Tuesday, September 26, 2017
Framing Project Coach with Regard to Mauricio Miller’s New Book: The Alternative: Most of What You Believe about Poverty is Wrong
In a new book entitled The Alternative: Most of What You Believe about Poverty is Wrong, Mauricio Miller makes the case that social programs designed to help poor people are misguided, and, often, adverse to those being supported. The gist of his main thesis is that: Our helping system for the poor is based on charity, on well-meaning outsiders saving the poor. But the stories, data, and research presented … shows that charity slows progress. He further asserts that after thirty years of a war on poverty the social service sector’s primary accomplishment was to make living in poverty more tolerable for some. As Miller sees it, poor people are just as able as rich people to make decisions about how to improve their lives, and that the only thing that they lack are resources. Throughout the book, Miller argues that if the billions of dollars allocated by government and private sources were given directly to poor people to do the sorts of things that they envision would help their situations, rather than to agencies run by elites who think that they know what is best for those folks, we would be a lot further along in the war on poverty.
Miller has some very credible bona fides. He grew-up as a child of a poor single immigrant mother. Along the way, he observed her struggles, how hard she worked to make ends meet, marveled at her intellect, and was amazed by her creativity. Despite having so many assets, Miller saw his mother’s efforts go relatively unrewarded because of one lacking element; money. As he contends, having more money would have allowed her to leverage latent talents, and to use her entrepreneurial skills to start a business which, in turn, would have made the life of his family much better. Yet, despite being a poor kid, Miller, with her support, succeeds in school and, somehow, goes on to and graduates from the University of California at Berkeley. He then pursues a career as a leader of social service organizations designed to help poor people, wins a MacArthur Award, and is, ultimately, invited as an honored guest to a state of the Union address. Despite all the recognition that he receives, after a twenty-year career in social services, Miller suffers from what might be called a case of imposter syndrome. His epiphany is that while his motives were always pure, his impact on redressing poverty, which were conventional, was a lot less than what others perceived them to be.
Nine months after being honored at the state of the union address, Miller received a call from California Governor Jerry Brown who challenged him to come up with something different, something that might be thought of as a disruptive strategy for fighting poverty. After much thought, he crafts a program called Family Independence Initiative (FII). The gist of this approach entailed honoring his mother’s plight by trusting low income families to find their own solutions for dealing with poverty. As he saw it, the challenge was to eliminate the middle man, and to connect poor people directly with the information and resources that they needed to make real change a reality. While Miller recognized the good work done by social service agencies, he contends that in the many years we, as a society, have attempted to fight poverty, all that such organizations have really done is to make living in poverty more tolerable. He reinforces this point in quoting his mother and sister who stated: If they just gave me a fraction of what they spend trying to help me, we would be so much better off. In Miller’s view, poor people are not lazy or freeloaders waiting for handouts, but creative, innovative, determined, and resourceful.
In thinking about youth development, Miller conveys: To get funding for my youth programs I had to imply that parents were disengaged, uncaring, or incapable. He goes on to write that: he had to convince the donors or foundations that my staff — my programs — are what led to the change in our clients’ lives. We implied or even claimed that without us, without the services we imposed, the parents or guardians could not make progress or make the right decisions. Yet, as Miller conveys, this is clearly a deficit view of low income families upon which social service agencies stake their reason for being, and which creates dependency in persons who are perfectly capable of determining their own futures. He describes a vicious cycle that exists between funders and social service agencies: Foundations and donors want to help those in need so the nonprofits and government agencies provide data depicting the families as needy. That in turn reinforces the funder’s impression that the families cannot change without institutional help, so they continue to fund based on the extent of neediness, thus forcing agencies to generate data on more problems with the community and so on. It really has become a self - perpetuating race to the bottom.
Given Miller’s perspective, where does a program like Project Coach stand with regard to promoting upward mobility in underserved youth? On face value, it may resemble the type of organization that he views as siphoning off resources that could go directly to low-income families. It could also be perceived as ascribing to the deficit model that assumes that outsiders know more about what a community needs than those who live there. In short, is Project Coach just another well-intentioned social service organization that is guilty of poverty pimping?
