Around the world, 2025 was a year of unmistakable challenges. Cuts to foreign aid and development programs brought devastating human consequences. Wars and genocide continued, and governments used the most vulnerable at home and abroad as pawns in deadly political games. 

But amidst this darkness, we also witnessed meaningful progress. Across the social sector, partners, funders, and communities stepped up to fill gaps and adapt to uncertainty. At Camber, we found ways to meet the moment and drive impact for those most affected. 

In the spring, we launched a new strategy outlining our next chapter with a focus on field-building—a discipline aimed at breaking down siloes, cultivating shared agendas and collective action, and amplifying the impact organizations have across entire fields of practice. We also achieved B Corp recertification, executed our first Internal Equity Survey, welcomed six new colleagues, and celebrated nine promotions—including bringing our colleague and Shared Prosperity lead Marc Allen into the partnership.  

In 2025, we partnered with 27 organizations around the world on 42 projects. From women’s health innovation to climate resilience to income inequality, our work touched on some of the most important issues of our time. But don’t just take it from me. Below, we highlight work from across our sectors and the meaningful impacts each project has made. 

As a team, we found joy in personal accomplishments and milestones. We celebrated Camberians’ weddings and welcomed new Camber babies. We cheered on colleagues who became certified fitness instructors, one who earned a sommelier certification, many who ran full and half marathons, one who won a poker tournament, and several who completed new degrees. Our team also deepened their commitments to board and community service, volunteered locally, and directed $30,000 in nonprofit giving to make a difference. 

As we head into 2026, I’m holding the highs and lows with equal clarity and gratitude. The highs remind me of what we can build together, while the lows show me both why our work matters and why we must persevere. 

Read on for some of our most significant accomplishments from 2025. If you want to learn more about what we do and how we might work together, please reach out. 

With gratitude,  

Brian Leslie

Rethinking Resilience: Drawing Connections Between Climate and Health 

The Brief: Public health and climate change are inextricably linked—but too often addressed in isolation. In the fall, we partnered with Gavi and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to challenge this narrative through a novel report: Protecting Our Future: An Investment Framework for Quantifying the Climate Adaptation Benefits of Health and Immunisation Investments establishes a first-of-its-kind framework that quantifies the value of health investments for climate adaptation.  

The Solution: The report was released at COP30, the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Brazil, in November 2025. Our findings highlight the often-overlooked role that health systems play in helping communities adapt to climate change, particularly around immunization.  

The Impact: The report has sparked new conversations among multilateral development banks, donors, and country actors by bridging technical evidence with advocacy and policy potential. Stakeholders have been equipped with shared language and tools to advance long-term systems change in vulnerable communities around the world.  

Read the full report here or via AIIB’s website. Additional thanks to the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and our other collaborators for their support. 

Investing in Healthcare and Rural Economies: Strategic Planning for United Indian Health Services 

The Brief: Last year, we worked with the United Indian Health Services (UIHS) to help them chart a course for the organization’s future and determine how to make amplify their impact. UIHS is a coalition of nine American Indian tribes who focus on lifting up culture, community, health, and economic prosperity for their members—many of whom live in rural communities. 

The Solution: This was not a typical strategy project—it required careful and equitable systems thinking and expansive conversations across the region. We conducted research on comparable organizations, interviewed board members and community stakeholders, and laid out options to illustrate key trade-offs and strategic choices for UIHS. 

The Impact: After close collaboration, UIHS decided to establish a new foundation focused on investing in the healthcare workforce and care model innovation to improve tribal career opportunities in their rural communities. The result will go beyond healthcare—these investments will improve the health, economic opportunities, and quality of life for generations to come. 

Learn more about UIHS’s important work. 

Spotlighting Women’s Health Innovation: Pushing for Investments Around the World 

Photo Credit: Gates Foundation / Marlena Waldthausen

The Brief: For years, women’s health research and development (R&D) has been underinvested in and underrepresented, despite the $1 trillion opportunity that closing this gap represents. In 2023, we partnered with the Gates Foundation and National Institutes of Health to establish the Innovation Equity Forum (IEF), a group of more than 250 global experts in women’s health research and development. This diverse group is committed to advancing a more equitable, coordinated, and innovation-driven ecosystem for women’s health R&D. 

The Solution: We kicked off 2025 by publishing the 2024 Women’s Health Innovation Opportunity Map Progress Report, highlighting promising strides made in 2024 and areas for immediate action. In order to translate the data into action, we coordinated across the forum to develop actionable concepts to advance women’s health. Our efforts culminated in IEF’s global convening in October in advance of the World Health Summit in Berlin, bringing together more than 150 stakeholders to refine and align on these concepts and infuse them into the broader women’s health innovation ecosystem.  

The Impact: The Opportunity Map website, which launched in the fall, provides a new home for the IEF’s work and highlights tangible ways for stakeholders—from investors to policymakers—to drive meaningful advances in women’s health innovation over the next 15 years. These resources have strengthened awareness of critical R&D gaps across academia, philanthropy, the private sector, and policy circles. 

Learn more about the IEF and explore the Opportunity Map. 

Putting Data into Action: Informing Funding, Strategy, and Policy Development for Economic Mobility 

The Brief: Economic mobility is widely considered to be a cornerstone of American life – available to all who set their sights on it. But in reality, economic mobility has been declining steadily since the 1940s. Our Mobility Experiences initiative aims to support efforts across the country to ensure that future generations have the power to access opportunities that will advance prosperity and well-being for all.  

The Solution: In 2025, we converted our breakthrough Mobility Experiences research into action by equipping 15 place-based initiatives to apply the research in order to develop their strategies, mobilize capital, and improve their programs and services. We provided direct technical assistance to community organizations while also hosting broader public awareness events (like this one in Iowa). 

The Impact: Over time, our data reached more than 100,000+ people, helped inform several hundred million dollars in investments, and improved programs for tens of thousands of people. We supported 15 direct grantees to mobilize capital and improve programs improvement initiatives, and collaborated closely with key ecosystem actors like Harmony Labs and Fisher Strategy Partners to expand the reach and impact of our work. 

Explore the Mobility Experiences dashboard and this video unpacking the efforts. 

Scaling Up Health Campaigns: Improving Global Health & Wellbeing Through Collaboration 

Photo Credit: Federal Ministry of Health & Social Welfare, Nigeria / SWAp Office

The Brief: The Collaborative Action Strategy (CAS) on health campaign effectiveness is a first-of-its-kind commitment by the global health community to align in support of countries and their planning, implementing, evaluating, and financing of health campaigns in a more collaborative way. It is designed to bolster countries’ existing efforts while improving the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of campaigns for a range of public health issues. 

The Solution: In 2025, we helped the Health Campaign Effectiveness Coalition put the CAS into action. We supported the implementation of CAS in two focus countries, Nigeria and Ethiopia. In Nigeria, we piloted efforts in three states to integrate malaria and neglected tropical disease campaigns into the largest measles and rubella vaccination campaign in the country’s history, which aims to reach over 100 million children. We developed a customized strategy and provided hands-on support through workshops, stakeholder engagement, and project management. Our efforts culminated in a major integrated campaign in October and the official adoption of the Nigerian CAS in December. These efforts united global, country, and local stakeholders, including the Gates Foundation, UNICEF, World Health Organization, Global Fund, CBM, and Nigeria’s Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare and National Primary Healthcare Development Agency. We also coordinated closely with the Measles & Rubella Partnership, where Camber colleagues serve as the Project Management Unit, to coordinate across initiatives.

The Impact: Health campaigns are a critical way that countries like Nigeria tackle a range of public health issues, from measles to nutrition. For too long, these issues have been siloed. Taking a collaborative, interdisciplinary, and integrated approach through CAS is more cost effective, efficient, and less burdensome on communities and health workers than running separate, siloed campaigns. This is a particularly critical need given recent cuts to global health infrastructure. Through our work in 2025, stakeholders in Nigeria showed that future campaigns will be more integrated through early planning, shared calendars, strong collaboration, robust and integrated data systems, harmonized payment structures, and improved advocacy and communications. They have committed to advancing these objectives as they scale up this work across the country in 2026.

Learn more about the CAS and explore its resources.

The post Reflecting on 2025: A Year of Unmistakable Challenges and Deepening Impact appeared first on Camber Collective.

In our new research series Mobility Experiences, published in partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, we tackle some of the most foundational questions pertaining to economic mobility in the United States, including:

• What drives upward, downward or no mobility for most Americans?
• What narratives or perceptions of economic mobility do Americans hold?
• How can resources be better deployed to address structural barriers to economic mobility for all Americans?
• What is the impact on income of interventions that promote certain life experiences?

Foundational to economic mobility is the prospect of experiencing economic success, being valued in one’s community, and having the power and autonomy over one’s life path. For many Americans, economic mobility has been replaced by perpetual economic precarity. Many are often just one unforeseen expense away from falling into poverty, whether that be getting evicted, experiencing a major health crisis, or incurring a car repair cost, a majority of Americans will experience poverty at some point in their lives.[1] Poverty rates remain stubbornly high in the United States compared to other OECD countries. For the vast majority of Americans, the United States is not by most indicators a “land of opportunity” where one can assuredly expect upwards mobility in their lifetimes.

In the first report of our Mobility Experiences research series, we summarize a meta-analysis of more than 230 academic studies, along with a survey of 4,000+ Americans, to provide a holistic understanding of what drives economic mobility. Key findings reveal the relative impact that 28 important life experiences have on lifetime income. These “mobility experiences” span across nearly every aspect of a person’s life, from education, career, and finances to health, community, and relationships. Economic mobility is partially shaped before a person is ever born and influenced by systemic and structural factors which often outweigh the impact of personal actions and endeavors.

Through this research, we have found evidence of value across these 28 experiences, with Americans experiencing them in unique ways across their lifetimes, leading to varying economic trajectories. Though each of these experiences has important impacts on economic mobility, four experiences in particular were found to have significant evidence of average impact on lifetime earnings greater than 20%. These experiences include:

1. Pursuing/completing postsecondary education
2. Graduating with a degree in a high-paying field of study
3. Receiving mentorship during adolescence
4. Obtaining a first full-time job that offers opportunity for advancement

For the first time, we have been able to quantify the relative impacts of certain life experiences on economic mobility. We hope these findings are affirming for practitioners in the field, while also adding to our collective evidence base. This knowledge is not only critical to aligning stakeholders around a fact-base, but also to supporting calls for funding, policymaking, and scaling interventions that will have the greatest impact on advancing mobility and opportunity across the country. When we build systems that allow people to access critical supports—and basic human rights—like healthcare, education, high quality jobs, and thriving communities, people have the power to live the lives to which they aspire.  

