Develop Poverty Measures through CBPR

Owned by Darlene Edgar
Nov 25, 2023
2 min read

"Laying a foundation for the fight against poverty: Developing a locally relevant poverty measure with community-based research" by J. Gnagey (2020)

Community-Based Research (CBR):

  • CBR involved students, faculty, and community partners in solving problems.

  • Students developed a locally relevant poverty measure.

Context in Ogden, Utah:

  • Ogden, Utah, had the lowest income equality in the US.

  • 74% qualified for free or reduced lunch, a high rate in Utah.

  • A local organization aimed to provide a living wage, including a 650+ credit score and 3 to 6 months of personal savings.

Defining a Livable Wage:

  • A livable wage means having enough for basic needs without government or family assistance.

  • Federal guidelines from 1965, based on food costs, lack geographic variation.

  • New models: self-sufficiency standard (SSS) and living wage calculator (LWC).

Budget Categories Assignment:

  • Mostly economic students assigned budget categories.

  • Categories: housing, childcare, food, transportation/insurance, transportation/car use, maintenance, health care/insurance, healthcare/out-of-pocket costs, federal payroll taxes, state income tax, federal income tax.

  • Initially excluded: miscellaneous expenses, entertainment, savings, estimated as percentages of total expenses.

Student Reports and Impact:

  • Groups estimated budget categories for 74 family types.

  • End-of-semester reports with data sources, methodology, etc., given to the organization.

  • Example: a single person needed $22,000 (185% of federal poverty guidelines), a family of four needed $52,000 (2 to 14% of poverty guidelines).

Critical Areas and Rankings:

  • Six critical areas: partnership development, research, design and process, teaching and learning, institutionalization of CBR, results of the project, impact.

  • Rankings: building of a partnership and research design and process, teaching and learning.

  • Emphasis on developing measures before interventions.

Shortcomings:

  • Vague partnership goals.

  • Lack of consultation with all stakeholders, such as the Community of Hope clients.

  • Communication gaps with students post-semester about the project's future.

  • Limited connection to a broader campus community engagement infrastructure.

  • No measured impact yet, and no baseline data collected on Community of Hope clients.

Ideas for Long-term Goals:

  • Continuously update the standard.

  • Help the organization implement an intake process for baseline data on income and family demographics.

  • Track the percentage of local households meeting or exceeding the standard.

  • Consider examining the percentage of university employees meeting the standards.

  • Consult with organizational clients as stakeholders about the standard.

  • Keep students aware of progress through a Facebook group or multi-course partnership.

  • Discuss long-term goals and steps.

  • Establish campus institutional support and connect students with existing community engagement infrastructure on campus.

  • Establish high-quality measurement tools and collect baseline data on the target population at the outset.