 |
Phone: 510-339-3801 Fax: 510-339-3803 E-mail: jmasters@cencomfut.com |
Mailing Address: Center for Community Futures P.O. Box 5309 Berkeley, CA 94705 |
                |
|
|
|
|
 | Redefining Poverty |
| Community-Based Solutions |
| Family Economic Security |
| Maximizing Technology |
Creating a 21st Century
Model to Address Poverty
Redefining
Poverty Research Brief, November 2004
In the 1960’s this country did engage in a defined campaign to address poverty as part of President Johnson’s War on Poverty. During the War on Poverty, there were multiple programs created but little in the way of a coordinated strategy that had poverty reduction as a goal. For the past 42 years, since the 1962 AFDCU amendments, the numerous efforts at “welfare reform” have been more about reducing the numbers on welfare rolls rather than reducing poverty. Today, multiple programs run by governmental, faith-based and community-based organizations exist that have reducing poverty as part of their mission, but the measures are about program specific outcomes rather than overall poverty reduction.
At the heart of this persistent poverty is a question of definition. The US Poverty Index is solely a measure of financial well-being, and does not address issues of human and social capital that determine why people are in poverty, nor how best they should escape it. We are operating under an operational definition – an income-based measure that allows us to divide the population into “poor” and “non-poor”.
Broadening the
definition of poverty to include non-financial factors has the potential to
significantly alter our thinking about strategies to reduce poverty. A broader
definition expands the set of policies that are relevant to the reduction of
poverty, and as more aspects of poverty are recognized, so more policies become
relevant to fighting poverty. In addition, the various aspects of poverty
interact in important ways: improving health increases income-earning potential,
increasing education leads to better health outcomes, and providing safety nets
allows the poor to take advantage of high-return, high-risk opportunities. When
poverty-reducing strategies recognize the interactions among policies, programs
and approaches can be created than transcend the sum of the individual parts.
ONE
DEFINITION:
pov·er·ty n.
(From
Webster’s Dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/search)
Another:
The
quality or state of being poor or indigent; want or scarcity of means of
subsistence; indigence; need. “Swathed in numblest poverty.” --Keble.
Any
deficiency of elements or resources that are needed or desired, or that
constitute richness; as, poverty of soil; poverty of the blood; poverty of
ideas.
Synonyms:
Indigence; penury; beggary; need; lack; want; scantiness; sparingness;
meagerness; jejuneness.
Usage:
Poverty, Indigence, Pauperism. Poverty is a relative term; what is poverty to a
monarch, would be competence for a day laborer. Indigence implies extreme
distress, and almost absolute destitution. Pauperism denotes entire dependence
upon public charity, and, therefore, often a hopeless and degraded state.
(Merriam-Webster
Unabridged. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998
MICRA, Inc.)
While
these definitions include multiple dimensions, the primary definition in each
case focuses on the material. In general usage, to be poor is to lack material
possessions and/or the ability to purchase goods and services.
It is possible to view poverty as a simple cash equation – is there money left over at the end of the week, the month, the year? But truly defining poverty in economic terms is a more complex problem that requires evaluating not only money, and the material assets money can buy, but also physical and human capital and time. In addition, some researchers feel that simply determining whether an individual or family has sufficient resources for basic subsistence does not fully address some of the central qualities of being poor. They may define poverty more in terms of outcomes, as expressed in poor living conditions, ways of life, customs and attitudes.
In the US, we have tended to consider poverty only in light of the cash equation, as measured through the US Poverty Index and – as described below – tied primarily to past and current income. Federal poverty definitions have two main purposes –to provide a statistical analysis of the population and to serve as a test for eligibility determination for specific programs. They do nothing to enlighten the broader question of the conceptual definition, or what it means to be poor.
The first known incidence in the US of linking the word “poverty” with a specific income level occurred in 1871, when the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor associated a $2 daily wage (equivalent to $526 per year) with “poverty or want.” The Iowa Commissioner of Labor Statistics arrived at a similar figure in 1891. During this time period, the word “poverty” was generally used synonymously with “pauperism” – the state of being dependent on relief or private charity.
Beginning in the early twentieth century, poverty began to be associated with insufficient income, regardless of the source of that income or the reason for the insufficiency. This new definition made it possible for the concept of a “poverty line” to make sense as a way to consider the poor.
From 1900 through 1930, the question of poverty thresholds largely remained in the hands of social workers and private charities, with only a few efforts made by government agencies. Efforts were centered on trying to develop some social consensus about the appropriate level of an acceptable standard of living.
Attempts to determine this level usually involved developing standard budgets, although these budgets were generally based on studying the living standards and consumption patterns of relatively small groups of people.
The Great
Depression brought new concern and interest in the question of poverty in
America. A 1934 Brookings Institution report set the “subsistence and
poverty” line at $1,500 for families and $750 for unattached individuals. At
the beginning of his second term as President in 1937, Franklin Roosevelt
inspired a new definition when he spoke of seeing “one-third of a nation
ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.” The lowest third of the nation included
all families and unrelated individuals with annual income below $780, and that
figure became an unofficial and approximate measure of poverty for that period.
Poverty lines in the United States were usually developed using standard budgets. The field of people working on issues of poverty and poverty lines was wide and included congressional subcommittee staff, union officials, Councils of Economic Advisers, lobbyists, academics, federal civil servants and social commentators. This broad field of analysts set dollar figures based on a similarly broad range of rationales, with varying amounts of supporting details.
