Messaging And Report Category: Messaging Memo

Our nation aspires to be a place where everyone enjoys full and equal opportunity. Unfortunately, there is a significant gulf between that goal and the daily reality for millions of Americans living in poverty. However, more Americans than at any other time in the past 50 years are ready to hear a new, more accurate story about poverty and to take action to address it. And most Americans—75 percent—think that unequal treatment of poor people is a problem.¹

This is an amazing window of opportunity. Yet we need to proceed strategically in our messaging, as these positive attitudes also coexist with longstanding negative stereotypes about welfare dependency, government ineptitude, and irresponsible individual choices, as well as implicit and explicit racial, ethnic, and gender biases. We also face challenges in the form of growing economic inequality, corporate political power, and partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill. We should also be aware that as the economy gradually improves for some groups, empathy for people living in poverty may well diminish.

By combining a sophisticated communications strategy with ongoing research, advocacy, and other approaches, however, we can build public support for transformative change and tackle poverty in our country.

This memo shares what we’ve learned from our research on attitudes and opinions about poverty plus messaging advice for crafting compelling messages about poverty and economic inequality.

10 Tips for Talking about Poverty

1. Connect with shared values: Opportunity, Community (Interconnection), Mobility, Security.
2. Illustrate systemic causes, including the geography of opportunity.
3. Amply document unequal opportunity (not just unequal outcomes).
4. Use thematic storytelling with enlightened insiders, affected change agents, group stories.
5. Emphasize solutions— contemporary, historic, and visionary.
6. Describe the practical and moral societal benefits.
7. Be aware of implicit racial, ethnic, gender bias—avoid over-representation and stereotypes, explain current discrimination (including implicit bias).
8. Avoid “new poor”/“old poor” false dichotomy.
9. Tell a nuanced story regarding the role of government.
10. Offer a range of actions, from individual to societal.

Insight from Public Opinion Research

American attitudes toward poverty, poor people, and the role of government tend to be grounded in two competing—but not always mutually exclusive—sets of values: individualism and personal responsibility on the one hand and equal opportunity and interconnection on the other. In fact, people often hold conflicting opinions concurrently. For example, significant majorities of Americans simultaneously oppose cutbacks in aid to poor people and believe that poor people have become too dependent on government assistance programs.

Additionally, our research shows a majority of Americans believe:

• Living standards for the poorest Americans are an important national issue.
• Poverty is mostly due to external circumstances, not lack of effort by poor people.
• The government should do more to reduce the gap between rich and poor.
• Government programs for poor people are a critical safety net that helps people get back on their feet in hard times, and should not be cut.
• Income and wealth inequality hold back economic growth.
• An increased minimum wage, improved education, and college access are important anti- poverty approaches that should be adopted.

Yet, a majority of Americans also:

• Believe poor people have become too dependent on government assistance programs.
• Feel it is not the responsibility of government to reduce the differences in income between people with high and low incomes.
• Believe poverty is an acceptable part of our economic system that does not need to be fixed.
• Are unaware of most structural causes and solutions.
• Hold negative racial stereotypes and beliefs relating to poverty.

Narrative, Messaging, and Storytelling Recommendations

Our research points to a need, as well as an opportunity, for anti-poverty leaders to communicate in new, more impactful ways. Our messaging recommendations include:

• Craft a shared narrative and uplift each other’s voices and concerns. Anti-poverty voices are relatively prominent in the public discourse, but they are diffuse, lacking a coherent narrative that can persuade undecided audiences or counter the disciplined narrative of their most frequent opponents.
  • We recommend that while anti-poverty leaders and groups maintain their individual perspectives and priorities, they also craft a shared narrative in which they:
    • • Emphasize the values of equal opportunity and community.
      • Highlight systemic causes.
      • Describe a path from poverty to economic participation.
      • Promote effective solutions and successes.
      • Invoke a positive role for government.
    • • Shared messaging should build on public concerns about growing inequality, low wages, and long-term unemployment while educating audiences about less visible forces like racial and gender bias, globalization, and tax and labor policies,
• Avoid the simplistic “new poor”/“old poor” dichotomy. The common storyline in news reporting on poverty is that the newly poor are victims of structural problems with the economy, and are generally viewed sympathetically, while those living in deep poverty (the “old poor”) are poor for other, largely unexplained, reasons. The framing of those stories also tends to reinforce inaccurate stereotypes about poor people, as well as race, and obscures systemic factors that affect both recently and persistently poor people. Communications should move beyond this illusory distinction. Consistent with that approach, stories about the challenges and progress of communities facing deep poverty are needed to ensure a full and accurate picture. Furthermore, the voices of people in deep and persistent poverty need to be heard.
• Document and explain unequal obstacles. Researchers have amply documented the disparate obstacles that contribute to higher poverty rates among communities of color, women, immigrants, and other demographic groups. Yet there is still a dearth of reporting on those dynamics—and for that reason, among others, many audiences are skeptical that such obstacles still exist. Moreover, research and experience show unchallenged subconscious stereotypes will infect attitudes about poverty generally and erode support for positive solutions. Our communications need to both explore and explain this evidence, as well as tell the human stories behind it. A focus on unequal obstacles—not only unequal outcomes or disparities—is an important part of that formula.
• Highlight systemic solutions for systemic problems. While news reports generally ascribe poverty to systemic causes, they do so through fleeting references to general trends such as plant closings, the scarcity of jobs, or the “weak economy.” Few stories explain root causes in any detail, and forces behind the disparate impact of poverty based on race, ethnicity, and gender receive practically no attention.
  • However, our research shows that a majority of Americans agree that “the primary cause of America’s problems is an economic system that results in continuing inequality and poverty,”² so there is an opening for advocates to talk about the systemic underpinnings of poverty and system-wide changes needed to address it. Because Americans are not knowledgeable about effective solutions to poverty, anti-poverty policies and programs that have demonstrable positive results and (research pointing the way to positive outcomes) should be made more visible, as should the positive role that government plays in creating opportunity.
• Build on policies with high levels of support. A number of anti-poverty strategies receive high levels of support from the public. Lifting up these popular solutions while explaining and promoting more complex or less popular ones can help to build broader and more lasting support. Solutions with the greatest support include:
  • Raising the federal minimum wage.
  • Helping low-wage workers afford quality child care.
  • Availability of universal pre-K.
  • Lowering the cost of college.
• Show the connections. The idea that we are interconnected and all in this together is crucial to the success of anti-poverty communications. Americans intuitively understand that increasing inequality and poverty hold back the economy and country as a whole and also create an environment in which serious social problems develop and worsen. But their thinking on poverty easily defaults to an extreme “personal responsibility” and “bad decisions” frame. Both showing and telling how we’re all affected and connected—through images, research, spokespeople, and storytelling, as well as specific messaging—is crucial.

