Bringing Leaders Together to Inspire change

“Bringing Leaders Together to Inspire Change”1

A poverty symposium dedicated to the proposition that our leaders and our citizens have the strength and ability to work together to turn despair into hope and hope into

action.

Bringing Leaders Together to Inspire change

PresentsDr. Ralph Nunez

Tim Smeeding

Mayor Tom Barrett

Pat Mc Manus Conor Williams


Welcome!

Presents

“Bringing Leaders Together to Inspire Change”


Dr. Ralph NunezPresident,

Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness

Homelessness: Much More Than a Housing

Issue


Break


Tim SmeedingDirector,

Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin

How the Safety Net Protected Wisconsin Families from Poverty in

2010

Research | Training | Policy | Practice

How the Safety Net Protected How the Safety Net Protected Wisconsin Families from Poverty Wisconsin Families from Poverty

in 2010in 20104th Annual Wisconsin Poverty Report4th Annual Wisconsin Poverty Report

Tim SmeedingIRP Director and

Distinguished Professor of Public Affairs UW Madison

for the Community Advocates Symposium on Poverty

Milwaukee, WIOctober 11, 2012

OverviewOverview The Wisconsin Poverty Measure ( WPM)

and the Wisconsin Idea in action Findings from 2012 4th Wisconsin

Poverty Report ( Released April 25th, 2012)

- What did we find ?- Why did it happen (WI economy vs. benefits) ?- So what does it mean? Conclusion: the safety net is working in

Wisconsin –and likely elsewhere

About the Wisconsin Poverty Measure: About the Wisconsin Poverty Measure: 2009-2012 and Its Goals 2009-2012 and Its Goals

Develop a more comprehensive measure of poverty that reflects federal and state programs aimed at the poor during the recession, especially noncash programs and refundable tax credits (next slide)

Inform the Wisconsin public and its policy makers about the effects of federal and state policies, including the ARRA, on poverty and economic well-being

Tailor this measure to the policies & priorities of Wisconsin citizens, nonprofits and policy makers

Provide a transparent, straightforward model for other states and localities to emulate

Annual Expenditures, Means-Tested Programs (Billions of 2010 Dollars)

How Programs to Help Poor in How Programs to Help Poor in the US (and Wisconsin) Have the US (and Wisconsin) Have

Changed, 1970-2010Changed, 1970-2010

A Look Forward : A Look Forward : What Do We Find?

• Poverty rates in Wisconsin under the Wisconsin Poverty Measure were lower than the official measure rates, and fell by a significant amount from 2009-2010

• The recession-plagued economy drove own Market Income poverty rates higher in Wisconsin in 2009 and 2010

• But the safety net worked very well to protect Wisconsin's low income people from poverty in 2009,and even better in 2010

Two Methods of Poverty Measurement: An Two Methods of Poverty Measurement: An

OverviewOverview

Official poverty line Developed in 1960s, based on food costs and expected share for food budget, since that time adjusted for prices only

Cash income (pre-tax)but including cash

government benefits like social security , workers comp., and unemployment ins.

Census “family” unit

NAS-like Poverty Line Basic expenses food, clothing, shelter, utilities averaged over three years ( next slide)Adjusted for Wisconsin cost of living, housing tenure, & medical expenses

More Family Resources Cash income as in left panel:+/- Taxes & tax credits+ Non-cash benefits (inc. Food

Stamps) - Work expenses (inc. childcare)

Expanded Poverty Unit Census family + unmarried partner

& foster children; minus college students who do not work

Official Measure Wisconsin Poverty Measure

Threshold

(Economic need)

Resources

Family considere

d

The 2009 and 2010 WPM The 2009 and 2010 WPM Poverty Lines vs. the Official Poverty Lines vs. the Official

Poverty Line Poverty Line • The official poverty line( for four person family) was $22,113 in 2010

• The WPM line was $25,919, $3800 higher in 2010,reflecting 3 year avg. expenditures on food, clothing, shelter and utilities

• The 2009 WPM was $26,235 –a bit higher than the WPM in 2010

• The WPM fell from 2009-2010 due to lower ( national) avg.expenditures on necessities by low income units in the recession

Three Resource Concepts for Three Sets of Poverty

Rates • Market Income (MI) based poverty rates –

including only own earnings and private investment and retirement incomes

• Official Measure (OM) poverty rates- which are based only on cash income only

• Wisconsin Poverty Measure (WPM)-which includes the effects of housing costs, child care costs, medical costs as well as taxes, refundable tax credits and noncash benefits like SNAP and public housing

