To be effective in moving hearts, minds and policy over the long term, we need integrated messaging and narrative strategies that both mobilize our base and expand our constituencies by bringing those in the middle toward our cause.
Vision, Values, and Voice: A Communications Toolkit provides guidance for developing values-based messages that engage core audiences, disrupt dominant narratives, and help shape the public dialogue. In addition to big picture thinking about communications strategy, you will also find tips and examples of a range of tactics, and concrete messaging guidance in the form of “opportunity flashcards” which provide short and easy-to-find advice and sample language on a range of social justice issues.
This resource is for those working to influence public thinking about social justice issues over the long-term while also crafting effective short-term campaigns.
As our nation struggles to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, media coverage, public perception, and the relationship between them strongly influence public policy and its impact on Americans’ daily lives. The perceived effectiveness of the federal stimulus package—the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, for example—can have a far greater impact on the subsequent policy debate than does the consensus of economists or the tracking of actual job creation. And the level and framing of reporting on issues of economic inequality, for instance, helps to determine the extent to which that issue becomes a political and policy priority, especially in an election year.
In order to understand those trends, and their implications for ongoing policy debates, The Opportunity Agenda undertook this study, Economic Recovery and Equal Opportunity in the Public Discourse. By analyzing the content of media reporting and recurrent themes across a large body of existing public opinion research, we seek to highlight the ways in which key news media are interpreting the current economic moment and the ways in which different segments of the American public understand it.
We chose to examine public discourse on both the economic recovery as a whole and its disparate barriers facing different groups of Americans because they are complementary dimensions of a single notion: the American Dream of greater and more equal opportunity for all. Because that national value is broadly shared and has been an explicit goal of many federal economic recovery efforts, we analyze the extent and ways in which it is reflected in the national conversation.
This report is intended to inform journalists about reporting trends and areas in which greater or more accurate reporting is needed. It strives to inform advocates of job creation and equal opportunity about challenges, openings, and strategies for mobilizing public will. And it aims to inform policymakers about public priorities as well as places where greater information, transparency, or political leadership are needed. Moreover, scholars, researchers, and activists are likely to take a keen interest in our findings and recommendations.
Methodology
Media Content Analysis
The news content analysis of the Economic Recovery and Equal Opportunity in the Media and the Public Mind report is based on an analysis of content in 17 mainstream newspapers, including the largest national newspapers in the country, and five regional ones; Newsweek magazine; and a limited number of transcripts of news and programs on the ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC television networks. The timeframe of coverage was from October 2008 through May 2010.
Our analysis was conducted in two parts. We analyzed coverage of the economic recovery in general and coverage specific to recovery efforts in relation to inequality and economically vulnerable populations of Americans.
The first part was made up of a sample of 100 articles, of which 65 were appropriate for analysis, about the economic recovery generally and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This sample is referred to in the report as the overall sample. To generate a pool of relevant articles, we searched for news on the Nexis database using words and phrases such as “economic stimulus,” “stimulus bill,” “stimulus package,” “Recovery Act,” and the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”
The second part of the study was based on a sample of 150 stories, of which 60 were appropriate for analysis, about the impact of recovery policies on economic groups. This sample is referred to as the equity sample. To identify these stories, we performed a separate search on the Nexis database using a broad set of search terms: “stimulus package,” “women,” “gender,” “low income,” “middle class,” “African American,” “Latino,” “Hispanic,” “American Indian,” “Native American,”“Asian American,” “discrimination,” “disparity,” “opportunity,” “(un)employment,” “poverty,” “jobs creation,” and similar phrases.
Finally, the samples were drawn applying a random sequence generator on the entirety of both groups of articles and transcripts generated on Nexis to ensure a representative sample.
A list of the press and network TV outlets included in the analysis follows.
National Newspapers
Circulation
Atlanta Journal and Constitution
196,200
Boston Globe
232,432
Chicago Sun-Times
268,803
Las Vegas Review-Journal
174,876
Los Angeles Times
616,606
New York Times
951,063
Newsweek
1,972,219
Philadelphia Inquirer
356,189
San Francisco Chronicle
241,330
USA Today
1,826,622
Wall Street Journal
2,092,523
Washington Post
578,482
Regional Newspapers
Circulation
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
185,222
Clarion Ledger (Jackson, MS)
65,300
Columbus Dispatch (Columbus, OH)
170,179
Denver Post (Denver, CO)
333,675
Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA)
157,068
Network Television
ABC News
Good Morning America, This Week
CBS News
60 Minutes, The Early Show
CNN
American Morning, CNN Newsroom, The Situation Room, Anderson Cooper 360
NBC News
Today Show, Meet the Press
Fox News
Fox 9 News, Fox News Sunday, America’s Newsroom, Your World with Neil Cavuto, Special Report with Bret Baier, Fox Special Report with Brit Hume, O’Reilly Factor, Hannity, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld
Public opinion research
This public opinion section is based on a synthesis and meta-analysis of attitudinal tracking surveys and recent public opinion studies by nationally known and reputable research organizations, media outlets, and issue groups. Most of the data examined are publicly available; some come from proprietary research, which was made available to The Opportunity Agenda for the purposes of this report.
We reviewed original data from more than 50 public opinion studies, the vast majority of which were surveys, which address topics relevant to the economy, the economic recovery, government, and equity issues. At least 30 of these studies informed the final analysis and our understanding of Americans’ views on relevant issues, as well as those segments of the public who would be most receptive to communications about an equitable recovery and opportunity for all in America. We looked at attitudinal surveys that have tracked opinion changes and trends in the United States over two years and, in a few cases, over the past few decades. The greatest majority of information, however, was provided by surveys conducted within the past two years, up to June 2010.
The studies referenced in this report meet The Opportunity Agenda’s standards and best practices for quality and objective public opinion research, including appropriate sample size, a methodologically sound design and research instrument, and inclusion of a balanced questionnaire for surveys and discussion guides for focus groups. The studies are listed at the back of this report under the heading “Public Opinion Research Sources.”
Finally, because opinion research has largely adopted racial categories utilized by the federal government, this section uses these categories as appropriate. The categories are defined as follows:
White: any person who self-identifies as white only and non-Hispanic
Black: any person who self-identifies as black only
Asian: any person who self-identifies as Asian only
American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN): any person who self-identifies as AIAN only
Hispanic: any person of any race who self-identifies as Hispanic
Acknowledgments
This report was authored by Eleni Delimpaltadaki, Public Opinion and Media Research Coordinator, and edited by Juhu Thukral, Director of Law and Advocacy, at The Opportunity Agenda. Special thanks to those who contributed to the analysis, editing, and design of the report, including Alan Jenkins, Julie Rowe, Janet Dewart Bell, and Christopher Moore, with Paulette J. Robinson. Additional thanks go to Andrea Goezinne and Jill Mizell for contributing to the collection and analysis of data.
This report was made possible by project support from the Open Society Foundations, the Public Welfare Foundation, The Atlantic Philanthropies, and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. General operating support was provided by the Ford Foundation and the Starry Night Fund at Tides Foundation. The statements made and views expressed are those of The Opportunity Agenda.
This report was written by Meredith King Ledford, MPP, and reviewed by Juhu Thukral and Ross Mudrick of The Opportunity Agenda.
This report was made possible in part by a grant from The Libra Foundation. The views and opinions expressed are solely those of the report’s authors and The Opportunity Agenda.
The Opportunity Agenda would like to thank the following individuals for their invaluable comments and assistance in the preparation of the report: Algernon Austin, Ph.D., Director of the Race, Ethnicity, and the Economy Program, Economic Policy Institute; Marc Mauer, Executive Director, The Sentencing Project; and Brian Smedley, Ph.D., Vice President and Director of the Health Policy Institute, The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.
We would also like to thank Eric Mueller and Ramona Ponce of Element Group, and Tony Stephens of The Opportunity Agenda, for their work on the design process. This report was produced using green and recycled materials, at Fine Print INC.
Opportunity in America
This report documents America’s progress in protecting opportunity for everyone who lives here. By analyzing government data across a range of indicators, it reports on the state of opportunity for our nation as a whole, as well as for different groups within our society.
Opportunity is one of our country’s most cherished ideals and one of our most valuable national assets. The promise of opportunity inspires each generation of Americans—regardless of race, ethnicity, class, gender, or national origin—to strive to reach his or her full potential. Fulfilling this promise not only benefits each of us individually, but also society as a whole. In order to capitalize on our nation’s potential, we must ensure that the doors of opportunity are open to all Americans as we work to move forward together.
The Current Economic Crisis
As this report goes to press, the nation is facing the most daunting economic crisis since the Great Depression, including steep increases in unemployment, home foreclosures, and lost assets. Yet, because public sources of governmental data generally reflect a time lag of a year or more, much of the full brunt of today’s economic trauma is not reflected in this report. On many indicators of opportunity, the present reality is likely far worse than the most recent available year’s statistics would suggest. The quickly changing economic environment emphasizes the importance of creating a centralized, public, online system that provides “real-time” access to government opportunity data as it becomes available, disaggregated by demographic and regional differences. Such a system would greatly aid governmental, academic, and civil society groups in their efforts to protect opportunity under challenging circumstances, and we recommend that the federal government take action quickly to establish it. In the interim, however, we provide here some of the most recent available data regarding opportunity during the current economic crisis.
Unemployment, Foreclosure, and Bankruptcy
As of early 2009, the economic outlook was dismal. According to three key indicators–the unemployment rate, the foreclosure rate, and the bankruptcy rate—economic opportunity was severely limited. Jobs were scarce, particularly in communities of color. As of February 2009, 12.5 million people were unemployed, putting the overall unemployment rate at 8.1%. Men were more likely to be unemployed than women–the rate of unemployment was 8.1% for adult males as compared to 6.7% for adult females. African Americans, with an unemployment rate of 13.4%, were nearly twice as likely to be unemployed as whites, whose rate was 7.3%. The rate for Latinos was also disproportionately high, at 10.9%. However, Asian Americans had a lower than average rate of unemployment, at 6.9%.1
The January 2009 foreclosure rate showed that a mainstay of the American dream and a historical path to wealth accumulation–homeownership–was increasingly out of reach even for those who had once been on their way to achieving this dream. RealtyTrac, a national online database of foreclosed properties, reported that between January 2008 and January 2009, the foreclosure rate2 increased 17.8% to 1 in every 466 U.S. housing units.3
As a result of the economic downturn, many Americans found themselves unable to keep up with their mortgage, credit card, and auto loan payments, which in turn led to a sharp increase in bankruptcy filings. According to the January Credit Trend report by Equifax, Inc., one of the largest U.S. credit bureaus, the bankruptcy rate increased 25% between January 2008 and January 2009. The same report showed that almost 7% of all homeowners were behind 30 days or more on their primary-residence mortgages in January 2009, up by more than 50% since January 2008. Moreover, 4.2% of payments on credit cards were at least 60 days late, up 29.5% since January 2008, and 1.9% of borrowers of auto loans from carmakers were 60 days behind on the loans, an 18.8% increase from January 2008.4
Our Assessment of Opportunity for 2009
Because achieving full and equal opportunity is a core national commitment, it is essential to measure our success in fulfilling that commitment, just as we measure our nation’s economic health and military preparedness. By gauging how the nation fares in protecting opportunity, we can build on our successes and address those areas where we are falling short.
In February 2006, The Opportunity Agenda released The State of Opportunity in America. The report analyzed and measured the nation’s progress along six values of opportunity, mentioned below. An update one year later, in the 2007 report, found that despite some positive changes, significant opportunity gaps persisted in wages, education, housing, the criminal justice system, health care, and other areas. In some important areas, such as access to health care, opportunity had significantly decreased.
Now, in 2009, examination of these and other opportunity indicators finds that access to full and equal opportunity is still very much a mixed reality. The nation has made great strides in increasing opportunity in some areas and for some communities, but many groups of Americans are being left behind in ways that hard work and personal achievement alone cannot address. A review of the latest two years of available data reveals that opportunity in the United States remains at a crossroads.
Why Measure Inequality?
As our analysis indicates, different American communities often experience starkly different levels of opportunity, and there is real reason to believe that the current crisis is affecting some communities far more severely than others.
For example, in recent years, Latino and African American families have already found themselves struggling to push forward and maximize opportunity. Latino families actually experienced a decrease in real median income even as the country experienced an increase in its gross domestic product.5 Latinos consistently had the highest participation in the labor force of America’s major racial and ethnic groups between 2000 and 2007. Their decline in real median income highlights their diminishing returns, in terms of income, from their work.6
African Americans also did not attain lasting economic security when the American economy was gaining ground, especially when considering the subprime mortgage crisis. From 2000 to 2004, African Americans were building wealth through homeownership. During this time, the homeownership rate for African Americans increased from 47.2% to 49.1%.7 However, between 2006 and 2007, the rate declined 1.5%, returning it to its 2000 level of 47.2%.8 This decline may be explained by African Americans’ disproportionate representation in the subprime mortgage market, which has had a high rate of foreclosure.9 Subprime mortgages, while sometimes beneficial to individuals who have less-than-perfect credit records, are often aggressively marketed to the elderly, people of color, and low-income individuals regardless of credit history.10
These data are indicative of a larger threat to opportunity and security in America. Research has found that a basic standard of living that provides financial security for a family of four costs $48,788 annually. Unfortunately, 29.8% of families have incomes below this amount.11 African American and Latino families fare even worse: 53.0% of African Americans and 57.4% of Latinos have incomes insufficient to achieve a basic standard of living.12
The Opportunity Agenda views opportunity through the lens of our most deeply held values: Security, Equality, Mobility, Voice, Redemption, and Community. This report measures the degree to which we as a society are living up to these values, and incorporating them into our most critical decisions. Key findings of this year’s report include:
Security
Americans believe that we are all entitled to a basic level of education, economic well-being, health, and other protections necessary to human dignity. Recent years saw only two areas where opportunity for security increased—decreases in heart disease and cancer mortality rates—while other indicators were mixed or reflected declines in opportunity.
Access to health insurance is one indicator of security. While the number of people without health insurance decreased overall and for most racial and ethnic groups, Asian Americans experienced an increase in lack of coverage. Moreover, Americans also experienced increases in out-of-pocket health care costs and the rate of delaying medical care due to cost.
Regarding economic security, the overall poverty rate did not change significantly between 2006 and 2007—12.5%, or 37.3 million people, lived below the poverty threshold of $10,590.13 However, the overall child poverty rate increased, as did the poverty rates for children of color. The overall child poverty rate was 18% (13.3 million children) in 2007, an increase of 3.4% since 2006.14 Poverty rates also increased for naturalized citizens and noncitizens. Additionally, although poverty rates for most groups of workers decreased, African American workers experienced an increase in poverty.
Finally, the unemployment rate increased significantly for all groups.
Our overall assessment indicates that opportunity for security declined for the years examined.
Equality
Ensuring equal opportunity means not only ending intentional discrimination, but also removing unequal barriers to opportunity. The wage gap is a crucial indicator of equality. In 2007, women’s median income was 78.2% of male median income, reflecting no significant change from 2006.15 Nevertheless, opportunity improved with respect to the gender wage gap, because white and Latina women made some strides toward closing their respective gaps.
The race and ethnicity wage gap continues as well. The wage gaps between African Americans and whites and Latinos and whites increased during this time. In 2007, African American individual median income was 75.2% of white median individual income, compared to 77.4% of white median individual income in 2006, a 2.9% increase in the gap. The increase in the Latino-white wage gap was smaller, increasing 2.0%.16 In the same time period, the gap between white individual median income and Asian American individual median income decreased.17
Regarding asset-building, a significant gap persists between whites and African Americans. However, the racial gap in households with debt or very few assets decreased between these two groups.
Gaps in educational achievement are also key indicators of equality. The gap in high school dropout rates between African Americans and whites and Latinos and whites increased. However, the race and ethnicity gap in high school degree attainment decreased. In terms of college degree attainment, the gap between Latinos and whites closed significantly.
Finally, the racial gap in incarceration rates decreased for women, but increased for men.
Our overall assessment indicates that equality of opportunity was mixed for the years examined.
Mobility
Every person in America should be able to fulfill his or her full potential through effort and perseverance. Where a person starts in life economically, geographically, or socially should neither dictate nor limit his or her progress and achievement. In terms of individual median income, only whites took a meaningful step forward. However, median family income increased overall and for white and African American families. Furthermore, distribution of income by family increased, meaning that the share of family income for low- and middle-income families increased.
Education is a key indicator for mobility. High school degree attainment did not significantly change for the overall population or most groups, but it did increase significantly for Latinos. However, the high school dropout rate for women and African Americans rose. Finally, college degree attainment increased overall and for all groups.
Our overall assessment indicates that opportunity for mobility improved for the years examined.
Redemption
Americans believe strongly in the value of a chance to start over after misfortune or missteps. Access to drug treatment for prisoners and voting rights after completion of sentence improved. However, opportunity decreased as related to the incarceration rate, and to the increased incarceration of immigrants.
Our overall assessment indicates that opportunity for redemption was mixed for the years examined.
Community
A shared sense of responsibility for each other is a crucial element of opportunity. While public opinion that government has a responsibility to those who need assistance increased, trust in the government declined.
Another key indicator of community is racial segregation in schools. In the twelve years from 1993-94 to 2005-06, k-12 public education segregation significantly decreased for white and American Indian students, but significantly increased for African American, Latino, and Asian American students.
Our overall assessment indicates that opportunity for community was mixed for the years examined.
Moving Forward
From the assessments across these values, we found that, despite some areas of improvement, opportunity for all Americans is at risk, and millions of Americans are facing an opportunity crisis. These past few years have seen an economy in turmoil, impaired financial mobility, marginal prospects for educational advancement, and a broken health care system. These conditions thwart the nation as a whole as it strives to be a land of opportunity for the 21st Century. At the same time, women, people of color, and moderate- and lower-income individuals and families are being hardest hit and left behind as they face multiple barriers to opportunity.
Despite positive news in some areas such as overall degree attainment, representative government, and distribution of family income, these indicators reflect a nation in which opportunity is at grave risk across multiple dimensions. The ability of American families to make a better life for their children is stifled by increased child poverty; accessing health care is increasingly difficult; and more Americans are behind bars in federal prisons. And despite an historic presidential election, equality of opportunity has declined for millions of Americans, with the wage gap faced by Latinos and African Americans increasing, and Latina and African American women making less than 70 cents for every dollar made by men overall.
These barriers are a problem not only for individuals and families, but also for our economy and nation as a whole. They also present an opportunity. Addressing them now would translate to thousands more college graduates prepared for a 21st Century global economy, millions of healthier children in stronger communities, higher wages and greater productivity for American workers, far fewer mort- gage defaults and bankruptcies, and far less strain on our social services and justice system. Conversely, the areas of improved opportunity revealed by our analysis represent a foundation and lessons on which to build as the nation works to restore the American dream for everyone who lives here.
Recommendations Toward Fulfilling Opportunity for All Americans
This report holds important implications for policymakers, civic leaders, and all Americans concerned about the state of opportunity in the United States. Through bold leadership, innovative policies, and the participation of the American people, the nation’s elected leaders can ensure the promise of opportunity in America.
Security
A range of opportunity-expanding policies can enhance the security of our nation and its residents, especially in the context of economic, health, and safety concerns. Our recommendations include:
Assist low-income families and insecure communities in moving into the middle class.
Problems of poverty and income insecurity can be reduced by expanding policies that promote living wage standards; job training and skill-building for the 21st Century global economy; access to affordable child care; quality education; and temporary financial assistance programs. Ways to support low- income communities include promoting mixed-income housing; encouraging regional planning to address inequality between urban and suburban jurisdictions; and supporting public transportation programs that reliably and efficiently help people who live in areas of high unemployment to commute to areas of high job growth and opportunity. Use of an Opportunity Impact Statement in assessing the best use of public resources and infrastructure will maximize positive impact on insecure communities. (See Community recommendations for description of an Opportunity Impact Statement.)
