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 For many Americans, economic mobility has been replaced by perpetual economic precarity.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.

The post Finding Prosperity for More: What Contributes to Lifetime Income? 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.

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 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.

Economic mobility goes to the heart of the founding ideals of the US – a country that has long portrayed itself as a bastion of economic opportunity. As the accuracy of that narrative comes under collective scrutiny, efforts to advance economic mobility in the US have grown.

Initially drawn to the general attractiveness of economic mobility as a social impact issue, many of the stakeholders in this space have been compelled to take action on economic mobility in the face of three longstanding trends: persistently high poverty rates, new evidence of declining economic mobility, and unsustainable levels of wealth concentration. Each of these trends currently limits the prospects of lower- and middle-income individuals and communities ascending the economic ladder. Each trend also allows for a range of stakeholders to engage, by addressing the trends that are most relevant to their unique strategies.

Economic Mobility has become a prominent social issue

From our vantage point as strategic advisors for Shared Prosperity, it is clear that economic mobility has gradually become a more widely stated objective of philanthropic, governmental, and private sector stakeholders in the US, over recent years. The newfound prominence of economic mobility is apparent in the:

• Breakthrough research and analyses emanating from major US universities
• Recommendations and policy initiatives of political leaders, think tanks, and governments at the local, state, and federal levels
• Corporate social responsibility programs of a number of leading US corporations and employers
• Theories of impact of several of the country’s most influential philanthropies, community development finance institutions, and nonprofits.

A small snapshot of just some of the eminent institutions engaged in this area is captured below, purely as a means of illustrating the diversity of organization types involved:

The broad appeal of economic mobility as a focus of social impact efforts is three-pronged:

• First, economic mobility can serve as an overarching connector of various issue areas for those who seek to evolve beyond rigidly siloed social impact funding. For example: while criminal justice reform and employment have often been addressed as distinct issues, framing desirable social outcomes in terms of economic mobility (rather than purely in terms of criminal justice outcomes vs. employment outcomes) has allowed stakeholders to better explore the interrelationship between these two areas, and address both symbiotically. This, in turn, is conducive to more fluid and holistic funding approaches that move beyond traditional, single-issue funding towards innovative, multi-issue funds – such as the  Justice and Mobility Fund and the Families and Workers Fund.

• Second, economic mobility is a powerfully non-partisan issue: while political ideology and social agendas do skew beliefs around what might drive economic mobility (and can also influence which of the four measures of economic mobility stakeholders favor), there is broad consensus that economic mobility should be available to all in the US. For this reason, both sides of the political aisle are interested in the growing body of learnings around economic mobility in this country, the most widely covered of which are the work of Opportunity Insights and the Opportunity Atlas of economic mobility across US neighborhoods. This, in turn, can even be conducive to bipartisan policy agendas on economic mobility – California’s nonpartisan Economic Mobility Collaborative is one case-in-point.

• Third, economic mobility is central to the story of the United States: the notion that prosperity is attainable to all those who work diligently in its pursuit is a founding premise of this country. Generations of US-born citizens and immigrants, alike, have been fueled by a mantra that their labor and endeavor should ultimately pay unique dividends for them in the US – allegedly, in the form of greater wealth than may be attainable in other countries and societal recognition of their contributions. Nowhere is this ideal better captured than in James Truslow Adams’ Epic of America (1931), in which he evoked:

“A land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement.   (It is not) “… a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”

However, these three factors alone do not fully explain the upswing in explicit focus on economic mobility outcomes in the US. They do provide a uniquely strong enabling environment for interest in economic mobility, which is conducive to innovation and collaboration, but they are not the primary drivers of our clients’ engagement in economic mobility. Rather, organizations engaged in increasing economic mobility cite a series of persistent and dissatisfactory economic trends of significant concern to stakeholders of (almost) all ideological persuasions, which intersect to tell a bleak story of economic mobility in the US today.

Economic mobility is undermined by diverse factors that attract a broad spectrum of stakeholders

Multiple analyses over the last decade have evidenced the gradual evisceration of the ‘American Dream’, and with it, the collapse of a core pillar of the social contract and founding narrative of the US. The false narrative of the modern-day US as a place of unbridled opportunity and meritocracy for all people has been laid bare. Its fallacy constrains multiple segments of the population that have long been disempowered economically, perpetuating longstanding inequities for these population segments in the process. It also impedes the country’s so-called ‘middle’ class: a large, and increasingly disenfranchised, constituency that has essentially evaporated over recent decades.

