Table 2

Estimates of the direct association of childhood poverty with young adulthood poverty (dependent variable) and share mediated through employment, education, and family structure benchmarks

Black Men (n = 1,190)White Men (n = 1,652)Black Women (n = 1,262)White Women (n = 1,603)
A. Mediating Effect of Benchmarks     
 Total association: Share of childhood in poverty 0.25*** (0.05) 0.22*** (0.05) 0.28*** (0.05) 0.26*** (0.05) 
 Direct association: Share of childhood in poverty 0.23*** (0.05) 0.19*** (0.05) 0.23*** (0.05) 0.22*** (0.05) 
 Indirect association mediated through benchmarks 0.02** (0.01) 0.03*** (0.01) 0.05*** (0.01) 0.04*** (0.01) 
 % Mediated through benchmarks 9.2 12.4 17.5 17.1 
B. Estimated Effects of Childhood Poverty and Benchmarks on Young Adult Poverty 
 All three benchmarks (unconfounded) −0.12*** −0.06*** −0.23*** −0.09*** 
 (0.02) (0.01) (0.02) (0.01) 
 Share of childhood poverty (direct + indirect) 0.25*** 0.22*** 0.28*** 0.26*** 
 (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) 
Black Men (n = 1,190)White Men (n = 1,652)Black Women (n = 1,262)White Women (n = 1,603)
A. Mediating Effect of Benchmarks     
 Total association: Share of childhood in poverty 0.25*** (0.05) 0.22*** (0.05) 0.28*** (0.05) 0.26*** (0.05) 
 Direct association: Share of childhood in poverty 0.23*** (0.05) 0.19*** (0.05) 0.23*** (0.05) 0.22*** (0.05) 
 Indirect association mediated through benchmarks 0.02** (0.01) 0.03*** (0.01) 0.05*** (0.01) 0.04*** (0.01) 
 % Mediated through benchmarks 9.2 12.4 17.5 17.1 
B. Estimated Effects of Childhood Poverty and Benchmarks on Young Adult Poverty 
 All three benchmarks (unconfounded) −0.12*** −0.06*** −0.23*** −0.09*** 
 (0.02) (0.01) (0.02) (0.01) 
 Share of childhood poverty (direct + indirect) 0.25*** 0.22*** 0.28*** 0.26*** 
 (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) 

Notes: The results are from Eqs. (3a), (3b), (4a), and (4b). All models feature age, Hispanic status, and year controls.

**p < .01; ***p < .001

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal