Summary

Intergenerational mobility is a key measure of economic and social well-being. While economic growth and inequality measurements capture overall material prosperity and its distribution, mobility focuses on individuals’ chances to succeed economically. Mobility is rooted in a shared belief that all individuals, regardless of their family circumstances, should have the chance to improve their economic status.

Intergenerational mobility can be assessed in both absolute and relative terms, capturing distinct dimensions of opportunity across generations. Absolute mobility measures whether individuals have a higher or lower standard of living than their parents, usually in terms of real income or earnings; absolute mobility is especially salient in public debates because it provides a tangible benchmark against which individuals gauge their economic success. Absolute upward mobility captures the probability that adult children will outearn their parents. Recent studies show that absolute upward mobility in the United States is no higher than in other affluent countries and that it has declined over time as inequality has grown. Relative mobility captures the persistence of socioeconomic status across generations, or the extent to which adult children’s incomes (or another measure of socioeconomic status) depend on their parents’ incomes; measures of relative mobility, such as intergenerational elasticity, are more abstract than those of absolute mobility. Relative mobility is closely related to equality of opportunity in a society: The stronger the association between parents’ and adult children’s income, the less equal economic opportunity is. While evidence on relative mobility trends over time in the United States is inconclusive, comparative

studies indicate that relative mobility is lower in the United States than in other affluent democracies.

Higher relative mobility suggests a more open society, where success is less influenced by family background; unlike absolute mobility, measures of relative mobility require that for any upward move to happen, a downward move must “free up” a space in the socioeconomic hierarchy. A country can have high upward absolute mobility yet low relative mobility. For example, rapid economic growth may allow most adult children to earn more than their parents, but if growth disproportionately favors wealthy families, then the children of rich parents may still end up better off than children from poor families.

Limited absolute and relative intergenerational mobility in the United States compared with peer countries invites a research agenda to understand why mobility differs across places, people, and time. Developing this agenda requires a clear understanding of the changes in mobility patterns, factors that influence mobility, and how these factors are affected by policy interventions. To that end, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) were solicited by the Gates Foundation to conduct a consensus study to identify key, actionable knowledge gaps in these areas; discuss promising conceptual, methodological, and data approaches; and make recommendations for policy-relevant research and evaluation. To carry out this study, the National Academies appointed a committee that included 14 experts with backgrounds in areas such as economics, sociology, demography, statistics and methodology, public policy, and evaluation.¹

Addressing mobility requires considering economic inequality, especially given the increase in income inequality since the 1970s in the United States. Higher inequality could reduce intergenerational mobility through a variety of mechanisms, including disparities in parental investments, more unequal access to education, residential segregation, and growing political influence of the wealthy. While a full exploration of the causal links between inequality and mobility remains a target for future research, current levels of income inequality in the United States likely hamper intergenerational mobility. In addition, efforts to achieve upward mobility—such as taking out student loans or obtaining credit to start a business—necessarily carry some level of risk; the committee emphasizes the need to identify excessive levels of risk when pursuing upward mobility. The substantial individualization and privatization of some sources of risk in the United States might leave families vulnerable to the consequences of unexpected shocks or

___________________

¹ The descriptions of the roles and structures of federal and nonfederal activities—data, and policies relevant to improving economic and social mobility in the United States—were current as of June 2025.

unproductive investments. For example, increased reliance on loans to fund higher education may increase risk of economic shock for individuals pursuing mobility through educational investments, and economic risks may also be increased by changes such as privatization of retirement income and access to health care.

Mobility is a long-term intergenerational dynamic linking parents and their adult children. Measuring it is challenging because it requires tracking families over time to link parents’ and children’s economic well-being. This extended timeline makes it challenging to evaluate factors directly affecting mobility. Therefore, the evidence that the committee considered is mostly indirect. In this report, we focus on factors along the pathway connecting parental circumstances with adult children’s outcomes, such as family environments, educational attainment, and access to income-generating resources. We consider diverse kinds of evidence, including descriptive, correlational, quasi-experimental, experimental, and qualitative, and explain which kind of claim each source of evidence supports throughout the report.