In 1960, Mollie Orshansky (the creator of the official poverty threshold used today) developed her first measures of income inadequacy. Her efforts did not receive attention until the Johnson Administration announced its War on Poverty in 1964 and it became essential for both political and administrative reasons to have some kind of measure of who was poor. The system developed then is still used to generate poverty thresholds and guidelines today.
The official US poverty measure compares a family’s pre-tax cash income to poverty thresholds, adopted in 1965 and updated annually. These thresholds were developed by Ms. Orshansky of the Social Security Administration based on the minimum cost of a nutritionally balanced meal plan as designed by the Department of Agriculture. A 1955 survey indicated that food costs were about one-third of the average family’s post-tax cash expenditures, so the poverty threshold was set at three times this amount, adjusted for family size and adjusted yearly for cost of living increases.
The poverty
thresholds provide only one part of the data needed to determine the level of
poverty in the United States. In order to determine whether a family is poor,
its resources are compared with the poverty threshold, where resources are gross
money income as measured by the Census Bureau. This includes before-tax cash
income from all sources (except gains or losses on the sale of property) such as
gross wages and salaries, net income from the operation of a farm, business, or
partnership, pensions, interest, dividends, and government transfer payments
that are distributed in the form of cash, including social security and public
assistance benefits. The measure does not include sources of non-cash income,
such as food stamps, housing subsidies, and government- and employer-provided
health insurance. Many of the concerns about the accuracy of the poverty
thresholds stem from this exclusion of non-cash income, and will be addressed in
detail later in this section.
Despite these concerns and misgivings, 40 years later the fundamental basis for the measure remains unchanged. The high level of political sensitivity around the measure resulted in it becoming an “agency orphan” – the Census Bureau was given and retains responsibility for publishing poverty statistics, but no federal agency was given responsibility for examining the definition of poverty and doing research related to it.
Since 1965, federal agencies and interagency study commissions have made several attempts to develop a more comprehensive poverty measure, but very few changes resulted from those analyses and those changes were very minor.
In 1990, a Congressional Committee requested a study of the official US poverty measure by the National Academy of Sciences to provide a basis for a possible revision of the measure. The NAS Panel published its report of the study in 1995, and its concerns about the measure are summarized below:
| It excludes in-kind benefits, such as food stamps and housing assistance, when counting family income. |
| It ignores the cost of earning income, including childcare costs, when calculating the net income available to families with working members. |
| It disregards regional variation in the cost of living, especially the cost of housing, in determining a family’s consumption needs. |
| It ignores direct tax payments, such as payroll and income taxes, when measuring family income. |
| It ignores differences in health insurance coverage in determining family income, and medical care needs in determining family consumption needs. |
| It has never been updated to account for changing consumption patterns of US households. For example, expenditures for food accounted for about one-third of family income in the 1950s, but they now account for as little as one-seventh. |
NAS panel members made three central recommendations to address these concerns: changing the measure of income, changing the calculation of the poverty threshold, and changing the survey used to determine income levels, and thus the percentage and distribution of the poor. Each of these recommendations generates complex technical problems and policy issues.
Previous attempts to change the dollar-based poverty definition have not moved beyond research, academia, and rhetoric for a variety of reasons:
| It could change the perception of the total number of people who are in poverty. |
| It could make more people eligible for assistance and therefore put upward pressure on budgets. |
| It could make fewer people eligible for assistance and therefore put downward pressure on budgets. |
| It could screen out some who now receive substantial in-kind support e.g. food stamps and Earned Income Tax Credits. |
| It could re-allocate funds among states and local service providers. |
Social mobility
is still poorly understood and under-invested in terms of research. There is
much more volatility of movement among the general population than is recognized
and factored into public policy, most of which is based on a static snapshot of
society rather then a dynamic moving picture of how American works. Why do some
groups and individuals avoid poverty altogether? Why do some pop into poverty
and quickly pop out? Why do some drop in and stick?
There are many reasons the poor work fewer hours than the non-poor, including difficulty in finding jobs, the demands of caring for young children, poor health, transportation problems, substance abuse, and other personal problems.
Although a shortage of job opportunities is often cited as an important reason for the poor's lack of involvement in the work force, the gap in the work hours of poor and non-poor families with children is observed in good years as well as bad. The state of the economy and the availability of jobs surely play some role, but are not the primary reasons for these differences in work effort. In short, the poor have less income in large measure because they work far fewer hours than their more affluent counterparts.
On the surface,
this is a simple and understandable fact. But clearly there is more to it than
this simple statement would indicate, and there is a body of research that
attempts to look deeper at the underlying reasons. Further this analysis is
keyed to the flawed definition of poverty as a line separating those who are in
poverty from those who aren’t.
