Redefining Poverty
Harnessing Science-Based Strategies to Mitigate Poverty and Foster Lasting Change
The Problem
In a previous essay, Unveiling the Persistence of Poverty, we argued that it is time that we face one of the most serious problems as a country. United, we can implement an effective approach to reducing poverty among us. Poverty is a deeply concerning human challenge that affects numerous members of our community, along with their children. It is distressing to acknowledge that the number of economically disadvantaged individuals in the United States has surpassed 38 million. Government programs and policies have failed over and over again. Plenty of our tax money has been misused.
We need to initiate a scientific approach to mitigate poverty. A process of evolutionary cultural change based on gradual shifts in behavior is required. This will require implementing science-based social policies and strategies that initiate an intentional and measurable approach (i.e., behavioral engineering) to create, and permanently support, a social environment/culture that reduces the social causes of poverty. These include unemployment, inadequate education, limited vocational skills, crime, families with disrupted dynamics, suboptimal parenting, drug addiction, incarceration, poor health, inadequate health care, and debt traps.
Many of the social ills that are common among the poor are also found in increasing numbers in the general population. As Mathew Desmond showed us in his book Poverty by America, we have created a social environment that keeps the poor, poor.
Behavior Matters
The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and the Brookings Institute published A Consensus Plan For Reducing Poverty And Restoring The American Dream (2015). They point out that people living in poverty are a diverse group. Some are poor because they “persist in perverse and antisocial behavior.” Others do the best they can with limited resources. They conclude that “behavior matters and must be taken into account if we are to reduce poverty and inequality.”
Isabel Sawhill in a commentary published by the Brookings Institute (September 1, 2003) suggested a more behaviorally oriented approach to the definition of poverty that can promote effective actions based on individual and communal behavior. Her proposal is based on the variables that influence achieving middle-class life. She noted that one must do a few specific things such as graduate from high school, defer having a baby until in a relationship, and obtain steady employment (Note: It's important to consider that these points are presented in a simplified manner and might not fully consider the potential impact of various environmental factors. Environmental factors such as socioeconomic background, access to education and healthcare, cultural norms, and systemic inequalities can significantly affect an individual's ability to achieve these milestones. Therefore, while these specific steps can contribute to upward mobility, the broader context must also be taken into account to fully understand the challenges and opportunities people face in their pursuit of middle-class life.) Her research noted at the time, the poor were “heavily concentrated in large urban areas, disproportionately made up of racial minorities, and at the time growing.” She was “especially concerned about the prospects of the children growing up in these environments where few men were working, most women were unmarried and on welfare, and dropping out of school was commonplace. Not only were most of the children in these neighborhoods living in poverty, but they lacked the kind of role model that would enable them to take advantage of the opportunities that did exist.”
Sawhill’s research and proposals at the time were criticized by many scholars; it was suggested that she was basically “blaming the victim.” The most common view that continues to persist now is that dysfunctional behaviors are a consequence, rather than a contributing cause of poverty. As a result, students of poverty and public policy continue to define and implement eradication programs that define the poor simply in economic terms. The premise is that if they are given noncontingent money and benefits they will no longer be poor. This approach has failed and is destined to continue to fail. This approach does not change behavior. We need to face some unpleasant facts - we have failed to create a healthy environment that really promotes equal opportunities. The fact is that our future as a united country depends on our children and the unpleasant fact is that their starting point has remained very uneven for too long. The belief that lack of income is the central problem of persistent poverty promotes the continued emphasis on cash welfare. Poverty does not change by giving only money, it requires a change in behavior. We need to stop viewing poverty only in terms of economics and focus on the behavior and the environment that shapes the behavior that keeps the poor poor.
Susan Mayer, a sociologist from the University of Chicago, noted in her book What Money Can’t Buy (1997) that her research found that giving poor parents money had little effect on improving the lives of their children. She found that children from poor parents generally are more likely to develop behavior problems, score lower on standardized tests, and become adults in need of public assistance. But in the end, the effects of more money did not significantly change this outcome. She emphasizes behavioral factors such as improving parenting practices and providing adequate education. We would add, “beginning in early childhood.” Money alone, Mayer concludes, does not buy either the material or the psychological well-being that children require to succeed. What is then needed? A change in behavior.
What Susan Mayer does very well in her research is focused on the common observation that parental income is associated with a diversity of child outcomes. She queries whether the observed relationship is a causal one. She proposed the question: if we provide extra money to poor families, would we expect to see the performance of children in these families improve? Her work is primarily correlational, but it does not establish a cause-and-effect relationship. Nevertheless, the results of her empirical work are important. There are significant outcome differences between children in poor and rich families. But the combined results of the statistical analysis is that this relationship does not appear to be a causal one. Simple income differences may not be the cause, but a substantial problem remains. The evidence points to a set of systemic and ill-defined factors that are correlated with both income and child outcomes. This creates significant problems when one sets out to address the challenge of eradicating poverty. It also creates further fuel for division in the discussion and policy planning as to how to approach the poverty problem.