Important tasks of this committee included reviewing sources of available data (including administrative and survey sources), reviewing the plausibility of linking different data sources, and developing recommendations for building a data infrastructure to support continuous evaluation of intergenerational mobility. Understanding the determinants of mobility also requires considering economic, demographic, and institutional factors that shape opportunities available to each generation and the pathways linking parents’ economic resources to their adult children’s outcomes over the life course. This report focuses on key domains that shape mobility, including early life and family; the spaces and places where people live and work; postsecondary education; and wealth, credit, and debt. It also discusses the data infrastructure needed to support an extensive research agenda on economic and social mobility. Although labor markets play a key role in shaping intergenerational mobility, the committee, based on the available evidence, decided to focus on foundational “premarket” factors that feed into the labor market.

EARLY LIFE AND FAMILY

The family plays a critical role in the mobility process, serving as the primary institution through which investments are made in children, thus shaping human capital development from conception onward. Parents are central to this process, investing resources into their children’s upbringing to directly affect their future economic and social prospects. Family environments are highly variable in the United States, largely based on families’ socioeconomic resources and opportunities they afford.

The circumstances of pregnancy and childbirth are closely linked to the prenatal and childhood environment and parental investments in children. These circumstances are influenced by laws and policies, institutions, social norms, and social and economic conditions that shape opportunities for intergenerational mobility differently by race and ethnicity, immigration status, socioeconomic status, geography or state of residence, and other relevant characteristics. Populations of lower socioeconomic status are disproportionately likely to have unintended and nonmarital births, which are adversely associated with multiple determinants of upward mobility in domains such as infant and maternal health, cognitive and socioemotional development, human capital formation, and economic well-being (Conclusion 2-1).

Parents play a crucial role in shaping children’s development and wellbeing in early life. Socioeconomic disparities in parental resources and parenting behaviors are associated with disparities in the social and economic well-being of children, thus providing a mechanism for the persistence of advantage and disadvantage across generations (Conclusion 2-2). Parental behaviors, including physical care, cognitive and emotional stimulation, opportunities for child autonomy and age-appropriate play, and activity arrangement, can require substantial investments of time and resources. Although racial/ethnic differences in parenting behaviors have been well documented, these relationships largely reflect disparities in parental socioeconomic resources and associated differential selection into parenthood, family formation, and subsequent child-rearing contexts, as well as by experiences with racism and discrimination (which are typically unobserved in existing quantitative studies).

Reproductive health policies and programs that increase access to contraception and abortion; early childhood education programs (e.g., Head Start); and economic support policies and programs that increase access to financial resources, food, and health care (e.g., the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and Medicaid) have positive effects on the factors that link childhood experiences with adult health and economic and social well-being—including family resources, stress, parenting quality, and early childhood health and development; they also have direct positive impacts on adult health and economic and social well-being. As such, these programs and policies show promise for increasing upward intergenerational mobility. In contrast, the evidence on other pregnancy risk reduction, abstinence education, and parenting intervention programs is less encouraging (Conclusion 2-3).

Research to date offers limited evidence on whether associations among family context (e.g., pregnancy intendedness, family formation, family structure and stability), parenting behaviors and the caregiving environment, child development, and economic and social mobility are causal.

Research on the mechanisms through which these factors may operate, such as children’s cognitive and socioemotional development and educational attainment, is also limited, although a growing body of work suggests causal effects of family resources on these intermediate factors. Future research should expand the use of existing longitudinal, administrative, and survey data, and further employ quasi-experimental and experimental approaches, when possible, to better understand the causal mechanisms through which family context, parenting behaviors, and child development affect economic and social mobility, as well as potential heterogeneity in such relations for demographic subpopulations (Recommendation 2-1).

