Develop Poverty Measures through CBPR
- Darlene Edgar
Analytics
"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.