Figure 1. Wisconsin Poverty Rates Under Three Measures, 2008–2010

Source: IRP tabulations using 2008–2010 American Community Survey data.Notes: Market income includes earnings, investment income, private retirement income, child support, and other forms of private income. Both the market-income measure and the WPM are based on the WPM thresholds, definition of family unit, and treatment of work and medical expenses, which differ from the thresholds and methodologies of the official measure, as described in the methods section below. *Means that the difference between 2009 and 2010 was statistically significant.

The Trend in Wisconsin The Trend in Wisconsin Poverty Poverty

• MI poverty rises as the economy worsens and job losses from the recession begin to cut market incomes , especially earnings

• OM poverty rises, counting cash incomes alone ( even when including cash benefits like unemployment insurance, for example)

• But WPM poverty falls as refundable tax credits and noncash benefits like SNAP( FoodShare) increase to offset declining earnings amongst the poor

Why ? : The Wisconsin Economy, ‘FoodShare’ (SNAP)

and tax credits(EITC) The data we use here ( 2010 American

Community Survey or ACS ) covers the period January 2009-November 2010 as shown below

During this period the number of jobs in Wisconsin fell by about 5 percent and stayed there .

Benefits from SNAP(‘FoodShare’) rose quickly in Wisconsin in part due to the ( former) Governor Doyle’s poverty task force and active efforts to inform the public of their eligibility

FoodShare beneficiaries increased faster in Wisconsin than in the nation as a whole and especially outside of Milwaukee

Figure 2. Number of Individuals Employed and Monthly Job Gains/Losses in

Wisconsin, 2007–2011

Source: Seasonally adjusted Bureau of Labor Statistics data on total non-farm employment. Notes: The 2010 poverty rate is based on economic conditions from January 2009 through November 2010, because the American Community Survey (ACS) data for each year are collected throughout the calendar year, and include references to income over the previous 12 months, hence, spanning a total of 23 months, as shown in the chart. For reference, the official recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009.

Figure 3. Changes in SNAP Benefit Caseloads in Wisconsin and the

United States, 2007–2010

Source: Data on SNAP participation are from the FoodShare data website of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.Notes: The number of cases in Wisconsin is shown on the left-hand scale of the y-axis, while that for the United States is on the right-hand scale of the y-axis.

““Food Share” Benefits in Wisconsin , and Food Share” Benefits in Wisconsin , and May 2012 Legislative Audit Bureau Report May 2012 Legislative Audit Bureau Report

• In our simulations, we added about $.76 billion in SNAP to the 2010 ACS, close to LAB 2010 totals.

• These totals reflect both the growing WI caseload and the ARRA’s 14 percent increase in benefits effective April, 2009

• The 2012 LAB report says: In FY 2011, 1.1 million persons received $1.1 billion in ‘FoodShare’ benefits in WI, with error rates for benefit denial of eligibles and for benefit overpayments both falling to 2.6 percent and 2.0 percent respectively

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/reports/12-8highlights.htm

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/reports/12-8highlights.htm

Refundable Tax credits in Wisconsin Refundable Tax credits in Wisconsin with state EITC –an example with state EITC –an example

• • Benefits for workers, subsidy rate as high as 40% up to $20,000 (marrieds), then phased out; expanded in 1980s/1990s

• Distributionally, helps those most in the $10K-$30K range

• Research: positive effects on LFP of single mothers, zero on men, small negative on hours of married women

• Generally taken as a refund and single mothers use to draw down debt

EITC and other refundable tax EITC and other refundable tax credits in Wisconsin : A summary credits in Wisconsin : A summary

• The 2009 ARRA increased federal income tax credits by expanding the EITC (new tier for three children) and the refundable Child Tax Credit and by creating the Making Work Pay tax credit.

• WI’s state credit was an additional 14 percent of the federal credit in 2009 and 2010.

• There was a 21 percent increase in the total amount of EITC credits alone in Wisconsin alone (from $643 million in 2008 to $780 million in 2009 ).

• According to our tax calculations using ACS and state administrative data, the total amount of all tax refunds in Wisconsin, both federal and state, increased by 39 percent from $.92 billion to $1.28 billion ( between 2008 and 2009), and remained at about $1.26 in 2010.