We anticipate that stakeholders across the economic mobility field will benefit from Mobility Experiences research in four primary ways:

1. Frontline service organizations can utilize the findings to demonstrate the potential impact of their interventions when seeking funding support
2. Funders can utilize the findings to prioritize investments in economic mobility
3. Local decision makers can utilize the findings to prioritize policymaking and identify high potential interventions
4. Communication organizations can utilize the findings to shift widely held narratives about the drivers of economic mobility in the United States

Throughout 2024, Camber Collective and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will be releasing three reports as part of the Mobility Experiences research series. The reports will explore both the quantified impact of life experiences on lifetime income as well as the perspectives of thousands of Americans on what matters to advance individual and collective economic mobility in the United States. We will also dive into the current state of funding for economic mobility and common features of successful interventions.

The research can be found on the Mobility Experiences website. We encourage you to sign up for updates to stay up to date with upcoming releases. Read the Report

[1] Mark Robert Rank, Lawrence M. Eppard, and Heather E. Bullock, Poorly Understood: What America Gets Wrong About Poverty, Oxford Academic, 20 May 2021. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190881382.003.0001

The post Relative Impact of 28 Life Experiences that Drive Economic Mobility in the United States appeared first on Camber Collective.

Introduction to the Public Benefits System

Access to public benefit programs in the US plays a pivotal role in advancing economic security and enabling upward economic mobility for the almost ~100 million individuals living in or near poverty (See End Note 1).[i] At least 15 federal public benefit programs help to stabilize income or to mitigate housing and health needs, some of the largest being the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Public benefits have grown considerably in scale and impact since the 1960s; in 2018, public benefits reached about one-third of all people in the US and have reduced the poverty rate – per the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) (See End Note 2) – by almost 50%.[ii]

Figure 1: Percent of US population below Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) threshold from 1970 to 2018

While generally effective in reducing poverty for their participants (to varying degrees), public benefit programs encounter persistent challenges that hinder their accessibility and the efficiency of their delivery, which in turn limit their impact in addressing economic disparities and expanding economic security. In particular, although public benefits have reduced the poverty rate for all racial and ethnic groups since 1967, racial and ethnic disparities in the poverty alleviation impact of benefits persist​ today: poverty rates after accounting for public benefits remain substantially higher among Black and Latino people than white people,[iii] even if poverty still impacts white people in the highest absolute numbers.[iv] Addressing these inequities remains a critical focus for ensuring the equitable impact of public benefit access initiatives.

Key Access and Delivery Challenges

The primary challenges hindering equitable access to, and delivery of, public benefits include bureaucratic burdens, disincentives to participate in these programs, and prejudicial policies – all of which undermine the impact of benefit programs (See End Note 3). These key challenges, outlined below, primarily affect the number and composition of eligible people and the experience and success of application submissions, with outsized impact on the lowest-income individuals and marginalized groups.

Disincentives deter eligible people from applying | Hard-to-navigate requirements and limited awareness sometimes lead to false assumptions of ineligibility among otherwise eligible individuals​.[v] [vi] Some populations experience pervasive, harmful narratives that deter them from engaging with the benefits system. These disincentives include immigrants fearing the immigration implications of being deemed a “public charge”[vii] and Black women historically being targeted with stigmatizing, racist narratives,[viii] to name but two.

Bureaucratic burdens prevent or delay interested people from receiving benefits | Convoluted requirements, difficult-to-use application formats, and outdated technology systems burden government officials administering benefits, strain applicant time and energy, and in many cases, lead to significant delays in receiving benefits.[ix] [x] [xi] These burdens are exacerbated for marginalized groups who already face systemic inequities, such as for Hispanic/Latino individuals who experience more enrollment difficulties and worse customer service when applying for Medicaid/CHIP and SNAP, compared to their white counterparts​.[xii]

Prejudicial policies limit reach and poverty alleviation impact of benefits | Stringent eligibility requirements prevent people who still need support meeting their basic needs from accessing benefits, leading to “benefits cliffs” – disproportionately affecting people of color.[xiii]​ Limited government resources mean benefit policies are not able to cover all eligible people.[xiv] Moreover, for those who receive benefits, amounts can often be too low to support their complete basic needs.​[xv]  Additionally, states have discretion in interpreting eligibility requirements, determining how to administer benefits, and setting benefit amounts, which leads to a patchwork of policies across the U.S. While state discretion allows for flexibility to serve their unique populations, this has also been shown to exacerbate inequitable outcomes. For example, the most restrictive policies and least generous benefits are, by and large, in states with larger Black populations.[xvi]

The ramifications of these challenges are substantial: 13 million people in poverty do not access benefits they may be eligible for,[xvii] resulting in $80 billion in benefits going unused each year.[xviii] The population in poverty – for whom this system is designed – is disproportionately comprised of marginalized groups, such as people of color.[xix] As such, barriers to accessing the public benefit system perpetuate economic inequities, particularly in states with higher populations of marginalized groups.[xx]

Camber Methodology: How Funders can Tailor Strategies for State-based Impact

The landscape of poverty in the US is not homogenous, and despite the major means-tested benefit programs being funded at the federal level, states are typically tasked with implementing the programs for their distinctly different populations. Accordingly, funders and other stakeholders interested in addressing key challenges to benefit access and delivery should consider tailored approaches at the state level. There are two fundamental questions funders should consider when developing a state-level impact strategy:

1. Which states offer the greatest impact potential? What parameters of impact are most important to your organization?
2. Which state typology offers opportunity for impact that is most aligned with your organization’s objectives? What dimensions are most important to consider when tailoring a strategy or intervention to a state’s implementation context?

To illustrate Camber’s methodology, we have detailed below how Camber supported decision-making around state-level public benefits strategies for our client – a coalition of national and place-based funders. Camber conducted an analysis of impact potential in each state if public benefits access and delivery were improved. Camber then developed a state typology framework for characterizing the implementation context surrounding benefits access and delivery systems within states. The results of our analyses are outlined below, and additional detail and data sources are provided in End Notes (See End Notes 4 and 5).

Part 1: Which States Offer the Greatest Impact Potential?

The impact analysis was composed of a two-step process accounting for the following impact parameters: greatest anti-poverty effect possible, scale of the population(s) to serve, and racial/ethnic economic disparities to address (Figure 2). The parameters and their indicators were selected with critical input from our project partners at the Urban Institute, informed by interviews with 50+ key informants at organizations across the US working to improve benefit access and delivery, and supplemented with a comprehensive desk review of academic and grey literature. While these parameters are certainly not the only possible criteria to use, they were prioritized to align with the strategic priorities of our client. Other funders should consider additional or alternate parameters in accordance with their own organizational objectives.

Figure 2: Two-step impact analysis process

In the first step, we assessed for which states high participation in public benefit programs would have the greatest anti-poverty effect, or reduction in the poverty rate. The anti-poverty effect was determined based on results from a recent 50-state analysis of poverty reduction if 6 major means-tested benefit programs had full participation and full funding, conducted by our project partners at the Urban Institute.[xxi] The anti-poverty effect varies widely across states due to numerous factors, including but not limited to benefit policies (e.g., eligibility and benefit levels), benefit program participation rates, and economic conditions. For instance, the poverty rate in Oklahoma would reduce by just 20%, whereas Hawaii would see a transformational 46% reduction. [xxii] Accordingly, states with the greatest projected reduction in poverty rates were short-listed.

Then, in step two we identified among those short-listed states, which ones would offer the greatest scale of impact and opportunity to address the widest equity gaps. The indicators we selected focus on the demographic characteristics of populations shown to experience outsized barriers to benefit access, which are those with incomes below poverty thresholds, people of color, non-citizens, and people with disabilities. There is notable geographic variation across these demographics. While evaluating scale of impact, we found that the most populous states like California and Texas have large numbers of people living in poverty, whereas the Southern states, including Louisiana and Mississippi grapple with the highest poverty rates.[xxiii] The largest states tend to have larger numbers of non-citizens, and high proportions of people with disabilities occur in Appalachia as well as in the South.[xxiv] In terms of equity gaps, several states have relatively larger economic disparities for people of color and Hispanic/Latino people, in which there is an over-representation of those sub-groups in the population below the poverty threshold as compared to the general population. Some of these states include Connecticut, Mississippi, New York, and Louisiana​.[xxv]

Using these parameters, the resulting ten states identified to have the highest impact potential were: Arizona,​ Connecticut,​ South Carolina,​ Texas,​ Louisiana,​ California,​ Illinois,​ Hawaii​, Rhode Island,​ and Mississippi​ (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Ten states identified to have highest impact potential

Part 2: Which State Typology Offers Opportunity for Impact Most Aligned with your Objectives?

We defined illustrative state typologies that characterize the context in which interventions for benefit access would be implemented. To do so, we started by identifying two key dimensions on which states differ: delivery system efficiency and benefit access policies. We assigned descriptive indicators using publicly available data to quantify where states fall on these dimensions. An overview of each dimension and its indicators is provided below, and additional details on data utilized are available in the end notes (See End Note 5). While this framework considers a range of indicators of benefit access and delivery relevant to Camber’s work with the coalition of funders, it is non-exhaustive and may not encompass all factors another organization may need to consider when developing state impact strategies.  Funders interested in tailoring their strategies may also consider alignment with organizational or program objectives, existing relationship to state delivery agencies, timing relative to election cycles, and other factors. Each state of interest to an organization should be considered on an individual basis with the most up-to-date, comprehensive information.

Efficiency of State Delivery System:

As discussed in the Key Challenges section above, bureaucratic burdens can prevent or delay individuals from participating in benefits for which they are eligible. The Code for America Benefits Enrollment Field Guide demonstrates that state delivery systems differ widely in how efficiently they deliver benefits, in large part due to the extent to which agencies modernize their delivery systems and design them to deliver human centered services. Building on that assessment, we selected the following indicators to be illustrative of the end-to-end process of benefit delivery.

• How user-friendly is the benefit application process?
• How integrated are the enrollment systems?
• How timely is benefit delivery?
  

State Benefit Access Policy Choices:

As discussed in the Key Challenges section above, a state’s benefit policies have a strong influence on the reach and impact of benefits for its population. We find that there are distinct regional trends in benefit policy choices, as depicted in a recent analysis from the Center for American Progress. States in the South are the least likely to adopt policy choices that maximize benefit amounts and accessibility to their constituents; whereas the Northeast has an overall stronger safety net relative to other regions, and supplements to federal policies and programs tend to be stronger and more common.[xxvi]  Drawing on that analysis, we selected the following indicators to encompass historic and recent policy decisions that make benefits easier for claimants to access.

• Has the state adopted policy options that maximize access and reduce burden for claimants?
• Has the state funded state-specific tax credits?
• Is there momentum in the state to pursue benefit access and delivery improvements?

We then mapped the 10 states with the highest impact potential to the two dimensions, presented in Figure 4 below. The intersection of these dimensions created four illustrative state typologies, whichbring forth various implications for implementation, including a state’s potential likelihood of investing in public benefit access and delivery, extent of political or structural challenges to overcome, and the scope of opportunities for incremental improvements. Below, we describe the four illustrative typologies that we offered as an initial framework for our client to consider which operating environment(s) may be best fit for their program objectives. With further data inputs and analysis, these typologies can be refined to evaluate additional implications relevant to other funders. Additional aspects may include historical time and cost scales required to see measurable impact in a state, or a state’s inclination to invest in systems transformations rather than incremental enhancements.