Stakeholders seeking to revive economic mobility are usually responding to one or more of three headline challenges surfaced by recent analyses, all of which impact economic mobility in the US:

1. US poverty rates remain stubbornly high

The US still has the second-highest poverty rate of all OECD countries. The most conservative estimates of poverty, published by the US Census Bureau, have placed the poverty rate at 10-15% each year since the 1990s. These rates are based on a draconian definition of poverty – an income of less than $12,880 in annual income for a single person and $21,960 for a 3-person family. A commonly used alternative measure, which captures all people living on less than 200% of the Census Bureau’s thresholds and provides a more realistic measure of total poverty, shows that a massive 27.5% of the population is experiencing poverty. This rate has remained relatively flat in the last two decades, while conversely, rates of (extreme) poverty globally have fallen dramatically in the same time period. Perhaps the most striking statistic comes from the Federal Reserve: 37% of adults in America would be unable to cover a $400 emergency expense.

High poverty rates impede economic security and stability, which are pre-requisites to economic mobility. Without economic security and stability day-to-day, individuals cannot plan for a brighter future and are deprived of the power and agency on which economic mobility depends (per the findings of the US Partnership on Mobility from Poverty). The practical impact of poverty includes daily economic hardship, reduced social cohesion, and extreme cost to government over the lifetime of an individual. In focusing on poverty alleviation, stakeholders are also engaged, by extension, in advancing economic mobility.

2. US economic mobility is comparatively low, and in sustained decline

While cross-country comparisons of economic mobility depend on data and methodologies that are not always fully aligned in scope and approach, a string of economic studies suggest that the US stands out as having less, not more, intergenerational mobility than a large number of other OECD countries, on both absolute and relative intergenerational measures. (We have previously discussed the varying measures of economic mobility and their relevance. These may be useful to revisit before delving into the commentary below).

On one common research measure (absolute, inter-generational mobility), economic mobility in the US has collapsed over recent decades. The Opportunity Insights research and policy lab has produced the most comprehensive data analysis of US economic mobility to-date. Whereas ~90% of those born in 1940 went on to earn a greater household income than their parents (adjusting for inflation), only ~50% of young adults today can expect to go on to do so. On this measure, economic mobility has fallen across most of the income distribution, with the largest declines for middle class households.

These findings do not change even when using alternative price indices to adjust for inflation; accounting for taxes/transfers; comparing income at later ages in life; or adjusting for changing averages in household size as a result of evolving social norms.

At first glance, the headline takeaway from a relative, inter-generational measure of economic mobility can seem less alarming. On average, this measure of mobility has remained relatively flat since the 1970s: in general, individuals entering the labor market today are likely to end up in the same income quintile as their parents (at an equivalent age and adjusting for inflation). 

However, when combined with the insights we have on absolute, inter-generational mobility (presented above), the reasons for the apparent steadiness in relative measures of economic mobility becomes clearer: although fewer and fewer individuals are now matching their parents’ income level – which we might logically assume would lead them to fall into lower income quintiles – this decline is so widespread across those in the middle income quintile and lower income quintiles, that individuals are not ‘swapping places’ relative to one another. All are sinking together. By extension, most are therefore maintaining a steady position in the income distribution relative to others.

While the full reasons for this are multifaceted, a summary explanation may be that the fruits of the prosperity (i.e. the economic growth) generated by the US since the 1940s have not been shared as evenly over recent decades as they once were. Many point to policy choices that took root in the 1970s, and then multiplied across successive Democrat and Republican administrations, as one probable cause – which ties neatly into the next point below.

3. Prosperity has grown untenably concentrated

As the latest income and wealth inequality data attests: the (mean) average wealth of families in the US is no higher now than it was two decades ago. This is not promising, in and of itself, nor is it indicative of a truly open economy based on equality of economic opportunity.

More worryingly, perhaps, the wealth divide between upper-income families and middle- and lower-income families is acute and has grown continually since the 1980s. Upper-income families are the only category that grew their wealth from 2001 to 2016, by an average of 33%. In contrast, the wealth of middle-income families contracted by an average of 20% over the same period, and lower-income families have seen their wealth implode by an average of 45%. As a result, upper-income families now hold around 7 times the wealth of middle-income families and 75 times the wealth of lower-income families. These ratios are respectively double and triple what they were in 1983.

With such concentration of prosperity comes concentration of power. The ongoing rise in inequality appears to have caused economic opportunity and mobility to continue to diminish, per what is known as The Great Gatsby Curve. Growing inequality has also been shown to subdue the political influence of the economically disadvantaged (while affording the most wealthy direct influence on policy and lawmaking), support deepening geographic segregation of households according to income, and potentially stifle the economic growth on which future prosperity depends.