.

More Results: Level and Trend (2008-2010) in Poverty for

Vulnerable Groups• Poverty in Wisconsin was lower for

children and a bit higher for elders than the OM

• Child poverty in Wisconsin is still above average but very close to the overall poverty rate in this state

• The trends show that child poverty fell in Wisconsin despite decreases in parents market incomes, especially earnings

• Elderly poverty rates were flat and stayed at just under 10 percent

Figure 4. Poverty in Wisconsin in 2010Overall and for Two Vulnerable Groups

Source: IRP tabulations using 2010 American Community Survey data.Note: Market income includes earnings, investment income, private retirement income, child support, and other forms of private income. Both the market-income measure and the WPM are based on the WPM thresholds, definition of family unit, and treatment of work and medical expenses, which differ from the thresholds and methodologies of the official measure, as described in the methods section above.

Figure 5. Child Poverty Rates in Wisconsin under Different Poverty

Measures, 2008–2010

Source: IRP tabulations using 2008–2010 American Community Survey data.Notes: * = The difference between 2009 and 2010 was statistically significant.

Figure 6. Elderly Poverty Rates in Wisconsin under Different Poverty

Measures, 2008–2010

Source: IRP tabulations using 2008–2010 American Community Survey data.Notes: The change between 2009 and 2010 was not statistically significant under either measure.

What Drove Overall and Child Poverty Rates Down ?

Four policy levers that affected WI poverty:1.Refundable tax credits like the EITC (federal and state) and child tax credits2.Noncash benefits like SNAP (FoodShare) public housing, LIHEAP 3. Work related expenses like child care, affected by CARES, and commuting costs 4. Out of pocket health care costs , affected by BadgerCare

Figure 7. Effects of Taxes, Public Benefits, and Expenses on Overall Poverty in Wisconsin, 2008–2010

Source: IRP tabulations using 2008–2010 American Community Survey data.Note: SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Figure 8. Effects of Taxes, Public Benefits, and Expenses on Child Poverty in Wisconsin, 2008–2010


Figure 9. Effects of Taxes, Public Benefits, and Expenses on Elderly Poverty in

Wisconsin, 2008–2010


Poverty Poverty WithinWithin Wisconsin's Wisconsin's Borders Borders

ACS big enough to accurately show poverty in areas of 100,00o persons within the state

Poverty varied across counties within the state with two areas having significantly higher poverty rates (Chippewa/Eau Claire and Milwaukee) and many areas having significantly below state average rates (for instance, the northern Milwaukee suburbs Waukesha, Ozaukee, Washington)

But still within Milwaukee county, poverty rates varied from 5 to 36 percent!

Map 1. Wisconsin Counties and Multicounty Areas with 2010 WPM Poverty Rates Above or Below

the State Rate of 10.3 Percent

Source: IRP tabulations using 2010 American Community Survey data. Notes: WPM = Wisconsin Poverty Measure.

Map 2. 2010 WPM Poverty Rates within Milwaukee

County by PUMA*

Source: IRP tabulations using 2010 American Community Survey data. Note: The state poverty rate calculated with the WPM in 2010 was 10.3%. All differences between the regional estimates and the state average as examined here were statistically significant. *Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) are predefined areas designated by the U.S. Census Bureau that have 100,000 or more residents.

Our Conclusion: the Safety Net is Working in Wisconsin

• In times of need, a safety net that enhances low earnings for families with children, puts food on the table, and encourages self-reliance can make a big difference in combating poverty

• All Wisconsinites should be proud of this outcome

• The recession surely had substantial negative effects on housing, jobs, debt and incomes of the “middle class”, but the poor were protected

• Next year, with some sponsorship, we hope to show that poverty fell because of increased market incomes, as good jobs paying decent wages are the real solution to poverty

Anti-Poverty Program Anti-Poverty Program Summary Summary

and Outlook and Outlook • The WI economy worsened in 2009-2010

and has stayed in bad shape though 2011• SNAP(FoodShare) benefits and refundable

tax credits rose to met the challenge • In 2011 benefits increased again (SNAP) or

remained very high( refundable tax credits)• 2011 numbers will reflect a decrease in the

WI state EITC from 14 to 11 percent, the elimination of the making work pay credit, and also the 2011 and 2012 payroll tax reduction of 2.0 percent for all workers

