choose two of the people introduced in this section, and answer the following questions.

Building a Research and Advocacy Agenda on Issues of Economic Justice

Heather E. Bullock* University of California–Santa Cruz

Bernice Lott University of Rhode Island

In this article we call for a research agenda focused on classism and poverty and for advocacy of social justice. Examples of recent efforts toward such an agenda are discussed, including the American Psychological Association’s adoption of its “Resolution on Poverty and Socioeconomic Status.” In response to the resolu- tion’s call for more research on classist attitudes and discrimination against the poor, we outline several directions for future research. Recommendations for how psychological research can be used to advocate for economic justice are offered.

During the 1980s and 1990s, economic disparity between the rich and poor— and between the rich and middle class—grew dramatically, reinforcing already deep class divisions. Between 1979 and 1997, the after-tax income of the poorest 20% of U.S. households decreased by $100 (from $10,900 to $10,800, adjusted for inflation and expressed in 1997 dollars), whereas the top 1% of households enjoyed an increase of 157% in their after-tax income (from $263,700 to $677,900; Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 2001). Gains made by the middle fifth of households were modest, reflecting a 10% increase (from $33,800 to $37,200).

Such statistics have far-reaching implications for health, access to education, and financial security. Yet they rarely make newspaper headlines. Dismissed as the rhetoric of “class warfare,” inequality is seldom framed as an “income distribution problem” in the popular media (Iyengar, 1990; Rice, 2001). And poverty continues

Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2001, pp. 147–162

147

© 2001 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues

*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Heather E. Bullock, Depart- ment of Psychology, Social Sciences II, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 [e-mail: [email protected]].

to be attributed to personal failure and “welfare dependency” (de Goede, 1996; Gans, 1995; Sidel, 1996).

Mainstream psychology has done little to challenge these negative construc- tions. Most psychological research still utilizes White, college-educated samples (Reid, 1993; Saris & Johnson, 2000), resulting in a body of knowledge that takes middle-class experiences, standpoints, histories, and problems to be normative. Within social psychology, sizeable bodies of literature focus on ethnicity and rac- ism and gender and sexism, whereas socioeconomic status and classism have received little empirical investigation (Bullock, 1995; Lott, 2001).

Some psychologists have gotten on board the mainstream gravy train directed at “fixing” poor people—whether through “welfare reform” or through the deliv- ery of “services” (e.g., parent “training,” budget planning, counseling). Polakow (1995, p. 268) points out that many “in the human-service professions have built their careers as the direct beneficiaries of poverty” and that “diagnosis and remediation are the essential ingredients of a proliferating deficit/pathology busi- ness.” Such work is profitable for social scientists and human service professionals but only seldom addresses the needs articulated by poor people themselves and seldom focuses on the basic problem: the unequal distribution of resources and the economic, political, and psychological processes that maintain it.

By accepting the ways of framing research questions supported by the more powerful, we ignore other questions. Thus, welfare is seen as the problem rather than poverty. Focusing on the latter leads to investigating such issues as the poten- tial personal and family consequences of raising minimum wages and taking seri- ously the words of William Julius Wilson (cf. Sengupta, 2001, p. 3) that when “[y]ou make work pay, you lift people out of poverty.” When one comes to the research agenda with a focus on poverty, what demands explanation are such phe- nomena as the continued growth in the number of homeless families in U.S. cities (Bernstein, 2001) and the fact that 10% of the nation’s hospitals violate a federal rule requiring them to provide emergency care to all regardless of ability to pay (“Hospitals,” 2001).

As New York Times columnist Bob Herbert (2001) concluded recently, “The poor are pretty well hidden from everyone except each other in the United States.” And although they remain largely hidden in mainstream psychology, we see signs that interest in poverty and economic inequality is growing. A prominent example is the American Psychological Association’s (APA; 2000) adoption of the “Reso- lution on Poverty and Socioeconomic Status,” which encourages increased research, training, and advocacy in these areas. Building on this momentum, we offer a feminist, social psychological framework that addresses the structural nature of inequality and outline several potential lines of research and advocacy that focus on the antecedents and consequences of economic disparity and classist discrimination. We begin with a brief overview of the structural nature of poverty and inequality in the United States and close with recommendations for how

148 Bullock and Lott

psychological research can be used to advocate for economic justice. Although poverty and inequality are global problems with far-reaching consequences (Lott, 2000), our analysis here focuses on the United States.

The Structural Nature of Poverty and Inequality

Since the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA; P.L. 104-196), welfare caseloads in the United States as well as the number of food stamp recipients have declined sharply (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2000). This fact has been widely reported by policymakers as evidence of “welfare reform’s” success, with little regard for how families fare after leaving the welfare system (Bullock, Wyche, & Williams, 2001).

The focus on declining welfare caseloads (from 12.6 million recipients in 1996 to 6.3 million in 1999; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000) creates an illusion of “progress” that diverts attention from ongoing prob- lems of poverty. The gap between need and assistance appears to be widening. The U.S. Census Bureau (2001a) reports that in 2000, 31.1 million people (11.3%) lived below official poverty thresholds ($17,463 for a family of four with two chil- dren under 18), and as families struggle to survive with declining governmental assistance, conditions appear to be worsening. Food insecurity, homelessness, and utility termination are increasing, particularly among those for whom low wages have replaced welfare (Boushey & Gunderson, 2001; California Budget Project, 2001; Children’s Defense Fund, 2000).

