Economy

Powerful testimony on poverty inspires hope for positive change in D.C.

Posted on by Sharon Levin

Last week, Washington Area Women’s Foundation and several of our Grantee Partners testified at an incredible DC City Council Roundtable Hearing called “Poverty Issues: Developing a Public/Private Strategy Aimed at Eliminating Poverty Among District Residents.”

I was truly impressed by the commitment to addressing poverty in our community that was apparent at this hearing. More than 100 people signed up to be witnesses – in fact, such a large number of people wanted to testify that the hearing had to be extended from one to two days!

Witnesses came from every corner of the District and from every segment of the anti-poverty community – funders (like The Women’s Foundation), academics, researchers, clergy, tenant association members, businesspeople…the list goes on.

The most moving testimony, though, came from those who provide services directly to the city’s low-income population (like our Grantee Partners) and the individuals who came forward to discuss how these programs helped them to move from poverty to financial independence. I am in awe of the bravery of the women and men who testified on the record (and on cable TV) about their very personal trials.

Among those Grantee Partners who testified: Capital Area Asset Builders, Covenant House Washington, DC Employment Justice Center, DC Women’s Agenda, Empower DC, MANNA Inc., Marshall Heights Community Development Organization, Inc., My Sister’s Place, Inc., the Rebecca Project for Human Rights, So Others Might Eat and Wider Opportunities for Women.

The commitment of the Members of the Committee on Housing and Urban Affairs is also to be commended. Chairman Marion Barry and Council Members Yvette Alexander, Muriel Bowser and Tommy Wells were all present for a significant portion of the two days of hearings.  As somebody who has worked for two Members of Congress, I can tell you that that is an exceptional amount of time to dedicate to one hearing.  All of the Councilmembers carefully listened to each of the witnesses and asked thoughtful questions of each – all 100-plus of them.

The question now, of course, is what happens next.  Councilman Barry has stated that he plans to create a concrete policy agenda to address poverty in D.C.  Hopefully, this effort will lead to the creation of, and additional funding for, effective programs that help low-income people acquire the tools they need to provide for themselves and their families. To that end, The Women’s Foundation will continue to offer our expertise.

I have to say, though, that regardless of what laws eventually get passed, I think the Roundtable Hearing had a purpose unto itself (and you cannot say that about every hearing that is held before the City Council). Experts had the chance to educate the Committee about the parameters of poverty in D.C. Anti-poverty organizations were able to discuss their programs directly with Councilmembers – and I saw several meetings being set up so that Councilmembers could follow-up on the testimony.

Most importantly, the hearing gave a voice to so many people who are often voiceless in Washington. It is a powerful thing to command the attention of lawmakers. It was inspiring to see that power handed to those who must need it.

To check out video of the testimony of The Women’s Foundation, its Grantee Partners and others, click here.  These hearings took place on January 16th before the Housing Committee, and on January 17th before the Housing Committee.

To read The Women’s Foundation’s testimony:
Short version
Extended version

Stepping Stones Research Update: January 2008

Posted on by Kerstin Gentsch

As part of our ongoing commitment–in partnership with The Urban Institute–to providing information and resources related to the goals of Stepping Stones, please find below summary of recent research on issues of economic security and financial independence for women and their families.

This research is summarized and compiled for The Women’s Foundation by Kerstin Gentsch of The Urban Institute, NeighborhoodInfo DC.

Financial Education and Wealth Creation News

The Effects of Welfare and IDA Program Rules on the Asset Holdings of Low-Income Families
By Signe-Mary McKernan, Caroline Ratcliffe, Yunju Nam
Urban Institute
September 2007

Examines the effects of a comprehensive set of 13 welfare, Food Stamp, individual development account (IDA), earned income tax credit (EITC), and minimum wage program rules on the asset holdings of low-education single mothers and families.  This report finds empirical evidence that more lenient asset limits in means-tested programs and more generous IDA program rules may have positive effects on asset holdings of low-education single mothers and families.

Main Findings:

  • More generous unrestricted asset limits are not associated with increased liquid asset holdings for either low-education single mothers or families.
  • More generous restricted account asset limits are associated with increased liquid asset holdings for low-education single mothers and families.
  • More generous Food Stamp vehicle asset limits are associated with increased vehicle asset holdings for low-education single mothers.
  • Expanded categorical eligibility in the Food Stamp Program is associated with increased vehicle asset holdings for low-education single mothers and families.
  • More generous IDA program rules are associated with increased liquid asset holdings and net worth.
  • A more generous state EITC amount is negatively associated with liquid asset holdings but the percentage of the state EITC that is refundable is positively associated with liquid asset holdings.
  • A more generous state minimum wage for federally covered categories (i.e., covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act) is associated with increased liquid asset holdings, vehicle asset holdings, and net worth.