In pondering this question, I think that the answer is a bit more complicated than Miller’s perspective portrays. Things are not always as clear as programs being organized top-down, as characterized in the social services sector, or, as emerging bottom-up, from community initiatives. Sure, it is true that Project Coach was started by outsiders who were searching for a strategy to help underserved youth living in a poor community improve their lives, but, it is also true that in developing and operating Project Coach many people, representing an array of interests and perspectives, are involved. Although, program directors are employees of Smith College, all part-time staff are teachers and residents of the Springfield community. Most importantly, youth play a critical role in providing adults with their perspectives about various issues, and demonstrate leadership as they add their voices and assist in making decisions about such things as who to recruit as coaches, which graduate student mentors to accept, and even weigh-in on the hiring of program directors. They also help craft and make decisions about how to coach the activities that they oversee. Parents of coaches and players also meet regularly with program staff and teen coaches to provide their insights about Project Coach, and offer suggestions about what they wish to see happening in the future. Additionally, teachers and principals play important roles in how Project Coach is conceived and operationalized. The distinction made by Miller of top-down or down-top organization and decision making is blurred in Project Coach, as it clearly is a collaborative initiative.
In contrast to Miller’s observation about social service organizations siphoning-off funds that might go directly to poor families who know how to use such funds better than well intentioned outsiders who have grandiose ideas about fighting poverty, a counter case can be made that limited dollars can also be used to maximize their effect, if used wisely, and with the backing of those who are the targeted beneficiaries. This has been a consistent theme for Project Coach in that it may have started as an idea in the ivy-covered halls of academia, but quickly morphed into something embraced and embellished by the community in which it resides. School administrators and a prominent youth sports leader urged us to get teens and younger children engaged and active on the fields and gymnasiums in their community which were underutilized, especially during the after-school hours. Along the way, teachers and parents emerged to support what we were doing and to urge us to expand opportunities to more kids in their community. Project Coach, at first, had a very modest program with 10 – 15 teen coaches, and 30 – 50 -- 3rd - 5th grade players that offered one coach training session, and two-1 hour sports sessions each week. After several years, community leaders approached Project Coach, and wanted us to expand the number of coaches, players, and contact hours that it had with kids. They also asked us to include teachers in the mix so that they and their students could strengthen relationships, heretofore, only built on being in the classroom doing academic activities. With this request came an offer to support such growth with community development funds. Today we have 50 or so teen coaches and 150 -- 3rd – 5th graders who participate in academic enrichment and sports several days a week. Given that large waiting lists exist for participating as teen coaches, and as grade school players, youth and their families seemingly perceive value in Project Coach.
While Mauricio Miller makes a compelling case for rethinking how to craft antipoverty programs, I contend that his central argument needs some tweaking. As this blog conveys, there are not only two alternatives to helping poor people living in stressed communities: Top-Down or Bottom-Up. There are also hybrid approaches in which outsiders may initiate a program, and as it develops, others join in and morph it into something that is more penetrating and meaningful to those being served. Others can be community leaders, funders, teachers, parents, and, and even the youth for whom the program is designed. Each group plays an important part in tweaking, running, and sustaining the entity. Ultimately, the best data to support its value to those being served is demand. When demand grows over time, the entity is most likely providing something that people want. Clearly, Miller provides very valuable insights about fighting poverty, and how social service organization may be more of a liability than an asset. Yet, our experience with Project Coach shows that the lines are often blurred regarding collaborative efforts that may start out one way, and subsequently metamorphise into something that communities embrace as their own.
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
My suspicion is that the best youth development programs embrace both clock and cloud logic. Both are necessary to produce youth who can transition seamlessly from childhood to adolescence, and from adolescence to adulthood, but neither approach is sufficient alone. This is a message that is equally important to folks who work in the youth development field who tend to be biased toward one of these approaches or the other, as well as to funders who are looking for payback on their investments. By all means, look at a program’s clock logic, but also understand that the clock ticks inside the cloud.
