CHAPTER 1 - UNDERSTANDING THE BARRIERS OF POVERTY

This chapter focuses on research-based information describing the barriers of families in poverty, policies that affect the poor, and ways the Master Teacher in Family Life Program addresses these issues and policies.
F
amilies at risk, struggling with today's social problems (including educational failure, teen pregnancy, single parenting, unemployment, inadequate housing, homelessness, substance abuse, and AIDS) exist in every town and city in America. These families can be members of any ethnic group, at high as well as low socioeconomic levels. Individual victims of these at risk situations can be any age, from infants to the elderly: preschool victims of abuse, adolescents dropping out of school, adults dependent on drugs or drug dealing, or older persons slowly dying of malnutrition.

C
urrent national, state, and local studies indicate, however, that young families (families with children from birth through the teen years) represent the highest percentage of vulnerable Americans. They tend to be found either clustered in housing developments in the inner-cities or isolated in rural areas. Most of these families live in poverty, struggling to make ends meet from day to day. Researchers see increasing numbers of young families caught in cycles of poverty. This trend indicates the possibility of a permanent underclass. Public policy experts are concerned that current intervention strategies are not enough. More in-depth interventions are needed to deal with the environmental as well as the individual needs of families.

T
he Master Teacher in Family Life Program is designed to empower individuals within the poverty community rather than providing piece-meal solutions to specific problems. Only through empowerment can individuals and families move away from the despair of long-term poverty and begin taking advantage of opportunities that could lead to a better quality of life. Before educators can effectively implement this model, it is important that they understand whom they are helping and why their "helpees" are caught in situations that prohibit personal growth. Through understanding the challenges at risk families face, educators will learn to respect helpees. Attaining respect for those who struggle with poverty is the first step in implementing the Master Teacher Program.

Table of Contents

WHO ARE THESE YOUNG FAMILIES IN POVERTY
THE POVERTY ENVIRONMENT
PAST POLICIES AND PROGRAMMING DIRECTIONS

POLICIES OF THE '80S

THE EMERGING UNDERCLASS

HELPING THE LONG-TERM POOR

THE MASTER TEACHER IN FAMILY LIFE MODEL

WHO ARE THESE YOUNG FAMILIES IN POVERTY?

I
n general, the greatest numbers of young families struggling with poverty live in central cities, in rural agricultural areas and in the southeastern United States (Chilman, 1988). Nearly one out of every two female-headed families with children lives in poverty compared to one in every twelve headed by married couples (Census 1988). Nearly one in every four rural children is poor. Since 1978 rural poverty rates have grown. In the central cities there are many Hispanic and black families. The Hispanic families often are those who were encouraged to come to the United States from their homeland only to find their skills and language major barriers to self-sufficiency. Many of the poor black families living in inner-city developments are headed by women who see little hope of shared child care responsibilities as marriageable black males become fewer and fewer (J. J. Wilson, 1987). Those blacks who have "made it" into mainstream society have left their inner-city developments leaving few positive male role models.

I
n rural agricultural areas, those in poverty include farmers who have lost their farms due to inability to reach the profit levels needed for survival. Others are rural residents whose employment opportunities have become fewer and fewer as factory jobs have left the community or become obsolete (O'Hare, 1988).

T
he southeastern United States is made up of many pockets of deep poverty in areas such as Appalachia, the Tennessee Valley, the Mississippi Delta, and the agricultural areas of Florida. In many cases families in these areas see poverty as the normal way of life. Economic, educational, and occupational growth seem like unrealistic goals in their lives (Batteau, 1982). Status is measured by family name or reputation of kin.

Children in Poverty

T
he rising numbers of children in poverty are of special concern. The percentage of the child population in poverty aged eighteen and under rose from 14% in 1969 to 22% in 1984 (Chilman). In 1986, one out of every five American children lived in poverty. While 16.1% of the children were white, 43.1% were black and 37.7% were Hispanic (Census Bureau, 1987). In the rural south, 57% of rural southern black children lived in poverty (O'Hare); 78% of black children living in single parent homes lived in poverty. Fifty percent of all rural Hispanic children were poor.