Analysis of economic data reveals several important pieces of information. The longer a person has been poor, the less likely it is that he or she will escape poverty. Among those who do escape poverty, reentry rates are relatively high, with more than one-half of those escaping returning within five years. In terms of people most likely to be in poverty, research shows that Blacks, Hispanics, female-headed families, persons with low levels of education, and children are most vulnerable to poverty.4
As might be
expected from the Brooking’s Institution data that began this section,
economic changes related to employment were the most important factor in
movement into or out of poverty. 5
About half of all spells of poverty began or ended when the earnings of a
family head or the spouse fell or increased, and the most frequent trigger event
for entry into poverty was the loss of employment of a household member. A major
shift in household composition – especially transitioning from a two-adult to
a female-headed household – was another very likely trigger for entry into
poverty. Incidence of this trigger is low (1.7% of the study population) but
among those who did experience it, 12.4% entered poverty.6
Some estimates
are that as many as 50% of US citizens will experience situational poverty
sometime during their lives. Many of those who enter situational poverty access
government services far less or not at all compared to those in generational
poverty. The family, the clan and other social networks are a stronger part of
their support mechanisms. Policymakers have tended to be most concerned with the
long-term or chronically poor, who disproportionately tax the welfare system and
other social support services. For these individuals, poverty is chronic and may
be caused by limited job opportunities, education, and job skills, as well as
discrimination.7
Long-term
poverty was not equally shared. African Americans, high school dropouts,
individuals with health problems, and women and children living in single-mother
families were disproportionately likely to be poor. Race differences in the risk
of long-term poverty were especially striking. Fewer than 1 in 50 whites were
poor for 10 or more years from 1979 to 1991, but 1 in 6 African Americans were.8
Racial
differences are even more striking among children in long-term poverty than
annual poverty rates suggest. Nearly 30 percent of African-American children
were poor in 10 or more years, and they constituted almost 90 percent of
long-term-poor children. Other children who had much higher than average
durations in poverty included those who lived with a single parent throughout
their childhood, those who lived in the South, and those with a disabled parent.9
Many different researchers have presented many different theories on why people are poor. A few of these are summarized below. This is not an exhaustive list, but does illustrate the range and complexity of the problem.
Human Capital Theory attempts to explain individuals’ different levels of investment in education and training in terms of their expected returns from the investment. Investments in education and training entail costs in direct expenses and foregone earnings during the investment period. People who expect to work less in the labor market and to have fewer labor market opportunities, such as women or minorities, are less likely to invest in human capital. As a result, these women and minorities may have lower earnings and may be more likely to be in poverty.
Flawed Character Theories assume that people have ample opportunities for improving their economic status, but lack the initiative and diligence necessary to take advantage of them. Oscar Lewis’ “culture of poverty” theory (1968) is an example of a flawed character theory. This theory maintains that a culture of poverty forms among a significant minority of the poor such that people are not psychologically geared to take advantage of opportunities that m ay come their way.
Restricted
opportunity theories contend that the poor lack sufficient access to
economic opportunities and cannot avoid poverty unless their economic
opportunities improve. The dual labor market theory is an example. In this
theory the labor market is split into two sectors with little mobility between
them—the primary sector offering steady employment, higher wages, and better
promotion opportunities, and the secondary sector with low wages, poor working
conditions, and few promotion opportunities.10
In the Memberships Theory of poverty,11 socioeconomic outcomes depend significantly upon the composition of the groups of which people are members over the course of their lives. These groups may be defined along many dimensions, including ethnicity, the neighborhoods in which people live, schools, and places of work. Group memberships can shape individual outcomes through different paths, which include:
In the public eye, the “breakdown of the family” and unwed childbearing are seen as prominent causes of poverty. Research to support these views is mixed. With regards to unwed childbearing, one study compared sets of sisters, one of whom became an unwed mother while the other did not. The assumption was that sisters share many factors that might constitute risk factors for later poverty.
The studies produced a striking result. Despite their different childbearing histories, the sisters were very similar on most adult outcomes, including education and poverty. On the other hand, studies that compared unwed mothers with women who miscarried and who were presumably drawn from the same population found that unwed childbearing affects the likelihood of subsequent marriage, which in turn is strongly related to later economic well-being.
Statistics do show that married
women and their children have much lower rates of poverty than single mothers
and their children, encouraging many to suggest promoting marriage as a method
to reduce poverty. Critics of this view believe that there is a very limited
pool of financially stable men for low-income women to marry. Activities
promoting marriage may only serve to further stigmatize single mothers, who
often say they would marry if they found a suitable spouse.12
And lastly, there is the case of intergenerational persistence, where the question must be asked: Does growing up poor increase the likelihood of being poor as an adult? Most poor children do not grow up to be poor adults. Only one in four who were consistently poor below age 17 can still be considered poor at ages 25–27. But poor African-American children were less likely to escape poverty than poor white children—one in three was still poor at ages 25–27, compared to one in 12 poor white children. Indeed, African Americans who were not poor as children were over twice as likely to be poor at ages 25–27 than were poor white children.
Recent research using longitudinal data has revealed that the correlation between the long-run economic status of fathers and sons is stronger than previously thought, and that the size of the effect appears to grow as the sons age: fathers’ economic status accounts for about 25 percent of the economic status of sons in their mid-20s, but about 50 percent of the status of sons in their late 30s. Fathers’ income appears to have an equally strong link to the economic status of their adult daughters. There is, however, some evidence to suggest that these associations began to weaken in the 1980s and 1990s, as intergenerational income and occupational mobility increased.
Poor children are more than three times as likely to have dropped out of high school. Poor girls are more than twice as likely to have had a teen birth. Poor boys work fewer hours, have lower annual earnings, and spend more weeks idle in their mid-20s than do non-poor boys. Poor children have higher poverty rates and lower incomes in their mid-20s than do non-poor children.
