Getting More out of Less: Qualitative Insights into Agency Among Individuals Living in Poverty in New York City

Background and purpose: The structural barriers associated with poverty have far-reaching consequences for individuals, families, and communities. The dominant discourse and policies portray people in poverty as passive victims or personally responsible of their situation. While research suggests that individuals experiencing poverty enlist various strategies to actively cope with poverty it mainly focuses on short-term strategies that are used to make ends meet. While short-term strategies are vital to people’s survival, this narrowed focus misses the opportunity to explore more long-term strategies individuals use to get out of poverty.

This articles seeks to provide a more nuanced understanding of both short-term and long-term strategies individuals employ in private and public spheres, and the function these strategies serve by using Lister’s (2004) conceptualization of agency in the context of poverty.  

Methods: Individual in-depth interviews were conducted with 60 inhabitants (88% females and 12% males) of the Bronx and East Harlem. Participants received welfare benefits and had children under the age of 18. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Using analytic induction techniques, themes and patterns were identified through repeated readings of transcribed interviews. Lister’s conceptual framework informed our analysis by providing theoretical constructs and sensitizing concepts.

Results: All participants used strategies both in private and public spheres to cope with financial hardships. These strategies were grouped in four categories using Lister’s conceptual framework. Strategies to “get by” ranged from careful budgeting of existing resources at home to persistence and patience at the welfare office. Participants also relied on their social networks for practical and emotional support to get through the day. Some participants also looked for informal job opportunities (i.e. maintenance work) in their community. “Getting (back) at” strategies, which are defined as resistance against the system and society for personal survival, mainly involved dissociating oneself from the negative labeling and shaming imposed by the welfare system and the society. Participants also advocated for their rights when the welfare office was unresponsive. Strategies around “Getting out” of poverty extensively focused on short and long-term plans and efforts for finding a job and going back to school. However, such efforts were undermined by the same policies and programs that were in place to help individuals to get out of poverty. Finally, participants also engaged in “getting organized” strategies to challenge barriers in place for not only themselves but for the future of their community and children. Participants took active roles in their children’s schools. Some wrote or talked to City Councilmen to convey and advocate for the needs of their community. Others were involved in community work and outreach through their church, all with the hope of making their communities better and healthier.

Conclusion: The findings indicate that in addition to short-term and personal survival strategies, individuals also strive to engage in strategies that are beneficial for themselves and their communities in the long-term. Policies and programs should be designed to minimize or eliminate structural barriers and support individuals in poverty in their endeavors to make changes in themselves and their communities.