Rural Children: Increasing Poverty Rates Pose Educational Challenges
(Briefing Report, 01/11/94, GAO/HEHS-94-75BR).

Although the population of rural children declined during the 1980s, the
number of children living in poverty increased, as did the numbers of
those in families headed by single mothers and parents with little
education--trends that pose challenges to the education systems serving
these children.  Rural poverty was concentrated by region, race, and
ethnicity.  For example, poverty rates among rural children were highest
in the South and the Southwest.  Also, in many states in these regions,
the majority of the poor rural children were minorities.  Rural counties
make up more than 80 percent of the counties that, under changes
proposed by the administration, would no longer be eligible for basic or
concentration grants.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-94-75BR
     TITLE:  Rural Children: Increasing Poverty Rates Pose Educational 
             Challenges
      DATE:  01/11/94
   SUBJECT:  Aid for education
             Educational programs
             Disadvantaged persons
             Children
             Minorities
             Economically depressed areas
             Eligibility criteria
             Compensatory education
             Demographic data
IDENTIFIER:  Dept. of Education Chapter 1 Program for Educationally 
             Disadvantaged Children
             Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program
             AFDC
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Briefing Report to the Chairwoman, Congressional Rural Caucus,
House of Representatives

January 1994

RURAL CHILDREN - INCREASING
POVERTY RATES POSE EDUCATIONAL
CHALLENGES

GAO/HEHS-94-75BR

Rural Children


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  CPS - Current Population Survey
  ERS - Economic Research Service
  ESEA - Elementary and Secondary Education Act
  MSA - metropolitan statistical area
  OMB - Office of Management and Budget
  PES - Post Enumeration Survey

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-253716

January 11, 1994

The Honorable Jill Long
Chairwoman, Congressional Rural Caucus
House of Representatives

Dear Madam Chairwoman: 

Large numbers of children in America's rural areas are poor and face
growing risks to their success in school.  Increases in poverty and
other demographic changes will challenge rural schools' ability to
help their children meet high educational standards.\1 Changes in
poverty among rural children also will affect the amount of funding
rural areas receive under Chapter 1 of Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA),\2 the federal government's
largest program for elementary and secondary schools. 

In light of these concerns and the reauthorization of the Chapter 1
program, you requested that we examine changes in key demographic
characteristics of rural children\3 between 1980 and 1990; for
example, changes in population size, family composition, and various
risk factors.\4 We focused on national and state data on rural
children in families with incomes below the poverty level.\5 We also
agreed to provide information on the number of counties that are
currently eligible for Chapter 1 funding but would no longer be
eligible under proposed changes to the program's county eligibility
criteria, including the number of poor children in these counties. 
We briefed your staff on our preliminary review results both on
September 23, 1993, and November 15, 1993 (see app.  I).  This
briefing report presents our final results. 


--------------------
\1 In 1990 the President and the nation's governors agreed to a set
of six National Education Goals to be reached by the year 2000:  (1)
readiness for school, (2) graduation from school, (3) academic
achievement and citizenship, (4) math and science achievement, (5)
adult literacy, and (6) drug- and violence-free schools.  The third
and fourth goals, in particular, call for high academic standards in
certain school subjects. 

\2 Unless we specify otherwise, we use the term Chapter 1 to mean
Chapter 1, Part A, which provides grants to local educational
agencies (LEAs).  In this report the term school district is
synonymous with LEA. 

\3 Unless specified otherwise, "children" refers to school-age
children (aged 5 to 17) living in families (households where one or
more persons are related). 

\4 Risk factors are those characteristics that often pose significant
obstacles to achieving academic success in school.  Included among
these factors are family composition, education level of most
educated parent, and parents' employment status. 

\5 We rely on the definition of poverty status used by the Bureau of
the Census and prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).  For example, the definition of poverty status in the 1990
Census includes those children living in a family of four with annual
household income below $12,674 in 1989. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

During the 1980s, the total number of rural children declined and the
number of poor children in rural areas increased.  From 1980 to 1990,
the total number of rural children decreased 6.7 percent, from 11.5
million to 11 million, compared with an increase among poor rural
children of 2.5 percent, from 2.14 million to 2.19 million.  These
patterns mirrored the national decline in the total number of
children and growth in the number of poor children during the 1980s. 
In addition, other risk factors were prevalent among poor rural
children, including a growth of 26 percent in the number of
single-female-parent families and a continued high percentage of
parents with low education levels. 

Rural poverty was concentrated by region and by race and ethnicity. 
For example, poverty rates among rural children were highest in the
Southern and Southwestern portions of the United States.  Also, in
many of these states, the majority of the poor rural children were
racial or ethnic minorities. 

Rural counties make up over 80 percent of the counties that, under
the administration's proposed county eligibility changes, would no
longer be eligible for basic or concentration grants.\6 Less than 1
percent of poor rural children live in counties that would be
affected by the proposed changes to county eligibility for basic
grants.  About 12 percent of poor rural children live in counties
that would be affected by the changes to county eligibility for
concentration grants.  The effects of these changes would be spread
throughout most of the nation. 


--------------------
\6 Explanations of the basic and concentration grants are found on
page 3. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Previous research has documented some of the difficulties that rural
schools face in providing educational services.\7

Some experts have found that rural schools face logistical
difficulties due to geographic isolation that can create a need for
costly long-distance busing.  In addition, small school-age
populations can hinder rural school districts' ability to provide
comprehensive curricula or target programs to specific groups.  Rural
schools also have had difficulties in recruiting and retaining
qualified teachers due to lower salaries and geographic isolation. 

Some rural schools also face a combination of high costs for
providing education and relatively low fiscal capacities to fund
education.  Most schools, including rural ones, fund public education
through property taxes.  However, because of their modest tax bases,
many rural school districts have a limited capability to generate
revenues for educational expenditures. 

Chapter 1 provides basic and concentration grants to schools to help
educate disadvantaged children--children whose educational
achievement is below the level appropriate for their age and who live
in relatively low-income areas.\8 Funds are allocated to states
according to the number of poor children\9 residing in their counties
and the states' per-pupil spending.  States then allocate the funds
to school districts within the counties.\10

Under current law, 90 percent of the Chapter 1 funds are allocated
for basic grants; counties must have at least 10 poor children to be
eligible for these funds.  Concentration grant funds are intended to
provide additional support to school districts with high
concentrations of poverty.  Also, under current law, 10 percent of
the Chapter 1 funds are for concentration grants, and a county must
have at least 6,500 poor children or a 15-percent poverty rate to
receive these funds.  Previous GAO work\11 showed that the allocation
formula does not adequately take into account the need for extra
assistance in areas with relatively less ability to fund remedial
education services--such as some rural areas--because the funding
formula does not account for variations in county or state fiscal
capacities. 


--------------------
\7 For comprehensive summaries of research on rural education issues,
see Joyce Stern, Condition of Education in Rural Schools, U.S. 
Department of Education, to be issued shortly; and Arloc Sherman,
Falling by the Wayside:  Children in Rural America, Children's
Defense Fund, 1992. 

\8 In fiscal year 1994, Congress authorized over $6.3 billion through
Chapter 1, with about 89 percent of the funds--$5.64
billion--allocated for basic grants and 11 percent--$694 million--for
concentration grants.  While funding allocations are calculated
separately, concentration grants are not a separate program from
basic grants.  The two amounts are combined into one lump sum of
funding for a county to use for remedial education. 

\9 Chapter 1 eligibility and formula criteria consider for each
county the number of formula children living in the county.  Formula
children are those aged 5 to 17 (1) in poor families, according to
the latest decennial census and applying the Bureau of the Census'
standard poverty income thresholds; (2) in families receiving Aid to
Families with Dependent Children payments above the poverty level for
a family of four; and (3) in certain institutions for the neglected
or delinquent.  This report focuses on the number of children in poor
families, which represents about 96 percent of all formula children. 