Figure 4: Ten states mapped to illustrative state typology framework

Typology 1 (Top Left Quadrant)

These states have historically been reluctant to make policy choices that expand access to benefits; however, their delivery systems are relatively more efficient than other states. While working in these states may present a challenging policy environment, they may offer scope to explore incremental delivery system enhancements.

Typology 2 (Top Right Quadrant):

These states have made policy decisions to expand benefit accessibility and have relatively more efficient delivery systems than other states. These states may offer implementation contexts most amenable to organizations interested in improving public benefit access and delivery.

Typology 3 (Bottom Left Quadrant):

These states have historically been reluctant to make policy choices that expand access to benefits, and they have relatively less efficient delivery systems. Working in these states may pose more political and structural challenges than other states yet may offer greater scope for potential impact.

Typology 4 (Bottom Right Quadrant):

These states have made policy decisions to expand benefit accessibility; however, their delivery systems are relatively less efficient than other states. Working in these states may pose a more supportive policy environment and may offer scope to explore delivery system enhancements.

Conclusion

As we recognize the nuanced challenges in public benefit access and delivery, our analytical approach is grounded in critical impact parameters and real-world context, with an orientation toward maximizing positive outcomes for those facing the greatest economic disparities. Camber’s methodology provides a strategic foundation for intervention and serves as a systematic starting point for organizations refining their state-based impact strategy. Employing the geographically tailored approach detailed in this article can empower organizations working to amplify the impact of public benefits in reducing poverty and promoting economic security and mobility.

If you are considering how to have impact in this area across several states or in your focal state, we invite you to reach out to Camber’s sector lead for Shared Prosperity, Marc Allen, at: marc@cambercollective.com.

End Notes

1. ”Living in or near poverty” is defined here as living within 200% of the Federal Poverty Line (FPL). “Poverty population” is defined as living within 100% of the FPL. ​
2. SPM is a more comprehensive assessment of Economic Security that takes into account additional measures such as (but not limited to): income level, safety net benefits, taxes & tax credits, and any stimulus checks.
3. This article is generally focused on means-tested benefit programs serving those most economically insecure, as well as social insurance programs serving workers at risk of economic insecurity (e.g., unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation).
4. Detail methodology and data sources for Methodology – Part 1: Which States Offer the Greatest Impact Potential?: We started with the states with highest anti-poverty effects & added their score (max 4) to scores of the potential scale of impact and equity gaps in addressing poverty (max 24). Ten states with the top scores were selected, and their scores were greater than 19. Anti-poverty effect score was assessed using Urban Institute microsimulation of SPM poverty reduction if 6 major, means-tested benefit programs had full participation and full funding. The cutoff for states considered was whether they fell into the top two quartiles for SPM poverty reduction, relative to the national average. For example, Hawaii’s poverty reduces by 158% of the national average. Each state in the top two quartiles was given a score of either 3 or 4, depending on their quartile. Then, to assess scale of impact and equity gaps, states were assigned a score between 1-4 depending on which quartile they were in for the following measures, with 4 being the highest quartile, and state’s max score for scale and equity gaps equaling 24. For example, California has the highest population in SPM poverty at 7.06M and was assigned a 4 for that measure.
   
   Measures of scale were: 1) Population in poverty according to the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), 2) Percent of population in SPM poverty, 3) Percent of population who are non-citizens, and 4) Percent of population who have a disability.
   
   Measures for equity gaps were: 1) Difference in proportion of people of color in poverty SPM relative to general population, and 2) Difference in proportion of Hispanic population in poverty SPM relative to general population.
   
   Data sources: Urban Institute, using the ATTIS model (Analysis of Transfers, Taxes, and Income Security) applied data from the 2018 American Community Survey that have been projected forward to represent 2022 population and economic circumstances;  2019-2021 American Community Survey, accessed via IPUMS
   
5. Detail on measures and data sources for Methodology – Part 2: Which State Typology Offers Opportunity for Impact Most Aligned with your Objectives?: To assign a typology for each state, we scored each state’s approach to benefit accessibility and the state’s efficiency of benefit delivery, relative to other states. The states were distributed evenly across horizontal and vertical axes based on their scores then assigned a typology for each quadrant. The indicators were summed into each state’s score.
   
   Indicators for Benefit Access Policy Choices were as follows: 1) Whether the state adopted policy options that maximize access and reduce burden for claimants, indicated by implementation of SNAP broad-based categorical eligibility, SNAP Able Bodied Adults without Dependents time limit waiver, Unemployment Insurance income replacement rate relative to other states, TANF benefit amount relative to other states, and Medicaid expansion status. 2) Whether the state has funded state-specific tax credits, indicated by if the state has a state EITC, and if so, its rate relative to other states, and if the state has a state CTC. 3) Whether there is momentum in the state to pursue benefit access and delivery improvements, indicated by the number of formal benefit access improvement cohort has this state participated in, if there is legislative momentum in this state (i.e., recent state executive order related to benefit access or delivery, approval of 2023 summer Pandemic-EBT for children, recent Medicaid expansion).
   
   Indicators for Efficiency of State Delivery System were as follows: 1) How user–friendly the benefit application process is, indicated by total time to apply, relative to other states, requirement for identity proofing, availability of online applications for TANF and WIC, and if there is a mobile-friendly online application. 2) How integrated the enrollment systems are, indicated by if Medicaid applications can be used for at least one other non-health program, if the Medicaid system determines eligibility for at least one non-health program, and if the state has joint processing and applications for SNAP and Medicaid. 3) How timely benefit delivery is, indicated by how often UI benefits are received within 21 days of application, relative to other states?
   
   Data Sources: Code for America Safety Net Benefit Scorecard, 2019; Kaiser Family Foundation, 2018-2020, 2023 data; FNS – SNAP State Options Report, 2018 and Summer EBT 2023 update; The Century Foundation Unemployment Insurance Dashboard, 2022; TANF amounts, 2018; (6) Center on America Progress, Safety Net Strength Assessment, 2019; CBPP State CTC Analysis; Cohorts/Collaboratives: Safety Net Innovation Lab (Code for America), Integrated Benefits Initiative (Code for America, CBPP, Nava), Coordinating SNAP & Nutrition Supports (Share Our Strength, APHSA), Medicaid Learning Collaborative (BDT), Work Support Strategies, National Academy for State Health Policy’s (NASHP) Health and Housing Institute.

Sources

Manali Kulkarni utilizes a community-centered approach to generate qualitative and quantitative analytical insights that support clients in making strategic decisions to drive social impact. Her Master’s thesis at Stanford School of Medicine examined how negative birth experiences influence postpartum mental health outcomes for women in the US. During graduate school, she also designed, developed, and piloted an electronic health record app that works off-the-grid to streamline clinical data workflows in remote healthcare settings in Ghana as part of a Social Entrepreneurship Fellowship at Stanford d.school. She earned an MS in Community Health and Prevention Research from Stanford University, where she focused on design innovation for social impact. Prior to graduate school, she worked as a user experience researcher conducting formative, exploratory qualitative research to build a decision-making tool to support menopausal people. 

Prior to joining Camber, Bethany Wiley developed and managed leadership programs for middle and high school girls at Girl Scouts of Greater Los Angeles. She began her career in land conservation and natural resource management, collaborating with private landowners to protect wilderness in Alaska and analyzing environmental impacts of development in Hawaii. She has further experience working in economic opportunity, reproductive rights, and social entrepreneurship. Bethany holds an MBA from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University where she focused broadly on social impact and managing organizations. She also holds an MS in Earth Systems and a BA in Archaeology with Distinction from Stanford University. Bethany grew up just outside of Seattle and loves to get into the mountains whenever she can to hike, camp, backpack, and snowboard.

Director, Shared Prosperity Sector Lead Marc Allen draws on his experience as a strategist and policy attorney to advise organizations intent on redressing our economic and democratic systems, in the US and globally. In leading Camber’s Shared Prosperity portfolio, Marc has served national and state governments, global and local philanthropies, policy institutes, multilateral organizations, community service providers, and for-profit entities across a range of local, national, and international impact initiatives. His project work is oriented toward extending economic security, economic mobility/opportunity, and power/voice through improved investment, policy, programs, and representation. He also leads the Economic Narrative Coalition, a national effort to evolve the false narratives warping popular perceptions of poverty. Marc primarily supports these goals through versatile expertise in research/data analytics, strategic planning, and coalition-building with a preference for collaborative, data-driven, and nonpartisan approaches. Secondarily, he also guides executive teams in interrogating their own organization structures, missions, and business models.

The post How Disparities in Public Benefit Access can be Addressed at the State Level appeared first on Camber Collective.

Summary

• In the US, students’ backgrounds and factors such as race and family income continue to be predictors of academic success. Alternative free public-school options, such as high-quality charter schools, can represent just one of several avenues through which to challenge this status quo.
• Through Camber’s work in the charter sector, we come to the thesis that several key equity principles are core to the success of charter school programs in equalizing opportunity for quality public-school education, particularly for students from families who have been historically marginalized.
• These equity principles include: a diverse and inclusive curriculum, responsive community engagement, leadership that is reflective of the students served, restorative—rather than punitive—discipline, and equitable resources and services.

photo credit: Unsplash

Our work

Camber Collective has had the opportunity to work in the charter school sector, learning from and collaborating with charter school parents, founders, funders, and organizing partners across the topics of sector strategy and sustainability. While perspectives on charter schools can vary, we see their potential to serve as just one of several means of strengthening equitable access to high-quality public-school education by serving a broad range of student and family needs, with the ultimate goal of improving academic outcomes and advancing students’ pursuit of postsecondary pathways.

Across the US, charter school operating models vary widely across states, districts, and individual schools. School-by-school differences are particularly visible in regard to schools’ incorporation of practices and principles rooted in equity, spanning curriculum content, enrollment practices, leadership diversity, and community-based partnerships. While some charter schools have been successful in providing high-quality education accompanied by equity-based practices serving students and communities that are under-resourced or have been historically marginalized, others are underperforming in this arena. Through our work, we have identified several key equity principles that are common across the most inclusive and high-performing charter schools and initiatives, which could serve as a model for both new and existing charters to follow.

Background on charter schools

Charter schools originated in the US in the 1970s, based on the idea of an organized group of teachers setting up a contract or “charter” with their school district to employ innovative approaches to public school education. The concept of charter schools is rooted in a progressive (though not always realized) ideal: that by allowing public school teachers and leaders to work with greater freedom to meet the needs of their children, they might achieve a higher rate of student success while remaining in—and ideally strengthening—the overall public school system, by offering innovative services and building the evidence base for best practices.