Help low-income families develop assets.
Policies that help poor and low-income families to develop financial literacy and long-term assets like savings accounts, homeownership through fair and appropriate loans, and savings for college education are critical to supporting secure communities. These strategies shift the emphasis of poverty reduction from solely providing cash assistance to helping poor and low-income families acquire resources necessary to achieve greater financial security. Promising approaches include creating individual savings accounts; expanding the earned income tax credit and child tax credit; reducing asset limits for public benefit programs; and implementing anti-predatory lending measures.
Eliminate disparities in access to affordable quality health care and the tools for healthy living.
Health inequality and insecurity must be addressed by federal, state, and local efforts to develop a universally accessible, comprehensive, and equitable health care system. This includes ensuring the fulfillment of Americans’ human right to quality health care; providing greater financial commitment to local community-based health centers; increasing access to healthy foods and safe playgrounds for all Americans; providing safe, confidential, and reliable access to contraception and other reproductive health care needs in a manner that is linguistically and culturally appropriate; and creating clean environments that eliminate toxic air and water quality.
Equality
There is a continued need for vigorous enforcement of existing equal opportunity protections and strengthening of human rights laws and standards. Our recommendations include:
Increase the staffing and resources that federal, state, and local agencies devote to enforcing human rights and equal opportunity laws. Particularly in light of this year’s unprecedented federal economic recovery investments, there is a need to strengthen the capacity of the Coordination and Review Section in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. This Section is charged with the immense task of coordinating civil rights enforcement across federal agencies, and has not historically been utilized effectively. It is also critical that the offices for civil rights in federal and other agencies be fortified to properly protect equal opportunity. In light of substantial economic stimulus spending targeting job creation and infrastructure, and past neglect of civil rights enforcement, White House oversight and inter-agency coordination of these efforts are warranted. Increased attention to civil rights enforcement will result in concrete steps forward in opportunity for all Americans, whether it is in equal wages and work opportunities, fair housing, education, or other areas of public spending.
Institute, at the federal level, an Interagency Working Group on Human Rights and develop a U.S. Commission on Civil and Human Rights. Given America’s role as a leading player in establishing a human rights framework, it is important that we make a clear commitment as a nation to our obligations to protect and strengthen human rights both here at home and abroad. An Interagency Working Group on Human Rights can play a proactive role in ensuring that U.S. international human rights responsibilities are implemented and coordinated domestically among all relevant executive branch agencies and departments. In addition, there is a need to restructure and strengthen the existing U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, transforming it into an effective U.S. Commission on Civil and Human Rights. This body would operate as a national human rights commission, which would provide expertise and oversight to ensure that we progress toward provision of full human rights for all. Both of these institutions will address disparities as they affect racial and ethnic groups, women, and members of marginalized communities.
Improve methods and resources for detailed data collection for the general population and groups. It is critical that government, researchers, and everyday Americans have access to information that is disaggregated to help identify and resolve trends in unequal opportunity. This report illustrates that data currently available is limited. Improved data collection by all levels of government can assist in identifying discriminatory patterns in employment, education, housing, lending, and the criminal justice system, and lead the way to development of innovative solutions. For example, data can be used more effectively to better detect potential bias in the employment context by comparing companies’ workforce diversity with the composition of an area’s qualified workforce. We therefore recommend a centralized, public, online system that provides “real-time” access to government opportunity data as it becomes available, disaggregated by demographic and regional differences.
Mobility
Renewing socioeconomic mobility requires that we ensure access to quality education, skill-building programs, and other gateways to wealth building and human development. Our recommendations include:
Promote early childhood and K-12 school programs that improve the quality of education and graduation rates. Innovative policies that invest deeply in children’s education and improve graduation rates can reap great rewards in mobility over a lifetime. Promising strategies include universal pre-k; increased funding to under-resourced schools; integrated services that address family and community needs; expanding the school day to increase time spent on learning; and providing programs for English Language Learning that promote integration and education for immigrant children.
Invest in comprehensive and integrated education efforts that expand opportunity for all. Education remains a path to mobility throughout our lifetimes. This means that investments must be made in education on financial literacy, including debt and business counseling, saving, and asset- building; job training and skill-building programs for a 21st Century global economy; educating incarcerated people for reentry; linguistic and cultural competence for immigrants; and reducing the financial barriers to college, with a special focus on increasing the share of need-based grants over student loans. It is critical that job training programs emphasize preparedness for quality jobs that pay a living wage and are tailored to the differing skills of all workers.
Expand living wage laws at the federal, state, and local levels to help ensure that full-time minimum wage earners can support their families. Living wage laws at the local level ensure that city or county governments will not contract with businesses that pay workers wages less than is needed to live above poverty levels, given local economic conditions. A focus on living wage— rather than merely on a minimum wage that rarely meets basic needs—would serve to close racial, ethnic, and gender gaps in wages, and also move all Americans closer to achieving financial stability for their families.
Redemption
The nation’s criminal justice policies should protect the public, deter future offenses, and provide restitution to victims. However, they should also restore and rehabilitate individuals and communities whose lives are affected both directly and indirectly by criminal justice policies. Our recommendations include:
Prioritize crime prevention, rehabilitation, and reentry over increased incarceration. There has been a growing trend toward incarceration as a problem-solving tool, particularly in low-income and minority communities, as reflected in high incarceration rates and persistent racial disparities. Criminal justice policy that supports opportunity requires successful crime prevention strategies while fostering rehabilitation and productive reentry. Such strategies include expanding availability of substance abuse treatment, both broadly in society and for those mired in the criminal justice system; basing criminal sentencing on individualized culpability, control, and circumstances, rather than on mandatory minimum sentencing policies that have exacerbated racial and ethnic inequality; expanding use of restorative justice programs; ending the sentence of life without parole for youth; and promoting appropriate re-entry policies that provide support, living wage jobs, and restoration of voting rights for people who return to society from prison and work to re-integrate into their communities.
Expand community policing—a crime-prevention strategy that emphasizes community input, collaboration, and tailored responses to crime and disorder. Policing policies should promote neighborhood safety, address community needs, and protect opportunity and human rights. Many community policing models emphasize a problem-solving framework that shifts the emphasis from arrest and punishment to addressing community needs. Other models encourage prevention strategies that engage and provide support to youth and families. Such approaches are especially helpful where there is an increase in the homicide rate for communities of color. This policing framework draws heavily on the goals and law enforcement needs of the community, which suffers most when crime is poorly addressed and redemption is denied.
Promote workable immigration policies that uphold our national values. Increasing incarceration of immigrants, either for violations of civil immigration law or for arrests related to nonviolent criminal acts, is not a realistic policy solution for addressing immigration. Immigrant detention, especially of families and children, is harmful and counter to our national ideals of dignity, redemption, and the protection of vulnerable people. Immigration enforcement should shift back to the federal level, proven supervised release practices should replace detention, and a realistic pathway to citizenship should be adopted.
Voice
Many factors influence the diversity of voices that participate in the national discourse. Such participation is a key factor in achieving equal access to opportunity, both through focusing dialogue on the needs of underrepresented communities and by creating a venue for demanding accountability and transparency for actions taken by the public and private sectors. Our recommendations include:
Ensure and expand political participation among diverse groups of Americans. In order to achieve democratic participation and representation that reflect the full spectrum of American life, we need the active political participation of all groups in our communities. Central to this goal is equal access to the vote, with policies that address complications caused by geographic and language barriers, faulty voting equipment and infrastructure, inadequately trained poll workers, state laws disenfranchising people with felony convictions, and other state and federal policies that disproportionately limit voting among marginalized groups. For example, Election Day voter registration is a promising practice used by a growing number of states, as are laws restoring the voting rights of people emerging from prison.
Promote local ownership and operation of new and traditional media outlets. Deregulation and consolidation in the media and telecommunications industries have resulted in diminished opportunity for independent media that address the needs of diverse groups to gain a foothold. It is critical to ensure the participation of communities of color in political and cultural life by creating opportunities for diverse voices to affect the public discourse on issues that matter to them.
Bridge the remaining digital divide among diverse communities. The expanded availability of communications and digital technologies can and should result in concrete benefits for all sectors of American life. Equitable investment in digital infrastructure across communities will create economic and educational opportunities for all Americans, including information about financial literacy and local resources such as access to healthy foods and recreational spaces. Furthermore, protecting Net Neutrality is a key step in ensuring that the internet remains a diverse and democratic forum for all communities.
Community
Inclusive policies that tap the strength and contribution of all our diverse communities are crucial to the progress of our nation. Our recommendations include:
Evaluate public expenditures through the lens of an Opportunity Impact Statement. All levels of government can and should use a new policy tool—an Opportunity Impact Statement—as a requirement for publicly funded or authorized projects, especially those that are tied to economic recovery. Examples of potential projects that might require such an assessment include school, hospital, or highway construction, or the expansion of the telecommunications infrastructure. The statements would explain, based on available data, how a given effort would expand or contract opportunity in terms of equitable treatment, economic security and mobility, and shared responsibility, and they would require public input and participation. In addition to leading to concrete investments that move all Americans forward together, this participatory tool can help restore Americans’ trust in the government.
Make expanding opportunity a condition of government partnerships with private industry. Government agencies at all levels can and should require public contractors to invest in communities by paying a living wage tied to families’ actual cost of living for that particular locale; insisting on employment practices that promote diversity and inclusion; and ensuring that new technologies using public resources or receiving other benefits include public interest obligations and extend service to all communities.
Develop practical immigrant integration policies that assist newcomers in attaining full participation in the social, cultural, and political life of our nation. Given the important role that immigrants play in America’s cultural and economic life, it is critical that we create effective and inclusive immigrant integration policies. These include programs that educate new Americans about their rights and responsibilities in the workplace, in civic participation, and relating to law enforcement and other institutions. An important element of these policies is assisting new Americans in learning English and providing multilingual access to necessities like healthcare and basic rights like voting for citizens. A key corollary to this is the need to better equip our infrastructure and communities to incorporate diverse new members. These efforts should be pursued alongside immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship for the nation’s 12 million undocumented immigrants.
Measuring Opportunity — Our Method of Assessment
For this report, we assessed the progress of opportunity by examining many of the same indicators as in The State of Opportunity in America, released in 2006. We measured “change” in opportunity by reviewing 2008, 2007, 2006, and 2005 data from mainly federal sources (Note: for a small number of indicators, the most recent official data is from 2004). For the indicators available, we calculated the percent change over the most recent year that data was available (i.e. from 2006 to 2007 or 2005 to 2006). For certain indicators, we measured a gap or a disparity between subpopulations and the majority population. For example, in the instances of racial and ethnic gaps, the white population served as the comparison group and in the instances of gender gaps, men served as the comparison group.
Change in opportunity for one indicator in the community dimension—k-12 public school segregation— was measured using longer trend data. We assessed public school segregation using enrollment data in public schools over a thirteen-year period from the 1993-94 to 2005-06 school years. Additionally, change in opportunity for three indicators in the redemption dimension–drug treatment for prisoners, voting rights while imprisoned, and voting rights after completion of sentence–was measured by assessing the passage of legislation over a one-year period.
Racial and Ethnic Categories
Each indicator calculated the change over the time period for the nation as a whole, as well as disaggregated by gender, race and ethnicity, and income when data was available. Because the data sources were largely federal, racial categories for many of the indicators in this report are the same as the racial and ethnic categories utilized by the federal government. Hence, the racial categories are defined as the following:
White: any person who self-identified as white only and non-Hispanic.
Black: any person who self-identified as black only.
Asian: any person who self-identified as Asian only.
American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN): any person who self-identified as AIAN only.
Hispanic: any person of any race who self-identified as Hispanic.
Because the Hispanic ethnicity category is not mutually exclusive from the race categories, there is some double counting of individuals who identified as black and Hispanic, Asian and Hispanic, and AIAN and Hispanic when federal sources were used. However, the white race category includes only individuals who identified as white in federal sources.18 Additionally, American Indian and Alaska Native data is rarely available in federal sources, which explains its large absence in this report. In a few instances, in which the data sources utilize different racial categories, this report’s indicators do as well. (Note: In the narrative of this report, we use these terms—African American, Latino, and Asian American—rather than the categories used in the sources in recognition that they are the prevailing terminology for race and ethnic categories.)
Limitations
We recognize that opportunity may be defined and measured in many ways. This assessment is limited in its ability to capture all dimensions of opportunity. Annual data were not available for some indicators, and therefore, some indicators that were in the original report and the 2007 update were omitted from this report. In addition, we encountered significant limitations in the data related to opportunity that government and other institutions collect. For example, data are often unavailable or are inadequate for many racial and ethnic groups other than whites, African Americans and Latinos.
Further, these broad racial and ethnic categories often fail to adequately capture the diversity within U.S. racial and ethnic groups, which may vary considerably on the basis of immigration status or nativity, primary language, cultural identification, and area of residence. A full assessment of opportunity should include a consideration of how opportunity varies along these dimensions. For example, we did not find group information such as variations among Asian American and Hispanic nationality groups.
Similarly, federal data are rarely presented disaggregated by both race and ethnicity and measures of social class or socioeconomic status. Yet the opportunity barriers for low-income whites may differ in important ways from those of more affluent whites and some communities of color. We encourage researchers to examine how opportunity indicators differ by race, ethnicity, gender and income, and to explore their interaction. We also urge federal, state, and local governments to collect and disaggregate data along the broader spectrum of dimensions discussed above.
Nonetheless, by assessing progress across a range of opportunity indicators, as this report does, we hope to provide a summary of how the nation is experiencing opportunity today. To see all of the indicators and for more information, please visit www.opportunityagenda.org.
Notes:
1. “The Employment Situation: February 2009,” The Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 6, 2009.
2. The foreclosure rate includes filings of default notices, auction sale notices, and bank repossessions.
3. “Foreclosure Activity Decreases 10 Percent in January,” RealtyTrac, Inc.
4. “Factbox-Equifax US consumer credit trends for January,” Reuters.
5. Austin, Algernon and Maria Mora, Hispanics and the Economy: Economic Stagnation for Hispanic American Workers, throughout the 2000s, Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper #225. October 31, 2008, pg. 1-2.
6. Ibid.
7. Austin, Algernon, Reversal of Fortune: Economic Gains of 1990s overturned for African Americans from 2000-2007, Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper #220. September 18, 2008, pg 6.
8. Ibid, and US Census Bureau, Housing Vacancies and Homeownership, “Annual Statistics 2007,” Table 20.
9. Austin, Algernon, Reversal of Fortune: Economic Gains of 1990s overturned for African Americans from 2000-2007, Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper #220. September 18, 2008, pg 6.
10. For more information on subprime loans and predatory lending practices, see Subprime Loans, Foreclosure, and the Credit Crisis: What Happened and Why? – A Primer, Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at The Ohio State University and Women are Prime Target for Sub- prime Lending: Women are Disproportionately Represented in High-Cost Mortgage Market, The Consumer Federation of America, December 2006.
11. Lin, James and Jared Bernstein, What We Need to Get By, Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper #224. October 29, 2008, pg. 2.
12. Ibid., pg. 6.
13. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, “Historical Poverty Tables – People”, Table 24 and U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, “Historical Poverty Tables – People”, Table 1.
14. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, “Historical Poverty Tables – People”, Table 3.
15. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, “Historical Income Tables – People” Table P-36. 16 U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, “Historical Income Tables – People” Table P-4.
15. Ibid.
16. See the “note” section at the end of any federal source to find the definition of racial categories used.
17. Ibid.
18. See the “note” section at the end of any federal source to find the definition of racial categories used.
What are Community Values and why are we promoting them now?
Community Values are long held American values. Community Values say that we share responsibility for each other, that our fates are linked. Whether described as interconnection, mutual responsibility, or loving your neighbor as you love yourself, Community Values are moral beliefs, a practical reality, and an important strategy.
For the past 30 years, the theme of individualism has dominated our national dialogue and common culture. Instead of favoring policy that works for everyone, this approach tells people to go it alone. We see the results in our fragmented healthcare system, the divisive debate on welfare reform, and in recent, though unsuccessful, attempts to overhaul social security.
Americans are becoming tired of this individualistic approach to policy, and to life in general. The country is ready for a new inclusive vision and a new generation of positive solutions. It’s time to reclaim values in the political conversation. It’s time to turn Americans’ attention to our long history of working collectively, standing up for each other, and upholding the common good.
The Community Values Toolkit
Included here are ideas, advice, and resources for moving toward this new political conversation, beginning with the 2008 presidential election.
Community Values Phrase Basket
General Talking Points
Building a Message
Examples of Language and Usage
Sample Media Pieces
Community Values Phrase Basket
We’re All in it Together – So Let’s Say the Same Things!
Below we’ve provided the drumbeat terms that we plan to track and measure the use of, to see how Community Values language is faring in the political debate. We’ve also included some terms to use to define the opposition.
It may feel awkward at first to weave the terms into your communications. But if you think about how others have used familiar terms such as “family values” or “tax relief,” you may start to get the idea of what it looks like when a term infiltrates the popular vocabulary.
Phrase Basket
Community Values Phrases: The Opposition:
Drumbeat Phrases:
Community Values ideology) “You’re on your own” (mentality, approach,
Policies of Connection “Go it alone” (mentality, approach, ideology)
Policies of Isolation
Also suggested depending on audience:
(We’re all) In it together Community neglect
Stronger together Everyone for themselves
The Common Good Pull yourself up by your bootstraps
Sharing the ladder of opportunity Pulling up the ladder behind you
On the same team Standing alone
Looking our for each other Leaving people behind
Standing together
Shared or Linked Fate
General Talking Points
This is really about Community Values. Are we going to acknowledge that we’re all in this together, and that we need to look out for each other? Or are we going to tell everyone to go it alone?
What’s missing here are Community Values. Telling people that [issue] is their individual problem is not only unworkable, it’s contrary to our nation’s long-held belief that we’re stronger together, that we look out for each other and work for the common good.
What we need are more policies of connection that recognize our reliance on each other, and how much more we thrive when we stand together. Simply telling people that they’re on their own is not an American option.
Look, we’re all on the same team here. This country thrives when we draw on our Community Values to solve our problems. There are those who say that we each need to figure it out on our own, but that go it alone mentality is obviously unworkable and not an option in today’s interconnected world.
I’m tired of the myth that we should all just pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, buck up, and get on with it. When it comes to health care, to our public school system, to the future of social security, I don’t want politics of isolation to drive public policy. We’re in this together, and we’ll rise together.
We all know instinctively that we’re stronger together. And history shows that when we work together to solve our problems, placing the common good as a top priority, we all move forward. When we leave people behind, we all suffer. I’m for a country that embraces those kind of Community Values again, let’s leave the “go it alone” mentality behind.
We have to recognize that we live in an interconnected world. Our actions have consequences beyond ourselves. Our fates are linked. Insisting on an old-fashioned go it alone mentality is not only unworkable, it’s just wrong.
Building a Message
Where possible, our messages should: emphasize the values at risk; state the problem; explain the solution; and call for action.
Value at Stake
o Why should your audience care?
Problem
o Documentation when possible
Solution
o Avoid issue fatigue – offer a positive solution
Action
o What can your audience concretely do? The more specific, the better.
Example:
Our shared Community Values mean that we come together to solve our problems. We look our for each other and understand that leaving anyone behind is not an option.
But we’re falling short of that ideal—millions of Americans can’t live on the wages they are paid for full-time work. By refusing to address this situation in a meaningful and realistic way, we’re failing these workers and members of our community.
We need to ensure that anyone who is working full time can support their family.
Tell your Member of Congress to support a real and living wage. It’s about workers, families and supporting Community Values.
Messaging Questions
Some useful questions to consider when building a message include:
Who are the heroes and villains of this story? We need to think through various roles played by the characters in our stories. For instance, a common conservative frame is that of tax relief. If people need “relief” from something, it is an affliction. If taxes are an affliction, they are never good and those who relieve us of them are heroes. Those who propose more affliction are villains. Using this term, then, is not helpful to anyone promoting increased government support for programs.
Who does the narrative suggest is responsible for solutions? The conservative theme of individualism suggests that as individuals, we should solve the bulk of our problems ourselves. Instead of an inclusive health care system, for instance, we should have individual health savings accounts. Focusing on individual success stories can have the same effect. The story of an immigrant coming to this country, starting a business and becoming a model citizen can be helpful in many ways, but it doesn’t underscore the need for community or societal level programs to help newcomers. The solution is portrayed at an individual rather than a systemic level.
What are the long term implications of this narrative? Does it point toward the solutions we want? Sometimes, in hopes of providing a dramatic, media friendly story advocates use examples that can lead audiences in unhelpful directions. For example, in appealing for money for a specific child abuse prevention program, advocates might use dramatic statistics of children injured or killed each year by abuse and neglect. These statistics will get media coverage and draw attention to the problem of child abuse. However, they are unlikely to lead audiences to the solution that prevention advocates desire. If the long term goal is to increase funding for prevention programs that support parents, advocates have instead made their audience less sympathetic to parents, and more supportive of punitive measures that do not include prevention.
Does the story inadvertently invoke unhelpful cultural narratives? For instance, in talking about health care, we sometimes use a consumer frame. But this competitive frame is actually unhelpful if the solution we want to promote is universal care. Consumerism implies that we are economic players competing for limited resources. Instead, we want to promote the idea that the system is stronger when we’re all in it.
Does the story use our opponents’ narrative? Consider the recent debate about proposed immigration reform. Many advocates engaged in conversations about whether reform would or would not grant “amnesty” to undocumented immigrants. But by focusing on the word “amnesty,” advocates strengthened the “law breaker” narrative. In this story, “illegal” immigrants and those who fail to punish them are the villains. However well intentioned, arguments that immigration reform is “not amnesty” reinforce opponents’ arguments. We should be careful to avoid using such stories, particularly when we talk to persuadable audiences might support our positions if we framed them differently.
Community Values Caveats
Additional considerations when building a community values message.
Attacking personal responsibility
It’s important to note that promoting Community Values should not appear to abandon all forms of individualism. Americans believe strongly in the value of individualism and “personal responsibility.” And that belief cuts across ideological lines.
People want individuals to take responsibility and also to control their own destiny. These worries can prevent them from fully embracing Community Values if they view such values as letting people off the hook, providing handouts, or removing individual choices and empowerment. Bringing the idea of opportunity into the conversation can help us to point out that systemic barriers to opportunity prevent many individuals from moving forward.
Talking about interconnections that harm, rather than help, us.
In stressing community values, we want to emphasize the ties that bind us as neighbors, workers, Americans and humans. Our fates are connected, so it’s in all of our best interests to move forward together. However, we should not imply that we only need to care about other people’s circumstances if it’s in our best interest.
For instance, advocates might make the case that we should cover all immigrants in new health care reform plans because if we don’t, we are at risk of becoming infected with any diseases they carry. While invoking a linked theme, this narrative isn’t helpful in the long-run as it implies 1) that immigrants are a danger to us and 2) that if their health does not affect us, we don’t need to worry about including them.
Instead, we should emphasize that recognizing our connections is important not only to protect our own interests, but also to understand how we’re part of something bigger.
Invoking the charity frame when promoting the common good.
The term common is useful because gives a name to the entity we hope to benefit. It names exactly what we want to win: an outcome that is good for the community. However, this term can also lead people to think of charity first. This idea says that we help others – often termed the “less fortunate” – through “handouts.” There are certainly heroes to this story, but if we’re not careful, those benefiting from charity can be painted as the villains. In addition, this is a judgmental frame that does not empower groups that have typically faced the biggest barriers to opportunity. In invoking the common good, then, it’s important to point out the solutions we seek: shared power and responsibility, not a one-way, “privileged to unprivileged” exchange.
Using exclusive or nostalgic versions of community
Sometimes we lean toward limited or nostalgic Norman Rockwell illustrations of community that call up ideas of “the old days”, the Eisenhower years, childhood neighborhoods, or our own, limited surroundings. This is problematic for several reasons.
Neighborhoods, for one, are rarely inclusive, so that metaphor alone can be troubling. We need Community Values to mean benefit for everyone, not communities pitted against each other only looking out for their “own.”
Similarly, “the old days” didn’t hold a lot of promise for many groups. People do like the idea of old-fashioned small towns where everyone knows each others’ names, families are intact, and white picket fences prevail. But the old days in the form of 1950’s America was also home to racism, segregation, limited opportunity for women, and hostile to gays and lesbians.
Community Values should mean drawing on our shared history of collectively solving our problems. We can do this by using examples of how we’ve solved problems collectively, such as the New Deal or Civil Rights. This is an instance where patriotism can aid our cause by igniting people’s pride in our ability to work together.
History shows we move forward when we invest in an effective partnership between government and our people. Think of child immunization programs that have wiped out devastating diseases in our country. Think of our Social Security system that has enabled millions of seniors to stay out of poverty. Medicare has kept them safer and healthier without regard to their wealth, race, or region of the country. Think, even, of the interstate highway system, which connected us as a single prosperous nation. To address our health care crisis effectively, we need to invest in those kinds of policies of connection.
Applying Community Values to Health Care
Using the Value, Problem, Solution, Action Model
Value: When it comes to health care, we’re all in it together. We’re a stronger nation when everyone has the health care they need.
Problem: So when 47 million Americans lack health insurance, our whole nation’s health and prosperity are at risk.
Solution: We need policies of connection in our health care system that guarantee access to affordable health care for everyone in our country.
Action: Ask the presidential candidates if they’ll embrace Community Values and guarantee health care for every single member of our nation.
Messaging Examples
Embracing Community Values means creating a health care system that works for everyone. Anything less leaves people behind to suffer poor health, bankruptcy, and even early death. We thrive when everyone moves forward, so making sure health care is available for everyone is critical to our nation’s success.
Health care reform should create a system that works for everyone. That means health care has to be universal, free of racial and ethnic bias, comprehensive, and designed to meet community needs. If one element is missing, the system isn’t complete. For example, we might expand insurance to everyone in a state, but that doesn’t mean everyone is getting the same quality of care. We need policies of connection here, that look at and address all the pieces of our health care system equally. In taking a true Community Values approach to health care, we can’t overlook quality, access or other important issues when we think about coverage.
When it comes to health care, it doesn’t make sense to force people to “go it alone.” We need to promote a Community Values approach. When we spread resources fairly, everyone gets the care they need before problems become costly and more difficult to treat. All social insurance rests on this idea of pooling resources and sharing risk as broadly as possible, recognizing that we’re all in it together. This is particularly important in health care.
Our history shows that we’re stronger when we tackle tough issues together. When we have worked together for clean and healthy drinking water, to provide child immunizations, or to reduce smoking, we’ve all benefited. We’re currently looking for ways to address childhood obesity together. We know that this Community Values approach will work better than telling families to figure it out on their own.
Applying Community Values to Immigration
Using the Value, Problem, Solution, Action Model
Value: Immigrants are part of the fabric of our society—they are our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends.
Problem: Reactionary policies that force them into the shadows haven’t worked, and are not consistent with our values. Those policies hurt us all by encouraging exploitation by unscrupulous employers and landlords.
Solution: We support policies that help immigrants contribute and participate fully in our society.
Action: Ask your candidates what they would do to ensure that immigrants are treated fairly and given a voice in this country.
Messaging Examples
For America to be a land of opportunity for everyone who lives here, our policies must recognize that we’re all in it together, with common human rights and responsibilities. If one group can be exploited, underpaid and prevented from becoming part of our society, none of us will enjoy the opportunity and rights that America stands for.
Reactionary, anti-immigrant policies have repeatedly failed to fix the problem. They’re not workable and they’re not fair to citizens or to immigrants. They hurt all of us and make a bad system worse. We’re all in this together, and such policies of exclusion violate the core sense of community that has always driven the policies that have moved this country forward.
Our immigration system should reflect that immigrants have always been part of this nation. But immigration isn’t just a domestic issue; it’s an international reality. We need comprehensive immigration reform that works for the good of all and reflects the interdependence of nations, communities, and workers.
As long as our federal immigration system is broken, it’s up to local communities to decide how to work with immigrants. Would you rather live in a place that understands the meaning of Community Values, of working together with immigrants to find solutions? Or a place that moves toward punitive, exclusionary measures? In this country, we value people, and we value treating them the right way. Cooperation and common sense solutions for the common good are the way to go.
Applying Community Values to Workers’ Issues
Using the Value, Problem, Solution, Action Model
Value: America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, where we rise together and leave no one behind.
Problem: But too many families are living on the edge of this dream, shut out by unfair labor practices and wages that don’t even put them at the poverty level.
Solution: Our policies must recognize that we’re all in it together, with common human rights and responsibilities. If one group can be exploited, underpaid and prevented from becoming part of our society, none of us will enjoy the opportunity and rights that America stands for.
Action: Ask your candidates what they would do to ensure that all workers are treated fairly and given a voice in this country.
Messaging Examples
Embracing Community Values means that we share a basic concern about one another, and accept that the well being of each one of us, and each of our families ultimately depends on the well being of all of us. As a wealthy nation, we have a shared responsibility to use our collective wealth to establish and support programs that help people rise out of poverty.
The fates of all workers are connected. When some employers pay workers below the minimum wage or don’t pay them for working overtime, these practices quickly spread and other employers try to profit by following these bad examples. This type of race to the bottom ultimately leaves workers competing with each other over lower wages and fewer benefits. Instead of emphasizing cost-savings and competition, we need to encourage ethical and compassionate business practices that are accountable to the community, and cooperation among workers.
We, as a community, must demand that all workers are fairly paid for the hard work they do. This doesn’t just make sense from the perspective of workers, but it’s good for society as a whole. Providing workers with a living wage makes it possible for them to better care for their families, save for the future, contribute to the community and build a stronger America.
A business is just another part of our community. But all too often, most of the people in the community have little or no voice or power in the business decisions that affect the community. We need business interests to recognize that they are part of us and have a responsibility to respect the needs of the community. That means paying workers a fair wage, being good stewards of the environment that we all share, and giving back to the community.
Sample Letter to the Editor
Letters to the editor are a quick and effective way to weigh in on issues that the media frequently cover. Often, more people read the letters page than the pages where the original article appeared or the opinion page. Letters need to be short – about 150 words – so it’s best to focus on one point. In the examples below, the letters focus on weaving Community Values into a call for federal immigration reform.
Letters do not need to be negative. Responding to an article that positively portrayed an issue you care about can set a tone friendlier to Community Values than the confrontational tone central to letters of disagreement.
To the Editor:
Thank you for your informative portrait of one town’s experience with immigration. This piece shows that we have a long way to go. But it also illustrates the community values that will ultimately help us address this issue.
Iowa needs and values immigrants, their work, and their contributions to the community. Yet the state’s ability to welcome its newest residents continues to be strangled by the federal governments’ inability to pass reasonable legislation. Instead of giving into the politics of division and isolation favored by anti-immigration forces, these Iowans have chosen to think about immigration in a community-spirited, humane and practical manner. The federal government should take note.
To the Editor:
Your recent article about immigration was a real eye opener. In the divisive rhetoric we hear in the immigration debates, I feel that this human story of community values is so often lost. Absent in this story were the one dimensional stereotypes of oppressive law enforcement or problematic immigrants. Instead, we saw a community-minded portrait of people working together to make the best of a system over which they have no control.
I believe we need more realistic reflections about what immigration really means to communities. Immigrants are already clearly a part of the community, why can’t the federal government not clear the way for positive integration, so that everyone can move forward?
Sample Press Release
Press releases are more than an opportunity to publicize an event or report. They are also messaging vehicles. While the main text of the release should be primarily informative – who, what, when, where, and why – you have a lot of room in the quotes you provide for elevating Community Values.
Heartland Presidential Forum Challenges Candidates:
How can we embrace community values?
News Release
DES MOINES – Ten presidential candidates will gather at Hy Vee Hall on Saturday, December 1 to answer Iowans’ questions about community issues ranging from health care and education to social justice and factory farming. Organizers, who expect an audience of over 5,000, say the theme of the debate, “Community Values,” is meant to focus candidates’ attention on the idea that the common good is too often overlooked in favor of individual interests.
“These core issues are important to Iowans,” said XXXX. “And it’s important that we focus on solving the challenges they present through the lens of community and the common good. When we think of how we’re stronger together, how we solve our problems more effectively when we’re all involved in the process, we all come out ahead.”
[Event details]
“Community values are such an obvious fit for Iowans,” said XXXX. “We look out for each other here, and we resist the politics of isolation that tell us that we have to solve societal problems on our own. Whether it’s health care or the environment, we’re going to do this together, with a positive role for government, and leave no one behind.”
[Continued details]
“We became involved in this event because of its focus on community,” said XXXX. “There’s a lot of lip service to valuing community, but we wanted to force candidates to explain what that really means to each of them on a policy level. We need more policies of connection that recognize how we’re all in this together, and draw on our collective strength. So we’re actively rejecting the “go it alone” approach to policy.”
This report synthesizes public opinion research on key immigration issues in the United States at the time of its writing. Its findings were shared at The Opportunity Agenda’s Immigration Messaging Forum, part of the 2008 Immigration Communications Summit hosted by The Four Freedoms Fund in May, 2008.
Acknowledgments
This report was supported, in part, by a grant from the Four Freedoms Fund at Public Interest Projects, Inc., The Center for the Advancement of Health, and Carnegie Corporation of New York. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors. We wish to thank all of those who contributed to the development and completion of this report.
The report analysis and writing by Kalahn Taylor-Clark. It was edited by Tony Stephens.
Introduction
We conducted a comprehensive assessment of literature, public opinion, and focus groups on immigration issues in the United States. The main objectives of this synthesis are to a) provide a baseline for understanding current public attitudes toward immigration issues, b) highlight current trends in public attitudes toward immigration over time, c) identify public support for immigration policy alternatives by demographic groupings, and d) provide recommendations for advocacy and policy interests seeking to frame immigration issues in the news media.
To achieve these objectives, we analyzed the research in three phases. First, we reviewed current literature on public opinion and immigration policy. Second, we synthesized existing public opinion polling data and focus group research to disentangle current attitudes and trends toward ‘undocumented’ immigrant issues. Third, we conducted a brief media analysis, in which we explored news coverage of ‘undocumented immigration issues’ during two periods where public support ‘spiked’ for allowing undocumented workers to stay in the U.S. Finally, based on our findings we provided recommendations for framing the immigration debate.
This report is divided into five sections. First, we provide a brief literature review on current research regarding public opinion on immigration. In Sections II and III, we provide an overview and major findings from public opinion polls and focus group work in the area. Based on our findings, in Section IV we outline communication recommendations and next steps for framing the immigration debate. Finally, we provide detailed methodology, appendices, and a selected bibliography.
Literature Review on Immigration and Public Opinion
Literature Review Immigrant Population Overview
In 2007, the nation’s immigrant population (documented and undocumented1) reached a record of 37.9 million people, with nearly one in three having undocumented status (Camaroti, 2007).
More than half of the total foreign-born population originated in Latin America, with Mexico by far the single largest source. This trend indicates a large change from the early 19th and 20th centuries, when a vast majority of the foreign-born population originated in Europe (Congressional Business Office, 2006). Over the past several years, the foreign-born population has been fairly geographically concentrated in specific U.S. States, with the greatest population increases occurring in California, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, Illinois, Arizona, Virginia, Maryland, Washington, Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania (Camaroti, 2007; Congressional Business Office, 2006).
Public Perceptions and General Views on Immigration
Most Americans are concerned about the growing immigrant population in one way or another, but the nature and intensity of those concerns vary by different segments of the population (Pew Research Center, 2006). Two important trends are affecting Americans’ views regarding immigrants and issues related to immigration. First, greater numbers of immigrants entering the United States, legally and illegally, have meant dramatic changes for immigration laws and policies (Congressional Budget Office, 2006; Pew Research Center, 2006; U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). Second, the attacks of September 11, 2001 intensified some of the early growing concern over immigration (Esses, Dovidio, & Hodson, 2002; Hitlan et al., 2007). However, a 2004 NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School Poll, shows that public views on immigration are significantly less negative than they were in the months after the terrorist attacks, down from 59 percent in 2001 to 49 percent in 2004 (NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School Poll, 2004).
It remains laws unclear as to what Americans really want and what they think needs to be done regarding immigration. Do Americans want fewer immigrants, better enforcement of current, or reforms and new immigration laws (Teixeira, 2006)? The literature also documents a range of conflicting views about the impact of immigration, particularly both the positive and negative views and attitudes toward ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ immigrants (Congressional Business Office, 2006; Esses, et al., 2001; Fetzer, 2000; Mullen, 2001; Mullen, Rozell, & Johnson, 2000).
Importance of Public Views Regarding Immigration
Esses et al. (2002) have suggested that public attitudes about immigration are important for three reasons. First, public attitudes are likely to influence public policy because governments pay attention to public attitudes and take attitudes into account in formulating and implementing policy, for example immigration policies. Second, public attitudes about immigration are important because they can influence individuals’ daily behavior, which in turn may affect the success and satisfaction of immigrants and the overall social climate of a particular nation. Third, public attitudes toward immigration can influence the collective vision of national identity and the perception of who is and who is not considered a member of the national group.
Recent Trends in Public Views about Immigration
Overall, recent trends suggest that the American public clearly draws a distinction between ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ immigration and are far more concerned with immigration issues around ‘illegal’ immigrants with feelings being a mix of admiration and concern (The Pew Center 2006). A synthesis of general views on immigration reveals that Americans: a) believe that immigration is a growing and serious problem, b) are most concerned with ‘illegal’ immigrants, c) favor a tough, but not punitive approach to immigration enforcement, and d) support a generous immigration reform provision to deal with ‘illegal’ immigrants, including a path to citizenship (Teixeira, 2006).
In the Pew Research Center for the People and Press and the Pew Hispanic Center’s joint survey (Pew Research Center, 2006), similar public views relate to increasing concern about immigration, over which the American public is largely divided. The analysis also revealed that many believe that newcomers to the U.S. strengthen American society compared to those who say they threaten traditional American values. Over the long term, positive views of Latin American immigrants have drastically improved (Pew Research Center, 2006).
Although the Iraq war, dissatisfaction with the government, and terrorism were some issues that generally rank higher on the public agenda (Pew Research Center, 2006; Gallup poll, 2008), approximately 27 percent of Americans believe that ‘illegal’ immigration is one of two most important issues in the 2008 election (Gallup poll, 2008; CAP poll, 2008) (Slide). Still, public views are divided over many of the policy proposals aimed at addressing undocumented immigrant issues in the U.S. Fifty-three percent say people who are in the U.S. illegally should be required to go home, while 40 percent say they should be granted some type of legal status that allows ‘illegal’ immigrants to stay in the U.S. (Pew Research Center, 2006). Additionally, nearly half of individuals believed ‘illegal’ immigrants should be required to leave; yet, some believe that some immigrants should be allowed to stay under a temporary work program. Divisions also exist over how to manage the flow of illegal immigrants across the Mexican border (Slide).
Public Views Regarding Particular Immigrant Groups
The Pew Global Attitudes Project survey (2004) revealed that a solid majority of Americans believe it is a good thing that people from Asia, Mexico and Latin America come to live and work in the United States. About six-in-ten Americans express positive views about Asian (61%) and Latin American (57%) immigrants (Pew Global Attitudes Project, 2005).
Fewer persons believe that either Latin American or Asian immigrants end up on welfare or increase crime. Approximately eight-in-ten Americans believe that Latino and Asian immigrants are hardworking and have strong family values. However, a number of people believe Asian and Latin American immigrants are reluctant to “assimilate” (Pew Research Center, 2006). Further, older persons (55-65+) and persons who live in places with few foreign-born residents are more likely to hold negative opinions about Hispanics (Pew Research Center, 2006).
In the U.S., public views toward immigration (from Mexico and other Latin American countries) are also reflective of partisan difference. Democrats (61%) welcome immigrants from these countries, compared to Republicans (53%). However, both Democrats (62%) and Republicans (59%) say that it is a good thing that Asians come to live and work in the United States (Pew Global Attitudes Project, 2007).
When broken down further by race, White Americans tend to view immigration more negatively with respect to taxes, crime, and moral and social values, while Black Americans more frequently perceive a negative effect on job opportunities and the economy (Pew Global Attitudes Project, 2007).
These divisions make framing the debate on immigration particularly important. To be sure, as Democrats ‘take back’ immigration as an issue, it will be necessary to balance short- and long-term goals for national immigration policy. Thus, communicating a unified message, which speaks to the concerns of voters, will be imperative to elevating the issue on the public agenda. At the same time, messages must be consistent with long-term goals, and must not stymie future efforts toward equitable immigration policy, which will be imperative to developing sustainable public policy.
Public Opinion on Immigration: Synthesis of Polling Data
Introduction
The American public seems ambivalent over the problems, causes and solutions to immigration issues. The following synthesis outlines themes drawn from 25 state- and national surveys, which were collected between 2006-2008.
Views of Immigration as a Political Issue
Over the past two years, a majority of Americans have viewed immigration as a ‘good thing’ for the country. At the same, they have shown greater ambivalence regarding whether immigration helps or hurts the country, which coincides with views about whether undocumented immigrants should be allowed to remain in the United States.
At the time of this report’s drafting, voters have consistently prioritized ‘illegal immigration’ as a major issue in the 2008 presidential campaign, with an average of 27% of voters saying that the issue should be one of two top priorities for the government to address. While Americans are most concerned about social service provisions for undocumented people, they are also likely to perceive the impact of ‘illegal’ immigration as a threat to American jobs.
‘Legal’ vs. ‘Illegal’ Immigration
In general, Americans are substantially more supportive of ‘legal’ over ‘illegal’ immigrant rights. At the same time, in the absence of such descriptors, some evidence suggests a majority of Americans are likely to believe that ‘immigrant issues’ are inexplicably linked to ‘illegal’ immigrant issues. Two points support this claim. First, anecdotal evidence from a public opinion poll taken in a state showed that pollsters mistakenly inserted the word ‘legal’ before describing immigration. When this was noticed, pollsters re-conducted the survey and found almost no difference when leaving the words ‘illegal’ or ‘legal’ out of the phraseology, as when they were included. Second, a Pew Research Center for People and Politics survey showed that a plurality of Americans were concerned about the threat to ‘American jobs,’ when asked about their biggest concern regarding immigration (generally).
Support for policy alternatives
In general, Americans are most supportive of employer penalties when dealing with undocumented workers.
Who sees immigration as a ‘problem’?
The target groups include demographic groups who believe that health care opportunities are unequal for racial/ethnic minorities, and would support government interventions:
Hispanics, who are voters;
Young people (18-24) of all educational backgrounds (except on issues of perceptions of immigrants as a source of cultural diversity and/or labor);
Self-identified progressives and Independents; Moderate ideology
Public Opinion on Immigration: Synthesis of Focus Group Data
Introduction
In the second research synthesis, we analyzed themes from 3 focus groups exploring Americans’ views of immigration in the United States. The analysis identifies trends and emerging themes specifically related to the following, a) public views regarding immigration (generally), b) specific areas/issues that the public feel most ‘positively/negatively’ about, c) who cares about immigration.
The three focus groups were conducted by partners of The Opportunity Agenda.2 The synthesis identifies trends and emerging themes specifically related to the following:
Public’s general views on immigration (i.e. generally positive, negative, moving one way or the other, or basically and consistently ambivalent)
Immigration issues people feel most positively/negatively about (i.e. immigrant integration or hurting American labor, respectively)
Extent to which we can identify clusters of people, such as whole-hearted supporters, on-the- fencers, flip-floppers, or die hard opponents.
The findings of this synthesis indicate several prevalent themes related to public perceptions toward immigrants and immigration issues. The emerging themes center around: 1) a negative connotation of the term “immigrant”, 2) immigrants as economic competitors, 3) lack of immigrant media coverage and awareness, 4) perceptions of strong immigrant work ethic and family values, 5) ambivalence toward enforcement of immigration control, 6) due process and human rights, and 7) discrimination.
To further illustrate the categories, selected participant quotes are presented and denoted by comments in quotation marks. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund Study provides a synthesis of African Americans’ views on immigration. As these findings represent a synthesis of participant responses and not direct quotes from participants, paraphrased quotes are presented.
“Immigrant”: A Negative Connotation
For many Americans, the term “immigrant” carries negative connotations. Several people acknowledge that when they hear the term “immigrant,” they associate the term with illegal immigrants. Further, reminding people of their own immigrant backgrounds and connections does little to garner empathy toward immigrants today.
“When I hear ‘immigration’, I think of ‘illegal immigrants.”
Caucasian [Breakthrough Study, 2007]
“Words associated with immigrants, “wetbacks,” “illegal Mexican”.
African American
[The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund Study, 2007]
Immigrants as Economic Competitors
The stereotypical theme that immigrants are “takers and not givers” resonated soundly across gender and racial and ethnic groups. Focus group participants had strong perceptions about immigrants as economic competitors with other U.S. groups, who take unfairly from the system. Examples cited were a) a strong belief that immigrants do not pay taxes, b) that immigrants receive small business loans and can start business easier than some groups that were born here, c) that immigrants are a drain on social services in the United States, and d) that even while in the U.S., immigrants continue to send their money home and not invest in this country. African Americans were particularly concerned about these issues. African Americans, especially blue-collar African American men in particular, were likely to feel that they are losing economic ground. African Americans also resent the language and messages that imply immigrants take the jobs Americans do not want. Immigrants themselves also voiced concern over the stereotypical economic notions and messages about them.
“They’re not even paying taxes, they’re not even contributing to the system, and that does bother me.”
Caucasian
[Breakthrough Study, 2007]
They are docile, willing to take lower pay and endure worse conditions and undercut African Americans in the job market.
African American
[The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund Study, 2007]
“It is outsourcing within our own borders.”
African American
“A lot of people think we came to take work away from them and that’s why they mistrust us, because they think we came here to take jobs away from them.”
Mexican
[New Immigrant Study, 2006]
“I’m going to give you the stereotypes about the men and the women. The men come to work selling drugs. And the women come to live off welfare. And it’s not true. Even the people who work as housekeepers are professionals in their own country.”
Dominican
[New Immigrant Study, 2006]
Immigrants as ‘undeserved’ recipients of social services
Six focus groups conducted in Connecticut by The Opportunity Agenda and funded by the Connecticut Health Foundation, showed little variability in perceptions of the most important health issues across the racially stratified groups. However, White residents were very passionate about the impact of undocumented immigrants upon an already overburdened health care system. Of note, immigrants were discussed mostly as “illegal” persons coming from Central and South America.
White Male Participant: “(The major problem is…) the aliens, illegal aliens coming in”
White Female Participant: “They are taking away from people who are U.S. citizens.”
Lack of Media Coverage and Awareness
Many participants indicated that they tend to get information regarding immigration from their friends and families and rarely from the media and government. Several thought mainstream media and government are biased, and are not eagerly nor equitably disseminating balanced information about immigration issues to all groups in society. This is seen by many as a problem, as information about immigration and reform is not reaching all segments of the population.
“As a Muslim, what I’m complaining, or what I can see is not right, is the coverage of Islam in the news media. It doesn’t separate between the terrorists and Muslims. Sometimes I wonder, I’m asking myself, where are we going? If the media goes with this pace, with this kind of preaching, it’s obvious you hear from some people, they’re talking about Islam very different than — you think, ‘Am I a Muslim?’”
East African
[New Immigrant Study, 2006]
“Denial of due process to immigrants is probably going on; it’s just not being publicized because it’s not big news.”
Caucasian
[Breakthrough Study, 2007]
More likely to get my news on immigration from family and friends than the news media or government.
African American
[The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund Study, 2007]
Strong Immigrant Work Ethic and Family Values
Many participants praise immigrant groups for their hard working work ethic and strong family values. Immigrants themselves also expressed the importance of education and family as well.
“They have a strong dedication toward education and the ability to start business and hold onto them for generations.”
African American
“My children were born in Mexico, but I have them here and I see in this country, they’re going to have a better education. It’s easier for me financially to give them a good education here because in Mexico, if I earn minimum wage, it doesn’t matter how intelligent they are, they will not be able to study more – even if your child is brilliant, you will not be able to afford a college education so the opportunities that are available for my children here as far as their education are very important.”
Mexican
[New Immigrant Study, 2006]
“I think most Americans accept us because they consider us good workers.”
Mexican
[New Immigrant Study, 2006]
Ambivalence toward Enforcement
Many participants have a great deal of empathy for the legal situation immigrants find themselves in and are somewhat ambivalent toward the laws and enforcement. First, they feel they don’t know enough about the laws and policies as clear and complete information has not reached them. Second, on one hand they believe immigrants help American society economically and culturally, but on the other hand, some participants believe illegal immigrants, in particular, are breaking the law and draining the U.S. system by not paying taxes while taking advantage of the free benefits they are afforded. Others are frustrated and angry with the government for setting up a system that does not work and that is out of control. The U.S. immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed, but participants were unsure what to do about it. Most agreed tougher enforcement and secure borders are needed and this theme really was widespread among African Americans. African Americans were also adamant that U.S. employers hiring illegal immigrants should be punished and workplace regulations enforced.
“Why do we even have immigration laws if anyone can just walk over the border and stay here for 10 years?”
Caucasian
[Breakthrough Study, 2007]
Tough enforcement consists of tougher controls at the border, tougher enforcement of laws, including those for employers.
African American
[The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund Study, 2007]
Due Process and Human Rights
Illegal immigrants’ human rights, due process, and fair treatment resonated overwhelmingly with many groups. Some felt that if persons are illegal they should not have the same rights as American citizens. Others raised questions of what the Constitution or U.S. laws say about rights of people who are not citizens. Still, for some, the American way is to give due process to all people, and they should be treated fairly no matter what. Many participants felt that even though illegal immigrants have broken the law, they should still be treated fairly. The concern is not just that immigrants should be treated fairly but that everyone should be given due process If immigrants are being treated unfairly and not given due process, what does this say about the U.S. justice system. Further, could this unfair treatment at some point be applied to legal citizens as well?
“It sounds like you’re [immigrants] guilty until proven innocent.”
Caucasian
[Breakthrough Study, 2007]
The system is broken and needs to be fixed.
African American
[The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund Study, 2007]
“If you are an illegal immigrant, then you don’t enjoy all the rights and privileges that a citizen does.”
Caucasian
[Breakthrough Study, 2007]
“I’m caught in between the two. If you’re an illegal immigrant, you shouldn’t be given the same rights as a citizen of this country, but at the same time, it’s more fair to say if you obey our laws you’ll be protected by our laws. Denying due process is wrong, but I’m kind of town between the two.
Caucasian
[Breakthrough Study, 2007]
“It’s not what America stands for, it’s treating them like cattle, it’s not giving them basic rights as human beings, and that’s not what America stands for to me.”
Caucasian
[Breakthrough Study, 2007]
Discrimination
Discrimination against residents was another theme that resonated among various groups. Clearly discrimination and stereotypes about immigrants exist. White and African American respondents expressed that the immigrants of today are not like the immigrants of the past. Immigrants do not invest in this country, nor do they make many contributions, and in return they do not pay taxes and want to drain the system of all that they can. When thinking about which groups are most adversely affected by discrimination, respondents mentioned African Americans, Latinos, Arabs, and Middle Easterners. In particular, Arabs and Middle Easterners were considered especially discriminated against since 9/11. African Americans expressed that they do not share a sense of empathy because they see their civil rights struggles as different from those of immigrants.
They are immediately eligible for welfare and crowd into emergency rooms for health care services they could not get in their own countries.
African American
[The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund Study, 2007]
African Americans are the most discriminated against and Latinos are the second most discriminated against.
African American
[The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund Study, 2007]
“I think my grandparents made more contributions when they came here than the ones who come over the border now because they wanted to be legal. The ones who are here today, they don’t give to this country like the immigrants did before.”
Caucasian
[Breakthrough Study, 2007]
Many immigrant respondents also voiced the pain of discrimination and stereotypes from Americans.
“If one is not a U.S. citizen, unfortunately, one is like a lower class citizen. Simply for not having the U.S. citizenship. And the way they treat you at work, in any type of setting, at least in my case, I feel it is because of the citizenship issue that I feel discriminated against.”
Central American
[New Immigrant Study, 2006]
“They think we are very poor. One of my daughter’s classmates asked her, ‘Do some people stay in a hut?’ And my daughter said, ‘No, I’m going to have a house like yours.’”
Indian
[New Immigrant Study, 2006]
“Sometimes they ask ‘Are you a terrorist? Do you have a gun?’ They’re checking your bags like crazy.”
Pakistani
[New Immigrant Study, 2006]
Overview
The qualitative findings presented here provide insight about the perceptions and attitudes toward immigrants, both documented and undocumented, in America. These findings illustrate strong themes around the negative connotation of the term “immigrant,” immigrants as economic competitors, lack of media coverage and awareness of immigrant issues, strong immigrant work ethic and family values, ambivalence toward immigrant enforcement, due process and human rights, and discrimination. These themes are also helpful in addressing the initial research questions:
What trends emerge in the existing research regarding the public’s general views on immigration? Is it generally positive, negative, moving one way or the other, or basically and consistently confused?
Emerging trends regarding general views on immigration show a great amount of ambivalence regarding immigration, laws, and policy. In part, this is due to the lack of awareness and unclear messages about immigration that have not reached all segments of the population. This finding should spawn further research in how immigration messages are developed and disseminated to various groups and how these issues are covered by various media organizations.
Another trend among groups is the overwhelming support for fairness and due process, which should be afforded to immigrants (particularly undocumented immigrants) who find themselves in legal situations. Although some believed that the ‘illegal’ status of some immigrants should compel limited due process, most supported fairness and due process, which was noted as a basic human right that should be afforded to all people regardless of their status. Many connected the unfairness seen toward immigrants to a broken U.S. system that has allowed immigration problems to get ‘out of hand.’ Several respondents expressed concerns of media coverage, which paints a poor picture of immigrant treatment–without due process–in America. Additionally, most people felt that immigrants in the U.S. face unfair discrimination. Several respondents also cited widespread examples of discrimination and stereotypes toward immigrants.
Generally, most views reflected a range from positive to negative, or just unsure about many issues regarding immigrants. Again, part of this indecisiveness rests with varying messages about immigration and immigrant groups. People feel they are just not getting clear and complete messages about immigration challenges. However, whether accurate or not, people feel that the government is not doing enough to solve the issue and in many cases are treating illegal immigrants unfairly. This particular message is definitely out there among many segments of the population. There are positive views around the strong work ethic and cultural values that immigrants contribute, and negative opinions around the notion that illegal immigrants are breaking the law and draining the U.S. system of benefits and resources that could be used for citizens. People are mostly ambivalent and conflicted about how to solve the problems.
In what areas/issues do people feel most positively about immigration and most open to immigrant integration?
Those familiar with the various immigrant laws and programs such as the amnesty bill, or guest worker programs felt positive about these programs. However, some did express concern when it comes to the actual implementation of the programs and the difficulty in tracking guest workers. Some also felt that guest worker programs would depress wages even more. Other views emphasized efforts to have more security at borders and stronger penalties of U.S. employers who employ illegal immigrants, but felt that even more needed to be done. Many felt these two issues could help to drive more reform.
In what areas/issues are they most negative?
There was a lot of negativity around the implication that immigrants do jobs that other Americans, especially African Americans will not do. Many hold the view that immigrants are lowering the wages in the U.S. Others expressed concern that immigrants are making English in the U.S. the second language. People are clearly negative about immigrants not paying taxes, investing in the U.S., sending their money home, and taking advantage of free benefits here. A number of respondents indicated that illegal immigrants should not receive any rights at all in America.
To what extent can we identify clusters of people, such as whole-hearted supporters, on-the-fencers, flip-floppers, or die hard opponents?
In various racial and ethnic groups, there is a range of people who could be identified as supporter, on-the-fencer, flip-flopper, or die hard opponent. This will depend greatly on the particular issue being discussed or presented to them around immigration. However, there are some issues that resonated with some groups more than others. For example, African Americans are die-hard opponents of tougher enforcement of laws and stronger security at the borders, yet they resent any linkage and connection that their struggles and fight as African Americans are the same as those of illegal immigrants.
It is also clear that both African Americans and White Americans are whole-hearted supporters of fair treatment and due process to immigrants and all people. Their concern here is not just that all immigrants are treated fairly but that if the U.S. system gets away with treating a particular group unfairly, this unfair treatment could be applied to other groups as well.
When it comes to resolving various immigration issues around illegal immigrants and whether the laws, bills, or programs in place will work, you see many flip-floppers. Many individuals feel they just don’t have enough information and have not followed the debate closely enough. Overall, many are divided about the overall impact of immigration.
Implications of Syntheses on Strategic Communication Plan
In aggregate, these findings have important implications for creating a strategic communication strategy to influence a media and advocacy agenda on these issues.
Framing ‘undocumented’ v ‘documented’ immigrant issues
Research shows that when the term ‘immigrant’ is used alone, specifically in relation to political issues, a majority of Americans are likely to consider ‘undocumented’ immigrant issues as a major problem. Using consistent terminology will be helpful here.
Biggest concern regarding ‘immigration’ (generally) is the perceived threat to American jobs
Attaching this issue to universal health care coverage issues may be one way to increase support for targeted provisions for immigrants.
How can the immigration issue be moved from an economic concern to one of human rights?
Americans are less likely to support social service provisions than they are to support educational provisions for undocumented children.
How might judicial action play a role in perception – Plyler v. Doe (1982).
One reason for this concern may have to do with rising health care costs (and lower quality services) for Americans.
Attaching this issue to Universal Healthcare Coverage issues may be one way to increase support for targeted provisions for immigrants.
Considerations for targeted audiences
We have identified three target groups that may be ambivalent about their stand on immigration issues, and with ‘more information’ may be supportive of policy alternatives:
Hispanics, all ages, who are voters;
Self-identified politically progressive or moderate;
Working class status; higher SEP;
Women (self identified politically progressive)
Challenging audiences
< High school educational status
Self-reported conservative ideology
Aged 55+
Considerations for future research Media analyses
Public ambivalence over immigration may shift with media coverage of the issues. For example, in December of 2005, and again in 2007, Americans shifted their views about whether immigration helps or hurts America.
Media analyses that uncover frames of a) problem definition, b) causes of problems, and c) solutions to problems, will be imperative to better understanding public attitudes.
Public opinion and focus groups
Testing message frames from media analyses will be critical here.