\10 Because formula data have never been available for LEAs, the
federal government calculates grants on a county basis.  In most
states there are multiple LEAs per county, and the states allocate
the county amounts using information available to them on the
distribution of poor school-age children among the LEAs in each
county. 

\11 See Remedial Education:  Modifying Chapter 1 Formula Would Target
More Funds to Those Most in Need (GAO/HRD-92-16, July 28, 1992).  GAO
also reported that the current formula may underestimate the total
number of poverty-related low-achieving children, especially in
counties that have large numbers of poor children, thus
underestimating the funding needs of these, mostly urban, counties. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

To determine the number and characteristics of rural children, we
used a special tabulation of data from the 1980 and 1990 decennial
censuses that we obtained from the U.S.  Bureau of the Census in
December 1992.  The tabulation contains detailed information about
children and their families, including data on their race/ethnicity,
family income and type, educational attainment and employment status
of parents, and other characteristics.  The tabulation includes this
information for all counties in the United States, which are
classified as either metropolitan or nonmetropolitan.  The data can
be aggregated by metropolitan area, state, region, and the nation. 

In this report we use the metropolitan and nonmetropolitan
classifications but substitute the terms "urban" and "rural,"
respectively.  Metropolitan areas are counties or groups of counties
with close economic and social relationships that meet the standards
set by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); counties not
meeting the criteria are classified as nonmetropolitan.\12 We
selected these definitions because of their prevalent use in research
on rural issues.  In addition, these classifications are at the
county level, and Chapter 1 funds are allocated according to
county-level poverty statistics. 

Because the special tabulation is determined from the detailed sample
files of the 1980 and 1990 decennial censuses, the data we present
have associated sampling errors.  For a further discussion of our
methodology and the sampling errors, see appendix II.  Data points
for our briefing package in appendix I appear in appendix III. 
Tables containing detailed state-level data appear in appendix IV. 
We conducted our review between May 1993 and November 1993 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


--------------------
\12 For further details on the terms "metropolitan/ nonmetropolitan"
and "urban/rural," see appendix II. 


   PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4


      NUMBER OF CHILDREN DECLINED
      IN RURAL AREAS DURING THE
      1980S
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

The number of rural children declined by 6.7 percent during the
1980s--from approximately 11.5 million in 1980 to under 11 million in
1990 (see fig.  I.5).  Similarly, the total number of children in the
United States declined by 5.8 percent--from about 46.7 million to
44.4 million.\13 As a result, in 1990, rural children comprised about
25 percent of the nation's children, as they did in 1980. 

The majority of rural children were white\14 --comprising 82.3
percent of rural children in 1980 and 80.8 percent in 1990.  While
the percentage of white and black rural children decreased, the
percentage of Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian rural children
increased (see fig.  I.7). 


--------------------
\13 For more information on the demographic changes of all school-age
and urban children, see School-Age Demographics:  Recent Trends Pose
New Educational Challenges (GAO/HRD-93-105BR, Aug.  5, 1993). 

\14 We use the 1990 decennial Census designation for race and
ethnicity regarding Hispanic origin.  The categories "white,"
"black," "Asian," "American Indian," and "Other Races" refer only to
non-Hispanic members of those racial groups.  All Hispanics,
regardless of race, are included in the Hispanic category.  The
"Asian" category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Hawaiians;
and the "American Indian" category includes American Indians,
Eskimos, and Aleuts. 


      POVERTY INCREASED AMONG
      CHILDREN IN RURAL AREAS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

The number of poor rural children rose by 53,000 to 2.19 million
during the 1980s and the total number of poor children in the United
States rose by about 400,000 to 7.6 million.  Poor rural children
accounted for about 29 percent of all poor children in both 1980 and
1990.  Partially because of the increase in the number of poor rural
children and the decrease in the overall number of rural children,
the rural poverty rate rose from 18.6 percent to 20.4 percent, well
above the 1990 urban rate of 16 percent (see fig.  I.8). 


      POOR RURAL CHILDREN BECAME
      MORE DIVERSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

Although whites continued to comprise the majority of poor rural
children during the 1980s, the percentage of poor rural Hispanics,
American Indians, and Asians increased (see fig.  I.11).  However, in
both 1980 and 1990 minorities comprised a disproportionate share of
poor rural children, making up 19.2 percent of all rural children but
40.1 percent of poor rural children in 1990 (see table III.5). 

The number of poor white children in rural areas increased 0.3
percent and the number of poor rural black children decreased 5.6
percent.  However, among American Indians, Hispanics, and Asians, the
number of poor rural children increased between 27.7 and 36.9 percent
(see fig.  I.12).  Finally, for almost all racial groups, rural
poverty rates were higher than urban poverty rates (see fig.  I.13). 


      OTHER RISK FACTORS PRESENT
      AMONG POOR RURAL CHILDREN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4

While a higher percentage of poor rural children lived in
married-couple families than poor urban children (see fig.  I.15),
the number of poor rural children in single-female-parent families
increased during the 1980s and at a faster rate than among poor urban
children (see fig.  I.16).  Poor rural parents had lower education
levels than nonpoor parents, although poor rural parents had
education levels similar to their urban counterparts (see fig. 
I.17). 


      POVERTY RATES FOR RURAL
      CHILDREN HIGHEST IN SOUTH
      AND SOUTHWEST
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.5

Rural children's poverty rates were highest in the South and
Southwest, where 16 states had rural poverty rates higher than the
national rural poverty rate of 20.3 percent (see fig.  I.19).  In 14
states, minorities comprised at least 50 percent of the state's poor
rural children (see fig.  I.21).  Over 50 percent of the poor rural
children in each minority group were concentrated in a few states
(see fig.  I.22).  Finally, eight of the states with the highest
growth in the number of poor rural children actually had decreases in
their number of nonpoor rural children (see fig.  I.20). 


      PROPOSED ELIGIBILITY CHANGES
      FOR CHAPTER 1 GRANTS AFFECT
      MORE RURAL THAN URBAN
      COUNTIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.6

The administration recently proposed changes to the criteria for
county eligibility for Chapter 1 basic and concentration grants. 
These changes are intended to target more Chapter 1 funds to those
school districts in counties with the highest number of poor children
or rates of poverty above the national average.\15 The eligibility
changes would eliminate more rural counties than urban counties from
program eligibility,\16 and more poor rural children than poor urban
children would be affected by the proposed criteria.\17 However, the
affected counties and children are distributed throughout most of the
nation. 

Under the proposed changes to county eligibility for basic grants,
counties would have to contain a minimum of 100 poor children, up
from 10, or have poor children comprise 18 percent of the total
number of children in the county, a new criterion.\18 Changing the
criteria would exclude about 100 counties--most of them
rural--currently eligible for basic grant funds.  These counties
contain about 6,200 poor children, of which about 5,900 live in rural
areas.  This accounts for less than 0.1 percent of all poor children
and 0.3 percent of all rural poor children (see fig.  I.24). 

The proposed eligibility for concentration grants retains the current
criterion that the county contain at least 6,500 poor children, but
it increases the poverty rate criterion from 15 to 18 percent.  This
proposed eligibility change would eliminate 419 counties--most of
them rural--currently eligible for concentration grant funds.  These
counties contain about 461,000 poor children (see fig.  I.25), of
which about 260,000 are rural poor.  About 12 percent of all rural
poor children live in counties that would no longer be eligible for
concentration grants.  Most of these counties, however, would still
receive Chapter 1 funds under basic grants. 


--------------------
\15 A county's eligibility for Chapter 1 funds is not the only factor
that would affect the allocation of funds under the proposed changes. 
In addition to changing eligibility criteria, the administration's
proposal would also change the percentage of funds for basic and
concentration grants from 90 percent for basic grants and 10 percent
for concentration grants to 50 percent for each grant.  This could
provide for a significant redistribution of funds to the poorest
areas.  The proposal would guarantee a county at least 85 percent of
its prior year's allocation for basic and concentration grants in
order to protect counties that would no longer qualify for
concentration grants from experiencing a sudden decrease in funding. 