These
statistics do not, however, tell us how much child poverty itself actually
affects children’s developmental and economic outcomes. Poor and non-poor
families differ in many ways. Poor families are more likely to be headed by one
parent than by two, and poor parents tend to be younger, less educated, less
healthy, less likely to be employed, more likely to earn less, and more likely
to receive welfare than non-poor parents. These differences, not income alone,
could be leading to undesirable outcomes for poor children.13
Sen says that too great an emphasis has been placed on trying to generate equality of outcomes – defined as family incomes in the traditional view of poverty. Discussion of equality of outcomes has tended to be polarized. The welfare/ majoritarian/ utilitarian argument encourages government to guarantee these outcomes, and the competing libertarian argument proclaims that the government should only guarantee the processes or ‘rules of the game’ and should have no role in assuring outcomes.
Sen moves further back from both of these arguments, and says that the best role for government is helping people get the education and other “inputs” (primary goods) that they need to function in that society. Sen’s work moves us away from a focus on “needs” and shifts our attention to a focus on “strengths,” including social capital, human capital and financial capital. These forms of capital – which in Sen’s approach are the “primary goods” that people should start with or acquire -- provide insurance against slipping into poverty and provide effective ways to get out of poverty.
Sen frames his definition of poverty in terms of “capabilities.” Sen calls a capability the substantive freedoms people enjoy to lead the kind of life they have reason to value, such as social functioning, better basic education and healthcare, and longevity. When poverty is viewed in terms of capability deprivation, it becomes obvious that low income is not the only influence on capability deprivation; and the impact of income on capabilities is variable among different communities, families, and individuals. While traditional views of poverty have stressed the importance of greater earnings to lead to better outcomes, in Sen’s view there is also a connection going from capability improvement to greater earning power. Individuals need to be well-prepared to take advantage of economic opportunities in order to realize their full potential.
The idea of realizing individual potential is an important theme in the research of Ravi Kanbur and Lyn Squire as well. In their view, extending the definition of poverty to incorporate human development captures important dimensions of poverty that are otherwise missed by conventional income or expenditure measures. They too stress the important linkages between human development and income earning capacity – income is both a major determinant and an outcome of human development.
In their research on poverty around the world, and particularly in developing countries, they found that the plight of the poor was generally lifted by national or regional economic growth. The poor tend to participate in economic growth through increased or more productive use of “their most abundant asset,” labor.
But some of the frequent companions of poverty – lack of education, poor nutrition and health –contribute to functional effects on their capacity to work, and thus the interactions between human development and multi-layered. For example, a well nourished person can work more, thereby earning more and both consuming more and saving more, ensuring future nourishment and work capacity. Without these basic building blocks – “capabilities” in Sen’s work – the poor are unable to take advantage of income earning opportunities that come with growth. At the same time, society suffers the loss of their potential contributions.
Kanbur and Squire also identified to other characteristics of poverty that they viewed as especially important, and that tended not to be captured in traditional views of the poor. These can be summed up as “vulnerability” and “voice.” Their research found that the poor were particularly vulnerable to risk: the state of being poor was not just a state of having little, but also of being vulnerable to losing the little one has. The poor suffer from risk because they lack the means to protect themselves adequately against it. If a contingency occurs, the poor have few assets to dispose of in addressing the problem, or the depletion of those assets must plunge them further into long-term poverty. And they often cannot borrow to meet their needs.
In terms of
“voice,” in describing their interactions with government employees and
institutions, surveys of the poor revealed another important aspect of life in
poverty: lack of political power. This lack of voice and political rights, was
often described as a sense of powerlessness, and was described by some as the
most fundamental characteristic of poverty.
The existing measure of poverty is best described as a snapshot approach that does not reveal what happens to a family over time. For example, they may be poor during their younger years, have adequate income in the middle years, and be poor again or perhaps well off in their senior years. What are the total lifetime earnings of most individuals and families?
The existing simplistic income-based definition of poverty does not consider real factors that determine how long a person or family stays in poverty, such as human and social capital. These cushion a family from temporary income poverty and enable the family to escape poverty more quickly. The existing formula fails to reveal these cushions and pathways out of poverty.
Due to poor linkages between academic research and public policy, research that has been conducted on the causes of poverty is generally not reflected in program design. Additionally, most legislation does not call for the strategies it requires or permits to be evaluated for their effectiveness. Programs operate for decades with no systematic evaluation.
Programs are focused on specific needs emanating from legislative action -- usually representing a compromise of conflicting viewpoints. These compromises are based on assumptions about aggregate needs – but these do not relate to the totality of an individual’s needs. To be effective in allowing all Americans to reach their full potential, we must embrace a new definition of poverty.
Creating a 21st Century
Model to Address Poverty
Research Brief on Existing Approaches and Strategies
November 2004
Various strategies have existed over the years, but virtually all programs could be categorized as “place strategies” or “people strategies.” Place strategies have dominated over the last forty years and these have focused on rebuilding impoverished neighborhoods through improvement of housing, job creation, and retail development. The concept behind these approaches is that the social and economic environment that people live in must be improved in order for individuals to have opportunities to reach their full potential. By contrast, people strategies have focused on helping those living in poverty to obtain the skills, personal orientation, and support needed to achieve self-sufficiency. There is a growing consensus that both strategies must be integrated to be successful. This line of thinking puts more emphasis on developing the individual and mobilizing his or her personal responsibility towards economic self-sufficiency.
As a third
dimension, there is a growing realization that many aspects of “community”
must be in place in order for productive change to occur. Strategies to
alleviate poverty often have and most likely will continue to be different in
urban versus rural communities. Urban centers are challenged by urban sprawl,
affordability of housing, and long commute times, all of which can hinder a
cohesive sense of community. In urban areas, community approaches that address
issues like poverty now tend to emerge from town centers in a suburban area.