The confluence of these issues allows for a cross-section of stakeholders to engage

In short, there are therefore many factors spurring the resurgence in interest in economic mobility from stakeholders in all sectors. The general attractiveness of economic mobility is that it provides a useful frame for making non-siloed social impact investments; transcends political divides as a subject of concern; and resonates as a key objective for all those living in the US, thanks to its relevance to the founding story of this country. These are the “carrots” that make it especially appealing for stakeholders to track economic mobility.

The “sticks” that have ultimately compelled stakeholders to take action are: the stubborn poverty rate; declining economic mobility that cannot be concealed simply by picking a more convenient measure of mobility; and unsustainable levels of wealth concentration – all of which contribute to the crisis in economic mobility in the US at present.

The diversity of contributing issues allows for a diversity of stakeholders to engage. Those focused on economic insecurity and instability typically cite poverty rates as their chief concern; those focused on economic opportunity writ large are often responding to the economic mobility data; while those who seek to evolve our economic paradigms, including the economic dignity and sense of belonging of lower-income constituencies, will often be most concerned with the data on wealth inequality. All are ultimately contributing to efforts to increase economic mobility, albeit through different entry points into the issue.

In our next article, we’ll look at how to make sense of the economic mobility space in the US in terms of its three (primary) constituent fields, before exploring opportunities to strengthen each of these fields in the years ahead. Read our previous article here.

Other articles in this series:

Which Measure Of Economic Mobility Is Right For Your Organization?

How To Make Sense of the US Economic Mobility Space

The post Why is Interest in Economic Mobility Growing in the U.S.? appeared first on Camber Collective.

As government, philanthropy, and the private sector become increasingly aligned around the need to share prosperity more equitably in the US, particular momentum has grown to strengthen economic mobility – in the form of breakthrough research, ambitious policies, and powerful coalitions.

However, as strategic advisors in this field, it is clear that varying definitions of economic mobility can lead to misalignment and misunderstanding among the stakeholders working to advance it. In the US, this definitional ambiguity explains conflicting headlines: some suggest economic mobility has not declined over recent decades, while others underscore the fading American Dream. Such diverging narratives can be explained by the fact that each of the four most common measures of economic mobility tells a different, and valuable, story regarding the current state of economic mobility.

Stakeholders in this space ought therefore to be clear about the definition they are using; intentional in selecting the definition that best elucidates the questions they consider to be priorities; and cognizant that a complete view of economic mobility requires regular consideration of all four measures as complementary sources of insight.

What is Economic Mobility?

In simple terms, economic mobility denotes the change in economic status of an individual, household, or group over a defined period of time – typically by reference to income or wealth. Within each measure of economic mobility, an improvement in economic status is termed upward mobility, while a decline is referred to as downward mobility.

Why Track Economic Mobility?

Tracking economic mobility allows us to determine, with some empiricism, the answers to questions that are central to our socio-economic policies and social investments. These questions include:

• How many people are experiencing a particular economic status at any given time, and how has their economic status evolved over time?
• Which variables correlate most closely with changes in economic status? Are these merely correlative, or demonstrably causal?
• Which individuals, households, demographic groups, or geographic localities are most likely to experience a change in economic status?
• For whom is intergenerational prosperity most strongly / weakly sustained?

The answers to these questions, in turn, allow us to test how far national narratives around equality of economic opportunity hold true. In the case of the United States, these include testing whether the US really is a land of greater economic opportunity than others, as is often claimed – and if so, under what definition of opportunity, and for whom?

Income vs. Wealth as Proxies for Economic Status

First, a framing issue: perspectives on the current state of economic mobility in the US and many other nations vary, to a certain degree, according to whether income or wealth is tracked.

Income captures the flow of money received from sources such as a salary, business income, dividend pay-outs, and state benefits. Typically, income therefore represents immediately deployable resources (e.g. a salary provides cash reserves that can be used instantly to pay for goods). It tends to be more evenly spread across a population than wealth, as illustrated in the first graphic below.

In contrast, wealth provides a more expansive view of economic status, reflecting net financial worth. Wealth includes elements such as savings, assets in possession, and other financial interests, minus any liabilities. It is usually less evenly spread across a population than income and has become even more so in the US over recent decades, per the graphic below. However, the value of one’s wealth may not all be instantly realizable (e.g. a property is a valuable asset, but can take time to sell).

While wealth is, logically, a better indicator of the true distribution of prosperity across a population, exact definitions of wealth vary – leading to difficulties in sourcing complete and consistent data. Data on income is more readily available and less contested. As a result, many pioneering analyses of US economic mobility over the last decade have relied on income data and this article will also adopt income as its focus.

