Bringing Leaders Together to
Inspire change
Dr. Ralph Nunez
Presents
Mayor Tom Barrett
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”
Tim Smeeding
Pat Mc Manus
Conor Williams 1
Welcome!
Presents
“Bringing Leaders Together to
Inspire Change”
“Bringing Leaders Together to Inspire Change”
2
Homelessness:
Much More Than a Housing Issue
Dr. Ralph Nunez
President,
Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness
“Bringing Leaders Together to Inspire Change”
3
Break
“Bringing Leaders Together to Inspire Change”
4
How the Safety Net Protected Wisconsin
Families from Poverty in 2010
Tim Smeeding
Director,
Institute for Research on Poverty,
University of Wisconsin
“Bringing Leaders Together to Inspire Change”
5
How the Safety Net Protected Wisconsin
Families from Poverty in 2010
4th Annual Wisconsin Poverty Report
Tim Smeeding
IRP Director and
Distinguished Professor of Public Affairs
UW Madison
for the
Community Advocates Symposium on Poverty
Milwaukee, WI
October 11, 2012
Research | Training | Policy | Practice
Overview
 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: 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
How Programs to Help Poor in the US (and
Wisconsin) Have Changed, 1970-2010
Annual Expenditures, Means-Tested Programs
(Billions of 2010 Dollars)
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 Overview
Official Measure
Wisconsin Poverty Measure
Official poverty line
Threshold
(Economic
need)
Resources
NAS-like Poverty Line
Basic expenses food, clothing,
Developed in 1960s, based
shelter, utilities averaged over
on food costs and expected
three years ( next slide)
share for food budget, since
that time adjusted for prices
Adjusted for Wisconsin cost of
only
living, housing tenure, & medical
expenses
More Family Resources
Cash income (pre-tax)
Cash income as in left panel:
but including cash
government benefits +/- Taxes & tax credits
+ Non-cash benefits (inc. Food
like social security ,
Stamps)
workers comp., and
- Work expenses (inc. childcare)
unemployment ins.
Family
considered
Census “family” unit
Expanded Poverty Unit
Census family + unmarried partner
& foster children; minus college
students who do not work
The 2009 and 2010 WPM Poverty Lines
vs. the Official 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 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 2009November 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 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
Refundable Tax credits in Wisconsin 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 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 2010
Overall 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 credits
2. 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
Source: IRP tabulations using 2008–2010 American Community Survey data.
Note: SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Figure 9. Effects of Taxes, Public Benefits, and Expenses
on Elderly Poverty in Wisconsin, 2008–2010
Source: IRP tabulations using 2008–2010 American Community Survey data.
Note: SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Poverty Within Wisconsin's 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 Summary
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 Explore
• 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/supplem
ental/research/SEHSD2012-18.pdf )
• Simulate the effects of budget cuts likely to
take place for SNAP and refundable tax
credits in 2013
An Important Note on Poverty 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?
 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/pd
fs/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
“Bringing Leaders Together to Inspire Change”
39
Poverty In Milwaukee
Mayor Tom Barrett
City of Milwaukee
“Bringing Leaders Together to Inspire Change”
40
Break
“Bringing Leaders Together to Inspire Change”
41
Poverty in the African American Community in
Milwaukee: Time, Place and Race Does Matter
Pat McManus
President/CEO,
Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin
“Bringing Leaders Together to Inspire Change”
42
Community Advocates
Poverty Symposium
Poverty in the African American
Community
In Milwaukee: Time, Place and Race Matter
Patricia McManus, PhD, RN, GCNPM
October 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).
Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin,
Inc.
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.
Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin,
Inc.
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.
Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin,
Inc.
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).
Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin,
Inc.
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.
Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin,
Inc.
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.
Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin,
Inc.
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.
Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin,
Inc.
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.
Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin,
Inc.
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
Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin,
Inc.
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.
Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin,
Inc.
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.
Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin,
Inc.