Talking about Race and Poverty

Americans strongly believe that opportunity should not be hindered by race, gender, ethnicity, or other aspects of who we are. However, much of the public is skeptical of the existence of racial discrimination in particular, and negative racial stereotypes about poor people persist among many Americans. For example, in 2010, close to half of the American public (47 percent) agreed that “African Americans have worse jobs, income, and housing than white people because most African Americans just don’t have the motivation or willpower to pull themselves up out of poverty.”³ We need to acknowledge and confront these deep-seated stereotypes.

To do that, our messaging on poverty needs to take into account that race matters in at least four crucial ways:

• Stereotypes and bias warp perceptions of poor people.
• Stereotypes and bias can undermine support for solutions.
• Views and beliefs about poverty differ significantly across demographic groups.
• People’s conscious values on racial equity are generally more positive than their subconscious stereotypes.

Taken together, these trends call for talking about race explicitly and strategically, through the lens of shared values. Keep these guidelines in mind when talking about barriers that hamper opportunity for diverse populations and promoting solutions:

• Show that it’s about all of us. Remind audiences that racial equity is not just about people of color; achieving racial equity upholds our values and benefits our entire society. For example, lax federal regulators allowed predatory subprime lenders to target communities of color, only to see that practice spread across communities, putting our entire economy at risk.
• Over-document the barriers to equal opportunity—especially racial bias. Don’t lead with evidence of unequal outcomes alone, which can sometimes reinforce stereotypes and blame. Amply document how people of color frequently face stiff and unequal barriers to opportunity. For example:
  • DON’T begin by discussing the income gap between whites and African Americans
  • DO lead by talking about how studies have found that employment agencies frequently preferred less qualified white applicants to more qualified African Americans.
• Acknowledge the progress we’ve made. This helps to persuade skeptical audiences to lower their defenses and have a reasoned discussion rooted in reality rather than rhetoric.
• Present data on racial disparities through a contribution model instead of just a deficit model. When we present evidence of unequal outcomes, we should make every effort to show how closing those gaps will benefit society as a whole. The fact that the Latino college graduation rate is a fraction of the white rate also means that closing the ethnic graduation gap would result in many more college graduates each year to help America compete and prosper in a global economy—it’s the smart thing to do as well as the right thing to do.
• Be thematic instead of episodic. Select stories that demonstrate institutional or systemic causes and solutions over stories that highlight largely focus on individual choices.
• Use opportunity as a bridge, not a bypass. Opening conversations with the ideal of opportunity helps to emphasize society’s role in affording a fair chance to everyone. But starting conversations there does not mean avoiding discussions of race. We suggest bridging from the value of opportunity to the roles of racial equity and inclusion in fulfilling that value for all.

Engaging Strategic Audiences

Key to building the national will to address poverty is activating the base of existing supporters while persuading undecided groups over time. That, in turn, requires prioritizing strategic audiences by:

• Activating the base. The most fertile ground for anti-poverty policy and activism lies with Progressives, African Americans, and Latinos. These groups should be prioritized for organizing and calls to action.
• Persuading undecided audiences. Millennials, independent voters, women, and people of faith are disproportionately open and persuadable on poverty issues. White Evangelical Christians, for example, seem to be increasingly in play; 53 percent of them agree that “society would be better off if the distribution of wealth was more equal.”⁴
• Engaging those most affected. Public opinion research suggests that low-income Americans, while knowledgeable about the realities of living in poverty and interested in change, tend to lack information about structural causes and solutions, and are doubtful about their influence in society. Providing that information, and opportunities for leadership and civic engagement, should be priorities.

Create an Echo Chamber

Traditional and social media trends show a predictable pattern: national election events, the release of census numbers, budget debates, and anniversaries of anti-poverty and civil rights events reliably increase attention to poverty. Demonstrations, strikes, and major think-tank reports also frequently generate media interest.

We recommend that anti-poverty communicators:

• Chart these “news hook” events well in advance.
• Prepare a multi-platform media strategy that is proactive, builds upon the activity of high- profile voices, and lifts up the voices of those most affected.
• Be more intentional and collaborative about sharing and jointly promoting new research and activities across the field.

These efforts should complement rapid-response communications when relevant, but unpredictable, events occur.

Every couple of generations, national values, demographic change, attitudes, and experiences converge to create the potential for transformative social change. We must leverage this moment of profound public openness to shift the discourse around poverty to change hearts, minds, and policy.