Abstract and introduction.
Full paper. 

Assessing Asset Data on Low-Income Households: Current Availability and Options for Improvement
By Caroline Ratcliffe, Henry Chen, Trina R. Williams-Shanks, Yunju Nam, Mark Schreiner, Min Zhan, Michael Sherraden
Urban Institute
September 2007

Identifies the most reliable and informative data sources for understanding low-income households’ assets and liabilities, details their limitations, and provides options for improving asset data sources and collection methods.
The four evaluation criteria—relevancy, representativeness, recurrence, and richness of correlates—serve as a framework for assessing how effectively various data sets can provide an understanding of low-income households’ assets and liabilities.  Of the data sets reviewed, only one receives the highest ranking under all four criteria—the PSID. With these high rankings, the PSID has the potential to provide reliable information on low-income households’ assets and liabilities and is identified as a “primary” data set.

Because our primary research question asks that we identify the most informative and reliable data sources for understanding low-income households’ assets and liabilities, any data set designated a “primary data set” should comprehensively measure assets and liabilities (relevance criterion) and be representative of the overall U.S. low-income population (representativeness criterion).

The only other data sets that receive top ratings in these two criteria are the SIPP and SCF. They perform well enough in the other two criteria to also be deemed “primary” data sets.

Abstract and introduction. 
Full report. 

Jobs and Business Ownership News

Low-Income Workers and Their Employers: Characteristics and Challenges
By Gregory Acs and Austin Nichols
Urban Institute
May 2007

Defines and documents the characteristics of low-wage workers and their employers.  This paper finds that about one in four workers, ages 18 to 61, earned less than $7.73 an hour in 2003. Low-wage workers who reside in low-income families with children are substantially less educated than the average worker, are concentrated in industries with low wages, and have limited prospects for wage growth. Many policies aimed at low-wage workers are not well-targeted at workers in low-income families with children, in part because only one in four low-wage workers reside in such families. Nevertheless, policies targeted at low-wage workers may have broad benefits, including improving the lot of low-income families with children.

Abstract and introduction. 
Full paper. 

Place Matters: Employers, Low-Income Workers, and Regional Economic Development
By Nancy M. Pindus, Brett Theodos, G. Thomas Kingsley
Urban Institute
May 2007

Summarizes factors determining locational decisions of businesses and workers, as well as local economic growth, and suggests how employer needs as well as opportunities for low-income workers might be served by successful policies in the areas of housing, transportation, education and workforce development.

In looking at economic development, employer choices, and opportunities for low wage workers through the lens of place, it is clear that the landscape is shifting and policies must adapt accordingly. Spatial mismatch is more than employers and businesses leaving the urban core and poor urban residents lacking transportation to new job centers. Now, some urban centers are revitalizing, the creative class is growing in cities, and some suburbs (especially older suburbs and some outer-ring suburbs) are increasingly diverse and beginning to experience some of the same challenges as cities. And, there is a growing body of evidence that, in a knowledge-based economy, equity and tolerance are good for business. There is a growing consensus that geography of opportunity has changed, and continues to change.

Opportunities for new initiatives:

  • Housing policies that promote “workforce housing” and the deconcentration of poverty by considering the mix of the workforce and matching housing opportunities to that mix.
  • Transportation and other infrastructure funding that supports integration of systems and reduces sprawl by concentrating development near rail and bus hubs (“smart growth”).
  • Aligning workforce and education with economic development by addressing spatial mismatches between training opportunities and where people live and work; improving coordination between employers, workforce development intermediaries, and community colleges; and facilitating cross-firm career mobility within regional labor markets.

Abstract and introduction. 
Full paper. 

Building Skills and Promoting Job Advancement: The Promise of Employer-Focused Strategies
By Karin Martinson
Urban Institute
May 2007

Discusses what we know about employer-focused training, describes three employer-focused training models, and concludes with some key questions to address to assist in moving forward with this type of skill development strategy.  Three types of promising employer-focused job training:

  • Incumbent worker training provided directly at the workplace through employers is a large-scale effort to involve employers in skill building.
  • Sectoral training programs focus on providing training to a cluster of employers in one segment of the labor market.
  • Career ladders: A subset of sectoral initiatives focuses on developing career pathways that lead to higher-paying jobs.