Charter School Statistics in the United States, 2020-2021 School Year

Source: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. 2022 Data Digest: Charter School Coverage.

While charter schools are similar to traditional public schools in that they are publicly funded (though, on average, at a level 25% less than district counterparts on a per-student basis¹); offer free and reduced-price lunch; provide programs to support students with disabilities; and are accountable to state and national education standards, there are several key differences between the two. The differentiated offering of charter schools centers on the school’s ability to offer flexibility: choice for teachers to provide innovative instruction and to design classrooms personalized for students, ideally guided by leaders who have the flexibility to try new ideas and create a school culture that mirrors and supports the surrounding community².

What do charter schools have to offer?

“Nothing works like a charter school that is high performing…
they can go into the toughest situations and turn things around for every kid”
–National charter school sector leader & advocate.

Charter school advocates call attention to the fact that the traditional public school system is working for many, but not all, students; research shows that students that come from families with low-income backgrounds or students of Black and Latino* families are most often the ones left behind³. In theory, charter schools have the opportunity to offer an alternative, high-quality, public-school option to families, and in particular those families underserved by the traditional public system. Recent studies provide evidence of charter schools delivering higher quality academic results for students relative to traditional district public schools (equivalent to an additional 16 days of learning in reading, and six days in math)⁴. Notably, the vast majority—if not all—of charter school academic outperformance in recent years is being driven by learning gains for Black and Latino students.

Academic Results by Race

Source: Stanford University, Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO), 2023.

Public opinion and debate

According to survey polls, public favorability of charter schools has been modestly trending upward in recent years, most notably amongst Black survey respondents⁵.

Percent of the U.S. population in support of charter schools, 2016-2022

Source: Education Next, Education Next Survey of Public Opinion (poll results, 2016-2022).

Despite this uptick in public support, charter schools have been the subject of ongoing controversy across the US. Critiques of the sector center on the practices and procedures of charter schools themselves—including whether they equitably serve all students regardless of race, class, disability, or spoken language⁶, in addition to the real and/or perceived opportunity cost of funding charter schools relative to the public school system.

While charter schools remain a significant component of our public school system (enrolling over 7% of the total public-school population), a constructive debate should focus on building towards policy and practices that promote accessible, high-quality public schools with the goal of advancing equal educational opportunity for all students.

 “Schools and school leaders who are clear on their values and what they’re trying to create, focused on sense of community and school culture and united on a common vision, combined with high standards of achievement and execution. Those are the schools that are doing the best.”
– Charter school policy & advocacy expert

The equity imperative

photo credit: Unsplash

We have learned throughout our work that charter schools across the continuum stand to benefit from integrating community-tailored equity principles into their operating models. Charter school leaders, administrators, and sector partners can disrupt the cycles of racism, segregation, and inequitable opportunity for students and families who have experienced less privilege in the U.S. education systems by maintaining a deep focus on and commitment to equity principles. If executed well, charter schools can be one effective tool in the pursuit of educational equality in the United States.

Our lessons learned: equity principles in charter schools

Charter schools are not automatic drivers of equity, but they do have the potential to advance equity when they are focused on implementing a variety of strategies that prioritize equitable access and outcomes for all students. In pursuit of offering a nurturing, inclusive, and race-conscious education option to students and families seeking a high-quality public school, the following principles may be considered as optimal:

1. Diverse and inclusive curriculum: Students will benefit from the incorporation of inclusive teaching practices that accommodate those with various learning styles and abilities⁷. A wide range of leaders in the field stress the importance of developing a curriculum that reflects the cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity of the student population. Schools should be prioritizing culturally responsive teaching strategies that affirm the identities and experiences of all students, challenging a traditionally dominant narrative or teaching methodology.
   
   “[In addition to academic achievement], a high-quality school must be anti-racist and community rooted. You can get a school that has knockout academic results but can still be learning in a racist institution.”
   –Charter school non-profit organization leader
   
   
2. Leadership reflective of students served: Recruit and retain a diverse leadership team and teaching staff that reflects the racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity of the student body; and provide ongoing professional development on culturally responsive teaching. Studies have shown the impact of teacher diversity on student outcomes; increased exposure to same-race teachers is linked to improvements in course grades, students’ attendance, grit and interpersonal self-management⁸. Cultural competency and connection to the lived experience of the students and their families is integral to students’ social-emotional and academic success and sense of belonging.
   
   “There have been a lot of organizations who have worked to change the face of charter [schools] and diversify. It is time to make sure those faces are seen.”
   –Charter school authorizer
   
   
3. Restorative—rather than punitive —discipline: Implement a restorative justice approach to discipline, balancing rigorous academic and behavioral standards with nurturing instruction, positive discipline, and whole-student focused methods. Several charter networks that have been publicly criticized for their strict disciplinary practices (often referred to as the “no excuses” model) that disproportionately impact BIPOC** students or students experiencing learning or behavioral challenges, have since repudiated this punitive approach^9,10. The consideration of a student’s racial and cultural identity, home experience, food security, psychological safety, and social or learning needs should be heavily weighed when forming disciplinary action, incorporating social-emotional learning frameworks and using a trauma-informed approach that prioritizes problem-solving and conflict resolution over punitive measures.
   
   
4. Responsive community engagement: Foster strong partnerships with parents/caretakers and the local community to involve them in decision-making processes and school governance tailored to the unique needs of the school’s students and families. Create a welcoming environment that encourages parent/caretaker involvement including practices of transparent communication, open feedback channels, and earning and maintaining family’s trust. Implement a transparent and fair process for addressing complaints or concerns related to equity.
   
   “Go to community meetings and listen to build the opportunities that communities are looking for. Acknowledge that this takes more time, but it’s a much better approach towards quality [schools].”
   –National charter school sector advocate.
   
   “[We have a] moral imperative to ensure charter work is informed by the families they are serving. There has been a lot of changes in the education system, so want to be sure families and communities are aware of those changes and have a voice in designing their kid’s education.”
   –Charter network CEO
   
   
5. Equitable resources and services: Provide comprehensive special education services and accommodations to students with disabilities and ensure that the Individualized Education Program process is followed rigorously to meet the unique needs of each student with a disability. Offer robust English language learner (ELL) programs to help students who are learning English, and that educators are trained in best practices for teaching ELL students. If charter schools fail to provide adequate services to equitably serve those students with additional needs, a disproportionate burden falls upon nearby district schools to provide for those students.

These suggestions cover some, but not all, equity practices to be considered by charter operators, authorizers, and sector advocates. By actively pursuing these strategies and adopting equity-focused operating models, charter schools can work towards ensuring that all students have the opportunity to thrive, regardless of their background or circumstances.

Questions for further consideration

Policymakers, educators, and communities need to continually evaluate and improve charter school practices to achieve more equitable educational opportunities for all students.

As we move forward in our work within both charter schools and the education systems in the United States, we are considering the following questions:

• How can policymakers, sector leaders, and educators provide guidance and standards for the implementation of equity principles in charter schools across the country?
  
• How do equity principles fit into charter school performance measurement and data?
  
• What is the correct definition of “quality” public education that charter schools should be held accountable to, beyond student academic performance?

We look forward to exploring these challenges further with equity-oriented philanthropies and funders, public agencies, and communities, and continuing to contribute to an equitable charter school system that extends equal opportunity and long-term economic mobility for the many students currently deprived of these possibilities.

---

*While “Hispanic” and “Latino” are often used interchangeably, “Hispanic” generally denotes alignment with Census and other federal data tracking conventions. In this paper, we have used “Latino.”

**BIPOC refers to Black, Indigenous, and People of Color. Camber Collective recognizes that this term, like many others in this dynamic and rapidly changing nomenclature context, does not fully serve all communities or contexts, but we will use it here for the sake of brevity and uniformity.

---

Citations

[1] National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. 2022 Data Digest: Charter School Coverage.

[2] National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. About Charter Schools: What makes a charter school different from any other public school?

[3] The Nation’s Report Card, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NEAP). NEAP Report Card 2022).

[4] Stanford University, Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO). As a Matter of Fact: The National Charter School Study III 2023.

[5] Education Next. Education Next Survey of Public Opinion: Poll results 2016-2022.

[6] The Century Foundation. Advancing Intentional Equity in Charter Schools, 2019.

[7] Communities at the Center, National Alliance for Charter School Authorizers. Education and charter school sector leaders’ anecdotes and testimonials.

[8] The Brookings Institution, “It matters now more than ever: What new developments say about Teacher Diversity and Student Success”. Michael Hansen, Constance A. Lindsay, and Seth Gershenson. August 1, 2022.

[9] KIPP Public Schools, A Letter from David Levin to KIPP Alumni. June 18, 2020.

[10] Columbia University, National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education. Noble Charter Network Joins KIPP in Renouncing “No Excuses” Philosophy. March 22, 2021.

---

Melissa Mullins is an Associate in Camber Collective’s Seattle office. She has eight years of social sector experience, working with nonprofits and foundations in investment planning, operational strategy, and endowment management. Prior to joining Camber, Melissa worked for the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation as the Director of Strategy and Operations within the investment management team. Melissa is also a Birth Doula, most recently working at the San Francisco General Hospital on a volunteer basis, providing one-to-one labor and birth support to under-resourced women and families. In her work, Melissa is focused on economic and health inequities and community wellbeing, specifically addressing the access points, policies, and structural frameworks that cause and perpetuate disparities in social outcomes. Melissa received her Master of Public Affairs from UC Berkeley, where she focused on maternal health, family planning, economic mobility, and policy analysis and design. She also holds a Bachelor degree in Government from Harvard University.

Marc Allen is a Director at Camber Collective and the Shared Prosperity Sector Lead, heading the firm’s Shared Prosperity portfolio. Drawing on his toolkit as a strategist and former policy attorney, Marc leads teams working to strengthen and reimagine our economic and democratic systems. His experience spans strategy and investment design, human-centered research/insights, and coalition-building services for philanthropies, government agencies, multilateral institutions, nonprofits, and socially-invested corporations. More broadly, Marc guides the effectiveness of executive teams in mission-driven organizations, helping to advance their theories of impact, program design, business models, and cultures of belonging.

The post Advancing Equity in Charter Schools appeared first on Camber Collective.

Summary

US inflation has surged over recent years primarily as a result of supply-side challenges coupled with rising profit margins and labor costs. Although levels are now beginning to moderate, many still feel the sting of higher prices. In particular, inflation disproportionately impacts low-income households in light of the ways in which these households typically earn, spend and save. In response, philanthropies should focus part of their financial and non-financial resources on supporting cash transfer programs, consumer protection measures, application of disaggregated inflation insights, and improved financial literacy, thereby filling gaps not fully addressed by federal government at the current time.