Build a Strategic Message

One formula for building an effective message is Value, Problem, Solution, Action. Using this structure, we lead with the shared values that are at stake, outline why the problem we’re spotlighting is a threat to those values, point toward a solution, and ask our audience to take a concrete action.

• Lead with values. Most communicators agree: people don’t change their minds based on facts alone, but rather based on how those facts are framed to fit their emotions and values. Shared values help audiences “hear” messages more effectively than do dry facts or emotional rhetoric.
  • This country is built on the idea of opportunity for all, regardless of where you come from or what you look like.
  • Our economic policies should be propelled by the values of accountability, economic security, and opportunity for all, not greed, privilege, or the interests of a few.
• Introduce the problem. Frame problems as a threat to your vision and values. This is the place to pull out stories and statistics that are likely to resonate with the target audience.
  • But that’s far from what we’re seeing today, with working Americans’ living standards declining and the richest 1% holding 40% of the nation’s wealth.
• Pivot quickly to solutions. Positive solutions leave people with choices, ideas, and motivation. Assign responsibility—who can enact this solution?
  • Reclaiming the promise of opportunity means demanding an economy that works for everyone, not just the richest members of society. Corporations need to pay their fair share, and banks need to invest in building up communities sustainably.
• Assign an action. Try to give people something concrete they can picture themselves doing: making a phone call, sending an email. Steer clear of vague “learn more” messages when possible.
  • Join us by [include a concrete action that your audience can take].

Say What You’re For, as Well as What You’re Against

Anti-poverty advocates may not share a single list of policy demands, but we can and should paint a positive picture of the society we’re trying to create. Most people already have a lot to worry about, and are in no mood for problems with no solutions in sight. We can cut through the clutter of stories about how bad things are by painting a picture of what our country would look like if it embraces and promotes:

• Opportunity: for honest work that pays a decent, living wage.
• Accountability: with fair rules, enforcement, and prosecution where appropriate of the corporations and individuals who lawlessly wrecked our economy.
• Fairness: including a tax system in which the wealthiest companies, millionaires, and billionaires contribute their fair share to the nation that gives them so much.
• Voice: a political system in which every American’s voice and vote are equal, and large sums of money are not allowed to corrupt the democratic process.
• Economic Mobility: access to an affordable college education for everyone who has the ability and desire to attend, without the crippling burden of loan debt.
• Economic Security: including a halt to unnecessary foreclosures, the restoration of devastated neighborhoods, and reductions in mortgage payments to fair, realistic levels.

Notes:

1. The Opportunity Agenda, Opportunity Survey: Understanding the Roots of Attitudes on Inequality, 2014.
2. Public Religion Research Institute, American Values Survey, September 2012.
3. Gallup/USA Today poll, June 2010.
4. Public Religion Research Institute, American Values Survey, September 2011.

The case of Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, which was scheduled for oral argument on December 4, 2013, has been settled by the parties. However, the question posed by the case – whether the Fair Housing Act prohibits the full range of discriminatory obstacles to housing, or only those that a court finds to be motivated by subjective discriminatory intent – is likely to be an ongoing point of contention. Over the Act’s 45-year history, lower courts and the Department of Housing and Urban Development have consistently held that it outlaws both intentionally discriminatory acts and policies or practices that have an unnecessary or unjustified “disparate impact,” based on certain covered characteristics—race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin.

The parties—a New Jersey township and residents of a minority community that the township largely demolished to develop much more expensive housing—have chosen to settle the matter for the benefit of all. This memo offers recommendations for communicating about underlying issues as well as the benefits of the resolution of the case. The memo is intended for use by supporters of a full and robust reading of the Fair Housing Act that includes disparate impact claims.

Specific Talking Points on the Settlement:

• The settlement resolves the matter in a way that benefits the town and all of its residents:
  • That unifies the parties;
  • That makes clear that Gardens residents, like everyone in the town, are valued members of the community;
  • That advances the town’s goals for redevelopment and greater economic prosperity;
  • That expands housing opportunities for everyone.
• This settlement upholds fair housing and the basic American values of equal opportunity that benefit everyone in our nation.
• Re disparate impact: It’s common sense that arbitrary and unnecessary barriers to equal housing opportunity should be set aside in favor of approaches that serve all people fairly. This has been established law for decades, and it was recently reaffirmed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. That continues to be the case in light of  this settlement.

Framing and Narrative

We believe the resolution of this case should be framed in terms of America’s interest in protecting equal opportunity and freedom from discrimination for everyone, a responsibility that benefits all of us and is shared by cities and states around the country. We should describe as common sense the notion that all forms of avoidable housing discrimination should be set aside to allow more fair and effective solutions. For example, “policies that serve no important purpose, yet discriminate in practice, should fail under the Fair Housing Act.” Where appropriate, we should discuss the continuing need for the disparate impact standard by making visible the structural and institutional barriers to fair housing, like zoning ordinances that prohibit the building of smaller homes or apartments that working people can afford, which in many places excludes most people of color.

We recommend breaking the stereotype of minority communities as inherently “blighted” by lifting up a positive image of Mount Holly Gardens, the community at issue in this case.  In their Supreme Court brief, Gardens residents described their neighborhood as a “close-knit” and “cohesive community … with unusually high rates of minority home-ownership.”

Opponents of fair housing laws have already begun to portray the settlement of the case inaccurately as an attempt to “buy” a better resolution of the case than could have been achieved in court. Rather than repeating or “mythbusting” that flawed argument, we should tell our affirmative story.