Specific Frames (Example) Education for all is a basic human right…
Overall, Americans are very supportive of providing education to undocumented immigrant children,
BUT, dwindling healthcare resources are a main concern for everyone.
This means that concerns about constrained social resources may increase opposition to provisions of social services, such as health care.
Detailed Methodology
Public Opinion Polls
We analyzed 5 state-wide and 23 national public opinion polls. All of the polls were conducted between January 2006 and April 2008, with a margin of error ranging from +2 – + 3 percentage points. We analyzed questions that were asked in some form in at least two other sources. Thus, the synthesis reveals multi-method differences in public opinion (i.e. question wording).
When groups are said to differ, they are statistically variable at the p<.05 level of significance.
Focus Groups
The focus group method allows researchers to draw upon respondents’ attitudes, feelings, beliefs, experiences, and reactions in an in-depth manner not feasible using other methods such as observation, one-on-one interviewing, or questionnaires. These attitudes, feelings, and beliefs may be partially independent of a group or social setting, but are more likely to be revealed through social gatherings and the interaction of a focus group (Krueger, 1994). As a result, focus groups produced in-depth, detailed data about participants’ perceptions about health issues both nationally and locally within their communities.
Data and Methods
In assessing the public’s perceptions and general views on immigration, this examination draws upon findings from three qualitative research studies conducted to assess public perceptions of immigrants’ human rights, due process, and the role of religion and new immigrants to America. We reviewed data from three focus group studies from: 1) Breakthrough USA, a New York based nonprofit organization working to show that immigration is a human rights issue and current laws are affecting all immigrants, legal and undocumented (study conducted by Belden Russonello & Stewart in December 2007), 2) new immigrants and religious communities: religious adaptation and pluralism in the American religious landscape commissioned by Douglas Could and Company, funded by the Ford Foundation (study conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research), and 3) The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund study (conducted by Lake Research Partners) which assessed the perceptions of African Americans about immigrants.
Focus group methodology was utilized in all three studies to provide a rich and in-depth understanding of the public’s perceptions and attitudes about immigration in the U.S. Focus groups can be used in isolation or to complement or supplement quantitative methods, but are not normally used to quantify public attitudes on issues and are not generalizeable to the population as a whole (Creswell, 2004). As such, focus groups proved to be a serviceable method for the topic of immigration and related issues and exploring closely attitude formation and discovering the range of opinion and beliefs on immigration. These studies were selected based on their rigorous execution of the methodology and the rich and salient data yielded from each of the focus group studies.
Study Designs
The first study reviewed consisted of four focus groups conducted on November 19 and 20, 2007 by Belden, Russonello, & Stewart. Focus groups were conducted among liberal Caucasians and young people in Chicago and New York City. One group in each city was composed of young adults (18- 24), and the other group was composed of liberal, Caucasian adults between 30 and 60. The young adult group in New York was composed of Asian American, African American, and Latino participants.
In the second study, new immigrant and religious communities, focus groups were conducted in April and May 2005, by Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research. Focus groups were comprised of the following groups: Indian Hindus (Chicago), East African Muslims (Washington, DC), Dominican Catholics (New York), Pakistani Muslims (Chicago), Arab Muslims (Detroit); Central American Evangelicals (Miami), Mexican Catholics (Los Angeles), Chinese Christians (Los Angeles), and Nigerian Christians (Washington, DC). The average number of focus groups conducted was two.
In the third study, assessing African American perceptions, a total of four groups were conducted on. Two groups were held in Detroit, Michigan on July 5, 2007. One group was comprised of blue-collar African American men and the other group of mixed gender African Americans under age 40.
Another two groups were conducted in Houston, Texas on July 11, 2007. There was one group of blue-collar African American women and one group of mixed gender, white collar African Americans.
Notes
1. As a distinction, throughout this document we will use the terms ‘undocumented’ and ‘documented’ to refer to immigrant status. However, we will use the terms ‘illegal’ and ‘legal’ when sources specifically use that terminology.
2. For more information on the methodologies used to develop themes from focus groups, see Section VI.
Bibliography
Camaroti, S.A. (2007). Immigrant in the United States, 2007: A profile of America’s foreign- born population. Center for Immigration Studies.
Congressional Business Office. (2006). Immigration policy in the United States. The Congress of the United States.
Esses, V.M., Dovidio, J.F., & Hodson, G. (2002). Public attitudes toward immigration in the United States and Canada in response to the September 11, 2001 “Attack on America.” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 69-85.
Fetzer, J. (2000). Public attitudes toward immigration in the United States, France, and Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mullen B. (2001). Ethnophaulism for ethnic immigrant groups. In V.M. Esses, J.F. Dovidio, & K.L. Dion (Eds.). Immigrants and immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 457-475.
Mullen, B., Rozell, D., & Johnson, C. (2001). Ethnophaulisms for ethnic immigrant groups: Cognitive representation of “the minority” and the “the foreigner.” Group Process and Intergroup Relations, 3, 5-24.
NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School Poll. Immigration survey.
Pew Research Center (2006). No consensus on immigration problem or proposed fixes: America’s immigration quandary. The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
Pew Global Attitudes Project. (2007). World public welcome global trade-but not immigration: 47-nation pew global survey. Pew Research Center.
Portes, A. & Ruben, G. R. (1990). Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, Ltd.
Teixeira, R. (2006). What the public really wants on immigration. The Center for American Progress and The Century Foundation.
U.S. Census Bureau (2003). The foreign-born population in the United States: U.S. Census Bureau.
To the New York State Departments of Health and Insurance:
The Opportunity Agenda would like to thank Governor Eliot Spitzer, Commissioner of Health Richard Daines, and Superintendent of Insurance Eric Dinallo for the chance to contribute to the development of a comprehensive and equitable health care system in New York. Please find included written testimony and recommendations, submitted on behalf of The Opportunity Agenda, for your New York City public hearing today, “Increasing Access to Health Insurance Coverage and Moving Toward Universal Healthcare Coverage.”
If you have any questions or would like further information, please use the following contact information:
Kevin Shawn Hsu
Associate Counsel
568 Broadway, Suite 302
New York, NY 10012
212.334.4267
khsu@opportunityagenda.org
Thank you for your consideration of this testimony.
Sincerely,
Kevin Hsu
Associate Counsel
Recommendations for Ensuring Equitable Access and Quality in New York State Health Care System Reform
Submitted to the New York State Departments of Health and Insurance by The Opportunity Agenda
October 30, 2007
The Opportunity Agenda welcomes the chance to provide testimony to the Departments of Health and Insurance to assist in the development of a health care system that provides equal access to high-quality care for all New Yorkers.
This testimony seeks to provide New York with equity benchmarks, elements of state-level health care policies and proposals that promote equitable health care access and quality for all populations, that should be used in evaluating any health care system reform proposals. The benchmarks address six aspects of the health care system: (1) Access to Health Care, (2) Quality of Care, (3) Patient Empowerment, (4) Health Care Infrastructure, (5) Policy Infrastructure, (6) Social and Community Determinants of Health. These benchmarks are informed by our review of literature on health care disparities and draw from existing and proposed state-level policies that promote equitable, high-quality health care for all.
Summary of Recommendations
In crafting a universal health care system that provides access to quality care for all residents of New York, the State should include reforms that ensure improvements to the system for all while eliminating health care disparities based on race, ethnicity, primary language and income. New York should utilize the equity benchmarks described in this testimony to evaluate any health care system reform proposal. In making health care affordable and accessible to all, including underserved communities, a health care system must ensure that cost-sharing policies are equitable by, for example, preventing policies such as premium pricing based on existing health status or individual mandates from disproportionately excluding communities of color from care. Reforms must also improve the cultural and linguistic competency of both providers and health care systems to encourage effective use of health care resources and delivery of appropriate care. In all of these efforts, New York must also integrate monitoring efforts into reforms to guarantee that changes lessen, rather than exacerbate health care disparities.
New York must also improve the quality of care that patient receive, regardless of the insurance program in which they are enrolled. With regards to eliminating the documented inequities in the quality of health care received by communities of color, immigrant communities, and low- income populations in New York, reforms must include collection of quality of care data, stratified by race, ethnicity, primary language and other characteristics of underserved communities. This data should be publicly reported and, more importantly, acted upon by providing incentives to providers who engage in quality improvement programs targeting demonstrated health care disparities, educating patients, and supporting and expanding community health worker programs that bridge cultural and trust gaps between providers and underserved communities.
Finally, New York must reform the health care system infrastructure to better address the needs of racial, ethnic, and language minorities. This includes increasing state support for and reducing the financial vulnerability of “safety net” hospitals, community health centers, and health care institutions serving poor and minority communities. Reforms should also construct or revive programs that combat disparities, such as creating incentives for health care professionals working in underserved communities, reviving the statewide network of Health Systems Agencies that used community health planning to better align community needs and health care resources, and reviewing the use of the Certificate of Need process so that changes to hospital services are contingent on community need and reduction of racial, ethnic, and linguistic health disparities. To implement these infrastructure and policy reforms, New York should dedicate resources to coordinating the various responsible state agencies in creating a comprehensive, statewide approach to eliminating racial and ethnic health disparities.
Legal and Ethical Principles
Our review of New York’s constitutional, statutory and other legal obligations, as well as public opinion, indicate that efforts to reform New York’s health care system must be informed by the following principles:
That the New York State Constitution obligates the State to provide access to high quality health care to all New York residents, with particular attention to vulnerable groups and those least able to pay for care.1
That federal civil rights laws and international human rights laws obligate the State, its subdivisions, and virtually all health care providers to avoid and actively dismantle any practices having a discriminatory purport or effect on particular racial, ethnic, or linguistic groups, with respect to access to or quality of health care.2
That federal and state health care laws obligate the State to ensure adequate support and care for low-income and medically underserved communities, including through adequate Medicaid reimbursement rates and equal treatment, irrespective of income or insurance status.3
That the people of New York overwhelmingly believe that everyone in New York has a right to health care, and that the State is responsible for ensuring that racial or ethnic minorities and low-income New Yorkers have an equal chance to access health care as do wealthy people.4
That protecting and promoting the health of the inhabitants of New York5 requires systems, policies, and practices that ensure equitable access to high quality care.6
Health Care Equity in New York
The efforts of Governor Eliot Spitzer, the Department of Health, and the Department of Insurance to move New York toward universal health coverage are to be lauded. Rapidly escalating health care costs, a rising number of people who lack health insurance, inconsistent health care quality, and a paucity of federal action to address these problems necessitates the consideration of state-level health care reform proposals that, if enacted, would create significant changes in how the State approaches health insurance coverage and health system regulation.7 A poll conducted by The Opportunity Agenda and designed by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health confirms public support for these efforts: 89% surveyed said that “everyone in New York has a right to health care.”8
The New York State Departments of Health and Insurance are holding these hearings with the explicit goals of achieving universal, high-quality health insurance coverage and containing health care costs. However, a major problem which impacts both cost and quality, yet is often unaddressed, is the problem of inequality in health care access and quality. Inequality is a pervasive and persistent problem that is acknowledged by health care quality and policy experts to be a central concern in any heath care reform effort.9 We use the term health care inequality to describe disparate or disproportionate health care access and quality problems experienced by racial and ethnic minorities, the uninsured, immigrants, those who are not proficient in English, and others, relative to more advantaged groups. While having health insurance is the single most significant factor determining the timeliness and quality of health care that patients receive, inequality persists even among similarly insured patients. For example, a large body of research demonstrates that even with the same health problems and the same sources of health insurance, racial and ethnic minority patients, as well as those who are not proficient in English, tend to receive a lower quality of health care.10
Health care disparities are intimately linked to access, quality, and cost issues within the health care system. For example, a relatively small investment targeted toward communities experiencing significant gaps in care can save the State significant amounts of money. Consider the neighborhood of Rockaway, Queens, where 13.5% of mothers receive late or no prenatal care; unsurprisingly, a full 10% of babies in that community are born low-weight.11 While the average cost of medical and follow-up care for a healthy normal weight baby is $6,500, care for a premature or low birth-weight baby costs between $90,000 and $180,000. However, a $180,000 health promotion program will provide more than 50 at-risk pregnant women with intervention to reduce their risk of bearing low birth-weight babies; if the program is even modestly successful, it would dramatically improve the financial efficiency, as well as the quality, of the neighborhood’s health care system.12 New York State could save hundreds of millions of dollars if it ensured access to quality primary care for all New Yorkers.13 True high- quality, universal care requires recognition and efforts to eliminate the significant health care inequities facing residents of New York.
Racial and ethnic minority and language-minority groups face well-documented problems in both accessing health care and receiving equal quality care. Lack of health insurance is a primary cause of these disparities; over half of the nation’s 47 million uninsured individuals are people of color.14 In New York City, 30% of New Yorkers of color are uninsured, compared to under 17% of white New Yorkers.15 And in New York State, Asian residents are more than twice as likely to be uninsured, and Hispanic residents are more than three times likely to be uninsured as non-Hispanic Whites (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Uninsured Rate in New York State, Adults 18-64 By Race, 2007
Source: New York State Department of Health, New York State Minority Health Surveillance Report, Sept. 2007; “All races” comes from the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement, available from the Current Population Survey Table Creator at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/data_access.html.
Closing racial and ethnic gaps in insurance coverage while increasing overall insurance rates is crucial. But health insurance coverage expansions alone do not ensure that medically- underserved, predominantly-minority communities will receive quality care in a timely fashion, or that inequality in health care access and quality will be eliminated. Predominantly minority communities also face higher rates of health problems, but have fewer health care resources, such as hospitals, primary care providers, outpatient clinics, and nursing home facilities.16 The health care services that are available to them are often of lower quality than those in more advantaged communities.17 And even among minorities who have insurance, many face cultural and/or linguistic barriers to accessing care, despite the existence of federal standards for cultural and linguistic competence in health care settings.18
As described below, in addition to providing truly universal health insurance coverage, steps toward ending inequality can include collecting data and monitoring for inequality, improving the health care infrastructure in low-income communities and communities of color, and addressing these groups’ cultural and linguistic needs.
I. Access to Health Care
New York can expand access for underserved populations by:
Making health care affordable
Seeing that health care is affordable for all communities necessitates that policies take into account and attempt to minimize the disproportionate impact that health care costs may have on access and utilization among underserved populations. In creating a cost-effective and sustainable economic model for a health care system, New York should be sensitive to the potential effect of proposals on health insurance coverage and access among communities of color. Specifically, New York should:
Examine the equity of health insurance premium pricing. For example, charging people in poor health more for insurance than those in good health is inequitable, and disproportionately burdens communities of color.
Consider the equity of cost-sharing arrangements. Cost-sharing arrangements are intended to make costs more transparent and promote cost-conscious consumer behavior, but may thwart universal coverage and exacerbate disparities. Several studies demonstrate that minority and low-income communities are less likely to access health care as out-of-pocket costs rise.19
Enable those with low incomes to purchase health insurance through sliding fee scales for premiums, public subsidies, and limits on co-payments and other out-of-pocket costs such that those at the lowest income levels will face only nominal charges.
After implementing any cost-sharing policies, study and respond to potential unintended effects of cost-sharing on utilization by currently uninsured and underinsured groups.
Assessing the differential impact of individual mandates on communities of color, immigrants, and low-income populations
Massachusetts’ new statute to achieve universal coverage requires individuals and families to purchase health insurance, and also establishes standards of affordability to determine premium or cost-sharing contributions. The impact of a similar individual mandate and definitions of affordability here in New York may vary across racial and ethnic groups, even at the same income level, as these groups vary in wealth and access to resources.20 In addition, the challenges of enforcing an individual insurance mandate across different communities are significant. Some documented immigrants, for example, may be reluctant to apply for public health insurance programs, even if eligible, as a result of anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies, and might therefore be slower to comply with a mandate.21 If New York chooses to apply an individual mandate, it should monitor insurance take-up among previously uninsured people by race, ethnicity and immigration status, and take steps to correct policies that might have a disproportionate impact.
Promoting cultural and linguistic competence in health care settings
Health care providers and systems must be culturally and linguistically competent to improve health care access and quality for an increasingly diverse U.S. population.22 The federal Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS) standards identify fourteen benchmarks that have been widely accepted and increasingly adopted by health systems and providers.23 Indeed, federally-funded health care organizations are mandated to meet four of the standards.24 Similarly, greater diversity among health care professionals is associated with greater access to and satisfaction with care among patients of color.25 New York must develop or expand diversity efforts, which improve the cultural competence of health systems and increase the likelihood that patients of color will access and be satisfied with the health care they receive. Specifically, New York may:
Promote cultural and linguistic competence through policies that encourage and reward health care organizations that implement the CLAS standards, such as fully reimbursing providers for language services through the Medicaid and Child Health Plus programs, or increasing payments through these programs for providers complying with the full set of standards.
Promote greater diversity among health care professionals by developing or expanding tuition-for-service agreements with underrepresented health care professionals.
Requiring cultural competency training for health care professional licensure
New York State is one of the most diverse states in the country, and New York City’s population is predominantly people of color. Demographic changes require that the health professions keep pace by training future and current providers to manage diversity in their practice.26 Some states have taken action to address this need—as of 2005, New Jersey required that all physicians practicing in the state must attain minimal cultural competency training as a condition of licensure. New York should assess whether and how various health care expansion proposals should follow suit.
Reducing “fragmentation” of the health insurance market
A potentially significant source of racial and ethnic health care disparities among privately insured populations lies in the fact that minorities who have insurance are likely to be disproportionately enrolled in “lower-tier” health insurance plans. Such plans tend to limit services, offer fewer covered benefits, and have relatively small provider networks. These limitations can impair access to quality care.27 New York can take steps as part of coverage expansion proposals to improve access to the same health care products and services, regardless of coverage source. For example, one proposed California plan, AB 8, provides for the Insurance Commissioner to approve no more than five standardized plans for both public and private insurance markets, allowing patients to make fully-educated decisions about both the cost and quality of benefits each plan will provide.28
Improving and streamlining enrollment procedures for public health insurance programs
Racial and ethnic minorities and immigrants are underrepresented, relative to eligibility rates, in public health insurance programs. States that have achieved greater success in increasing minority participation in public programs have developed and sustained aggressive outreach programs and have taken steps to improve and streamline enrollment, with particular attention to the needs of cultural and language-minority groups.29 New York can improve and streamline enrollment through policies that evaluate and improve enrollment procedures among eligible yet underserved groups. For example, New York can utilize media campaigns, community-based outreach and application assistance, identification of potential enrollees through other systems (such as school lunch, early childhood education, etc.), and simplified enrollment systems.
Consistently evaluating outreach to and enrollment of underserved groups in public health insurance programs
Measurement of public insurance take-up rates in low-income communities and communities of color is an important step to ensure that health care expansion efforts reach underserved groups. By regularly conducting such evaluations and responding to gaps and shortfalls, New York can expect to see improved coverage rates among eligible populations.30
II. Quality of Care
New York seeks to expand health care quality, as well as access. The State can provide incentives for quality improvement, such as pay-for-performance programs, performance measurement, and report cards. But quality improvement efforts that fail to take into account the different challenges and needs of underserved communities, and the health care institutions that serve them, can unintentionally worsen health care quality gaps. To prevent unintentional exacerbation of inequities, New York should establish mechanisms for promoting equity and accountability by promoting the collection of data on health care access and quality by patients’ race, ethnicity, income or education level, and primary language, and by publicly reporting this information.