AFRICAN AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP STATUS & WEALTH ACCUMULATION
FROM 1619 TO 2011
TIME
SPAN
16191865
18651965
19652011
TOTAL
CITIZENSHIP
STATUS -YRS
246
years
100
years
46 years
392 years
Experience accounts
for this proportion of
time in US
63%
26%
12%
100%
STATUS
Chattel
slavery
Virtually no
citizenship
rights
De jure-South
De facto-North
Most citizenship
rights: USA
struggles to
transition from
segregation &
discrimination to
integration of AA
“Struggle”
WEALTH & ECONOMIC
SYSTEM EXPERIENCE
Served as part of the economic
system, not able to participate as
someone who could accumulate
wealth. Dred Scott Decision,
Black Laws.
“Must be careful not to give
rights to the Blacks that will
impede the progress of whites”.
Development of small businesses
in segregated communities
Plessy v Ferguson Separate but
(equal) Jim Crow Laws
Integration 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
WEALTH
DISPARITIES/
INEQUITIES
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.
Research Study
Identifying Resiliency Characteristics in African American
Families designed to Prevent Youth Violence
Ronald Edari, PhD.
Associate Professor
UWM, School of Sociology
And
Patricia McManus, PhD., RN
President/CEO
Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin, Inc.
April, 1995
Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin,
Inc.
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.
Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin,
Inc.
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 Families
Research 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 Families
Family Resiliency Defined
• Those values, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors
of inner city families which support their
children in promoting healthy lifestyles.
Resiliency in African American Families
Research Question
• What resiliency characteristics of inner city
families protect and/or support youth from
engaging in violent behaviors
Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin,
Inc.
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
Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin,
Inc.
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 Families
Findings
• 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 Families
Findings
• 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.
Resiliency in African American Families
Findings
• 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.
Recommendation
Social 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.
Resiliency in African American Families
Findings
• Both groups identified themselves as spiritual, but the
resilient families tended to attend church with a greater
frequency.
Recommendations
Encourage 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.
Resiliency in African American Families
Findings
• In terms of residential mobility, the resilient families had
much greater frequencies of mobility than the non-resilient
families.
Recommendations
Local 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.
Resiliency in African American Families
Findings
• An overwhelming number of the resilient families owned a
automobile, and this would seem to have enhanced the wellbeing of their family members.
Recommendations
Advocate 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.
Resiliency in African American Families
Findings
• Both groups associated being a good parent with being firm
with children.
Recommendation
Work 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.
Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin,
Inc.
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.
Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin,
Inc.
RESILIENCY IN AFRICAN AMERICAN FAMILIES
Summary
• 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.
Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin,
Inc.
RESILIENCY IN AFRICAN AMERICAN FAMILIES
Summary
• Rather, resiliency should be viewed as a
continuum along which families can be
ordered, depending on the extent to which
they need help.
Black Health Coalition of Wisconsin,
Inc.
Break
“Bringing Leaders Together to Inspire Change”
76
Pathways to Ending Poverty
Conor Williams,
Economic Policy Analyst,
Community Advocates Public Policy Institute
“Bringing Leaders Together to Inspire Change”
77
Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin
David Riemer, Senior Fellow
Conor Williams, Economic Policy Analyst
Michael Bare, Research and Program Coordinator
Community 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
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
Pathways to Ending Poverty
Government’s Current Role
Poverty BEFORE v. AFTER Government Economic Security Programs: All
Poor Persons: Wisconsin in 2008
60.0%
50.3%
50.0%
Poverty Rate
40.0%
30.0%
21.5%
21.3%
20.0%
13.6%
11.2%
15.4%
10.5%
10.4%
10.0%
0.0%
All Persons
Children (<18)
Adults (18-64)
Seniors (65+)
BEFORE Government Programs: IRP Market-Income-Only Poverty Rate
AFTER Government Programs: IRP Disposable Income Poverty Rate
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
Source: Institute for Research on
Poverty (IRP), University of WisconsinMadison
79
Poverty Measure: Official v. SPM
Official Poverty Definition
Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM)
Resources
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
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.
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
80
Poverty Measure: Official v. SPM
Official Poverty Definition
Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM)
Thresholds
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.
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.
