Neighborhood Network (NN) was launched in 2012 as a strategy to promote economic

self-sufficiency among residents of a low-income neighborhood in Detroit. NN is a program that

coordinates various services provided by seven nonprofit organizations and connects residents

with resources that help them work toward their goals. NN Coordinators meet regularly with

participants to set goals, discuss progress, and connect them with appropriate resources, such as

entrepreneurship training, financial literacy resources, and childcare. NN participants also have

the option of participating in additional programs, including group sessions intended to

strengthen relationships and build accountability among members as they make progress towards

their goals. Since its inception, NN has served over 350 residents and facilitated significant

positive changes in participants’ employment, income, and community involvement (Sobeck,

Brown, & Capps, 2015).

Yet, seemingly small barriers often present major obstacles that prevent NN participants

from progressing toward their goals. In many cases, these barriers could be overcome with

relatively small amounts of money. The NN Barrier Busters (NN-BB) program was introduced

as a strategy to help NN participants overcome these barriers and pursue long-term economic

self-sufficiency. NN-BB provides small, one-time cash awards for residents to use as they see fit.

This paper explores the NN-BB program from the perspectives of participants’ needs,

goals, and the barriers they confront, as well as exploring the program’s effects on participants’

self-sufficiency. Findings suggest that programs like NN-BB may be an effective strategy for

promoting self-sufficiency.

Poverty in the United States

More than 43 million Americans – nearly one in seven – live in poverty (Proctor,

Semega, & Kollar, 2016). One and a half million households live in extreme poverty, surviving

1
on $2 per day in cash income per family member (Edin & Shaefer, 2015). Tragically, one-third

of those in poverty are children (Proctor, Semega, & Kollar, 2016). At 39.4%, the rate of poverty

in Detroit, Michigan is more than three times the national average of 12.7% (United States

Census Bureau, 2017).

Common misfortunes, such as a broken car or an injury, can have catastrophic effects for

people living in poverty (Stiglitz, 2012). Financial fragility refers to the inability of a household

to withstand a financial shock and is commonly measured by asking whether an individual would

be able to come up with $2,000 in one month to meet an emergency need (Lusardi, Schneider,

Tufano, 2011). In 2015, nearly one-third of Americans were considered financially fragile

(Gupta, Hasler, Lusardi, 2018). Financial fragility impacts people across all incomes, with 30%

of middle-income families being financially fragile. In a related study that focused on

individuals’ ability to immediately come up with funds, the Federal Reserve Board reported that

47% of Americans would need to borrow money or sell some of their possessions to pay for a

$400 emergency (Gabler, 2016).

The consequences of financial fragility are compounded by the fact that poverty tends to

affect families across multiple generations. People who live in poverty are likely to have parents

who are also poor and therefore unable to provide a financial safety net in times of emergency.

Among Americans raised by parents in the lowest economic quintile, 43 percent remain in the

bottom quintile as adults and 70 percent remain below the middle quintile (Urahn et al., 2012).

As compared to people in other OECD countries, American children born to poor parents are

more likely to be in poverty as adults (Stiglitz, 2012).

Barriers to Economic Self-Sufficiency

2
 Economic self-sufficiency means having adequate resources to provide for oneself and

one’s family without the assistance of income-based government benefits (Hawkins, 2005).

Unemployment and under-employment present major obstacles to self-sufficiency. Other barriers

include low wages, limited education, financial systems, income volatility, and debt (Mitnik &

Grusky, 2015). These barriers, which often occur together, can trap individuals and communities

in generational poverty (Bowles, Durlauf, & Hoff, 2006).

Low wages. Although employment is an important step towards economic self-

sufficiency, it is not enough. In 2016, approximately 7.6 million Americans (approximately 4.9%

of the labor force) were among the working poor, meaning that they spent at least 27 weeks of

the year working or looking for work and still had incomes below the poverty level (Bureau of

Labor Statistics, 2018). In the United States, 33.2% of jobs pay less than $12 an hour and are not

sufficient to keep a family of four above the poverty line (Economic Policy Institute & Oxfam

America, 2016a). Overall, the United States has the highest percentage of low-wage jobs of any

wealthy country in the world. In Michigan, 31.3% of workers have an hourly rate of $12 or less

and 45.8% earn $15 or less (Economic Policy Institute & Oxfam America, 2016b). Women and

people of color are particularly concentrated in these low-wage roles. Between 1979 and 2016,

wages for hourly workers have grown by only 0.2% per year, whereas wages for the top quintile

of workers have increased by 27% (Schanzenbach, Nunn, Liu and Nantz, 2017).

What little money low-income individuals take home does not go far. People in the

bottom economic quintile spend 82% of their income on basic needs, including housing, food,

transportation, health care, and clothing (Schanzenbach et al., 2017). This percentage is larger

than middle-income (78%) and high-income (67%) individuals and leaves little for discretionary

spending or saving. A single earner working 40 hours a week at slightly above minimum wage

3
will have less than $3 per day per family member after paying for his or her family’s necessities

(Stiglitz, 2012). These financial stresses make it difficult to develop savings.

Differences in people’s ability to save money exacerbates existing wealth gaps. Without

savings, individuals are susceptible to emergency expenses that increase their debt and have

limited ability to plan for long-term goals or move up the economic ladder (Gottschalk and

Moffitt, 2009). Individuals in the lowest income quintile have a median savings rate of 0.14%,

whereas the median savings rate for individuals in the middle quintile is 11.1% and the highest

quintile is 23.6% (alarmingly, the median savings rate for the top 1% of earners is 51.2%;

Dynan, Skinner, & Zeldes, 2004). There is little margin for error when unexpected costs arise, as

they inevitably do.

Limited education. Limited education, often driven by inability to pay for higher

education or skills, may prevent people from rising out of poverty. On average, people with a

college degree earn 82% more than those with only a high school diploma (Economic Policy

Institute, 2018). Educational attainment is also a strong predictor of the economic well-being of

one’s children (Huggett, Ventura, & Yaron, 2011). Conversely, educational attainment can

break cycles of generational poverty. The Panel Study of Income Dynamics found that nearly

three-fourths of people with college degrees earned more than their parents did at comparable

ages, compared to fewer than two-thirds of those without a college degree. Among people raised

by parents in the bottom income quintile, only 16% of college degree-holders remained in the

bottom quintile, as compared to 45% of individuals without college degrees (Haskins, 2008). The

number of single, Black mothers whose income rose at least one quintile was nine times higher

(83%) for women with college degrees than for those without (Faces of Economic Mobility,

2013).

4
 Financial systems. Additional barriers to economic self-sufficiency arise from challenges

accessing formal financial institutions. Formal financial institutions are licensed banks and credit

unions that offer familiar financial products such savings accounts, checking accounts, and loans.

Seven percent of Americans are unbanked and more than 19 percent are under-banked, meaning

they use a combination of formal and alternative financial services (Burhouse et al., 2016). In

fact, these national statistics obscure the true magnitude of the situation among lower-income

populations – nearly 75% of low-income and 13% of moderate-income households do not have a

bank account and rely on alternative financial services (Bucks, Kennickell, Mach, & Moore,

2009). Reasons that individuals forego formal financial institutions include beliefs that they lack

enough money to use them (49% of the unbanked) and lack of trust in these institutions (44%;

Klapper, 2012).

Among those who do use banks, rules and regulations that provide increasing protections

for banks have de-risked lending and thus encourage lending that preys on the most financially

vulnerable (Stiglitz, 2012). Even individuals who declare bankruptcy still owe lenders for their

student debt, thus encouraging lax loan underwriting. The situation is exacerbated by the

rollback of the protections of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Borrowers, especially

poor borrowers, are the ones who suffer.

Low- and moderate-income individuals frequently resort to expensive financial services

such as advanced paycheck loans and car title loans. These services reduce their effective take

home pay, carry exorbitant interest rates or fees, and put their tangible assets at risk (Collins J

Michael and Gjertson, 2013). Furthermore, these alternative financial systems inhibit

individuals’ opportunities to develop savings that could serve as important economic safeguards.

5
 Income volatility. Income volatility, pay that fluctuates 25% above or below one’s

average monthly income, presents an additional barrier to achieving economic self-sufficiency

(Morduch & Schneider, 2017). Hourly wages with non-guaranteed hours, working for

commission, or working under contract all contribute to this phenomenon. Half of all working

adults and 64% of working, low-income individuals experience income volatility for at least one

month of the year (Maag et al., 2017). Since expenses do not rise and fall with one’s income,

income volatility often creates an inability to plan, save, or have the financial slack necessary to

deal with unpredictable hardships such as medical expenses, home repairs, or even parking

tickets (Barr, 2012).

Debt. Low-income individuals may take on debt to make investments in education,

homes, or for purchase they hope will increase their income. Often, these debts become

additional burdens, as immediate needs such as food, housing, and transportation are given

priority (Seefeldt, 2015). Unless these investments pay off quickly, financial hardships may

compound, spilling over to other parts of borrowers’ lives and leading to increased familial

stress, depleted savings for future emergencies, and fewer opportunities to invest in human

capital, such as a children’s college funds (Iverson, Napolitano, and Furstenberg, 2011).

Social Capital and Self-Sufficiency

Supportive social networks can help combat poverty by strengthening social capital.

Social capital refers to the “features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social

trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1995) and includes

both bridging capital between heterogeneous groups and bonding capital among individuals in

the same group (Putnam, 2000). Economic benefits from social capital can arise from individuals

6
holding each other to account, sharing knowledge, and facilitating collective action (Collier,

1998).

Strong relationships with people of a similar socio-economic status — often family,

friends, and neighbors — can help counteract the effects of poverty by offering financial or

emotional support over the lifetime of the relationship, including during times of crisis. Social

bonds tend to be strongest in poorer, less stable communities, suggesting that bonding capital is

an asset that can be leaned on when financial resources are low (Brisson, Usher, Charles, 2005).

Circles USA provides one example of a program that promotes development of social

capital to overcome poverty. In the program, low-income participants (Circle Leaders) and

middle-income volunteers (allies) form relationships and build a community of support. Circle’s

strategy includes long-term mentorship, community organizing, case management, goal setting,

financial literacy, and child/youth development. The model relies on the bridging capital between

Circle Leaders and their allies, whose access to information, contacts and other sources of

support leads to new education and employment opportunities for Circle Leaders (Henly,

Danziger and Offer, 2005). Bonding capital among Circle leaders allows them to share

experiences and strategies, as well as reinforcing their position as central in any effort to “fix”

their lives. By strengthening bridging and bonding social capital, Circles USA was able to

increase Circle Leaders’ income by 41% in six months, 60% in one year, and 88% in 18 months

(Circles USA, 2017).

The NN program is another example of a program designed to promote social capital. NN

participants gain access to the services of partner organizations, but also to the individuals within

them. For example, the NN Coordinator develops relationships with participants over time and

works with them to think through goals and connect them to resources. Importantly, NN also

7
provides opportunities for members to connect with one another. During Success Circles, NN

members develop authentic relationships with neighbors and help one another progress toward

their individual goals.

Unconditional Cash Transfers to Promote Self-Sufficiency

The United States has developed numerous programs to address poverty, including the

earned-income tax credit, Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and Social

Security. Yet, none of these strategies is sufficient to address the magnitude of the problems, all

have been cut back, and all are under threat politically. The United States spends 8% of gross

domestic product on all social protections, which is less than 26 of 34 OECD countries (Stiglitz,

2012). Moreover, as Edin and Shaefer (2015) explained, “[SNAP and Medicaid] just aren’t the

same as cash. They don’t offer the flexibility of cash — [which] is crucial. For many … families,

their downward spiral into $2-a-day poverty might have been reversed by a timely infusion of

cash” (Edin and Shaefer 2015, p. 168).

Unconditional cash transfers offer flexible financial assistance to low-income individuals

by giving them money to use as they see fit. This approach has been used widely in Africa, Asia,

and Latin America and is demonstrably effective. GiveDirectly is one organization that provides

unconditional cash transfers to the extreme poor. Recipients receive transfers of approximately

$1,000, roughly the equivalent of one year’s budget for a typical household. The organization

monitors the exchange to ensure that funds were received and address any issues, but decisions

about the use of funds are left to the recipients. Based on rigorous evaluation and review of

research, GiveDirectly (n.d.) claims that “cash transfers have arguably the strongest existing

evidence base among anti-poverty tool.”

8
 Unconditional cash transfers promote improvements in a range of outcomes for children,

adults, and communities. For instance, a randomized-control trial in Western Kenya found that

unconditional cash transfers increased household savings, spending, and food security, leading to

measurable increases in well-being. Spillover effects were also felt in the community through

increased spending (Haushofer and Shapiro, 2013). These positive effects are lasting. Many

recipients save or invest part of the cash transfer, which generates long-term gains in income. For

example, a program that gave one-time grants ranging from $100 to $200 to people in Sri Lanka

found that five years later, businesses owned by men who received grants were more likely to

survive and made $8 - $12 more per month than businesses owned by men who did not receive

grants (De Mel, McKenzie, & Woodruff, 2012). Counter to stereotypes, recipients do not

systematically use the cash for recreational purposes such as alcohol or tobacco (Evans &

Popova, 2014), nor do they decrease the hours they spend working (Ardington, Case, &

Hosegood, 2009).

To our knowledge, large unconditional cash transfers have not been offered in the United

States. However, many community action agencies, local foundations, and social services

organizations have emergency funds available to prevent eviction or utility shut-offs, or provide

for medical needs or transportation. The Washtenaw County (MI) Government, as one example,

operates a program that combines the efforts of several social service agencies and provides

emergency funds to participants. Applicants request funds for specific, emergency needs, but are

not required to send documentation verifying how they use the funds. They complete a plan of

action and service providers offer coordinated support. The program yielded consistently positive

results for participants. Six months after receiving funds, 87% were current on rent and 70% of

respondents were current on utilities payments (Washtenaw County Michigan, n.d.). The

9
program is meant to empower individuals by helping them out of emergency and creating a plan

for stability in the future.

Inspired by the Washtenaw County program, the HOPE Village NN-BB program differs

in that funds are awarded to individuals not for emergency needs, but to help them proactively

overcome barriers that impede their progress toward their goals. For example, a NN-BB award

might be used to cover the cost of tuition for a training program or a car repair that would allow

them to access a new work opportunity. This study aims to shed light on the short-term

implications of unconditional cash transfers by exploring the impact of the NN-BB program on

economic self-sufficiency.

Current Study

The current study explores the process and potential of two strategies for promoting

economic self-sufficiency. We considered whether participation in NN, a program designed to

promote social capital, was associated with improved self-sufficiency. We then considered

whether receiving unconditional cash transfers through the NN-BB program led to additional

benefits to self-sufficiency.

Due to the nature of unconditional cash transfers (whose use is determined by recipients)

and because there is limited literature on their use in the United States, it was important to first

create a descriptive account of participants’ experiences with the NN-BB program, including

their anticipated and actual uses of these awards. To learn about participants’ experiences, we

explored these questions using qualitative data:

1. What goals did participants set out to achieve and what barriers did they anticipate?

2. How did participants use NN-BB awards?

3. Did NN and NN-BB help participants progress toward their goals?

10
 Next, we used quantitative data to examine the effectiveness of the NN and NN-BB for

promoting self-sufficiency across multiple domains. We tested the hypothesis that self-

sufficiency would increase over time for NN participants and would increase more for

participants who also participated in NN-BB.

METHODOLOGY
Procedures
The study used an experimental design in which participants were randomly assigned to

one of two groups. One group of participants (treatment) participated in NN and received NN-

BB awards, and the other (comparison) participated in NN without receiving the NN-BB awards.

All participants lived in Detroit’s HOPE Village and/or had children who attended school in the

neighborhood.

Procedures for participant recruitment, selection, and disbursal of awards were developed

by the NN Action Committee, a group of leaders from NN partner organizations. First, NN

Action Committee members nominated HOPE Village community members who they believed

would make use of NN-BB funds to overcome a barrier and reach a specific goal related to

economic self-sufficiency. Funds could be used to cover a variety of needs that were

unaddressed by existing community resources, such as unmet needs for transportation, childcare,

documentation and licenses, training, and housing improvements. The NN Action Committee

nominated a total of 24 individuals. Individuals were not informed that they had been nominated

for the study.

Next, nominees were randomly assigned to either the treatment or comparison group.

Those assigned to the treatment group were informed by a representative from a NN partner

organization that they were being considered for a NN-BB award. They then filled out an

application detailing their goals, the amount of money they were requesting, and how they would

11
use that money to overcome a barrier that impeded their progress toward their goals. All

treatment group participants were then notified that they would receive a NN-BB award for the

amount requested, which ranged from $500 to $2,000. The average amount awarded was $863

(SD=540.65). NN agencies distributed awards directly to treatment group participants.

Participants in the treatment group received a $10 cash incentive for participating in the post-

program interview, but not additional incentive for the pre-program interview.

Individuals assigned to the comparison group were contacted by a NN staff member and

invited to participate in a research study evaluating the NN program. Comparison group

participants were not informed about the additional NN-BB intervention and did not know that

participants in the treatment group members were receiving monetary awards. Seven of the

twelve individuals invited to be part of the comparison group agreed to participate in the study.

Participants in the comparison group received $10 cash incentives for participating in both pre-

and post-program interviews

All participants completed a structured, in-person pre-program interview. Eleven of the

twelve treatment group participants accepted the invitation to take part in a similar post-program

interview six months later (92%), as did four of the seven comparison group participants (57%).

This study is based on data only from participants who completed both pre- and post-program

interviews.

The interview process for this study built on the established procedure for NN

participants, which involved meetings with the NN Coordinator every three months to discuss

goals and progress. Participants in this study responded to the same protocol as in typical NN

meetings, along with a few additional questions designed for the purpose of this study. Pre- and

post-program interviews were conducted by the NN Coordinator, who had years of experience

12
working with NN, a deep familiarity with the assessment tool, and had established trust within

the neighborhood.

After the post-program interviews, four participants were invited to participate in in-

depth, semi-structured follow-up interviews that would provide additional information about

their experiences with NN and NN-BB. Each participant represented one of four conditions: (a) a

treatment group member who achieved their goal, (b) a treatment group member who did not

achieve their goal, (c) a comparison group member who achieved their goal, and (d) a

comparison group member who did not achieve their goal. The four participants invited for

follow-up interviews all agreed to participate. Follow-up interviews took place approximately

three months after the post-program interview and participants received an additional $20 cash

incentive.

Participants

To be selected to participate in the study, individuals had to be residents of HOPE Village

or have a child that attended school in the neighborhood. Some participants were already

members of NN and others joined at the time they were invited to participate in the study.

The fifteen participants in the final sample ranged in age from 24 to 73 years, with a

mean age of 54.27 (SD=15.55). Twelve were female. Twelve participants reported their

ethnicity as African-American, one as Biracial, one as Hispanic, and one as Other. Five were

single, five were divorced, four were married, and one was widowed. Five of the fifteen had at

least one child under the age of 18.

The demographics of the four participants who participated in follow-up interviews

closely approximated the overall sample.

Measures

13
 Goals and Barriers

We used open-ended questions in pre- and post-program interviews to understand the

lives and needs of participants, in particular their goals and the barriers associated with reaching

them. In the pre-program interview, participants were asked to describe one or more goals that

they hoped to accomplish along with dates by which they hoped to accomplish them. Goals were

categorized according to domains of self-sufficiency.

Use of NN-BB Awards

Prior to receiving NN-BB awards, participants in the treatment group completed

applications in which they listed the amount requested and explained how they would use the

award and how it would help them reach their goal. In post-program interviews, treatment group

participants were asked open-ended questions about their actual use of the cash awards,

including whether the award was used as planned and whether it helped them achieve the goals

they defined at the outset.

Progress Toward Goals

In pre-program interviews, participants were asked to describe action steps they planned

to take to achieve their goals. In post-program interviews, they were asked whether they

achieved the goals they previously described. Those who had achieved their goals were asked to

share their experiences. Participants who had not achieved their goals were asked to share ideas

about what would have helped them reach their goals and to reflect on their confidence about

whether they would achieve their goals at some point in the future. All participants described the

steps that they took in pursuit of their goals and any barriers that arose, as well as their responses

to each.

14
 The four individuals who participated in follow-up interviews were asked additional

open-ended questions exploring why they had chosen particular goals, how they went about

pursuing them, the barriers they faced, and what was most helpful in making progress toward

their goals.

Economic Self-Sufficiency

In order to learn whether NN-BB awards were helpful in advancing participants’

economic self-sufficiency, we also collected quantitative data. We gauged participants’ self-

sufficiency across multiple domains during pre- and post-program interviews using the NN Self-

Sufficiency Matrix. This tool was adapted from the Arizona Self-Sufficiency Matrix (Culhane,

Gross, Parker, Poppe, & Sykes, 2008), developed to comprehensively address self-sufficiency

among homeless populations, to reflect the domains that were most relevant to the community

served by NN. The four domains of primary interest in the current study were income, housing,

education, and credit history. Participants were assessed on seven additional domains

(employment, food, career training, financial literacy, health care, community involvement, and

safety) to permit us to calculate a total self-sufficiency score as the sum of scores across all 11

domains.

Interviews were conducted by the NN Coordinator, who was trained and had substantial

experience using the NN Self-Sufficiency Matrix. For each domain, the interviewer asked

participants a series of structured questions and then used a rubric to rate the participant’s level

of self-sufficiency on a five-point scale (1=Crisis, 2=Stable, 3=Sufficiency, 4=Self-Sufficiency,

5=Sustainable Self-Sufficiency). Cronbach’s alpha for total self-sufficiency was 0.80, indicating

a high degree of internal consistency across the eleven domains. Descriptive statistics are shown

in Table 2.

15
 FINDINGS

Goals and Barriers

The number of goals set by participants during pre-program interviews varied, ranging

from one to four. Goals also varied in the level of specificity (e.g., “open own business” versus

“open consignment or resale shop focusing on high-end fashion”). Goals were categorized

according to the 11 domains represented in the NN Self-Sufficiency Matrix, as well as an Other

category for goals that did not explicitly align with the existing categories (e.g., health).

Table 1 provides an overview of the number of participants with goals in each domain.

Education goals were the most common, with eight participants identifying at least one goal

related to furthering their education. Education goals varied widely across participants and

included earning a GED, college degree, Master’s Degree, Certified Nursing Assistance License,

and attending hair school. Seven participants identified other goals that did not explicitly align

with the NN Self-Sufficiency Matrix. Employment goals were the third most common, with six

participants identifying at least one goal related to employment. Five of those participants set

goals related to owning their own businesses and one wanted to a job. Two participants set goals

related to community involvement, including one who sought to become a Notary Public in order

to serve community residents, particularly those in a residence for formerly homeless

individuals. Participants also identified goals related to credit history, housing, and income.

Goals did not appear to differ systematically between participants in the treatment and

comparison groups.

16
Table 1. Participant Goals by Domain

Goal Domain Participants Examples

Education 8 Earn GED. Get CNA license. Enroll in hair

school. Return to school for Master’s.
Other 7 Lose weight. Travel. Enjoy retirement. Be a
great father.
Employment 6 Get a job. Start a business. Open resale shop.
Credit History 4 Improve credit score. Pay off hospital bill.
Community Involvement 2 Volunteer. Become a Notary Public.
Housing 2 Repair porch. Get basement in order.
Income 2 Increase income. Be more self-sufficient.

As shown in Table 2, the type of barrier most frequently anticipated by participants was

not having enough money (n = 9 out of 15), followed by transportation (n = 3) and health

problems (n = 3). Participants also anticipated barriers presented by poor credit, limited

education, limited time, and getting “sidetracked” (categorized as Other). In post-program

interviews, finances were the most frequently reported type of barrier (n = 12), again followed by

transportation (n = 6) and health (n = 4). More participants reported experiencing barriers in the

top three categories than initially anticipated those barriers. Notably, no comparison group

participants anticipated financial barriers, but three of the four reported experiencing them.

Although participants anticipated limited education and time being barriers, neither type was

reported at post-program surveys. Five participants reported experiencing other barriers,

including procrastination, inability to access credit report, bank closed and needed to switch

financial institutions, difficulty finding a house and housing program, and childcare. Overall,

participants in both the treatment and control groups encountered more barriers than they

initially anticipated.

17
Table 2. Barriers Anticipated and Experienced by Participants

# of Participants

Type of Barrier Pre-Program Post-Program

Finances 9 12
Transportation 3 6
Health 3 4
Credit 2 1
Education 2 0
Time 2 0
Other 1 5

Total 22 28

Use of Awards

Proposed award uses and actual uses are shown in Table 3. The most common use of

awards was paying off debt or bills (n = 6). Four of those participants had not listed debt or bills

as an anticipated use in their applications. Two participants did not specify the type of bills paid

and, although we categorized this use as inconsistent with their proposed use, it is possible that

the bills actually included costs for their proposed uses (e.g., car repairs).

Of the 11 participants who received NN-BB funds, at least six used their cash award in

the way they initially planned (e.g., porch repair, pay ticket, bills). Due to the limited details

available about how awards were used (e.g., bills), this count may underestimate the number of

participants who used their awards as planned. Three of the six participants used the funds for

the initially intended purpose as well as additional purposes. For example, one participant had

the goal of returning to school and initially planned to use the award for transportation to school.

18
In addition to the intended use, they applied funds to hospital bills, car repairs for their child, and

a pair of shoes.

Five participants used the funds in ways that were not identical to the uses proposed in

their application for funds, although most were closely related. For example, one participant had

the goal of returning to school and initially planned to use the award to pay for internet costs to

allow them to access online courses at home. Instead, they used the award to pay the cost of

enrollment in the courses. Another participant had a goal of improving credit score and initially

planned to use the award to have a civil judgment removed from their credit report, but instead

used the award to pay off outstanding debt in service of their goal.

Table 3. Use of Barrier Busters Awards

Amount Proposed Use Actual Use Match

$2,000 Porch repairs Porch repairs Yes

Remove civil judgment from Paid off outstanding debt

No
$1,760 credit report Opened a savings account

School books, uniform, shoes

No
$1,000 Pay for CNA certification Groceries

Hospital bills

Pair of shoes
Yes
Gave child $200 for car repair

$960 Transportation to school Transportation to school

Paid for first module of school

No
$780 Pay internet costs Saved money for second module

19
 Car repairs

School uniforms and shoes for Bills No

$500 children Gas for car

$500 Purchase car Children's school supplies No

Bills

School clothes for grandchildren

Yes
Car maintenance (oil change, tire Maintained car

$500 replacement, brakes) Groceries

$500 Pay ticket Paid ticket Yes

Pay smallest bills first, then

payment plan for remaining Yes

$500 balance Bills

Purchase insurance to become Notary Public insurance, license,

Yes
$500 Notary Public and equipment

Role of NN and NN-BB in Supporting Progress Toward Goals

Goals varied widely in content and scope, but by the time of post-program interviews, all

participants had taken at least two actions toward their goals. Support and activities provided by

NN and NN-BB contributed to participants’ progress in various ways.

NN. All four members of the comparison group took the actions towards their goals that

they articulated in the pre-program interview. Two members of the comparison group met their

goals. Progress made by treatment group participants is described in the next section, although it

20
is important to note that they participated in NN and NN-BB and it is difficult to disentangle the

contributions made by the two programs to their progress.

The four participants in follow-up interviews described numerous ways in which NN

helped them make progress toward their goals. Three participants (two in treatment group and

one in comparison group) reported that NN encouraged them to set goals and determine action

steps. One treatment group participant who had lived in her house for forty years was worried

that she would have to significantly delay retirement in order to afford the major repairs that

were needed to make her house safe and livable. She was not sure whether she would be able to

repair the house and felt “stuck”, but “[NN Coordinator] told me that it could happen. Literally

that’s what they said…. ‘Don’t leave – it can happen’.” As a result of that conversation, she

set—and later achieved—the goal of repairing her porch. One treatment group participant shared

that she had been thinking about becoming a Notary Public “for years. I had thought that when I

retire maybe that is what I will do. So someone had mentioned it in our Success Circles that they

were one and I thought, Oh, that was something I had considered years ago. And so I wrote it

down.” She also appreciated the time spent with the NN Coordinator because “setting goals and

setting a strategy of how you are going to meet those goals is always helpful.” One comparison

group participant also credited Focus: HOPE with the inspiration for his goal of opening a resale

shop, saying, “Focus: HOPE inspired me to do something that would give back. I’m not looking

to get rich. I just want people to know that people have a place where they can come when they

need something and they can get it and it won’t cost a lot of money.”

One treatment group participant reported that NN helped them move toward their goals

by providing encouragement and accountability. Another treatment group participant, who

aimed to become a Notary Public, shared that a participant in Success Circles (a NN program)

21
encouraged her to pursue that path and then “kept pushing me to go ahead to keep doing it,

which was what one of the goals of Success Circles was – to encourage each other to accomplish

a goal.” When asked what was most important in helping her progress toward her goal, she

credited the support and accountability of NN, saying, “we did have to go back to members in

that circle and say okay, what have you done to move towards [your goal]?”

Both comparison group participants described ways that NN connected them with

resources. One comparison group participant detailed his extensive struggles finding safe and

reliable childcare for his daughter, which negatively impacted his ability to work. Through his

involvement with NN, he was connected to the childcare center at Focus: HOPE and enrolled his

daughter. He said, “I get assistance from [Focus: HOPE] on a lot of things that I’m not aware of,

things they know of [and] connect me to. I got [my daughter] into school. I had trouble getting in

at first and they got her right in there.” He liked the school and the teacher, but he continued to

have scheduling challenges – getting his daughter to school often meant arriving late to work.

The teacher was able to connect him with a woman who provided transportation to and from the

childcare, successfully resolving the issue. As a result of the connections established through

NN, he was able to achieve his goal of securing high-quality childcare for his daughter and also

dedicate time to pursuing his long-term goal of starting a resale shop. The other comparison

group participant spoke at length about the positive experiences she had with the many services

offered at Focus: HOPE, including several career training programs. However, despite her

positive experiences and the certification she earned, her lack of transportation created a barrier

to employment that she had not yet been able to resolve.

In addition to connecting people to resources, NN also connected people to one another.

One treatment group participant was new to the community and NN helped her develop

22
relationships with new friends who shared information and helped one another. For example, one

woman she met in Success Circles “was saying that she was in a program and…she didn’t have

all the knowledge so she dropped out when she really didn’t have to. So I told her, ‘If you want

to take some courses online, there is Coursera’ – which I found out about from Parkman Library,

because I was tutoring someone from the Success Circle.”

NN-BB awards. Among the 11 participants in the treatment group, ten took the actions

they listed during the pre-interview as being necessary to accomplish their goals. Three

participants successfully reached their goals (e.g., becoming a Notary Public, repairing a porch,

and paying off a credit card and repairing a car) and seven made partial progress. The amount of

the NN-BB award did not seem to be associated with whether or not participants accomplished

their goals.

The complexity of goals varied widely and NN-BB awards helped some participants

make progress toward more complex and long-term goals that required more time than the six

month period of this study (e.g., starting a business). Paying bills and paying off debts were the

most common uses of NN-BB awards and were often seen as necessary steps to achieve longer-

term goals, often related to education or employment. For example, one participant’s goals were

to clean up her credit, attend ProsperUS (a training program for entrepreneurs), return to college,

and open up a consignment or resale shop. At the follow-up interview, she reported having been

able to pay off four bills and start ProsperUS. While her goal of opening a consignment shop was

not accomplished during the six month study period, she believed she was on her way. She said

the award “help(s) individuals who are less fortunate to overcome long term and short-term goals

by removing barriers that arise” and that she is confident that in five years she will be able to

open the consignment shop.

23
 Another participant used the award to repair her porch and in doing so, made her home

safer, reduced insurance costs, and made progress toward her longer-term goal of retirement.

When asked how she would have repaired the porch without the award, she said, “Probably

paying someone off for a lifetime! Maybe a good friend would have come by and do this little bit

– and then when I get some more money, do more.” Instead, she was able to have the repairs

completed within the six months. By covering the cost of her porch repairs, the award not only

made her house safer, but also meant that she would be able to save more money—both because

she did not need to save for the porch repair and because of the reduced insurance costs—and

brought her closer to her goal of retiring. She now feels more confident that she will be able to

retire and remain in her home.

Economic Self-Sufficiency

To test our hypothesis that economic self-sufficiency would increase over time for all NN

participants and more for participants who received NN-BB awards (treatment group), we

conducted a series of ANOVAs. Two-way repeated measures ANOVAs with one between-

subjects independent variable (group) and one within-subject independent variable (time) were

fit for the overall self-sufficiency score (total self-sufficiency) and for each of the four focus

domains (income, housing, adult education, credit history). Descriptive statistics and ANOVA

results are displayed in Table 2.

For total self-sufficiency, ANOVA revealed a main effect of time, indicating an increase

in self-sufficiency among participants during this study, F(1) = 4.81, p = 0.047. In addition, the

group x time interaction was significant for total self-sufficiency, F(1) = 6.42, p = 0.02,

indicating that the total self-sufficiency score increased more for participants in the treatment

group than in the comparison group. Indeed, an examination of the results shows a slight drop in

24
total self-sufficiency among comparison group participants (from a mean of 37.50 to 37.25),

meaning that the main effect of time was entirely due to increases in scores of treatment group

members.

The group x time interaction was significant for credit history, F(1) = 5.44, p = 0.04,

indicating that scores related to self-sufficiency concerning credit improved more for participants

in the treatment group than for those in the comparison group (in fact for they comparison group

they declined). ANOVAs revealed no main effects for either group or time for any of the four

focus domains and no interaction effects were apparent for income, housing, or education.

To reduce the possibility of Type I error across the five ANOVAs, we also interpreted

results using the Bonferroni Correction. Once the correction was applied and outputs were

assessed at the p = 0.01 level, no main effects or interaction effects were significant.

25
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA Results for Self-Sufficiency by Group and Time

Income Housing Education Credit Total Self-Sufficiency

Group n Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Treatment

Pre-Program 11 2.27 1.19 3.45 1.29 3.91 1.04 2.09 0.30 32.82 6.43

Post-Program 11 3.27 0.65 4.00 1.00 3.92 1.14 2.55 0.52 36.27 4.96

Comparison

Pre-Program 4 3.00 0.82 4.00 1.41 4.00 1.15 2.50 0.58 37.50 8.51

Post-Program 4 3.00 0.82 4.00 1.41 3.50 1.00 2.25 0.50 37.25 7.04

Source df SS/MS F SS/MS F SS/MS F SS/MS F SS/MS F

Group 1 0.30 0.23 0.44 0.16 0.15 0.07 0.02 0.07 46.97 0.62

Time 1 1.47 3.81 0.44 1.69 0.37 1.06 0.06 0.46 15.06 4.81*

Group x Time 1 1.47 3.81 0.44 1.69 0.37 1.06 0.73 5.44* 20.13 6.42*

* p < 0.05

Note: SS/MS: Sum of Squares and Mean Square are equivalent because each source has one degree of freedom.

26
 DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this study is the first to explore the use of unconditional cash transfers

in the United States. Although the study is small and its results should be regarded as

preliminary, we believe it begins to shed light on this practice and its potential to help people

achieve economic self-sufficiency.

This study describes participants’ goals, the barriers they anticipated, and ways that

participation in NN and NN-BB helped them progress toward their goals. Goals related to

education were most frequent, followed by goals related to employment (often specifically

related to starting a business). Finances presented the most frequently anticipated barrier and also

the most frequently experienced, with an even greater number of participants identifying

finances as a barrier at the end of the study period.

It is important to understand that NN-BB was part of the broader Detroit-based NN

program, a unique collaboration between service organizations with the aim of promoting

economic self-sufficiency among community members. As members of NN, all participants had

periodic meetings with a NN staff member and some also chose to participate in groups where

they helped one another work toward personal goals. Participants in this study reported that NN

facilitated their progress toward goals by helping them articulate goals and action steps,

providing encouragement and accountability, connecting them with resources needed to move

toward their goals, and supporting the development of relationships among participants. Any

effects of the NN-BB financial awards must be understood in this larger context.

Both NN and NN-BB were designed to promote autonomy. NN helps people set goals

and connects them with resources, but it is up to the participants themselves to take the actions

needed to accomplish their goals. Findings of this study indicate that NN participants are

27
expected to take actions towards their goals and consistently did so, whether or not they received

NN-BB awards. Similarly, NN-BB puts the responsibility on award recipients to use the money

as they fit. Not only did participants have the autonomy to decide how they planned to use the

award, but they also had the freedom to adjust their plans after receiving the award. These

expectations of autonomy are consistent with the ideas of (Edin & Shaefer, 2015; Ellwood, 1988)

to promote economic self-reliance and likely an important element in the design of effective

programs offering unconditional cash transfers.

The majority of participants used the awards as they initially intended. Some participants

used the awards differently than they planned, but uses were typically similar and contributed to

the end goal, often addressing immediate needs that arose during the study period. These

findings are contrary to criticisms rooted in negative stereotypes that contend that low-income

people will use unrestricted funds for recreational purposes. Moreover, these findings suggest a

major benefit of unrestricted cash transfers, in that they allow recipients to address immediate

needs that may arise and detract from progress toward their primary goals.

Importantly, we found that the distribution of unrestricted cash awards improved the

overall economic self-sufficiency of recipients. As we use the term, overall self-sufficiency is a

summary statistic derived from factors including one’s income, housing, credit history,

education, career training, health care, and other factors related to making ends meet in a

particular locale. The use of such a statistic has had broad application in areas such as policy

formulation, case management, and research. This finding is particularly striking given the small

sample size and suggests that unrestricted cash awards may be a powerful tool for improving

self-sufficiency among low-income populations.

Limitations

28
 One limitation of this study is the small sample size. The size of the study was already

limited by the amount of funds available for NN-BB awards and became even smaller when the

participants who were randomly selected for the treatment group happened to have requested

larger amounts of money than we anticipated. This dynamic created smaller treatment and

comparison groups, but also indicated that the barriers individuals faced were more significant

than we anticipated. It is particularly notable that we found statistically significant differences

between groups given this small sample size, although the significance did disappear when

considered according to the most rigorous standard and adjusted to account for multiple

comparisons.

Participant retention was lower than expected, with one participant from the treatment

group not completing the post-program interview and eight participants from the control group

not completing the post-program interview. Because participants were randomized, there is not

thought to be a fundamental difference between the two groups that hinders internal validity.

Nonetheless, this did create limits in data analysis.

Although incentives were provided, comparison group participants were particularly

difficult to recruit and retain. Of the twelve NN members invited to take part in pre-interviews as

comparison-group members, seven accepted; of the seven, only four also took part in the post-

interviews. These four members may be less than representative of the broader NN population in

ways we don’t understand — possibly being more conscientious or having more flexible

schedules.

An additional limitation is present in the fact that all information was self-reported.

Scores on the NN Self-Sufficiency Matrix and descriptions of how NN-BB awards were used are

based on participants’ responses, which the research team did not attempt to verify. This process

29
invites the possibility that participants might have answered in ways that were socially desirable,

possibly making themselves look more (or less) economically self-sufficient and possibly

obscuring their actual use of funds. They also may give inaccurate descriptions due to

misremembering. Most participants had a positive, pre-existing relationship with the NN staff

member who conducted interviews, which we believe reduced the likelihood that participants

would intentionally misrepresent their situation. Moreover, participants knew that they were

permitted to use the awards as they saw fit and would face no consequences for deviating from

their original plans, so had little need to deviate from the truth. Future researchers might consider

using additional forms of data to corroborate participants’ responses.

Recommendations for Practice

Because this was a research project, we used an experimental method for participant

selection. Individuals were nominated by partner organizations and then randomly selected to

receive the awards. If this program were to continue or be adopted by other practitioners, a more

standard selection criteria should be used. For example, people who are interested in receiving

awards might submit applications directly to the organization and be selected based on pre-

determined criteria, such as the relationship between their request and a goal or prioritization of

requests in certain domains. Selection criteria should be identified through close collaboration

between participating organizations and community members.

Debt was a consistent theme for participants. Understanding the financial background of

participants and their ability to maintain progress, especially when trying to pay off significant

amounts of debt, could be an important step in future NN-BB programs. Financial literacy

classes are a part of NN service activities, but are not required for participants. Combining

30
financial literacy classes and distribution of unrestricted cash awards could be a powerful

strategy for promoting economic self-sufficiency and helping people overcome debt.

This study gave participants complete autonomy in goal selection and how they used

their awards. This practice is supported by research regarding the link between individuals’

autonomy in goal setting and their motivation to pursue the goal (e.g., Koestner, Otis, Powers,

Pelletier, & Gagnon, 2008). However, future practitioners might consider providing additional

support or guidance in this process. It may be useful for practitioners to think about the desired

outcomes and to understand that there are some goals that an award may help more than others.

Participants had positive interactions and relationship with NN case workers and this relationship

could be leveraged to direct goal choices, especially if goals were chosen after the self-

sufficiency scores had been calculated. It will be important for practitioners to balance the

organization’s knowledge and preferences while respecting the lived-experience of participants.

Finally, practitioners may better serve communities by encouraging collaboration across

organizations and engaging in rigorous evaluation of their services. Community organizations,

local foundations, and other nonprofit organizations are often small and disconnected from one

another. Encouraging collaboration among these groups may help community members connect

with valuable resources; NN provides one example of this process in action. Additionally,

evaluating and quantifying the impact these organizations have across communities can produce

evidence to support existing interventions, provide information regarding the barriers faced by

individuals in the local community, and build evidence to support the introduction of a program

similar to NN-BB. Organizations that implement unrestricted cash award programs may benefit

from creating robust follow-up systems that provide data about how awards are used and how

those different uses relate to short- and long-term outcomes.

31
Recommendations for Research

This pilot research project raised questions that warrant additional research. Future work

should examine the effects of how unrestricted cash awards are used, including whether they are

used retrospectively (e.g., to pay off debt or an overdue bill) or prospectively (e.g., for education

or a home repair). Understanding the longer-term impacts of these different uses can provide

information about whether there is a best use of the funds. Because bills occur monthly, it is also

important to consider how recipients who used their funds for bills and debt are prepared to

handle these situations in the future, as well as whether financial education might help them.

Our understanding of unrestricted cash award programs would also benefit from research

with larger samples. Future studies might explore relationships between participant

characteristics, self-sufficiency scores, goals, use of funds, and outcomes. For example, children

create additional expenses and, in this study, the two individuals who did not use the award as

anticipated had children. Research with a larger sample can contribute to a deeper understanding

of how children create financial pressures that may direct where money flows. Having more

participants may also generate more data about ways that encountering emergencies influences

how cash awards are used and hopefully inform strategies that might help people stay on track

financially, even when faced with such emergencies.

More qualitative research would provide greater insight into individuals’ experiences and

inform strategies by which community organizations might best serve low-income communities

and help residents work toward their goals. In-depth interviews, for example, could provide

information about individuals’ goals, the barriers they face, and the strategies that they think

could be most beneficial in helping them overcome those barriers.

32
 Providing cash awards directly to low-income individuals is likely to be controversial and

rigorous research that can demonstrate the value of these program will be important in bringing

this type of program to scale. Researchers should compare the cost of providing cash awards to

the cost of other anti-poverty interventions, as well as the impact of various strategies. Additional

research could be conducted to further corroborate the underlying assumption that low-income

recipients of unrestricted cash awards will use the funds responsibly, rather than on recreation or

as a way of supplanting pay for work. If researchers are able to document positive effects of

unrestricted cash awards, their work may inform anti-poverty policy by reinforcing the

(seemingly obvious) idea that low-income individuals often know what they need to reach their

goals and overcome the barriers they face.

Conclusion

This study explores two strategies for promoting economic self-sufficiency among

residents of a low-income neighborhood in Detroit: NN, a network that connects people to

multiple service providers and to one another, and NN-BB, a program that provides unrestricted

cash awards to help people overcome barriers and meet their goals. Findings suggest that

programs like NN can help people make progress toward their goals and the addition of cash

awards can help even more. Hopefully this study will encourage interest from practitioners,

funders, researchers, and policymakers in implementing, studying, and refining this promising

practice. Findings suggest that building social capital and providing unrestricted cash awards are

strategies with the potential to reduce poverty in the United States.

33
 REFERENCES

Bowles, S., Durlauf, S. N., & Hoff, K. (Eds.). (2006). Poverty Traps. New York; Princeton:

Russell Sage Foundation; Princeton University Press.

Bucks, B. K., Kennickell, A. B., Mach, T. L., & Moore, K. B. (2009). Changes in U.S. Family

Finances from 2004 to 2007: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances. Federal

Reserve Bulletin, 95(February), 1–56.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017). Consumer Expenditures - 2016.

Burhouse, S., Chu, K., Ernst, K., Goodstein, R., Lloro, G., Northwood, J., … Weinstein, J.

(2016). FDIC national survey of unbanked and underbankded households. Retrieved from

https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf

Collier, P. (1998). Social Capital and Poverty (No. 4).

Collins J Michael and Gjertson, L. (2013). Emergency savings for low-income consumers.

Focus, 30(1), 12–17.

DeParle, J. (2012). Harder for Americans to rise from lower rungs. New York Times.

Edin, K. J., & Shaefer, H. L. (2015). $2 a day: Living on almost nothing in America. Boston:

Mariner Books.

Ellwood, D. T. (1988). Poor support: Poverty in the American family. New York: Basic Books.

Faces of economic mobility. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-

analysis/data-visualizations/2013/faces-of-economic-mobility

Few rewards: An agenda to give America’s working poor a raise. (2016). Retrieved from

https://www.oxfamamerica.org/static/media/files/Few_Rewards_Report_2016_web.pdf

Gabler, N. (2016). The secret shame of middle-class Americans. The Atlantic.

GiveDirectly. (n.d.).

34
Haskins, R. (2008). Education and Economic Mobility. Washington, DC.

Hawkins, R. L. (2005). From Self-Sufficiency to Personal and Family Sustainability: A New

Paradigm for Social Policy. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, XXXII(4), 77–92.

Huggett, M., Ventura, G., & Yaron, A. (2011). Sources of lifetime inequality. American

Economic Review, 101(7), 2923–2954. http://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.7.2923

Klapper, L. (2012). Why are so many Americans unbanked? Retrieved from

http://blogs.worldbank.org/allaboutfinance/why-are-so-many-americans-unbanked

Maag, E., Peters, H. E., Hannagan, A., Lou, C., Siwicki, J., Holub, K., … Williams, D. (2017).

Income Volatility: New Research Results with Implications for Income Tax Filing and

Liabilities.

McMahon, T. (n.d.). Historical consumer price index (CPIU-U) data. Retrieved from

https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/HistoricalCPI.aspx?reloaded=tru

Morduch, J., & Schneider, R. (2017). The Financial Diaries: How American Families Cope in a

World of Uncertainty. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Poverty Solutions. (n.d.).

Proctor, B. D., Semega, J. L., & Kollar, M. A. (2016). Income and poverty in the United States:

2015.

Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy,

6.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future.

New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

35
Washtenaw County Michigan (n.d.). Barrier busters. Retrieved from

https://www.washtenaw.org/588/Barrier-Busters

Haushofer and Shapiro, 2013

Dynan, Skinner, & Zeldes, 2004 – in RESOURCES Drive folder

Urahn, S. K., Currer, E., Elliott, D., Weschsler, L., Wilson, D., & Colbert, D. (2012). Pursuing

the American Dream: Economic mobility across generations. Washington, DC: Pew

Charitable Trusts.

Economic Policy Institute & Oxfam America (2016a). Few rewards: An agenda to give

America’s working poor a raise. Retrieved from

https://www.oxfamamerica.org/static/media/files/Few_Rewards_Report_2016_web.pdf

Economic Policy Institute & Oxfam America (2016b). Michigan State Scorecard. Retrieved

from https://policy-practice.oxfamamerica.org/work/poverty-in-the-us/low-wage-

map/scorecard/?state=MI

GiveDirectly (n.d.). Retrieved from https://givedirectly.org/

Proctor, B. D., Semega, J. L., & Kollar, M. A. (2016). Income and Poverty in the United States:

2015. United States Census Bureau, Report P60-256. Retrieved from

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-256.html

United States Census Bureau (2017). QuickFacts. Retrieved from

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/detroitcitymichigan/PST045217

De Mel, S., McKenzie, D. & Woodruff, C. (2012). One-time transfers of cash or capital have

long-lasting effects on microenterprises in Sri Lanka. Science, 335 (24). doi:

10.1126/science.1212973

Evans, D. K. & Popova, A. (2014). Cash transfers and temptation goods: A review of global

36
 evidence. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6886. Retrieved from

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/617631468001808739/pdf/WPS6886.pdf

Ardington, C., Case, A., & Hosegood, V. (2009). Labor supply responses to large social

transfers: Longitudinal evidence from South Africa. American Economic Journal:

Applied Economics, 1 (1), 22–48.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018). A profile of the working poor, 2016. Report 1074. Retrieved

from https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-poor/2016/home.htm

Economic Policy Institute (2018). Wages by Education. State of Working America Data Library.

Retrieved from https://www.epi.org/data/#?subject=wage-education

Koestner, R., Otis, N., Powers, T. A., Pelletier, L., & Gagnon, H. (2008). Autonomous

motivation, controlled motivation, and goal progress. Journal of Personality, 76 (5), 1201

– 1230. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00519.x.

BELOW ARE THE ORIGNAL REFs … the ones in the version you sent me. I think this is a

more inclusive set than my software produced. HOWEVER, I know mine has AT LEAST ONE

(Klapper), maybe more, not contained below.

37
Culhane, D., Gross, K., Parker, W., Poppe, B., & Sykes, E. (2008). Accountability, cost-

effectiveness, and program performance: Progress since 1998. Philadelphia: National

Symposium on Homelessness Research.

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S.

Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and

eliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON. control b  WHY IS SCHWARZER

here? Not alphabetical

Bowles, S., Durlauf, S. N., & Hoff, K. (Eds.). (2006). Poverty Traps. New York; Princeton:

Russell Sage Foundation; Princeton University Press.

Bucks, B. K., Kennickell, A. B., Mach, T. L., & Moore, K. B. (2009). Changes in U.S. Family

Finances from 2004 to 2007: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances. Federal

Reserve Bulletin, 95(February), 1–56.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017). Consumer Expenditures - 2016.

Burhouse, S., Chu, K., Ernst, K., Goodstein, R., Lloro, G., Northwood, J., … Weinstein, J.

(2016). FDIC national survey of unbanked and underbankded households. Retrieved from

https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf

Collier, P. (1998). Social Capital and Poverty (No. 4).

Collins J Michael and Gjertson, L. (2013). Emergency savings for low-income consumers.

Focus, 30(1), 12–17.

DeParle, J. (2012). Harder for Americans to rise from lower rungs. New York Times.

Edin, K. J., & Shaefer, H. L. (2015). $2 a day: Living on almost nothing in America. Boston:

38
 Mariner Books.

Ellwood, D. T. (1988). Poor support: Poverty in the American family. New York: Basic Books.

Faces of economic mobility. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-

analysis/data-visualizations/2013/faces-of-economic-mobility

Few rewards: An agenda to give America’s working poor a raise. (2016). Retrieved from

https://www.oxfamamerica.org/static/media/files/Few_Rewards_Report_2016_web.pdf

Gabler, N. (2016). The secret shame of middle-class Americans. The Atlantic.

GiveDirectly. (n.d.).

Haskins, R. (2008). Education and Economic Mobility. Washington, DC.

Hawkins, R. L. (2005). From Self-Sufficiency to Personal and Family Sustainability: A New

Paradigm for Social Policy. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, XXXII(4), 77–92.

Huggett, M., Ventura, G., & Yaron, A. (2011). Sources of lifetime inequality. American

Economic Review, 101(7), 2923–2954. http://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.7.2923

Klapper, L. (2012). Why are so many Americans unbanked? Retrieved from

http://blogs.worldbank.org/allaboutfinance/why-are-so-many-americans-unbanked

Maag, E., Peters, H. E., Hannagan, A., Lou, C., Siwicki, J., Holub, K., … Williams, D. (2017).

Income Volatility: New Research Results with Implications for Income Tax Filing and

Liabilities.

McMahon, T. (n.d.). Historical consumer price index (CPIU-U) data. Retrieved from

https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/HistoricalCPI.aspx?reloaded=tru

Morduch, J., & Schneider, R. (2017). The Financial Diaries: How American Families Cope in a

World of Uncertainty. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

39
Poverty Solutions. (n.d.).

Proctor, B. D., Semega, J. L., & Kollar, M. A. (2016). Income and poverty in the United States:

2015.

Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy,

6.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future.

New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

Mitnik, P. A. & Grusky, D. B. (2015). Economic Mobility in the United States. Retrieved from

http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2015/07/fsm-irs-report_artfinal.pdf

40