For example:

• “This case was about the obligation of cities and towns to protect equal opportunity in housing. That includes avoiding unnecessary policies that discriminate in practice, as well as those that are intentionally discriminatory. Mount Holly did the right thing by devising a resolution that works for all.”
• “The resolution of this case will benefit all residents of the township as well as protecting fair housing principles core to the intent of the Fair Housing Act.”
• “Settlement in this case reinforces the well-established understanding that the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in practice, as well as discrimination by design. That’s been the law for over 45 years, and we’re confident that it will remain the law.” Note: Opponents will similarly describe the disparate impact standard as affirmative action (which it is not), as well as “racial bean counting” and closet “quotas.” With the public and the media, it is important to avoid arguing within that frame, but rather, to use our own frame of a resolution that protects fair housing and equal opportunity for all.
• “If a policy unnecessarily impacts people of a particular racial or ethnic group, or families with children, for example, it’s common sense that it should be set aside in favor of one that accomplishes the same goal fairly, effectively, and without discrimination. That’s been the law for over forty years, and it’s appropriate that it will continue to be the law.”
• “Governments have a responsibility to ensure equal opportunity and freedom from discrimination for everyone. That requires watching how different policies play out on the ground. When a city or town has evidence that a particular policy (such as the proposed redevelopment plan) is likely to be discriminatory, it has a responsibility to reexamine or abandon that process and find one that’s fair and effective.”

Facts of the Case:

Q:     What happened to start the case?

A:     The case involves a redevelopment plan for a cohesive Mount Holly neighborhood (“the Gardens”), containing the only predominately minority population in the Township. The redevelopment plan would have demolished the neighborhood to build new dwellings that few of the current residents would have been able to afford, thus excluding most of the town’s minority residents. For this reason, the Gardens’ current residents sued, arguing that the redevelopment plan violated the Fair Housing Act. The district court dismissed this argument, and the court of appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling, holding that the residents had established that they would experience an unlawful “disparate impact” under the redevelopment plan.

Q:     What is the significance of the Fair Housing Act today?

A:     The Fair Housing Act represents our national commitment to equal opportunity for all. The Act is critical because, despite the progress that our country’s made, discrimination and segregation still persists in many communities around the nation. Those harms hold us back as a nation, and they prevent millions of Americans from accessing housing.

That, in turn, often worsens their access to quality education, employment, public services, and a healthy environment, among other opportunities. Congress recognized this when it passed the Fair Housing Act, and has since reaffirmed this determination. Today, the Fair Housing Act continues to protect Americans of all races, religions, abilities, and families from discrimination and segregation in housing.

Q:     Why is disparate impact liability such an important part of the Fair Housing Act?

A:     The Fair Housing Act recognizes that actions that have the consequence of perpetuating exclusion and unequal access to housing can be just as harmful to society as intentionally discriminatory acts.

Q:     Won’t this settlement rob the Court and the nation of the chance to consider what the Fair Housing Act says in this situation?

A:     Settling cases through mutual agreement of the parties is an established and effective way of resolving legal disputes. The Supreme Court’s role, as required by the U.S. Constitution, is to take up only active controversies. When the parties come to an agreement, as they were able to do here, there’s no case to be decided. That’s how our legal system has always operated, and, in this case as in many others, it serves the interests of justice.

The meaning of the Fair Housing Act, and its coverage of all unjustified barriers to fair housing, are clear and well-established over more than four decades. In fact, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development just reaffirmed that through federal regulations. So the law is clear, and it continues to protect the rights of all Americans throughout our nation.

Q:     What are the terms of the settlement?

A:     The terms of the settlement include the construction of 44 new emerging market homes on an expedited schedule within Mount Holly Gardens. 20 of these 44 houses will be provided to current residents of the Gardens in exchange for allowing the redevelopment of their existing homes, at no adverse economic consequence to them. Existing residents will have the right to remain in their community pending the development of the new homes, and seven households that have chosen to relocate out of the neighborhood will be compensated. The remainder the of Gardens development will move forward, creating additional new homes as well as commercial and retail development that will provide significant economic benefits to Mount Holly Township.

Q:      What is the impact of the settlement?

A:       The disparate impact standard continues to be an important tool in the effort to combat housing discrimination.

Q:     Who paid for the settlement?

A:     TRF Development Partners, Inc., a Philadelphia-based leader in neighborhood revitalization and supporter of community development in New Jersey for decades, will develop the 44 new homes in Mount Holly.

Q:     Does the settlement involve quotas?

A:     No, the parties have agreed to protect current residents of the Gardens from a redevelopment plan that would have effectively destroyed the Township’s only predominately minority neighborhood. In terms of the Fair Housing Act, the decision of the Court of Appeals remains the law in the Third Circuit, and it is consistent with how every  court of appeals has interpreted the Act.

Q:     Isn’t this just an example of rich interests buying the outcome of a case?

A:  This is an example of two opposing parties who were able to work out their differences and settle a case in a way that benefits everyone. That’s how the system is supposed to work.

Q:     Aren’t these fair housing cases settling because civil rights groups are afraid the Court will strike down that part of the Fair Housing Act?

A:     This was a lawsuit between residents of Mount Holly Gardens and the town, and those two groups came together to resolve the matter in a way that benefits everyone.

See Also:

• Respondents brief in Mount Holly
• Vision, Values, and Voice: The Opportunity Agenda’s Communications Toolkit
• Ten Lessons for Talking About Race

Background:

This year, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will issue regulations¹ to better enforce and apply the Fair Housing Act (“the Act”) across our nation. This fair housing rule is an important tool for addressing America’s growing racial and ethnic inequality, an alarming trend rooted in our history of segregation, and one that threatens our national prosperity. In a country where zip code matters more than genetic code in determining life expectancy², this rule will help communities understand the importance of place in promoting or prohibiting opportunity. It provides jurisdictions with the tools they need to address barriers to fair housing and expand opportunity.