Because PRWORA was intended to move poor women off the welfare rolls, not alter the structural inequities that create and maintain poverty, stories of grow- ing hardship are not surprising. PRWORA supporters repeatedly said that their aim was to eliminate welfare; no one talked about eliminating poverty. PRWORA’s explicit goals are to “end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage,” the prevention and reduction of “out-of-wedlock pregnancies,” and the “formation and maintenance of two- parent families” (p. 9). The legislation does not mention reducing poverty and its structural causes (e.g., income inequality, discrimination in the labor market, rac- ism, and sexism).

O’Connor (2000) has called for a “post-reform” agenda that brings these structural forces to the forefront of poverty research. “Ultimately,” she writes, “the task of imagining a different future does not rest with social science alone. But it does require a different kind of knowledge than what we have known as poverty research. A starting point is to shift the focus of research, away from the character- istics and failings of poor people, and toward those of a mainstream political econ- omy and culture that relegates so many people to economic insecurity and social marginality” (p. 557).

Building a Research and Advocacy Agenda 149

Poverty is rarely contextualized in the broader framework of inequality, and annual poverty statistics are not published alongside statistics on income. Stories about wealth and income disparities seldom appear in the mainstream media, and disparity is sometimes described favorably. For example, in a recent Newsweek editorial, Samuelson (2001) argues that inequality is a “fashionable bugaboo.” Dis- missing the seriousness of inequality, he writes:

Poverty is a serious problem, but inequality is not—and the two are different, although they’re routinely confused. The problem of poverty is more than a momentary period of low income. It involves persisting low income and an inability to “get into the mainstream” as a result of meager work skills, family breakdown, disability or bad luck. By contrast, inequal- ity is the gap between the rich and the poor [and] increases if the rich simply get richer faster than everyone else. (p. 45)

But more than sufficient data have accumulated to support the conclusion that inequality has far-reaching consequences (Lott, 2001) for health (e.g., mortality rates, access to health care), political power (e.g., access to government services), and education (cf. Kerbo, 1996). Problematizing the poor while neglecting inequal- ity legitimizes the gap between the rich and the poor in income and other resources, that is, in power, and strips poverty of the contextual factors that produce it.

In the United States, income disparities were wider in the latter half of the 1990s than at any other point in the post–World War II era (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000a) and are wider than in any other industrialized country (Kerbo, 1996). The term “income” is typically used to describe “money, wages, and payments that are periodically received as returns from an occupation or investments” (Kerbo, 1996, p. 19). Recent analyses illustrate the dramatic growth in income inequality in the United States. In 1979, the bottom 40% of the population received nearly two- and-a-half times as much in after-tax income as the top 1% of the population, but by 1997, the top 1% received nearly as much income as the entire bottom 40% (Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 2001).

The distribution of wealth (e.g., real estate, stocks, bonds, funds held in reserve) is even more extreme than that of income (Keister & Moller, 2000; Kerbo, 1996). In the early 1920s, the top 1% of the population owned approximately 30% of the nation’s wealth; by 1995, the share of wealth owned by the top 1% of the population had increased to 38.5%. The top 20% of the population now owns 83.6% of the country’s wealth, whereas 16.4% is shared by the remaining 80% of the population (Keister & Moller, 2000).

Analyses that take gender and ethnicity into account reveal further inequities. In 1999, the female-to-male earnings ratio dropped to .72 from its all-time high of .74 in 1996 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000b)—hardly an achievement of parity. Women’s median earnings in 1999 remained statistically unchanged from 1998, at $26,324, whereas men’s median earnings increased for the third consecutive year to $36,476 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000b). Median incomes also vary considerably across ethnic groups. In 1999, European Americans earned a median income of

150 Bullock and Lott

$44,366, whereas the median incomes of African Americans and Hispanics were $27,910 and $30,735, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000b). Household net worth reflects even greater disparity. Net worth is calculated by subtracting liabili- ties (e.g., credit card debt, loans) from the sum of the market value of assets (e.g., bank accounts, bonds, real estate). In 1995, the median net worth for White house- holders ($49,030) was considerably higher than the $7,073 and $7,255 reported for African American and Hispanic householders, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001b).

The burden of poverty falls most heavily on women, particularly women of color (Rice, 2001). Among female-headed households, 16.9% of European Ameri- cans, 34.6% of African Americans, and 34.2% of Hispanics were poor in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001a). (For a review of recent poverty statistics, see Lott and Bullock, 2001a.)

Thus, economic arrangements maintain traditional power relations (Piven & Cloward, 1993). In the following sections of this article, we examine collective efforts among psychologists toward achieving economic justice and the need for a strong research agenda on issues of poverty and classism.

Growing Concern With Poverty and Economic Justice

Particularly noteworthy is the previously mentioned adoption by the APA (2000) of its “Resolution on Poverty and Socioeconomic Status.” The resolution, which originated in the Committee on Urban Initiatives (CUI), amply documents the consequences of inequality for development, health, and well-being and out- lines needed research, training, and advocacy. The resolution calls for more research on the causes and impact of poverty, prejudicial attitudes toward the poor, strategies by low-income individuals and others to reduce poverty, and the evalua- tion of antipoverty and income support programs. It also calls attention to the need for social policies that improve access to high-quality education, health care, and child care and promote adequate income, sufficient food and nutrition, family- friendly workplace policies, and safe housing.