State of US inflation

In 2022 inflation reached 9.1%, its highest rate in 40 years. Of the goods and services contributing to that value, groceries, various types of energy, motor parts & equipment, and household furnishings and supplies were among the most notable increases.¹

Figure 1, adapted from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Though inflation has moderated to an average annualized rate of ~5% in 2023, this aggregate value masks the fact that the most essential goods and services, such as food ² and medical care, have remained well above this level. Similarly, while gasoline prices have fallen since peaks seen in 2022, both motor and diesel fuel are currently higher than they were in the four-year period from mid-2017 to mid-2021.³

Significant decreases have primarily been seen in valuable, but not essential, categories such as household appliances, clothing, and even recreational equipment.⁴

The Unequal Impact of Inflation on US Households

Many people experience inflation as a slight frustration, or as a cause for mild concern. Reactions to price increases are expressed as indignation at higher grocery bills and irritation at the climbing costs of long-used products and services (which are ultimately still consumed)

However, the experience can be entirely different for lower income households, for whom ongoing inflation is imposing profound economic and even socio-emotional distress. For lower-income households, sustained periods of inflation can completely shift quality of life and in some cases, even risk access to basic rights, such as adequate availability of healthy food, consistent supplies of clean water, reliable electricity, and more. Notably, price inflation not only threatens economic security for these households – it also frequently stalls or reverses any prior economic mobility they may have experienced. High inflation rates have been linked to a reduction in the US middle class and a return to poverty for those who recently came out of the lowest income and wealth quintile.

Three factors explain the heavier impacts of inflation on lower-income households. Each of these reasons corresponds to a particular phase in the income lifecycle:

1. How you earn: First, lower-income households are more likely to be employed informally in certain sectors, (child care, yard work, cleaning, etc.) relying primarily on wage income or transfer payments, or to occupy roles with diminished bargaining power. This fact is often due to a high supply/replaceability of workers for those roles and/or lack of union representation. Unfortunately, inflation has particularly outpaced growth in wages and transfer payments for these roles, which equally tend not to provide supplemental benefits such as sick leave or retirement contributions.⁶ In contrast, middle and higher-income households are often employed in sectors that offer salaries and benefits such as commuter stipends or caregiver benefits, leaving them less vulnerable to price shocks in the economy.
2. How you spend: Second, lower-income households typically spend a greater percentage of their income on necessities such as food, energy, and housing. Studies have shown that lower-income households in developed countries can spend as much as 50% of their income on food while higher-income households spend 20% on this expense.⁶ While higher-income households can use tactics such as couponing or purchasing cheaper options to maintain key aspects of their lifestyles, lower income households often already use such money management tactics and therefore, have no further “dollar stretching” to do. As a result, lower income households are often forced to buy goods and services of extremely low quality, or have no choice but too completely  forego necessities during times of price inflation. ⁷
3. How you save: Third, lower-income households are more likely to live paycheck-to-paycheck and have less discretionary income. As a result, these households often do not have an emergency fund or extensive savings and are more likely to go into formal debt (i.e. credit card, loans) or informal debt (i.e. borrowing from loved ones) to pay for necessities.⁸ A lack of discretionary income and savings, as well as diminished access to or trust in financial systems⁹ reduces many lower income households’ exposure to services and financial planning/investment approaches of potential benefit to them, further distancing them from obtaining the highest value from the money they do earn in the short and long-term.Conversely, middle and higher-income households have greater access to financial markets and often hold investments, resources which have a greater likelihood of shielding them from inflation’s harms.¹⁰

Approaches to Addressing Inflation

Given the extreme economic precarity that price inflation can bring to lower-income households, philanthropies may consider mobilizing their resources to complement, or fills gaps in, government approaches emanating from the federal, state, or local levels.

Of the various approaches we have seen philanthropies engage with, four warrant particular consideration for the level of innovation they represent:

• Direct Cash Transfers: In times of rapid economic change, some philanthropies – notably community and place-based foundations – have ventured into the direct cash transfer space, providing rapid cash (on a needs-based scale) for essential goods and services critical for by low-income households. Transfers may be earmarked for specific objectives (such as gas or energy relief, health services, rent assistance, reduced internet service payments, etc), or may be unrestricted. One of the pioneers of this approach was the Greater Washington Community Foundation, which supported 60,000 residents of the Greater Washington DC area with payments totaling $26 million throughout the pandemic, and whose approaches remain highly relevant in this inflationary period.

However, cash transfer programs should be implemented and monitored carefully to ensure that the intended effect is produced. In some instances, cash transfers have been shown to suddenly stimulate consumption, leading to reduced supply and even higher prices. Conversely, others have argued that increased purchasing power leads to product variation and resultingly, price decreases.¹¹ The variable outcome of cash transfer programs are influenced by several characteristics, including scale of implementation (geographic area and/or number of individuals), the monetary amount per transfer, the number and cadence of transfers, and more.¹² Making evidence-based design decisions that are tailored to the inflation context increases the likelihood of positive, intended economic effects.¹³

• Antimonopoly Engagement: While corporate concentration (i.e. monopolies) in key industries constitutes just one of several market contributors to recent inflation, this factor alone is estimated to cost the average American $5k per year in distorted (inflated) prices. In the absence of a competitive market, there is little rein on whether businesses monopolizing the market raise their prices acutely.¹⁴ Traditionally, philanthropy has not engaged in ideological questions around the paradigms that govern our economy, including monopolistic practices that have escaped antitrust policy and enforcement since the 1980s. Yet this hesitancy is slowly evolving, led by major funders such as (but not limited to) the Ford Foundation, Omidyar Network, Hewlett Foundation. Now is an opportune moment for philanthropy to make a difference. A leading forum for action has been the Economic Security Project’s Antimonopoly Fund, which has “leaned into what was missing from the movement: grassroots organizing power around anti-monopoly campaigns, academic research that filled critical gaps in our understanding of the problem and potential solutions, and culture- and narrative-shift projects that told and made accessible the stories of how monopolies have impacted individuals and communities.”

• Improved Application of Disaggregated Inflation Insights: Disaggregation of inflation data and reporting is key to determining the strategies best positioned to serve key groups. While fluctuations in the inflation rate are frequently reported by expenditure category and geographic region, and ¹⁵ increasingly reported by income level and race/ethnicity¹⁶ , application of initiatives by the latter indicators are severely lacking. Philanthropy is uniquely placed to fund insight generation around disaggregated research findings to tailor initiatives for key populations highlighted in analysis.

• Financial Literacy & Access: As previously mentioned, lower-income households typically do not hold many, if any, savings and investments. This issue is often exacerbated during periods of inflation. For example, recent research showed a strong correlation between “financial literacy and inflation-induced changes in individuals’ personal finances”. Specifically, adults with very low levels of financial literacy were four times as likely to significantly reduce or completely stop retirement contributions during high periods of inflation in 2022, versus those with very high levels of financial literacy, who were able to maintain their retirement contributions.¹⁷ This evidence puts forth that inflation not only threatens needs in the short-term, but can also affect finances in the long-term.
  
  Philanthropy can help improve financial literacy and trust, as well as improve access to products that protect the value of money as inflation rages. In combination with the social supports described above, equipping individuals with financial tools can enhance their ability to navigate inflationary pressures and provide a basis for financial decision-making during volatile times. This is well-understood by Next Gen Personal Finance (NGPF), a group working to democratize access to financial information, with a mission of ensuring that all US high school students are required to take a financial literacy course to graduate. In partnership with the California State Superintendent, NGPF is offering $1.4 million in grants to develop and deliver financial literacy courses in California public schools. The grants include stipends for teachers that become certified, as well as funds to hire a personal finance specialist for the largest school districts in the state.

It is key for philanthropic leaders to be aware of the disproportionate effect of inflation on their lower-income constituents; of the enduring nature of that impact even as top-line inflation figures reduce; and of the avenues at their disposal to kickstart a response via some of the above strategies, which represent only a partial snapshot of their available toolkit. Doing so will materially strengthen economic security at individual, household, and community levels even during times of financial tumult.

---

Citations

1.  Consumer prices up 9.1 percent over the year ended June 2022, largest increase in 40 years – US Bureau of Labor Statistics
2. Summary findings, Food price outlook 2023 – USDA
3. EIA expects U.S. gasoline and diesel retail prices to decline in 2023 and 2024 – EIA
4. Inflation is falling but your health premiums may be about a soar. Here’s why – Los Angeles Times
5. Monetary Policy and Price Stability – U.S. Federal Reserve
6. Inflation could wreak vengeance on the world’s poor – Brookings
7. Inflation’s wrath has Americans wrecking up high debt. What at risk households need to know – USA Today
8. New Data Show Inflation Could Undermine Families of Color’s Financial Resilience. How Can Policymakers Help? – Urban Institute
9. 2021 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households – FDIC
10. Inflation and its impact on the poor in the era of COVID-19 – InterAmerican Development Bank
11. Universal Cash Transfer and Inflation – Jones & Marinescu
12. Getting cash transfer payments to recipient’s faster boosts household spending and stimulates the economy – Washington Center for Equitable Growth
13. What have we learned about cash transfers? – Blogs World Bank
14. The Importance of Competition for the American Economy – The White House
15. State Inflation Tracker – US Congress Joint Economic Committee
16. Inflation is higher for some demographic groups, report finds – Axios
17. Financial Wellbeing and literacy in a high-inflation environment – TIAA Institute

Aislyn Orji is a Consultant at Camber Collective. She utilizes data-driven storytelling to support clients in advancing their strategic & operational goals. Prior to Camber, Aislyn worked as a global health researcher at the Institute for Health Metrics & Evaluation. In her time there, she developed methods for measuring the burden of various chronic & vertically transmitted diseases. She has further experience working with think tanks and nonprofits aimed at tackling issues of food insecurity, education, and homelessness.Aislyn earned an MPH concentrated in Health Metrics & Evaluation from the University of Washington. She also holds a BA in Health Sciences & minor in Sociology from Rice University, where she was a Trustee Distinguished Scholar. In her spare time, Aislyn enjoys exploring neighborhoods in new cities, and critiquing food with family & friends.

Marc Allen is a Director at Camber Collective and the Shared Prosperity Sector Lead, heading the firm’s Shared Prosperity portfolio. Drawing on his toolkit as a strategist and former policy attorney, Marc leads teams working to strengthen and reimagine our economic and democratic systems. His experience spans strategy and investment design, human-centered research/insights, and coalition-building services for philanthropies, government agencies, multilateral institutions, nonprofits, and socially-invested corporations. More broadly, Marc guides the effectiveness of executive teams in mission-driven organizations, helping to advance their theories of impact, program design, business models, and cultures of belonging.

The post How Philanthropy Can Reduce the Burden of Inflation on Low-Income Households appeared first on Camber Collective.

Once the child turns 18, they can use the funds for eligible wealth-building purposes (such as continued education, homeownership, or establishing a business), provided they meet certain basic requirements. Baby bonds target support to children from low-wealth households by using income or other wealth-proxies (e.g., Medicaid) as eligibility criteria for account establishment or as a determining factor in the size of government contributions.  