Where you live determines a lot about how you live: the schools your children attend, the jobs you have access to, the transportation system you rely on, the quality of your physical environment, your access to grocery stores and other businesses, the level of violent crime in your community, and a host of other factors. Where you live has a big impact on how your life unfolds, and that varies tremendously by neighborhood. The Fair Housing Act helps ensure that all people – regardless of race, ethnicity, family status or disability – have a range of choices about where to live, and that all neighborhoods are good places to live, regardless of the demographics of their residents.

Congress, when it passed the Fair Housing Act, recognized that government policies, along with private practices, had locked many people of color into poor, racially isolated communities. To overcome this enduring legacy of government-sponsored segregation, the Fair Housing Act included a requirement that HUD and state and local governments that choose to receive federal funds must administer their programs and activities in a way that expands access to opportunity for all.

This provision of the Act—known as “affirmatively furthering fair housing”—aimed to undo discriminatory housing policies and remedy the harm they caused, but it has been largely unenforced. The forthcoming fair housing rule will clarify this existing mandate and provide a robust toolkit for jurisdictions to use to identify and address barriers to fair housing in their communities.

This memo offers communications guidance for talking about the new regulations, and fair housing generally, with a range of audiences. It draws on available opinion research, practical experience, and communications principles.³

Themes to Emphasize:

We recommend that communications on HUD’s AFFH regulations emphasize the following themes:

An Important Step in Expanding Opportunity for All: Access to a safe and affordable home near quality schools, transportation, and jobs is basic to the American Dream and to our nation’s future. Unequal access to vital community resources results in unequal access to opportunity, and undermines our prosperity and success as a nation. Segregation and racially concentrated poverty conflict with long-established public policy as well as our shared national values for access to opportunity. This proposed rule is an important step forward in America’s pursuit of greater and more equal opportunity for all.

A Tool to Combat Growing Inequality: The economic gulf between rich and poor has grown at an unprecedented rate over the past several decades. Although productivity has grown steadily since the 1980s, wage growth has been stagnant and the racial wealth gap has grown tremendously. These trends, coupled with the economic damage wrought during the housing crisis and the Great Recession that resulted, have made our society less equal and have threatened our collective prosperity. The AFFH rule provides a framework that will help decision-makers plan for using their housing and community development resources in a way that ensures fairness and equity for all. This, in turn, will help stem the growing trend of inequality.

Making Sure No Communities are Left Behind: The AFFH Rule will advance opportunity in America by shaping investments in housing, transportation, environment, health, education, infrastructure, and economic development. Implementation of this rule will help all our communities make progress toward the goals of achieving housing opportunity, overcoming historic patterns of racial and other segregation, and increasing public investment in areas of highly concentrated poverty.

Diversity and the Common Good: The AFFH rule is a necessary step towards clarifying and strengthening the federal government’s obligation to further fair housing. Housing choice – especially for low-income communities and communities of color — is a critical component of equitable and economically prosperous regions. When it comes to building strong communities, we’re all in it together.

Topple Barriers: When localities seek federal taxpayers’ funds to strengthen their communities, it’s only right that they must take specific steps to protect fair housing. That means addressing discrimination and toppling barriers to opportunity for all their residents.

Accountability and the Public Trust: Entities that choose to seek federal taxpayers’ funds for housing and community development projects have an obligation to protect fair housing and expand opportunity for all. This rule holds recipients of HUD funding accountable to that promise, while giving them the tools and information to do so.

The Fair Housing Narrative:

Like other fair housing matters, these regulations should be framed in terms of America’s interest in protecting equal opportunity and freedom from discrimination for everyone, a responsibility that benefits all of us and is crucial to a prosperous future in an increasingly diverse nation and world. We should describe as common sense the notion that public investment in our communities should be consonant with our values – inclusion, equal access to opportunity, and diversity as a national strength.

Our communication on this issue can make clear the connection between ensuring objective and effective approaches to community development that expand opportunity for everyone and creating concrete benefits for the entire community. For example, research has shown that diverse regions have economies that are more robust.⁴ In addition to the cultural, educational, and employment benefits of diversity to community members, the overall community reaps economic and business benefits by fostering inclusion.⁵

Moreover, we should make visible the ongoing structural and institutional barriers to fair housing—like unreasonable zoning restrictions, inadequate affordable housing, and the legacy of residential segregation,— that limit the options of all Americans while especially burdening people of color, people with disabilities, and families with children.

Sample Messages:

General Messaging

• Where you live has a big impact on how your life unfolds, and that varies tremendously by neighborhood. This rule helps ensure that all people – regardless of race, ethnicity, family status or disability – have a range of choices about where to live, and that all neighborhoods are good places to live, regardless of the demographics of their residents.
• It’s been the law for more than 40 years that anyone who utilizes federal funds must do so in a way that considers barriers to fair housing. This rule provides a flexible framework and the necessary data to comply with this existing mandate.
• This rule gives jurisdictions the tools to identify barriers to fair housing and come up with their own solutions to the unique problems they face.

Theme 1: An Important Step in Expanding Opportunity for All

• Access to a safe and affordable home near quality schools, transportation, and jobs is basic to the American Dream and to our nation’s future.
• This rule provides a framework to help local jurisdictions use their federal funds in a way that creates opportunity for everyone, including communities of color, families with children, and people with disabilities.
• The AFFH rule provides a framework that will help decision-makers plan for using their housing and community development resources in a way that ensures fairness and equity for all.