Following the passage of PRWORA, members of APA’s Division 35 (Society for the Psychology of Women) formed a task force on women, poverty, and public assistance. This task force, chaired by Joy Rice and Karen Wyche, wrote a major report, Making Welfare to Work Really Work (1998), which was edited and pub- lished by APA’s Women’s Office and Public Policy Directorate. The booklet, dis- tributed to policymakers and psychologists at both federal and state levels, offers policy recommendations related to child care, domestic violence, and job training. The work of the task force continued under the leadership of Heather Bullock and Bernice Lott, resulting in a recent issue of the Journal of Social Issues (JSI; Lott & Bullock, 2001b), the initiation of the “Resolution on Poverty and Socioeconomic

Building a Research and Advocacy Agenda 151

Status,” and cooperative work with CUI that led to the resolution’s adoption by the Council of Representatives.

Most recently, a coalition of APA divisions for social justice (DSJ) joined together to work cooperatively and selected poverty as one of its central concerns. Together with CUI, the DSJ lobbied (albeit unsuccessfully) for a cluster on poverty at the 2002 APA conference.

Special editions of Community Psychology (Toro, 1999), Feminism and Psy- chology (Walkerdine, 1996), Women and Therapy (Hill & Rothblum, 1996), and the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry (Bassuk, 1996) have examined home- lessness, social class in clinical and research relationships, and welfare. In recent issues of the JSI, Zuckerman and Kalil (2000) focus on some of the consequences of welfare reform, and Lott and Bullock (2001b) attempt to present the standpoint of low-income women. A third JSI issue on social class in educational contexts, edited by Ostrove and Cole, is in preparation.

Scholars in other disciplines are also organizing around poverty. The Com- mittee of 100 has launched a national campaign to raise awareness of women’s poverty and welfare rights. Prior to PRWORA’s passage, the group placed a full page advertisement in the New York Times decrying the legislation. Declaring that “a war on poor women is a war against all women,” the advertisement sought to unify women across socioeconomic groups. In preparation for PRWORA’s reauthorization in 2002, the group has developed a legislative agenda to reverse punitive time limits and family cap policies and to increase educational options and supports for poor women <www.welfare2002.org>.

A lively debate about “scientific objectivity” and the role of social scientists as political critics and advocates (Fine & Barreras, 2001; Kalil, 2001; Steinitz & Mishler, 2001; Zuckerman, 2001) has appeared here in Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, following the JSI issue on welfare by Zuckerman and Kalil (2000). We agree with Steinitz and Mishler that one of our most important contri- butions to research and social policy comes from not accepting, but rather ques- tioning and deconstructing, official definitions of “the problem” and moving beyond acceptance of the “solutions” put in place by those in power. To accept Kalil’s (2001) notion that “[t]he task for social scientists is to conduct research that can help better understand who can succeed under this new system” is to let our agenda be set by others whose goals may be in sharp conflict with the promotion of health and welfare for all people. Such acceptance narrows our field of vision and may be irresponsible. Zuckerman (2001) accepts generalizations about what “the American public” wants or does not want without an analysis of who constitutes this “public,” how its beliefs and attitudes are shaped, and what responsibility we have as psychologists to counter stereotypes about, and discrimination against, the poor.

Along with an increased commitment by psychologists to promote economic justice and respect for the skills and dignity of low-income people is an appreciation

152 Bullock and Lott

of the considerable work that we can and should do. In the following section, we outline a research agenda that builds on the recommendations in the APA resolution and advances our understanding of how economic disparity influences all aspects of personal and social life.

Building a Research Agenda Around Poverty and Inequality

Social psychology, and The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues in particular, is distinguished by a long-standing commitment to studying social problems and promoting social justice. This is evident in the impressive body of research examining racism, sexism, strategies for improving intergroup relations, and attitude change. Feminist psychologists have also contributed to this body of knowledge, not only through scholarship on the impact of ethnicity, gen- der, and class on women’s lives, but also through their critique of assumptions about “objectivity” and “value-free” science and their appreciation of the value of using multiple methods in research.

Qualitative studies, grounded in feminist epistemology, provide some of the most sophisticated, contextualized analyses of low-income mothers (Dodson, 1998; Edin & Lein, 1997; Fine & Weis, 1998; Seccombe, 1999). And participatory research methods, influenced by ethnography as well as by feminist philosophy, are changing how we study oppression and social change (Tolman & Brydon- Miller, 2001). Yeich and Levine’s (1992) case study detailing the organizing of a union by homeless persons illustrates the transformative potential of these alter- native action-based approaches. Such approaches are called “solidarity work” by Mishler and Steinitz (2001), who have presented numerous examples and discussed the challenges of engaging in such research.

The research agenda that we propose draws on critical race theory and the Marxist emphasis on the material bases of social class. Consistent with these frameworks, we recognize that social relations and institutions are constructed to maintain structural inequality, serving the interests of those in power. As a result, attempts at social change are met with considerable resistance. Commenting from a critical race perspective, Bell (1997) states, “White elites will tolerate or encour- age racial progress for minorities only if doing so also promotes white self-interest. Thus civil rights laws are a mechanism to permit racial progress at a pace accept- able to broader society” (p. 3). We extend this type of analysis to class relations, noting that the adoption of serious antipoverty policy in the United States is unlikely if keeping certain groups poor (e.g., women, minorities of color) benefits those in power.