D
uring the late 1970s the average length of time in poverty for children in female-headed families of all races combined was seven years; for black children, twelve years (Bane and Ellwood, 1983). In most cases, these children were poor during the first years of their lives. Poor children, especially those caught in long-term poverty, experience many hardships that affect their emotional, social, and cognitive well-being. Not only are these poor children struggling developmentally, but spiritually as well. Rural children living in families with at least one working parent often feel hopeless as they see their parent work while the family continues to live in poverty (O'Hare). Inner-city youth, often lacking exposure to employed male role models, struggle with a confusion of their future role in society and their own hopes for a better quality of life (Wilson, Hendricks).

Employment Problems

Rural Areas

I
n rural areas, a lack of decent paying jobs that match the limited skills of many residents is a major cause of poverty. In many cases, the educated rural families have moved closer to the cities leaving the less educated with no new employment opportunities while the traditional jobs in farming, timber, oil, gas, and mining become fewer (O'Hare, 1988). Routine manufacturing industries requiring fewer skills are moving out of rural areas toward cheaper foreign labor forces. Complex manufacturing jobs requiring more skills are available closer to the cities. Though 75% of young families in rural areas have at least one working adult in the family, because many of the available jobs are related to the service industry and often pay minimum wage, rural families continue to live below the poverty level. [Note: If both parents were working full time at the 1984 minimum wage, a family of four would remain living below the poverty threshold (Chilman).] Because many families are two-parent with one parent working, the rural poor in many states are ineligible for welfare assistance. As more and more rural adults cannot find good paying jobs, the rural poor are becoming entrenched in poverty for longer and longer periods of time (O'Hare).

The Inner-City

Y
oung families in the inner-city are made up of Hispanic, white, and large numbers of black single-head-of-household families. Adults in two-parent families have become unemployed or underemployed as better-paying factory jobs have moved out of the city and have been replaced by jobs in the low paying service industry. Many Hispanic families who have moved into housing clusters have even fewer opportunities due to their limited education and employable skills. Their inability to speak English further limits their opportunities to work toward self-sufficiency.

B
lack mothers who have had children and later become separated from the father seem to have the greatest number of barriers in the inner-city. Sharing family responsibilities with a significant other seems less likely as marriageable black men have remained unemployed or underemployed or have met early death through murder, suicide, or disease (Wilson). Most women who are often undereducated and unskilled cannot secure jobs that will pay for basic needs as well as high quality child care. They must often decide whether to stay at home and live on welfare benefits or support their family with minimum-wage paying jobs while they remain below the poverty line.

The Southern Poor

E
mployment and employability opportunities for those in poor southeastern regions of the United States are especially limiting. In many cases, the problems are generational. Family members, for years, have seen few opportunities for better jobs and are content with a set of values focusing on family and community, rather than on the aspirations of upward mobility of mainstream American society (Wilson, Stephan and Peterson, Gary, 1988). In fact, because of the limited opportunities of the poor, programming that has encouraged goal-setting toward higher occupations has often frustrated participants when the realities of their environment could not meet their new aspirations (Wilson, Peterson). In many cases, these pockets of long-term poverty seem politically neglected, and until opportunities for economic growth and political support are available, feelings of apathy and helplessness to make changes in quality of economic life will continue to intensify the problem.

Social Service System

M
any poor families receive no government aid whatever, while others have become totally dependent on the welfare system. (In 1986, only two-thirds of poor United States families with children received Aid to Families with Dependent Children.) Some families, especially in rural areas, are unaware of the benefits offered; for others, family pride prohibits parents from applying for this funding. Still others had great difficulty accessing the system, because of state regulations regarding working adults in the family, because they possessed farming assets, or, in many cases, because they simply are not aware of what is available.

T
hose families who do rely solely on income from A.F.D.C. are still in financial need. In January 1987 the median maximum benefit for a family of four was $415, just 44.5% of the federal poverty threshold (House Committee on Ways and Means, 1987).

T
he quality of services provided for those who do look to welfare programming for basic needs including food, housing, clothing, and medical services, varies nationwide. Understanding the system and knowing what is available is often difficult even for veterans of the system. Programs suddenly become unavailable due to lack of funding or changes in the political structure. Even service providers (usually overworked) may have trouble interpreting the regulations. Poor families find dealing with the social service system a demeaning and frustrating task that leaves little time or energy for achieving long-term goals.

Education

L
ow levels of academic achievement are clearly linked to poverty. In both urban and rural areas, as educational level decreased, incidence of poverty increased (O'Hare, 1988). One in four high school dropouts is unemployed. In the inner-city developments single women and black men have consistently been underemployed or unemployed due to lack of skills and education. Low levels of education for rural workers has limited their ability to qualify for good paying jobs.

T
oday's youth in poverty, who need increased skills to match the rapidly changing directions of our society, are failing academically. More than 75% of all poor youths have below average basic skills and almost 50% are in the bottom fifth of basic skills because of poor reading and math skills (Children's Defense Fund, 1988). In 1987, 25% of United States high school students left public schools without graduating.

P
overty alone can cause low academic achievement. Educationally disadvantaged children, lacking home and community resources to fully benefit from school, account for one-third of all elementary and secondary school pupils. Poverty, along with cultural or linguistic differences, tends to lower academic achievement and to result in very high dropout rates (Levin, 1987). Families trying to survive from day to day have difficulty planning for the future a good education might bring; they do not see academic enrichment activities as a priority, given the necessities of their daily existence.

T
hough educators try to meet the academic needs of children in poverty, they too face barriers. Inadequate staffing to meet the needs of today's increasing numbers of poor children clearly affects the child's ability to perform. In their efforts to meet educational goals, teachers often must focus on the average child. A homeless child, or a child living in long-term poverty, is rarely average academically. Deviations from that norm can be misinterpreted in many ways. School behaviors related to home cultures are sometimes misperceived by teachers as negative personality traits (Department of Education, 1989). In some cases, teachers automatically expect lower achievement of the poor child; the child reacting to that perception will quickly fail. (Department of Education, 1989).

Health Care

O
ne of the major barriers to health care is the cost of that care. One third of U.S. families living below the poverty level have no health insurance. The children of these uninsured families receive 40% less physician care and 50% less hospital care than do insured children (Sulvetta and Swartz, 1986; Rosenbaum, 1987). While medical needs for children often are more frequent due to their at risk living environments and inadequate food supplies, services are frequently unavailable or difficult to reach.

E
ven among children on Medicaid, securing medical care is often a problem. Many do not have a family physician. Parents who are poorly educated and preoccupied with survival issues are often unaware of preventive medical health measures and may overlook minor illnesses until they become crises. Both rural and inner- city parents often have difficulty getting transportation to doctors' offices and clinics. Those who rely on buses may have to arrive far in advance of appointments, waiting with the sick child and the rest of the family in crowded waiting rooms. Physicians and their staff may provide second-class care to poor patients (clinics have been known to schedule 25 poor patients into a single time slot). These and other factors make obtaining medical care a discouraging process.

Infant Mortality and Childhood Disabilities

T
he percentage of babies born with low birth weight (the leading cause of infant mortality and childhood disabilities) increased in 1985 for the first time in twenty years. Between 1984 and 1985 neonatal mortality increased by 3% among black infants and 1% among all nonwhite infants (Children's Defense Fund, 1988). Many of these babies were born of poor mothers who did not have the knowledge and resources to support a healthy pregnancy. Due to substance abuse, unhealthy living conditions, poor nutrition, and lack of knowledge about prenatal care, teen parents often had unhealthy, underweight babies. Those babies who did survive remained at risk because many of their teenaged parents had neither the time nor the knowledge and maturity to care for them effectively. As a result, 8.5% of poor children suffer from severe functional disabilities, compared to 4.9% of children in families with higher incomes (National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related Institutions, 1986).

Long-Term Health Problems

A
IDS, diabetes, high blood pressure...poor people are vulnerable to major health problems. Many factors, including poor diet, environmental hazards, poor hygiene, substance abuse, contaminated water, and stress contribute to the health problems of the poor. Some of these problems could be eliminated or reduced through understanding of preventive health practices. Information about such practices is abundant, but often difficult for poor people to assimilate. Many cannot read. Others can read, but lack the basic knowledge necessary to understand specific health guidelines. Still others understand what to do (for example, quit smoking), but lack the support needed to apply it in their own lives.

Children and Malnutrition

F
or almost 500,000 American children, the major health problem is malnutrition (Physician's Task Force on Hunger, 1986, 1987). Nutrition problems affect children's short-term and long-term health. Hungry children cannot study, misbehave because of chronic discomfort, and are vulnerable to disease and chronic illnesses.

Mental Health

P
oor people's lives are full of stress and frustration, which can lead to depression. Depression can lead in turn to self-abuse and abuse of others. Depression can also cause physical symptoms which are often dismissed as "psychosomatic" by professionals, but which are very real to patients. Anti-depressants are commonly prescribed for poor mothers; unfortunately, these medications can make problems worse by creating dependency and diminishing the mother's control and effectiveness.

F
inding high quality help from mental health experts is difficult. Key questions for families caving in to stress are: "Where do I find quality help? What is a quality helper? Can I really deal with all these issues when I see no future for me or my children?" It takes energy to find the right therapist, enough time and money for therapy and the courage to face the difficult issues.

T
he leading challenges for therapists helping young poor parents are where to start and how much change to hope for. The clinical worker may be the only available support in his/her client's life. The worker knows that the therapy delivered requires reinforcement outside the office in order to have long-term results. This support is rarely available for families at risk. Because today's long-term poor are becoming isolated from mainstream society, their environments do not support positive change.

THE POVERTY ENVIRONMENT

T
o blame individuals and individual families for their poverty is unrealistic. No one wants to be poor. No parents want their children to be hungry. Those who enter poverty due to a specific crisis and who have the resources and support systems to move out again tend to remain in poverty for only one to three years. In the past decade, however, many young families have not been able to move out of poverty.

A
ccording to William Julius Wilson in his book The Truly Disadvantaged, at any given time, 60% of those in poverty are long- term poor. Some are members of families that have been poor for generations. A combination of variables affects these families' ability to move toward a better life. In some cases, individual traits affect one's ability to complete an education and find a decent paying job. The barriers discussed earlier in this chapter clearly impede progress toward self-sufficiency. The poverty environment itself, however, is equally a problem for those looking for support and strengths to move toward self-sufficiency. Though some problems - especially those related to intergenerational issues - are similar for both rural and inner-city poor, other problems tend to affect one group more than the other.

The Inner-City Poor

Y
oung families living in the inner-city exist in an environment of fear and dishonesty. Vandalism, drug dealing, and violence are common. Low aspirations, poor education, unemployment, drug addiction, frequent illness, and early death are the norms if one lives in a poor inner-city. Poor blacks are robbed four times as often as middle-class whites. The leading cause of death for black men ages 15-44 is murder. The leading cause of death for male teens is suicide (an indication of their hopelessness). Because of the drug dealing and violence in inner-city neighborhoods, it is difficult for parents to give their children the independence they need to become responsible and independent. Much of the parents' time is spent keeping the children safe. Education takes a back seat to survival.

T
he majority of inner-city households are headed by single mothers. Two-parent families are rare. Rare also are marriageable, employed single men.

D
ue to high unemployment in these neighborhoods, children rarely interact with people who are employed or with families that may have a steady breadwinner. Positive male role models simply are not available. Male adolescents do not hear of viable job opportunities; there is no network that offers this information. If a young male happens to connect with a good job, there are no male support systems within the neighborhood to help him through work-related problems. An expectation of self-sufficiency through a good job seems a dream rather than a real possibility. Many young men often give up early; a lack of school success leads to dropout rates as high as 50% in the city. Dropouts often accept a low-paying job in order to make ends meet. Others choose a quicker way to buy fancy clothes and a nice car - they turn to drug dealing.

A
dolescent girls also feel caught in a cycle of helplessness. Some turn to pregnancy as a way to move from a difficult school situation toward possible independence. Many from single head of household families are unsure of how a positive male/female relationship is defined. Young men are very willing partners; those who are not sexually active are often arbitrarily labeled "gay." Those girls who do not have intercourse are often called "goodie two-shoes." For many young girls, a baby represents security; it means someone to love and someone who will love them and brings a sense of belonging they rarely find in their chaotic world. Adolescent mothers, with their lack of education and added responsibilities, have very few viable job opportunities.

E
ven those adults prepared to work encounter special problems related to maintaining employment. Most jobs poor adults hear about are the jobs no one else wants: tedious, unchallenging, or hazardous. Because many of these jobs pay less than the weekly A.F.D.C. welfare check, mothers struggle with the choice of working and having their children come home to empty homes and dangerous neighborhoods, or being stereotyped as "lazy A.F.D.C. collectors" and keeping their children safe.

C
ommitment to a new job carries with it its own set of problems. When an adult who has lived in long-term poverty chooses to become self-sufficient, there is often no one to support him/her. Networking with potential mentors is difficult when the poor neighborhood is so isolated from mainstream society. There are few other successful employees in the neighborhood with whom to socialize. In fact, when poor individuals begin to become successful, envious neighbors, friends, or relatives may decide, consciously or subconsciously, to hinder future success. The insecure boyfriend of a single mother may change the setting of an alarm clock in order to make his girlfriend late for work. Even children of a working single mother may fuel her guilt about spending time away from them. When children are sick, there is often no one available to help out. If the mother must stay home, her job is jeopardized. With no support from within the poor community and isolation from the mainstream of society, it is difficult for adults to move out of poverty.

Housing

F
ew poor families in the inner-city are fortunate enough to find an apartment in a two-family home that is safe and comfortable. The majority of poor families are clustered in inner-city housing developments. Increasing numbers of poor young families are homeless, forced to live on the streets or periodically in shelters for the homeless.

T
hose living in housing developments must often deal with a high incidence of crime. Drug dealing and prostitution are common. Families in poverty are extremely stressed and often very angry. Violence, both within the family and outside the home, is frequent.

A
ttempting to create a good home environment in poor inner-city neighborhoods is difficult. Even the most careful homemaker in an apartment complex can be overrun by cockroaches because the family next door is not as clean. Children have difficulty sleeping through the night due to late-night drug activity. Children have no safe place to play outside. Allowing kids the freedom to explore their environment and to learn from their mistakes is unrealistic in such a hazardous environment. Parents must choose between overprotecting their young and risking rebellion or giving them some freedom and hoping they can make the right choices in an environment saturated with crime.

B
ecause families live so close together, privacy is rare. Friendships become strained as individuals know too much about each other, including every mistake, every flaw....Working together for change is difficult. Tenants, fearful of becoming homeless, are careful not to complain too often. They often view advocacy groups as potentially harmful to their security. Some landlords use this powerlessness to their advantage, allowing apartments to degenerate, ignoring drug dealers who hang out, raising rents arbitrarily, and in general, maintaining an unsafe, unpredictable environment.

Personal Isolation

P
oor inner-city families are isolated from each other by suspicion and fear. Both family violence and community violence are common. In neighborhoods with rapid tenant turnover, residents often have trouble recognizing their own neighbors. Individuals rarely participate in reciprocal behavior. The possibility of neighbors connecting to address a community problem is remote.

M
ost of those who are poor are also emotionally exhausted; they often do not have enough energy to deal with their own problems, let alone to try to give to others. Most adults prefer to avoid the complications of getting involved with others in the community. Youth in these communities, desperate to "belong" to some peer group, may choose to belong to a young moms group if they are female, or to gangs if they are male.

Isolation From Mainstream Society

I
nner-city housing clusters are often located away from general city activity. This geographical separation reinforces the mainstream belief that poor people are radically different from ordinary people, a view which is often supported by media reports on welfare abuse, drug-related crime, and child abuse in the inner- city. Poor people are aware that many outsiders see them as inherently lazy and dishonest, and as a result, they avoid contacts with the outside world that will only make them feel inferior.

The Rural Poor

I
n general, rural poor have more frequent and positive contacts among family members and see less criminal activity, more civility and greater frequency of helping gestures (Korte, 1983). For many, a value system focusing on family relationships rather than upward mobility means measuring individual success according to special talents, position in the church, or family name. Though adults become frustrated and angry with the lack of opportunities for a better quality of life, most poor who remain in rural settings have accepted their situation, recognizing the real lack of employment opportunities for better paying jobs.

