Alternative Forms of Poverty Politics: Working through Ideas of Poverty at the Frontline

Dominant ideologies within poverty governance define poverty as due to individual behavior (Katz, 2013; 2015) and through this narrative of poverty, poverty is seen as a separate issue from inequality (O’Connor, 2001). Social welfare organizations can help maintain these dominant ideologies (e.g.; Hennigan & Speer, 2019) and encounters through frontline service provision can reinforce categories and classify community members as “others” (Elwood & Lawson, 2018). This study focuses on community-based organizations (CBOs) that seek to disrupt this dominant poverty knowledge, or offer new ideas through their frontline work with community members. This study uses the framework of relational poverty (Elwood & Lawson, 2013; 2018) to examine frontline work as a key site for both upholding and contesting dominant ideas of poverty. I examine how ideas about poverty are communicated through frontline interactions between staff and community members and whether and how this can be a space to challenge dominant narratives.

Methods

This paper is from a larger ethnographic study of two community-based organizations (CBOS) in Los Angeles that were selected for the study due to their combination of service and organizing and their critique of traditional service provision, but with key differences on their type of organizing. Data included participant observation for a one-year period at each organization and semi-structured interviews of staff and community members. In examining how staff and community members discuss causes of and solutions to poverty, I included related topics such as gentrification, homelessness and housing, economic opportunities, and criminalization.

Results

Both CBOs formed long-term relationships through community members, and these ongoing interactions provided a way for staff and community members to work through ideas about poverty. While there were similarities in how the two CBOs shared messages around poverty and community, including emphasizing the expertise of community members, I identified key differences. With one CBO drawing from an abolitionist perspective and focusing more on structural causes, their approach included more explicit discussions around causes of poverty. This does not mean that the other CBO avoided conversations, but as a CBO with an asset-based approach, conversations centered more on community assets. The two CBOs then differed in how they presented solutions to poverty. Community members and staff did not always experience radical shifts, but frontline work provided an opening where community members identified connections with other low-income community members and questioned ideas and existing categories.

Conclusion

Stuart (2016) states that without a meaningful reconceptualization of poverty, current challenges within poverty governance will remain. In this study, I examined whether frontline work could be a space to offer new forms of poverty politics. While there were differences in how community members were introduced to new ideas, both CBOs used frontline work as openings to introduce new ideas and help community members to reframe existing ideas. While the goals of offering new forms of poverty politics were not always official or grant-funded outcomes, I discuss this process and how changing narratives about poverty was part of their organizing strategies.