Journal of Family and Economic Issues

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 97–113 | Cite as

On the Fringe: Family-Friendly Benefits and the Rural–Urban Gap Among Working Women

  • Rebecca GlauberEmail author
  • Justin Robert Young
Original Paper


This study drew on longitudinal, nationally representative data to estimate rural–urban inequality in women’s access to family-friendly benefits. Multivariate fixed effects regression models showed that compared to urban women, rural women’s odds of reporting access were 11 % lower for flexible work scheduling, 24 % lower for job-protected maternity leave, 13 % lower for paid sick time, 21 % lower for vacation time, and 20 % lower for health insurance. The rural–urban gap in sick time was explained by differences in unionization, as rural women were less likely to be unionized than urban women. Our findings suggest that rural women’s work–family experiences may be more constrained than urban women’s work–family experiences.


Family-friendly benefits Rural Urban Women Workplace issues 


  1. Allison, P. (2009). Fixed effects regression models. New York, NY: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Baughman, R., DiNardi, D., & Holtz-Eakin, D. (2003). Productivity and wage effects of family-friendly fringe benefits. International Journal of Manpower, 24(3), 247–259. doi: 10.1108/01437720310479723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, D. A. (2001). How can I deal with missing data in my study? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 25(5), 464–469. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-842X.2001.tb00294.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Best, M. H. (1993). The new competition: Institutions of industrial restructuring. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bloomquist, L. E. (1990). Local labor market characteristics and the occupational concentration of different sociodemographic groups. Rural Sociology, 55(1), 119–213. doi: 10.1111/j.1549-0831.1990.tb00680.x
  6. Bokemeier, J. L., & Tickamyer, A. R. (1985). Labor force experiences of nonmetropolitan women. Rural Sociology, 50(1), 51–73.Google Scholar
  7. Bond, J. T., Galinsky, E., Kim, S. S., & Brownfield, E. (2005). National study of employers. New York: Families and Work Institute.Google Scholar
  8. Caputo, R. K. (2000). Race and marital history as correlates of women’s access to family-friendly employee benefits. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 21(4), 365–385. doi: 10.1023/A:1026480621340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carter, J. S., & Borch, C. A. (2005). Assessing the effects of urbanism and regionalism on gender-role attitudes, 1974–1998. Sociological Inquiry, 75(4), 548–563. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.2005.00136.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cotter, Daniel A., DeFiore, J., Hermsen, J. M., Marsteller Kowalewski, B., & Vanneman, R. (1996). Gender inequality in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan US. Rural Sociology, 61(2), 272–288. doi: 10.1111/j.1549-0831.1996.tb00620.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, A. E., & Kalleberg, A. L. (2006). Family-friendly organizations? Work and family programs in the 1990s. Work and Occupations, 33(2), 191–223. doi: 10.1177/0730888405280446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DiPrete, T. A. (1993). Industrial restructuring and the mobility response of American workers in the 1980s. American Sociological Review, 58(1), 74–96. Retrieved from
  13. Duncan, C. M. (1999). Worlds apart: Why poverty persists in rural America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Firestone, J., Harris, R. J., & Lambert, L. C. (1999). Gender role ideology and the gender based differences in earnings. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 20(2), 191–215. doi: 10.1023/A:1022158811154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glass, J., & Camarigg, V. (1992). Gender, parenthood, and job-family compatibility. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 131–151. Retrieved from
  16. Glass, J., & Estes, S. B. (1997). The family responsive workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 289–313. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glass, J., & Fujimoto, T. (1995). Employer characteristics and the provision of family responsive policies. Work and Occupations, 22(4), 380–411. doi: 10.1177/0730888495022004002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glass, J., & Riley, L. (1998). Family responsive policies and employee retention following childbirth. Social Forces, 76(4), 1401–1435. Retrieved from