One thing that is becoming increasingly obvious to those of us interested in youth development is that the complexity of the field can be overwhelming. While everyone’s goals seem to be in one way or another related to building a vibrant, happy, healthy, resilient, and self-sufficient youth, there is a cafeteria aspect to how various theoreticians propose that this can be done. Being somewhat facetious, one can go down the buffet line and take a bit of social-emotional intelligence, some academic enrichment, a helping of college and work readiness, and a portion of health and wellness. As well, most youth development programs have themes such as art, sports, technology, music, etc. that purport to teach core skills that in some way relate to and develop critical assets. Figuring out how program activities and themes relate to asset development, if they do at all, is not an insignificant issue in determining to what extent a program is contributing to a child’s life.
In thinking about this, I have come to realize that no one really has the perfect formula for building a thriving and vibrant kid. One approach to dealing with this problem is provided by those who embrace complexity, and assert that youth development work can be best characterized as an emergent system. In a nut-shell, this line of thinking asserts that reducing complex systems to lower levels provides us with a distorted picture of how the system actually works. To paraphrase the philosopher Karl Popper, youth development work reflects more of a cloud problem, in that a cloud is something that is dynamic, constantly changing, and best studied as a whole. In essence, such thinking relates to my previous post in which I attempted to make the case that youth development is like the powerful effects that we see in Blue Zones, or communities that foster the development of expertise in distance running, squash and baseball. No one or two variables can explain such phenomena. But, being part of a community that uniquely intertwines many interacting variables, where the whole is greater than the simple sum of its parts, seems to be the best way to describe what is happening. Taking an element or two from such a community, and transplanting it to another locale, to determine whether desired outcomes can be replicated seems like a logical and interesting experiment, that, for whatever reasons, has not gained much traction.
On the other hand, an alternative perspective, using Popper’s perspective would be those who view youth work as a clock problem. A clock can be taken apart piece by piece to determine how it works, and put back together again. The whole, is nothing more than the pieces. Approaching youth development in this way would be aligned with folks in the logic model business. They break things down into inputs, that provide support for programs to engage in a range of activities, which, in turn, produce outputs, that, ultimately, lead to a variety of outcomes. Folks who fund youth development programs tend to think like this since they wish to know if, and how their investment is related to whether a program’s activities are connected to how a kid fares in the future. Economists have even produced papers that quantify future monetary returns expected for every dollar invested in a youth development program.
So, is youth development a cloud problem or a clock problem? My experience tells me that it is both. Limited resources make it a clock problem as we must decide what to do and what not to do. As we learn from research design, clock logic will provide us with some inkling as to what is going on with regard to how our activities affect our youth. Using the statistician’s language we can separate variance accounted for from variance that remains unknown. From such a perspective, the process of program development and execution entails adding and subtracting activities to account for more and more of the variance associated with producing healthy, vibrant, and self-sufficient adolescents who are ready and able to transition into adulthood.
Nonetheless, while clock logic provides us with a methodology for sharpening program activities, it does not provide much guidance for the day to day stuff that happens which divert our activities from being executed, as planned, or more importantly, disrupts a child’s life and makes engaging in program activities irrelevant. So much of youth development work entails dealing with the unexpected, and being able to go outside the clock in order to reestablish its significance. This entails cloud logic. A program cannot function if the building in which it is housed is on fire, and a child cannot do homework when her head is ready to explode because of a toothache. Programs and kids are dynamic systems, like clouds, that are in a state of constant flux. When the unanticipated happens, staff must be prepared, and ready to throw whatever they have into resolving the issue.
Friday, February 17, 2017
What do People living in Blue Zones, Egyptian Squash Players, Kenyan Runners, and Dominican Baseball Players Tell Us about Youth Development?
From a youth development perspective, the message that we should take from these observations is that children, adolescence, and adults readily take on the properties of the groups with which they are affiliated. Whether we are focusing on health behaviors, athletic prowess, or economic mobility, where one lives and who one associates with on a day to day basis shapes who we are. My conclusion is that cultural and environmental effects are the most potent factor in how we acquire attitudes, knowledge, skills, and behaviors. Consequently, those of us involved with youth development should understand that our day to day activities and interactions are as powerful in shaping our kids, as are the activities we plan and implement. As Esmeralda Santiago prophetically asserted Tell Me with Whom You Walk and I Will Tell You Who You Are.
