How Poverty Discourse Shapes Service Delivery: A Qualitative Case of Community-Based Nonprofits

Background and Purpose

How poverty is defined as a problem matters for social welfare policy and interventions; a belief that poverty is the fault of the person living in poverty has historically dominated and continues to dominate policy discussions (Katz, 2013; 2015; O’Conner, 2001). While poverty definitions have been examined at national levels and across history, community-based organizations (CBOs) provide key services at the neighborhood level (Allard, 2009; Marwell, 2004).  Local context and organizations’ missions help shape ideas about poverty, which then have significant consequences for on-the-ground practices of nonprofits. This qualitative case study draws from theories of poverty knowledge to examine nonprofits’ discourses about poverty and the community they work in and whether and how these discourses influence service delivery.  

Methods:

This qualitative case study uses interview data of nonprofit senior level management and organizational documents from 17 nonprofits in one low-income urban neighborhood. The selected neighborhood has a long history of organizing with several nonprofits that grew out of activism efforts along with traditional service providers. This provides a unique opportunity to analyze variation within nonprofits and to examine how nonprofits are influenced by their neighborhood history. We used a coding scheme based on the theoretical framework of how problems of poverty are defined and key terms related to poverty knowledge, such as work, individual responsibility and inequality. However, we also allowed for new codes to emerge through the data. Analysis included drawing both comparisons between nonprofits in how they used key terms and comparisons within nonprofits between descriptions from organizational materials and from interviewees.

Results

Data analysis revealed two distinct categories of discourse about poverty at the neighborhood level: 1) a discourse on problems related to individuals and 2) discourse on neighborhood challenges due to political and economic factors.  The nonprofits discussed different concepts dependent upon their poverty discourse, with an individual level discourse more likely to focus on ideas of family or risk factors and a political economy discourse more likely to focus on concepts such as inequality, schools, and race and ethnicity. A nonprofit’s discourse about both place and poverty then influenced how a nonprofit framed their role at the neighborhood level and the role of other institutions and community members in solutions. While these categories of discourse correspond to the different categories from Katz’ archeology (2015), these add an increased understanding of the different concepts that are within these overarching discourses and importantly, how these discourses influence a nonprofit’s work and relationships at the neighborhood level.

Significance

Ideas of community and assumptions of poverty influence how services are provided to low-income communities. It is critical that social workers and researchers better understand how nonprofits discuss communities and the assumptions that underlie service delivery, particularly in low-income neighborhoods. Through examining a broad range of nonprofits in one neighborhood, this study provides a nuanced perspective on different narratives of community and poverty and how this discourse then shapes a nonprofit’s work at a neighborhood level.