In the US, wealth is acutely concentrated among a small subset of households (many of whom have benefitted from inter-generational wealth transfers), while many others struggle to get by. In 2019, the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) found that the wealthiest decile holds over three quarters of total household wealth, while the bottom half of the distribution holds just one percent of the wealth (see Figure 1). Not only do families at the bottom of the distribution hold little wealth, but over 13 million actually have negative wealth (i.e., debts exceed assets).[i]

Confronting the Racial Wealth Divide

In addition to wealth inequality, a persisting racial and ethnic wealth divide characterizes wealth distribution. For example, in the US, the median Black family ($23K) held just 13% of the wealth compared to their White peers ($184K), and the typical Hispanic family ($38K) held around 20% (see Figure 2). While not all races and ethnicities are represented in wealth data sources (e.g., SCF), income poverty and other wealth-related metrics show that Native Americans and many communities within the Asian American and Pacific Islander category are also excluded from wealth.[ii]

Baby Bonds Legislation

The racial and ethnic wealth divide is primarily the result of historic and continuing systemic inequities that affect people of color in the United States (e.g., land theft from indigenous tribes, enslavement of Black people, the G.I. Bill, redlining and housing discrimination, etc.). Baby bonds policies could, using a race-neutral approach, begin to correct some of those inequities that underlie the racial and ethnic wealth divide. Gaining access to one’s baby bond account at age 18 could mimic the advantage of intergenerational wealth transfers that wealthier, typically, white) families, and propagate inequalities through generations. By providing young adults with money specifically for wealth-building purposes, baby bonds can help interrupt the status quo and create opportunities for BIPOC*, lower-income, and other disadvantaged communities to seed wealth for themselves and for future generations.

While economists William Darity Jr. and Darrick Hamilton first proposed baby bonds as a way to close the racial wealth divide in 2010,[iii] it wasn’t until eight years later that the first federal legislation was put forward. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) proposed the American Opportunity Accounts Act, in which every child’s account would be seeded with a $1,000 deposit upon birth, with tiered annual contributions dependent on family income.[iv] As a result, children from the poorest households would have an estimated balance of $46,000 at their 18^th birthday, while peers from the wealthiest households would receive under $2,000.

While Booker’s initial proposal did not advance, he, along with Massachusetts Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), reintroduced the American Opportunity Accounts Act in 2021 with broader support from co-sponsors.[iv]

In addition to federal legislation, several states have proposed—and even passed—local baby bonds policies.

• Connecticut: In July 2021, Connecticut paved the way by enacting the CT Baby Bonds legislature.[vii] CT Baby Bonds will automatically enroll babies born under HUSKY (the state’s Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program) starting in July of 2023. Upon birth, the state will deposit as much as $3,200 into the CT Baby Bonds Trust, to be invested and managed by the Office of the Treasurer. In order to access funds, beneficiaries must be 18-30 years old, complete a financial literacy course, and currently reside in the state. When those conditions are met, young adults can then make a claim to request funds for one of the designated eligible purposes: higher education, homeownership in the state, investment in a business in the state, or retirement savings. See the full legislation here (Sec. 104-110).
• District of Columbia: The DC Council approved the Child Wealth Building Act by a unanimous vote in October 2021.[viii] The Child Trust Fund Program established by the act will automatically enroll babies whose birth is covered by DC Medicaid and that are born to households with income 300% or less of the federal poverty line and enrolled in DC Medicaid.[ix] Accounts for eligible babies will be seeded with an initial $500 deposit and grown with annual contributions of up to $1,000, dependent on family income. If the previously eligible child’s household becomes ineligible at any point before their 18^th birthday, annual contributions will cease but the existing balance will still be available for later distribution. At 18 years of age, beneficiaries of the Child Trust Fund Program residing in the district can receive distributions to be used for the following purposes: education, ownership or investment in a DC business, ownership of a DC property, or retirement investment. See the full legislation here.

Beyond Connecticut and DC, baby bonds legislation has been discussed in California[1], Delaware[2], Iowa[3], Louisiana[4], Maryland[5], Massachusetts[6], Nevada[7], New Jersey[8], New York[9], Washington[10], and Wisconsin[11].

Washington Future Fund: Camber’s Work in Baby Bonds Policy

In 2022, the Washington Office of the State Treasurer (OST) contracted Camber Collective, with partner Prosperity Now, to conduct a wealth inequity study. The Washington Future Fund Study Committee—made up of elected officials, community representatives with lived experience, and members of economic empowerment organizations—would then leverage the wealth inequity study, along with their other work, to make recommendations to the state legislature regarding baby bonds policy in Washington. To present a comprehensive understanding of wealth inequities in Washington, we utilized quantitative analysis of household- and individual-level data, qualitative analysis of interviews with low- and middle-income Washington residents, and secondary research of exiting literature throughout the study.

Our research identified racial/ethnic and geographic wealth divides in the state, informed by stories from individuals experiencing challenges in building wealth. The final report (excerpts included in OST’s report to legislature contextualizes wealth disparities with exploration of why wealth matters, summary of how inequities are created and perpetuated, and discussion of the implications of wealth inequities on households and the state economy. The insights surfaced through the research study, complemented by Prosperity Now’s expertise in baby bond policy, resulted in a series of evidence-driven policy recommendations for the state legislature’s consideration in the 2023 session. This work, along with the research study report, was highlighted recently in the Seattle Times.

[i] Can ‘Baby Bonds’ Eliminate the Racial Wealth Gap in Putative Post-Racial America? – Darrick Hamilton, William Darity, 2010 (sagepub.com

[ii] An exclusive look at Cory Booker’s plan to fight wealth inequality: give poor kids money – Vox

[iii] Booker reintroduces ‘baby bonds’ bill to give all newborns a $1K savings account – POLITICO

[iv][Can ‘Baby Bonds’ Eliminate the Racial Wealth Gap in Putative Post-Racial America? – Darrick Hamilton, William Darity, 2010 (sagepub.com)

[v] An exclusive look at Cory Booker’s plan to fight wealth inequality: give poor kids money – Vox

[vi] Booker reintroduces ‘baby bonds’ bill to give all newborns a $1K savings account – POLITICO

[vii] CT Baby Bonds

[ix] DC Council unanimously ‘baby bonds’ bill – WTOP News [1] Chapter 6D. Building Child Wealth. | D.C. Law Library (dccouncil.gov)

[1] California approved budget for the Hope, Opportunity, Perseverance, and Empowerment for Children Trust Account Fund, which will target low-income children who lost a primary caregiver to COVID-19 and foster children

[2] Legislation introduced in 2022

[3] Legislation introduced in 2021; note that this policy would have created opt-in accounts for all babies in the state, regardless of wealth

[4] Resolution passed in 2022 to commission study on baby bonds to be delivered for 2023 session

[5] Proposed by governor-elect

[6] Task Force conducted study in 2022

[7] Treasurer requested legislature to draft a bill for baby bonds

[8] Legislation re-introduced in 2022; note that, in 2020, Governor Murphy called on lawmakers to implement baby bonds, though budget was finalized without the necessary allocation

[9] Legislation introduced in 2021 (multiple versions)

[10] Legislation introduced in 2022; study committee established to provide recommendations for 2023 session

[11] Legislation introduced in 2021

Rebecca Drachman is an analyst at Camber Collective. Her work at Camber thus far has included several projects in the Shared Prosperity sector, including with a direct services nonprofit, large family foundation, and, most recently, state government. Before coming to Camber, Rebecca studied Psychology and Neuroscience and conducted neuro-imaging research at Yale University. She is passionate about leveraging quantitative and qualitative research approaches to solve pressing problems and elevate marginalized voices.

Marc Allen is a Director at Camber Collective and heads the firm’s Shared Prosperity portfolio. Drawing on his toolkit as a strategist and former policy attorney, Marc leads teams working to strengthen and reimagine our economic and democratic systems. His experience spans strategy and investment design, human-centered research/insights, and coalition-building services for philanthropies, government agencies, multilateral institutions, nonprofits, and socially-invested corporations. More broadly, Marc guides the effectiveness of executive teams in mission-driven organizations, helping to advance their theories of impact, program design, business models, and cultures of belonging.

The post How Baby Bonds Can Address Wealth Inequality appeared first on Camber Collective.

Food Security, Urban Migration, Healthcare, Economic Wellbeing & Population Displacement

The Global South, particularly countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) face the highest risk of climate vulnerability and developmental issues exacerbated by climate change. For example, the African continent contributes only a small percentage of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but its inhabitants are among the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change and have the least infrastructure for climate resilience. These issues brought about by climate change impact local environments and trigger several serious problems that threaten the livelihood of most residents. If progressively left unchecked, these issues will undoubtedly create a near-term catastrophic retrogression in the region’s economy.

According to a study on the effects of climate change, a mere 1 °C increase in temperature in developing countries has been found to cause 2.66% lower growth in agricultural output (1). This factor alone leads to, for each degree of warming, an estimated average 1.3 percentage point-drop in economic growth.

Survival on the Line

To put it simply: as humans, our survival is based on the availability and access to Food, Clean Air, Water and Shelter. With any one of these basic needs unmet, humanity can no longer survive. Indeed, climate change threatens the availability of these resources. Of course, this is not new news – but it is urgent. A great deal must be done to return to a state of equilibrium. In rural areas of developing countries, the impacts of climate change dangerously affect the agricultural industry. Particularly, in the SSA region, farming and agriculture are the sectors at the forefront of food security and sustainable jobs. The sector also employs roughly two-thirds of the regional labor force.

The yield potential of many African crops is however not fully realized, due to over-reliance on resources such as inadequate (rain)water and a dearth of nutrients to boost crop production. Rainfed agriculture yields fewer crops, further contributing to a stunted agro sector in Africa. This dearth impacts both livelihood and survival. In addition to creating drag on local economies, poor crop yields force smallholder farmers to seek additional or alternative sources of livelihood, initiating a cascade effect that leads to forced migration to now over-populated urban areas and cities.

While urbanization is generally beneficial, most of Africa’s city dwellers live in extreme poverty—and economic suffering that is likely to increase as climate change worsens. As urbanization rates increase in some developing countries, we are beginning to see a corollary of negative wellness outcomes such as poor nutrition, pollution-related illnesses such as respiratory disease, a rise in communicable diseases, poor sanitation, and uninhabitable housing conditions. (2)

These detriments further strain available resources in urban areas. For example, Lagos is one of the world’s 10 largest cities, sprawling across 1,000 sq. km and housing 20 million inhabitants in a largely chaotic and impoverished setting. Most residents live in informal settlements, also known as slums. With no holistic water or sanitation system, disorganized transportation and extreme traffic congestion, and massive environmental issues such as noise and air pollution, this coastal city is a cataclysm waiting to happen. Indeed, it is predicted that by 2100, Lagos will be the world’s largest city, squashing 100 million people in a grave environmental and social setting.

The predicted major health problems of Lagos residents are further exacerbated by the generally poor quality of health service delivery. Less than half the continent’s population has access to health care, and family planning services are unavailable to half the continent’s women and girls.