The title of this post certainly suggests some strange relationships. Yet, when we attempt to answer the age-old question about how and why we become what we are the age-old adage Tell Me with Whom You Walk and I Will Tell You Who You Are says a lot. This simple theme, and it’s many variations, can even tell us how long we will live, whether we will be a world class runner, an elite squash player, or, even, a major-league baseball player. Certainly, this does not exhaust the possibilities, but illustrates that in virtually any area, knowing with whom a youth associates, tells us a lot about who he is, and who he is becoming. This is so because youth tend to acquire the attitudes, knowledge, skills, habits and lifestyles of the groups to which they belong. Hang out with those having healthy behaviors, and one begins to acquire such behaviors. Join a gang that engages in illegal activities, and pursuing such activities becomes natural to you. Go around with kids valuing education, and you begin to work harder at school. Swimming downstream is a lot easier than swimming upstream. Several illustrations of this phenomenon follow and makes us wonder about how this morphing effect might be leveraged for our work in youth development.
If you want to live longer, try residing in a Blue Zone. These are locales around the world where people normally live into their 90s and 100s. Dan Buettner has identified seven such regions in the world. Not surprisingly, people in these zones tend to have lower rates of cancer, heart disease, and dementia. Rather than having to think about and plan deliberately about lifestyle practices and choices, as we do in the chaos of modern life, folks living in Blue Zones simply engage in normal activities typical of their community. These also happen to promote health and longevity. The profile includes: engaging in regular and moderate physical activity; having a purpose in life; experiencing lower stress; moderating caloric intake; consuming more of a plant-based diet; drinking moderate amounts of alcohol– especially wine; engaging in spiritual/religious activity; being part of active family life; and connecting to one’s community. Although the impact of any of these factors in promoting longevity may be difficult to isolate, what seems clear is that just living as others in their community do, promotes general well-being. A great deal of forethought or will-power is not necessary. It’s just the way people live their lives in these places. Being part of the social fabric is all that is necessary.
Kenyan Runners, Egyptian Squash Players, and Dominican Baseball Players
Can the morphing effect - normal daily activities observation apply to other human activities? That is, how apt is the adage Tell Me with Whom You Walk and I Will Tell You Who You Are in explaining the development of expertise? The answer seems to be that just as Blue Zones promote longevity, other locales where people excel at different things have cultures that promote excellence in specific activities. Ultimately, what we see emerging from such locales is that the most accomplished in the group become world-class performers.
Perhaps, the best example of this is Kenyans as distance runners. Since Kip Keino’s gold medal performance in the 1500 meters at the 1968 Olympics, Kenyan middle and long-distance runners have played a dominant role in international events. For the past forty years, this East African country of about 45 million is producing a disproportional number of world-class middle and long distance runners? But even more remarkable is that most of these runners come from the Kalenjin Tribe, a small minority of about 5 million within the country. Why are Kalenjin’s so good as middle and long-distance runners?
While researchers have been trying to answer this question for some time, it seems to come down to an array of factors that entail culture, geography, lifestyle and body type. These elements seem to fit together seamlessly, producing marvelously primed runners. As pointed out by David Epstein, author of The Sports Gene, Kalenjin runners have very long legs, thin ankles and calves, less mass for their height, and shorter torsos, all of which, makes them more bird-like, and more suited to distance running. Geographically, the Kalenjin, come from the Great Rift Valley, a relatively flat locale, found at an elevation of about 7000 feet. Combined, the terrain and altitude provides ideal conditions for training runners. Additionally, numerous observers have described a lifestyle where children run, often barefoot, all the time, including trips to school, home for lunch, back to school, and home again. As well, the Kalenjin are taught to be mentally tough by the various rituals in which they are expected to partake as they pass into adulthood. Many believe that such experiences develop the capacity to endure physical discomfort, which is also a critical element of middle-distance and long-distance running. Finally, job opportunities are few for Kalenjin’s. They can engage in subsistence farming, or use running, with its rewards, as a way out of poverty. Like other poor kids in many parts of the world they work extraordinarily hard in their training, which by world standards is quite primitive. Taken as an aggregate, one can begin to understand, that being a Kalenjin, growing up in the Great Rift Valley, is like being in a runner’s Blue Zone. There is little question that training is rigorous and that those who reach world-class performance levels deserve great credit. Yet, the conditions that support such achievement seem to be a part of daily life. Those who excel on the world stage come out of this population, and are simply those persons who are on the top end of this distribution. Lifestyle, culture, and environment are the driving forces of running excellence.