B
arriers related to health, education, and employability are, in many cases, more serious for the rural poor. Forty-one percent have no health insurance (O'Hare). Job training programs are hard to reach. Transportation to health and welfare supports is frequently unavailable. While numbers of rural poor are beginning to match those of the inner-city, 20% of the $95 billion spent in support of the poor is directed to rural communities (O'Hare, 1988). As a result, the rural poor often suffer serious nutritional, emotional, social, and physical problems and have access to fewer of the support networks found in the cities.

Diversity Among Rural Families

T
he rural poor live in a variety of poverty settings. Some poor live in families isolated in small towns across the United States. Some are homeless families moving from town to town, living out of a car or in a temporary residence. Some are migrant families, often moving from community to community as harvesting jobs become available. Some live in communities of intergenerationally poor as in Appalachia, the Tennessee River Valley, or the Mississippi Delta. Each of these populations has unique problems related to their poverty.

- The Rural Poor in America's Towns and Small Cities

T
he majority of rural poor in towns and cities live in two-parent families (O'Hare, 1988). For adults, the marital relationship is often an important source of strength. Often in difficult times, family members brainstorm ways to survive, encouraging another family member to take on a part-time job or changing financial arrangements as a way to avoid asking for help. Continued financial problems often result in stress on the marriage, which in turn results in depression, family communication problems, and family violence. Isolation, often self-imposed due to family pride, results in escalation of the intensity of these problems.

C
hildren in these families often grow up in poverty in spite of how hard their parents try. Seventy-two percent of rural poor children live in families where at least one family member works. The children cannot understand the value of their parents' hard work, when all they see is inadequate basic needs as reward. They do not see education as a means of becoming self-sufficient given the limited job opportunities available. Many poor youth feel uncomfortable in school, stereotyped by peers as the "poor family" in town. They often respond to mediocre academic expectations with mediocre academic work.

T
here are few places for youth to meet to enjoy enrichment activities, learn social skills via positive peer relationships, or find positive role models. Children whose parents can offer transportation enjoy group sports and recreational activities in town and in nearby towns. Poor youth do not have these opportunities. The choice is to stay at home with no contacts or find someone in the same situation to connect with. Intergenerational poverty for the rural poor occurs when a teen, trying to escape from a difficult family situation, moves into the same situation through early marriage.

H
ousing for the rural family varies from a rundown apartment in a section stereotyped as the poor part of town, to other inadequate housing far from community life or the family farm. Quality of housing depends on the integrity of the landlord since there are few advocates for the poor in rural communities. In all cases, a sense of isolation from mainstream society exists, sometimes self- imposed, sometimes imposed by rural residents through stereotypical attitudes. The stress related to poverty issues combined with long-term isolation often results in escalating family violence and increased feelings of being helpless to improve the quality of life.

R
ecently, an increase has been noted in families of "drifters" moving from one rural location to another. They often live in their cars. The adults in these families pick up odd jobs where they can, working for temporary housing, seeking medical help only in emergencies, and living on commodity handouts. Again, developmental needs of children, educational and occupational goals, and quality of life issues of most of these families take a back seat to survival.

- Migrant Families

M
igrant families often move to where the harvest is, doing hard manual labor for a minimum wage. Many families, especially those in the south, are extremely discouraged as they labor under extremely poor housing, employment, and health conditions. They suffer extreme psychological pain as they view their position as subservient to agricultural field supervisors or their employer. This physical and psychological pain results in heavy drinking and family violence (The Quiet Revolution, Harris, Allen).

H
ousing is often inadequate. Some migrant workers live in dormitories. Families may live in shacks, frequently with inadequate sanitary provisions, poor refrigeration, and overcrowded conditions. More recently, drug dealers seeking refuge during raids have taken shelter in the temporary space of the migrant family.