New York can establish mechanisms for ensuring quality care and accountability to all communities by:
Requiring public and private health systems to collect data revealing and monitoring racial/ethnic, language status, and income-based health care disparities
Currently, state data collection efforts with regard to health care disparities are uneven. New York requires recipients of state funding (e.g., Medicaid managed care organizations) to collect and report health care access and quality data by patient demographic factors, but fails to utilize its leverage as a regulator, payer, and plan purchaser to require all health systems to collect and report data using consistent standards.31 And given that New York has non-discrimination laws that apply to health care settings and require state diligence to enforce, requirements to collect and report standardized data are an important benchmark for efforts to reduce health care inequality. New York should ensure that state health care expansion proposals mandate participation by all health systems operating in the state in a standardized data collection program.
Publicly reporting health care access and quality disparities
Once New York has obtained health care access and quality data by patient demographic characteristics, this information should be publicly reported, to promote greater public accountability, to allow consumers to make more informed decisions about where to seek care, and to assist state efforts to appropriate action to investigate potential violations of law.32
Encouraging the adoption of quality improvement programs that consider the health care challenges and needs of underserved communities
State health care quality improvement efforts, such as pay-for-performance or performance measurement, are gaining increasing attention. But because underserved communities typically face greater health needs and barriers to treatment, performance measurement that is blind to the additional challenges in providing health care to these communities can inadvertently dampen provider enthusiasm for treating low-income communities or communities of color. Quality improvement efforts should take into account the challenges and needs of underserved communities and reward efforts that reduce disparities and improve patient outcomes relative to baseline measures.33 New York should ensure that health care expansion proposals emphasize disparities reduction efforts and avoid unfairly penalizing providers in underserved communities while holding them and health systems accountable for improvements in health outcomes.
III. Patient Empowerment
Patients should be empowered to make decisions about their health care and to insist that care be delivered in a manner consistent with their health care needs, economic status, and cultural context. These issues are particularly relevant for racial and ethnic minority and immigrant patients, who may face significant cultural barriers in U.S. health care settings.34 These concerns can be addressed by:
Developing and strengthening patient education programs that are well-researched and are tailored to the need of underserved communities
Patient education programs commonly seek to help patients understand how to best access health care services and participate fully in treatment plans. Such efforts to empower patients can help reduce health care disparities by providing patients with skills to effectively navigate health care systems and ensure that their needs and preferences are met. For example, patient education programs have been found to be effective as a means of reducing racial and ethnic disparities in pain control.35 Patient education programs are most effective when designed in partnership with community members and groups and when language, culture, and other concerns faced by communities of color are fully addressed.36
Supporting and expanding community health worker programs
Community health workers, also known as lay health navigators or promotoras, are trained members of medically underserved communities who work to improve community health outcomes. Community health worker programs train individuals to teach disease prevention, conduct simple assessments of health problems, and help their neighbors access appropriate health and human resources.37 New York State currently has 23 community health work programs, focused on prenatal and early childhood health.38 Research and practice indicate that such services can improve patients’ ability to access care and understand how to manage illness. Most importantly, community health workers can help reduce health disparities by community mistrust of health care providers stemming from historical discrimination, breaking down cultural divides between providers and patients, assisting in obtaining health insurance and accessing care, and disseminating vital health information to underserved communities.39 From a health care system perspective, community health workers also improve quality and reduce costs by encouraging more appropriate use of health care resources and reducing uncompensated care.40 New York can build on the successes of its existing perinatal community health worker programs by providing grants, seed funding, or other resources to help stimulate community health worker programs in new areas of health disparities, such as diabetes, HIV/AIDS, and preventable ambulatory care sensitive conditions such as asthma, hypertension, and pneumonia.
IV. State Health Care Infrastructure
The disproportionate lack of health insurance among racial and ethnic minorities is associated with lower levels of health care resources (e.g., practitioners, hospitals and health care centers) in communities of color. Even if New York achieves universal health insurance coverage, communities of color will still require investments to improve their health care infrastructure.
New York can ensure that the community-level health care infrastructure needs of racial, ethnic, and language minority patients are better addressed by:
Supporting “safety net” hospitals and community health centers, and reducing the financial vulnerability of health care institutions serving poor and minority communities
People of color, immigrants and low-income individuals are more likely than other populations to access health care in safety net institutions, such as public hospitals and community health centers.41 In many cases, these institutions face financial vulnerability because of low Medicaid reimbursement rates and/or the costs of providing uncompensated care to uninsured individuals.42 These institutions may fare better in states where near-universal health insurance coverage proposals are enacted and where health insurance expansions are realized, but they will likely continue to face financial vulnerability until universal and equitable coverage is achieved.
New York operates a free care/bad debt pool aimed at reimbursing hospitals for uncompensated care. Yet the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has said that many of New York’s most financially troubled hospitals will go bankrupt or default on their loans without more state assistance.43 State health care expansion proposals should include provisions to provide additional financial resources or other support to safety net institutions, particularly until coverage plans “ramp up” to reach uninsured populations. The viability of these institutions is particularly important if New York fails to establish truly “universal” coverage due to exclusion of childless adults or undocumented immigrants who are not eligible for Medicaid and are subject to enrollment caps in many state-funded programs—exclusions which we recommend against. In such a scenario, New York would likely rely on safety net institutions to provide a significant uninsured population with primary and preventative health care that is essential to the state’s health.
Creating and/or improving incentives for health care professionals to practice in underserved communities
Low-income and minority communities often have the most pressing need for health care services, but they are served by a dwindling number of providers and institutions that lack resources to expand and improve services (Figure 2).44 New York can address this imbalance by providing incentives, such as funds for graduate medical education programs that focus on underserved populations, tuition reimbursement and loan forgiveness programs that require service in communities with health professional shortage areas.
V. State Program and Policy Infrastructure
New York can improve its capacity to plan for and address the health care policy challenges and needs of minority communities by adopting or strengthening existing policies such as:
Community health planning
Community health planning is a means of gaining community input and better aligning health care resources with community needs. Community health planning has a long history, but its promise as a tool to reduce health care disparities has yet to be fully realized. Community health planning seeks to strengthen communities to play a greater role in their own health, actively involving residents in the planning, evaluation, and implementation of health activities in their communities. The 1974 National Health Planning Law sought to create and support a network of community Health Systems Agencies (HSAs), but a lack of funding and effective mechanisms for community input to shape health policy has led to a decline of HSA power and influence.45
In New York, the laws creating a statewide Health Systems Agency remain on the books,46 though the State stopped funding the agency in the 1990s.47 Despite its decline, HSAs have been proven effective and significant tools for equity in New York. The Finger Lakes HAS (FLHSA), for example, has served as an important vehicle to address the common concerns of consumer groups, businesses, health plans, and providers regarding health planning.48 Through collaboration between the Rochester community, local businesses, and the local insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, FLHSA has remained an active, self-funded project, but requires greater funding support to remain a broad-based planning agency. New York can integrate strategies to restart and reinvigorate HSAs and include disparities reduction efforts as part of the mission of these planning agencies into its health care expansion proposals.
Certificate of Need assessment
Historically, the purpose of the Certificate of Need (CoN) process has been to control health care costs and ensure that capital and technology investments in the health care industry reflect community needs. In New York, the process has required hospitals and other health care institutions that seek to establish, expand or reduce services to submit proposals so that the Department of Health can evaluate projects to eliminate unnecessary duplication of services and ensure that investments strategically address health care needs. The CoN process, however, has great potential to encourage a better distribution of health care resources, reflecting community and statewide need.49 The four current criteria examined by the DOH through the CoN—public need, financial feasibility, character/competence and construction50—are necessary but insufficient to ensure reflection of community needs. Although DOH is required to assess public need in determining whether to grant a Certificate of Need application for the construction, expansion, or conversion of hospitals,51 the agency has not historically done so (Figure 3).52 New York should re-evaluate and reinvigorate the CoN process through new policies that ensure accountability for the use of public funds; reduce geographic, racial, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities; and reduce the “fragmentation” of the health insurance market. Specifically, New York should ensure that the collection of data revealing racial/ethnic, language status, and income-based health care disparities, discussed above, is integrated into the CoN process. DOH should make obtaining a Certificate of Need contingent on evidence that changes sought would reduce racial and economic health care inequality.53
Figure 3
Coordination between DOH, DOI, the New York State Division of Human Rights, and the Attorney General
The New York State Division of Human Rights is charged with reviewing complaints under the New York State Human Rights Law and enforcing the law. However, few complaints reviewed by the State Division address discrimination in access to health care.54 But because discrimination in health care is often covert, structural, and sometimes unintentional, review of these limited number of complaints are not alone a good way to discover and eliminate existing racial discrimination. The State Division should exercise its power to initiate its own investigations, file its own complaints, and conduct studies in compliance with state, federal and international human rights law and to prevent and eliminate discrimination in access to health care.55
To this end, New York should develop a comprehensive, statewide approach to eliminating racial and ethnic health disparities, grounded in the fundamental understanding that these disparities stem from historical, interpersonal and institutional racism. The State is empowered to eliminate health care gaps through its control of funding, power of regulation and control over the authorization of hospital closings and downsizing to control the allocation of health care resources. Moreover, the Attorney General possesses broad authority under parens patriae standing, which provides states with the ability to sue to protect the health of their residents.56 The Departments of Health and Insurance, the Office of the Attorney General, and the State Division of Human Rights should coordinate efforts to end health disparities based on race or ethnicity. One model of coordination is a bill pending before the Massachusetts legislature to establish an Office of Health Equity to coordinate all efforts to eliminate racial and ethnic discrimination in health care.57 An equally comprehensive government-led initiative in New York would need: (1) to share the honesty of the Massachusetts Commission to End Racial and
Ethnic Health Disparities58 in acknowledging that racial and ethnic health disparities are caused by racism and institutional tolerance of racial bias; (2) to be led by influential policymakers who could implement the recommendations into law; and (3) to examine and address the multiple causes of disparities, including health care services, patient education and behavior, and larger social conditions.59
VI. Policies to Address Social and Community-Level Determinants of Health
While largely outside of the purview of state health insurance coverage expansion proposals, any effort to reduce racial and ethnic health status gaps must address factors that lie largely outside of the health care arena. These include social and community-level determinants of health—such as environmental conditions in homes, employment, or educational institutions—which are powerful “upstream” predictors of who is healthy and who is ill. New York State health care reform proposals can consider strategies to:
Improve coordination of relevant state agencies that should address determinants (e.g., education, housing, employment)
State agencies that seek to reduce social and economic gaps are inherently engaging in health equity work. Almost all aspects of state policy in education, transportation, housing, commerce, and criminal justice influence the health of state residents, and can have a disproportionate impact on underserved communities. New York can take steps to coordinate the work of state agencies that impact health disparities, which would likely reduce duplication of effort, increase efficiency, and more effectively address health outcome disparities.
Health impact assessment (HIA) policies
HIA attempts to ensure that all government programs and initiatives in and outside of the health care delivery sector—such as transportation, housing, and environmental protection—are assessed to determine their potential impact on the health status of affected communities.60 HIA is used extensively as a policy and planning tool in Europe and other countries, and is used increasingly in the United States. The San Francisco Department of Public Health, for example, has developed and implemented the Healthy Development Measurement Tool to identify and assess community health needs and understand how land use and development projects can complement public health goals. New York should determine whether state health care expansion proposals include use of health impact assessments to assist planning.
Conclusion
New York is synonymous with opportunity in the American vocabulary. In considering health care system proposals, we ask that you evaluate not only whether a greater number of residents will be insured, but also whether system reform proposals improve the equal opportunity of New York residents to access quality health care. We hope the equity benchmarks laid out above will assist in your evaluation process.
Notes:
1. N.Y. CONST. art. XVII, §§ 1, 3.
2. Civil Rights Act of 1964, tit. VI, 42 U.S.C. §2000d et seq.; Civil Rights Act of 1964, tit. VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq.; Nondiscrimintion Under Programs Receiving Federal Assistance Through the Department of Health and Human Services Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 45 C.F.R. §80.3 (2005); Guidance to Federal Financial Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, 68 Fed. Reg. 47311 (2003)
2. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Dec. 21, 1965, 140 CONG. REC. 14326, 660 U.N.T.S. 195.
3. Medicaid Act, Pub. L. No. 89-97, tit. I, 79 Stat. 343 (1967); Hospital Survey and Construction Act (“Hill-Burton Act”), Pub. L. No. 88-443, 78 Stat. 447, 42 U.S.C. §§ 291-291(o) (1964).
4. Poll designed by Harvard School of Public Health and conducted by The Opportunity Agenda from October 24th to November 13th, 2006, with a representative sample of 479 New York State residents over the age of 18. The margin of error is +/-4.48% at the 95% confidence level.
5. N.Y. CONST. art. XVII, §3.
6. N.Y. CONST. art. XVII, §3. The text of the public health provision makes clear that it covers both the “protection” and the “promotion” of health, that it covers all “inhabitants” of the State, and that provision for such protection and promotion by state and municipal governments is mandatory. Courts have generally found that use of the term “shall” establishes a mandate. See, e.g., Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 127 S. Ct. 2518, 2531-32 (2007) (finding the statutory language “shall approve” mandatory) (citing Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congress'”use of a mandatory ‘shall’ . . . to impose discretionless obligations”); Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998) (“The mandatory ‘shall’ . . . normally creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion”); Association of Civil Technicians v. FLRA, 22 F.3d 1150, 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“The word ‘shall’ generally indicates a command that admits of no discretion on the part of the person instructed to carry out the directive”); Black’s Law Dictionary 1375 (6th ed. 1990) (explaining that “[a]s used in statutes . . . this word is generally imperative or mandatory” and noting that in legal documents “shall” is construed as permissive only when necessary to carry out legislative intent or in cases where no right depends on its being taken in a mandatory sense). As the section of the state constitution on state finance explains: “Subject to the limitations on indebtedness and taxation, nothing in this constitution contained shall prevent the legislature from providing . . . for the protection by insurance or otherwise, against the hazards of unemployment, sickness and old age.” NY CONST. art. VII § 8.
7. STATE COVERAGE INITIATIVES & ACADEMY HEALTH, STATE OF THE STATES: BUILDING HOPE AND RAISING EXPECTATIONS (2007).
8. Supra note 4.
9. INST. OF MEDICINE, CROSSING THE QUALITY CHASM: A NEW HEALTH SYSTEM FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (2001).
10. INST. OF MEDICINE, UNEQUAL TREATMENT: CONFRONTING RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN HEALTH CARE (2003).
11. THE OPPORTUNITY AGENDA, DANGEROUS AND UNLAWFUL: WHY OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IS FAILING NEW YORK AND HOW TO FIX IT 42 (2006), available here.
12. Id. at 4.
13. Id.
14. U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, INCOME, POVERTY, AND HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE IN THE US: 2006 (2007).
15. D. HOLAHAN ET AL., UNITED HOSPITAL FUND, HEATH INSURANCE COVERAGE IN NEW YORK, 2001 (2003).
16. THE OPPORTUNITY AGENDA, DANGEROUS AND UNLAWFUL, supra note 11.
17. INST. OF MEDICINE, UNEQUAL TREATMENT, supra note 10.
18. Id..
19. See, e.g., M.M. Doty & A.L. Holmgren, Health care disconnect: gaps in coverage and care for minority adults. Findings from the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey, 2005 (Commonwealth Fund, Issue Brief, 2006); J.L. Hargraves & J. Hadley, The contribution of insurance coverage and community resources to reducing racial/ethnic disparities in access to care, 38 HEALTH SERVS. RESEARCH 809, 809-29 (2003); M. Lillie-Blanton & C. Hoffman, The role of health insurance coverage in reducing racial/ethnic disparities in health care, 24 HEALTH AFFAIRS 398, 398-408 (2005); R.M. Weinick et al., Who can’t pay for health care?, 20 J. OF GEN. INTERNAL MED. 504, 504-09 (2005).
20. MELVIN L. OLIVER & THOMAS M. SHAPIRO, BLACK WEALTH, WHITE WEALTH (1997).
21. Kathryn Pitkin Derose et al., Immigrants and Health Care: Sources of Vulnerability, 26 Health Affairs 1285, 1258-68 (2007).
22. C. Brach & I. Fraser, Reducing disparities through culturally competent health care: an analysis of the business case, 10(4) QUALITY MGMT. IN HEALTH CARE 15-28 (2002).
23. OFFICE OF MINORITY HEALTH, U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY APPROPRIATE SERVICES IN HEALTH CARE.
24. Id. at 10-13. All recipients of federal funds are mandated to meet Standards 4, 5, 6, and 7, which are based on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act as applied to Limited English Proficiency (LEP) persons. Standard 4 requires provision of bilingual staff and interpreter services at all hours to LEP persons. Standard 5 requires provision of oral offers and written notices to patients, in their preferred language, of their right to receive language assistance services. Standard 6 requires competence of language service providers and discourages the use of friends or family. Standard 7 requires materials and signage posted in the service area in languages of commonly encountered language populations.
25. INST. OF MEDICINE, IN THE NATION’S COMPELLING INTEREST: ENSURING DIVERSITY IN THE HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE (2004).
26. S.L Taylor & N. Lurie, The role of culturally competent communication in reducing ethnic and racial healthcare disparities, 10 AM. J. OF MANAGED CARE Spec. No.:SP1-4 (2004)
27. INST. OF MEDICINE, UNEQUAL TREATMENT (2003).
28. Cal. AB 8, 2007-08 Reg. Sess., § 1366.10 (2007).
29. C. Brach et al., Who’s enrolled in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)? An overview of findings from the Child Health Insurance Research Initiative (CHIRI), 112 PEDIATRICS e499 (2003); D.C. Ross & I.T. Hill, Enrolling eligible children and keeping them enrolled, 13 FUTURE CHILD 81, 81-97 (2003); M.C. Morreale & A. English, Eligibility and enrollment of adolescents in Medicaid and SCHIP: recent progress, current challenges, 32 J. OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH 25, 25-39 (2003).
30. L.P. Shone et al., The role of race and ethnicity in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in four states: are there baseline disparities, and what do they mean for SCHIP?, 112 PEDIATRICS e521 (2003).
31. R.T. Perot & M. Youdelman, Racial, ethnic and primary language data collection in the health care system: An assessment of federal policies and practices (Commonwealth Fund, Commonwealth Fund Publication No. 492, Sept. 2001). S.D. Watson, Equity measures and systems reform as tools for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in health care (Commonwealth Fund, Commonwealth Fund Publication No. 776, Aug. 2005).
32. R.T. Perot & M. Youdelman, supra note 21; INST. OF MEDICINE, UNEQUAL TREATMENT (2003).
33. P.L. Casalino & A. Elster, Will Pay-For-Performance and quality reporting affect health care disparities?, 26 HEALTH AFFAIRS w405-14; R.G. Hood, Pay-For-Performance—Financial Health Disparities and the Impact on Healthcare Disparities, 99 J. OF THE NAT’L MED. ASS’N 953, 953-58 (2007).
34. INST. OF MEDICINE, UNEQUAL TREATMENT (2003).
35. D. Kalauokalani et al., Can patient coaching reduce racial/ethnic disparities in cancer pain control? Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, 8 PAIN MED. 17, 17-24 (2007).
36. INST. OF MEDICINE, UNEQUAL TREATMENT (2003).
37. H.P. Freeman, Patient navigation: a community centered approach to reducing cancer mortality, 21 J. CANCER EDUC. Suppl. S11, S11-14 (2006); M.L. Steinberg et al., Lay patient navigator program implementation for equal access to cancer care and clinical trials: essential steps and initial challenges, 107 Cancer 2669, 2669-77 (2006). 38 N.Y. State Dep’t of Health, Community Health Worker Program.
39. COMMUNITY VOICES, COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKERS AND COMMUNITY VOICES: PROMOTING GOOD HEALTH (2003).
40. Id. at 13-14.
41. Kaiser Comm’n on Medicaid & the Uninsured, Stresses to the Safety Net: The Public Hospital Perspective, June 2005; J. Hadley et al., Would safety- net expansions offset reduced access resulting from lost insurance coverage? Race/Ethnicity differences, 25 HEALTH AFFAIRS 1679 (2006). Also note that New York provides Medicaid coverage to eligible documented immigrants, increasing the importance of safety-net institutions for many New Yorkers. Aliessa v. Novello, 96 N.Y.2d 418 (2001).
42. D.P. Andrulis, L.M. Duchon, SUNY Downstate Med. Ctr., Hospital care in the 100 largest cities and their suburbs, 1996-2002: Implications for the future of the hospital safety net in metropolitan America, Aug. 2005.
43. HHS was called the “Department of Housing and Urban Development” at the time of the statement. N.Y. State Assembly, Press Release, Health Care Reform Act of 2000 (1999).
44. P. Cunningham, Mounting pressures: physicians serving Medicaid patients and the uninsured, 1997-2001 (Center for Studying Health System Change, Tracking Report No. 6, Dec. 2002); P. Cunningham & J. May, Medicaid patients increasingly concentrated among physicians (Center for Study Health System Change, Tracking Report No. 16, Aug. 2006).
45. D.A. Conrad, Community care networks: linking vision to outcomes for community health improvement, 60 MED. CARE: RESEARCH & REV. Suppl. 95, 95-129 (2003); S. Sofaer, Community health planning in the United States: a postmortem, 10(4) FAMILY & COMMUNITY HEALTH 1, 1-12 (1988); R. Weech-Maldonado et al., Evaluating the effectiveness of community health partnerships: a stakeholder accountability approach, 26 J. OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS. ADMIN. 58, 58-92 (2003); L.B. LANDRUM, HEALTH PLANNING IS ALIVE AND WELL, AM. HEALTH PLANNING ASS’N.
46. N.Y. PUB. HEALTH § 2904-b.
47. Calling Upon the Legislature of the State of New York to Amend the Health Care Reform Act to Reauthorize Funding for Health Systems Agencies (Mar. 24, 1998); Judy Wessler, Comm’n on the Public’s Health System, Press Advisory, The Need for Health Planning (undated; on file with Judy Wessler, Comm’n on the Public’s Health System).
48. See Finger Lakes Health Systems Agency, Current Projects.
49. D.B. Smith, Eliminating Disparities in Treatment (Commonwealth Fund, Aug. 2005).
50. Public need considers the hospital’s impact on the specific population demographic regarding access to specific health services, facility utilization patterns and how the hospital will affect the epidemiology of certain relevant diseases in the community. Financial feasibility examines the hospital’s financial health, projected costs and potential profits/expenses regarding the specific project. Character/competence examines the hospital’s prior experience and success in operating a healthcare facility. Finally, construction deals with the hospital’s adherence to pertinent New York State regulations regarding the building of healthcare facilities.
51. In determining whether an application for construction, expansion, conversion should be granted, DOH is required to consider public need, as well as financial feasibility, character and competence, and construction. In determining whether to revoke an operating certificate, DOH is also required to consider public need; but in its approval of voluntary closures DOH has argued that it need not consider health needs. See N.Y. State Dep’t of Health, Certificate of Need Review Criteria.
52. In the mid-1980s, in response to a Title VI complaint filed by Legal Services of New York and New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, DOH entered negotiations with advocates and agreed to add a form to its Certificate of Need application that would address concerns about access to health care. Telephone interview with Judy Wessler, Director, Commission on the Public’s Health System (Nov. 16, 2006). The form, at the time identified as Schedule 18, required health care facilities to address access to facilities, including language access, in their applications and obligated DOH to weigh such issues in deciding whether to approve applications. Id. Schedule 18 no longer addresses health care access issues; it now applies to Residential Health Care Facilities. N.Y. State Dep’t of Health, Schedule 16 – CON Forms Specific to Residential Health Care Facilities. But this requirement was only enforced for a short time, while legal and community groups reviewed DOH procedures. The parts of the current Certificate of Need application that address issues of access and public need must once again be reviewed and enforced. A specific schedule is designated for each Article 28 facility. Schedule 16 applies to hospitals and Schedule 17 applies to Diagnostic and Treatment Center. N.Y. State Dep’t of Health, Schedule 16 – CON Forms Specific to Hospitals; N.Y. State Dep’t of Health, Schedule 16 – CON Forms Specific to Diagnostic and Treatment Centers (D&TC). Only Schedule 16 appears to require a facility access analysis for hospitals. See N.Y. State Dep’t of Health, Schedule 16 – CON Forms Specific to Hospitals, supra.
53. DAVID BARTON SMITH, ELIMINATING DISPARITIES IN TREATMENT AND THE STRUGGLE TO END SEGREGATION
(2005) (“Currently, specialized services such as open-heart surgery are moving from the inner suburbs of most urban areas to the outer ones, following white flight and urban sprawl. Market and convenience justifications mask a resegregation of care that increases the cost of health care and reduces its quality.”).
54. In Fiscal Year 2002-2003 only 2.8% of the complaints filed with the State Division complained of discrimination in public accommodations; in Fiscal Year 2003-2004, the number increased slightly to 3.1%. N.Y. State Div. of Human Rights, Annual Report, Website Ed., Fiscal Years 2002/2003-2003/2004.
55. The Division is empowered to develop human rights plans and policies for the state and to assist in their execution. The Division may convene “advisory councils, local, regional or state-wide . . . to study the problems of discrimination in all or specific fields of human relationships or . . . specific instances of discrimination because of age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, disability[,] or marital status and [to] make recommendations to the division for the development of policies and procedures.” N.Y. EXEC. LAW § 295(8) (2006); see also N.Y. EXEC. LAW § 295(6)(b) (2006); N.Y. EXEC. LAW § 295(9) (2006); 18 N.Y. JUR. CIV. RTS. § 14 (2006).
56. DENNIS D. PARKER, STATE REFORM STRATEGIES, IN AWAKENING FROM THE DREAM 317, 322 (Denise Morgan, et al., eds., 2006). States have brought civil rights cases alleging discrimination in housing, public accommodations, access to health care, and employment, under parens patrie standing.
57. H. 2234, 185th Gen. Court (Ma. 2007).
58. A 3-year project that brought together legislators, community members, and experts in health and health care. Comm’n to End Racial & Ethnic Health Disparities, Final Report (Aug. 2007).
59. Id.
60. A.L. Dannenberg et al., Growing the field of health impact assessment in the United States: an agenda for research and practice, 96 Am. J. of Public Healt 262, 262-70 (2006).
This report assesses the state of housing in New Orleans one year after Hurricane Katrina. It analyzes housing conditions in the city prior to the storm, progress made since, and areas in which the rebuilding effort has fallen short. In addition, it offers practical recommendations to ensure the reconstruction of housing is faster, fairer, and more effective.
Housing has long been central to opportunity and the American Dream. Our homes determine our access to schools, jobs, safety, health care, and political participation. They are a source of shelter, pride, and community. And homeownership provides the chief source of wealth building for millions of Americans. In short, fair and affordable housing is central to the very promise of opportunity—the idea that everyone deserves a fair chance to achieve his or her full potential.
Our research reveals that the natural disaster of Katrina uncovered and exacerbated existing man-made threats to fair and affordable housing, which have been created by specific policy decisions and years of neglect. The resulting lack of affordable units, low rates of homeownership, racial discrimination, and residential segregation, combined with a slow and uneven reconstruction effort, pose steep barriers to displaced and returning residents hoping to start over. Such characteristics limit residents’ chances of recovering from the storm as well as the entire region’s ability to rebuild.
Fortunately, effective tools and strategies exist to reverse these trends and to expand housing opportunity for all people in the region. In particular, reinvesting in effective government systems, many of which are already available, is key to creating safe, accessible, and affordable housing for the people of the region.
The report’s key findings include:
The pre-Katrina shortage of affordable housing in New Orleans has since erupted into a major crisis, robbing tens of thousands of displaced residents of their right to return. This crisis is disproportionately borne by the region’s poorest residents: a full 20% of the 82,000 rental units that Katrina damaged or destroyed in Louisiana were affordable to extremely low-income households.
The large loss of habitable rental space has caused sharp rent increases in many damaged areas.
The plans of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to demolish four of the city’s largest public housing complexes instead of repairing and reopening them will further hamper returning residents’ opportunity to start over.
The affordable housing shortage is now accompanied by a failure to restore the neighborhood conditions and infrastructure that nourish and foster community. As of July 2006:
Only 18% of public schools have reopened.
Only 21% of child-care centers have reopened.
A mere 17% of public buses are operational.
Only 60% of homes have electricity service.
In the city of New Orleans only 50% of hospitals have reopened.
Over 100,000 evacuated households were still in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) trailers as of May 2006, with 1,800 trailers in Alabama, 34,000 in Mississippi, and the majority—68,000—in Louisiana. These trailer communities are geographically isolated, leaving residents with limited access to the opportunities, resources, and community they need to start rebuilding their lives.
Evidence indicates that, throughout the Gulf Coast, displaced African Americans seeking apartments have experienced housing discrimination, receiving significantly worse treatment than white apartment seekers.
To meet these challenges the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), The Opportunity Agenda, and the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity propose a Housing Opportunity Action Plan, which includes short- and long-term recommendations. Key to this plan is reinvesting in effective government systems that have a track record of promoting housing opportunity.
Recommendations for immediate action include:
Authorizing additional housing vouchers to ensure that a portion of rebuilt housing is affordable to low-income households.
Preserving existing federal housing resources by repairing and reopening—rather than demolishing—habitable public housing and replacing all destroyed units.
Shifting all temporary rental assistance programs to HUD’s Disaster Voucher Program in order to draw upon HUD’s experience in administering housing assistance and the infrastructure of public housing agencies.
Focusing federal civil-rights enforcement efforts on the Gulf Coast region and Katrina’s diaspora with an emphasis on Fair Housing Act enforcement.
Recommendations for longer-term reforms include:
Requiring a Housing Opportunity Impact Statement as a condition of public support for future rebuilding efforts.
Creating incentives for the development of mixed-income neighborhoods with equal access to quality schools, health care, jobs, and other stepping-stones to opportunity.
Fully funding the repair and rehabilitation of privately owned housing stock.
Promoting homeownership among low-income families through down-payment- assistance programs and rent-to-own programs.
Finally, because many of the housing problems revealed by Katrina flow from national trends, we call for a new national vision that expands housing opportunity for all Americans. Our long-term recommendations include scaling up many of the reforms described above to reach Americans drowning on dry land without access to safe, fair and affordable housing. In particular, federal and state policies should promote inclusionary zoning, an important tool with a proven track record in encouraging mixed-income housing. The Home Mortgage Data Reporting Act should also be expanded, and the Federal Reserve Bank should step up its fair-lending oversight to prevent discriminatory and predatory lending practices. When tax incentives and other indirect means of encouragement fail, state and federal governments must support the development of new affordable housing.
In a country in which we are increasingly interconnected, we must invest in increasing opportunity for all our residents. Ensuring housing opportunity for all is an investment in the prosperity of our nation that will provide returns for many years to come.
Introduction
Hurricane Katrina made landfall on Monday, August 29, 2005, as a Category 4 hurricane. It passed within 15 miles of New Orleans, Louisiana. The storm brought heavy winds and rain to the city, and the rising water breached several levees built to protect New Orleans from Lake Pontchartrain. The levee breaches flooded up to 80% of the city, with water in some places as high as 25 feet. The storm and flooding took over 1,500 lives and displaced an estimated 700,000 residents.1
Katrina and the levee breaches devastated the homes of hundreds of thousands of New Orleans residents. Nearly 228,000 homes and apartments in New Orleans were flooded, including 39% of all owner-occupied units and 56% of all rental units.2 Approximately 204,700 housing units in Louisiana either were destroyed or sustained major damage. As of April 2006, 360,000 Louisiana residents remained displaced outside the state.3 Some 61,900 people were living in FEMA trailers and mobile homes.4
As the floodwaters receded, displaced residents began the difficult process of rebuilding their lives. Many viewed returning to their communities as a critical step in that process—but one that required access to safe, affordable housing that the state and federal government still has not helped to provide.
This report assesses the state of housing in New Orleans one year after Katrina. It analyzes housing conditions in the city prior to the storm, progress made since, and areas in which the rebuilding effort has fallen short. In addition, it offers practical recommendations to ensure the reconstruction of housing is faster, fairer, and more effective.
Our research reveals that the natural disaster of Katrina uncovered and exacerbated existing man-made threats to fair and affordable housing, created by specific policy decisions and years of neglect. The resulting lack of affordable units, low rates of homeownership, racial discrimination and residential segregation combined with a slow and uneven reconstruction effort pose steep barriers to displaced and returning residents hoping to start over. Such characteristics limit both residents’ chances of recovering from the storm as well as the entire region’s ability to rebuild.
Fortunately, effective tools and strategies exist to reverse these trends and to expand housing opportunity for all in the region. In particular, reinvesting in effective government systems, many of which are already available, is key to creating safe, accessible, and affordable housing for the people of the region.
We acknowledge that resolving the housing crisis in New Orleans will not be easy. Rebuilding the city presents challenges that our country has rarely, if ever, faced. But doing so is crucial not only to the people of New Orleans but also to our national values and our strength as a country. Our ability and resolve to provide a way home for all New Orleanians—no matter their race, ethnicity, income level, or gender—are a test of our resources but also of our moral fiber as a nation. Ensuring that displaced residents receive fair treatment, economic security, a voice in decisions that affect them, and a right of return5 to their communities is core to our national identity as a land of opportunity.
Research and experience show that it is within our power as a society to rebuild New Orleans through strategies that expand opportunity for all. Key to these strategies is a positive and effective role for government in promoting safety and ensuring fairness. A renewed partnership between our government and our people, all of us looking forward while heeding the lessons of the past, can achieve these goals and serve as a model for our nation. We all have a role to play in creating cohesive communities. But it is government’s responsibility to establish public priorities and set rules that reflect our national values. When government has kept the doors of opportunity open, the American people have always been quick to walk through them.
Why focus on housing amid the many challenges facing New Orleans? Housing has long been central to opportunity and the American Dream. Our homes determine our access to schools, jobs, safety, health care, and political participation. They are a source of shelter, pride, and community. And homeownership provides the chief source of wealth building for millions of Americans. In short, fair and affordable housing is central to the very promise of opportunity—the idea that everyone deserves a fair chance to achieve his or her full potential.
It is from these fundamental principles—opportunity, fairness, and government of, by and for the people—that we at the NAACP, The Opportunity Agenda, and the Kirwan Institute report our findings and offer our recommendations for the rebuilding of housing in New Orleans.
Housing Conditions in New Orleans Prior to Katrina
Before Katrina struck, the people of New Orleans faced significant barriers to housing opportunity, including a severe shortage of affordable housing, a low homeownership rate, problematic housing policies, and acute racial and economic segregation. Understanding that landscape, and the decisions that caused it, is important in avoiding the problems of the past and in pursuing a fair and effective reconstruction process that can fulfill the promise of opportunity.
A Lack of Affordable Housing
Like most cities across the country, New Orleans already had an affordable housing shortage before Katrina. Two-thirds (67%) of extremely low-income households in New Orleans bore housing costs that exceed 30% of income, considered excessive under federal standards, and more than half (56%) of very low-income households paid more than half their income for housing.6
Low Homeownership Rates
Before the flooding, New Orleans already had a low homeownership rate–only 47% compared to 67% nationally.7 Of those owning homes, rates were not even among residents as African American and low-income families in New Orleans had far lower rates of homeownership than whites and higher-income families.8
Segregated Neighborhoods
New Orleans suffered acute residential segregation prior to Hurricane Katrina’s landfall, which contributed to the disproportionate impact of the storm on low-income and minority communities. Indeed, the city and region have an extensive history of legal segregation,9 which continued long after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Shelley v. Kramer10 and Brown v. Board of Education11 struck down racially restrictive covenants and legal segregation, respectively.
That pattern and practice of discrimination at times included the direct participation of the federal government. In 1969, for example, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana found that the U.S. Department of HUD’s practice of intentionally concentrating New Orleans’ public housing in African American neighborhoods violated the U.S. Constitution.12 The court said of HUD’s actions:
[T]he dominant factor in selecting sites for the location of public housing was the racial concentration of the neighborhoods. Its purpose was to perpetuate segregation of the races in public housing, and the present location of the sites will most likely perpetuate segregation. This is rank discrimination forbidden by both the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and [the Civil Rights Act of 1964].13
As a result of this history, New Orleans remained highly segregated when Katrina hit. While residential segregation in the city declined slightly between 1990 and 2000, it continued to remain significantly above the national average.14 U.S. Census Bureau figures from 2000 ranked New Orleans the 11th most-segregated city among large U.S. metropolitan areas.15
Racial segregation also played a part in the economic segregation of New Orleans, resulting in racially segregated high- and concentrated-poverty neighborhoods. Before Katrina, New Orleans had the second-highest rate of African American concentrated poverty in the nation, with 37% of the city’s African American population living in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty.
Residing in areas of concentrated poverty depresses life outcomes and often results in isolation from the social, educational and economic opportunities necessary to better one’s life. Research by the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at The Ohio State University found that New Orleans neighborhoods with higher concentrations of African Americans, like the Lower Ninth Ward, Central City and St. Roch, were primarily “low opportunity” areas with limited access to quality schools, jobs, and safety from crime.16
After Katrina hit, these racially and economically segregated areas bore the brunt of the disaster. More than three-quarters of concentrated-poverty areas were flooded.17 And 80% of residents in the most flooded areas were nonwhite.18
Barriers to Equitable Housing Opportunities in New Orleans Since Katrina
Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath displaced hundreds of thousands of New Orleans residents, creating a diaspora of hurricane survivors around the region and across the country.19 Despite public promises, the rebuilding process has been unacceptably slow, and has poorly served African Americans and low-income residents—the very people who bore the brunt of the storm. Moreover, many aspects of the reconstruction threaten to worsen rather than redress the problems of high housing costs, discrimination, and segregation that existed in pre-Katrina New Orleans.
The Lack of Affordable Rental Housing
The shortage of affordable housing that existed in pre-Katrina New Orleans has since erupted into a major crisis, robbing thousands of displaced residents of their right to return.20 Hurricane Katrina damaged or destroyed 82,000 rental units in Louisiana, a fifth of which were affordable to extremely low-income households.21 The large loss of habitable rental space in many damaged areas has caused sharp rent increases. As the following table from the Brookings Institute shows, since fiscal year 2000 fair market rents in New Orleans are now at their highest levels, surpassing pre-Katrina rent prices:22
Despite this severe shortage of affordable housing, of the entire $11.5 billion Community Development Bloc Grant allocation for Louisiana, just $920 million is targeted towards rental housing for extremely low-and very-low-income people.23
Because affordable permanent housing has yet to be made available for returning residents, the number of occupied emergency trailers and mobile homes has swelled by 30,164 units since March 2006, while the number of households receiving rental assistance has increased by 33,350.24
This situation is not only preventing displaced residents from returning, but also hampering the rebuilding process. Housing available to reconstruction workers—the people doing the hard work of rebuilding the city—is inadequate and often inhumane. A recent survey by the Advancement Project indicated that:
Housing for reconstruction laborers is severely limited. Many live near construction sites in hotel rooms and shared apartments, and some even in cars or at the work sites.
On average, construction workers share housing with five others.