In the following section, we outline several lines of research that respond to the APA’s call for “more research on prejudicial and negative attitudes toward the poor” by individuals or institutions that perpetuate (and profit from) policies that promote social inequality. The proposed agenda focuses on classism (the network

Building a Research and Advocacy Agenda 153

of attitudes, assumptions, beliefs, behaviors, and institutional practices that main- tain and legitimatize class-based power differences), which privileges middle- and higher-income groups at the expense of the poor and working classes. Our sugges- tions underscore the need for research that examines how classist beliefs and behaviors create and maintain economic disparity.

Understanding and Challenging Classist Beliefs

Commenting on the processes that maintain inequality, Crompton (1998) argues, “No persisting structure of economic and social inequality has existed in the absence of some kind of meaning system(s) which seek both to explain and jus- tify the unequal distribution of societal resources” (p. 1). In the United States, inequality is maintained through a network of interrelated beliefs about equal opportunity, class mobility, the individualistic nature of wealth and poverty, and negative stereotypes about the poor. Describing these intersections, Crompton states that “[i]f all have an equal opportunity . . . then the unequal outcomes must be regarded as justified and fair, as a reflection of ‘natural’ inequalities of personal endowments, rather than of structured social processes” (p. 7).

The individual-centered, “blame-the-victim” approach that Crompton describes is at the heart of classist beliefs that portray the poor as lazy, unable to defer gratifica- tion, lacking respect for or interest in education, and unwilling to work, so they must be coerced into doing so by governmental policies. Welfare recipients, particularly women of color, are stereotyped as sexually irresponsible, amoral, and ineffective mothers (Augustin, 1997).

In the United States, individualistic attributions for poverty (e.g., laziness, lack of motivation) and wealth (e.g., hard work, ability) are generally favored over structural explanations for poverty (e.g., being taken advantage of by rich people, low wages) and wealth (e.g., class privilege, political influence and “pull”; Bull- ock, 1999; Cozzarelli, Wilkinson, & Tagler, 2001; Feagin, 1972; Furnham, 1982, 1983; Hunt, 1996; Smith, 1985; Smith & Stone, 1989). Support for individualistic attributions is stronger among those who are advantaged by current economic arrangements (e.g., European Americans, men, and middle-income groups) than among those with fewer resources (e.g., minorities of color, women, and low- income people; Bullock, 1999; Kluegel & Smith, 1986).

In addition to comparing perceptions among different socioeconomic groups, the relationship between classist beliefs and welfare policy has been examined. Individualistic attributions for poverty are positively correlated with support for restrictive welfare policies, whereas structural explanations are associated with more progressive policies (Bullock, 1999). Belief in a just world (Harper, Wag- staff, Newton, & Harrison, 1990), in the Protestant work ethic (Wagstaff, 1983), in income inequality (Kluegel & Smith, 1986), and in racial prejudice (Kluegel & Bobo, 1993) are also correlated with individualistic attributions for poverty,

154 Bullock and Lott

suggesting that a web of interrelated beliefs influences judgments about the poor and welfare policy.

These studies inform our understanding of classist beliefs, but a number of gaps exist in the current literature. Research that examines a broader range of eco- nomic beliefs and their relationship to public policy is needed. Far more attention has focused on attributions for poverty than beliefs about income inequality or wealth. Yet believing that wealth is the “natural” outcome of differential merit or that it is a reflection of personal ambition may play as great a role in maintaining class privilege and justifying classist policies as attributing poverty to laziness or financial irresponsibility. For example, Smith and Stone (1989) found that the majority of their respondents supported individualistic attributions for wealth, explaining affluence in terms of hard work, risk taking, perseverance, talents, and drive. Further research is needed to examine how attributing wealth to personal effort influences support for policies that hurt the poor and benefit the wealthy (e.g., capital gains).

Many other beliefs, including support for capitalism, the legitimacy of class hierarchy, and social dominance (Sidanius, Levin, Rabinowitz, & Federico, 1999) must also be examined, as should attitudes toward a broad range of economic poli- cies, not just “welfare.” A thorough understanding of classist attitudes requires understanding the beliefs and policies that devalue the poor as well as those that privilege the nonpoor. This requires that psychologists look at public support for living wage, child care, and housing legislation, for example, as well as policies that target middle- and upper-income groups (e.g., inheritance taxes, tax breaks for corporations).

Previous research tends to fall into one of two categories: survey data that describe general beliefs about poverty (e.g., attributions for poverty) or experimen- tal research that examines classist stereotypes by asking respondents to make judgements about targets who vary in terms of class, ethnicity, and gender (e.g., Lott & Saxon, in press). Both lines of research reveal that distinctions are often made between the “deserving” (e.g., children, veterans) and “undeserving” (e.g., single mothers, minorities of color, immigrants) poor. Integrated analyses of these variable sets will considerably enhance our understanding of how belief systems interact with target characteristics, providing a more accurate picture of who dis- criminates against whom and how judgments of “deservingness” are made.

Finally, we have much to learn about how classist prejudice may be reduced. Compared with racism and sexism, very little attention has focused on reducing classism, although promising approaches may be drawn from previous work in the area. Intergroup contact (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000) and explicit and implicit attitude change (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2000) should be studied in the context of social class. Framing techniques that depict poverty as a structural problem may also prove to be useful (Iyengar, 1990).

Building a Research and Advocacy Agenda 155

Reducing classism presents its own unique challenges. Unlike racism and sex- ism, classism is rarely acknowledged as a significant problem in the United States. Eliciting empathy for the poor may be particularly difficult because class is per- ceived as an achieved, rather than an ascribed, characteristic, unlike race/ethnicity and gender. Poverty is seen to result from the attitudes, behaviors, and values of the poor. Effective prejudice reduction strategies will need to challenge deeply held beliefs about the permeability of class barriers in the United States and question the cultural emphasis on “rags-to-riches” stories.

Looking Beyond Declining Caseloads: Welfare Racism and the Use of Sanctions

Whereas classist attitudes and beliefs “put the poor in their place,” classist institutions and policies keep them there. Discriminatory practices and policies have been documented in a range of institutional contexts, including the public schools, the legal system, health care, and the welfare system (see Lott, 2001). We need research that examines the experiences and treatment of low-income women and men within these institutions and especially within the welfare system that practices what Neubeck and Cazenave (2001) refer to as “welfare racism.”

Scholars of welfare policy document a long history of sexism and racism within the welfare system (Katz, 1989; Lieberman, 1998; Quadagno, 1994; Wilthorn, 1996). “White only” pensions for widowed mothers during the early part of the 20th century and the use of “suitable home” and “man-in-the-house” rules to disqualify potential Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) recipients are but two examples (Neubeck & Cazenave, 2001). Although current welfare policies do not explicitly target women of color, the policies and their implementation are racialized (Neubeck & Cazenave, 2001). Support for time limits and “family cap” rules were fueled by discourse that was dominated by racially charged images of intergenerational poverty, the “underclass,” and female-headed households (Gans, 1995; Gilens, 1999; Neubeck & Cazenave, 2001). Augustin’s (1997) critical race analysis of Black motherhood and Wisconsin’s learnfare policy provides a power- ful illustration of the racialized nature of “welfare reform.” The punitive aspects of “welfare reform,” such as time limits, are expected to have a disproportionate impact on families of color, because they are overrepresented on the welfare rolls and tend to receive assistance longer than White families (Savner, 2000).

Critiquing the “race-neutral” tone that pervades evaluations of “welfare reform,” Neubeck and Cazenave (2001) call for research that examines how racism shapes welfare policy and the delivery of social services. Studying discrimination against low-income women in the applied contexts in which it occurs (e.g., social services, the legal system, schools, and health care) will provide a more sophisti- cated, situationally grounded understanding of how class and race-based power is manifested in our relationships, institutions, and policies.

156 Bullock and Lott

The punitive sanctions called for in “welfare reform” illustrate “welfare rac- ism.” PRWORA requires that states enforce at least a partial reduction of benefits if families do not satisfy the legislation’s work requirements. States also have the authority to adopt more stringent penalties than those prescribed by the legisla- tion. Thirty-seven states impose financial sanctions for noncompliance with work and/or other requirements (15 impose a sanction immediately, and 22 others grad- ually reduce benefits); 6 states remove the adult in the family from the grant; and 8 states apply financial penalties for noncompliance but do not completely elimi- nate cash assistance (Pavetti & Bloom, 2001). In most states, the first sanction lasts up to a month or until the family member complies with work requirements, but for repeated noncompliance, the sanction lasts at least 3 months, even if the family member complies during that time (U.S. Government Accounting Office, 2000).

In a report to Congress, the Department of Health and Human Services (2000) reported that 6.2% of families receiving cash assistance under the new welfare plan (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families; TANF) exited the system due to sanc- tions. Similarly, a Government Accounting Office (2000) analysis found that 135,800 families (5% of the total receiving benefits) were sanctioned for non- compliance with work requirements and/or other responsibilities during an aver- age month in 1998. Most sanctions were partial, with 112,700 families receiving reduced cash benefits in that month. The remaining 23,100 families were subject to full-family sanctions, involving the cessation of all cash benefits for that month. Other studies report even higher sanction rates. Goldberg and Schott (2000) esti- mate that between 1997 and 1999, 540,000 families lost benefits because of full-family sanctions. In seven of the states they studied, sanctions accounted for one-fifth or more of the case closures in 1999. Similarly, other studies have found that in a 12- to 24-month period, one-quarter to one-half of families receiving TANF benefits are sanctioned (Children’s Defense Fund, 2000; Hamilton & Scriv- ener, 1999). These studies tell a much different story about the nature of declining welfare rolls than national news stories (Bullock et al., 2001), one that casts doubt about the success of “welfare reform” and raises questions about who leaves wel- fare and why.

Sanctions are emerging as a social justice issue among welfare rights activists seeking to protect the most vulnerable families from losing their benefits. Sanc- tioned parents tend to be less educated than current recipients and possess fewer job skills and less work experience than those who leave the system for employ- ment (Children’s Defense Fund, 2000). Difficulties securing transportation and child care and language barriers, as well as higher rates of physical and mental health problems, chemical dependency, and domestic violence are prevalent among sanctioned adults (Goldberg & Schott, 2000; Pavetti & Bloom, 2001; U.S. Government Accounting Office, 2000).

Building a Research and Advocacy Agenda 157

An analysis of state TANF policies found that states with larger minority pop- ulations have stricter sanctions, time limits, and “family cap” polices than states with fewer minorities (Soss, Schram, Vartanian, & O’Brien, 2001). Racist hiring practices (Holzer & Stoll, 2000; Neckerman & Kirchenman, 1991; Solis, 2001) that make it difficult to obtain employment and prejudicial caseworker attitudes (Gooden, 1998; Gordon, 2001) may further increase the likelihood that racial and ethnic minorities will be disproportionately affected by sanctions. Yet race/ ethnicity and its relation to sanction patterns is noticeably absent from most “wel- fare reform” research, an omission that is racist, in and of itself (Neubeck & Cazenave, 2001).

Research on “welfare racism” illustrates the active role psychologists can play in reconstructing the “truth” about poverty and welfare. With the well-being of millions of poor families at stake, we cannot afford to just “scratch the surface” and let declining welfare rolls define our nation’s success in dealing with these issues. And we cannot accept findings about declining numbers below the poverty line without examining how this line is determined, how many millions of families hover just above it, and what it means for a U.S. family of four to live on $17,463 a year (the poverty line). Racism and sexism within the welfare system and in the larger society must be systematically documented through interviews, archival records, and observational data. These experiences must be put into the context of the macrolevel forces that create and maintain poverty and inequality. Such an approach will significantly shift the focus of research from “welfare dependency” to a more productive analysis of institutional discrimination and stratification.

Advocating for Economic Justice

With widening economic inequality, deepening poverty, and the loss of public assistance as an entitlement, we believe that a strong research agenda on poverty and classism is an urgent direction for psychologists. We hope that the APA resolu- tion will encourage psychologists to become more involved in the promotion of economic justice. And education and advocacy are essential if our research is to have any impact beyond the walls of the academy. As Fine and Barreras (2001) note, “to be of use,” psychologists must be able to communicate effectively with the media, policymakers, and community-based allies.

The research directions we have identified in this article are presented in the spirit of “usefulness.” Knowledge of effective framing techniques and strategies for reducing classist prejudice may be particularly useful to grassroots activists working to educate the public about poverty or to influence state and federal legis- latures. Research on the discriminatory use of sanctions should be of interest to both policymakers and advocates.

Sanctions powerfully illustrate why psychologists must study “welfare reform” and poverty from a social-justice perspective. Much of the recent “welfare reform”

158 Bullock and Lott

research approaches the consequences solely from an evaluation perspective, failing to take into account how factors such as race and racism may contribute to declining rates of TANF receipt. Tough sanction policies in states with large ethnic-minority populations, coupled with potential abuse and intimidating appeal processes, raise serious questions about the “fair” implementation of sanctions.

The research ideas presented in this article are offered as a starting point. Building a strong psychological knowledge about classism requires that we ask a broad range of questions and draw on a diverse range of philosophical, theoreti- cal, and methodological approaches. Not only do we need to avoid the trap of examining systems of class, race, and gender stratification in isolation (Neubeck & Cazenave, 2001), but inequality and classism must be studied in ways that do not further marginalize oppressed groups. Methodological (e.g., participatory research) and theoretical approaches that challenge status quo power dynamics and seek social change are essential.

Knowing, as we already do, about many of the relationships between poverty and the health and welfare of people and communities, a question we might well keep asking is one that was the headline for a recent New York Times story (Sengupta, 2001): How many poor children is too many?

References

American Psychological Association. (2000, August 6). Resolution on poverty and socioeconomic sta- tus [On-line]. Available: www.apa/pi.org

Augustin, N. A. (1997). Learnfare and Black motherhood: The social construction of deviance. In A. K. Wing (Ed.), Critical race feminism: A reader (pp. 144–150). New York: New York Uni- versity Press.

Bassuk, E. L. (1996). Welfare reform and the real lives of poor women [Special issue]. American Jour- nal of Orthopsychiatry, 66(4).

Bell, B. (1997). Introduction. In A. K. Wing (Ed.), Critical race feminism: A reader (pp. 1–6). New York: New York University Press.

Bernstein, N. (2001, August 1). Use of shelters by families sets record in New York. New York Times [On-line]. Available: www.nytimes.com/2001/08/01

Boushey, H., & Gunderson, B. (2001). When work just isn’t enough: Measuring hardships in families after moving from welfare to work [On-line]. Available: http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/ hardships.html

Bullock, H. E. (1995). Class acts: Middle class responses to the poor. In B. Lott & D. Maluso (Eds.), The social psychology of interpersonal discrimination (pp. 118–159). New York: Guilford.

Bullock, H. E. (1999). Attributions for poverty: A comparison of middle class and welfare recipient attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2059–2082.

Bullock, H. E., Wyche, K. F., & Williams, W. R. (2001). Media images of the poor. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 229–246.

California Budget Project. (2001, July). What do we know about former CALworks recipients? [On-line]. Available: http://www.cbp.org

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2001, May 31). Pathbreaking CBO study shows dramatic increases in income disparities in 1980s and 1990s: An analysis of CBO data [On-line]. Avail- able: http://www.cbpp.org

Children’s Defense Fund. (2000). Families struggling to make it in the workforce: A post welfare re- port. Washington, DC: Author.

Building a Research and Advocacy Agenda 159

Cozzarelli, C., Wilkinson, A.V., & Tagler, M. J. (2001). Attitudes toward the poor and attributions for poverty. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 207–228.

Crompton, R. (1998). Class and stratification: An introduction to current debates (2nd ed.). Oxford: Polity.

de Goede, M. (1996). Ideology in the US welfare debate: Neo-liberal representations of poverty. Dis- course and Society, 7(3), 317–357.

Dodson, L. (1998). Don’t call us out of name: The untold lives of women and girls in poor America. Boston: Beacon.

Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Reducing contemporary prejudice: Combating explicit and implicit bias at the individual and intergroup level. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 137–164). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Edin, K., & Lein, L. (1997). Making ends meet: How single mothers survive welfare and low-wage work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Feagin, J. (1972). Poverty: We still believe that God helps those who help themselves. Psychology Today, 6, 101–129.

Fine, M., & Barreras, R. (2001). To be of use. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy [On-line]. Available: http://www.asap-spssi.org

Fine, M., & Weis, L. (1998). The unknown city: Lives of poor and working-class young adults. Boston: Beacon.

Furnham, A. (1982). Why are the poor always with us? Explanations for poverty in Britain. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 311–322.

Furnham, A. (1983). Attributions for affluence. Personality and Individual Difference, 4, 31–40. Gans, H. J. (1995). The war against the poor: The underclass and antipoverty policy. New York: Basic. Gilens, M. (1999). Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Goldberg, H., & Schott, L. (2000). A compliance-oriented approach to sanctions in state and county

TANF programs [On-line]. Available: http://www.cbpp.org Gooden, S. T. (1998). All things not being equal: Differences in caseworker support toward Black and

White welfare clients. Harvard Journal of African American Public Policy, 4, 23–33. Gordon, R. (2001). Cruel and unusual: How welfare reform punishes poor people [On-line]. Available:

www.arc.org Hamilton, G., & Scrivener, S. (1999). Promoting participation: How to increase involvement in welfare-

to-work activities [On-line]. Available: http://www.mdrc.org/PublicationsFull.htm Harper, D. J., Wagstaff, G. F., Newton, J. T., & Harrison, K. R. (1990). Lay causal perceptions of third

world poverty and the just world. Social Behavior and Personality, 18, 235–238. Herbert, B. (2001, July 30). Unmasking the poor. New York Times [On-line]. Available: www.nytimes.

com/2001/07/30/opinion Hill, M., & Rothblum, E. D. (Eds.). (1996). Classism and feminist therapy: Counting costs [Special

issue]. Women and Therapy, 18(3/4). Holzer, H. J., & Stoll, M. A. (2000). Employer demand for welfare recipients by race [On-line]. Avail-

able: http://www.jcpr.org Hospitals violating indigent law. (2001, July 13). Providence Journal, p. A6. Hunt, M. O. (1996). The individual, society, or both? A comparison of Black, Latino, and White beliefs

about the causes of poverty. Social Forces, 75, 293–322. Iyengar, S. (1990). Framing responsibility for political issues: The case of poverty. Political Behavior,

12, 19–40. Kalil, A. (2001). The role of social science in welfare reform. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Pol-

icy [On-line]. Available: http://www.asap-spssi.org Katz, M. B. (1989). The undeserving poor: From the war on welfare to the war on poverty. New York:

Pantheon. Keister, L. A., & Moller, S. (2000). Wealth inequality in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology,

26, 63–81. Kerbo, H. R. (1996). Social stratification and inequality: Class conflict in historical and comparative

perspective (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

160 Bullock and Lott

Kluegel, J. R., & Bobo, L. (1993). Dimensions of Whites’ beliefs about the Black-White socioeconomic gap. In P. M. Sniderman, P. E. Tetlock, & E. G. Carmines (Eds.), Prejudice, politics, and the American dilemma (pp. 127–147). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: America’s view of what is and ought to be. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Lieberman, R. C. (1998). Shifting the color line: Race and the American welfare state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lott, B. (2000). Global connections: The significance of women’s poverty. In J. C. Chrisler, C. Golden, & P. D. Rozee (Eds.), Lectures on the psychology of women (2nd ed., pp. 27–36). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Lott, B. (2001, January). Cognitive and behavioral distancing from the poor. Paper presented at Multi- cultural Conference and Summit II, Santa Barbara, CA.

Lott, B., & Bullock, H. E. (2001a). Who are the poor? Journal of Social Issues, 57, 189–206. Lott, B., & Bullock, H. E. (Eds.). (2001b). Listening to the voices of poor women. Journal of Social

Issues, 57(2). Lott, B., & Saxon, S. (in press). The influence of ethnicity, social class and context on judgments about

American women. Journal of Social Psychology. Mishler, E. G., & Steinitz, V. (2001). Solidarity work: Researchers in the struggle for social justice

[On-line]. Available: http://www.coe.uga.edu/quig Neckerman, K. M., & Kirchenman, J. (1991). Hiring strategies, racial bias, and innercity workers. So-

cial Problems, 38, 433–445. Neubeck, K. J., & Cazenave, N. A. (2001). Playing the race card against America’s poor. New York:

Routledge. O’Connor, A. (2000). Poverty research and policy for the post-welfare era. Annual Review of Sociology,

26, 547–562. Ostrove, J., & Cole. (Eds.). (2001). Psychological meanings of social class in the context of education.