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
81
Sample Poverty Thresholds: WI: 2008
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
82
2008 Poverty Measure: Official v. SPM
Number Poor
% Poor
Official
528,000
9.7%
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
Number Poor
% Poor
SPM
438,000
8.0%
83
Poverty Measure: Official v. SPM
Children Under 18
Number Poor
% Poor
Adults 18-64
Official
166,000
12.7%
SPM
101,000
7.8%
Number Poor
% Poor
Official
314,000
9.1%
SPM
273,000
7.9%
Number Poor
% Poor
Official
48,000
6.8%
SPM
64,000
9.1%
Seniors Over 65
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
84
Wisconsin Poverty and Current Policies
FoodShare
Age and
Retirement
(65 + older)
NOT in
Labor
Market
SSI
Disability
Adults
Social
Security
SSDI
Approx. 120,000
335,000
Unemployed
Full-Time
Wisconsin’s
Poor
435,000
IN
Labor
Market
Unemployed
Part-Time
and Working
Part-Time
Approx. 215,000
Working
Full-Time
Unemployment
Insurance
Minimum
Wage
Earned Income
Supplements
BadgerCare
Children
100,000
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
Early Childhood
Education
K12 Education
85
The Job Shortage: WI
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
86
New Policies to Reduce Poverty
FoodShare
Age and
Retirement
(65 + older)
NOT in
Labor
Market
SSI
Disability
Adults
Social
Security
SSDI
Approx. 120,000
Transitional
Jobs
335,000
Unemployed
Full-Time
IN
Labor
Market
Wisconsin’s
Poor
435,000
Senior and
Disability
Income
Tax Credit
Approx. 215,000
Unemployed
Part-Time
and Working
Part-Time
Working
Full-Time
Unemployment
Insurance
Minimum
Wage
Earned Income
Supplements
Increase &
Index
Earnings
Supplement
Reform
BadgerCare
Children
100,000
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
Early Childhood
Education
K12 Education
87
“Policy Package”
Four Components:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Senior and Disability Income Tax Credit
Transitional Jobs Program
Minimum Wage Increase
Earning Supplement Reform
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
88
“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)
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
89
Results:
Senior/Disability Credit
10%
9.13%
9%
8%
SPM Poverty Rate
7%
7.96%
7.83%
7.67%
6.91%
6.55%
6.99%
6%
5%
3.71%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
All Persons
Under 18
Baseline
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
18-64
65 and Over
Senior and Disability Tax Credit
90
“Policy Package” Part 2
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.
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
91
Wisconsin’s Transitional Jobs Program
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
92
Support for a Robust
Transitional Jobs Program:
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
93
Results:
Transitional Jobs
10%
9.13%
9%
8%
7%
7.96%
8.84%
7.83%
7.67%
6.95%
6.88%
SPM Poverty Rate
6.14%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
All Persons
Under 18
Baseline
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
18-64
65 and Over
Transitional Jobs (Low Take-up)
94
“Policy Package” Part 3
Minimum Wage Increase:
Raise the minimum wage to $8 per hour, indexed for
inflation:
$8.00
$6.50
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
95
Results:
Higher Minimum Wage
10%
9.13% 9.13% 8.99%
9%
8%
7.96% 7.83% 7.80%
7.67% 7.60%
7.44%
7.83% 7.66% 7.69%
SPM Poverty Rate
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
All Persons
Baseline
Under 18
Minimum Wage Increase
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
18-64
65 and Over
Minimum Wage Increase with Employment Effects
96
“Policy Package” Part 4
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
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
97
“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
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
98
“Policy Package” Part 4:
Earnings Supplement Reform
Each Worker:
Working Americans Tax Credit
$4,000
$3,500
Credit Amount
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$$1
$6
$11
$16
$21
$26
$31
$36
$41
$46
$51
$56
Annual Earnings (thousands of dollars)
2008 EITC
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
Working Americans Tax Credit
99
“Policy Package” Part 4:
Earnings Supplement Reform
2. Working Parents Tax Credit:
Eligibility Criteria:
• Age >=18, non-dependent, has earnings, and has
dependent children
Credit:
= 40% of earnings for 1 child, 50% for >1 child
• Capped at $4,000 (1 child) or $5,000 (>1 child) per
family
• 10% phase out starting at $10,000
Switches to higher 23% phase out at $34,000 in
household earnings (approximately when Working
American Tax Credit has phased out)
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
100
“Policy Package” Part 4:
Earnings Supplement Reform
Worker with One Dependent Child:
Working Americans Tax Credit + Working Parents Tax Credit:
$8,000
$7,000
$6,000
Credit Amount
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$$1
$6
$11
$16
$21
$26
$31
$36
$41
$46
$51
$56
Annual Earnings (thousands of dollars)
2008 EITC
2011 EITC
2011 EITC Married
Working Americans Tax Credit
Working Parents Tax Credit
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
101
“Policy Package” Part 4:
Earnings Supplement Reform
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
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
102
Results:
Earnings Supplement Reform
10%
9.13%
9%
8%
SPM Poverty Rate
7%
7.96%
6.04%
6%
8.56%
7.83%
7.67%
6.37%
8.84%
6.13%
5.68%
5.87%
5.14%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
All Persons
Baseline
Under 18
Earnings Supplement Reform
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
18-64
65 and Over
Earnings Supplement Reform with Employment Effects
103
What’s the big picture for Wisconsin?