Other, less well known, variations of this theme exist in other sports. Why are Egyptians dominating in squash, and Dominicans in baseball? Having a specific body type would seem to be less of a factor in differentiating world class performers in these sports. Acquiring advanced levels of knowledge, skill, and mental toughness would seem to be the key factors. Several analyses, aligned with the normal daily activities – way of life hypothesis explain why and how these countries are producing world-class performers.
Today Egypt appears to be dominating the world squash scene, having three of the top five ranked professional men’s players, winning seven out of the past 12 World Opens, and winning the last three men’s intercollegiate championships. Although, the country has a rich tradition of playing the sport from their British Colonial days, it was not until the 1980s that Egyptians started to emerge on the world scene. This was because talented players were unable to tour internationally prior to then because of political turmoil, and were, thus, forced to stay home, training and competing at various clubs in Cairo. An unintended consequence of this was that younger developing players could observe what elite players did, to train as they trained, and to compete with and against them. Consequently, a culture of growing-up and playing the sport at Cairo clubs emerged. As travel opportunities became possible again in the 1980s, the best of these club youths began appearing in and winning prestigious national and international events.
A variation on this theme is also found in explaining why a small country like the Dominican Republic produces so many professional baseball players. During the 1980s major league baseball teams began investing in building an infrastructure for the game there. Today, all 30 teams have facilities. Their intent, just as with their extensive farm system, was to cultivate talent. Coupled with an economy in which over one third of residents live in poverty, baseball prowess took on great importance. With few other options, playing professional baseball became a goal for large numbers of Dominican youth. From a young age kids in flip-flops swing sticks at bottle caps aspiring to move up to training academies where older youth sleep, eat, and live baseball. From some descriptions, the player development academies are like factories that churn out baseball players, many of whom are major league prospects. Last season, a bit over 10% of players in major league baseball came from the Dominican Republic. In a land with meager opportunities and the popularity of the sport, kids, in large numbers, follow the path of living the sport by putting in hours acquiring knowledge and skill at the game, often at the expense of pursuing education in other areas.
From these observations one can begin to understand why groups of people tend to take on certain characteristics, whether these are connected to health and longevity or athletic prowess. What we learn from such examples is that culture and environment play a powerful role in shaping a population, and the world-class exemplars who emerge from growing-up in such an ecosystem. While we might be distracted by focusing our attention on the most extraordinary individuals arising from a group, it is really the population distribution, as a whole, that gives us a window into understanding how lifestyle and culture are the basis for excellence, wherever we may find it.
New research from Chetty and Hendren,  finds that these same sorts of effects also impacts intergenerational mobility. Specifically, they show that children from low income families living in low income communities who move at birth to a wealthier county have 10% higher incomes as adults. They assert that the effects of living in a wealthier community are cumulative and include such things as access to better schools, being part of and around more stable families, living in safer neighborhoods, connecting with broader sources of social capital, and aspiring to and attending college. Chetty and Hendren’s work also shows a dose-effect relationship in that the more years a child coming from a poor family lives in a wealthier community, the greater the benefits. Taken as an aggregate, this is another example, of how powerful environment, culture and lifestyle is in shaping lives.
 Sardinia and Acciaroli, Italy; Okinawa, Japan; Loma Linda, California; Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica; Icaria, Greece; and Oland-Smalamd-Skane, Sweden
 Epstein, D. J. (2013). The sports gene: Inside the science of extraordinary athletic performance. New York: Current
 Chetty, R., & Hendren, N. (2016). The impacts of neighborhoods on intergenerational mobility I: Childhood exposure effects. (Working Paper No. 23001). Cambridge, MA 02138: National Bureau of Economic Research.
 Chetty, R., & Hendren, N. (2016). The impacts of neighborhoods on intergenerational mobility II: Childhood exposure effects. ( No. 23002). Cambridge, MA 02138: National Bureau of Economic Research.
 1 standard deviation wealthier community