Rural areas have dispersed populations, fewer natural resource-based industries,
increased global competition for the low-skill, low-wage rural jobs and are
often disconnected from urban resources. It is more difficult to develop a
cohesive community in a rural area; however, business or social “clusters”
can exist that link small groups of individuals to create economies of scale, to
educate or provide technical assistance, or to initiate or change a policy of
mutual interest. The use of technology has significantly facilitated such rural
efforts. Groups of individuals and businesses with mutual interests have been
striving to create a “community approach” to the alleviation or amelioration
of various problems.
| Building on the existing assets of a community. |
| Emphasizing strategic planning that represents the
whole community. |
| Addressing the sources of deterioration in a way that
acknowledges the inter-relatedness of complex, social problems. |
| Developing partnerships and collaboration among all
stakeholders. |
| Being flexible to the changing needs of the community. |
Another emerging community-based organizational structure that focuses on poverty is the Comprehensive Community Initiatives (CCIs) model. There are far fewer CCIs relative to the Community Action Agencies discussed below; however, they also work on the premise that collaboration is a key ingredient to the success of community-based coalitions. This model is more “place based” and goals include: development of community empowerment, leadership and organizational capacity building, improving the delivery of human services, expanding beyond housing development, fostering local economies and job creation, and pursing comprehensive community transformation. Most CCIs are funded by foundations.
Some
CCIs have a broad focus that attempts to address many facets of poverty
alleviation and work on building collaborations between agencies in order to
facilitate change. Other CCIs have a more narrow focus, such as juvenile
violence, although most CCIs fall somewhere in between in terms of
comprehensiveness. A central theme is that CCIs typically use strategies that
build community and social capital. These are important attributes for any
community to have; however, they are very difficult to measure so assessment of
impact can take many years. Another central theme is the engagement of all
residents in a community, which can delay action but can also result in near
universal legitimacy of the changes that are enacted.
A
notable example of CCIs is the Neighborhood and Family Initiative launched by
the Ford Foundation in 1990. Four cities were chosen for revitalization and
citizen empowerment. Over four years, $1,125,000 was given to each of the
communities. It may take several years to have conclusive evidence of success;
however, many examples of short term gains are evident such as microenterprise
type loans to small businesses (which tend to be highly successful), improved
outdoor lighting in high crime areas, and purchases of park land.
Neighborhood
Revitalization Initiatives2
focus upon crime, safety, and nuisance
abatement. These initiatives look at both the supply and demand factors in
criminal activity and attempt to address both. Demand side strategies try to
address human needs by strengthening family-oriented services. These could
include child care, employment, mental health, and substance abuse services. The
idea is that by alleviating some of the extreme stressors that low-income
individuals can have, they are less likely to engage in criminal activity.
The
supply side strategies include “opportunity blocking” and the development of
social capital. “Opportunity blocking” involves making changes to places
where criminal activity occurs such that crimes are more difficult to carry out,
less rewarding financially, and more risky in terms of getting caught. The
development of social capital involves initiating a neighborhood association
that brings residents together for ideas and action that can revitalize the
neighborhood and reduce crime.
Neighborhood
revitalization strategies that have been most effective are those that
promulgate effective crime prevention strategies and those that have a strong
partnership between residents and other community entities. A seemingly
effective example of this model is the HOPE VI3
initiative launched by Congress in 1993. This
program involves large-scale demolition and redevelopment of public housing
units – usually more than 300 units – in very distressed neighborhoods. A
recent study of eight HOPE VI neighborhoods did find many positive outcomes from
1990-2000, including increases in income, employment and education levels, and
decreases in crime. Again, it is difficult to quantify how much of these gains
are due to HOPE VI and how much is due to other factors like the stronger
economic climate during the 1990s. From 1993 to 2002, over $5 billion was
earmarked for 193 HUD-funded, HOPE VI revitalization grants.
Community
Action Agencies (CAAs) serve over a quarter of all Americans living in poverty
or close to the poverty line. CAAs were created through the Economic Opportunity
Act of 1964 and most of the approximately 1,100 organizations dedicated to
alleviating poverty are CAAs. A total of $9 billion is administered by the CAA
networks, and each dollar is matched by almost $5 of state, local, and private
contributions. These additional dollars demonstrate the additional commitment
that can emerge from engaged communities.
CAAs
can significantly differ from community to community. However, the overarching
goals of CAAs include: securing and maintaining employment, providing adequate
education, ensuring adequate housing, providing emergency services, improving
nutrition, creating linkages among anti-poverty programs, and achieving
self-sufficiency. It is interesting to note that CAA goals include a mixture of
“people” and “place” strategies as well as a mixture of services that
hold both society and the individual accountable for the socio-economic outcomes
of a given community.
The average income for a low-income family, adjusted for inflation, is less than it was 30 years ago. The major cause for this negative trend is the decline in the rate of pay. One result has been that the gap between the higher and lower income stratums is at its highest post-WWII level. Various theories exist as to the reasons why the gap has grown; however, a somewhat naturally occurring outcome has been the emergence of community economic development efforts, including workforce development.
In
the past, many networks have existed in workforce development and in economic
development, although the two typically have not been integrated in any
systematic fashion. Generally speaking, economic development efforts are
primarily locally funded and governed while workforce development efforts are
primarily responsive to federal mandates and dependent on federal funds.
Economic
development efforts have not been formalized due primarily to the lack of
federal funding and leadership in this area. Workforce development organizations
tend to have more formalized partnership arrangements primarily because federal,
state, and local government has emphasized this. However, local entities, both
public and private, have independently connected with workforce development and
community building agencies to address key economic, community, and workforce
issues.
