How the Proposed Fair Housing Rule Will Boost the Economy

Strong and effective fair housing laws are essential for building prosperity — for people struggling to get by, for local and regional economies that benefit from thriving communities, and for the nation as a whole. That’s why a proposed rule by the Department of Housing and Urban Development is so important. As inequality soars and neighborhoods of concentrated poverty are on the rise in most American cities, the rule would push municipalities to deliver on the promise of fair housing. By helping to connect low-income families to neighborhoods of greater opportunity, the rule has the potential to spur economic growth not only within these households, but within cities and regions.

The rule, due out this summer, is called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). It would sharpen the tools that equity advocates and public sector leaders can use to increase investment in high-poverty neighborhoods, fight racial discrimination in the housing market, and add more affordable housing choices in neighborhoods with jobs, good schools, and other essentials. It would do this in three important ways:

(1)  It would make municipalities more accountable to community member needs by requiring resident engagement on fair housing and community development issues.
     
(2)  It would require a data-driven analysis (an "assessment of fair housing") of community conditions and impediments to fair housing, including factors that contribute to areas of racially concentrated poverty and high unemployment (e.g., school performance, transportation access, and toxic exposures).
     
(3)  It would require jurisdictions to tie federal funding — such as Community Development Block Grants and HOME funds — to addressing the fair housing challenges that are identified.

Taken as a whole, the proposed rule would mean that cities, counties, and states must be proactive to ensure all people can live in neighborhoods where they have access to the opportunities and resources we all need to succeed.

This rule is long overdue. It will help turn around the lasting negative impacts of historically discriminatory practices that contributed to the creation of poor neighborhoods of color, and it will reduce barriers that cut millions of Americans off from economic opportunity. This rule can be a powerful tool to advance equitable economic growth for the nation, and here are five reasons how:

(1)  Reducing growth-limiting racial and economic exclusion: Research shows that families living in disinvested and low-income communities have limited economic mobility and reduced future earnings. This effect creates generational cycles of poverty and limited opportunity: For example, two-thirds of Black children raised in the poorest quarter of U.S. neighborhoods a generation ago are now raising their children in similarly poor neighborhoods. This proposed rule has been proven to help direct more investment to neighborhoods that need them and help low-income families move to neighborhoods with more resources. Both the Puget Sound and the Twin Cities regions built off of their fair housing assessments – part of a pilot for the proposed AFFH rule – to focus new infrastructure investment in Native American, African American, African immigrant, Latino and Southeast Asian communities in need of investment. When St. Louis conducted a fair housing assessment, the city found that Housing Choice Vouchers were being used primarily in low-income neighborhoods where there were few jobs and community amenities. This assessment helped the city revamp its program to help residents find diverse housing choices that better met their needs.
     
(2)   Connecting people to job opportunities: By encouraging more job investments in high-unemployment communities and promoting transit investments that connect these communities to jobs elsewhere, this rule would help people previously isolated from employment opportunities better engage in the regional workforce and contribute to local economies. For example, Puget Sound used its fair housing assessment to strategically plan for a new food distribution hub and job incubators within historically disinvested neighborhoods where job growth was needed. And a New Orleans assessment that found transit was not serving late-shift schedules for hospitality and healthcare workers led to realignment of services to better meet low-wage, transit-dependent workers’ needs.
     
(3)  Creating jobs: Places that support the development of quality affordable housing and new infrastructure in disinvested neighborhoods also create new jobs both in the short- and the long-term for communities. The National Association of Home Builders estimates that building 100 affordable homes can lead to the creation of more than 120 jobs during the construction phase and roughly 30 jobs in a wide array of service industries once homes are occupied. When coupled with job training, inclusive hiring and contracting practices, and provisions for good wages and benefits, these jobs can help put low-income and unemployed residents on a pathway to good careers and financial stability.
     
(4)  Attracting new employers: Lack of quality affordable housing that connects to transit makes it more difficult for employers to recruit and retain employees, putting the local economy at a competitive disadvantage. In a national survey of more than 300 companies, 55 percent of large companies reported an insufficient level of affordable housing in their area, and two-thirds of these respondents cited this shortage as negatively affecting their ability to hold onto qualified employees. Other survey data suggests that affordable housing availability plays an important role in where new businesses decide to build or expand their operations. In Boston and Chicago, fair housing assessments helped these cities support new affordable homes around growing job centers in order to attract more employers to the area.
     
(5)  Providing low-income families with more disposable income to invest and save: The disproportionate housing burden on low-income communities and communities of color makes it hard for them to save for emergencies, make long-term investments, or spend money within the local economy on necessary goods and services. Affordable rent and mortgage payments, and access to affordable transportation, can substantially decrease household costs, in some cases by as much as five hundred dollars a month. When families can save on housing and transportation costs, it bolsters their resiliency and financial stability and allows greater spending on health care and education. These investments contribute to greater stability not only for these households, but for the broader economy: a recent study found that every extra dollar going into the pockets of low-wage workers actually adds about $1.21 to the national economy.

The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule is powerful only if we understand it and put it to use. Learn more about the rule in our upcoming webinar.

Why Washington State Invests in Home Care Workers — and Your State Should, Too

A groundbreaking partnership of labor, government, business, and nonprofits in Washington State is reinventing the home care industry to improve wages and opportunities for workers, meet employer demands for new skills, and provide high-quality services to consumers.

Sponsored by a labor-management partnership including SEIU, the State of Washington and private industry, the SEIU Healthcare NW Training Partnership has created the nation's first large-scale career pathway program for home care aides — one of the fastest-growing, lowest-paid occupations in America and a field vital to job creation and economic growth, especially in immigrant communities and communities of color. The program trains 40,000 aides a year in 200 classrooms across the state and online, offering instruction in 13 languages.