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
104
Results: Combined Package:
Poverty Rate for All Persons
8.0%
8%
7%
SPM Poverty Rate
6%
5%
4%
3.4%
3%
2%
1.5%
1%
0%
Baseline
Combined Package: Low TJ Take-Up
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
Full Participation
105
Results: Combined Package:
Children, Adults and Seniors
10.0%
9.1%
9.0%
8.0%
7.8%
7.7%
SPM Poverty Rate
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
3.6%
4.0%
3.0%
3.1%
2.8%
1.0%
2.0%
1.7%
2.0%
0.8%
0.0%
Children Under 18
Baseline
Adults 18 to 64
Combined Package: Low TJ Take-Up
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
Adults 65 and Over
Full Participation
106
Results: Combined Package:
Poverty Rate By Race
20.0%
18.5%
18.0%
15.7%
15.3%
16.0%
SPM Poverty Rate
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
7.3%
8.0%
6.5%
4.0%
2.0%
5.5%
5.3%
6.0%
2.9%
2.9%
2.3%
2.0%
1.4%
0.0%
White, non-Hispanic
Baseline
Black, non-Hispanic
Low TJ Take-Up
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
Hispanic
Other, non-Hispanic
Full Participation in Anti-poverty Programs
107
Results: Combined Package:
Number in Poverty
866,000
900,000
800,000
750,000
705,000
SPM Number of Persons
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
304,000
300,000
200,000
131,000
100,000
129,000
53,000
66,000
19,000
0
Deep Poverty (Below 50%)
Baseline
50% to 100% of Poverty
Combined Package: Low TJ Take-Up
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
100% to 150% of Poverty
Full Participation
108
Results: Combined Package:
Impact on Employment
116,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
79,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Combined Package--Low TJ Take-Up Rate
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
Combined Package--Full TJ Take-Up Rate
109
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
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
110
Cost in Perspective
(Percent of Other Spending)
9.0%
7.6%
8.0%
7.0%
6.2%
6.0%
5.1%
4.6%
5.0%
3.8%
4.0%
3.1%
3.0%
2.0%
2.1%
1.7%
1.4%
2.3%
1.9%
1.5%
% of WI Gross
Domestic Product
% of WI Personal
Income
4.3%
3.5%
2.9%
1.0%
0.0%
Low TJ Take-Up
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
% of Social Security % of All Government
% of Federal
Earnings
Spending
Spending (incl. Direct
Payments)
High TJ Take-Up
Full Participation
111
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.
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
112
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.
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
113
Thank You!
Please feel free to contact us:
Community Advocates Public Policy Institute
728 North James Lovell Street, Milwaukee, WI 53233
David Riemer, Senior Fellow
driemermil@yahoo.com, 414.270.2943
Conor Williams, Economic Policy Analyst
Conor.Williams@stonedimensions.com,
414.270.2954
Michael Bare, Research and Program Coordinator
mbare@communityadvocates.net, 414.270.2976
David Riemer, Conor Williams and Michael Bare
“Reducing Poverty in Wisconsin”
114
Wrap-Up
Joe Volk
CEO,
Community Advocates, Inc.
“Bringing Leaders Together to Inspire Change”
115
Thank you for attending!
Please feel free to contact us:
Community Advocates Public Policy Institute
728 North James Lovell Street, Milwaukee, WI 53233
Email: ppi@communityadvocates.net
Phone: 414.270.2970
“Bringing Leaders Together to Inspire Change”
116