  19. Golden, L. (2001). Flexible work schedules: Which workers get them? American Behavioral Scientist, 44(7), 1157–1178. doi: 10.1177/00027640121956700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Golden, L. (2008). Limited access: Disparities in flexible work schedules and work-at-home. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 29(1), 86–109. doi: 10.1007/s10834-007-9090-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Golden, L. (2009). Flexible daily work schedules in US jobs: Formal introductions needed? Industrial Relations, 48(1), 27–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-232X.2008.00544.x.Google Scholar
  22. Graves, P. E., Sexton, R. L., & Arthur, M. M. (1999). Amenities and fringe benefits: Omitted variable bias. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 58(3), 399–404. Retrieved from
  23. Guthrie, D., & Roth, L. M. (1999). The state, courts, and maternity policies in US organizations: Specifying institutional mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 64(1), 41–63. Retrieved from
  24. Hollister, M. N. (2005). Does firm size matter anymore? The new economy and firm size wage effects. American Sociological Review, 69(5), 659–676. Retrieved from
  25. Hudson, K. (2007). The new labor market segmentation: Labor market dualism in the new economy. Social Science Research, 36(1), 286–312. Retrieved from
  26. Johnson, K. M., & Fuguitt, G. V. (2000). Continuity and change in rural migration patterns, 1950–1995. Rural Sociology, 65(1), 27–49. doi: 10.1111/j.1549-0831.2000.tb00341.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson, K. M., Voss, P. R., Hammer, R. B., Fuguitt, G. V., & McNiven, S. (2005). Temporal and spatial variation in age-specific net migration in the US. Demography, 42(4), 791–812. Retrieved from
  28. Kalleberg, A. L. (2011). Good jobs, bad jobs: The rise of polarized and precarious employment systems in the United States, 1970s to 2000s. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  29. Kalleberg, A. L., Reskin, B. F., & Hudson, K. (2000). Bad jobs in America: Standard and nonstandard employment relations and job quality in the US. American Sociological Review, 65(2), 256–278. Retrieved from
  30. Kalleberg, A. L., Reynolds, J., & Marsden, P. V. (2003). Externalizing employment: Flexible staffing arrangements in US organizations. Social Science Research, 32(3), 525–552. doi: 10.1093/SER/mwi017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kalleberg, A. L., & Van Buren, M. E. (1996). Is bigger better? Explaining the relationship between organization size and job rewards. American Sociological Review, 61(1), 47–66. Retrieved from
  32. Kneebone, E., & Berube, A. (2013). Confronting suburban poverty in America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lichter, D. T. (1989). The underemployment of American rural women: Prevalence, trends, and spatial inequality. Journal of Rural Studies, 5(2), 199–208. Retrieved from
  34. Lichter, D. T., & Jensen, L. (2002). Rural America in transition: Poverty and welfare at the turn of the 21st century. In B. Weber, G. Duncan, & L. Whitener (Eds.), Rural dimensions of welfare reform (pp. 77–110). Kalamazoo, Michigan: W. E. Upjohn Institute.Google Scholar
  35. Lofland, J. H., & Frick, K. D. (2006). Effect of health insurance on workplace absenteeism in the US workforce. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 48(1), 13–21. Retrieved from
  36. Lowen, A., & Sicilian, P. (2009). Family friendly fringe benefits and the gender wage gap. Journal of Labor Research, 30(2), 101–119. doi: 10.1007/s12122-008-9046-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lyson, T. A., & Falk, W. W. (1993). Forgotten places: Uneven development in rural America. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  38. MacDermid, S. M., Herzog, J. L., Kensinger, K. B., & Zipp, J. F. (2001). The role of organizational size and industry in job quality and work–family relationships. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22(2), 191–216. doi: 10.1023/A:1016634330537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McLaughlin, D. K. (2002). Changing income inequality in nonmetropolitan counties, 1980 to 1990. Rural Sociology, 64(4), 512–533. doi: 10.1111/j.1549-0831.2002.tb00117.x.Google Scholar