Existing survey and administrative data are also not fully adequate for comprehensive research on malleable pathways through which social and economic (dis)advantages are transmitted within and across generations. The Panel Study of Income Dynamics and the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study are currently the only ongoing long-term U.S. panel studies to follow multiple generations of family members. These studies should be maintained and expanded to include detailed information on pregnancy intention and the circumstances of pregnancies, parenting, and child development for all children born to current sample members; in addition, the samples that support these surveys should be refreshed with respondents that represent the contemporary population, especially Latino/Hispanic and immigrant subgroups. The studies should follow children in utero onward and assess them regularly at key developmental stages of childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood. Also, these surveys should be linked to administrative data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Internal Revenue Service, and state and federal agencies that administer core social welfare programs (Recommendation 2-2).

SPACE AND PLACE

While early quantitative research on the impact of residential environments faced methodological challenges associated with nonrandom selection into neighborhoods and cities, recent evidence has led to something close to a consensus suggesting that residential environments can have a causal impact on economic and social mobility (measured by income, earning, or occupation) and intermediate outcomes related to mobility, most notably academic achievement, cognitive skill, and physical and mental health. The link between place and individual outcomes has now moved beyond the question of whether neighborhoods matter and toward questions of when, where, why, and for whom residential contexts matter (Conclusion 3-1).

While scholarship on the effects of place has grown over time, less attention has been paid to the mechanisms that undergird these effects and the heterogeneity of these effects—vital considerations for improving

policy and understanding the scalability of existing interventions. Evidence at the neighborhood level points to schools, community violence, and local social networks as examples of mechanisms linking the local residential environment with economic and social mobility. Evidence at larger levels of analysis—such as cities, counties, and commuting zones—points to segregation and local labor market conditions as examples of forces that influence economic and social mobility (Conclusion 3-2).

Broadly speaking, most spatial policy strategies are either housing mobility policies, which help relocate disadvantaged families to higher-opportunity areas, or place-conscious investments, which aim to bring opportunity and investment into disadvantaged communities. Housing mobility programs—such as the Gautreaux desegregation program and the Moving to Opportunity experiment—have shown positive impacts on academic outcomes, employment, and earnings, particularly for children moving to low-poverty neighborhoods. Place-conscious investment initiatives include programs such as New Hope, the Harlem Children’s Zone, and Jobs Plus. These initiatives target residents of disadvantaged communities with employment opportunities, training, and support services and/or provide resources to foster job creation and economic development, and they have shown success in improving employment, earnings, and academic outcomes for participants. However, evidence on the effectiveness of place-based programs that have not targeted people in disadvantaged communities and have not provided a range of supports has been mixed (Conclusion 3-3).

A third approach emphasizes the importance of ending programs and policies that have historically amplified spatial and racial inequality and that continue to do so (Conclusion 3-4). Zoning, discriminatory housing practices, and some regressive federal housing programs (e.g., mortgage interest deduction, property tax deduction, exclusion of capital gains on the sales of homes) reinforce residential segregation and constrain residential mobility. While federal homeowner policies exist that assist low-income families (e.g., affordable mortgage programs and credit programs), many homeownership policies disproportionately benefit the most affluent communities and households, further entrenching economic segregation and the concentration of mobility-relevant resources in higher-income areas.

The committee identified seven research areas to fill gaps in the existing research on space mobility and to strengthen the connection between research and policy (Recommendation 3-1). First, more convincing evidence is needed on the central mechanisms underlying the link between place and mobility. Second, a more complete understanding of heterogeneity in the relationship between space and mobility will produce a better understanding of which groups are most likely to take advantage of and benefit from social policies designed to reduce spatial inequality or increase economic and social mobility. Third, qualitative research needs to play a larger role

in illuminating the link between evidence and policy. Although quantitative research using survey and administrative data can powerfully identify patterns and relationships, qualitative research can help make sense of what is being seen and to apply the evidence to make more efficient policy investments. Fourth, while much of the research discussed by the committee is based on programs estimating the impact of residential moves, more needs to be known about the most effective ways of making place-based investments in communities or entire cities and regions. Fifth, policy discussions that focus on how to reduce spatial inequality typically take two approaches: moving people or investing in places. However, this discussion and the supporting evidence base should be expanded to include reassessing existing policies (e.g., federal housing policies, local land use policies) that exacerbate spatial inequality. Sixth, consideration should be given to the general equilibrium effects of social policies, to consider their system-wide impacts, as well as the feasibility and costs of different approaches. Seventh, there needs to be a greater focus on regions and areas that have received relatively little attention in the literature on neighborhood effects and mobility, including deeply disadvantaged rural areas, rural-adjacent small towns, and suburbs.

POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

Elementary and secondary education (i.e., K–12) is a critical building block for cognitive and socioemotional development, which are essential for future academic and labor market success, both through and independent of postsecondary education. Indeed, K–12 is one of the most well-studied periods when it comes to understanding how education shapes mobility, as are interventions intended to identify core investments that improve and equalize mobility-relevant outcomes. The committee focused on the postsecondary stage not because it is the most important point at which to understand family-based inequities in education and training, but rather because it has received significantly less attention from research and policy.

Postsecondary educational attainment—and, especially, the attainment of a 4-year bachelor’s degree—is central to the understanding of economic and social mobility in the United States. On the one hand, education is an avenue for intergenerational persistence, if advantaged families can afford more and better education for their children; on the other hand, postsecondary education can be the main vehicle for both absolute and relative mobility if attaining a degree detaches individuals from their social origins and provides a pathway to economic well-being.

The probability of attending and graduating from college, however, strongly depends on household income, and there are pronounced disparities by family income, residential location, and race and ethnicity in college

attendance and, especially, college graduation. There is also a growing female advantage in college attainment, which requires further investigation and will likely have broader consequences for intergenerational processes involving fertility, children’s educational opportunities, and growing gaps between families in which both parents have high versus low levels of schooling (Conclusion 4-1; Recommendation 4-1).

Existing data sources do not enable proper evaluation of current changes in the association between parents’ income and bachelor’s degree attainment—a critical factor in intergenerational mobility. One relatively low-cost strategy for addressing these data limitations is using existing sets of large, high-quality administrative data to supplement currently administered surveys (Conclusion 4-2).

The U.S. postsecondary system is heterogeneous, decentralized, and stratified. Colleges vary dramatically in their inputs (spending per student, student preparation) and their outcomes (graduation rates, economic payoff for graduates). The most disadvantaged students attend the institutions with the fewest resources and the worst outcomes. Although a college education can result in a large economic payoff, there is enormous variation around average payoff. Like any investment, education is not without risk. Risk is particularly salient in the sub-baccalaureate sector, which includes both public community colleges and private, for-profit schools; the students in this sector are the most disadvantaged. Addressing the key question about whether postsecondary education serves as an engine for upward economic mobility or as an intergenerational replicator of inequality requires considering variation across the vast and heterogeneous postsecondary sector, with broad-access universities playing a different role from that of selective institutions.

As tuition prices have risen, the federal government has stepped in to assist students and families. Some of this aid has taken the form of grants, but much has been in the form of student loans. Borrowing for college is now much more common than it was just a few decades ago. The shift has been particularly marked at community colleges, where traditionally students did not borrow for their education. This potentially has consequences for mobility because it creates the opportunity to invest in education but shifts onto the most disadvantaged students the cost (and risks) of postsecondary education (Conclusion 4-3). In the United States, moreover, students are funded by the same federal grant and loan programs whether they are pursuing career and technical training at a community college or a bachelor’s degree at a university. In much of the world, by contrast, the funding models for the baccalaureate and sub-baccalaureate sectors are distinct: baccalaureate students are typically charged tuition and pay for tuition using loans, while this is rarely true for students in the sub-baccalaureate sector.

Against this backdrop, it is important to conduct comprehensive, distributive analyses of the economic costs, benefits, and risks of college and to explore the question of the extent to which U.S. postsecondary education is a replicator of inequality rather than an engine for economic mobility. In these analyses, attention should be paid to variations in returns across the heterogeneous postsecondary sector (Recommendation 4-2). Researchers should also explore whether postsecondary funding models in other countries—especially regarding sub-baccalaureate education—are more effective in generating economic mobility than the U.S. model (Recommendation 4-3).

