A Framework for Understanding Poverty
Page 14
"... [ F ] rom 1986 to 1992 the number of teen births in the United States increased from 472,000 to 518,ooo, an increase of nearly 50,000."
"While the majority of the teen births-about twothirds-are to white teenagers, the proportion has been falling over time. By 1989, although African American women aged fifteen to nineteen composed 15.7 percent of this female age cohort, they accounted for 35 percent of the teen births. Indeed, teen births account for nearly one-quarter of all births to African American women."
"Children born to unmarried teen mothers do not have an even start in life. They are more likely to grow up in a poor and mother-only family, live in a poor or underclass neighborhood, and experience high risks to both their health status and potential school achievement."
"Moreover, a relatively small percentage of teen unmarried mothers finish high school."
"Low achievement, grade repetition and classroom conduct problems are often precursors of school dropout, adolescent parenthood, joblessness and delinquency. The finding that poor children exhibit these problems at rates double those shown by non-poor children means the `cycle of disadvantage' is still with us. Unless effective interventions are found and applied, many of these young people will go on to become adult non-workers and impoverished or dependent parents, possibly producing another generation of high-risk children."
Haveman, Robert, Wolfe, Barbara, and Wilson, Kathryn. Childhood Poverty and Adolescent Schooling and Fertility Outcomes: Reduced-form and Structural Estimates. Duncan, Greg J., and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne, Editors. Consequences of Growing Up Poor. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 1997. P. 421.
Ibid. pp. 421-422.
Ibid. P. 422.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Zill, Nicholaus. "The Changing Realities of Family Life." Aspen Institute Quarterly. Winter 1993. Volume 5. Number i. P. 39.
APPENDIX
Additive Model:
aha! Process's Approach to Building High-Achieving Schools
by Philip E. DeVol
'he mission of aha! Process, Inc. is to positively impact the education and lives of individuals in poverty around the world. This mission is informed by the reality of life in poverty, research on the causes of poverty, and Dr. Ruby K. Payne's research and insights into economic diversity. The issues that aha! Process addresses are economic stability; the development of resources for individuals, families, and communities; and community sustainability. aha! Process provides an additive model that recognizes people in poverty, middle class, and wealth as problem solvers. The focus is on solutions, shared responsibilities, new insights, and interdependence. This work is about connectedness and relationships; it is about "us."
USING THE KNOWLEDGE OF PEOPLE IN POVERTY TO BUILD AN ACCURATE MENTAL MODEL OF POVERTY
Going directly to people in generational poverty, the people working the low-wage jobs, and listening to them talk about their concrete experiences is to learn from the experts, the people with the knowledge. The circle of life for a family at the bottom of the economic ladder is intense and stressful. Cars and public transportation are unreliable and insufficient, low-wage jobs come and go, housing is crowded and very costly, time and energy go into caring for the sick and trying to get health care, and many of the interactions with the dominant culture are demeaning and frustrating. For people in poverty, the arithmetic of life doesn't work. Housing costs are so high and wages so low that people have to double up, usually with family members, but often with people they may not know very well. All the elements in this mental model of poverty are interlocking: When the car won't start it sets off a chain reaction of missed appointments, being late to work, losing jobs, and searching for the next place to live. Vulnerability for people in poverty is concrete. When the price of gas goes to $2.2o a gallon it can mean having to work half a day to fill the tank. When one's attention is focused on the unfolding crisis of the day, people in poverty fall into what Paulo Freire calls the tyranny of the moment. Adds Peter Swartz: "The need to act overwhelms any willingness people have to learn." In this way poverty robs people of the their future stories and the commitment to education. It requires them to use reactive skills, not true choice making, to survive. And finally, it robs them of power; the power to solve problems in such a way as to change the environment-or to make future stories come true.
By continuing to listen, one learns that people survive these circumstances by developing relationships of mutual reliance and facing down problems with courage and humor. It is family, friends, and acquaintances who give you a place to stay, food to eat, a ride to work, and help with your children. It's not Triple A that you call when your car breaks down; it's Uncle Ray. People in poverty are the masters at making relationships quickly. Above all, they are problem solvers; they solve immediate, concrete problems all day long.
Unfortunately, the current operating mental model of our society appears to be that people in poverty are needy, deficient, diseased, and not to be trusted. Again, this can be learned by simply listening: listening to policymakers, commentators, and taxpayers who don't want their tax dollars to go to someone who isn't trying, isn't motivated, is lazy, and so on. Another way to discover the underlying mental model is to observe its programs in action and work backwards. Three- to five-year lifetime limits for assistance, 9o days of services, work first ... These policies point to frustration felt by those whose mental model of the poor is that they are needy, deficient, and diseased.
This inaccurate mental model is fed by media reports that favor soap operas to conceptual stories and individual stories to trends and the broader influences. The public hears about a fictitious "welfare queen" but not comprehensive studies. What is needed is a thorough understanding of the research on poverty.