Other Avenues to Other Avenues to ExploreExplore

• Racial and ethnic dimensions of poverty in Wisconsin (and within/around Milwaukee)

• Effects of the recession on the near poor and the lower middle class, those between 1.0 and 2.0 times the poverty line where 39 percent of children are located nationwide (http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/SEHSD2012-18.pdf

)• Simulate the effects of budget cuts likely

to take place for SNAP and refundable tax credits in 2013

http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/SEHSD2012-18.pdf

http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/SEHSD2012-18.pdf

An Important Note on Poverty An Important Note on Poverty Thresholds: Timing Matters Thresholds: Timing Matters

• Semi-relative poverty thresholds like the NAS Wisconsin line can actually fall in bad times

• Longer time periods (e.g. a 5 year threshold such as with the national SPM ) would mean higher semi-relative thresholds over the 2008-2010 period, but may fall when the bad time years (2009-2011) are added on and the good times years (2006-2008) are dropped in the coming years

• Using an ‘anchored’ poverty line - taking the WPM WI line for 2008, and increasing it by prices only to 2010 - means a higher WI poverty threshold (rising by 1.3 %) and a fall of only .2 percent in the 2010 WI poverty rate

• But even with the anchored line, WI child poverty fell by 2.0 percentage points in 2010

Where to find the report? Where to find the report?

Online at:http://www.irp.wisc.edu/research/WisconsinPoverty/pdfs/

WIPovSafetyNet_Apr2012.pdf With additional information and longer methodological and

technical reports on WPR at:http://www.irp.wisc.edu/research/wipoverty.htm

Also of interest, an IRP Fast Focus ‘consumers guide’ to poverty measures: http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/fastfocus/pdfs/FF14-2012.pdf

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/research/wipoverty.htm

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/fastfocus/pdfs/FF14-2012.pdf

Acknowledgements• The Wisconsin Poverty Measure Team:

Yiyoon Chung, Julia Isaacs, Timothy Smeeding, and Katherine Thornton

• Funding from U.S. HHS (ASPE) and Census Bureau , but now expired/extinguished/done

• Invaluable assistance from others:-Input from stakeholders in Wisconsin-National, state and local experts on poverty -Use of state administrative data housed at IRP to allocate full noncash benefits and tax credits


Lunch


Mayor Tom Barrett City of Milwaukee

Poverty In Milwaukee


Break


Pat McManusPresident/CEO,

Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin

Poverty in the African American Community in Milwaukee: Time, Place

and Race Does Matter

Community AdvocatesPoverty Symposium

Poverty in the African American Community

In Milwaukee: Time, Place and Race Matter

Patricia McManus, PhD, RN, GCNPMOctober 11, 2012

Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin, Inc.

Life Course Theory

• The study of people's lives, structural contexts, and social change. In particular, it directs attention to the powerful connection between individual lives and the historical and socioeconomic context in which these lives unfold.

• The life course perspective elaborates the importance of time, context, process, and meaning on human development and family life

• The family is perceived as a micro social group within a macro social context—a "collection of individuals with shared history who interact within ever-changing social contexts across ever increasing time and space" (Bengston and Allen 1993, p. 470).


Life Course Theory

• Life course theory, more commonly termed the life course perspective, refers to a multidisciplinary paradigm for the study of people's lives, structural contexts, and social change.

• This approach encompasses ideas and observations from an array of disciplines, notably history, sociology, demography, developmental psychology, biology, and economics.

• In particular, it directs attention to the powerful connection between individual lives and the historical and socioeconomic context in which these lives unfold.


Life Course Theory

• As a concept, a life course is defined as "a sequence of socially defined events and roles that the individual enacts over time" (Giele and Elder 1998, p. 22).

• These events and roles do not necessarily proceed in a given sequence, but rather constitute the sum total of the person's actual experience.

• Thus the concept of life course implies age-differentiated social phenomena distinct from uniform life-cycle stages and the life span.


Life Course Theory

• Life span refers to duration of life and characteristics that are closely related to age but that vary little across time and place.

• In contrast, the life course perspective elaborates the importance of time, context, process, and meaning on human development and family life (Bengtson and Allen 1993). The family is perceived as a micro social group within a macro social context—a "collection of individuals with shared history who interact within ever-changing social contexts across ever increasing time and space" (Bengston and Allen 1993, p. 470).


Life Course Principles

• Social historical and geographical location• Timing of lives • Heterogeneity or variability• Linked lives and social ties to others• Human agency and personal control and• How the past shapes the future.


Human Agency and Personal Control

• According to life course perspective, individuals are active agents who not only mediate the effect of social structure, but also make decisions and set goals that shape social structure.

• Individuals are assumed to have the capacity to engage in planful competence, which refers to thoughtful, proactive, and self-controlled processes that underlie one’s choices about institutional involvements and social relationships.


Human Agency and Personal Control

• However, it should be recognized that the ability to make specific choices depends on opportunities and constraints.

• The concept of control cycles suggest that families and individuals modify their expectations and behavior in response to changes in either needs or resources.


How the Past Shapes the Future

• Early life course decisions, opportunities, and conditions affect later outcomes.

• The past has the potential to shape the present, and the future. This can occur at various levels. Ie cohort, or individual/family. (depression, civil rights, feminist, etc)

• The timing and conditions of events ,ie dropping out of school, witnessing domestic abuse, job loss, can set up a chain reaction of experiences, reproduction of poverty, cycle of family violence, etc.


How the Past Shapes the Future

• The past, therefore, can significantly affect later life outcomes such as SES, mental health, physical functioning, and marital patterns.

• This long term view, with its recognition of cumulative advantage or disadvantage, is particularly valuable for understanding social inequality in later life and creating social policy and programs


What is Race?

Is not a biological construct that reflects innate differences,

But a social construct that

precisely captures the impacts of racism.

Statements From Race: the power of an illusion

• Race has no genetic basis. Not one characteristic, trait or even gene distinguishes all the member of one so –called race from all the members of another so-called race.


Statements From Race: the power of an illusion

• Race and freedom evolved together in the United States. The idea of race helped rationalize why some people could be denied the rights and freedom that others took for granted.

• Race justified social inequalities as natural. As the race idea evolved, white superiority became “common sense” in the US.

• It helped justify slavery, Indian conquest, the exclusion of Asian immigrants, and the taking of Mexican lands in spite of our belief in democracy and freedom.

• Racial practices were institutionalized within US government, laws, and society.


TIME SPAN

CITIZENSHIP STATUS -YRS

Experience accounts for this proportion of time in US

STATUS WEALTH & ECONOMIC SYSTEM EXPERIENCE

1619-1865

246 years

63%

Chattel slavery

Served as part of the economic system, not able to participate as someone who could accumulate wealth. Dred Scott Decision, Black Laws.

1865-1965

100 years

26%

Virtually no citizenship rightsDe jure-SouthDe facto-North

“Must be careful not to give rights to the Blacks that will impede the progress of whites”. Development of small businesses in segregated communitiesPlessy v Ferguson Separate but (equal) Jim Crow LawsIntegration of many Black communities resulted in the loss of many black businesses. Loss of middle class manufacturing jobs. Left out of high tech/ high information environment

1965-2011

46 years

12% Most citizenship rights: USA struggles to transition from segregation & discrimination to integration of AA

TOTAL

392 years 100%

WEALTH DISPARITIES/INEQUITIES

AFRICAN AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP STATUS & WEALTH ACCUMULATION

FROM 1619 TO 2011

Source: Adapted from Byrd, WM, Clayton, LA. An American Health Dilemma, Volume 1, A Medical History of African Americans and the Problem of Race: Beginnings to 1900, New York, NY: Routledge. 2000.

“Struggle”

Research Study

Identifying Resiliency Characteristics in African American Families designed to Prevent Youth Violence

Ronald Edari, PhD.Associate Professor

UWM, School of SociologyAnd

Patricia McManus, PhD., RNPresident/CEO

Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin, Inc.April, 1995


Resiliency An asset-based approach which explore

factors associated with positive outcomes Does not ignore risk factors.

Includes values, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors

Results in health maintenance, well-being, and thriving despite life’s difficulties and stresses.

Analysis of the context and relationships among individuals, families, communities.


Resiliency in African American Families

• There has been a great deal of time, energy and resources utilized in looking at “distressed families and neighborhoods”, usually from a deficit perspective.

Resiliency in African American Families

• Recommendations for improvement has hinged on the belief that these families had nothing to offer internally, and required external intervention in order to mitigate the impact of negative factors in their neighborhoods or households.

Resiliency in African American FamiliesResearch Design

• This study employed an inductive approach to uncover factors that are associated with resiliency in African American families residing in high risk inner city communities.

• In terms of the logic of scientific investigation, the study falls in the context of discovery, rather than hypothesis testing.

• The main objective was to find out how families coped with the many adversities that placed members at a significant risk of experiencing negative life events such as interpersonal violence.

Resiliency in African American FamiliesFamily Resiliency Defined

•Those values, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of inner city families which support their children in promoting healthy lifestyles.

Resiliency in African American FamiliesResearch Question

• What resiliency characteristics of inner city families protect and/or support youth from engaging in violent behaviors


Resiliency In African American Families

• Unit of analysis- families not individuals• 37 African American families were interviewed• Mean yearly income was $7,600/household• 75% single parent households


RESILIENCY IN AFRICAN AMERICAN FAMILIES

Research Definitions of resiliency:1. The ability to resist the pressures of negative

forces. (Primary Prevention)2. The ability to cope positively with

adversity (Secondary Prevention)

Resiliency In African American FamiliesFindings

• Male spouses/partners seem to add a positive dimension to the family’s ability to cope with adversity. However, lack of a male in the home did not automatically produce a negative dimension

Recommendations• Policy directives should be aimed at supporting positive male

presence in homes with children.• Instead of concentrating on jobs for youth, there should be

more emphasis on findings jobs for their parents, especially the males.

Resiliency in African American FamiliesFindings

• Education, employment and income are factors that add to the family’s resiliency. (Resources were used beyond the walls of a single household)

Recommendations• Adult basic education should be available to parents and

other adults who interact with children.• Job training and placement should include an internship

period for those parents who have been out of the workforce for an extended period of time.

• Family sustainable income should be established to complement wages which fall below a certain minimum.


• The social support network of both resilient and non-resilient families consisted mostly of their relatives.

• In terms of locus of control, the non-resilient families were more likely to feel powerless, helpless, inept, and interact less with persons outside of their kin.

• Non resilient families tended to go to social service agencies first rather than their families for support.

RecommendationSocial service and health agencies need to incorporate information

concerning the assets of their relatives and who role can they play in enhancing the resilient of this family for long term outcomes.


• Both groups identified themselves as spiritual, but the resilient families tended to attend church with a greater frequency.

RecommendationsEncourage neighborhood churches to participate in outreach and

support of families in the immediate areas, whether they attend their church or not.

Encourage religious organizations to develop adult educational and job training programs in their facilities.


• In terms of residential mobility, the resilient families had much greater frequencies of mobility than the non-resilient families.

RecommendationsLocal governments must recognize the needs of neighborhoods

in which the population density high and provide better sanitation and safety in order to stabilize families and, thereby, the neighborhood itself.

Since non-resilient families tend to stay longer in neighborhoods, establishing resources that focus on their children would provide the vital linkages that would reduce loneliness and social isolation.


• An overwhelming number of the resilient families owned a automobile, and this would seem to have enhanced the well-being of their family members.

RecommendationsAdvocate for increasing transit access to jobs in surrounding

suburbs where the jobs exist and will be increasing in the next decade.

Advocate for safety in the transit system.Support more jobs in the inner city that residents can walk to.Support neighborhood schools to allow parents to interact more

readily in their children’s learning environment.


• Both groups associated being a good parent with being firm with children.

RecommendationWork with families to understand the role of stress ( both

personal and systemic) affects how they parent, including discipline.

Resources should be allocated to provide Afrocentric parenting classes for families in need.


African American Resiliency Assumptions

• The African American community has problems. The community is not the problem.

• There are African American families living in distressed communities that are not only able to “survive”, but to “thrive” and provide “Nurturing environments” for their families.


RESILIENCY IN AFRICAN AMERICAN FAMILIESSummary

• A continuum of Resiliency - If family resiliency is defined in terms of the ability to cope positively with adversity or to resist the pressures of negative forces. It is evident that it is not an “all-or-none” attribute.


RESILIENCY IN AFRICAN AMERICAN FAMILIESSummary

• Rather, resiliency should be viewed as a continuum along which families can be ordered, depending on the extent to which they need help.



Break


Conor Williams, Economic Policy Analyst,

Community Advocates Public Policy Institute

Pathways to Ending Poverty

David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”

David Riemer, Senior FellowConor Williams, Economic Policy Analyst

Michael Bare, Research and Program CoordinatorCommunity Advocates Public Policy Institute

Poverty reduction analysis provided by The Urban Institute

Funded by:Greater Milwaukee Foundation, Charles R. O’Malley Trust,Lynn and Elizabeth Adelman, Richard and Barbara Weiss,

Annie E. Casey Foundation, Ford Foundation

Pathways to Ending Poverty

Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin


79

Government’s Current Role

Source: Institute for Research on Poverty (IRP), University of Wisconsin-Madison


Poverty Measure: Official v. SPM

80

Official Poverty Definition

Resources

Cash Income, composed of: Wages, salaries, and self-employment income Interest, dividends, rent, trusts Social Security & Railroad Retirement Pensions Disability benefits Unemployment compensation Child support received Veterans benefits Educational assistance (grants) Supplemental Security Income Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Other cash public assistance

Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM)

Resources

Cash Income—Same as components shown for “official” measure

+ Food Stamps/SNAP + WIC + Housing subsidies + LIHEAP + Federal EITC + State EITC + State tax credits (Homestead Credit, etc.) - Payroll taxes - Federal income taxes - State income taxes - Child care expenses - Other work expenses

Note: School lunch and child support payments are omitted.



81

Official Poverty Definition

Thresholds

National thresholds vary by age (less than 65 and 65+) and number of children and adults. The original thresholds were based on the share of income spent on food under an “Economy Food Plan” developed from a 1955 expenditure survey, multiplied by three since food in 1955 accounted for one-third of total household spending. The thresholds are adjusted annually for price changes using the Consumer Price Index.

Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM)

Thresholds

Thresholds vary by number of children and adults and by housing status (rents, owns with mortgage, or owns without mortgage), and reflect the 33rd percentile of expenditures by families with two children on a basic set of goods (food, clothing, shelter, utilities), plus 20% more, based on five years of Consumer Expenditure Survey data. Geographic adjustments are applied to the housing portion of the threshold. We also adjust the threshold to include medical out-of-pocket expenses (MOOP), which vary by type of health insurance, health status, and elderly/nonelderly status.


Sample Poverty Thresholds: WI: 2008

82


2008 Poverty Measure: Official v. SPM

83

OfficialNumber Poor 528,000 % Poor 9.7%

SPMNumber Poor 438,000 % Poor 8.0%



84

Children Under 18

Adults 18-64

Seniors Over 65

Official SPM Number Poor 166,000 101,000 % Poor 12.7% 7.8%




85

Wisconsin Poverty and Current Policies

Wisconsin’s

Poor

435,000

Adults

335,000

SSI

SSDI

SocialSecurity

Children

100,000

Unemployment Insurance

Minimum Wage

Earned Income Supplements

FoodShare

BadgerCare

K12 Education

Early Childhood Education

NOT in Labor Market

IN Labor Market

Age andRetirement (65 + older)

Disability

Unemployed Full-Time

Working Full-Time

Unemployed Part-Time and Working

Part-Time

Approx. 120,000

Approx. 215,000


The Job Shortage: WI

86


87

New Policies to Reduce Poverty

Wisconsin’s

Poor

435,000

Adults

335,000

SSI

SSDI

SocialSecurity

Children

100,000

Unemployment Insurance

Minimum Wage

Earned Income Supplements

FoodShare

Senior and Disability Income Tax Credit

Transitional Jobs

EarningsSupplement Reform

BadgerCare

K12 Education

Early Childhood Education

Increase & Index

NOT in Labor Market

IN Labor Market

Age andRetirement (65 + older)

Disability

Unemployed Full-Time

Working Full-Time

Unemployed Part-Time and Working Part-Time

Approx. 120,000

Approx. 215,000


88

“Policy Package”

Four Components:

1. Senior and Disability Income Tax Credit

2. Transitional Jobs Program

3. Minimum Wage Increase

4. Earning Supplement Reform


89

“Policy Package” Part 1

Senior and Disability Income Tax Credit:

Eligibility Criteria:• Age 18 or older, and not a dependent of another taxpayer• Income from Social Security, SSDI, or SSI

Credit:At least $0

Equals = SPM poverty line for Waukesha residents who are elderly, own home, have a mortgage, in fair/poor health, with public insurance + $1 - Sum of Social Security + SSDI + SSI + SNAP + Federal AGI (if positive)


90

Results: Senior/Disability Credit


91


Transitional Jobs (TJ) Program:

Eligibility Criteria:• Age 18-64 and not incarcerated• Not receiving Social Security, SSDI, or SSI• Unemployed or employed no more than 32 hours per week for at

least 4 consecutive weeks

Program:• Offer opportunity to work in a TJ for up to 30 weeks:

- At least 8 hours of TJ work per week; but- Total work hours (TJ + non-TJ) <= 40 hours/week

• After initial 30 weeks of TJ work and a 4 week hiatus to seek a regular job, the worker may be eligible for an additional TJ slot.


92

Wisconsin’s Transitional Jobs Program


93

Support for a Robust Transitional Jobs Program:


94

Results: Transitional Jobs


95


Minimum Wage Increase:

Raise the minimum wage to $8 per hour, indexed for inflation:


96

Results: Higher Minimum Wage


97


Earnings Supplement Reform:

3 new federal tax credits to replace the federal EITC, federal Additional Child Tax Credit, and the federal Child Tax Credit:

1. Working Americans Tax Credit

2. Working Parents Tax Credit

3. Child Tax Credit


98

“Policy Package” Part 4:Earnings Supplement Reform

1. Working Americans Tax Credit:

Eligibility Criteria: • Age >=18, non-dependent, has earnings (both head and

spouse may claim)

Credit: = 50% of individual earnings • Capped at $3,500 per individual • 13% phase out starting at $7,000 • Additional 5% phase out if tax unit’s AGI > $25,000


99

Each Worker:

Working Americans Tax Credit



100

2. Working Parents Tax Credit:

Eligibility Criteria: • Age >=18, non-dependent, has earnings, and has dependent children

Credit: = 40% of earnings for 1 child, 50% for >1 child • Capped at $4,000 (1 child) or $5,000 (>1 child) per family • 10% phase out starting at $10,000 Switches to higher 23% phase out at $34,000 in household earnings (approximately when Working American Tax Credit has phased out)



101

Worker with One Dependent Child:

Working Americans Tax Credit + Working Parents Tax Credit:



102

3. Child Tax Credit

Eligibility Criteria: • Have qualifying children (as for current child tax credit)

Credit: = 15% of earnings above $3,000 Capped at $1,000 per child



103

Results: Earnings Supplement Reform


104

What’s the big picture for Wisconsin?


105

Results: Combined Package: Poverty Rate for All Persons


106

Results: Combined Package: Children, Adults and Seniors


107

Results: Combined Package:Poverty Rate By Race


108

Results: Combined Package:Number in Poverty


109

Results: Combined Package:Impact on Employment


110

Net Cost of Policy Package

Net Cost of Implementing Policy Package in WI:

Low* TJ take-up rate = $3.3 Billion

Full** TJ take-up rate = $5.0 Billion

* Assumes 50% of persons below poverty line who are fully unemployed take up a TJ

*** Assumes almost all persons below poverty line who are fully unemployed take up a TJ and assumes full take-up of other programs for low-income individuals/families, e.g., Food Stamps


111

Cost in Perspective (Percent of Other Spending)


112

Conclusion

1. Government plays an essential role in reducing U.S. poverty.

2. Without existing government programs, poverty would be nearly twice as bad, and five times worse for seniors.

3. Due to government policies, poverty is “only” 10%-15%.

4. Our goal should be to reduce poverty by half… to below 5%.

5. Only new government action—primarily at the federal level—can dramatically lower poverty in the future.


113

Conclusion

6. The four-part “policy package” demonstrates how poverty can be reduced by more than 50% to a level well under 5%.

7. No other proposal exists that is supported by evidence.

8. We should proceed to:• Communicate what will work to dramatically reduce poverty;• Organize state and national movements to achieve this goal; and • Translate the elements of the “policy package” into specific state

and federal legislative action.


114

Thank You!

Please feel free to contact us:

Community Advocates Public Policy Institute728 North James Lovell Street, Milwaukee, WI 53233

David Riemer, Senior [email protected], 414.270.2943

Conor Williams, Economic Policy [email protected],

414.270.2954

Michael Bare, Research and Program [email protected], 414.270.2976


Joe VolkCEO,

Community Advocates, Inc.

Wrap-Up


Please feel free to contact us:

Community Advocates Public Policy Institute728 North James Lovell Street, Milwaukee, WI 53233

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 414.270.2970

Thank you for attending!

Documents

Bringing Leaders Together to Inspire change