There is a large body of rigorous evidence on how to stimulate student demand for postsecondary education, and research now needs to move to designing policies that stimulate demand within particular populations (defined, e.g., by level of academic preparation, race and ethnicity, income level, and age) and settings (e.g., rural; Recommendation 4-4). On the “supply side,” the postsecondary sector in the United States has grown through the establishment and expansion of schools that receive relatively few resources but serve students with the most challenges, in contrast to the more redistributive K–12 education funding. Better understanding is needed of how to improve the quality of postsecondary education. Although a sizeable amount of literature has examined the effect of inputs, policies, and practices on K–12 education, the analogous literature addressing these questions in the postsecondary setting is astoundingly thin. More needs to be known about the effects of inputs, policies, and practices (e.g., curricula, pedagogical techniques, class size, connections to employment opportunities) on improving the quality of postsecondary education and the implications for economic and social mobility (Recommendation 4-5).

People transition into and out of school and work throughout their lives, including the growing “some college” group without bachelor’s degrees, much more often than current policy recognizes. And, although transitions into the workforce and between careers are important to shaping economic mobility, they get far less attention than the transition into college. The technological landscape is changing rapidly, and many students end up working sooner than they expect (given low college completion rates) and will have longer working lives—but few existing policies account for these changes. It is important to recognize the need for multiple pathways to mobility, commensurate with many potential starting points and transitions in people’s lives (Conclusion 4-4). More needs to be known about the effectiveness of job training programs, and a better understanding is also needed of the role of alternative credential programs, immersive training programs (e.g., educational bootcamps), and certifications for preparing for the transition into the workforce or changes in careers (Recommendation 4-6); although this latter sector has grown significantly, little is known about student experiences, quality of programs, or labor market returns.

WEALTH, CREDIT, AND DEBT

A growing body of research documents low levels of wealth mobility in the United States relative to other countries, coupled with a high degree of inequality in the concentration of wealth at the top of the distribution and stark racial/ethnic gaps in wealth that have grown over time. In comparison to its peer countries, the United States also stands out as the country with the highest level of wealth inequality and the top concentration in wealth.

Wealth is a primary factor in shaping intergenerational mobility in the United States. Perhaps the most distinctive feature of wealth is that—unlike education, occupation, or income—it can be transmitted directly to one’s children and even grandchildren. However, the transmission of wealth can take place not only directly through transfers and bequests, but also indirectly through advantages that accrue to children in their early development, educational, and labor market experiences. In addition to monetary advantages, family wealth can provide a safety net or buffer that allows individuals with access to wealth the privilege of taking risks (Conclusion 5-1). The intergenerational behavioral implications of assets and debts are one frontier for future research on wealth and debt (Recommendation 5-1). Like most scholarship on social mobility, most existing studies on wealth are limited to a two-generation framework (i.e., the standard assessment of similarity in positions between parents and their children). However, both family assets and debts can exert influences far beyond immediate offspring. As a result, increased consideration needs to be given to the role of at least grandparental wealth and debt (Recommendation 5-2).

Housing is a key source of wealth and stability, including the value of the home itself, the resources homeownership provides (as compared with renting), and the home’s neighborhood. Housing assets (home equity) are the primary source of wealth for the average U.S. household and for a majority of households. Wealth accumulation and intergenerational wealth transmission are shaped by multiple institutional and structural features of society that have not been and are still not race neutral—the segregated housing market and racialized lending practices are prime examples. The sources of disparities among racial/ethnic minority groups have changed shape over time, and they require ever more critical analysis, as direct forms of legal exclusion from asset accumulation have morphed into less explicit but potentially equally impactful ways of reproducing racial/ethnic wealth gaps, such as via weakened homeownership rights or predatory lending practices (Conclusion 5-2). Uncovering these institutions, policies, and practices remains an urgent task for future research. Moreover, although research has documented dramatic differences in wealth mobility between White and Black individuals, evidence on wealth mobility patterns among

other groups is still very limited, and more needs to be known (Recommendation 5-3).