Theme 2: A Tool to Combat Growing Inequality

• This new fair housing rule is an important tool for addressing America’s growing racial and ethnic inequality, an alarming trend rooted in our history of segregation.
• Recent events in Ferguson, New York, and Baltimore underscore the need for policies that take into account the long legacy of segregation and unequal treatment in this country.
• AFFH helps decision-makers understand segregated living patterns and create local solutions that address local issues.

Theme 3: Making Sure No Communities are Left Behind

• The AFFH Rule will advance opportunity in America by shaping investments in housing, transportation, environment, health, education, infrastructure, and economic development.
• AFFH will help all communities make progress toward the goals of achieving housing opportunity, overcoming historic patterns of racial and other segregation, and increasing public investment in areas of highly concentrated poverty.
• In a country where zip code matters more than genetic code in determining life expectancy, this rule will help communities understand the importance of place in promoting or prohibiting opportunity.

Theme 4: Diversity and the Common Good

• Housing choice – especially for low-income communities and communities of color — is a critical component of equitable and economically prosperous regions.
• As our population becomes more diverse, we all have a stake in making sure that each of us has a fair chance to flourish and prosper. Policymakers must take proactive steps to ensure that this happens.
• The more equitable access to opportunity that the rule creates will help ensure that our country’s increasing diversity is a source of strength and position us to be more competitive in the global economy.

Theme 5: Topple Barriers

• The Fair Housing Act was intended to remove all barriers to fair housing, whether from intentional bigotry or bad practices and policies.
• The AFFH rule will provide valuable data to inform the decisions of policy-makers, including demographic trends for cities, towns, regions and states; where concentrated poverty exists; and where segregation persists or is growing.
• When localities seek federal taxpayers’ funds to strengthen their communities, it’s only right that they must take specific steps to protect fair housing. That means addressing discrimination and toppling barriers to opportunity for all their residents.

Theme 6: Accountability and the Public Trust

• Entities that choose to seek federal taxpayer funds for housing and community development projects have an obligation to protect fair housing and expand opportunity for all. This rule holds recipients of HUD funding accountable to that promise, while giving them the tools and information to do so.
• This rule is an important step forward for equal opportunity. It makes clear that states, cities, towns, and counties that seek federal taxpayer funds for public initiatives must consider fair housing in development to ensure that you can choose where to live—no matter what you look like, what accent you have, or whether you have children or a disability.
• AFFH has served the country well by addressing biased mortgage lending practices, insurance redlining, discriminatory zoning ordinances, and other obstacles to equity. However, HUD has never set out the rules for applying AFFH through regulation, which is the clearest statement that an agency makes of its understanding of the law. It’s important that HUD is now providing that level of clarity for individuals, businesses, and public institutions.

Countering the Opposition:

Opponents have described the proposed AFFH rules as “social engineering,”⁶ “big government,”⁷ and “forced racial integration.”⁸ With the public and the media, it is important to avoid arguing within those frames, but rather, to describe the responsibility to affirmatively further fair housing and the resulting benefits to the entire community using our own. For example:

• “It’s common sense that when we can topple unnecessary obstacles to equal opportunity, we should do that. That’s core to who we are as Americans, and it strengthens all communities.”
• “We’ve made a lot of progress as a nation toward equal opportunity for all. But we still have a distance to go. Removing unnecessary barriers to equal opportunity like antiquated zoning rules or concentrating residents in segregated neighborhoods is the smart thing to do, as well as the right thing to do.”
• “This is a matter of basic government accountability to the law. Cities and towns don’t have to seek HUD or federal funds for their projects, but when they do, they have to further fair housing.”

Possible Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why do we need another regulation?

A: It’s been the law for more than four decades that when a locality chooses to receive HUD funds, it has an obligation to further fair housing proactively. However, many state and local governments historically have not lived up to that promise. Examples include St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana; the State of Texas; Joliet, IL; Westchester County, NY; the State of New Jersey; and Sussex County, DE, among others. All of these jurisdictions sought and received millions in taxpayer dollars, but failed to take the necessary action to foster fair housing. Some other local governments have wanted to comply, but felt they lacked the specific information and guidance to do so. This regulation addresses both types of problems by providing clear rules and also new information and guidance.

Q: Why are fair housing regulations important?

A: Overcoming unnecessary and unequal barriers to housing is crucial to ensuring equal opportunity for all and to building strong communities. Thanks to HUD’s action, we can be much more confident that our national progress will continue.

Q: How does the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing matter benefit all of us?

A: The chance to affirmatively further fair housing connects all communities to greater opportunity, which benefits both individuals and their communities. Individuals receive specific cultural, educational, and employment opportunities from more inclusive and diverse communities, and those communities benefit as well. Diverse and vibrant communities experience economic benefits, as do the businesses within those communities. Furthermore, your zip code should not determine your chances in life. Creating opportunities of choice where everyone has a fair shot upholds our most deeply-held national values.

Q: Times are tough. What if our county/locality can’t afford to comply with these new requirements?

A: These regulations don’t impose new obligations, they just explain in greater detail the options that localities have for living up to the commitment that they’ve already made. Moreover, by providing new sources of data and guidance, they should make it easier and often less costly to comply. In the end, though, it’s important to remember that governments that choose to receive HUD funds have to be accountable for advancing fair housing in their activities.

Q: Isn’t this just unwanted social engineering and forced political correctness?

A: This rule says that if a locality chooses to seek federal taxpayer funds, it has to uphold the basic American principle of equal opportunity through specific actions and accountability. Fair housing is a widely-held value in our nation, and it’s been the law of the land for over 45 years.

Q: This sounds like a huge bureaucratic burden for understaffed local governments:

A: This rule clarifies a longstanding obligation to foster fair housing. Moreover, it significantly eases the burden on localities by providing the data and guidance that local governments need to fulfill their responsibilities.