Journal of Social Issues. Manuscript in preparation. Pavetti, L. A., & Bloom, D. (2001, February). Sanctions and time limits: State policies, their implemen-

tation and outcomes for families. Paper presented at the New World of Welfare: Shaping a Post-TANF Agenda for Policy conference, University of Michigan.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Pub. L. No. 104–193, 110 Stat. 2105 (1997).

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta- analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 93–114). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. A. (1993). Regulating the poor: The functions of public welfare (2nd ed.). New York: Vintage.

Polakow, V. (1995). Epilogue: Naming and blaming. Beyond a pedagogy of the poor. In B. B. Swadener & S. Lubeck (Eds.), Children and families “at promise”: Deconstructing the discourse of risk (pp. 263–270). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Quadagno, J. (1994). The color of welfare: How racism undermined the war on poverty. New York: Pantheon.

Reid, P. T. (1993). Poor women in psychological research: Shut up and shut out. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 133–150.

Rice, J. K. (2001). Poverty, welfare and patriarchy: How macro-level changes in social policy can help low-income women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 355–376.

Samuelson, R. J. (2001, May 7). Indifferent to inequality? Americans care less about the gap between the rich and the poor than about just getting ahead. Newsweek, p. 45.

Saris, R. N., & Johnston-Robledo, I. (2000). Poor women are still shut out of mainstream psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 233–235.

Savner, S. (2000, July/August). Welfare reform and racial/ethnic minorities: The questions to ask. Poverty and Race Newsletter, 9.

Seccombe, K. (1999). So you think I drive a Cadillac? Welfare recipients’ perspectives on the system and its reform. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Sengupta, S. (2001, July 8). How many poor children is too many? New York Times, p. WK3.

Building a Research and Advocacy Agenda 161

Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Rabinowitz, J. L., & Federico, C. M. (1999). Peering into the jaws of the beast: The integrative dynamics of social identity, symbolic racism, and social dominance. In D. A. Prentice & D. T. Miller (Eds.), Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict (pp. 80–132). New York: Russell Sage.

Sidel, R. (1996). The enemy within: A commentary on the demonization of difference. American Jour- nal of Orthopsychiatry, 66, 490–495.

Smith, K. B. (1985). I made it because of me: Beliefs about the causes of wealth and poverty. Sociologi- cal Spectrum, 5, 255–267.

Smith, K. B., & Stone, L. (1989). Rags, riches, and bootstraps: Beliefs about the causes of wealth and poverty. Sociological Quarterly, 30, 93–107.

Solis, D. (2001, July 29). Economic downturn hits Blacks and Hispanics hard. San Jose Mercury News, p. 1PC.

Soss, J., Schram, S. F., Vartanian, T. P., & O’Brien, E. (2001). Setting the terms of relief: Explaining state policy choices in the devolution revolution. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 378–395.

Steinitz, V., & Mishler, E. G. (2001). Reclaiming SPSSI’s radical promise: A critical look at JSI’s “Impact of Welfare Reform” issue. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy [On-line]. Available: http://www.asap-spssi.org

Task Force on Women, Poverty, and Public Assistance. (1998). Making welfare to work really work. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Tolman, D. L., & Brydon-Miller, M. (Eds.). (2001). From subjects to subjectivities: A handbook of interpretative and participatory methods. New York: New York University Press.

Toro, P. (1999). Homelessness [Special issue]. Community Psychology, 27. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000a). The changing shape of the nation’s income distribution, 1947–1998.

(Current Population Reports No. P60-204) [On-line]. Available: http:// www.census.gov U.S. Census Bureau. (2000b). Money income in the United States: 1999. (Current Population Reports

No. P60-209) [On-line]. Available: http:// www.census.gov U.S. Census Bureau. (2001a). Poverty in the United States: 2000. (Current Population Reports No.

P60-214) [On-line]. Available: http://www.census.gov U.S. Census Bureau. (2001b). Household net worth and asset ownership: 1995. Current Population

Reports No. P70-71) [On-line]. Available: http://www.census.gov U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2000). Characteristics of food stamp households: Fiscal year 1999

(FSP 00-CHAR). Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

(TANF) program: Third annual report to Congress. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Government Accounting Office. (2000). Welfare reform: State sanction policies and number of

families affected (Report No. GAO/HEHS 00-44). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wagstaff, G. F. (1983). Attitudes to poverty: The Protestant work ethic, and political affiliation. A pre- liminary investigation. Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 45–47.

Walkerdine, V. (Ed.). (1996). Social class [Special issue]. Feminism and Psychology, 6(3). Wilthorn, A. (1996). “Why do they hate me so much?” A history of welfare and its abandonment in the

United States. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66(4), 496–509. Yeich, S., & Levine, R. (1992). Participatory research’s contribution to a conceptualization of empow-

erment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1894–1908. Zuckerman, D. (2001). Linking research to policy in people’s lives. Analyses of Social Issues and

Public Policy [On-line]. Available: http://www.asap-spssi.org Zuckerman, D., & Kalil, A. (Eds.). (2000). The impact of welfare reform. Journal of Social Issues,

56(4).

162 Bullock and Lott