*All figures in 2018 US dollars
Visuals recreated from Pew Research Center: 1. Trends in income and wealth inequality
Data Sources: Pew Research Center analysis of Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements and Pew Research analysis of the Survey of Consumer Finances

Indicators of Economic Mobility

Once either income or wealth has been chosen as the subject of study, there are four potential measures of economic mobility to choose from. Each measure may generate a different top-level insight, and each may resonate to varying degrees with different stakeholders, depending on their social interests and objectives.

The four potential measures all involve some combination of two key indicators:

These are distinct measures. As such, absolute mobility does not always correspond to relative mobility.

By way of example: Income for Household A may increase in absolute terms from, say, $60,000 to $70,000 per year over a particular timespan. This indicates absoluteupward economic mobility of $10,000 (note: this increase will need to be adjusted for inflation, to calculate the increase in income in real terms). But if many other households in the population also experience a similar rise in their incomes over the same timespan, then the rank of Household A’s income relative to others may not materially change. The relative mobility of Household A in this case would be neutral, even though it was upwardly mobile in absolute terms. How far this should be of concern will depend on your social interests and objectives – as discussed further below.

Again, the indicator chosen here enables different analyses. Intra-generational mobility is largely disconnected from inter-generational mobility, as a subject of study.

To continue the example cited above: It is possible to see an intra-generational increase in household income from $60,000 at age 30 to $70,000 at age 40. Assuming this increase in income is true in real terms (i.e. it has been adjusted to take account of inflation), this would indicate intra-generationalupward mobility. However, if that same individual’s parents earned a greater household income than $70,000 when they were aged 40 (also adjusting for inflation), then that individual has in fact experienced downward mobility on an inter-generationalmeasure, despite income having increased in absolute terms.

Therefore, the four potential measurement permutations that can be derived from combining the two indicators of Economic Status and Timespan are:

Now that definitional bases have been covered and illustrated with examples of the differing insights each measure can potentially generate, the next step is to understand how each measure is valuable for informing different points of inquiry.

Analytical Implications: Absolute vs. Relative Economic Mobility

Absolute mobility

Absolute mobility can theoretically be experienced by all individuals at the same time, if there is a period of sustained economic growth and the economic benefits of that growth are distributed across the entire population (whether to equal or unequal degrees).

This measure naturally resonates with stakeholders interested in overall evolutions in living standards over time and the alleviation of absolute poverty. It may be the single purest measure of economic mobility for understanding aggregate changes in economic status from a strictly numerical perspective. It is also the default measure of economic mobility for a number of eminent stakeholders at the present time, and a focal measure for the most large-scale analysis of economic mobility data conducted in the US to-date.

However, looking exclusively at this measureoverlooks the importance individuals may attach to their sense of economic rank within society (often called class), and our ability to move up or down in that rank (sometimes called social mobility, or relative economic mobility as above). These shortcomings are important to acknowledge for two reasons:

• First, at the theoretical level: one founding aspiration of a free market economy (whether it follows a completely free market model or a more ‘social democratic’ model) is that it should, in principle, enable the meritocratic movement of a meaningful proportion of individuals up and down the quintiles of the income distribution (i.e. economic rank) according to their oscillating economic fortunes and misfortunes. Where this is not occurring with moderate frequency, it is often an indication of an economy that has been skewed by policy choices and power dynamics to preserve particular economic interests for some, while maintaining barriers for others. If a fixed economic ‘underclass’ exists and only a small minority of aspiring individuals in that lowest quintile of wealth, or underclass, are able to reach the middle quintile or higher, then something is structurally amiss.

• Second, at the level of the individual: a sense of diminished power, belonging, and social cohesion can be felt even byindividuals who experience a material increase in income in absolute terms, if the income of others has risen by an equal or even greater proportion. In practice, this can drive status anxiety in the same way as wealth inequality more generally, and ultimately threaten our democracy, political stability, and sense of collective identity if left untreated over time – as is the case in the US and certain other high-income countries currently.

These factors suggest that absolute measures of economic mobility are a powerful and prevalent, but also insufficient, method of measuring economic mobility if used as the sole measure.

Relative mobility

On the other hand, relative mobility seeks to measure the degree to which people can move among different levels of economic outcomes. Relative economic mobility is a zero-sum game of constantly evolving ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ analyzed within the paradigm of a competitive hierarchy. If incomes are grouped into quintiles (as is often done to simplify analyses of relative mobility), then each quintile represents exactly 20% of the population. In order to achieve upward relative mobility (i.e. a movement up into a higher income quintile), someone else must necessarily drop down to a lower quintile so as to make space.

While this analytical lens may initially appear at odds with the progressive ideals of some stakeholders working to advance economic mobility – in the sense that it forces individuals into a competitive paradigm and is often cited by more conservative thinkers – the insights it can generate can in fact be applied to inform and reinforce profoundly progressive concerns.

Indeed, stakeholders focused on eroding class systems and maximizing social mobility (i.e. changes in economic rank), rather than on aggregate increases in income or poverty eradication, can draw immense insight from tracking economic mobility in this way. This tends to include stakeholders who define their objectives in terms similar to the traditional definition of the American Dream: the idea that those who find themselves at the bottom of the income distribution maintain a realistic shot at climbing to the top of the distribution over time.

Similarly, those focused on equality of opportunity may favor this measure as a means of assessing the prospects of specific groups moving out of the lower wealth quintiles, which are associated with reduced power and autonomy.

Lastly, a relative mobility lens reveals how evenly or how fairly the benefits of aggregate increase in economic status are being shared across a population: while an absolute measure of mobility might show an overall picture of a numerical rise in incomes in a particular country or region, a relative mobility lens shows how proportionately the aggregate rise was allocated to specific groups of interest relative to others.

However, relative mobility also has its drawbacks. Stakeholders who ground their analyses in a relative measure alone risk missing the ‘bigger picture’ on the overall changes in economic status of the population. Strong or stable levels of relative economic mobility are considered by many stakeholders to be a vacuous goal, if absolute economic mobility is declining in parallel – as appears to be the case in the US currently. In addition, an over-emphasis on relative measures may encourage individuals to focus on psychological drivers which many may consider harmful, such as a propensity to evaluate one’s own success in terms of power and status over others, rather than evolving mindsets towards a model of shared prosperity in which the focus remains on ‘all boats rising’.

Analytical Implications:  Inter-generational vs. Intra-generational mobility

In contrast to the more complex nuances on relative vs absolute measures, the implications of inter-generational vs inter-generational analyses may be more intuitive.

Inter-generational mobility

Inter-generational analyses tell a stronger story of how a country, as a whole, has fared over time, by showing how one age cohort has progressed as a whole, relative to the parents (or grandparents) of those in that cohort at an equivalent age. For this reason, most large-scale studies of economic mobility in the US point to an inter-generational measure. This measure has provided many of our most powerful insights on how far the US is living up to its ideals and whether prevailing narratives of economic opportunity are borne out in reality, across different regions, counties, and neighborhoods.

However, inter-generational measures also run the risk of being seen as overly academic and detached from the immediate concerns of individuals. While knowledge of how individuals are faring economically relative to their parents is invaluable, it is also removed from the immediate needs and priorities most people are focused on, namely: how can I continue to improve my (or my household’s) economic status?

This leads many stakeholders involved in direct efforts to spur economic mobility in the present to dismiss inter-generational analyses, as they may not provide practical insights to apply. Others appreciate their value, but question how far inter-generational analyses can help them to build evidence around the causal link of certain variables to economic mobility. To-date, inter-generational analyses have offered powerful discoveries as to the variables that may correlate with economic mobility, and the ways in which these variables appear more or less prominently across localities (in the US), but analyses of causation remain under study.

Intra-generational mobility

Intra-generational analyses are naturally most effective at conveying the evolution of individuals through their various life stages, and for pinpointing specific age brackets or events that tend to correlate with a change in absolute or relative economic status (e.g. acquiring a new qualification, marriage, parenthood, new mentors/networks, or health crises). These analyses are powerful in identifying trends based on specific variables, which can then help to inform promising program interventions or policy choices going forwards.

As such, many organizations directly servicing individuals, such as those seeking to alleviate poverty or tap into an under-utilized lever of economic opportunity, may do well to track their impact according to the intra-generational economic mobility of those they support. Similarly, most of us logically think about our own economic mobility in these terms, as we aim to experience upward mobility over the course of our lifetimes.

Notwithstanding these benefits, this measure is also the most narrow and future-oriented, by design. Its practical utility and resonance are clear, but it says little about the true current state of economic mobility.

Synthesis of potential measures of economic mobility: pros and cons

In sum: the varying measures of economic mobility can be used to obtain different insights, and to inform and disseminate differing social agendas. Stakeholders should be sure to be clear about the measure they are referring to, thoughtful as to their choice of measure and its pertinence to their agenda, and regularly triangulating the insights provided by all four measures in order to maintain the strongest possible understanding of economic mobility in their geography of interest.

The post Which Measure Of Economic Mobility Fits Your Organization? appeared first on Camber Collective.