Q: Won’t this rule overburden small public housing authorities (PHAs) that have small staffs?

A: The rule, and the tools that accompany it, will actually make it easier for PHAs to fulfill their existing fair housing obligations. HUD has estimated that, for PHAs and other agencies covered by the rule, it will take one person one week per year to carry out their responsibilities. The rule also encourages small PHAs to work together with other entities to do joint fair housing planning. PHAs that take this path will likely have to spend even less staff time on this important job.

Q: How will the forced rezoning of our communities impact us?

A: Affirmatively furthering fair housing is not “forced rezoning,” it is a clarification of the longstanding obligation to proactively further fair housing when a locality chooses to receive HUD funds.

Q: Why is the current administration using executive action to force the AFFH regulation on communities?

A: The affirmatively furthering fair housing obligation is a long-standing requirement for all jurisdictions receiving federal housing and/or community development funding. It is also a requirement of all public housing authorities. With this regulation, HUD is simply using its existing authority under the Fair Housing Act to fulfill its responsibility to implement the law. The current system is vague and ineffective, as GAO pointed out in its 2010 report. The new rule provides greater clarity and guidance and sets up a more straightforward process for compliance.

Q: Does the AFFH regulation have hidden costs, and hurt homeowners in unanticipated ways, like increasing property taxes?

A: The AFFH regulation does not have any hidden costs and does not call for any type of tax hike. The regulation does not represent any new obligations for cities or jurisdictions. It simply gives jurisdictions the clear guidance they need in order to fulfill their existing fair housing obligations. If your city never had to increase property taxes in the past to receive federal funds from HUD, it is unlikely that your city will need to do so now to continue receiving federal dollars.

Q: Aren’t there other ways to increase affordable or fair housing, like through job creation?

A: First, let’s make clear that affordable housing and fair housing are two completely different concepts. Affordable housing involves expanding housing choices for persons who are low income. Fair housing involves removing barriers to housing access irrespective of income or housing costs. While there may be some overlap, they are not one and the same. That being said, there are many ways to expand fair housing and access to opportunity. Job creation may be one, and there are many others, as well. When communities perform a thorough assessment of fair housing barriers, they will undoubtedly find the need for a variety of solutions that will expand opportunities and make the community more viable. This rule helps communities identify local solutions to local problems.

Q: What if we don’t want our suburban communities to “urbanize”?

A: The AFFH regulation does not force suburban communities to “urbanize”, rather it asks jurisdictions to identify barriers to fair housing and to develop remedies that will enhance and strengthen the community by promoting access to equal housing opportunities.

Q: Why should the government decide who should live where?

A: It was government decisions made over many years at the federal, state and local levels that led to segregation to begin with. For example, early policies of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which fostered suburban development across the country, ensured that those developments would be open to white residents only, and denied people of color access to safe, affordable, government-insured mortgage loans. This set in motion a tremendous disparity in wealth accumulation that is still evident today, and limits the ability of people of color to buy a home, afford a college education, start a business, weather economic crises, and fund retirement. Government policies also influence the location of subsidized housing, much of which is concentrated in poor communities of color with struggling schools, few jobs, exposure to environmental hazards, limited access to healthy food, high levels of violent crime and other detrimental characteristics. This rule sets us on a path for government to make decisions that provide more equitable access to opportunity and benefit us all.

Challenges and Opportunities Related to This Rule

Challenges the rule addresses

• Persistent segregation. Although we have made some progress, we remain a highly segregated society. In 1980, the average white person lived in a neighborhood that was 88% white. By 2010, that number had declined, but was still very high at 77%. In 1980, the average black person lived in a neighborhood that was 62% black and 31% white. By 2010, the average black person’s neighborhood was 48% black and 34% white. Averages don’t always tell the whole story, and maps of most of our major cities illustrate how segregated our society remains.
  • Concentrated poverty is increasing, as well, and disproportionately affects people of color. The number of high-poverty census tracts – tracts with poverty rates of 40% or more – increased by 50% between 2000 and 2011. These 3,764 tracts are home to more than 11 million people, nearly four percent of the US population. And the residents of these neighborhoods are disproportionately of people of color. Nationwide, the population of these high-poverty areas is 26% White, 37.4% Black, and 30.2% Hispanic.⁹
  • People with disabilities also face segregation and often have a limited set of housing choices available to them, particularly housing that is both affordable and accessible. Many people with disabilities live in segregated settings – such as institutions, adult care homes, large group homes, assisted living facilities, and homeless shelters – that leave them isolated from others in their communities and limit their access to opportunity. Approximately 2 million non-elderly adults with disabilities are either living in institutions or other facility-based congregate settings.¹⁰ This runs counter to the vision of Congress in passing both the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which establishes community integration for people with disabilities as our national policy.
  • Segregation is not the result of self-selection, but rather the legacy of actions and policies taken by federal, state and local governments (as well as private individuals and institutions) over many decades. It will take a different set of actions and policies to undo its effects.¹¹
• Growing inequality. People of color are falling behind according to many measures: educational attainment, employment, health, income, homeownership and others.
  • The racial wealth gap is also growing. According to the Urban Institute, “In 1963, the average wealth of white families was $117,000 higher than the average wealth of nonwhite families. By 2013, the average wealth of white families was over $500,000 higher than the average wealth of African American families ($95,000) and of Hispanic families ($112,000). Put another way, white families on average had seven times the wealth of African American families and six times the wealth of Hispanic families in 2013.”¹²
• Place matters. All of this is related, in part, to where people live. For example, recent research has found that over the last decade, the number of jobs within commuting distance of people in poor communities and communities of color has decreased, especially in suburban communities which are seeing increasing poverty and growing numbers of people of color.¹³
  • As our population becomes more diverse, we all have a stake in making sure that each of us has a fair chance to flourish and prosper. Although jurisdictions receiving federal housing and community development dollars should spend those funds in ways that promote greater opportunity and prosperity, this does not always happen.
• Change is needed. HUD’s approach to fair housing has not worked to solve these problems. This was highlighted in a 2010 report from the Government Accountability Office, which raised questions about the effectiveness of the current fair housing planning process for helping jurisdictions identify and address barriers to fair housing. GAO suggested that this problem was caused by HUD’s limited regulatory requirements and oversight in this area.¹⁴