While private healthcare is available to some, its high cost makes it unattainable to most people, as the region’s largest social challenges include unemployment and vulnerable employment, which are often linked with the effects of climate change. These challenges are growing in severity, as population growth remains high, and poverty and unemployment are also on the rise. Likewise, climate vulnerability is aggravated as there are little to no infrastructure for climate adaptation. 

Job Demand Outweighs Supply

The World Bank reported in 2013 that there would be 10 million new entrants to the labor force every year. As of 2017, other institutions—such as the International Labor Organization (ILO)—have reported that there are at least 20 million young people looking for work every year. The number of job seekers on the African continent is increasing significantly and despite all efforts so far to create more formal jobs for young people, very few of them currently stand a chance of finding employment. The statistics are stark: each year 20 million young people enter the labor market, with only a few gaining formal employment. On the potentially brighter side the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimates that if the sector continues to develop, renewable energy jobs could employ 43 million people by 2050.

An example of this discrepancy between job supply and demand can be seen in the country of Uganda. 400,000 young Ugandans enter the job market annually, competing for approximately 52,000 formal jobs.(3) For girls and young women, the job attainment situation is particularly dire. With fewer opportunities to work in the formal labor market, young women are often forced to seek work in the informal economy. As previously noted, climate change continues to disrupt agricultural productivity and supply chains, leading to further regional displacement from rural regions and larger cities alike, with many having no choice but to undertake the long and treacherous journey of (illegal) migration to the EU.

A Moral Obligation to Act

The Global North is responsible for 92% of excess global carbon emissions, according to a study published in The Lancet Planetary Health (4). The findings, based on the idea that the atmosphere is part of the global commons, are worrying considering many experts consider it critical to protect against global warming and climate change. There is a moral obligation to deliver upon the Polluters Pay Principle (5). It spurs sustainable development through the development of innovative strategies for climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience for developing countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in rural regions to ensure sustainable development.

Each further delay in redressing the detriments of climate development disequilibrium will result in future situational overload, making climate mitigation even more difficult to reach, and destroying the wellbeing and livelihood of millions of people in the not-very-distant future. For those who remain unswayed by the humanitarian imperative, a parallel emergency, based on economic is also evident: delay or lack of climate investment, infrastructure, and innovation applications in the rural and super-urban and rural areas will only make sustainable transition even more exigent. Tangentially, it will also make change, which will become necessary one way another, extremely more expensive.

Over the next series of blog posts, we will further examine the intersection and impact of climate induced changes and development.

Dr. Chidiebere E.X. Ikejemba is the Director of Climate & Environment at Camber Collective. His body of work focuses on climate equity and justice, building resilient climate-smart development programs, strengthening political will for urgent climate change action and many other levers of activation. His theory of impact operates across both the upstream and downstream of a systems chain. that encompasses investment, agriculture & food security, migration, economic & rural development, climate education, waste management (circularity), healthcare, corruption and democracy, energy access, gender inclusion and other dimensions. The circularity of Camber’s approach and theory of influence is, we believe, the most congruous path to balancing economic reality and humanitarianism.

Sources

1 – Dell, M., Jones, B. F., & Olken, B. A. (2012). Temperature Shocks and Economic Growth: Evidence from the Last Half Century. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 66-95.

2 – Kuddus, A., Tynan, E., & McBryde, E. (2020). Urbanization: a problem for the rich and the poor? Public Health Review

3 – Kappel, R. (2021). Africa’s Employment Challenges – The Ever-Widening Gap. Bonn: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V.

4 – Hickel, J. (2020). Quantifying national responsibility for climate breakdown: an equality-based attribution approach for carbon dioxide emissions in excess of the planetary boundary. The Lancet Planetary Health, 399-404.

5 – The Polluters Pay Principle is the commonly accepted practice that those who produce pollution should bear the costs of managing it to prevent damage to human health or the environment.

The post Climate Change & Survival in Sub-Saharan Africa appeared first on Camber Collective.

Opportunity youth (OY)—defined as individuals aged 16-24 who are neither in school nor in work—have become a focus of the national conversation on economic mobility for young people. 2020 Census data from the American Community Survey estimates that, of the 38 million 16-24-year-olds across the US, almost 5 million are OY.[1] This equates to more than 1 in every 8 youths nationwide being out of both school and work during a period of life that is critical for acquiring the skills and opportunities required for lifelong upward mobility.

Longstanding and systemic racial inequities in high-quality education access, employment opportunities, household stability, and justice system exposure mean that disconnection from work and school disproportionately affects BIPOC youth. Compared to non-Black youth, Black youth are 1.6 times more likely to be OY. [2] Similarly, both Native and Pacific Islander youth are 1.3 times more likely to be OY, and Hispanic youth are 1.1 times more likely to be OY, while white youth are 1.4 times less likely to be OY. Due to the heterogeneity of Asian Americans, inequities in youth connection to work and/or school are not visible on a group-level; however, youth identifying as Bangladeshi, Burmese, and Cambodian are more likely to be OY than the national average, highlighting the importance of disaggregating racial and ethnic categories.[3] On top of race and ethnicity, youth who report limited English skills[4] are 1.9 times more likely to be OY, while male youth and those residing in rural areas also face increased risk of disconnection.[5]

The issues faced by OY, and the implications of youth disconnection, are far-reaching and pertinent to diverse funders and service providers across the social sector. This is because OY aren’t just distinct from their in-school / in-work counterparts in terms of their educational and employment status; they are also typically experiencing other cross-cutting risk factors. For example, many OY are also navigating early parenthood, lack of health insurance, limited educational attainment—e.g., lack of secondary degree—, disability, and exposure to the penal and/or foster care systems.[6] Reconnecting OY to opportunities for advancement, as well as preventatively serving at-risk youth, is of critical importance to many different entities in the social sector with intersecting missions. As a result, community-based organizations, philanthropies, government initiatives and policymakers, national coalitions, and think-tanks across the country seek to help OY succeed in school and work to, ultimately, open the door to opportunity for all young people.

What do Opportunity Youth need to succeed?

In analyzing the landscape of organizations supporting opportunity youth nationwide, and in partnering with some of these organizations as strategic advisors, we have identified 4 sequential categories of needs that must be met in order for OY to experience upward economic mobility and thrive within the workforce:[7]

1. Basic needs and personal wellbeing: housing, food, physical and mental health care, trusted adults, childcare
2. Personal effectiveness and workplace competencies: interpersonal skills, job search and resume experience, basic computer and analytical thinking skills, dependability and professional
3. Vocational skills and industry competencies: stackable credentials, vocational training, industry-specific skills, on-the-job experience in industry
4. High-wage occupational requirements and management competencies: highly specialized capabilities, advanced degrees and credentials, networking and connections, access to highly upwardly mobile careers

Each step on this ladder provides the necessary foundation to enable the development of subsequent skills and competencies. For example, before a young adult can focus on showing up to work shifts on time and communicating effectively with a supervisor, it is important that they have a safe place to live and access to critical healthcare services. Similarly, refining vocational skills depends upon underlying interpersonal and workplace competencies that enable effective communication, learning, and working. Finally, industry-recognized credentials are often pre-requisites for OY to progress along upward career trajectories, as most do not have traditional 4-year degrees. This framework of needs required for upward economic mobility for OY acknowledges the barriers that these youth face and the importance of continuously establishing a strong foundation at each level to best position youth for success.

How can Opportunity Youth be best supported to climb the ladder?

When considering how to support OY along the path to upward economic mobility, it is helpful to return to this 4-step ladder. Given this wide range of needs—from emergency housing to advanced technical training—it is implausible and counter-productive for most organizations or programs to advance youth up every step of the ladder. Instead, it is more efficient and effective to develop a complementary ecosystem of organizations, each providing services to youth targeted at 1 or 2 steps of the economic ladder.

An MDRC analysis of different youth employment programs proposes two arguments in favor of this conceptualization of programs providing youth with support along different steps of the ladder.[8] First, they point to the relative brevity of most programs: “a 6- or even 12-month program is not enough to remove barriers to employment and education that have been years in the making.” By adopting distinct niches, programs can together provide youth longer-term support by “handing-off” youth along the scaffold as they move up the ladder, without implementing impractically long individual program durations. This approach also breaks down large and overwhelming hurdles for youth (e.g., challenges that may take over 5 years to fully address) into more approachable programs, thus lowering the risk of youth attrition.

The second argument put forth is that “any given program can only do so much.” It is unreasonable to expect that a given program could possess sufficiently broad and deep capabilities to specialize in serving youth at each step of the way. This is not to say that one organization could not offer a wide range of services—and in practice, many do—but rather that the guiding organizational objective should focus on just one or two steps on the ladder. Further, organizations targeting two steps of the ladder should ensure that their scope of services addresses two consecutive steps and does not omit an integral intermediate step. This approach allows programs and staff to become experts in the skills and knowledge required to deliver targeted and comprehensive support for youth at a given point on their progressive journey of economic mobility.

Through a landscape analysis of various programs involved in workforce development for OY and at-risk youth, we found most programs can be categorized as one of four archetypes, according to the step of the ladder that they prioritize for youth:

This framework for thinking about programs serving OY highlights the importance of each step, and thus each type of program. Work on either extreme of the ladder may more naturally provide the most visible or flashy impact stories (e.g., Stabilizers’ critical intervention during crisis or Accelerators’ immediate outcomes demonstrating high-paying jobs); however, the intermediate Grounder and Trainer roles are crucial in bridging the gap and bringing youth along from Stabilizer to, ultimately, Accelerator programs. By grounding services in the needs of OY, connecting specialized and focused programs in a broader ecosystem of scaffolded support, and valuing each step of the ladder to economic mobility, we can open doors of opportunity to OY for deep and sustained impact. For locally focused philanthropies and government entities, in particular, it pays to ensure that local investment is strategically planned so as to span the full spectrum of Stabilizer, Grounder, Trainer, and Accelerator service-providers, rather than picking a single OY-serving organization and expecting that organization to offer a full suite of services.

Not only are organizations playing each role—Stabilizer, Grounder, Trainer, and Accelerator—necessary in order to best serve OY; direct service organizations will also be most effective and efficient with their resources when they intentionally focus on 1-2 of these steps in the mobility ladder. Our advisory work has allowed us to test and confirm, first-hand, the reductions in cost per youth served that can be achieved over a multi-year period by strategically shifting to a more focused approach. Through refining a program’s objective, organizations will bring about both internal and external improvements, ultimately enabling greater impact for the youth they serve. Internally, prioritizing youth outcomes along 1-2 skill steps will streamline operations for codified and scalable program delivery; allow for greater specialization and deeper expertise; focus impact metrics and evaluation on most relevant youth outcomes; and guide staff and internal decisions. Externally, articulating organizational objectives in terms of the 4 archetypes creates a more cohesive story to obtain funding; incentivizes strong and intentional partnerships with other service providers; and clearly conveys the organization’s role in the broader ecosystem. These benefits will strengthen direct service providers individually, as well as the collective scaffolded support that they provide to OY.