STUDYING POVERTY RESEARCH TO FURTHER INFORM THE WORK OF AHA! PROCESS
David Shipler, author of The Working Poor, says that in the United States we are confused about the causes of poverty and, as a result, are confused about what to do about poverty (Shipler, 2004). In the interest of a quick analysis of the research on poverty, we have organized the studies into the following four clusters:
? Behaviors of the individual
z Human and social capital in the community
A Exploitation
r Political/economic structures
For the last four decades discourse on poverty has been dominated by proponents of two areas of research: those who hold that the true cause of poverty is the behaviors of individuals and those who hold that the true cause of poverty is political/economic structures. The first argues that if people in poverty would simply be punctual, sober, and motivated, poverty would be reduced if not eliminated. For them, the answer is individual initiative. Voter opinion tends to mirror the research. Forty percent of voters say that poverty is largely due to the lack of effort on the part of the individual (Bostrom, 2005). At the other end of the continuum, the argument is that globalization, as it is currently practiced, results in the loss of manufacturing jobs, forcing communities to attract business by offering the labor of their people at the lowest wages, thus creating a situation where a person can work full time and still be in poverty. In a virtual dead heat with the countering theory, 39 percent of voters think that poverty is largely due to circumstances beyond the individual's control. Unfortunately, both two sides tend to make either/or assertions as if to say, It's either this or that-as if "this" is true and "that" is not.
Either/or assertions have not served us well; it must be recognized that causes of poverty are a both/and reality. Poverty is caused by both the behaviors of the individual and political/economic structures-and everything in between. Definitions for the four clusters of research and sample topics are provided in the table on the next page.
Typically, communities put a great deal of effort into the first area of research: the behaviors of the individuals. "Work first" was one of the key themes of the welfare reform act of 1996. TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) organizations focus
ed on getting people to work. The idea was that getting a job, any job, and learning to work were more important than going to job-training classes or receiving treatment. Community agencies offered treatment for substance abuse and mental-health problems, money-management classes, and programs to address literacy, teen pregnancies, language experience, and more. The mission of these agencies is not to work directly on poverty issues but to deal with co-existing problems. All of these agencies encourage their clients to change behaviors, recording and managing the changes through the use of plans and contracts, and often sanction clients who fail to adhere to treatment plans.
Community efforts to enhance human and social capital include the strategies found in Head Start, WIA programs, One-Stop centers, Earned Income Tax Credit, and other anti-poverty programs. In this area too, accountability and sanctions are used to measure and motivate community organizations. Schools that don't meet certain benchmarks are taken over by state departments; TANF organizations that don't meet certain benchmarks don't receive incentive funds. This isn't to make a blanket criticism of any of the programs that serve low-wage workers. In fact, many programs have great value to those who have used them. Rather, it's the almost exclusive focus on these two areas of research that is the problem.
Communities rarely develop strategies to restrict, replace, or sanction those who exploit people in poverty. Even those organizations charged with fighting poverty sometimes neglect this cause of poverty. In part, this comes from departmentalizing community services. People who work in organizations charged with serving those in poverty don't think of exploiters as their responsibility. That falls to law enforcement and policymakers.
CAUSES OF POVERTY
Definition: Research on the choices, behaviors, characteristics, and habits of people in poverty.
Sample topics:
Dependence on welfare
Morality
Crime
Single parenthood
Breakup of families
Intergenerational character traits
Work ethic
Commitment to achievement
Spending habits
Addiction, mental illness, domestic violence
Planning skills
Orientation to the future
Language experience
Definition: Research on the resources available to individuals, communities, and businesses.
Sample topics:
Intellectual capital
Social capital
Availability of jobs
Availability of well-paying jobs
Availability and quality of education
Adequate skill sets
Childcare for working families
Decline in neighborhoods
Decline in social morality
Urbanization
Suburbanization of manufacturing
Middle-class flight
City and regional planning
Definition: Research on how people in poverty are exploited because they are in poverty.
Sample topics:
Drug trade
(ash-advance lenders
Sub-prime lenders
Lease-purchase outlets
Gambling
Temp work
Sweatshops
Sex trade
Internet scams
Definition: Research on the economic, political, and social policies at the international, national, state, and local levels.
Sample topics:
Globalization
Corporate influence on legislators
Declining middle class
De-industrialization
Job loss
Decline of unions
Taxation patterns
Salary ratio of CEO to line worker
Immigration patterns
Economic disparity
Departmentalizing is even more pronounced when it comes to the causes of poverty that arise from political and economic structures. Community economic development is left to the market system, developers, businesses, corporations, the Chamber of Commerce, and elected officials. People who typically work with those in poverty don't see a role for themselves in the debate on economic development issues any more than those who are engaged in business ventures make a direct connection between their work and the well-being of people in poverty. And yet, in concrete terms, there is direct connection between quality of life and the actions of government and business. For the person in poverty it comes down to this: A person can get vocational training in a particular skill, get a job, and still be in poverty.
