization of Poverty: Past and Future. Retrieved

March 12, 2010.

17. Meyer, D. R., & Wallace, G. L. (2009). Poverty Levels and Trends in Comparative

Perspective.Focus, 26(2). Retrieved March 12, 2010.

18. Pearce, D. (1978). The Feminization of Poverty: Women, Work and Welfare. Urban

and Social Change Review. Retrieved March 12, 2010.

19. Population and Housing Narrative Profile: 2006-2008. (2008). Retrieved March 18,

2010.

20. Projections of the Number of Households and Families in the United States: 1995 to

2010. (2009). Retrieved March 7, 2010.

21. Solis, H. L. (2009, September). Women in the labor force: A databook. Retrieved

March 7, 2010.

16

8/3/2019 Fem Paper 6-6-11

17/17


22. The 2009 HHS poverty guidelines. (2010, January 23). Retrieved March 11, 2010.

23. Thibos, M., Loucks, D. L., & Martin, M. (2007, May). The feminization of poverty.

Retrieved March 13, 2010, from

http://www.dallasindicators.org/Portals/8/Reports/Reports_Internal/Feminization

%20of%20Poverty.pdf

24. United States of America, U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2008, September/October).

Retrieved March 12, 2010, from http://www.census.gov

25. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: civic

voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

26. Weinberg, D. (n.d.). Measuring Poverty in the United States: History and Current

Issues (pp. 1-28) (United States of America, U.S. Bureau of the Census).

Retrieved March 12, 2010.

27. Weiss, L. (2009, September 10). Census Shows Most Poor Adults are Women,

Particularly "Women on Their Own" Retrieved March 1, 2010.

28. What are Poverty Thresholds and Guidelines. (2009, September). Retrieved March 7,2010, from http://www.irp.wisc.edu

17

Documents

Fem Paper 6-6-11