Credit and debt provide many individuals with opportunities to take risks that support wealth accumulation and upward mobility; yet, for some, credit and debt are insurmountable obstacles that hinder upward mobility, and in some cases, they are direct sources of downward inter- and/or intragenerational mobility. In other words, credit and debt are not monolithic, and they can carry both benefits and challenges to the individuals who borrow (Conclusion 5-3). It is therefore important to study situations in which credit and debt are productive and for whom (Recommendation 5-4). Student debt, which accounts for the largest share of nonmortgage debt of U.S. households, is one type of debt that represents this tension well: while generally considered a “productive” form of debt, as it can enable the pursuit of higher education and the earnings benefits that arise from a college degree, racial differences in the probability of carrying student debt and the amount of debt have contributed greatly to the maintenance of racial inequity in assets.

Many tax policies regulate gifts, capital income, trusts, and college savings accounts; however, few existing policies explicitly target the intergenerational persistence of wealth. However, a variety of interventions is possible. One approach is adopting policies that target different points of wealth distribution: inheritance and wealth taxation will impact only the very top, homeownership policies will help build middle-class wealth, and the regulation of credit and debt markets—as well as asset-building policies such as matched savings accounts—can lift the very bottom of the wealth distribution. A more universal approach would be to provide a wealth transfer to all families, young people, or the descendants of enslaved people through policies such as universal wealth grants, baby bonds, or reparations for slavery, respectively, thereby creating a more widely shared economic basis for families to invest in the success of their children (Conclusion 5-4). Although initial assessments of some of these policies are underway, far more needs to be known about their relative effectiveness and about the potential of existing and new tax policies that support such initiatives (Recommendation 5-5).

DATA INFRASTRUCTURE

The extensive agenda for research on economic and social mobility proposed in this report requires a complex data infrastructure. The United States is moving toward a modern integrated data system based on linked administrative data, a system that may ultimately rival the systems in European countries. Developing sustainable structures that ensure increased and equitable access to the new data resources remains the central challenge

ahead. Achieving this goal requires cooperation among the many stakeholders in the data ecosystem, including executive and congressional branches of government, federal statistical agencies, state and local government officials, the research community, potential private funding organizations, and the public.

Linked administrative data form the backbone of data resources used to study intergenerational mobility; however, research still requires survey data for understanding factors that affect mobility that are not found in administrative data or are not available for research purposes. Surveys provide information regarding attitudes, behaviors, intentions, and contexts not contained in administrative data; hence, they are an important complement to administrative records. It is important that extensive surveys continue to be funded and that cost-effective ways be explored to alter survey methodology to leverage administrative data. It is critical to develop ways to combine administrative and survey data to enhance the value of both.

Research on mobility-relevant programs and policies requires blending survey and administrative data (e.g., tax and benefit data), along with a process for ensuring that qualified researchers can access these blended data within a secure environment that explicitly recognizes both the risk of using confidential administrative data in research and the benefits to society that can be produced from this research (Conclusion 6-1). Following the recommendations of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 and the subsequent recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Data for Evidence Building, the chief statistician of the United States should work with federal agencies to advise legislators and policymakers on the need for revisions to regulations to improve data sharing across federal statistical agencies (Recommendation 6-1).

Beyond sharing across agencies, it is important to improve data access for researchers. Data access laws, such as Title 13 and Title 26, need to be modernized to facilitate research, as they have proven to be inadequate amid the recent growth of research using linked administrative data. It is critical that researchers be given tiered access to new blended data to evaluate the policies surrounding economic and social mobility. Federal agencies should review and revise policies concerning external data sharing with the broader research community (Recommendation 6-2).

The data infrastructure for studying economic and social mobility will be further strengthened if state agencies provide data on state transfer programs to the U.S. Census Bureau and data on vital statistics to the National Center for Health Statistics, and if the federal government is enabled to maintain a national database of student records (Conclusions 6-2 and 6-3). To create and provide access to these data, it is important to adequately fund agencies to allow them to provide data. Funding is required

for streamlining the data application process, improving linking, supporting Federal Statistical Research Data Centers, enhancing the survey infrastructure, and expanding qualitative research (Conclusion 6-4). The National Secure Data Service (NSDS) should also work with federal agencies to ensure that improved data access, analysis, and linking mechanisms are implemented. To increase the value of data for studying economic and social mobility, federal agencies should collaborate with the NSDS to improve the data acquisition and linking process (Recommendations 6-2 and 6-3).