\16 In 1990 there were 3,143 counties in the United States--756 (24
percent) urban and 2,387 (76 percent) rural. 

\17 Our analysis only considers county eligibility for basic and
concentration grants.  We did not calculate funding allocations under
the proposed criteria. 

\18 According to the Department of Education, the 18-percent poverty
rate is the national average determined from the 1990 decennial
census.  This rate is calculated using the number of poor school-age
related children in families and all school-age related children in
families in all states, including the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico.  Our poverty rates, however, are based only on data from the 50
states and the District of Columbia. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

The increasing number of poor children in rural areas will pose
challenges to state and local education systems as they attempt to
meet the National Education Goals.  The growing number of at-risk
students could strain the capacity of rural school systems, which
already face logistical difficulties in providing services and
limited fiscal capacities.  In addition, under the proposed changes
to the criteria for county eligibility under Chapter 1, some rural
counties would no longer be eligible for Chapter 1 basic or
concentration grants.  These counties have poverty rates below the
national average or relatively small numbers of poor children.  They
may find it more difficult, nevertheless, to serve the rural children
who are poor and at-risk. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

As arranged with your office, we will send copies of this briefing
report to the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Education
and other interested parties.  We will also make copies available to
others on request.  If you have any questions concerning this
briefing report, please call me at (202) 512-7014.  Other major
contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Sincerely yours,

Linda G.  Morra
Director, Education
 and Employment Issues


RURAL CHILDREN:  INCREASING
POVERTY RATES POSE EDUCATIONAL
CHALLENGES
=========================================================== Appendix I

   Figure I.1:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.2:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.3:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.4:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.5:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.6:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.7:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.8:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.9:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.10:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.11:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.12:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.13:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.14:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.15:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.16:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.17:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.18:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.19:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.20:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.21:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.22:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.23:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.24:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure I.25:

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix II

We used a special tabulation of 1980 and 1990 decennial census data
that we obtained from the U.S.  Bureau of the Census in December
1992.  We determined that this data set, designed to our
specifications regarding the characteristics of children, would most
effectively meet our needs.  We conducted our review between May 1993
and November 1993 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. 


   THE SPECIAL TABULATION OF 1980
   AND 1990 DECENNIAL CENSUS DATA
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

In December 1992, we obtained from the Bureau of the Census a
specially designed tabulation of 1980 and 1990 decennial census data. 
This tabulation is a subset of the 1980 and 1990 Decennial Census
Sample Edited Detail Files containing characteristics of the
population of specific geographic units.  Census created the
tabulation from its detailed sample files containing individual
records on the population of the entire United States.  Census' 1990
detailed files represent a 15.5-percent sample of the total U.S. 
population and a 16-percent sample of all U.S.  households.  Census'
1980 detailed files represent an 18.2-percent sample of the total
U.S.  population and an 18.4-percent sample of all U.S.  households. 


      GEOGRAPHIC, AGE, INCOME, AND
      RACIAL/ETHNIC
      CHARACTERISTICS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.1

The tabulation contains detailed information on the economic, social,
and demographic characteristics of the U.S.  population, with a
particular focus on children\1 --persons aged 0 to 17--living in
families.\2 The tabulation contains this information for certain
geographic units and age groups, and generally includes comparable
data for both 1980 and 1990. 


--------------------
\1 Our tabulation includes all children aged 5 to 17 living in
families.  Thus, our estimates are slightly larger than the data
estimates from the Department of Education which count only related
children aged 5 to 17 living in families. 

\2 Census defines a family as consisting of a householder and one or
more other persons living in the same household who are related to
the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption.  A household
includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit--a house, an
apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is
occupied as separate living quarters.  All persons in a household who
are related to the householder are regarded as members of his or her
family.  A household can contain only one family for purposes of
census tabulations.  Not all households contain families since a
household may comprise a group of unrelated individuals or one person
living alone. 


         GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1.1.1

The tabulation includes detailed characteristics on the population of
every county or county equivalent\3 in the United States, including
Alaska and Hawaii.\4 These counties are metropolitan or
nonmetropolitan depending on if they are part of a metropolitan
statistical area (MSA).  MSAs are defined by the Office of Management
and Budget as a county or group of counties containing at least one
county with a large population nucleus and additional contiguous
counties that are economically and socially integrated with the
central county.\5 Any county not included in an MSA is considered
nonmetropolitan.  The tabulation includes both 1980 and 1990 census
data on metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. 

We determined that data aggregated at the metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan county-level were most appropriate for our work
because of frequent use in the literature and because Chapter 1 funds
are allocated on a county basis.  In our analysis we refer to the
areas as "urban" and "rural," respectively.\6

In addition to the geographic distinctions contained in the
tabulation, we appended to the data set the urban/rural continuum
codes developed by the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture.  The ERS system, commonly referred to as
"Beale Codes," is a 10-part coding system that classifies data
collected for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties into finer
categories according to population and relative location to a
metropolitan area. 


--------------------
\3 In Louisiana, the county equivalent is the parish.  In Alaska,
county equivalents are organized as boroughs and census areas.  Some
states--like Maryland--have "independent cities," which are treated
as counties for statistical purposes. 

\4 Our tabulation does not include information on the population of
Puerto Rico, American Samoa, or other outlying areas of the United
States. 

\5 The tabulation also includes information on metropolitan areas in
the six New England States, where they are defined as the aggregation
of minor civil divisions rather than counties. 

\6 The Bureau of the Census has specific definitions for "urban" and
"rural." Urban represents the aggregation of urbanized areas--a
central city and suburbs with a population of 50,000 or more--and
places of 2,500 or more persons outside of the urbanized areas; all
remaining areas are rural.  Our tabulation's data can also be
aggregated for rural and urban areas. 


         AGE
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1.1.2

For both 1980 and 1990, the tabulation contains information on
populations by single year of age for persons from birth through age
7.  It also includes information on persons in age groups 8 to 11, 12
to 17, 18 to 24, 25 to 64, and 65 years and over. 


         POVERTY STATUS/INCOME
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1.1.3

The tabulation contains information on household income and poverty
status for all persons for whom the Census can determine a poverty
status.\7 Census derives information on income and poverty status
from answers to census questions concerning income received by
persons 15 years and older during the calendar year before the census
year.  Thus, the 1990 decennial census contains information on
persons' 1989 calendar year income.  Information on persons' poverty
status in the tabulation is determined from the standard definition
of poverty status used by Census and prescribed by OMB as a
statistical standard for federal agencies.\8

Analysts have criticized the poverty threshold for being both too
high and too low.  For example, the existing poverty thresholds do
not account for area cost-of-living differences.  Price differences
among areas imply that more expensive areas need higher incomes to
maintain adequate levels of consumption.  Because some parts of the
country (for example, the Northeast and urban areas in general) have
higher prices than others, families that live in these areas may need
higher incomes to maintain the same level of consumption as lower
income families in less expensive places.  Correcting for this
difference in price levels would tend to increase poverty rates in
areas with a higher cost of living and decrease them in others, even
after adjusting for differences in median income. 


--------------------
\7 Census does not determine poverty status for institutionalized
persons, persons in military group quarters and in college
dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years of age.  These
persons are excluded from the denominator when Census calculates
poverty rates--the percentage of persons in poverty. 

\8 Census determines poverty thresholds on the basis of family size
and the corresponding poverty level income for that family size.  The
Census' and our tabulation classifies the family income of each
family or unrelated individual according to their corresponding
family size category.  For example, for the 1990 census, the poverty
cutoff for a family of four was a 1989 income of $12,674.  Census
counts an individual or family and its members as poor if its annual
before-tax cash income is below the corresponding poverty threshold
for that size of family. 


         RACE AND ETHNICITY
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1.1.4

The tabulation contains information on 22 separate racial and ethnic
classifications.  (See table II.1.) The tabulation's racial/ethnic
classifications are based on the Census question regarding Hispanic
origin.  Thus, the non-Hispanic classifications--white, black, or
other races--are for non-Hispanic members of those racial groups
only.  The "Hispanic" categories include Hispanic persons of all
races.  The tabulation includes racial and ethnic classifications
that are comparable in definition for 1980 and 1990, except for the
categories "Central/South American" and "Other Hispanic." Census
calculated the "Central/South American" classification for 1990 but
not for 1980, when it included these persons in the "Other Hispanic"
classification. 



                          Table II.1
           
             Contents of the Special Tabulation:
           Racial and Ethnic Characteristics, 1980
                 and 1990 Decennial Censuses

Not of Hispanic origin         Hispanic origin
-----------------------------  -----------------------------
White                          Mexican

Black                          Puerto Rican

Asian and Pacific Islander:    Cuban

Chinese                        Central/South American

Japanese                       Other Hispanic

Filipino

Asian Indian

Korean

Vietnamese

Cambodian

Hmong

Laotian

Thai

Other Asian

Pacific Islander, except
Hawaiian

Hawaiian

American Indian, Eskimo, or
Aleut

Other Races
------------------------------------------------------------

      CONTENTS OF THE SPECIAL
      TABULATION--OTHER SOCIAL AND
      DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.2

The tabulation also contains information on family type, parental
employment status, and parental educational attainment (See table
II.2).  In addition, the tabulation contains information on
characteristics such as language and place of enrollment.  Except
where noted, data are comparable for both 1980 and 1990. 


         FAMILY TYPE
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1.2.1

The tabulation includes information on family type, classifying all
persons in families even when the family does not include a parent. 
For example, a family with children headed by a grandmother with no
spouse is included in the category of "female householder-no
husband."


         PARENTAL EMPLOYMENT
         STATUS
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1.2.2

The tabulation's work experience variable focuses on persons in
families with two parents or single-parent families including the
mother only.  Like the 1980 and 1990 decennial censuses, the
tabulation does not contain information on the parental work
experience of families headed by any other relative (grandmother,
aunt, uncle, or other relative) or single-parent families headed by
the father. 


         PARENTAL EDUCATIONAL
         ATTAINMENT
---------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1.2.3

The tabulation's variable on the education level of the most educated
parent includes information only on persons in families with
parents.\9 The tabulation contains information on persons in families
where at least one parent is present.  However, it does not classify
other types of families headed by any other relative (grandmother,
uncle, or other relative) by educational attainment. 

Census included instructions with its questionnaire that specified
that schooling completed in foreign or ungraded systems should be
reported as the equivalent level of schooling in the regular American
system and that vocational certificates or diplomas from vocational,
trade, or business schools or colleges were not to be reported unless
they were college-level degrees.  Census also asked respondents to
exclude honorary degrees. 

Although the tabulation includes comparable data on the educational
attainment question for both 1980 and 1990, the construction of the
data for each year is different.  The data for 1990 conform to the
1990 decennial census' question regarding educational attainment. 
The 1980 census reported numbers of years of education for each
respondent.  The special tabulation contains the 1980 data translated
by Census into the 1990 categories.\10



                          Table II.2
           
             Contents of the Special Tabulation:
            Demographic Characteristics, 1980 and
                   1990 Decennial Censuses

Family type\a
-----------------------------  -----------------------------
Married-couple family
------------------------------------------------------------

Female householder, no husband present
------------------------------------------------------------

Male householder, no wife present
------------------------------------------------------------

Work experience (employment status) of parents in 1989<
------------------------------------------------------------
Living with two parents        Living with mother

Both parents worked full-      Mother worked full-time,
time, full-year                full-year

Only one parent worked full-   Mother worked part-time or
time, full-year, other parent  part-year
worked part-time or did not
work

One or both parents worked     Mother did not work
part-time or part-year

Neither parent worked


Education level of most educated parent\a
------------------------------------------------------------

Grade school or less
------------------------------------------------------------

Some high school (9-12, no diploma)
------------------------------------------------------------

High school graduate (diploma)
------------------------------------------------------------

Some college or associate degree
------------------------------------------------------------

Bachelor's degree or more
------------------------------------------------------------

No parent present
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
\a This variable places persons from birth to 17 years old who are
not in a family in a separate category. 


--------------------
\9 We chose to focus on the educational attainment of the most
educated parent because many analyses have found that "educated
status of the more educated parent" is highly correlated with
educational outcomes as well as social behaviors such as career
choice. 

\10 Census translated the 1980 years of education totals as follows: 
completed 8 years of education or less to "Grade School or Less,"
completed 9 to 11 years to "Some High School (9-12, no diploma),"
completed 12 years to "High School Graduate (diploma)," completed 13
to 15 years to "Some College or Associate's Degree," completed 16
years or more to "Bachelor's Degree or more." The "No Parent Present"
category did not change. 


      PARENTAL EMPLOYMENT STATUS
      VARIABLE CREATED FROM THE
      SPECIAL TABULATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.3

The tabulation's work experience variable focuses only on persons in
families with two parents or single-parent families including the
mother only.  The tabulation does not contain information on parental
work experience of families headed by any other relative
(grandmother, aunt, uncle, or other relative) or single-parent
families headed by the father.  We defined a parental employment
experience variable by collapsing the tabulation's parental
employment status variable in the following manner: 

  At least one parent with full-time (full-year) work includes all
     persons aged 5 to 17 in families in which "both parents worked
     full-time, full-year," "only one parent worked full-time,
     full-year," and in single-parent families headed by the mother
     in which "the mother worked full-time, full-year."

  No employed parent with full-time (full-year) work includes all
     persons aged 5 to 17 in families in which "neither parent worked
     full-time, full-year" and in single-parent families headed by
     the mother in which "the mother worked part-time or part-year."

  No parent employed includes persons aged 5 to 17 in families in
     which "neither parent worked" and in single-parent families
     headed by the mother in which "the mother did not work."


      ESTIMATED NET UNDERCOUNT OF
      THE 1990 DECENNIAL CENSUS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.4

The decennial census typically fails to count a proportion of the
population, and, because our estimates are based on Census data they
are also affected by the undercount.  Census has studied certain
aspects of the 1990 census' net undercount\11 through its 1990 Post
Enumeration Survey (PES), which interviewed a sample of 165,000
census respondents several months after the census.  Census also
studied the 1990 undercount through demographic analysis--a
development of an independent estimate of the population obtained
administratively through the use of birth and death record data. 
Census' demographic analysis forms a historical series profiling the
undercount population begun in 1940 and continued through 1990. 

For the 1990 census, both the PES and Census' demographic analysis
showed a net undercount.  The net undercount as estimated by PES was
about 1.6 percent of the resident census count of 248.7 million, or
approximately 4.2 million people.  Based on Census' demographic
analysis, the net undercount was 1.85 percent, or approximately 4.7
million persons.\12

Census' PES was geared toward developing undercount estimates for
regions, census divisions, and cities and does not directly provide
national undercount estimates.  The PES also was limited in that it
estimated net undercounts for selected age strata; for example,
persons from birth to 9 years old and aged 10 to 19. 

Census's demographic analysis focused on the variation in the net
undercount by age, race, and sex at the national level.  Although
estimates of the net undercount have declined for each decennial
census since 1940, the undercount estimate for 1990 showed a
significant increase for males compared to 1980.  There is evidence
that the net undercount in 1990 varied by race, sex, and age. 
Analysis by Census researchers suggests that the net undercount was
largest for blacks and particularly for black males of ages 25 to
45.\13 The net undercount was also large for black children under age
10, although it approached 0 for black males and females aged 15 to
19.  Estimated net undercounts for nonblack males and females were
typically much lower than for blacks and approached 0 for persons
aged 10 to 14. 