Another
community economic development model is the Community Development Corporation (CDC).
A result of the Great Society programs, CDCs aim to bring about social,
economic, and physical revitalization in a given community. CDCs carry the theme
of comprehensive and integrative approaches to poverty alleviation. There were
relatively few CDCs in the early 1970s, but they grew significantly in number
during the 1980s when many social programs were cut or abolished.
CDCS
have a wide range of activities and goals but most deal with housing issues,
commercial real estate development, community and tenant organizing, the
provision of human services, employment counseling and placement, rehabilitation
of industrial property, loans and other assistance to small businesses, and
neighborhood planning.
Workforce development strategies that interface job seekers and employers are not usually geared towards “holistic” community development. Instead, workforce development tends to focus upon the immediate goal of increasing employment and ensuring optimal matches between employers and employees
Nonetheless,
economic and community development has embraced the notion of workforce
development as part of a healthy and desirable community. In general, there have
been four strategies or models that have been utilized by various communities
around that notion:
Economic
and community development does not necessarily have at its core the alleviation
of poverty. However, it is implied that poverty can be diminished or eradicated
through its goals of employer and employee opportunity creation.
There
is usually more emphasis in economic and community development efforts on the
employer side of the equation as can be seen by the common characteristics found
in the various programmatic tenets:
| Linked to a market need and strategy. |
| Entrepreneurial, opportunity-driven approach. |
| Visionary and pragmatic leadership. |
| Endorsed by high level corporate, philanthropic or
governmental leaders. |
| Focused mission with clear goals and customers. |
| Comprehensive, customer-focused program design. |
Some
communities have also adapted urban revitalization and/or economic integration
efforts or living wage ordinances as part of their community development. For
example, in Baltimore and Los Angeles, firms under contract with the city had to
pay their workers within a specific wage rate, one higher than the minimum wage.
Outcomes have shown no negative cost effects on the city itself, no evidence of
job loss, less bidding based only on low cost (and lower wages for workers), and
some increases in other quality of life indicators for the affected workers. As
another example, in New York City, a partnership between community, economic,
and workforce development devised job placement and support services for
released inmates. The efforts called for much collaboration and coordination
between community, economic, and workforce entities.5
Although
some concrete examples exist, community economic development efforts, including
those that integrate workforce development, have very little empirical data
regarding their effectiveness. There are several reasons for this, including
that it can be a long time before results are observable and there are many
variables in anything that entails “community,” so pinpointing and
attributing success is challenging. Correspondingly, some projects are very
small scale and any research and/or evaluation of these projects is lacking.
These are challenges to most community initiatives as is further discussed in
the evaluation section below.
Looking
more broadly to the community, models that go beyond income statistics and focus
on the various facets of quality of life tend to meet with greater success. The
trend in the last couple of decades has been to incorporate the many variables
that comprise socio-economic status and quality of life, including individual
and/or family economic viability, education, housing, employment and wage rate
environment, neighborhood safety, community engagement, family support
structures, and the individual’s and society’s commitment to the alleviation
of poverty. Since few programs incorporate all of these dimensions, it is even
more important for communities to come together to coordinate these efforts and
gain synergies from the implementation and the outcomes. Hence, all significant
parts of the community must be engaged from both the public and private sectors.
Engaging a community to come together as a unit to
affect change is a formidable task. There are often varying opinions, cultures,
agendas and available resources within a community, which can challenge even a
universally-accepted goal of poverty alleviation. Yet there is a growing
consensus that mobilizing a community can be an effective and sustainable way to
improve the quality of life of its citizens.
Community
engagement entails the legitimization of common goals for the betterment of a
neighborhood or other geographic area with set boundaries.
Community
engagement attempts to provide a venue for residents, businesses, educational
institutions, and even government to discuss, collaborate, and implement changes
that aim to improve the community as a whole. Implicit in these endeavors is the
empowerment of individuals and groups of individuals (including businesses) to
navigate many aspects of their immediate environment.
This
environment includes important short and long term policies affecting education,
housing, crime reduction, employment, social capital, and family support
mechanisms.
Successful
community-based coalitions, and organizations of any type, are most successful
when there is a clear vision of what the organization aspires to be and what its
goals are. When communities define their own needs and goals, there is a sense
of identity and buy-in for the course of changes that will occur. Engaged and
successful communities often capitalize on some pivotal event, whether it is
favorable or unfavorable. These communities often take account of what
comparative advantages or assets they already have, and what challenges they
face. They are inclusive of all socio-economic, racial, and ethnic groups across
all generations.
Engaged
communities are comprised of many stakeholders that are willing to work across
many sectors. Effective community engagement includes those with authority,
those in need of assistance and a voice, and those with expertise in the process
of coalition-building and community mobilization. Successful community
coalitions seek out technical assistance in the methodologies and examples of
“best practices” in community, economic and workforce development. Engaged
communities usually have some funds dedicated to the capacity building of the
coalition and work towards strategies for perpetual sustainability. Strong,
visionary leadership that respects many voices and operates with great integrity
is also a key element of successful community endeavors.
One
could argue that leading a community-based coalition is more challenging than
leading a company or single-entity organization. The simple aim of pulling
together varying individuals’ interests and achieving consensus is an art.
Effective
leaders and their staff have to possess the ability and patience to maintain a
sense of hope and momentum, while also being charismatic.