[1] Analysis of 2020 ACS 1-year data

[2] Analysis of 2020 ACS 1-year data by dichotomous race/ethnicity variables

[3] Analysis of 2020 ACS 1-year data

[4] As compared to those who speak only English or who speak English well or very well

[5] Comparing those outside of a metropolitan area to those within

[6] Measure of America, A Decade Undone

[7] Inspired by and adapted from U.S. Department of Labor Employment & Training Administration’s tiered competency model (Competency Model Clearinghouse – Building Blocks Model (careeronestop.org))

[8] MDRC, Helping Young People Move Up

The post A Ladder to Economic Mobility for Opportunity Youth appeared first on Camber Collective.

The Mobility from Poverty space lacks a singular organizing purpose—a typical prerequisite for successful field-building. Stakeholders describe and approach their work with unaligned, separate goals—sometimes equal and complementary, but often viewed in competitive tension. This lack of cohesion weakens impact towards the common good.

Camber Collective Managing Partner Ted Schneider hosts Rachel Korberg, ED of the Families and Workers Fund; Gary Cunningham, President/CEO of Prosperity Now; and Mary Bogle, Principal Researcher at the Urban Institute to discuss field building and engender a deeper understanding of the systems and barriers to higher economic prosperity in America.

Considering the shared ambitions of philanthropists, policymakers, sector thought-leaders, activists, and civil society, we welcome attendees from across sectors of social impact. Enjoy the replay here.

The post “We Can’t Fix What We Don’t See”: Skoll Forum Panel appeared first on Camber Collective.

The Economic Mobility space in the US is most heavily focused on mobility from poverty at present. It is therefore better referred to as the ‘Mobility from Poverty’ space, for maximum resonance with stakeholders.

The goals of the organizations in this space are too divergent for Mobility from Poverty to be construed as a singular field. It can be more accurately understood as an ‘umbrella’ spanning three distinct fields, each angled towards a unique objective.

Stakeholders seeking to impact the Mobility from Poverty space in the US should therefore strive to understand the scope and primary objective of each of these three fields; deploy their resources to address the needs of the field (or fields) that align most closely with their own mission; and understand that ultimately, mobility from poverty is best advanced by ensuring that all three fields progress to full maturity.

Background

In 2021, Camber Collective set out to define the Mobility from Poverty space in the US; evaluate the current state of this space; and identify its future growth needs. This article focuses on learnings from the first phase of work, which served to define and make sense of the Mobility from Poverty space. It also introduces the field evaluation framework by which to evaluate these fields most holistically. Our subsequent article[MA1]  summarizes the current maturity level and growth needs of each field.

‘Mobility from Poverty’ may be a more inclusive label for the space than ‘Economic Mobility’

Because the term ‘economic mobility’ is often interpreted by stakeholders as part of a growing trend to ‘ignore’ the age-old challenge of poverty, many stakeholders stated that they would not necessarily consider themselves part of an ‘economic mobility’ space if termed as such. However, ‘Mobility from Poverty’ surfaced as a more inclusive name to attribute to this general area of work, and more closely reflective of the field’s current focus on transitioning individuals and communities out of a state of economic marginalization.

Mobility from Poverty cannot be construed as a singular ‘field’

One of the defining features of nearly all successful fields is the existence of a clear and unifying societal goal, which stakeholders in that field agree to work towards together. Examples of this – including several successful fields Camber has served as a strategic advisor to in the past – are illustrated below:

Yet, defining a singular goal does not appear possible for the Mobility from Poverty space, for at least three reasons.

First, by simply surveying the variety of goals cited by the organizations making a public commitment to Mobility from Poverty, it is immediately apparent that there is no completely unifying objective in this space. Instead, stakeholders focus on differing facets of the Mobility from Poverty conundrum, using 3-4 different categories of terms to describe their visions (categories 3a and 3b are frequently amalgamated):

Second, to compound these challenges, stakeholders also adopt differing definitions of economic mobility as their primary metric for tracking impact. The various definitions of economic mobility – and the differing interest areas and agendas they reflect – are explained in our previous article on the subject.

Third, advancing mobility from poverty requires sustained progress across at least 12 different issue areas, which were identified in our research as the most common focal areas for stakeholders active in this space. They are listed here in alphabetical order (not in order of relevance): Criminal Justice, Democracy & Civic Engagement, Economic Principles, Education & Skills, Family Welfare, Financial Wellbeing, Housing, Health, Infrastructure, Network-Building, Safety Nets, and Work & Income. 

The fact that such a vast spectrum of issue areas is relevant to mobility from poverty presents unique challenges to field-building – in part because it requires stakeholders to undertake collective visioning across the traditional siloes of issue areas, and in part because if stakeholders were forced to act as a singular ‘field’, they likely would struggle to agree on which issue areas to prioritize beyond Work, Education, and to a lesser degree, Housing. The graphic below evidences the inconsistent focus given by the 140 stakeholders we studied to (a subset of) the 12 issue areas listed above:

The economic mobility space is better understood as a compilation of three fields

Recognizing the innate fragmentation of the Mobility from Poverty space, we therefore proceeded to triangulate the various sources of quantitative and qualitative data we generated from our research (see Background section above) to came to understand – thanks to clear feedback from stakeholders in this space – that Mobility from Poverty is in reality comprised of three distinct fields:

1. Economic Security

Stakeholders in this field focus on advancing day-to-day economic stability and securing the basic needs that individuals and communities require, before they can realistically project forwards towards their future aspirations. Their central belief is that agency is severely impeded if those experiencing poverty are persistently struggling to access essential services such as housing, healthcare, family support services, and adequate safety nets – including elements such as a living wage for all workers. Many stakeholders in this space will recognize that their work advances economic mobility by extension, but their focus is present-oriented rather than future-oriented, namely: eliminating chronic poverty.

• Economic Opportunity

Stakeholders in this field seek to facilitate Mobility from Poverty by focusing on providing a pathway up the income or wealth ladder, which individuals and communities can theoretically opt into and pursue over time. Stakeholders often focus on issue areas such as education and skill-building, work and income-building, and gaining access to equitable financial services that allow for the realization of personal goals (e.g. home ownership, establishing a small business, building credit-worthiness). While stakeholders in this space can, and do, also serve people experiencing severe poverty, they generally do so by equipping individuals to succeed over time rather than by catering to their most immediate needs.

• Economic Paradigms & Belonging

Stakeholders in this field direct their attention to defining and creating economic models and practices that foster greater justice or social inclusion. This may range from efforts to develop a form of capitalism that is better able to meet the challenges of the 21^st century, to replacing capitalism altogether (at one end of the spectrum) or pushing for ever-freer markets (at the other end of the spectrum). Recurring concerns for many in this field are justice, inclusion, and belonging, i.e. which practices and principles will advance dignity for all, and afford appropriate power to priority stakeholders? While ideology shapes the work of stakeholders across all three fields, the field of Economic Paradigms & Belonging is often an area of intense debate on fundamental matters of principle, equity, and ethics in relation to the economic system.

The 12 issue areas cited further above frequently impact all three of the fields of Mobility from Poverty, they may also be grouped under the field they most impact for ease of reference, per the framework below:

In passing, we note that the focus of these three fields loosely reflects the spirit of prior findings by the US Partnership on Mobility from Poverty. In consulting with communities nationwide, the Partnership had noted that three pre-requisites to successful mobility from poverty were:

(1) Power & Autonomy (which is directly advanced by ensuring Economic Security)
(2) Economic Success (which depends on issues captured within Economic Opportunity)
(3) Being valued in community / society (part of the Economic Paradigms & Belonging field).

Making sense of these three fields requires enquiry across 6 dimensions

There are multiple ways to evaluate the maturity and current needs of a field that is under development. In this engagement, Camber opted to iterate on a pre-existing evaluation approach with the benefit of our own prior experience of effective field evaluation and feedback from field stakeholders on how best to calibrate the evaluation framework to the specificities of the Mobility from Poverty space.

Specifically, we elected to assess each field according to the maturity level of its:

1. Stakeholders

This refers to the organizations who contribute to the field. We focused on the size (number) of stakeholders engaged; the heterogeneity of those stakeholders by stakeholder type (i.e. ensuring there is a good balance of financial contributors such as foundations, directional contributors such as researchers or policy/lawmakers, and operational contributors such as frontline service providers); and the extent to which the field benefits from clear field leaders / field builders.

• Knowledge Base

This refers to the landscape of information that allows stakeholders to identify the issues that could be addressed by the field. Within this dimension, we evaluated the clarity of the knowledge base (i.e. how similarly is it recognized by different types of stakeholder); how deeply the knowledge base has been evidenced by data; and whether all stakeholders are able to contribute to it.

• Agenda
  This refers to the field’s priority goals and agreed means of achieving those goals. Here, we studied the degree of convergence on goals and on the methods to realize them, as well as the degree to which stakeholders feel able to influence the goals or methods elevated by the field at large.

• Resources
  This refers to the investments (of different types) of major donors to support the field. On this, we investigated the degree of coordination among donors investing in the field; the stability of those investments over multiple years; and how far that investment is complete (i.e. did it address a range of stakeholder needs).

• Infrastructure
  This refers to various types of connective tissue, or supporting structures, that cut across the other field dimensions and enable it to function effectively at a practical level. We concentrated our analyses on understanding how far stakeholders have opportunities to interact with one another; whether there are mechanisms in place that allow them to be resilient to shocks such as unforeseen crises; and the degree of additional support made available to stakeholders beyond mere funding.

• Demographics
  This refers to the level of diversity and equity perceived by and among stakeholders, along specific demographic lines. An initial analysis was conducted within the scope of this work, with deepened analysis to follow. We assessed the perceived level of racial and gender diversity within a field; the perceived degree of equity of the field; and the extent of variation in field perspectives according to the racial and gender identities of respondents.

Based on the data obtained from our field survey, field interviews, and independent analysis of external data points, the maturity level of each of these dimensions was then ranked asEmerging (i.e. initial stage of maturity), Forming (i.e. intermediate stage), or Sustaining (i.e. advanced stage). These maturity levels were then aggregated into an overall maturity level for the field in question (i.e. if a majority of dimensions were ranked at the Forming level, then the field overall was determined to be at the Forming stage).

Our approach is summarized in the visual framework below, which includes indicative descriptions of the different potential maturity levels for each dimension of a field:

We invite you to continue to our follow-on article for an overview of how the three fields currently compare as of 2021, and would welcome to discuss how your organization might help to advance the Mobility from Poverry space through each of these fields.

Other articles in this series:

Which Measure Of Economic Mobility Is Right For Your Organization?

Why is Interest in Economic Mobility Growing in the U.S.?

The post How To Make Sense of the US Economic Mobility Space appeared first on Camber Collective.