Revising our estimates for uncounted black school-age children
increases the total school-age poverty rate.  Using data provided us
by Census regarding the estimated net undercount of all black
children aged 5 to 17, we corrected the 1990 census' estimated
national school-age poverty rate.\14 Incorporating the net black
school-age undercount increases the numerator and denominator of the
total poverty rate for school-age children, increasing the poverty
rate from about 17.07 percent to 17.18 percent. 


--------------------
\11 The undercount is net because, while the census misses some
persons, it improperly counts others. 

\12 About three-fourths of the omissions, or 3.48 million persons,
were males.  About 40 percent of all omissions or, 1.84 million
persons, were black. 

\13 Although one can infer net undercount estimates of 5 percent for
Hispanics from the PES, Census' demographic analysis provides no
undercount estimates for Hispanics.  Neither the PES nor the
demographic analysis examines variation in the net undercount by
family income. 

\14 In performing this calculation, we assumed that the net
undercount estimate of 4.83 percent for black children aged 5 to 17
was the same as that for non-Hispanic black children.  We also
assumed that the undercounted black children have the same poverty
rate as that for the counted non-Hispanic black children.  For
nonblack children aged 5 to 17 the estimated net undercount was 1.14
percent. 


      SAMPLING ERRORS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.5

Because the tabulation was developed using the 1980 and 1990
Decennial Census Sample Edited Detail Files, which contain a sample
of individual population records, each reported estimate has an
associated sampling error.  The size of the sampling error reflects
the precision of the estimate; the smaller the error, the more
precise the estimate.  Sampling errors for estimates from the
tabulation were calculated at the 95-percent confidence level.  This
means that the chances are about 19 out of 20 that the actual number
or percentage being estimated falls within the range defined by our
estimate, plus or minus the sampling errors.  For example, if we
estimated that 30 percent of a group has a particular characteristic
and the sampling error is 1 percentage point, there is a 95-percent
chance that the actual percentage is between 29 and 31. 

Generally, the sampling errors for characteristics of national and
many state groups did not exceed 3 percent of the estimate at the
95-percent confidence level.  However, for some combined
characteristics of populations in states with smaller
populations--for example, the number of poor Hispanic school-age
children in rural New Hampshire--the sampling errors were
significantly greater.  Because of the sampling error's size relative
to the estimate, we did not report state-level estimates for the
race/ethnicity of poor rural and all rural school-age children. 


DATA POINTS FOR FIGURES IN
APPENDIX I
========================================================= Appendix III



                         Table III.1
           
           Data for Figure I.5: Change in Rural and
             Urban School-Age Population, 1980-90

                                                     Percent
                                                     change,
Number of children          1980          1990       1980-90
------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Rural                 11,536,453    10,758,902          -6.7
Urban                 35,149,734    33,607,376          -4.4
============================================================
Total                 46,686,187    44,366,278          -5.0
------------------------------------------------------------


                         Table III.2
           
             Data for Figure I.7: Change in Rural
              School-Age Population, by Race and
                      Ethnicity, 1980-90


                                                     Percent
                                                     change,
Race/ethnicity                1980          1990     1980-90
--------------------  ------------  ------------  ----------
White                    9,504,317     8,691,783        -8.6
Hispanic                   479,469       557,080        16.2
Black                    1,267,696     1,162,640        -8.3
Asian\a                     62,184        89,399        43.8
American Indian\b          215,518       250,819        16.4
Other races                  7,269         7,181        -1.2
============================================================
Total                   11,536,453    10,758,902        -6.7
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Hawaiians. 

\b Includes American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts. 



                         Table III.3
           
             Data for Figure I.8: Change in Poor
               Rural and Poor Urban School-Age
             Population, Rural and Urban Poverty
                        Rates, 1980-90


                                        Percen
                                             t
                                        change
                                             ,
Number of poor                           1980-
children                1980      1990      90   1980   1990
------------------  --------  --------  ------  -----  -----
Rural               2,141,29  2,194,08    2.47   18.6   20.4
                           6         8
Urban               5,011,48  5,377,17     7.3   14.3   16.0
                           8         1
============================================================
Total               7,152,78  7,571,25    5.85   15.3   17.1
                           4         9
------------------------------------------------------------


                         Table III.4
           
             Data for Figure I.9: Number of Poor
           Rural and Poor Urban School-Age Children
               in Families by Type of Parental
                   Employment Status, 1989


Parents' employment status                 Rural       Urban
------------------------------------  ----------  ----------
At least one parent with full-time       517,276     834,151
 work
At least one parent with part-time       851,949   1,923,176
 or part-year work
No parent employed                       602,665   2,078,360
============================================================
Total                                  1,971,890   4,835,687
------------------------------------------------------------


                         Table III.5
           
            Data for Figure I.10: Minority School-
           Age Children a Disproportionate Share of
                  Rural Poor, 1980 and 1990

                         Minorities as a     Minorities as a
                           percentage of       percentage of
                                  entire               rural
Year                    rural population     poor population
--------------------  ------------------  ------------------
1980                                17.6                38.8
1990                                19.2                40.1
------------------------------------------------------------


                         Table III.6
           
            Data for Figures I.11 and I.12: Racial
             and Ethnic Composition of Poor Rural
                 School-Age Children, 1980-90


                                                   Numerical
                                                     change,
Race/ethnicity                1980          1990     1980-90
--------------------  ------------  ------------  ----------
White                    1,310,409     1,314,701       4,292
Hispanic                   154,007       208,818      54,811
Black                      583,428       550,503     -32,925
Asian\a                      9,452        12,942       3,490
American Indian\b           82,331       105,139      22,808
Other races                  1,669         1,985         316
============================================================
Total                    2,141,296     2,194,088      52,792
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Hawaiians. 

\b Includes American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts. 



                         Table III.7
           
            Data for Figure I.13: Poverty Rates of
           Rural and Urban School-Age Children, by
                   Race and Ethnicity, 1990



Race/ethnicity           Poor     Total      Poor      Total
-------------------  --------  --------  --------  ---------
White                1,314,70  8,691,78  1,814,26  22,164,88
                            1         3         8          4
Hispanic              208,818   557,080  1,396,04  4,595,350
                                                7
Black                 550,503  1,162,64  1,885,64  5,298,562
                                      0         7
Asian\a                12,942    89,399   215,413  1,303,325
American Indian\b     105,139   250,819    50,171    181,068
Other races             1,985     7,181    15,625     64,187
============================================================
Total                2,194,08  10,758,9  5,377,17  33,607,37
                            8        02         1          6
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Hawaiians. 

\b Includes American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts. 



                         Table III.8
           
             Data for Figure I.15: Number of Poor
           Rural and Poor Urban School-Age Children
                 in Each Type of Family, 1990


Family composition                         Rural       Urban
------------------------------------  ----------  ----------
Married-couple                         1,071,510   1,929,961
Single-female-parent                   1,015,987   3,188,758
Single-male-parent                       106,591     258,452
============================================================
Total                                  2,194,088   5,377,171
------------------------------------------------------------


                         Table III.9
           
           Data for Figure I.16: Number of All and
             Poor School-Age Children in Single-
             Female-Parent Families in Rural and
                      Urban Areas, 1990


                                                   Numerical
Single-female-parent                                 change,
families                        1980        1990     1980-90
------------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------
All urban                  6,788,605   7,274,565     485,960
Urban poor                 2,922,623   3,188,758     266,135
All rural                  1,635,823   1,876,503     240,680
Rural poor                   806,757   1,015,987     209,230
------------------------------------------------------------


                         Table III.10
           
           Data for Figure I.17: Number of School-
             Age Children, by Education Status of
           Parents, Poverty Status, and Geography,
                             1990


Education status of most                                 All
educated parent           Poor urban  Poor rural     nonpoor
------------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Grade school or less         754,556     228,393     996,876
Some high school           1,502,413     571,015   2,401,794
High school graduate       1,490,585     753,407   9,411,221
Some college/AA degree     1,084,045     438,413  12,281,223
BA or more                   265,662      90,515  10,968,082
============================================================
Total                      5,097,261   2,081,743  36,059,196
------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Table III.11
                     
                        Data for Figure I.19: State Rural
                          School-Age Poverty Rates, 1990

                     Less                                                   More
                     than                     14% to                        than
State\a               14%  State               20.3%  State                20.3%
-----------------  ------  -----------------  ------  ------------------  ------
Alaska               10.8  California           19.4  Alabama               27.5

Connecticut           7.6  Colorado             18.3  Arizona               29.3

Hawaii               13.2  Delaware             14.9  Arkansas              26.5

Indiana              12.2  Idaho                15.4  Florida               21.7

Iowa                 13.3  Illinois             15.7  Georgia               24.0

Maine                13.2  Kansas               14.5  Kentucky              28.0

Maryland             13.4  Michigan             16.1  Louisiana             36.2

Massachusetts        10.8  Minnesota            14.0  Mississippi           36.1

Nebraska             13.4  Montana              19.6  Missouri              20.9

Nevada               10.1  North Carolina       20.3  New Mexico            30.5

New Hampshire         7.4  North Dakota         19.4  Oklahoma              24.4

New York             13.8  Ohio                 16.8  South Carolina        25.4

Rhode Island          8.8  Oregon               16.5  South Dakota          21.6

Vermont              11.6  Pennsylvania         16.0  Tennessee             21.2

Wisconsin            12.8  Utah                 14.1  Texas                 28.4

Wyoming              12.6  Virginia             15.8  West Virginia         26.6

                           Washington           17.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The District of Columbia and New Jersey are not included in this
list because they do not contain nonmetropolitan counties. 



                                   Table III.12
                     
                     Data for Figure I.20: Change in Poor and
                     Nonpoor Rural School-Age Children in 10
                        States with the Greatest Numerical
                      Growth of Poor Rural Children, 1980-90



                                       Numerical                       Numerical
                                         change,                         change,
States                1980      1990     1980-90      1980      1990     1980-90
----------------  --------  --------  ----------  --------  --------  ----------
Texas              144,525   180,218      35,693   479,784   454,510     -25,274
California          29,350    45,754      16,404   160,272   190,585      30,313
Ohio                62,465    76,317      13,852   440,886   376,738     -64,148
Louisiana           87,402   100,871      13,469   221,575   178,188     -43,387
Arizona             33,986    46,938      12,952   105,529   113,519       7,990
New Mexico          42,184    53,800      11,616   124,540   122,733      -1,807
Oklahoma            50,700    60,127       9,427   211,218   186,821     -24,397
Michigan            48,989    57,556       8,567   342,017   299,918     -42,099
Washington          21,271    29,383       8,112   139,877   137,128      -2,749
Illinois            48,159    56,234       8,075   366,420   302,282     -64,138
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Table III.13
                     
                      Data for Figure I.21: Percent of Poor
                        Rural School-Age Children Who Are
                            Minorities, by State, 1990


                   Percen                     Percen                      Percen
                        t                          t                           t
                   minori                     minori                      minori
State\a                ty  State                  ty  State                   ty
-----------------  ------  -----------------  ------  ------------------  ------
Illinois             12.6  Arkansas             43.8  Alabama               64.8

Indiana               7.4  Colorado             38.5  Alaska                59.6

Iowa                  5.7  Connecticut          23.6  Arizona               73.9

Kansas               18.8  Florida              48.6  California            53.5

Kentucky              7.2  Idaho                21.7  Delaware              56.2

Maine                 3.5  Montana              26.6  Georgia               64.5

Massachusetts        16.3  Nevada               40.0  Hawaii                68.1

Michigan             11.2  North Dakota         25.4  Louisiana             64.0

Minnesota            13.2  Oklahoma             39.6  Maryland              51.4

Missouri             11.2  Rhode Island         22.4  Mississippi           78.5

Nebraska             13.2  South Dakota         37.2  New Mexico            81.9

New Hampshire         4.2  Utah                 20.9  North Carolina        65.4

New York              8.7  Virginia             34.4  South Carolina        79.1

Ohio                  6.9  Washington           25.8  Texas                 68.3

Oregon               18.5  Wyoming              25.0

Pennsylvania          3.5

Tennessee            19.0

Vermont               2.8

West Virginia         6.7

Wisconsin            10.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The District of Columbia and New Jersey are not included in this
list because they do not contain nonmetropolitan counties. 



                         Table III.14
           
           Data for Figure I.24: Number and Percent
             of Rural and Urban Counties and Poor
           School-Age Children Affected by Proposed
           County Eligibility Criteria for Chapter
                        1 Basic Grants

                                       Rural   Urban   Total
------------------------------------  ------  ------  ======
Number of counties affected               98       4     102
Percent of all counties                  3.1     0.1     3.3
Percent of all rural counties            4.1      \a     \a\
Percent of all urban counties             \a     0.5      \a
Number of poor children affected       5,925     282   6,207
Percent of all poor children            0.08   0.004    0.08
Percent of all poor rural children      0.27      \a      \a
Percent of all poor urban children        \a    0.01      \a
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Not applicable. 



                         Table III.15
           
           Data for Figure I.25: Number and Percent
             of Rural and Urban Counties and Poor
           School-Age Children Affected by Proposed
           County Eligibility Criteria for Chapter
                    1 Concentration Grants

                                       Rural   Urban   Total
------------------------------------  ------  ------  ======
Number of counties affected              341      78     419
Percent of all counties                 10.9     2.5    13.3
Percent of all rural counties           14.3      \a      \a
Percent of all urban counties             \a    10.3      \a
Number of poor children affected      259,41  201,53  460,94
                                           6       1       7
Percent of all poor children             3.4     2.7     6.1
Percent of all poor rural children      11.8      \a      \a
Percent of all poor urban children        \a     3.8      \a
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Not applicable. 


DETAILED TABLES ON CHARACTERISTICS
OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN
========================================================== Appendix IV



                                    Table IV.1
                     
                        Change in Number of Rural and All
                      School-Age Children, by State, 1980-90


                                       Percent                           Percent
                                       change,                           change,
State               1980        1990   1980-90        1980        1990   1980-90
------------  ----------  ----------  --------  ----------  ----------  --------
Alabama          300,465     259,474     -13.6     858,600     767,971     -10.6
Alaska            51,916      70,000      34.8      89,116     113,568      27.4
Arizona          139,515     160,457      15.0     566,188     671,768      18.7
Arkansas         300,480     269,106     -10.4     489,972     449,659      -8.2
California       189,622     236,339      24.6   4,566,115   5,199,633      13.9
Colorado         114,123     117,376       2.9     581,651     595,709       2.4
Connecticut       44,030      38,966     -11.5     629,496     512,941     -18.5
District of            0           0       0.0     106,154      76,328     -28.1
 Columbia
Delaware          41,994      39,446      -6.1     123,212     112,183      -9.0
Florida          164,265     183,751      11.9   1,757,803   1,970,207      12.1
Georgia          474,858     443,271      -6.7   1,218,262   1,212,378      -0.5
Hawaii            42,535      53,138      24.9     194,025     193,291      -0.4
Idaho            173,521     182,010       4.9     209,966     223,457       6.4
Illinois         414,579     358,516     -13.5   2,374,661   2,064,625     -13.1
Indiana          390,879     339,045     -13.3   1,183,063   1,037,463     -12.3
Iowa             343,403     294,282     -14.3     597,819     515,507     -13.8
Kansas           223,282     216,423      -3.1     461,631     464,760       0.7
Kentucky         437,956     383,568     -12.4     788,745     692,926     -12.2
Louisiana        308,977     279,059      -9.7     957,272     879,801      -8.1
Maine            157,314     145,386      -7.6     238,248     217,396      -8.8
Maryland          60,853      58,209      -4.3     877,891     787,303     -10.3
Massachusett      93,595      90,167      -3.7   1,139,445     922,389     -19.1
 s
Michigan         391,006     357,474      -8.6   2,036,320   1,724,338     -15.3
Minnesota        309,044     283,305      -8.3     853,573     815,890      -4.4
Mississippi      428,360     388,271      -9.4     594,114     544,892      -8.3
Missouri         338,619     322,425      -4.8     992,900     928,061      -6.5
Montana          125,309     122,772      -2.0     164,631     159,483      -3.1
Nebraska         174,703     162,064      -7.2     320,101     304,533      -4.9
Nevada            28,764      37,991      32.1     154,530     196,301      27.0
New               82,258      85,532       4.0     192,812     190,057      -1.4
 Hampshire
New Jersey             0           0       0.0   1,510,440   1,247,037     -17.4
New Mexico       166,724     176,533       5.9     298,112     314,557       5.5
New York         322,952     282,493     -12.5   3,495,749   2,940,652     -15.9
North            582,154     514,035     -11.7   1,239,196   1,130,331      -8.8
 Carolina
North Dakota      89,781      78,132     -13.0     135,169     125,552      -7.1
Ohio             503,351     453,055     -10.0   2,278,156   1,984,596     -12.9
Oklahoma         261,918     246,948      -5.7     611,943     601,125      -1.8
Oregon           176,102     165,352      -6.1     510,688     506,129      -0.9
Pennsylvania     380,366     319,171     -16.1   2,339,525   1,958,599     -16.3
Rhode Island      13,693      11,883     -13.2     184,169     156,283     -15.1
South            294,025     271,656      -7.6     694,852     654,731      -5.8
 Carolina
South Dakota     108,858     102,075      -6.2     145,621     141,274      -3.0
Tennessee        332,950     285,383     -14.3     960,966     866,983      -9.8
Texas            624,309     634,728       1.7   3,097,263   3,393,775       9.6
Utah              81,630     108,150      32.5     343,591     451,507      31.4
Vermont           83,432      78,618      -5.8     107,395      99,666      -7.2
Virginia         334,346     288,917     -13.6   1,094,811   1,040,419      -5.0
Washington       161,148     166,511       3.3     813,578     867,206       6.6
West             266,284     217,948     -18.2     409,692     331,875     -19.0
 Virginia
Wisconsin        336,353     308,198      -8.4     997,899     910,922      -8.7
Wyoming           69,852      71,293       2.1      99,056      98,241      -0.8
================================================================================
Total         11,536,453  10,758,902      -6.7  46,686,187  44,366,278      -5.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table IV.2
                     
                      Change in Number of Poor Rural and All
                       Poor School-Age Children, by State,
                                     1980-90


                                       Percent                           Percent
                                       change,                           change,
State               1980        1990   1980-90        1980        1990   1980-90
------------  ----------  ----------  --------  ----------  ----------  --------
Alabama           82,097      71,258     -13.2     198,674     178,559     -10.1
Alaska             7,610       7,572      -0.5      10,207      10,910       6.9
Arizona           33,986      46,938      38.1      90,072     136,626      51.7
Arkansas          75,337      71,335      -5.3     111,691     107,170      -4.0
California        29,350      45,754      55.9     651,039     897,104      37.8
Colorado          16,060      21,530      34.1      63,062      82,083      30.2
Connecticut        3,808       2,943     -22.7      65,610      50,611     -22.9
District of            0           0       0.0      27,949      18,375     -34.3
 Columbia
Delaware           7,090       5,856     -17.4      18,098      12,342     -31.8
Florida           39,900      39,956       0.1     311,021     344,969      10.9
Georgia          119,570     106,257     -11.1     249,998     229,402      -8.2
Hawaii             4,873       7,029      44.2      22,721      20,316     -10.6
Idaho             24,976      28,090      12.5      28,254      32,279      14.2
Illinois          48,159      56,234      16.8     336,783     328,801      -2.4
Indiana           44,301      41,366      -6.6     130,984     132,837       1.4
Iowa              42,106      39,150      -7.0      64,847      65,378       0.8
Kansas            26,413      31,428      19.0      49,397      59,578      20.6
Kentucky         114,766     107,453      -6.4     168,030     161,587      -3.8
Louisiana         87,402     100,871      15.4     221,714     267,555      20.7
Maine             26,042      19,127     -26.6      36,249      26,853     -25.9
Maryland           8,904       7,813     -12.3     104,310      82,612     -20.8
Massachusett      11,273       9,736     -13.6     140,978     112,691     -20.1
 s
Michigan          48,989      57,556      17.5     254,479     288,557      13.4
Minnesota         43,305      39,660      -8.4      80,983      93,242      15.1
Mississippi      144,265     140,313      -2.7     180,439     177,895      -1.4
Missouri          61,483      67,446       9.7     139,765     150,951       8.0
Montana           17,051      24,111      41.4      21,083      29,340      39.2
Nebraska          23,467      21,786      -7.2      37,105      36,655      -1.2
Nevada             3,128       3,841      22.8      14,653      23,065      57.4
New                9,018       6,331     -29.8      17,314      12,117     -30.0
 Hampshire
New Jersey             0           0       0.0     202,184     134,371     -33.5
New Mexico        42,184      53,800      27.5      64,849      82,984      28.0
New York          47,337      38,874     -17.9     626,784     531,845     -15.1
North            128,420     104,268     -18.8     221,699     180,954     -18.4
 Carolina
North Dakota      14,924      15,160       1.6      18,941      19,931       5.2
Ohio              62,465      76,317      22.2     279,040     322,358      15.5
Oklahoma          50,700      60,127      18.6      92,894     120,018      29.2
Oregon            21,896      27,356      24.9      55,332      67,926      22.8
Pennsylvania      48,733      50,898       4.4     310,663     284,692      -8.4
Rhode Island       1,832       1,050     -42.7      23,353      19,306     -17.3
South             75,304      69,031      -8.3     143,925     131,053      -8.9
 Carolina
South Dakota      24,443      22,052      -9.8      28,336      26,501      -6.5
Tennessee         74,102      60,518     -18.3     194,569     169,437     -12.9
Texas            144,525     180,218      24.7     573,661     794,774      38.5
Utah              10,662      15,214      42.7      33,895      49,183      45.1
Vermont           12,053       9,121     -24.3      14,048      10,695     -23.9
Virginia          58,446      45,541     -22.1     158,083     129,565     -18.0
Washington        21,271      29,383      38.1      84,403     111,198      31.8
West              55,082      57,927       5.2      74,934      79,980       6.7
 Virginia
Wisconsin         36,796      39,493       7.3      96,167     121,585      26.4
Wyoming            5,392       9,000      66.9       7,515      12,443      65.6
================================================================================
Total          2,141,296   2,194,088       2.5   7,152,784   7,571,259       5.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table IV.3
                     
                       Race and Ethnicity of All School-Age
                             Children, by State, 1990