Planning
and action must also be balanced carefully. Effective leaders usually need to
develop buy-in from at least one significant political player or level of
government, and they usually have to have sufficient tenure to obtain the
support they need. Effective leaders know how to celebrate successes with the
community members, and they know how to give voice and credit to staff or other
members of the coalition.
From
an operational perspective, good leaders must possess an array of competencies
including the following abilities:
1.
To communicate effectively –
orally, visually, and written.
2.
To translate the overall vision into
measurable goals and objectives.
3.
To gather and analyze data and use
the information wisely.
4.
To understand and internalize the
goals for each person or group in the community.
5.
To listen, and convince various
members or interest groups that there is a mutually beneficial outcome to the
various actions or policies under consideration.
6.
To motivate participants.
7.
To provide recognition and rewards.
8.
To assess the available resources
and use them judiciously.
9.
To work towards long term benefits
and outcomes.
There
are various initiatives world-wide to develop more effective leaders. Good
leadership is very difficult to find, but an essential component to successful
community building or community development.
Various
indicators are used to measure the health of a community. They fall into broad
social categories, including:
| Economic well-being |
| Wellness and safety |
| Nurturing, inclusive environment |
| Demographics |
| Educational preparedness |
| Community participation |
| Transportation |
The
National Association of Planning Councils (NAPC) is one of the national leaders
in measuring the characteristics of communities. More specifically, the NAPC
model includes a Deprivation Index, a Child Well-being Index, and a Health and
Social Descriptive. Each category has various quantitative parameters that
define each index or indicator.
The
United Way has also created a quality of life barometer that incorporates 35
indicators including measures of financial security, health, education, safety,
charitable giving, volunteerism, civic engagement, and the natural environment (http://national.unitedway.org/stateofcaring/).
Local communities are creating their own United Way State of Caring indicators
using the methodology of the federal index.7
Kids
Count is a measure of the health of a community developed by the Annie E. Casey
Foundation. It is a national and state-by-state effort to track the status of
children in the United States. Children’s health is often a good indicator of
the overall health of a community, and it is a group that all agree needs
prioritization and an active voice. One of the most useful aspects of these
indices is that they are accompanied by narrative essays (available online) that
give customized information by state, county, city and community. This can be
particularly useful for comparative and prioritization/planning purposes (www.aecf.org/cgibin/cliks.cgi).
The
Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC)8
has also identified key characteristics of
“smart neighborhoods.” All of these tools and similar ones can be useful to
communities in assessing their strengths and weaknesses. They can be used as
diagnostic tools that lead to vision and action. In fact, having access to such
key information can also serve as a very powerful tool to educate community
members about their own environment and the living conditions of the citizens.
With this compelling information, it is more likely that community coalitions
will have similar priorities about which unique strengths should be built upon
and what challenges should be addressed first.
Community
planning processes can vary greatly. There are, however, categories or models of
community planning that can be identified. These may be useful to coalitions
that are beginning to form given that some models have met with more success
than others.
The
managerial model is a more traditional model used by many community coalitions,
most closely resembling the strategic planning models seen in the private
sector. These models are “top down” and follow fairly rigid processes.
Given
that successful community-based coalitions need broad stakeholder participation,
it is not surprising that the managerial model is not usually a very efficacious
one.
The
legislative model is the second most widely used model. This model includes the
development of an agenda, the fostering of community acceptance of the agenda,
and the legitimization of decisions made by the community’s governing team.
These models may succeed if they are very inclusive and if other key
“success” factors (e.g., good leadership) are present.
The
limited community participation model involves a subset of citizens that create
a committee, task force, or commission focused upon a very specific agenda and
goal. After the citizens’ committee completes a report and presents it to some
governing body, formal planning and decision-making is then handed over to
another governing body. These models may suit the purpose of a short-term goal
and may be “successful” in this right. However, for broader agendas,
participation must be more inclusive of the various players in the community.
The
community empowerment process model is built around extensive community
participation. This model serves as a tool to empower community members to
navigate the course of their immediate social and economic surroundings.
Residents have a high level of participation in these models over a long period
of time. Given the heavy investment of time and resources by many stakeholders,
these models are highly sustainable.
It
is important to note that those community planning processes that develop a
formal structure to monitor progress and delegate responsibilities are also more
likely to succeed. This can involve a delicate balance since too much of a
hierarchic structure can also be detrimental. As stated above, it is also
important to have a clear vision, plan of action, implementation strategy, and
plan for sustainability.
The
Urban Institute has researched the key traits to successful community building.9 They
have found that systematic approaches to community building have been more
successful than the narrower neighborhood programs of the past. Their seven key
themes for successful community building include:
The
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, United States
Department of Health and Human Services (ASPE)10
also conducted research and developed a list of
seven key attributes of successful community-based initiatives:
Starting
from the individual or micro-level, whole community initiatives look at the
well-being of the individual and/or family structure. Broad social challenges
are often brought to the forefront of community, local, state or federal
attention because of how they impact individuals and/or families. These social
challenges are usually intertwined with challenges faced within family
structures. Social problems involve a web of reciprocal cause and effect between
the many facets of the community. Often, the persistent negative effects of
poverty cause broader social dilemmas (e.g., crime) that, in turn, perpetuate
detrimental norms within homes (e.g., drug or alcohol abuse). An effective whole
community approach acknowledges that individuals and families should be given
resources to affect change within their homes as well as outside their
homes. This can involve anything from making health care accessible, to drug
rehabilitation, to education about healthy parenting skills (to name a few).