H
ealth care is sought out only in a crisis. Because records are often unavailable, medical treatment is often inconsistent; colds become pneumonia; early childhood language problems become major developmental delays during school years. Many migrant workers know they are unwelcome in many area doctors' offices and community hospitals. Members of migrant families frequently have high rates of anemia, tuberculosis, and stunted growth. Preventative health programming is impossible. Inability to read English, lack of bilingual social workers and medical help, and questionable medical histories due to constant moving prevent professionals from offering appropriate preventive information. Lack of adequate refrigeration often destroys the nutritional value of foods and the potency of medicines such as insulin. The need to eat whatever foods are available often limits the availability of foods to match special diets and the nutritional needs of growing children.

E
ducation for migrants takes a back seat to survival. Children often miss school on good harvesting days. In many cases, relocation due to different harvest seasons seriously disrupts academic progress.

L
anguage barriers and the parents' inability to read limits the academic support children receive. In many cases, educational goals seem irrelevant, given the limited opportunities in the migrant worker's future.

- Southeastern Pockets of Poverty
T
here are pockets of poverty in southeastern United States where families have lived in poverty for generations. Family traditions, kinship ties, individual talents, and family reputation are local measures of success. In many cases, because these areas are politically neglected, it is unrealistic to set goals of upward mobility. Family members have accepted the fact that they are destined to be poor.

R
esidents of these pockets of poverty struggle with health problems similar to those of migrant workers. Housing and sanitary conditions are primitive. Some families live on as little as $1,954 per year.

E
ducational opportunities receive mixed reactions. While some youth see other lifestyles as possible, they struggle with abandoning family tradition for a different quality of life. Others wonder, even if they chose to complete high school, if there really would be a decent paying job for them.

M
any youth who want to move from their pockets of poverty choose military service as the only viable way of escape.

PAST POLICIES AND PROGRAMMING DIRECTIONS

P
resident Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty focused on providing support, services, and funds to remedy specific "social and psychological problems" which scholars of the sixties attributed to a culture of poverty (20% of the U.S. population at that time). Many of the poor in the '60s and '70s were able to use these services and move on to a better quality of life. Others, more entrenched in poverty, seemed to accept the definitions of themselves as inherently flawed and became even more helpless. Meanwhile, the non-poor blamed the poor for their own plight and expressed anger over the use of their tax dollars for poverty programs. (This "blame the victim" mentality persists today, acting as another barrier keeping the poor from feeling confident enough to move toward mainstream society.)

A
s numbers of poor decreased, government policies emphasized increasing the financial resources of those who remained through implementing the negative income tax and transfer payments.

W
hen it was discovered that increased income alone was not enough to help the long-term poor, programs were aimed at helping the people take more responsibility for their economic situation. These programs included CETA job training and measures to make absent fathers pay child support. However, CETA helped only those who had the support system and skills to improve their quality of life through getting a job, and child support money collected from poor fathers was so minimal it had little impact on families. Though many were helped, many - 11% in 1979 (Chilman, 1988) - remained poor.

B
y the end of the '70s experts were aware that many of the poor were becoming mired in intergenerational cycles of poverty. Workfare programs were initiated as a device for getting poor families off welfare. Again, for those ready to accept training and use their learned skills in a job placement that would result in a better quality of life, the program worked. Others, placed in jobs that offered no improved quality of life, experienced repeated failure and continued poverty.

POLICIES OF THE '80S

P
olicy makers are concerned over current trends indicating increased numbers of poor, from 11% of the population in 1974 to 17% in 1985 (Chilman, 1988), and greater degrees of poverty (in 1984, more than one-third of the poor were more than 50% below the poverty line). Politicians and social scientists of the '80s are struggling to identify policies that will reverse the trend of ever-growing numbers of poor young families caught in long-term poverty. They realize that the burden of funding A.F.D.C. dependent families ($8.6 billion in 1985) is a drain on the economy. They know that each year's class of school dropouts costs the nation more than $240 billion in lost earnings and foregone taxes over their lifetimes (Catterall, 1985). The homeless cannot contribute economically; the children of teenaged mothers are more likely to suffer from physical and mental handicaps and thus to require expensive special education; school dropouts represent a loss of the sophisticated workforce our nation needs to compete with the international market, and criminals cause huge economic losses - both to their victims and to the system that must investigate, prosecute, and incarcerate them. These economic reasons alone prove the need to address the plight of growing numbers of families caught in long-term poverty.