                                                            American
                                                           Indian\b/
                                                               other
State           Hispanic       White     Black   Asian\a       races       Total
--------------  --------  ----------  --------  --------  ----------  ==========
Alabama            5,209     503,716   249,196     4,534       5,316     767,971
Alaska             4,183      79,362     4,690     3,714      21,619     113,568
Arizona          177,412     407,348    23,193     9,311      54,504     671,768
Arkansas           4,948     339,827    99,248     2,725       2,911     449,659
California      1,776,75   2,416,499   414,026   544,272      48,083   5,199,633
                       3
Colorado         103,190     449,142    26,258    11,683       5,436     595,709
Connecticut       49,978     397,861    53,759     9,218       2,125     512,941
Delaware           3,699      82,345    24,229     1,474         436     112,183
District of        4,315       8,686    62,095       967         265      76,328
 Columbia
Florida          269,182   1,255,742   407,996    28,941       8,346   1,970,207
Georgia           18,971     772,822   402,023    15,209       3,353   1,212,378
Hawaii            20,780      50,165     4,605   115,850       1,891     193,291
Idaho             14,728     202,790       777     1,921       3,241     223,457
Illinois         220,372   1,400,595   380,770    57,082       5,806   2,064,625
Indiana           24,657     902,562    99,936     6,565       3,743   1,037,463
Iowa               8,271     488,780    11,007     5,436       2,013     515,507
Kansas            23,662     397,750    31,409     6,828       5,111     464,760
Kentucky           4,419     625,133    58,224     3,598       1,552     692,926
Louisiana         18,005     516,385   330,689     9,421       5,301     879,801
Maine              1,757     211,591       869     1,668       1,511     217,396
Maryland          22,339     506,145   228,857    26,330       3,632     787,303
Massachusetts     67,638     765,867    54,127    26,584       8,173     922,389
Michigan          50,256   1,351,460   284,001    23,276      15,345   1,724,338
Minnesota         13,795     743,345    22,392    23,006      13,352     815,890
Mississippi        3,307     288,843   247,374     3,078       2,290     544,892
Missouri          14,542     778,487   122,226     7,691       5,115     928,061
Montana            3,520     142,046       396       711      12,810     159,483
Nebraska           9,282     275,129    14,009     2,703       3,410     304,533
Nevada            25,915     143,926    16,286     6,456       3,718     196,301
New Hampshire      2,854     183,632     1,309     1,743         519     190,057
New Jersey       150,172     838,928   197,986    54,771       5,180   1,247,037
New Mexico       143,657     126,428     6,193     2,567      35,712     314,557
New York         446,425   1,845,773   513,968   115,966      18,520   2,940,652
North Carolina    12,822     773,450   314,749     9,863      19,447   1,130,331
North Dakota       1,426     115,622       723       516       7,265     125,552
Ohio              34,389   1,674,544   250,617    18,097       6,949   1,984,596
Oklahoma          23,207     451,163    54,570     6,474      65,711     601,125
Oregon            27,364     445,848    10,120    13,611       9,186     506,129
Pennsylvania      56,162   1,660,096   208,625    28,471       5,245   1,958,599
Rhode Island      10,347     132,234     7,386     4,128       2,188     156,283
South Carolina     5,713     393,079   249,879     4,252       1,808     654,731
South Dakota       1,580     123,442       743       803      14,706     141,274
Tennessee          6,724     675,777   175,233     6,577       2,672     866,983
Texas           1,125,27   1,737,734   451,089    64,933      14,745   3,393,775
                       4
Utah              23,023     411,969     2,136     7,746       6,633     451,507
Vermont              834      97,098       493       639         602      99,666
Virginia          27,630     746,043   232,028    31,035       3,683   1,040,419
Washington        53,788     719,239    31,423    44,064      18,692     867,206
West Virginia      1,806     316,423    11,207     1,637         802     331,875
Wisconsin         25,259     796,319    65,345    14,053       9,946     910,922
Wyoming            6,889      87,477       713       526       2,636      98,241
================================================================================
Total           5,152,43  30,856,667  6,461,20  1,392,72   503,255\c  44,366,278
                       0                     2         4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Hawaiians. 

\b Includes American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts. 

\c The total number of American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts is
431,887.  The total number for Other Races is 71,368. 



                                    Table IV.4
                     
                      Race and Ethnicity of All Poor School-
                           Age Children, by State, 1990


                                                            American
                                                           Indian\b/
                                                               other
State           Hispanic       White     Black   Asian\a       races       Total
--------------  --------  ----------  --------  --------  ----------  ==========
Alabama            1,066      60,721   114,680       803       1,289     178,559
Alaska               395       4,788       586       230       4,911      10,910
Arizona           58,607      41,502     7,435     1,198      27,884     136,626
Arkansas           1,569      55,011    49,465       428         697     107,170
California       464,724     195,868   118,129   107,485      10,898     897,104
Colorado          31,166      39,393     8,085     1,838       1,601      82,083
Connecticut       20,070      16,269    13,571       409         292      50,611
District of          971         248    16,968       106          82      18,375
 Columbia
Delaware             891       4,345     6,978        71          57      12,342
Florida           63,888     117,641   158,109     3,485       1,846     344,969
Georgia            4,040      69,559   153,430     1,667         706     229,402
Hawaii             3,559       4,117       507    11,822         311      20,316
Idaho              4,828      25,821       123       341       1,166      32,279
Illinois          52,582     114,039   156,208     4,870       1,102     328,801
Indiana            4,668      89,395    37,309       450       1,015     132,837
Iowa               1,837      56,519     5,083     1,193         746      65,378
Kansas             5,131      39,910    11,821     1,364       1,352      59,578
Kentucky           1,080     134,072    25,332       607         496     161,587
Louisiana          3,999      76,469   181,431     3,233       2,423     267,555
Maine                270      25,788       216       216         363      26,853
Maryland           2,589      28,158    49,429     1,897         539      82,612
Massachusetts     31,967      56,427    16,052     6,061       2,184     112,691
Michigan          13,892     145,947   121,314     3,110       4,294     288,557
Minnesota          3,826      65,033    10,027     7,964       6,392      93,242
Mississippi          956      40,475   134,317     1,219         928     177,895
Missouri           2,722      99,002    46,862     1,127       1,238     150,951
Montana            1,166      21,563        83       141       6,387      29,340
Nebraska           2,280      26,856     5,432       393       1,694      36,655
Nevada             5,047      11,251     5,058       685       1,024      23,065
New Hampshire        437      11,102       213       243         122      12,117
New Jersey        40,952      38,506    50,887     2,899       1,127     134,371
New Mexico        48,358      14,852     1,890       443      17,441      82,984
New York         184,199     168,390   157,460    16,610       5,186     531,845
North Carolina     2,810      65,546   105,765     1,447       5,386     180,954
North Dakota         379      15,479        89        75       3,909      19,931
Ohio              10,021     202,782   105,227     2,219       2,109     322,358
Oklahoma           7,943      68,005    22,467       837      20,766     120,018
Oregon             8,309      51,350     3,273     2,468       2,526      67,926
Pennsylvania      24,867     173,819    79,120     5,476       1,410     284,692
Rhode Island       4,016      11,073     2,410     1,270         537      19,306
South Carolina     1,005      34,034    95,080       448         486     131,053
South Dakota         379      17,077       175       105       8,765      26,501
Tennessee          1,469      95,530    70,728     1,015         695     169,437
Texas            444,766     166,239   170,733     9,866       3,170     794,774
Utah               5,323      39,035       677     1,272       2,876      49,183
Vermont              124      10,174       142        45         210      10,695
Virginia           2,884      56,719    67,110     2,279         573     129,565
Washington        16,876      71,290     8,613     8,366       6,053     111,198
West Virginia        527      73,917     5,101       108         327      79,980
Wisconsin          7,696      68,589    34,744     6,407       4,149     121,585
Wyoming            1,739       9,274       206        44       1,180      12,443
================================================================================
Total           1,604,86   3,128,969  2,436,15   228,355   172,920\c   7,571,259
                       5                     0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Hawaiians. 

\b Includes American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts. 

\c The total number of American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts is
155,310.  The total number for Other Races is 17,610. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND HUMAN
SERVICES DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Beatrice F.  Birman, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7008
Charles A.  Jeszeck, Assignment Manager
Jill S.  Wicinski, Evaluator-in-Charge
Wayne M.  Dow, Assistant Director, Computer Science
Joan K.  Vogel, Senior Evaluator, Computer Science



RELATED PRODUCTS
=========================================================== Appendix 0

Poor Preschool-Aged Children:  Numbers Increase but Most Not in
Preschool (GAO/HRD-93-111BR, July 1993). 

School Age Demographics:  Recent Trends Pose New Educational
Challenges (GAO/HRD-93-105BR, Aug.  1993). 