Opportunities the rule presents

• Deeper understanding. The new rule will help jurisdictions better understand the segregation- related challenges they face by giving them a framework for analyzing local conditions, including who lives where and how different neighborhoods fare in terms of access to schools, jobs, transportation, a healthy environment and other factors.
• Better coordination. The rule encourages jurisdictions to consider their housing and community development planning and expenditures in the broader context of their planning for other important community elements, including transportation, education, infrastructure, economic development and the like. It also encourages them to look at the trends inside their jurisdictional borders in the context of what’s happening in the broader region.
• Less burden. HUD will reduce the burden jurisdictions bear in conducting this type of analysis by providing them with data, analytical tools (including mapping capacity) and technical support. Jurisdictions will be encouraged to use any additional data they may have that will help clarify their assessment of what is and isn’t working in their communities.
• Clearer expectations. The rule clarifies HUD’s expectation that expanding access to opportunity includes both directing needed investments into communities that have been left behind and creating new affordable housing options in higher income areas where they may be lacking.
• Community involvement. The rule emphasizes the importance of community engagement in the fair housing planning process and calls for jurisdictions to work with community partners to identify barriers to fair housing as well as solutions to expand opportunities.
• Local flexibility. While sharpening the analytical framework and highlighting the issues to be examined, the rule allows jurisdictions tremendous flexibility in setting priorities, developing strategies for tackling their top problems, and setting benchmarks for progress.
• Connecting plans with spending decisions. The rule creates a direct link between the priorities a jurisdiction identifies as part of the fair housing planning process (the Assessment of Fair Housing or AFH) and its plans for utilizing all of its housing and community development resources (the Consolidated Plan, or ConPlan).
• More accountability. It increases accountability by setting the expectation that spending plans spelled out in the ConPlan will reflect the top priorities in the AFH and letting jurisdictions know that HUD will be looking at the progress they make toward meeting the benchmarks they establish.
• Strength in diversity. The more equitable access to opportunity that the rule creates will help ensure that our country’s increasing diversity is a source of strength and position us to be more competitive in the global economy.

For additional communications advice or information on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, go to opportunityagenda.org or nationalfairhousing.org

Notes

1. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, Federalregister.gov

2. Marks, James, “Why Your ZIP Code May Be More Important to Your Health Than Your Genetic Code”

3. For a summary of public opinion research on housing, homeownership, and the American Dream, see Public Opinion on Opportunity and the American Dream, Homeownership, and Housing, at opportunityagenda.org

4. In a recent analysis of 118 US metropolitan areas, researchers found that regions with a higher degree of racial inclusion have higher regional economic growth (2006, 42). In two follow up reports, which analyzed 136 metropolitan areas, the “racial inclusion and income equality” indicator was the only one used that was associated with expansion in all four measures of economic growth. – Dashboard Indicators for the NorthEast Ohio Economy (Eberts, Erickcek, Kleinhenz 2006); An Update of the Regional Growth Model for Large and Mid-Size U.S. Metropolitan Areas: Northeast Ohio Dashboard Indicators (Austrian, Lendel, Yamoah 2007); Regional Dashboard of Economic Indicators 2008: Comparative Performance of Midwest and Northeast Ohio Metropolitan Areas (Austrian, Lendel, Yamoah 2008)

5. Racial diversity is associated with increased sales revenue, more customers, greater market share, and greater relative profits. Herring, Cedric. “Does Diversity Pay?: Race, Gender, and the Business Case for Diversity.” American Sociological Review 74.2 (2009): 208-24. JStor.

6. Townhall.com, “In the Name of Diversity, Social Engineering Coming to Communities Everywhere,”

7. Ibid

8. Investor’s Business Daily editorial, “HUD Launches Scheme To Racially Diversify Suburbs.”

9. Jargowsky, Paul A., “Concentration of Poverty in the New Millenium: Changes in Prevalence, Composition and Location of High Poverty Neighborhoods.” Report by the Century Foundation and Rutgers Center for Urban Research and Education, December 17, 2013.

10. Cooper, Emily, Ann O’Hara, Nikki Singer, and Andrew Zovistoski, “Priced Out in 2012: the Housing Crisis for People with Disabilities.” Technical Assistance Collaborative and Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, Housing Task Force. May, 2013.

11. Richard Rothstein, of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), has written extensively about the government actions that led to our current patterns of segregation. See, for example, “Modern Segregation,” “The Making of Ferguson: Public Policies at the Root of its Troubles,” and “From Ferguson to Baltimore: The Fruits of Government-Sponsored Segregation.” All are available on the EPI website.

12. Urban Institute, “Nine Charts about Wealth Inequality in America,” February, 2015.

13. Kneebone, Elizabeth and Natalie Holmes, “The growing distance between people and jobs in metropolitan America.” The Brookings Institution, March, 2015.

14. GAO 10-905, “HUD Needs to Enhance its Requirements and Oversight of Jurisdictions’ Fair Housing Plans.” Washington, DC, September, 2010.