Changing a Life
Exploring how barriers and social interventions influence mobility and inequality
March 22, 2022
Scroll to start
Section 1
INTRODUCTION

Across a lifetime, we encounter crossroads moments that affect the trajectory of our lives.

Whether we continue our education or whether we take one job over another—these can be critical moments that set us on an upward or downward path of economic mobility.

The options available to people at these crossroads moments and the decisions they make—or that are made for them—are influenced by many things, such as where they live, how much money they have, and what structural barriers they face.

But what if interventions at these crossroads moments could make a difference early on? What if those differences could change a person’s path?

What if those interventions reached hundreds of thousands of people?

We aimed to answer those questions with the Social Genome Model, a microsimulation tool that can project how changes in adolescence and early adulthood can influence well-being later in life.

We used this model to explore multiple scenarios to see how different early experiences and circumstances might affect lifetime earningsLifetime earnings are discounted present values in 2018 dollars. and income disparities between Black, Hispanic, and WhiteFor this project, we use “White” to refer to people who are not Black or Hispanic. About 93.4 percent of this group identify as White, 3.3 percent identify as Asian or Pacific Islander, 2.4 percent identify as more than one race, and 0.9 percent identify as Native American. We do not have enough data to estimate changes separately for the individual races in this category. people.

We looked at the effects overall and, for most scenarios, the effects on people whose crossroads moments would be meaningfully altered, setting them on a radically different path.

What if…

What would happen if we could undo the damage of structural racism, reform the criminal justice system, or ensure everyone had good jobs?

What if more people could attend high-quality schools, earn degrees, or get job training?

We explored what those changes might mean for economic mobility and inequality.

Structural Racism
Criminal Justice
Job Quality
Integrated Student Supports
High School Diploma
Associate’s Degree
Bachelor’s Degree
Job Training
Structural Racism
Criminal Justice
Job Quality
Integrated Student Supports
High School Diploma
Associate’s Degree
Bachelor’s Degree
Job Training
Structural Racism
Criminal Justice
Job Quality
Integrated Student Supports
Structural Racism
Criminal Justice
Job Quality
Integrated Student Supports
High School Diploma
Associate’s Degree
Bachelor’s Degree
Job Training
High School Diploma
Associate’s Degree
Bachelor’s Degree
Job Training

What do all these scenarios tell us?

They tell us that the cost of structural racism is high, particularly for Black people; interventions early in life can pay off; and progress is possible.

We urge readers not to compare interventions because they differ in scale and scope and the costs are not precise. Also, no single intervention is a silver bullet, just as no single crossroads moment consistently puts people on a path to better economic mobility.

But because early interventions ripple through a person’s lifetime, even modest improvements can be meaningful. And combining several approaches could lead to substantial and life-changing differences. What if the country was bold enough to try?

What if…

…we reduced harmful interactions between young Black men and police?

Why this matters

Evidence has consistently found that Black men are subject to more frequent and negative police attention and more police violence than people of other races and ethnicities.

Beyond the risk of death or injury, interactions with police—including arrests and convictions—can also lead to lower school attendance and lower test scores among Black youth and can harm their mental health.

What if those harmful effects could be reversed?

How we did it

In this scenario, we don’t model specific police reforms. Instead, we model the potential effects of reform by reducing the share of Black men and youth convicted of a crime to the levels of White men and youth.

We also reduced absenteeism, raised test scores, and improved mental health among Black youth as if they had not been subject to aggressive policing.

What we found

These changes increase lifetime earnings by about $25,000, on average, for all Black men.

For the roughly 10 percent of Black men who had a conviction erased as a result of this simulation, the effects were much larger, increasing lifetime earnings by over $86,000 and increasing the likelihood of earning high school diplomas or bachelor’s degrees.

Illustrating the change in lifetime earnings

To illustrate our results, we use a sample of individuals in the Social Genome Model. Each dot represents a person, but not all people are represented in this illustration. Larger arcs indicate bigger changes in lifetime earnings.

No intervention
Before intervention
After intervention, lifetime earnings increased
After intervention, lifetime earnings decreased
Lifetime earnings
Lifetime earnings are discounted present values in 2018 dollars.

How this affects inequality

These changes slightly reduce the Black-White earnings gap among all men: the average Black man’s lifetime earnings increase from 39 percent of the average White man’s lifetime earnings to 42 percent.

What if…

…we could provide young people with better-quality jobs?

Why this matters

A good job in young adulthood can lead to higher wages and better economic security in the future.

And though a good job is defined by many things, we focus here on pay and benefits (such as health insurance, retirement plans, and paid days off), which can have positive effects on physical and mental health and help young people build more stable lives.

How we did it

For this scenario, we looked at people making up to $30,000 at age 24. We also narrowed the pool to exclude anyone who attains a bachelor’s degree in adulthood because their lower wages could be temporary while they are earning a postsecondary degree.

We then increased their pay and benefits and modeled the effects of better mental and physical health.

What we found

On average, for workers whose job quality improved, lifetime earnings rise by $52,000, with larger increases for White people than for Black and Hispanic people.

The cost of increasing pay and benefits came to roughly $9,480 per worker.

Illustrating the change in lifetime earnings

To illustrate our results, we use a sample of individuals in the Social Genome Model. Each dot represents a person, but not all people are represented in this illustration. Larger arcs indicate bigger changes in lifetime earnings.

No intervention
Before intervention
After intervention, lifetime earnings increased
After intervention, lifetime earnings decreased
Lifetime earnings
Lifetime earnings are discounted present values in 2018 dollars.

How this affects inequality

Although these improvements are more likely to affect Black and Hispanic people, they aren’t enough to close the earnings gap with White people.

In other words, structural inequities for low-wage workers can’t be fully offset by improving job quality for all races and ethnicities.

What if…

…we could improve academic success through an integrated strategy supporting students’ development and well-being?

Why this matters

If a student is hungry or sick or doesn’t feel safe at home or in school, their ability to learn and grow will be hindered. Recognizing that academic success hinges on more than academics, an approach to education known as integrated student supports addresses students’ physical and mental health, safety, and well-being.

By partnering with community organizations, these schools integrate teaching, health and social services, and other supports for students and their families.

What if more students could benefit from these schools?

How we did it

We modeled common improvements seen at integrated student support schools, including higher test scores, fewer absences, greater participation in after-school activities, fewer gangs, and no suspensions.

Because these schools mostly serve students with low incomes, we looked at students whose family income was 200 percent of the federal poverty level or lower. And we modeled enrollment from early adolescence.

What we found

Students attending these schools would see their lifetime earnings rise by more than $37,000, with larger increases for men than for women and larger increases for Black men (about $45,000) and White men (about $52,000) than for Hispanic men (about $27,000).

The cost? Programs vary, but one study estimated that about six years of integrated student supports from kindergarten through fifth grade would total $5,410 per student for all six years.

Illustrating the change in lifetime earnings

To illustrate our results, we use a sample of individuals in the Social Genome Model. Each dot represents a person, but not all people are represented in this illustration. Larger arcs indicate bigger changes in lifetime earnings.

No intervention
Before intervention
After intervention, lifetime earnings increased
After intervention, lifetime earnings decreased
Lifetime earnings
Lifetime earnings are discounted present values in 2018 dollars.

How this affects inequality

All students from families with low incomes, regardless of race or ethnicity, would benefit from integrated student supports. Because all students benefit, we see little overall change in racial and ethnic disparities in lifetime earnings.

What if…

…more people earned high school diplomas?

Why this matters

Graduating high school is a pivotal crossroads moment. A high school diploma is often a requirement for entry-level jobs, training opportunities, and higher education. Yet around 15 percent of students don’t graduate within four years.

What if more people had high school diplomas?

How we did it

We modeled what would happen if all students attended four years of Small Schools of Choice high schools, which we estimate increases on-time graduation by 5 percentage points.

These small high schools, created in New York, emphasize academic rigor, personalized teacher-student relationships, and relevance to the working world.

What we found

For all students, the intervention increases lifetime earnings by about $15,000, which far outweighs the $625 spent per student per year.

Income increases are larger for Hispanic and Black students than for White students, driven almost entirely by gains for men.

For students who would not have earned a diploma without the intervention, lifetime income increases by about $271,000.

Illustrating the change in lifetime earnings

To illustrate our results, we use a sample of individuals in the Social Genome Model. Each dot represents a person, but not all people are represented in this illustration. Larger arcs indicate bigger changes in lifetime earnings.

No intervention
Before intervention
After intervention, lifetime earnings increased
After intervention, lifetime earnings decreased
Lifetime earnings
Lifetime earnings are discounted present values in 2018 dollars.

How this affects inequality

The effects on earnings gaps by race and ethnicity are small, slightly improving lifetime earnings parity between Black people and White people and between Hispanic people and White people.

What if…

…more people enrolled in associate’s programs earned degrees?

Why this matters

Associate’s degrees can be a springboard to a better career or to a bachelor’s degree, but many students who enroll never earn a degree.

Students from low-income families, Black and Hispanic students, and those who work before seeking higher education are more likely to enroll in associate’s programs than students from higher-income families and White students, making degree attainment important for reducing inequality.

How we did it

We modeled what would happen if all students enrolled in an associate’s program benefited from the Accelerated Study in Associate Programs intervention, which offers academic and financial supports to students with low incomes in New York City and Ohio community colleges.

Based on evaluations of that intervention, we set a target completion rate of 50 percent. To hit that target, we increased overall degree attainment by 4.6 percentage points.

What we found

For the overall population, the increase in lifetime earnings is about $8,600, and Black and Hispanic people had slightly higher average increases.

For students who would not have earned a degree without the intervention, lifetime income increases by $175,000, driven largely by gains for men. This intervention would cost $9,000 to $14,000 per student.

Illustrating the change in lifetime earnings

To illustrate our results, we use a sample of individuals in the Social Genome Model. Each dot represents a person, but not all people are represented in this illustration. Larger arcs indicate bigger changes in lifetime earnings.

No intervention
Before intervention
After intervention, lifetime earnings increased
After intervention, lifetime earnings decreased
Lifetime earnings
Lifetime earnings are discounted present values in 2018 dollars.

How this affects inequality

This intervention is transformative for students who would not have earned a degree otherwise, but because that’s a small group, we don’t see big changes to overall lifetime income parity.

What if…

…more people had bachelor’s degrees?

Why this matters

People with bachelor’s degrees earn, on average, about $30,000 more per year than people with only a high school diploma, even after accounting for the rising cost of college.

But in a phenomenon called “undermatching,” talented students with low incomes don’t apply to selective schools, even if they’re likely to be admitted. Selective schools tend to have higher graduation rates, so students who attend less selective schools may be less likely to graduate.

How we did it

We modeled what would happen if high-achieving, low-income students had more information about the costs and benefits of college and guaranteed financial aid. In our scenario, those interventions would allow these students to enroll and attain bachelor’s degrees at the same rate as their middle- and high-income peers.

The cost of providing more information is low. And many of these students are already eligible for substantial financial aid but may not know it. Guaranteed support might change their choices.

What we found

For those who go on to earn bachelor’s degrees, lifetime earnings increase by about $422,000 (a 71 percent increase), with particularly large increases for Black men (a $740,000 increase) and Hispanic men (a $672,000 increase).

Illustrating the change in lifetime earnings

To illustrate our results, we use a sample of individuals in the Social Genome Model. Each dot represents a person, but not all people are represented in this illustration. Larger arcs indicate bigger changes in lifetime earnings.

No intervention
Before intervention
After intervention, lifetime earnings increased
After intervention, lifetime earnings decreased
Lifetime earnings
Lifetime earnings are discounted present values in 2018 dollars.

How this affects inequality

This intervention is transformative for students who would not have earned a degree otherwise, but because that’s a small group, we don’t see big changes to overall lifetime income parity.

What if…

…more young adults participated in job training programs?

Why this matters

Many young people leave high school without the technical skills or training they need for a job. If they don’t attend college, they could benefit from participating in a job training program, which can equip them with job skills, match them to employers, and provide other support services.

How we did it

We picked six rigorously evaluated job training programs designed for young adults and modeled their effects. Participants saw an average 17 percent increase in income.

To simulate the effects of these job training programs, we increased income by 17 percent at age 24 for people who had no more than a high school diploma.

What we found

For program participants, lifetime income rose by about $21,000, with larger increases for White people than for Black and Hispanic people. The average cost per participant is $19,600.

Men had larger increases in lifetime earnings than women. Black women saw the smallest increases, and White men had the highest increases.

Illustrating the change in lifetime earnings

To illustrate our results, we use a sample of individuals in the Social Genome Model. Each dot represents a person, but not all people are represented in this illustration. Larger arcs indicate bigger changes in lifetime earnings.

No intervention
Before intervention
After intervention, lifetime earnings increased
After intervention, lifetime earnings decreased
Lifetime earnings
Lifetime earnings are discounted present values in 2018 dollars.

How this affects inequality

Although a larger share of Black and Hispanic people received and benefited from job training programs, White participants benefited more from the 17 percent earnings increase because their average starting income was higher.

What if…

…we could eliminate the damaging effects of structural racism?

Why this matters

Policies, practices, and norms that have created and maintained deep racial and ethnic inequities are barriers to upward mobility for many.

Research finds that Black and Hispanic children are more likely than White children to be enrolled in underresourced schools, to be exposed to environmental pollutants, and to be exposed to violence and traumatic experiences and events. These and other challenges can have long-term consequences on their well-being.

How we did it

What if society treated Black and Hispanic children the same way it treats White children? What if, from birth, they had the same experiences in school, at home, and in their communities?

Historical inequities such as segregation and discrimination shape children’s circumstances at birth. Our simulations do not change the circumstances into which children are born; rather, we use circumstances at birth as a starting point and see how much better off Black and Hispanic children would be if, throughout childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood, they were treated like their White peers.

What we found

These changes increase the share of Black and Hispanic people with associate’s and bachelor’s degrees. Projected lifetime earnings rise by more than 60 percent (more than $250,000) for Black people and by 25 percent (almost $130,000) for Hispanic people.

Illustrating the change in lifetime earnings

To illustrate our results, we use a sample of individuals in the Social Genome Model. Each dot represents a person, but not all people are represented in this illustration. Larger arcs indicate bigger changes in lifetime earnings.

No intervention
Before intervention
After intervention, lifetime earnings increased
After intervention, lifetime earnings decreased
Lifetime earnings
Lifetime earnings are discounted present values in 2018 dollars.

How this affects inequality

When it comes to narrowing income inequality, these changes are transformative for Black men, who would earn 91 cents in lifetime earnings for every dollar earned by White men—a significant jump from the 39 cents for every dollar earned now.

Currently viewing
We use “White” to refer to people who are not Black or Hispanic. About 93.4 percent of this group identify as White, 3.3 percent identify as Asian or Pacific Islander, 2.4 percent identify as more than one race, and 0.9 percent identify as Native American. Because of sample size constraints, we cannot estimate simulations separately for the individual races in this category.