To build this data infrastructure and ensure continued research on mobility, the United States requires an institutional body charged with ensuring that the country’s commitment to equal opportunity is considered properly when policy is developed and evaluated. Although many other federal executive departments are also relevant to the country’s equal opportunity mission, none is focused on monitoring or equalizing opportunity. Because research on intergenerational mobility is central to assessing the well-being of the U.S. economy and society, the creation of a nongovernmental research center—a National Mobility Center—is appropriate (Conclusion 6-5).

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR REASEARCH AND POLICY

A forward-looking, policy-relevant research agenda on economic and social mobility is relevant to policymakers at every level of government—federal, state, county, and local. Policymakers can take a variety of approaches, and the findings in this report make clear that there is no single solution or even one pathway to enhancing mobility that is sufficient on its own. Indeed, policy levers will differ depending on the level of government of the policy actors and may have different effects on absolute and relative mobility. Many of the policies considered by the committee focus on improving the well-being of the disadvantaged, which as a result may improve both absolute and relative mobility. Alternatively, policies reducing benefits for higher-income households may improve relative mobility only because of the downward impacts for these households. While the committee acknowledges that channels for intergenerational economic persistence may be difficult to alter via social policy, we believe that there is great opportunity to promote mobility in the United States by dismantling economic and institutional barriers to economic prosperity and supporting mobility through policy intervention.

Policy approaches to enhancing mobility may be categorized into three broad strategies. The first is the most common—a safety net approach that generally seeks to puts a floor on the level of deprivation experienced by members of society. This sometimes involves setting up subsidiary

institutions to serve low-income populations, operating in parallel to mainstream institutions; examples include Head Start, public housing or subsidized housing vouchers, workforce development centers, or financial instruments available only to lower-income families. The primary goal and stated purpose of these programs may be to reduce poverty rather than to enhance mobility, but in providing resources that support families such policies can have a positive effect on mobility outcomes. One of the side effects of the safety net approach is a one-sided focus on the mobility challenges faced by low-income populations, with little focus on the effects of disproportionate opportunities among those born at the top of the resource distribution.

Accordingly, a second strategy is to reform mainstream institutions to make them work better for all Americans. Such a strategy could make changes to the policy landscape to make institutions such as banks, schools, and housing development more inclusive. This might mean, for example, making bank accounts or lending at financial institutions more accessible to low-income families, or making a more concerted effort to integrate new housing developments by household income. The evidence base on this type of approach is limited, and compared with safety net approaches, less is known about how to reform mainstream institutions and what the outcomes of such changes would be.

Policies are often thought of as a means of enhancing economic and social mobility, but they have often been used for the opposite purpose. A third strategy would therefore look to roll back existing policies that constrict mobility or support the persistence of advantage across generations. This might include housing (e.g., zoning laws that reduce the availability of affordable housing), asset-related (e.g., tax policies that favor certain types of assets), educational (e.g., tax benefits that disproportionately help higher-income families save for college), or other policies that disproportionately favor high-income groups by providing subsidies or resources that further support the persistence of advantage across generations.

The conclusions and research recommendations presented in this report can be used to inform and advance all three policy strategies. A broad, multitiered approach to boosting economic and social mobility is critical, and it can be facilitated through the creation of a National Mobility Center that serves as a clearinghouse, resource center, and training hub. It would also be important for such a center to set standards and train researchers on best practices for rigorous qualitative inquiry and methods for deepening the understanding of how policies and interventions are perceived and valued by those for whom they are intended.

Economic and social mobility is a core measure of well-being, and it underlies a fundamental value held by many Americans: that anyone should be able to succeed economically based on their own merits, regardless of

their circumstances such as their family life, home community, and the assets they start out with. This has been a fundamental tenet throughout U.S. history, even as many observers may rightly argue that it has been, at times and for many groups, severely constrained. This report provides a forward-looking framework for data, research, and policy initiatives to boost upward mobility and better fulfill promises of opportunity and advancement for all members of U.S. society.

This page intentionally left blank.