Early in its deliberations, the study committee expressed a desire to build a full picture of not only the populations that are at greatest risk of intergenerational poverty but also of the policies and programs that are working to reduce intergenerational poverty. In response the committee held several information gathering activities to hear from community members, organizational leaders, policy experts, and scholars.
The committee held two public information gathering sessions to increase its understanding of intergenerational poverty within Native American communities1 and children and families involved with the child welfare and justice systems.2 The committee also commissioned Ascend at the Aspen Institute to organize a series of listening sessions that were closed to the public to ensure candid discussions. This included two listening sessions with parents and caregivers3 contending with poverty to hear directly from them about their experiences with programs and systems designed to support their family’s financial well-being and improve their children’s future; three listening sessions with representatives of community- or state-level organizations serving Latino families, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian
___________________
1 A proceedings and proceedings in brief of this session are available here: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26903/intergenerational-poverty-and-mobility-among-native-americans-in-the-united-states
2 For more information on this session including an agenda and recording: https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/04-14-2022/public-information-gathering-session-policies-and-programs-to-reduce-intergenerational-poverty
3 The participants in the listening session with parents and caregivers were primarily Black individuals from southern urban areas.
families, and families living in rural communities; and one listening session with public policy experts to gain a better understanding of federal policy levers to promote potential interventions across policy areas delivered at the federal, state, and local levels.
While these sessions were not designed to be representative and do not reflect the full range of perspectives or experiences of those affected by intergenerational poverty, they provided important context for understanding the lived experience of intergenerational poverty.
During these sessions, parents, practitioners, and policy makers discussed their personal and professional experience with policies, programs, research, and data collection that addresses various dimensions of intergenerational poverty in different communities. These conversations served as a backdrop for the committee’s review and assessment of the available empirical literature, as well as a reminder of the real-life stories and experiences behind the data.
This session included three panels to engage with community leaders, researchers, and practitioners on issues surrounding intergenerational poverty and mobility among Native American families in the United States. Representatives from the Oglala Sioux Tribe, the American Indian College Fund, the Native Organizers Alliance, and the American Indian OIC discussed poverty and mobility in their communities and described key barriers and obstacles reducing the chances that Native American children grow up to be happy, healthy, and prosperous adults. They shared Native-led efforts to support upward economic mobility and shed light on the strengths of Native American communities to address intergenerational poverty. Researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Stanford University discussed important historical and structural factors that have shaped economic opportunity and mobility for Native Americans, as well as the current data and research on mobility, gaps in the data, and the challenges in conducting research on this population. Researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Northwestern University, and the University of Washington discussed drivers of intergenerational poverty among Native Americans and interventions that could improve their economic mobility within the domains of health, education, and the labor market.
The committee held this session to (a) better understand structural determinants, especially poverty-related structural determinants, that contribute to involvement with the child welfare and justice systems, (b) identify evidence-based service interventions that reduce the chances that children in these systems are poor as adults, and (c) better understand these systems from a racial/ethnic disparities lens.
Researchers and practitioners with expertise in the child welfare and criminal justice systems—from the University of Maryland, the Juvenile Law Center, the University of California, Berkeley, Arizona State University, Columbia University, University of Notre Dame, and the University of Chicago—discussed how involvement with the justice system and child welfare system affects children’s and adolescents’ chances of upward mobility in adulthood, how racial disparities and structural factors in the justice system and child welfare system contribute to the causes of intergenerational poverty, and evidence-based programs and policies that target children and their parents and caregivers that are most likely to reduce chances that low-income children will be poor in adulthood. The committee considered these discussions and the research presented in its development of the report, specifically for Chapters 9 and 10.
These sessions were held with subsets of committee members and were organized as small group discussions with organizational leaders supporting communities that the committee had identified as not being well represented in its public sessions and in the evidence base. As addressed previously, they do not reflect the full range of perspectives or experiences, but they provided additional valuable context for understanding the lived experience of intergenerational poverty for some.
A group of low-income parents and caregivers shared their stories with vulnerability and candor on their day-to-day struggles to realize their hopes for their children. Many of them worked in low-wage jobs and received public benefits of some sort, yet these sources of income and support were inadequate for making ends meet, unstable, and irregular, and they created a set of bureaucratic challenges and roadblocks that made it difficult to get ahead. These parents’ stress levels were palpable and were reflected in poor mental and physical health. Some parents talked about furthering their own
educations or making sacrifices to enroll their children in better schools, but the daily financial grind made planning for or investing in children’s futures all but impossible. Key themes from these discussions are noted here:
Stability, consistency, and safety are central to parent goals for their children and family:
Other goals that parents mentioned centered around being an agent of change both for their family and their community:
Parents value education and building social skills—both for themselves and their children—as key to achieving those goals. They also believe they have a role in providing that and want parenting skills to help build such skills.
Parents mentioned the stress of the uncertainty of not knowing how you will provide for your family.
Parents identified barriers that they and their children face in achieving their goals.
Several parents highlighted the phasing out of benefits—the cliff effect—as a key barrier:
Among the responses when asked which government programs helped them personally:
Public policy experts shared their perspectives on how federal policy can be used to encourage and support the most effective programs at the federal, state, and local levels. They discussed what the committee needs to know about current mechanisms and processes for designing policy and delivering these potential interventions at the federal, state, and local levels, as well as policy areas that the committee should be considering. They suggested that those living in poverty should be involved in the conversation, that important policy should not be narrow or restrained, and that states and localities offer important contributions to this conversation.
Representatives from community- and state-level organizations serving rural communities spoke to the committee about the unique challenges of rural poverty and the kinds of programs that are needed to serve these families.
Representatives from organizations serving Alaskan Native and Pacific Islander communities noted the need to support social connectedness and a sense of well-being among community (cultural/spiritual wellness), as a key factor in uplifting families out of poverty. Participants also highlighted the positive role of community organizations and called for more “trust-based” philanthropy, which would give these organizations the flexibility to meet the needs of families. They noted they often feel “their hands are tied” with government funding, and they do not have the ability to make real-time decisions to help families. They also expressed the need to create/develop programming with the community. Participants highlighted administrative burden to accessing social safety net programs as a key barrier and suggested more “cross-enrollment” opportunities are needed.
Representatives from organizations serving Latino communities shared their thoughts on the challenges these communities face and what they need most to improve their children’s chances for upward mobility.