This all-too-common reality is the reason why communities must develop strategies across all four areas of research, not just the first two. To continue to focus exclusively on the first two areas of research is to invite more of the same-in short, more poverty. There is good research in all four areas; communities must develop strategies in all four areas if they are going to build resources and sustainability.
Alice O'Connor, author of Poverty Knowledge, says our society has typically looked at poverty through the prism of race and gender. She suggests that another analytic category is needed, that of economic class (O'Connor, 2001). In her seminal 1996 work A Framework for Understanding Poverty, Ruby Payne offered that prism. Since then aha! Process has published many books and produced many videos and workbooks that are used to address poverty across all four areas of research.
THE NEED FOR CHANGE: NAMING PROBLEMS AND FINDING SOLUTIONS
Any community or organization that sets out to address poverty, education, health care, justice, or community sustainability must acknowledge that it seeks change: change in the individual's behavior, change in community approaches, and/or change in political/economic structures. Put another way, there is no agency that receives money-be it federal, state, or privateto keep behaviors and conditions exactly as they are. We seek change because we perceive something to be wrong.
Naming the problem is the first step toward a solution, and the most important step, for if the problem is not named accurately the course of action based on that faulty assumption will only lead further and further from a solution. So naming problems accurately-making the correct diagnosisis crucial because it is on those definitions that the theories of change and program activities are based.
But naming the problem isn't as simple as it seems. If a problem exists, is it due to something that is lacking, a shortage, a disadvantage, a handicap? It is here that planners, providers, and problem solvers tend to slide into what often is referred to as the deficit model. This model seems to derive from what William Miller calls the righting reflex. He says, "Human beings seem to have a built-in desire to set things right" (Miller, 2002). We see something that is wrong; we want to fix it. This tendency is all well and good as long as it's confined to one's own problems, but as soon as our fix-it intentions are focused on others, this approach quickly loses its charm and questions arise. Who is it that names the problem? Who is it a problem for? What evidence is provided? How broad or deep is the investigation? People from minority cultures and dominated groups are the first to ask these questions, for it is often their ways of raising children, their language uses, and their problem-solving strategies that are being labeled as having deficits by the mainstream culture. Nobody likes deficit labeling. So it is that the righting reflex leads to deficit models that few of us like-and even fewer defend, for good reasons.
There is no known father or mother of the deficit model. Nobody claims it, but the title or slur gets hung around the neck of those who use it, or appear to use it. Some people hold that James Coleman, who has been called the "father of busing," proposed a deficit model. A review of the body of his work would refute that label. His research on education, one of the largest research projects ever undertaken, discussed economic class and achievement in its complexities. It was legislators, businesspeople, school administrators, and others who were under pressure to "Fix it!" who simplified Coleman's work when they turned it into policy.
There are two things to be learned from this. First, the deficit model is simplistic; it oversimplifies the research and applies the righting reflex. Second, there is research-and then there are those who use the research.
It's important to take a closer look at how problems get named and what the distinction is between naming problems and deficit labeling. The deficit model names the problem and blames the individual; the individual must change, whereas society can be left unaltered. It is, however, possible to name problems and not blame the individual. For example, Dr. James P. Comer, not by any stretch a proponent of the deficit model, does identify the family environment as crucial to a child's academic success. He points to hard science-brain research-that confirms the interactive process between the mediation (interpretation of reality) that children receive from caregivers before they come to school with the continuous mediation when children enter school. Quoting Comer: "Without Imediation] children can lose the `sense'-the intelligence potential-they were born with. Children who have had positive developmental experiences before starting school acquire a set of beliefs, attitudes, and values-as well as social, verbal, and problem-solving skills, connections, and power--that they can use to succeed in school. They are the ones best able to elicit a positive response from people at school and bond with them." Read another way, this could appear as labeling low-income families with deficits. Of course, it isn't that because Comer acknowledges the problems that exist across the system; it's never as simple as the fault of a single person or group. The body of Comer's work reveals the true nature of his model (Comer, 2001).
Despite the fact that the deficit model seems to have no father or mother and is the work of policymakers more than researchers (and gets confused with the naming of problems), the deficit model is still for real. Its features are that it fixes the problems on the individual and therefore focuses on fixing the individual. Environmental conditions are translated into the characteristics of the individual and gradually turn into negative stereotypes. The talents, gifts, and skills of an individual get lost. In the deficit model the "glass is seen as half empty." The message becomes "you can't," and the impulse to care for and protect arises. Thus we have "special needs," "special programs," "special rooms," and "special personnel," all of which can lead to and foster dependency.