The partnership also runs the nation's first registered apprenticeship for more advanced training. It has won praise from the White House for committing to serve 3,000 apprentices annually in five years, up from 300 now.

By earning certification while strengthening their capacity to handle the increasingly complex needs of clients, graduates of the SEIU Healthcare NW Training Partnership can command higher pay, opportunities to advance, and greater respect for their work.

After completing the program, Home Care Aide Glenda Faatoafe received a $4-an-hour raise, to $15.03, and was invited to apply for a job at a local hospital. Although she loves working one-on-one with clients in their homes and intends to keep doing it — at age 52, she has done this work for 20 years — she is thrilled to realize she has career options.

"I didn't realize how employable I would become," she said. "We're overcoming what's always been one of the biggest challenges in our industry — having people realize this is not just a job but a career that can go somewhere."

A new direction in policy

Nationally, about 900,000 people — overwhelmingly women, many of them immigrants and women of color — care for ailing or frail elders, people with disabilities, and others who need assistance at home. The care workforce is projected to grow by nearly 50 percent in the coming decade, as the population ages and as more complex health problems are handled at home instead of in health care settings.

At $10 an hour, the median pay for a home care aide is considerably lower than the $16 average for all U.S. workers. About 45 percent of the nation's home care workers live in households with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty line.

Job training is generally minimal. Turnover is high, with estimates ranging from 25 percent to more than 200 percent a year. This is expensive for employers and disruptive for families, which means we all have a stake in developing a stable, valued workforce in this sector

Why has the arduous job of caring for our ill and disabled loved ones been marginalized and underpaid? A major reason is federal policy. Until this year, home care aides along with other direct care workers like personal attendants were exempt from federal wage and overtime guarantees. It was a throwback to New Deal legislation, which viewed the work as companionship, as opposed to real work.

The Department of Labor has at last taken a step forward in recognizing the value of direct care. As of January 1, many direct care workers are entitled to receive at least the federal minimum wage, $7.25 an hour, and overtime pay.

A market-based case for raising the floor

States have always been able to extend their labor standards to home care aides. Washington has led the way in doing so, thanks in large part to advocacy and organizing by SEIU 775. In 2011, voters overwhelmingly approved a union-sponsored ballot initiative to strengthen training requirements for aides and require certification. The union campaigned on a potent economic message: Home care aides add value to the health care chain by helping to keep people healthy and out of emergency rooms and hospital beds; they should receive the training to contribute even more and they should reap a fair share of the financial benefits that accrue to the system.

"It's a market-based view of raising the floor," said Charissa Raynor, executive director of the training partnership. "We're not talking about winning a 50-cent differential for aides. We're talking about widespread adoption of the view of home care workers as trusted, influential members of the health care team. They're not just compassionate individuals who help older people and people with disabilities stay at home, but professionals who are skilled and competent at helping people stay out of the emergency room, which saves the system a lot of money."

The partnership's basic program provides the 75 hours of training that the state requires all home care aides to complete. The apprenticeship program offers more advanced training, continuing education, and peer mentorship. Glenda Faatoafe has graduated from both programs and hopes to become a mentor for a new generation of home care professionals.

"My quest for us to get better training has become the focus of my life," she said.

Local Leaders Just Gained a New Tool to Address Inequality

Cross-posted from Rooflines, the Shelterforce Blog

A new Brookings Institution analysis confirms what we are feeling: inequality continues to climb in cities, and large income gains at the top are not lifting up incomes near the bottom. In the face of such inequitable growth, cities need to use every tool at their disposal to connect their low-income residents to good jobs that offer opportunities to move up those rungs. One piece of good news is that the federal transportation department made a big move to expand that toolkit earlier this month by launching a new Local Hire pilot program.

As Laura Barrett has written about on this blog, local/targeted hire is a no-brainer. In short, it’s a no-cost way for local leaders to connect unemployed or underemployed people in their communities to the growing pool of quality jobs being created by transportation investments. Los Angeles, Denver, Atlanta and many other regions are ponying up billions of dollars to build 21st century transit systems, and every $1 billion they spend will translate into some 50,000 jobs. There will also be many replacement job openings in transportation in coming years, since a large share of transportation workers are nearing retirement age. Transportation jobs are generally good “middle-skill” jobs that pay well and provide benefits (largely because of high levels of unionization), and are available to people who have some level of postsecondary training but not necessarily a college degree. But despite the potential for transportation jobs to expand economic mobility, women and people of color—especially African Americans—have long been underrepresented in the sector’s middle-skill jobs, and locked out of jobs on the transit lines and roads being built right in their own communities.
 
Forward-thinking cities and states, prompted by community advocates and organizers, have used local and targeted hiring policies to connect local residents, low-income residents, and other disadvantaged groups like people with criminal records, to the jobs being created through their public investments. These are classic local equitable development policy innovations that have been shown to work, particularly when they are combined with strategies to open up apprenticeships to underserved workers. But for more than forty years, federal policies blocked cities and states from requiring local hiring on projects funded with federal transportation dollars. This prohibition was put in place when transportation projects were 80 percent federally-funded out of a fear of unfair competition, and has remained there even though the funding mix has shifted and local funding now dominates.
 