  40. McLaughlin, D. K., & Coleman-Jensen, A. J. (2008). Nonstandard employment in the nonmetropolitan United States. Rural Sociology, 73(4), 631–659. doi: 10.1526/003601108786471558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McLaughlin, D. K., & Perman, L. (1991). Returns vs. endowments in the earnings attainment process for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan women. Rural Sociology, 56(3), 339–365. doi: 10.1111/j.1549-0831.1991.tb00438.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mishel, L., & Frankel, D. M. (1991). The state of working America. New York: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  43. Orloff, A. (1993). Gender and the social rights of citizenship: The comparative analysis of gender relations and welfare states. American Sociological Review, 58(3), 303–328. doi: 10.2307/2095903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Osterman, P. (1995). Work family programs and the employment relationship. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 681–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Osterman, P. (1999). Securing prosperity: The American labor market: how it has changed and what to do about it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Presser, H. B. (2003). Working in a 24/7 economy: Challenges for American families. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  47. Reskin, B. F., & Roos, P. R. (1990). Job queues, gender queues: Explaining women’s inroads into male occupations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Roehling, P. V., Roehling, M. V., & Moen, P. (2001). The relationship between work-life policies and practices and employee loyalty: A life course perspective. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22(2), 141–170. doi: 10.1023/A:1016630229628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rural Sociological Society (RSS) Task Force. (1993). Persistent poverty in rural America. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  50. Schafer, J. L. (1999). Multiple imputation: A primer. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8, 3–15. doi: 10.1177/096228029900800102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schmidt, J. (2007). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Job quality in the United States over the three most recent business cycles. Center for Economic and Policy Research. Retrieved from
  52. Singelmann, J., & Browning, H. L. (1980). Industrial transformation and occupational change in the US, 1960–1970. Social Forces, 59(1), 246–264. Retrieved from
  53. Smith, K. E., & Glauber, R. (2013). Exploring the spatial wage penalty for women: Does it matter where you live? Social Science Research, 42(5), 1390–1401. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Struthers, C. B., & Bokemeier, J. L. (2003). Stretched to their limits: Rural mothers, the ‘New’ economy, and the rural work ethic. In A. Tickamyer, W. Falk, & M. Schulman (Eds.), Communities of work: Rural restructuring in local and global contexts (pp. 291–315). Athens: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Swanberg, J. E., Pitt-Catsouphes, M., & Drescher-Burke, K. (2005). A question of justice: Disparities in employees’ access to flexible schedule arrangements. Journal of Family Issues, 26(6), 866–895. doi: 10.1177/0192513X05277554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Employer costs for employee compensation. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  57. US Census Bureau. (1994). Geographic areas reference manual. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  58. US Census Bureau. (2004). United states summary: (2000). Washington, DC: Population and housing counts.Google Scholar
  59. US Department of Agriculture. (2002). Rural America at a glance. Economic Research Service: Rural Development Research Report No. (RDRR94-1). Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  60. US Department of Agriculture. (2009). Rural America at a glance. Economic Research Service: Economic Information Bulletin Number 59. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  61. US Department of Labor. (2004). Workers on flexible and shift schedules. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  62. US Department of Labor. (2006). National compensation survey: employee benefits in private industry in the United States. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  63. US Government Accountability Office. (2006). Employee compensation. GAO-06-285. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  64. Variyam, J. N., & Kraybill, D. S. (1998). Fringe benefits provision by rural small businesses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(2), 360–368. Retrieved from
  65. Weeden, K. A. (2005). Is there a flexiglass ceiling? Flexible work arrangements and wages in the US. Social Science Research, 34(2), 454–482. Retrieved from
  66. Wells, B. (2002). Women’s voices: Explaining poverty and plenty in a rural community. Rural Sociology, 67(2), 234–254. doi: 10.1111/j.1549-0831.2002.tb00102.x .
  67. Young, J. R., & Smith, K. (2014). The changing etho-racial gap in family-friendly ‘fringe’ benefits, 1997–2008. Boston, MA: Research Presented at the Population Association of America Annual Meeting.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations