Davis:Notes on the APA Presidential Initiative on Deep Poverty

Background and Goals

• DPI: 2019 APA Presidential Initiative on Deep Poverty; aim to mobilize psychologists to fight deep poverty through attitudes, policy, and practice.
• Three goals:
  • Change attitudes and perceptions about people in deep poverty.
  • Change policy to increase support for safety-net programs.
  • Change practice by increasing use of psychological science to build capacity of poverty-serving organizations.
• Five core themes from psychology on deep poverty (to inform attitudes): deep poverty is dehumanizing, physically/psychologically harmful, difficult to exit, complex to solve, and obscures human strengths.
• Deep poverty definition vs. poverty: deep poverty is a subset of poverty with greater severity and unique consequences.
• Key statistics (context):
  • Official poverty rate in 2018: $11.8\%$; about $38.1\text{ million}$ people.
  • Deep poverty share among those below poverty: $45.3\%$ (~$17.3\text{ million}$ people; $5.3\%$ of the population).
  • Deep poverty has been higher than in 1976 even when overall poverty is similar.
• Context on policy history: welfare reform (1996) increased depth of poverty for vulnerable groups; IMF (2016) and UN (2017) warned about poverty and human rights in the U.S.
• Initiative genesis: Rosie Phillips Davis, APA President 2019, sought to bring psychology to deep poverty; DPI formed with chair Wendy R. Williams and six other members; intended to be housed in OSES for ongoing work after 2019.
• Why psychology? Distinguish poverty vs deep poverty in research; leverage psychology’s strengths in attitudes, perceptions, and place-based interventions to impact policy and practice.

History, Inspiration, and Goals (context)

• Davis’s motivation from broader literature and personal story of Memphis deep poverty; Case and Deaton’s deaths of despair (2017) and Chetty et al. (2016) on mobility highlighted gaps where psychology could contribute.
• DPI structure and operations: virtual meetings in 2018, two in-person meetings in 2019; focus on differences between poverty and deep poverty; goal to translate science into policy and practice.
• Three explicit goals (reiterated): change attitudes, change policy, and change practice via psychology-informed antipoverty strategies.

What the Psychological Literature Reveals About Deep Poverty

• Five themes (brief):
  • Deep poverty is dehumanizing; more extreme when housing loss or public assistance is involved.
  • Deep poverty is physically and psychologically harmful (effects on children, cognition, health).
  • Deep poverty is difficult to exit due to cumulative risk and barriers (education, health, housing, discrimination).
  • Deep poverty is complex to solve; involves structural barriers and interwoven factors; requires cross-silo, place-based solutions and two-generation approaches.
  • Deep poverty obscures humans’ strengths; resilience exists but is not universal; assets can be harnessed for better outcomes.
• Key cognitive/behavioral mechanism: scarcity reduces cognitive bandwidth, leading to short-term decision making that can exacerbate long-term poverty.
• Implication: shift explanations from individual deficits to structural impediments; align antipoverty programs with structural solutions.

Solutions Psychology Could Contribute

• Interrupt negative outcomes: address misperceptions and reduce classism through attitude-change interventions.
• Use basic psychology for attitude/behavior change: nudges and framing to support antipoverty programs.
• Place-based, structural interventions: cross-jurisdiction coordination; examples include two-generation approaches and integrated services.
• National policy support: evidence-based advocacy for comprehensive safety-net programs and targeted policies (e.g., child care, tax credits, housing assistance).
• Notable example programs: Family Rewards (New York) and Memphis-based collaborative efforts leading to income gains.

Outputs and Tools of the DPI

• Five-Week Deep Poverty Challenge: launched $9/10/2019$; aims to reduce biases and empower action at individual, community, and societal levels; >120 activities; >$1{,}500$ participants.
• Deep Poverty Toolkit: online resource with separate guides for research, education, and practice; explains distinctions between poverty and deep poverty; includes guidance for op-eds, congressional visits, and roundtables; released after the Challenge.
• National Conversation on Deep Poverty: held 3/1/2019 at the National Press Club; included APA, National League of Cities, Urban Institute, National Academies; archived on YouTube; >3{,}000 views.
• DPI Liaisons: recruited >100 champions across APA divisions and state associations to disseminate resources and organize advocacy training; role: stay informed, share resources, attend events.
• APA Convention Programming (2019): sessions on intergenerational approaches, practice models for poor clients, community food-security efforts, and a post-card advocacy campaign; highlighted new practice guidelines for working with low-income individuals (not DPI-derived but aligned).
• Five outputs central to three goals: attitude change, policy influence, and practice enhancement.
• Policy engagement: Congressional resolution H.R. 763 (Dec 12, 2019) to develop a national strategic plan to end deep poverty; not passed, but serves as a record for advocacy.
• Additional channels: Monitor on Psychology article; continuing education (CE) credits tied to a Poverty-focused activity; online materials view counts indicate reach (Toolkit: over $7{,}200$ views; National Conversation video: over $3{,}000$ views).

National and Local Policy/Practice Examples

• Family Rewards (New York): cash incentives for families linked to education, health care, and employment activities; shows place-based, cross-system collaboration.
• Women’s Foundation for a Greater Memphis (2020): coalition building across sectors; reported substantial income gains in a high-poverty area.
• Policy emphasis: combine safety-net programs (Social Security, SNAP, TANF, housing assistance, refundable credits, unemployment insurance) for strongest poverty reduction.

Outcomes, Reflections, and Ongoing Work

• Immediate outcomes: increased psychologist engagement and willingness to participate in DPI activities; reports of personal commitments to advocate or engage in antipoverty work.
• Key lesson: need clearer separation in research reporting between poverty and deep poverty in samples (SES reporting gaps); called out by APA’s Stop Skipping Class campaign.
• Gaps identified: relatively limited deep-poverty-specific psychology research; need for more cross-disciplinary work (sociology, political science, education) to complement psychology.
• Future directions: broaden participation, sustain policy advocacy, expand place-based interventions, advocate for a national strategic plan to end deep poverty, and continue to document effectiveness of DPI strategies.

Quick Reference: Key Definitions and Numbers

• Deep poverty: income < $rac{1}{2} ext{FPL}$
  • Single person threshold: $6{,}244$ (USD)
  • Family of four threshold: $12{,}547$ (USD)
• 2018 official poverty rate: $11.8\%$; about $38.1\text{ million}$ people.
• Deep poverty share among those in poverty: $45.3\%$; corresponds to about $17.3\text{ million}$ people or $5.3\%$ of the U.S. population.
• Deep poverty trends: deep poverty rate in recent decades is higher now than in 1976, despite fluctuations in overall poverty.
• Welfare reform effects: 1996 reforms contributed to deeper poverty for some groups; child deep poverty rose by $700{,}000$ from 1995 to 2005.
• Scarcity effects on cognition: scarcity reduces cognitive bandwidth, leading to short-term over long-term decision making (conceptualized as a core mechanism behind some poverty-related choices).
• Place-based and two-generation approaches: emphasize coordinated, cross-silo interventions addressing both parents and children.
• Policy tools with demonstrated impact: combination of safety-net programs (Social Security, SNAP, TANF, housing assistance, refundable credits, unemployment insurance) yields strongest reductions in poverty.

Remaining Work (Concise)

• Improve SES reporting in research to distinguish poverty vs deep poverty in samples.
• Expand deep-poverty-specific psychology research and interdisciplinary collaboration.
• Sustain engagement of psychologists in advocacy and implementation at local, state, and national levels.
• Continue developing and promoting tools (Toolkit, Challenge) to translate psychology into action against deep poverty.