Eric Hanusheck, an education professor at Stanford, published a comprehensive review of Mayer’s book in The Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (Summer, 1998). He writes, “I suspect that it will be a while before the discussion turns more seriously to addressing the problems - as opposed to using the results as convenient debating points.” Hanushek concluded. “My guess is that it is going to take a long time to digest this overall body of research to develop sensible policy implications. If I had to speculate, the overall empirical conclusions are likely to be supported and accepted in the relatively near future, but the policy discussion is unlikely to become either focused or helpful for a much longer period. Two key issues are raised by a consideration of policy issues. First, there is the legitimate problem of adverse child outcomes, but society differs in opinions about the appropriate role of government in addressing this issue. Second, even if there is consensus that the government should intervene, there are serious questions about what instruments to use.” In other words, how do we go about doing it…
The Coleman Report
The Coleman report is an influential as well as controversial study published by the U.S. Government in 1996. It was titled Equality of Educational Opportunity. It was mandated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The report had multiple authors and was directed by James Coleman who was a sociologist at the University of Chicago. It is considered a landmark in policy research since it was one of the first social scientific studies specifically commissioned by Congress in order to inform government policy. The results shaped school desegregation policy for many years.
Hanushek published in Education Next - What Matters for Student Achievement (2016) celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Coleman Report. He noted that the report “is the fountainhead for those committed to evidence-based education policy.” One of the most significant premises of the research was that equality of opportunity should be assessed by equality of outcome rather than equality of input. It challenged the most common assumption that increasing spending on education could rectify social deficits. Functional outcomes, measured as worthy performance matter (see Thomas Gilbert’s Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance, 1997).
It is essential to read and digest the enduring and powerful summary of the Coleman Report:
“Taking all these results together, one implication stands above all: That schools bring little influence to bear on a child’s achievement that is independent of his background and general social context; and that this very lack of an independent effect means that inequalities imposed on children by their home, neighborhood, and peer environment are carried along to become inequalities with which they confront adult life at the end of school.”
The Coleman Report remains relevant in spite of the many limitations of the research and statistics of the time. Hanushek points to more recent evidence that emphasizes the importance of families and schools working together. The bottom line, the evidence indicates that to mitigate poverty we need to focus on the context found in the environment where the people live. This encompasses both schools offering educational possibilities with a focus on results and families fostering the development of social connections through active involvement and the teaching of positive behaviors that contribute positively to the community in which one resides. Behavior is shaped within the context of the environment with which one interacts. This relationship is reciprocal. How one behaves gradually changes the environment in which one lives.
Behavioral Engineering to Change the Environment that Shapes Poverty
To be honest and blunt, addressing the intricacies of poverty is an incredibly complex task. It requires not only the enactment of policies and the establishment of consequences but also necessitates mandated guidelines for designing and executing strategies that transform the living conditions of the impoverished. This process of poverty eradication must be overseen jointly by both federal and state governments. This stance can spark controversy, with some asserting that it's an unattainable goal. However, we firmly believe that it's a necessary endeavor if we are to remain a cohesive nation that honors the aspirations of our founding predecessors.
However, in addition to cleaning the division we have in Washington that is reflective of our divided country, we have to return to the principles and values set in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and others and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
One of the primary functions of the government is to insure and protect these rights. This requires We, as a united nation, to work together for the common good (see Engineering the Upswing). An intentional, measured, accountable, and engineered cultural evolutionary process, focusing on outcomes, is needed to evolve the culture and eradicate poverty.
Behavioral engineering is the international application of the practices of the science of behavior to shape positive behavior focusing on measuring outcomes. We anticipate that many readers will have a visceral reaction to the concept of intentionally engineering our environment in order to change behavior and obtain a positive outcome - the eradication of poverty. The facts are that the variables that shape behavior in all of us are found in the environment in which we live; these are the contingencies of reinforcement and consequences that follow our behavior. Our interaction with our environment shapes how we behave. The fact is that now these contingencies and consequences for our behavior remain mostly blind to us and remain unguided. If our social and physical environment remains unmanaged, it will continue to get worse.
In the next essay, we will discuss programs, policies, and actions that can engineer a gradual behavior-based evolutionary process with the outcome being the gradual eradication of poverty. Thank you for reading. Pass it on and see you next week.
Francisco I. Perez
Faris Kronfli
Henry S. Pennypacker
For those who are interested in delving deeper into these issues we suggest H.S. Pennypacker & Francisco I. Perez - Engineering the Upswing: A Blueprint for Reframing Our Culture - 2022, Sloan Publishing. It can be bought at The Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies (behavior.org) or Amazon. All proceeds benefit the Cambridge Center.