Over two-thirds of the construction workers surveyed have children, but less than half reported having had their families relocate with them to the Gulf Coast.25
Public Housing
Despite the lack of housing for low-income people, HUD intends to demolish four of the city’s largest public housing complexes: St. Bernard, C.J. Peete, B.W. Cooper and Lafitte. The agency also intends to reopen 1,000 units of housing by August 2006 in the Iberville, Guste, Fischer, River Garden and Hendee Homes complexes.26 But opening these units will not begin to meet the city’s need as an additional 3,000 units will still be necessary to bring New Orleans’ capacity back to pre-Katrina levels.27
Homeownership
The uneven rebuilding effort will likely exacerbate the existing racial gap in homeownership in New Orleans. Despite a low homeownership rate in New Orleans in general, many of the African American neighborhoods devastated by flooding had high ownership rates. The Lower Ninth Ward, which was 96% African American, had a homeownership rate of 54%. Similar characteristics were found in New Orleans East (86% African American, 55% homeownership rate) and Gentilly (70% African American, 72% homeownership rate).28 But many of the homeowners within these neighborhoods did not have flood and hazard insurance, creating a significant impediment to rebuilding. Approximately one-quarter of homeowners in New Orleans East and Gentilly and two-thirds of homeowners in the Lower Ninth Ward lacked insurance.29
Emergency Housing
Largely as a result of the lack of affordable housing, over 100,000 evacuated households still lived in FEMA trailers as of May 2006, with 1,800 travel trailers in Alabama, 34,000 in Mississippi and 68,000 in Louisiana. These trailer communities are geographically isolated, leaving residents with limited access to the opportunities and resources necessary to rebuild their lives.30 In addition, households in FEMA emergency housing are frequently forced to live in deplorable conditions. Thousands of displaced evacuees from New Orleans and its vicinity (St. Bernard, Cameron, Vermilion and Jefferson Davis parishes) have found themselves stuck in what the Washington Post described as “squalid, miserable, dangerous FEMA trailer ‘villages.’”31
Discrimination
Evidence indicates that throughout the Gulf Coast, displaced African Americans seeking apartments have experienced housing discrimination, receiving significantly worse treatment than white apartment seekers. A study conducted by the National Fair Housing Alliance found persistent housing discrimination on the basis of race. In phone tests that had white and African American individuals call numerous housing complexes, white home seekers were more likely to be told about apartment availability, rent, and discounts. Their African American counterparts were often denied this information. This study, involving housing complexes in seventeen cities and five states affected by the 2005 hurricanes, found that apartment complexes:
Failed to tell African Americans about available apartments, but told white callers that one or more units were available.
Failed to return telephone messages left by African Americans.
Failed to provide the correct information, or any information, to African American testers regarding the number of available units, rental price range, and security deposits.
Quoted higher rent and security deposit prices to African American testers. In one case, a white tester was told that her security deposit and application fee would be waived because of her status as a Hurricane Katrina victim, while an African American hurricane survivor had to pay both.
Offered special discounts to white renters. An example in Dallas illustrates that both white testers were offered a free 26-inch LCD television for renting at a particular complex. One of the white renters was told that there would be a $100 refundable security deposit plus a $400 admission fee, and the other was told that the security deposit was $500 with $100 refundable. An African American tester was not told about the television, but was notified that she would have to pay a $500 admission fee, as well as a nonrefundable $500 security deposit.32
These practices illustrate the potential re-establishment of segregation that existed in the region before Katrina, and to cut African Americans off from the traditional stepping-stones to opportunity—quality housing, schools, jobs, health care, and transportation.
The Loss of Community
In many neighborhoods in New Orleans, schools are not opening, health-care services are not available, and homes are not being rebuilt. In other words, community is being lost. Even if all the homes were rebuilt and all the residents returned, New Orleans would remain in crisis without the rebuilding of community characteristics that promote opportunity. For example, as of July 2006:
Only 18% of public schools have reopened.
Just 21% of child-care centers have reopened.
A mere 17% of public buses are operational.
Only 60% of homes have electricity service.33
In Louisiana 30 hospitals initially closed due to hurricane damage, and only 10 had reopened as of March 9, 2006.34 In the city of New Orleans only 50% of hospitals have been reopened.35
The Result: Unequal Opportunity to Return
As a result of the unfair and inadequate rebuilding process, the most vulnerable groups have faced the steepest barriers. Disparate opportunities for Gulf residents to return to their homes are creating rapid demographic shifts in the population. Low- income communities and people of color now make up a smaller percentage of the New Orleans metropolitan population.36 Because of the population shift and uneven return migration, the disparity in wealth is likely to influence which neighborhoods are rebuilt and which ones are not, further impeding low-income and minority communities from returning.37
In addition to the basic fairness of allowing everyone to return home, recent research has shown that African Americans who return fare better in finding employment. According to the Economic Policy Institute, only 32% of African American evacuees who have not returned have found jobs, while the rate is 60% – the same as for whites – among those who have returned.38
A National Challenge
In some ways, New Orleans represents an exceptional situation: as a highly segregated, high-poverty city with limited housing opportunity beset by multiple hurricanes and a catastrophic flood. But many of New Orleans’ housing problems—the lack of affordable housing, stagnant homeownership rates, residential segregation, and persistent discrimination— represent national trends away from opportunity for Americans across the country. Just as low-income Americans and communities of color are bearing the brunt of these forces in New Orleans today, those groups face the highest barriers to housing opportunity nationally.
After a period of significant national progress in making affordable housing and homeownership fair and accessible, our nation’s progress has stalled and, in some instances, the country is losing ground. For example, as noted in The Opportunity Agenda’s report The State of Opportunity in America:39
Nationally, of the 4.4 million “working poor” households in the United States, nearly 60% pay more than half of their incomes for housing or live in dilapidated conditions. These families—most of whom include children—are more likely to have trouble paying household bills, to lack health insurance, and to experience hunger.
Homeownership has slightly increased nationally over the last 25 years, from a 65.4% homeownership rate in 1979 to 68.3% in 2003. But large gaps in homeownership exist among income, racial, and ethnic groups. For example, between 1970 and 2003, homeownership among the top 20% of wage earners grew by over 10%, while slightly declining among the lowest fifth of wage earners. African American and Latino households are also far less likely to own homes than whites. Although this gap has narrowed slightly, it is large, and has persisted for decades.
Nationally, according to a 2000 HUD study of cities across the country, landlords and real estate agents favored whites seeking rental housing over similarly-qualified African Americans 22% of the time, and over Hispanics 26% of the time. Asian Americans and Native Americans also faced significant levels of housing discrimination.
Low-income African Americans are 7.3 times more likely than whites to live in high poverty neighborhoods (those with 30% or more living in poverty)—a gap that has increased almost 100% since 1960.40
HUD data show that African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans and Pacific Islanders are more likely than whites to receive higher interest sub prime loans in the vast majority of U.S. metropolitan areas. These racial disparities are higher among more affluent borrowers than among less affluent ones.41
These findings make clear that New Orleans is not unique in facing a crisis in fair and affordable housing. While the extreme circumstances of the Gulf Coast demand immediate action, housing opportunity is a national concern that requires a swift and sure federal response.
Next Steps: A Housing Opportunity Plan for New Orleans and the Nation
Katrina exposed stark racial and economic inequalities that many Americans thought no longer existed in our country. In rebuilding New Orleans, we have a historic opportunity to reverse these trends in ways that will benefit all communities. It is not too late to dismantle residential segregation and promote housing opportunity for all Gulf Coast communities. Federal, state, and local officials must act immediately to speed the rebuilding process, to prioritize affordable housing, and to ensure that the burdens and benefits of rebuilding are shared by all, whatever their race or income.
To meet that challenge, the NAACP, The Opportunity Agenda and the Kirwan Institute propose a Housing Opportunity Action Plan that includes short-term and long- term recommendations. Key to this plan is reinvesting in effective government systems with a track record of promoting housing opportunity. Many of these systems are already available and require only adequate funding, activation or enforcement. In other cases, significant policy changes are needed to address the current challenge.
Recommendations for immediate action include:
Shift all temporary rental assistance programs to HUD’s Disaster Voucher Program (DVP). The households remaining in FEMA’s transitional housing assistance program, and in state and local voucher programs, should be assisted instead through HUD’s DVP. Shifting responsibility would take advantage of HUD’s experience in administering housing assistance to people in need, as well as the infrastructure of public housing agencies that already administer two million vouchers nationwide. It would provide more flexibility and choice for displaced families, security to landlords who rent to evacuees and improved federal oversight of the use of federal resources. Additionally, such a shift would rectify the myriad of problems facing the approximately 200,000 households currently in FEMA’s transitional housing assistance program.42
Authorize additional housing vouchers to ensure that a portion of rebuilt private housing is affordable to low- income households. Section 8 vouchers can be a part of the long-run solution, as long as funding is adequate for displaced residents to obtain market rate housing. Section 8 vouchers must be truly portable, allowing recipients to look for housing beyond areas of concentrated poverty.43
Assist low- income homeowners in their efforts to repair or replace damaged homes. Much of the assistance provided, like that from the Small Business Administration, is unattainable for low-income households, who often have difficulty meeting repayment conditions. Additional funds must be provided to address this need.44
Preserve existing federal housing resources in the Gulf. Because most of the subsidized housing in the region was destroyed, it must be rebuilt for those who need affordable housing. The Secretaries of HUD and the Department of Agriculture should act now to preserve or replace, on a one-for one basis, all federally assisted housing in the affected areas. Public housing and other federally subsidized housing that was not damaged should immediately be reopened and former tenants should be allowed to return. Developments or units that were damaged beyond repair should be rebuilt in a manner ensuring all former tenants a right to return. As former tenants await the reconstruction of their homes, they must be guaranteed temporary, affordable housing.45
Require that HUD make its plan for New Orleans public housing available for public input. Any planning and redevelopment decision-making necessary for public housing in New Orleans must include, engage and be informed by representatives of all people affected.
Step up enforcement of all applicable human rights laws. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit housing practices and publicly subsidized rebuilding efforts, respectively, that have a racially discriminatory purpose or effect. HUD and the U.S. Department of Justice should immediately direct enforcement resources to the Gulf Coast region and the Katrina diaspora, to ensure that all displaced people enjoy an equal right to housing opportunity.
In the longer term, significant investment is needed in government systems that create new affordable housing that is equally accessible to all of the people of the Gulf Coast region. Recommendations include:
Require a Housing Opportunity Impact Statement as a condition of public support for future rebuilding efforts. Under this requirement, federal, state and local agencies should call upon developers, contractors, and others involved in the reconstruction process to demonstrate—based on available data—that planned redevelopment will ensure poor people and people of color equal access to safe, clean, affordable housing that is accessible by roads and public transportation to good jobs, quality schools, safe daycare, and nutritious food. The requirement should be coupled with incentives for the development of mixed income neighborhoods and ensure that environmental protections are respected in all communities. And it should afford local residents a meaningful voice in the planning and decision process. Existing federal laws, including the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorize, and may require, this approach.
Fully fund the repair and rehabilitation of privately owned housing stock, for both immediate and long term housing needs, and for new construction for long term housing needs. Funds should be provided through the HOME program of grants to states and localities, which has income targeting and long term affordability requirements that would assure that the homes repaired with public funds would not be subject to speculative increases as the recovery proceeds. (The Community Development Block Grant) program is not bound by such rules. Funds should be prioritized to affected areas and jurisdictions with large numbers of evacuees and for rental housing affordable to extremely low-income households. Some waivers of existing statutory requirements will be needed to facilitate rapid deployment of funds.46
Adequately support and enable HUD’s Flexible Subsidy Program to provide no and low- interest loans to damaged HUD project- based housing stock. HUD estimates that there is a $200 million gap between what is required to repair all damaged units and what insurance payments will cover. This program was successfully used to repair HUD-assisted housing damaged in the Northridge earthquake.
Fully fund 13,500 new project- based vouchers to be tied to the production of new rental units developed through new Gulf Opportunity Zone ( GoZone) Low Income Housing Tax Credits ( LIHTC). These vouchers would enable the states to make roughly 25% of the units built with their additional allocations of LIHTCs affordable to the lowest-income households, including working poor families, senior citizens and people with disabilities. This provision was included in the Senate version of the 2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, but was dropped during conference committee negotiations.
Promote homeownership among low-income families through down- payment- assistance programs, and rent- to- own programs. The American Dream Downpayment Initiative signed by President Bush in 2003, and expansion of the LouLease (Louisiana’s rent-to-own program) could assist families that had uninsured homes destroyed by the hurricane to return to ownership.47
Extend the deadline by which all new projects built using GoZone, Rita GoZone and Wilma GoZone LIHTCs are placed in service to December of 2010. Creating more affordable housing stock and sustainable communities by extending the LIHTC would improve the ability of the tax credit to decrease concentrated poverty—and expanding HOPE VI, the only major federal program dedicated solely to the creation of affordable housing communities. Extend through 2009 the bonus depreciation eligibility deadline for residential rental property in the allotment of GoZone, Rita GoZone and Wilma GoZone LIHTCs. Provide a rules waiver allowing states to increase the level of tax credit subsidy per development.
Reimburse federal housing and homeless programs that responded to the needs of evacuees using resources already in short supply. Soon after the hurricane, Local Housing Authorities (LHAs) and other agencies responded to the needs of displaced households with existing resources. In most cases, disaster victims displaced people with critical housing needs who were waiting for assistance before the hurricanes. LHAs and other agencies must be reimbursed for their disaster response costs, even in states that were not declared federal disaster areas.
Finally, because many of the housing problems revealed by Katrina flow from national trends, we call for a new national vision that expands housing opportunity for all Americans. Our long-term recommendations include scaling up many of the reforms described above to reach Americans drowning on dry land without access to safe, fair, and affordable housing. In particular, inclusionary zoning that encourages mixed-income housing is an important tool with a proven track record. In addition, the Home Mortgage Data Reporting Act should be expanded, and the Federal Reserve Bank should step up its fair lending oversight. When tax incentives and other indirect encouragement fail, state and federal governments must subsidize the development of new affordable housing.
Conclusion
In a country in which we are increasingly interconnected, we can’t afford not to invest in opportunity for all our residents. Ensuring housing opportunity for all is an investment in the prosperity of our nation that provides returns for many years to come.
Acknowledgements
While this report includes new analysis and policy recommendations, it relies heavily on research conducted by a range of scholars, institutions, and agencies over the course of the last twelve months. Without that foundation of knowledge and expertise, our findings and recommendations would not be possible. In particular, we wish to acknowledge researchers and analysts at the Advancement Project, the Brookings Institution, the Center for Social Inclusion, the Economic Policy Institute, PolicyLink, and the Poverty and Race Research Action Council.
Finally, and most importantly, we thank and honor the people of the Gulf Coast who have endured so much yet continue to pursue the promise of opportunity for all.
Notes:
1. M. Hunter, “Deaths of Evacuees Push Toll to 1,577,” The Times-Picayune, May 19, 2006; Congressional Research Service, “Hurricane Katrina: Social-Demographic Characteristics of Impacted Areas,” November 4, 2005.
2. The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, “New Orleans After the Storm: Lessons from the Past, a Plan for the Future,” October 2005.
3. Louisiana Recovery Authority, “By the Numbers,” April 10, 2006.
4. Ibid.
5. The right of internally displaced people to return to their communities is recognized internationally, as in the United Nations’ Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, to which the U.S. has looked in responding to disasters in other parts of the world. These guidelines call for equal and adequate access to resettlement, housing, education, and health care for affected people and communities, whatever their race or ethnicity. See U.S. Agency for International Development, “USAID Assistance to Internally Displaced Persons Policy,” October 2004.
6. S.J. Popkin, M.A. Turner, and M. Bert, “Rebuilding Affordable Housing in New Orleans: The Challenge of Creating Inclusive Communities,” The Urban Institute, January 2006.
7. Ibid.
8. Greater New Orleans Community Data Center, “Orleans Parish: Housing and Housing Costs,” July 2006.
9. In Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Louisiana’s segregated railway-car laws.
10. 334 US 1 (1948).
11. 347 US 483 (1954).
12. Hicks v. Weaver, 302 F. Supp. 619 (E.D. La. 1969).
13. Hicks v. Weaver, 623.
14. J. Logan, “Ethnic Diversity Grows, Neighborhood Integration Lags Behind,” Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research, University of Albany, December 18, 2001.
15. U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 5-4: Residential Segregation for Blacks or African Americans in Large Metropolitan Areas: 1980, 1990, and 2000,” n.d.
16. Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, The Ohio State University, “Mid-Term Report: New Orleans Opportunity Mapping: An Analytical Tool to Aid Redevelopment,” February 1, 2006.
17. The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, “Katrina’s Window: Confronting Concentrated Poverty across America,” executive summary, October 2005.
18. The Brookings Institution, “New Orleans After the Storm.”
19. Congressional Research Service, “Hurricane Katrina: Social-Demographic Characteristics of Impacted Areas.”
20. Gwen Filosa, “Protesters Take Plight to the Avenue: Scarce Public Housing Has People Upset,” The Times-Picayune, June 18, 2006.
21. Louisiana Recovery Authority, “The Road Home Housing Programs Action Plan Amendment for Disaster Recovery Funds,” n.d.
22. A. Liu, M. Fellowes, and M. Mabanta, “Katrina Index: Tracking Variables of Post-Katrina Recovery,” The Brookings Institution, July 12, 2006.
23. The National Alliance to Restore Opportunity to the Gulf Coast and Displaced Persons, “The Aftermath of Katrina and Rita: The Human Tragedy Inflicted on the Gulf Coast,” n.d.
24. The National Alliance to Restore Opportunity to the Gulf Coast and Displaced Persons, “Progress in the Gulf Coast: 10 Months Later,” n.d.
25. Advancement Project, New Orleans Worker Justice Coalition, and the National Immigration Law Center, “And Injustice for All: Workers’ Lives in the Reconstruction of New Orleans,” July 2006.
26. Housing Authority of New Orleans, “Post-Katrina Frequently Asked Questions,” n.d.
27. Ibid. Before Hurricane Katrina, the Housing Authority of New Orleans helped house about 14,000 families: 5,100 occupied public housing, and 9,000 families received Section 8 vouchers. See Michelle Roberts, “HUD Plans to Demolish Some of New Orleans’ Largest Housing Projects,” The Associated Press, June 14, 2005.
28. J. Logan, “The Impact of Katrina: Race and Class in Storm-Damaged Neighborhoods,” Spatial Structures in the Social Sciences, Brown University, January 2006.
29. Greater New Orleans Community Data Center, “Current Housing Unit Damage Estimates: Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma,” February 12, 2006, revised April 7, 2006.
30. Liu et al., “Katrina Index.”
31. J. Moses, “Katrina’s Trailer Exiles” The Washington Post, June 17, 2006.
32. National Fair Housing Alliance, “No Home for the Holidays: Report on Housing Discrimination against Hurricane Katrina Survivors,” December 20, 2005.
33. M. Fellowes et al., “The State of New Orleans: An Update,” New York Times, July 5, 2006.
34. Louisiana Recovery Authority, “By the Numbers,” 2006.
35. Fellowes et al., “The State of New Orleans.”
36. Louisiana Recovery Authority, “By The Numbers.”
37. National Alliance to Restore Opportunity, “The Aftermath of Katrina and Rita.”
38. Economic Policy Institute, “Economic Snapshot,” November 9, 2005.
39. The Opportunity Agenda, The State of Opportunity in America, February 2006.
40. Ibid.
41. National Community Reinvestment Coalition, The Opportunity Agenda, and Poverty and Race Research Action Council, “Homeownership and Wealth Building Impeded,” April 2006.
42. W. Fischer and B. Sard, “Housing Needs of Many Low-Income Hurricane Evacuees Are Not Being Adequately Addressed,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 27, 2006.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. Popkin, Turner, and Bert, “Rebuilding Affordable Housing in New Orleans.”
47. Fischer and Sard, “Housing Needs of Many Low-Income Hurricane Evacuees.”
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