T
hus far, federal programming recommended to address these concerns is an extension of the employment training concept. Recent policy mandates that parents receiving A.F.D.C. payments (with preschool children) participate in training or work. More child care options are available (but remain inadequate). Child support payments are being secured by going directly to a father's paycheck, income tax refund, or social security check. Programs are more available which focus on the symptoms of poverty: teen pregnancy, dropout rates, substance abuse, and violence in the home. Unfortunately, few of the programs being implemented take a long-term approach to preventing problems. Some of those that have worked (such as WIC of Head Start) have even lost some funding during recent years.

THE EMERGING UNDERCLASS

I
n spite of all the programming directions of the past decades and greatly increased spending in social service areas, long-term poverty, some of it intergenerational, continues. Mary Jo Bane, in her book, The Poor in Massachusetts, expressed concern that from 30% to 60% of the American poor are long-term poor, isolated in their own environments. She sees these individuals and young families as the emerging American underclass.

A
ccording to Bane, public policy of the past, which focused on short-term poverty problems, will not work for our current underclass situations. Harvard researcher David Ellwood agrees that policies must change. According to him, mothers with no marketable skills and inadequate child care, isolated from working society due to welfare, and with no access to a job that could bring them above the poverty line, will not easily become self- sufficient through job training programs. Ellwood says that current workfare programming will get only 1% of the poor off the rolls in one year.

HELPING THE LONG-TERM POOR

I
f our government indeed wants to help the long-term poor out of poverty, then there must be a fundamental change in policy. Policy makers must look at poverty itself, rather than at specific problems that could result from poverty (e.g., drug issues, school dropout rates, pregnant teens). They must look at how our public assistance system disempowers individuals. "Welfare does little to help people gain control and independence." (Ellwood, Poor Support, 1988). Clearly a higher minimum wage, child care benefits, and more child support will make a difference (Ellwood, 1988). Budget-cutting policies in areas of health, housing, income maintenance and employment also need to be reexamined (Chilman, 1988). Unfortunately, employment opportunities alone may be too little too late for many of those discouraged by periods of long- term poverty.

R
esearchers are concerned that the currently escalating numbers of those isolated in long-term poverty could result in an extension of the long-term poor's feelings of hopelessness, distrust, despair, fear, hostility, and fatalism. They fear that these values, attitudes, and norms may make it difficult to take advantage of employment opportunities in the future (Chilman, 1988). Education and employment opportunities may need to be accompanied by a support system that will maintain an improved quality of life for those who are living isolated in poverty.

THE MASTER TEACHER IN FAMILY LIFE MODEL

T
he Master Teacher in Family Life Model strengthens individuals and communities discouraged by the barriers of long-term poverty. It is a community development/family life training-the-trainer model that teaches natural leaders within poor communities information and skills that will enable them to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods. Once trained, these leaders: 1) support and mentor individuals in need of family life information; 2) encourage networking within the poor community through information sharing and group building; and 3) begin community development efforts in order to maintain long-term change in quality of life for adults and youth living in rural or inner-city poverty. The program is unique in that it builds strengths from within the community, rather than bringing in support from outside.

T
his model considers the concept that families living with limited resources isolated from mainstream society will continue to feel helpless as long as they exist in an environment of hopelessness. Using Bronfenbrenner's (1981) concepts relative to ecosystems, this model attempts to improve the community environment of the poor through identifying strengths within the poor community and using those strengths to help support long-term feelings of empowerment of families in the community. The model departs from the typical social work style of supporting those in need through offering short-term services to help in crisis. Rather than creating a dependence on "the system," the Master Teacher in Family Life Program focuses on Adlerian concepts of encouraging individuals to take care of their own problems through learned information and skill building. It focuses on creating environments of encouragement through building up strengths inside the environment and creating linkages between the natural leaders in the poverty community with helpers in mainstream society. Although the model will not result in higher paying jobs, which clearly are needed, it does provide for those in poverty a more hopeful environment which can prepare individuals, especially children, adolescents, and young adults to take advantage of opportunities to improve quality of life as they arise.

* Just click the Home Icon to go back to the the main index page *