At
the neighborhood or community level, whole community initiatives try to reach
out to the various constituents of a community to create a level of
understanding for each others’ life circumstances. In doing so, they embrace
the many types of community members and attempt to put a face on poverty to
create understanding and support for those in need. Whole community initiatives
do not make value judgments about certain racial/ethnic or economic groups. They
make the problems they face part of the agenda for change.
At
the planning level, whole communities aim to understand the aforementioned
complex interaction between individuals, families, neighborhoods and the
challenges they face. Once the specific dynamic is well understood, a holistic
approach to alleviating the problems is within reach. These holistic approaches
not only involve all the stakeholders and community members, they also implement
actions and policies that include housing, jobs, health care, education, and
crime. This often entails bringing together community organizations that in the
past have been separate. This is a tall order and many community-based
coalitions are limited in their reach.
However,
if there is true community involvement that is highly inclusive, many of the
critical components of the community can be positively affected over time.
As
stated above, implicit in such successes is the assumption that other vital
community building attributes are in place (e.g., strong leadership, access to
effective methodologies for community building, the recognition of successes,
working across racial/ethnic groups). Monitoring and evaluating programs is also
an integral part of what whole communities do. They want to know if they are
achieving their goals and they want to be able to prove their efficacy to their
community members and to potential funders.
The
Hispanic Community in Montgomery County, Maryland mobilized a “whole
community” approach to try and solve its very high educational dropout rate,
over crowded housing problem, and high percentage (85%) of families without
health insurance. The Hispanics formed a coalition called the Montgomery County
Consejo Latino (MCCL) group and it acknowledged the interrelated nature of
poverty, overcrowded housing, low educational attainment, and poor health.
Community centers are now in the planning phase; they will have a goal to
provide many of the needed services (e.g., bilingual health center, educational,
and other social services). Many private corporations have dedicated money or
other resources to help launch these centers and the county has agreed to match
funds. This increases the likelihood that the plans will materialize and that
the wide scope of the “whole community” approach will be feasible.
A
comprehensive overview of the characteristics of promising community efforts can
be found in the PEW Foundation publication Smart Communities authored by
Suzanne Moore. This book gives in-depth examples of many of the defining
characteristics discussed in this paper. Specifically, six high-leverage points
are identified as critical to community change. These include:
Sustainability involves a longer term outlook on the viability of the community coalition and the community itself. True sustainability embraces a holistic view of the community, including all those facets that affect poverty: education, housing, employment and wage rate environment, neighborhood safety, social capital, and individual/family support structures. Implicit in this broad view is the engagement of individuals, businesses, and both public and private entities. Sustainability also looks at economic, environmental, and social indicators in a highly comprehensive manner. For example, instead of using the traditional indicator of median income for a given community, a “sustainability indicator” might measure the number of hours of paid employment at the average wage rate required to support the basic needs of a person or family.
These
deeper reaching indicators can serve not only as markers for the climate of a
community; they can also be used as prioritization tools for those communities
that have many social issues they want to tackle.
Similarly, citizens should feel that it is easy to participate in the community coalition. Leadership and staff should provide multiple entry points for participation and should reach out to members of the community who might otherwise not participate. It may also be helpful to provide a social environment that is conducive to recreational events that create friendships and a sense of collegiality. A sustainable community initiative also has the culture that all members have a sense of responsibility, that the tasks towards action and improvement must be spread as evenly as possible across the coalition. This way there is not a sense of reliance on specific members who may or may not be with the community for the long term. Also, board members, staff, and volunteers should be members of the community itself. They are more likely to have legitimacy from other members and they are more likely to participate in a manner that understands the nuances of that particular community.
As
mentioned above, there are several crucial elements that are necessary for any
community coalition to have, whether they are relatively new and in their
agenda-forming stage or whether they are established and looking to future
sustainability. These include: strong leadership; partnerships with businesses,
nonprofits and government; high and inclusive community participation; technical
assistance; and a holistic approach that embraces all sectors of the community.
Evaluation of community endeavors is notoriously difficult because of the multiple variables involved in what comprises a community. Attributing a success (or failure) can be very difficult when there are multiple causes. For example, if one looks to a massive educational effort in an impoverished neighborhood for improved childhood asthma rates and sees decreased emergency room or hospitalization rates, it is possible that those rates are a result of the school-based education, the physician education, the media campaigns, or the free Saturday clinics. However, the reduced rates can also be the result of reduced emissions, which were not part of the intervention, or they could even be a cohort effect (a coincidental group of youngsters who have a lower incidence of asthma than the previously measured group). Likewise, the impact of systemic, broad community policies and actions can take a long time to reveal themselves – even decades. And some goals can involve very subtle concepts like building social capital, which also makes evaluation difficult.
It
is also true that relatively few communities have the technical capacity to
effectively evaluate their efforts on an ongoing basis. This is one primary
reason why it is often suggested that community-based coalitions should partner
with higher academic institutions. Universities and/or colleges often have
faculty that specialize in evaluation, and they are often willing to partner to
both assist in affecting positive change in the community and to research
(publishable) topics of interest.
For
those coalitions that have established the expertise and that recognize the
importance of evaluation, attention and impact from their efforts can be more
assured if they do the following:11
Even small community initiatives should have a dedicated evaluation member or team that constantly maintains, summarizes and presents data. Effective evaluation is not post hoc or conducted on an as needed basis. Findings should always be used as a continuous quality improvemen