The pilot program lifts this archaic policy for a year, allowing transit agencies to test out local hiring. This is a tremendous win for the Transportation Equity Caucus and many other advocacy groups who’ve long pushed to remove this barrier and leverage our transportation investments to expand access, mobility, and opportunity for all. (Full disclosure: PolicyLink is the co-convener of the Equity Caucus)
 
Early results from Los Angeles illustrate the potential of local hire. Thanks to fierce advocacy from former mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the county secured approval in 2012 to include local and targeted hiring in a project labor agreement and construction careers policy that now covers 12 transit expansion projects. It requires that 40 percent of the work hours go to workers living in economically disadvantaged zip codes, that 10 percent of the hours go to disadvantaged workers (such as the chronically unemployed, homeless, single parents, veterans, and people with criminal records), and that 20 percent of the hours go to apprentices. The policy is now being applied on the $2 billion, 8.5-mile Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor Project light rail line through South LA, and reports from November 2014 show that the contractor is exceeding the requirements, with 58 percent participation from workers living in economically disadvantaged zip codes.
 
Mayors, council members, and other local leaders who want to take action to reduce inequality should take up the transportation agency on their trial offer (and share your support for the program here). While inequality is largely the result of federal and state policies and global economic trends, there is a lot that local leaders can do to address the high unemployment and stagnant wages contributing to the rising gaps between their rich and poor. Targeted employment strategies are also crucial to reducing the widening gap between wages and housing costs in many of the same cities where inequality is high and rising.
 
Doing everything possible to connect residents left out of the recovery to good job opportunities is a key part of the local equitable growth agenda that cities need to be implementing. It is not enough—they also need to be growing new good jobs through smart entrepreneurship and economic development policies and raising the floor on low-wage jobs—but it is a crucial leg of the “all-in cities” stool.

Meet Our Four Newest Indicators

The National Equity Atlas is a living resource, and we are thrilled to announce the addition of four new indicators to the site:

  • Wages: $15/hr
  • Income inequality: 95/20 ratio
  • Diversity index
  • Contribution to growth: Immigrants
     

Here is a breakdown of each new indicator: 

Wages: $15/hour: What share of full-time workers earn at least $15 per hour?

In an equitable economy, all workers would earn a living wage that allows them to meet their basic needs, as well as their family's. While the value of a living wage depends on family size and cost-of-living, many are advocating for $15 per hour as a new bare-bones baseline (this equals $31,200 annually for full-time work).

What it measures

This indicator measures the share of full-time workers earning at least $15 per hour. It available by race/ethnicity, gender, and educational attainment, and over time (since 1980).

Key facts

  • Only 57 percent of women earn at least $15 per hour compared with 68 percent of men.
  • Latinas are the least like to earn at least $15 per hour (40 percent), followed by Native American women and Latino men (46 percent).
  • 50 percent of Black women at least $15 per hour, compared with 57 percent of Black men and 62 percent of White women.

 

How to find it

  1. Click Indicators in the navigation bar
  2. Select the Equity indicator "Wages: $15/hr" under Economic Vitality
  3. Select “By gender” in the breakdowns underneath the chart
  4. Here is what you will find

Use this data for policy change

Momentum is growing across the country to change these numbers and ensure that all workers can earn at least a living wage. Use this data to inform policy and organizing strategies such as raising the minimum wage or passing a living-wage ordinance. In the city of Los Angeles, for example, the two-year Raise LA campaign led to a new living wage ordinance raising the wages of hotel workers to $15.37 per hour.

Income inequality: 95/20 ratio: How unequal is your state or region?

Rising inequality is one of the defining challenges of our generation, and there is a growing consensus that inequality is not just bad for those left behind—it is bad for our economy and democracy as a whole. Recent research shows that this is true for metropolitan regions as well as nations. Harvard economist Raj Chetty and his collaborators found that regions with lower inequality and segregation provide their residents with more chances to move up the economic ladder. And Manuel Pastor and Chris Benner found that regions with less inequality are more economically resilient and experience longer periods of growth.

What it measures

This indicator measures inequality using the 95/20 ratio, which is represents the income earned by the households at the 95th percentile (just making it into the top 5 percent) divided by the income earned by the households at the 20th percentile (just falling into the bottom 20 percent). Nationwide, households at the 95th percentile earned $181,768 in 2012, and households at the 20th percentile earned $19,888, for a 95/20 ratio of 9.14. In other words, households at the 95th percentile earned more than 9 times the incomes of households at the 20th percentile.

Key facts

  • Inequality has consistently grown over the past several decades: the 95/20 ratio was 6.91 in 1980 and grew to 9.14 by 2012.
  • Among the largest 150 regions, Bridgeport, CT has the highest inequality on this measure (95/20 ratio of 14.08), and Ogden, UT has the lowest (5.72).
  • Regions within the same state can have very different levels of inequality: Durham, NC, for example, has the 10th highest inequality (95/20 ratio of 10.29) and Charlotte, NC ranks 42nd (8.71).

 

How to find it​

  1. Click Indicators in the navigation bar
  2. Select the Equity indicator "Income inequality: 95/20 ratio" under Economic Vitality
  3. Enter “Durham” as your region in the box near the top right corner of the page
  4. Select “Ranking” in the breakdowns underneath the chart
  5. Enter “Charlotte” in the Compare box under the chart
  6. Here is what you will find

Use this data for policy change

Press for policies to reduce inequality, such as expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and pursuing full employment. Washington, DC, for example, recently upgraded its local EITC by increasing its amount and extending it to workers without children and non-custodial parents.

Diversity index: How racially diverse is your community?

Diversity—in the context of inclusion—is a driver of innovation, business growth, and economic progress. Research shows that companies with more diverse workforces are more competitive, with greater market share, higher revenues, and more customers. McKinsey & Company’s recent analysis, for example, found that more diverse companies (in the top 25 percent) were 35 percent more likely than those in the bottom 25 percent to have financial returns above their industry medians.

What it measures

The diversity index measures the representation of six major racial/ethnic groups (White, Black, Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, and Mixed/other race) in the population. The maximum diversity score (1.79) would occur if each group were evenly represented in the region.

Key facts

  • Nationally, the diversity index is 1.1 now, and it was .71 in 1980.
  • Hawaii (1.3) and California (1.29) are the most diverse states, and Vermont and Maine (both .3) are the least diverse.
  • Vallejo (1.45) and San Francisco (1.48) are the most diverse among the largest 150 regions, and McAllen, TX (.37) and Portland, ME (.34) are the least diverse. Chicago ranks 21st (1.19).

 

How to find it

  1. Click Indicators in the navigation bar
  2. Select the indicator "Diversity index" under Demographics
  3. Enter “Chicago” as your region in the box near the top right corner of the page
  4. Select “Ranking” as your breakdown under the chart
  5. Select “Region” as your geography under the chart
  6. Here is what you will find

Use this data for policy change

Use this data to develop and advocate for policies that ensure all of the diverse groups in your community can access the resources and opportunities they need to reach their full potential. Due in large part to the advocacy of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, Illinois has passed policies, like the Office of New Americans and the Illinois DREAM Act, that have made it one of the most welcoming states for immigrants.

Contribution to growth: Immigrants

Immigration is a significant driver of population growth nationwide, and in many distressed communities, new immigrants are fueling neighborhood revitalization and business growth. Policies that increase access to education, services, and living-wage jobs for immigrants, and remove barriers to their full and equal participation, will help immigrants and their entire communities thrive.

What it measures

This indicator measures the net change in population by nativity, broken down for six major racial/ethnic groups. It also measures the share of the net change in population attributable to immigrants (restricted to range between 0 and 100 percent).

Key facts

  • Nationally, the U.S.-born population grew by 19 million between 2000 and 2012, and the immigrant population grew 8.7 million, contributing 31 percent of total population growth.
  • There are three states where immigrants contributed all of the net population growth between 2000 and 2012: Michigan, Rhode Island, and New York.
  • Immigrants contributed all of the net population growth between 2000 and 2012 in 16 of the largest 150 regions, including Dayton, New Orleans, and Detroit.​

 

How to find it

  1. Click Indicators in the navigation bar
  2. Select the indicator "Contribution to growth: Immigrants" under Demographics
  3. Enter “Rhode Island” as your state in the box near the top right corner of the page
  4. Here is what you will find

Use this data for policy change
Use these facts to advance policies to promote immigrant inclusion ranging from facilitating citizenship to improving language access and extending voting rights to residents who are aspiring citizens. New Haven, for example, launched the Elm City Resident’s Card in 2007 and became the first city to issue a municipal ID card as a strategy to protect and integrate its growing immigrant population into the community.

The Power of the Vote: How Changing Demographics Can Shape America’s Future for the Better

Cross-posted from Bill Moyers & Company

When protestors began the Freedom March from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, in March 1965, they weren’t just fighting voter discrimination; they were igniting a national conversation about the rights of all individuals, regardless of race, to be full partners in America’s democracy. Fifty years later, the conversation has changed.  It is no longer a question of securing the right to vote — it is what African-Americans, and the millions of other people of color who are rapidly making up the majority of the US population, can do with it.

America’s demographics are shifting and the political ramifications of these changes are undeniable. Since 2011, the majority of babies born in this country have been of color and within three decades, the majority of the population will be. In a recent report by The States of Change: Demographics and Democracy Project, a joint initiative of the Center for American Progress, the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, authors point to the “profound” effect that these shifting demographics will have on politics.

As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Selma this week, I am filled with hope that this rising majority of Americans can use their vote to lead the way to a more democratic, fair nation, and a thriving, equitable economy where everyone can participate and prosper.

This is not a pipe dream — America’s growing diversity presents the nation with a tremendous opportunity to put in place the policies we need to build an economy that truly works for everyone. Rising inequality and persistent racial inequities are not only felt by those who’ve been locked out of economic opportunity — they place everyone’s future at risk by robbing regions of the benefits of economic and racial inclusion. Without the large racial gaps in income and employment, the national economy could have been $2 trillion stronger in 2012, according to a recent analysis in the National Equity Atlas, a joint initiative of PolicyLink and the University of Southern California’s Program for Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE).

As people of color grow as a share of voters, they are likely to choose the candidates and policies that ensure everyone can access a good job that pays a living wage and offers benefits and opportunities for growth, affordable and reliable public transportation, high-quality public schools and affordable housing that connects families to jobs and vital services. These policies don’t just address the needs of those too often left behind — they provide the building blocks of strong communities and a robust, resilient national economy.

Unfortunately, the growing potential for political influence among communities of color has not gone unchallenged. In the last decade, 34 state legislatures have passed laws that put up barriers to voting that disproportionately affect people of color, low-income communities, and the elderly. Putting these de facto voting suppression laws in place only became easier in 2013, when the Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder, invalidated a crucial provision of the Voting Rights Act that required states with a history of voter discrimination to get federal approval of changes to state voting laws.

The right to vote is the cornerstone of democracy. As the Freedom Marchers reminded us in 1965, it is not enough to have this right on paper, if in reality the ability to vote remains out of reach for so many because of institutional barriers or discriminatory policies.  It was because of their brave and relentless leadership that the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965. Now it is up to this generation to ensure that these rights remain unfettered, that registration and voting practices are accessible to all citizens, and that we create pathways to citizenship for those who live and work in this country. The future of this nation will depend on all Americans having, and using, their fair say at the ballot.

Urban Renaissance or Cities of the One Percent?

Cross-posted from the Huffington Post

In a striking reversal of the suburban sprawl that has marked the last 60 years, job growth in America's cities is outpacing that in the suburbs as more and more people choose to live, and work, in urban areas. This trend, as noted in a report released by think tank City Observatory last week, has some pundits heralding an urban renaissance, where all city dwellers thrive as innovation blooms and downtown economies flourish. As we've seen in booming cities like San Francisco, however, where job growth and skyrocketing inequality have gone hand in hand, the equation is rarely that simple. This trend has immense potential for revitalizing cities after a slow economic recovery, but only if city leaders take decisive steps to ensure that everyone can participate in and prosper from these new job opportunities.

As recently as 2007, employment outside city centers was rising faster than inside, a longstanding trend that began with the exodus of many city populations to the suburbs in the mid-twentieth century. Over the past few years however, urban populations have grown faster than outlying areas, and employers have followed. Though construction and manufacturing jobs were hardest hit in the recession, these new jobs are more likely to be in business services or tech -- a trend that can overwhelmingly favor young, highly skilled workers and push out low- and middle-class populations that have been long-time residents.
 
The rise of the tech sector in the Bay Area provides a perfect example of this demographic shift in play. San Francisco now has the highest concentration of high net worth residents (those making over $30 million) of any city in the country, but also the fastest-growing income inequality, according to the Brookings Institute. According to the SF Human Services Agency, the middle-class population has shrunk from 45 percent to 34 percent from 1990 to 2012 and the proportion of residents living in poverty grew 30 percent between 2007 and 2012. Rising real estate prices are rapidly displacing low-income communities of color to the geographic fringes, where they are often stranded from job opportunities, transportation, health care, and other vital community assets. While this trend has obvious and devastating effects for these communities, this kind of inequitable growth ultimately threatens the entire region's economic future.
 
Growth doesn't have to look this way. Studies show that regions with lower inequality and less segregation by race and income have more upward mobility and experience longer periods of economic prosperity. Inclusive growth and smart growth should be synonymous, and in cities all over the country, local leaders are putting equitable strategies to work, with great success.
 
A focus on fair and affordable housing is obviously a crucial part of building inclusive cities, but let's focus in on the jobs piece of this equation. If new jobs are increasingly being located within urban centers, then we need local policies that connect vulnerable workers to quality jobs and career pathways. The New Orleans Economic Prosperity Strategy, for example, is attempting to connect the 52 percent of its African American men who are jobless to jobs coming online at the city's airports, universities, and health care systems. The Oakland army base redevelopment will create some three thousand jobs, at least a quarter of which are targeted to groups with barriers to employment, such as ex-offenders. In Baltimore, where the biotech and medical industry accounts for a third of new jobs, the BioTechnical Institute of Maryland set up a program to prepare low-income, mostly African American high school graduates for careers in biotech, with more than 75 percent of its graduates moving on to jobs in laboratory settings.
 
Taking steps to ensure that working Americans receive fair and decent pay is also key. Raising the floor on low-wage work and mandating basic quality measures (paid sick days, benefits, e.g.) helps those in the service, manufacturing, and other low-wage sectors provide for their families and stay in their homes. In Los Angeles, where 40 percent of those working in the hotel industry still live in poverty, city officials passed an ordinance in September to raise their wages to $15.37 an hour - a policy that will change the lives of nearly 13,000 workers, most of whom are women and people of color. This week Washington, D.C.'s Wage Theft Prevention Act and amendments to New York's existing policies will go into effect, cracking down on employers who fail to properly disclose or pay wages to their workers.
 
These initiatives are laudable steps in the right direction, but they are the exceptions and not the rule in urban growth. More than 80 percent of the U.S. population lives in metropolitan areas and that number is only expected to grow in the coming years. If we don't act now to build inclusive growth at scale in urban economies, we're heading towards an urban downfall, not an urban renaissance.

Can We Bend the Sharing Economy Toward Equity?

We’ve all heard the stories. Homeless Homejoy cleaners. Uber drivers on food stamps. Grad students Airbnb-ing their extra rooms in gentrifying neighborhoods to cover their own rent.
 
For all of its promises to increase prosperity and sustainability, the so-called “sharing economy” has a serious dark side. As the sector undergoes explosive growth (25 percent in 2013), it is a force that those of us working to build more equitable and resilient cities need to be engaging with—and helping to shape. Experience shows that new tech platforms will not automatically plug low-income communities and communities of color in to their regional economies. Connecting the most vulnerable to this newfangled form of capitalism in positive, beneficial ways—and preventing the deepening of exclusion—can only come about through targeted strategies, policies, and campaigns.
 
Now is the time to start thinking creatively about how to bend the nascent sharing economy toward equity. Inclusion is not just the right thing to do—it is the key to building strong companies and sectors and a robust and resilient economy. Business owners, city leaders, workers, and community advocates all have a stake in making inclusion the reality. Here are some questions to start the conversation:
 
What should we call it?
The sharing economy is the most popular alias for the growing array of app-based tech platforms that connect the buyers and sellers of various goods and services: rooms, rides, funding, housecleaning, clothing, chores, dog-sitting, grocery shopping, copyediting, and more. The collaborative economy, the peer economy, the on-demand economy, and the gig economy are others.
 
Names evoke powerful frames, and the sharing economy conjures up a warmer, fuzzier form of capitalism that offers more access to goods and services at a lower environmental and financial cost, and without the burden of individual ownership. But as Catherine Rampell notes, calling this digitized version of commerce sharing is “an insult to the intelligence of existing businesses, regulators, and 5-year olds everywhere.” At the same time, the sharing economy is quite diverse, and some segments of it (casual carpools, for example) might actually pass a preschoolers’ sniff test.
 
On the whole, a better choice might be the “gig economy,” which emphasizes the types of jobs being created by these new online marketplaces: contingent, part-time gigs that offer flexibility and variety but not the regular hours, benefits, or protections of traditional employment. Some 53 million Americans—34 percent of workers—are freelancing to make a living, and that share is expected to grow to 40 percent by 2020.
 
How can the gig economy create good jobs?
While gig economy CEOs see themselves as unleashing new opportunities for legions of “microentrepreneurs,” workers express growing discontent over the terms of their labor. A key issue is that the gig economy’s online marketplaces are not structured as employers, but as intermediaries that help connect the sellers (who are independent contractors), with buyers.
 
Many worry that this model transfers too much risk to workers, with too few protections, and could significantly drive down wages and increase economic insecurity. As Robert Reich put it: "There is no economic security, there is no predictability, and there is no power among workers to get a fair share of the profits."
 
Glimmers of a higher-road gig economy business model have emerged. Some companies decided that becoming employers who have relationships with their workers, pay them well, provide benefits, and train them to deliver high-quality services is actually a better business model. Others have raised wages and offered benefits.
 
These are promising developments that hint at a good jobs path for gig economy companies, and finding workable employee-friendly business models is critical. (And perhaps if they truly have a social mission, they could become certified B Corporations.) But in the face of a growing contingent labor force, policies that ensure strong legal protections for workers against wage theft and other violations, a minimum wage that is a living wage, benefits, a strong safety net, and the right to organize will be essential.
 
Can vulnerable communities participate on fair terms?
Sharing economy businesses promise to make goods and services more available to everyday people, but the reality is that they are often still inaccessible to those who are already excluded economically. Take car-, ride-, and bike-sharing. Low-income communities and communities of color carry the heaviest transportation burdens and could benefit tremendously from flexible, low-cost transportation options. But as a recent study commissioned by Living Cities shows, they rarely use these transportation options and face multiple barriers to doing so, from the absence of facilities in their neighborhoods to the lack of Internet access and more.
 
Fair pricing is another challenge. There are no neutral platforms in a racially inequitable society, and on the seller side of things, there is a risk that people of color engaging in profile-driven platforms are not on a level playing field. A Harvard Business School study found that New York City Airbnb hosts who are not black charge about 12 percent more than black hosts for comparable properties.
 
It will take holistic, intentional strategies, policies, and long-term planning to extend the sharing economy to the most vulnerable communities. The Living Cities study concluded that there was no silver bullet strategy to make these systems work for low-income communities, but those that were most successful addressed multiple barriers at once. Equity leader Nikki Sylvestri describes how “accessibility, relevance, and relationship” are crucial.
 
How will we regulate the click economy?
As the fights over Airbnb, Uber, and Lyft in New York City, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and dozens of other cities demonstrate, new sharing economy models are shaking up systems of regulation designed for the pre-Internet era. Regulation is the key challenge for the growth of sharing economy businesses, resulting in high stakes and fiery debates.
 
Equity advocates and community leaders need to be ready to engage in these debates and weigh in with their own ideas and proposals to make the click sector work for inclusive growth. Rapid gentrification in the 1990s gave birth to the community benefits agreement movement. In the face of rapid technological, economic, and demographic transformation, what will the next era of equity policy innovation look like? Those working in and for the most vulnerable communities have important knowledge to bring into these discussions, and need to be at the table.

Building a Caring Economy: Angela Glover Blackwell in Conversation with Ai-jen Poo

 
Activist and MacArthur "genius" award winner Ai-jen Poo is leading a movement to reshape America’s fastest-growing industry — home care — to create millions of good jobs and provide high-quality services for seniors and others who need assistance. Her new book, The Age of Dignity: Preparing for the Elder Boom in a Changing America, explains how to harness the nation’s age wave to build "a caring economy" that benefits everyone: the rapidly aging, largely White population driving up demand for care, the workforce made up largely of women of color, and the nation as a whole, struggling to grow wages and the economy. PolicyLink Founder and CEO Angela Glover Blackwell spoke with Poo about her vision and strategy for equity-focused change in a sector vital for economic growth, especially in low-income communities, and for the health and well-being of all. 
 
Angela Glover Blackwell: So many Americans are struggling with how to care for their parents and grandparents. Politicians and the media speak of the elder boom as a crisis, but you’ve described it as a blessing, as a way to create economic opportunity for our nation’s other rapidly growing demographic, people of color.
 
Ai-jen Poo: The fact that people are living longer is an opportunity for people to connect longer, work longer, play longer, love longer, learn longer, and contribute longer. This is a paradigm-shifting moment, an opportunity to strengthen multigenerational relationships. It’s also clear that we need to rethink our health care and long-term care systems in order to support people to live independently and to age in place, which is the preference of 90 percent of Americans. That offers enormous opportunities to create millions of jobs in home care and long-term care and to transform what’s now low-wage work into good jobs that you can take pride in and support your family on. Caregiving is a unique place where we can all come together and benefit a huge, broad cross-section of our population. It’s a win-win for more choices, better quality care, and better jobs for the future.
 
Blackwell: You write that caregivers are largely invisible and their work is often degraded. That’s the opposite of what one would hope for when we think about people caring for those we love and cherish. Why isn’t the work — or the workforce — valued more highly, and how does federal policy feed the problem?
 
Poo: We have a long history in this country of undervaluing the work that goes into raising and supporting families, and our legacy of racism and slavery has shaped our labor protections. The clearest example is our flagship legislation for protecting workers, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, which were enacted during the New Deal. Southern members of Congress essentially refused to support New Deal labor protections if they included farm workers and domestic workers, who at the time were largely African American. So the legislative package passed with those exclusions. Over the years, domestic workers, home care workers, and farm workers have fought and organized to eliminate those exclusions and establish standards and protections, but the exclusions remain to this day. The law defines home care as companionship, akin to babysitting, as opposed to real work. The truth is it takes tremendous emotional intelligence and skill to do this work well, especially when it comes to caring for elders who may have complex medical conditions and needs. We’ve been working diligently with the Department of Labor to change that anachronistic definition and bring two million home care workers into the protection of the minimum wage and overtime laws.
 
Blackwell: You argue for a comprehensive federal policy of caring. What does that look like? What investments are needed?
 
Poo: We need to think about taking three major courses of action. One: elevate the quality of home care jobs. That requires a suite of policies, from raising wages to ensuring health-care access to providing access to training and career ladders. Two: we need policies that ensure the affordability and accessibility of quality care. Right now, if you're very, very wealthy you might purchase long-term care insurance and if you're very, very poor, you might be eligible for Medicaid. But millions of people in the middle are struggling with how they're going to meet their care needs. We need a framework that supports working families, including caregivers themselves, to be able to afford the care they need, at a really high quality.
 
And that brings us to the third course of action. We need to create new care choices for people. The predominant model is institutional — the nursing home. We want to make sure that we can bring high-quality care to every American home, and that every home has the opportunity to choose the care that is most appropriate for that family. To move us toward a vision of good jobs all around, affordable high-quality care, and maximum choice requires investment in caregiving as a vital aspect of our society's well-being.
 
Blackwell: Those are extremely good goals. And I have seen in the past that when jobs become good jobs, the people who have traditionally held those get pushed out and often don't have the pathways into training and credentialing. How do we make sure that the elevation of the caregiving job goes along with the elevation of the people who have been doing the work?
 
Poo: I'm so glad you raised that because it’s something we think about a lot. One piece is the prioritization of training and rethinking workforce development systems from the bottom up. So we are developing training for domestic workers in different aspects of long-term care, everything from mindfulness training for caregivers to specialized training for people working with people with dementia and Alzheimer’s. We really believe that domestic workers — who are on the front lines of what families and individuals need in order to live dignified, healthy lives — have incredible insight for us about how we rethink training. And we’re listening to what workers say about the training they want and need. We're asking them to inform the substance, the methodology, and the delivery of the training so we democratize access.
 
Blackwell: Are there good models of local policies or initiatives that are moving us toward creating a caring economy? Things that we can learn from and bring to scale?
 
Poo: The State of Washington has a home care training fund that trains 40,000 home care workers per year, in 12 different languages. It’s a beautiful model that’s both elevated the quality of care for seniors and the quality of jobs for workers. Hawaii this year will introduce a long-term care insurance program to provide families with support for their long-term care needs. Maine’s Keep Me Home Initiative is the Speaker of the House’s vision for a comprehensive policy package to support seniors who are aging in place. And it includes everything from rethinking transportation to higher wages for home care providers. And of course we need to keep working hard at establishing and securing basic rights for the workforce. We’ve won Domestic Workers’ Bills of Rights in four states. We’ll be working in Connecticut and Illinois to continue to build momentum state by state.
 
Blackwell: One of the things that has impressed so many of us in the equity movement is the care, connectedness, and authenticity of your work. You are building a movement across race, region, and generation. What strategies have been most effective in building alliances and bringing together workers who generally labor in the privacy and isolation of the home?
 
Poo: We strongly believe in the power of storytelling, not only as a tool for bringing people together but really as a way for us to reimagine the kind of power we have when we come together. In 2011, we started organizing Care Congresses, multiracial, multigenerational gatherings of hundreds and then thousands of people in cities around the country to talk about a vision for the future of caregiving that uplifts the dignity of workers and the families and individuals they support. And we began every gathering with people turning to the people next to them and sharing a story about somebody who took care of them in their lives and the value of that relationship. It rooted all our work — policy, organizing, elections work —in the context of the values and the stories that are so closely held in our lives. Recently, at Caring Across Generations, we also engaged with The Moth, an arts nonprofit wholly focused on the power of live and personal storytelling. So often as organizers or experts or leaders, we describe other people’s stories but there can be a unique impact when you hear someone’s story told in their own voice. It can also be an incredibly empowering and connecting experience for the storyteller. This grounding in our experiences has allowed us to create an incredibly human movement culture. It also opens up possibilities for us to connect very diverse experiences in a way that doesn't erase our differences but builds upon the power of what we share.
 
We learned a ton from PolicyLink about the opportunities of equity and about new ways of thinking about solutions in the midst of all this change in our country. We share with the equity movement a strong commitment to elevating low-wage workers as protagonists in shaping the future of the economy. It is no longer just about how we gain one dollar more per hour or one or two more sick days per year. The question is, how do we shape the future of this economy in a way that transforms opportunity for low-wage workers and that transforms the character of the work itself? The experiences of workers — people struggling with control over their hours or with sexual harassment or stretching their paycheck to be able to feed their kids — their experiences and insights are leading us into a future that is much more equitable and humane. This is a moment to change how this economy is structured in a way that benefits all of us.
 

Leveraging Equity Data for Inclusive Growth

(cross-posted from Living Cities)

In order to achieve dramatically better results for low-income people, faster, we need to prioritize equity. Democratizing equity data is one step forward.

To see dramatic, sustained improvements in the life chances and outcomes of low-income people, we need to put equity—racial and economic inclusion—at the heart of our strategies for economic growth, competitiveness and prosperity. An inclusive growth model would produce many more good jobs and transform low-wage jobs into good jobs, while creating real pathways for those who’ve been excluded to participate in building a strong, sustainable, next economy. As communities of color become the new majority and the research proves that inclusion and diversity go hand-in-hand with economic strength, equity has become more than the right thing to do: it is an absolute economic imperative.

Data that is disaggregated by race/ethnicity and available at the regional level (and below) is a fundamental building block for advancing inclusive growth. Regions are the key economic units in the global economy and where equitable growth strategies need to be incubated and scaled. Data that describe and track the state of equity in regions can be the spark and fuel for inclusive growth strategies. But while data is now ubiquitous, it is often like Coleridge’s famous line: “Water, water, everywhere; nor any drop to drink.”

PolicyLink and the Program for Environmental and Regional Equity at the University of Southern California (PERE) built the National Equity Atlas to solve this challenge and put relevant data into the hands of those working to create more inclusive, resilient, prosperous regions. At the click of a button, you can access 21 field-tested indicators of demographic change, racial and economic inclusion, and the economic benefits of equity for largest 150 regions, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and nationwide. You’ll also find downloadable and shareable charts, explanations of why the indicator matters for equitable growth, policy ideas and examples, and in-depth profiles for several regions.

We built the Atlas to democratize data and make it easy for you to understand, discuss, and use. We’ve seen how equity data can bring together new cross-sector collaborations, strengthen advocacy, and inform new policies and strategies:

  • In Rhode Island, data revealing that communities of color are driving growth in the state yet face major barriers to economic opportunity inspired then-Governor Chafee to open a new Office of Diversity, Equity, and Opportunity focused on inclusive hiring and contracting in government jobs.
     
  • In New Orleans (a Living Cities Integration Initiative partner), the stark data point that 52% of the city’s working-age black males—a total of 34,500 men—were jobless prompted Mayor Landrieu to launch an Economic Opportunity Strategy to connect these men to jobs coming online at the city’s major anchor institutions.
     
  • In Denver and New York City, advocates used transportation equity data to build broader coalitions and expand transit access for communities of color.
     
  • Cross-sector collaborations in Houston, Kansas City, Omaha, Southeast Florida, and in North Carolina’s Cape Fear, Piedmont Triad and Research Triangle, regions are using this data to craft shared narratives about the economic imperative of equity and inform regional development strategies.

 

Data itself is not social change. But data can power the bolder, smarter, more targeted strategies that America’s regions need to leverage their increasing diversity as an asset and secure a bright economic future for all of their residents.
 

Land of (Missed) Opportunity: Obama's Budget and the Fight Against Child Poverty

(cross-posted from Huffington Post)

One of the greatest threats to our nation's economic future is not found on the trading floors of Wall Street or in the debates on Capitol Hill -- it is in the poverty experienced by 14.7 million children living in America. As President Obama notes in his 2016 budget proposal, the lost potential and productivity incurred by allowing millions of America's children to grow up poor is simply unacceptable: "Not only do young people lose when they do not get a fair shot -- we all lose."

Child poverty in this country is following an alarming trend. Though the economy is recovering, child poverty rates have risen by 3 percent since 2008. One in five children lived below the federal poverty line in 2013 and almost one in 10 lived in extreme poverty, the Children's Defense Fund noted in a report released last week. For children of color, who will constitute the majority of America's youth by 2020, chances of being poor were more than twice as high as for their White peers. A second new report, from the Southern Education Foundation, highlighted the reality that the majority of students in the nation's public schools (51 percent) are low income. This is up from less than 32 percent in 1989 and 38 percent in 2000.

Poverty poses a direct threat to educational success. Poor preschoolers are less likely to recognize letters or count to 20. For the over 45 percent of poor children who lived in homes without enough food in 2013, this food insecurity was associated with lower reading and math scores, greater physical and mental health problems, and a higher incidence of emotional and behavior problems. These challenges are even more severe for youth of color, who are least likely to have access to good schools and the wraparound supports that all children need to succeed.

These early disadvantages follow children into their adult lives, reducing their chance of graduating from high school and increasing their chances of remaining poor as an adult and becoming involved in the criminal justice system. According to one study, the lost productivity and extra health and crime costs stemming from child poverty add up to roughly half a trillion dollars a year, or 3.8 percent of our GDP. As a nation, we simply cannot afford to bear the social and economic consequences of childhood poverty. The success or failure of these children will determine the strength of the nation's workforce, and the growth and resiliency of the American economy throughout the 21st century.

Meeting the challenges of a post-recession era means building an equitable economy where everyone can participate, contribute, and prosper -- and this starts with ensuring that every child arrives at school ready to learn. Recognizing this link between early opportunity and lifelong success, President Obama's budget rightly emphasizes investments in child care, education and job training, affordable housing, food access, earned income tax credits (EITC), and other programs that will help struggling families access the resources and opportunities they need to thrive.

The evidence tells us that programs that support families and youth work, not only in the short-run, but over the life course. Studies show that children in families that receive income boosts from the EITC or similar programs have better birth outcomes, higher test scores, higher graduation rates, and higher college attendance than their similar income peers not receiving these benefits. Studies of federal nutrition programs found children who need and receive food assistance before age five were in better health as adults and more likely to complete more schooling, earn more money, and not rely on safety net programs as adults.

Through the work of the Promise Neighborhoods Institute at PolicyLink and the Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, PolicyLink has been able to lift up local strategies that help build opportunity for youth, such as reforming harsh school discipline policies that push young men of color out of school, or comprehensive services for vulnerable youth that link community support systems to local schools. If passed, the 2016 budget would support and expand upon these efforts.

The child poverty of today doesn't have to be the legacy of America's tomorrow. As a nation, we must take bold steps to ensure that all of the nation's children can succeed at school and in the workforce. The president's 2016 budget acknowledges the importance of inclusive growth through its focus on improving education, making college more affordable, and targeted programs to support vulnerable youth and their families. We must all rally behind these ideas. Our future depends on it.

Pages