Main challenges:

  • Many sectoral and career ladder initiatives require the involvement of multiple systems, including workforce development, community colleges, the business community, unions, and community groups. It can be difficult to gain the cooperation of all parties needed to enact the type of major changes required by many initiatives.
  • Many employer-focused training programs require substantial resources to plan and implement effective initiatives.
  • While strides forward have been made, it is a continuing challenge to develop training options that effectively reach low-income workers.

Abstract and introduction. 
Full paper. 

Meeting Responsibilities at Work and Home: Public and Private Supports
By Pamela Winston
Urban Institute
May 2007

Summarizes what we know about families’ access to supports, employers’ experiences, and public and employer efforts to expand them.

Paid parental/family leave:
Time for parents and infants to bond is vital to children’s positive development, and long hours in out-of-home care in early infancy pose risks for children’s development, especially in the low-quality settings to which low-income families often have access. The United States is one of only 5 of 173 nations surveyed for a global index that does not have public policies to provide paid time off for parents to care for and bond with a new infant. Further, while some employers and states provide paid parental leave, low-wage workers are least likely to have access to it.

Paid sick leave/paid time off:
Paid time off that can be used for workers’ short-term illnesses or those of their children, routine medical care, involvement in children’s school meetings or activities, or for other family or personal needs can play an important role in fostering family well-being. Almost half (48 percent) of American private-sector workers are estimated to lack any paid sick leave, amounting to over 54 million employees.

Workplace flexibility:
Flexibility for employees to change start or end times, take time out during work hours for emergencies, request shift changes or exemption from mandatory overtime, or otherwise adjust work hours for family obligations can also help parents fulfill their responsibilities to their employers and their families. 57 percent of workers indicated in 2002 they did not have access to traditional flextime.

Child care:
Access to affordable, consistent, and adequate-quality child care available during work hours can make an important difference to parents’ productivity and reliability on the job, and to children’s well-being. As a rule, the child care market does not provide a sufficient supply of affordable adequate-quality care, which can create particular challenges for low-income families. Public programs can provide financial and other support to many low-income families with low-wage workers, but typically many eligible people do not participate in them.

Abstract and introduction. 
Full paper. 

Maternity Leave in the United States: Paid Parental Leave is still not Standard, even among the Best U.S. Employers
By Vicky Lovell, Elizabeth O’Neill, Skylar Olsen
Institute for Women’s Policy Research
August 2007

Analyzes parental leave policies of Working Mother100 Best Companies.

  • Nearly one-quarter (24 percent) of the best employers for working mothers provide four or fewer weeks of paid maternity leave, and half (52 percent) provide six weeks or less.
  • Nearly half of the best companies fail to provide any paid leave for paternity or adoption.
  • While more than one-quarter of companies (28 percent) provide nine or more weeks of paid maternity leave, many of the winners’ paid parental leave policies fall far short of families’ needs.
  • No company provides more than six weeks of paid paternity leave and only 7 of the 100 best companies provide seven weeks or more of paid adoptive leave.

Press release.
Fact sheet. 

Implementation and Sustainability: Emerging Lessons from the Early High Growth Job Training Initiative (HGJTI) Grants
By John Trutko, Carolyn T. O’Brien, Pamela A. Holcomb, and Demetra Smith Nightingale
Urban Institute
April 2007

Summarizes lessons from the early grantees of a major national effort to encourage the development of market-driven strategies addressing business and industry’s workforce challenges.

The discussions revealed insight into four general, interrelated, implementation issues:

1. Establishing and maintaining partnerships

  • Bringing the right partnerships together is critical to success.
  • Successful collaboration requires regular discussions and agreement regarding respective roles and responsibilities of each organization and the specifics of how staff will collaborate and share information.
  • The existence of the HGJTI grants helped partnering organizations to better understand the resources and capabilities of other organizations.
  • Employer partnerships are especially important to ensure that the workforce challenges are accurately defined and the strategies selected meet the current and immediate needs of the sector.
  • Projects operating across large areas, such as in rural locations, face special issues regarding partnerships.

2. Project start-up, development, and design

  • Effective and timely implementation of projects aimed at addressing critical workforce needs depends greatly on recruiting and retaining staff with the necessary occupation-specific skills.
  • Effective training programs should have a strong front-end assessment and recruitment and outreach procedures in place.

3. Targeting and reaching trainees

  • Grantees found that when serving disadvantaged populations and dislocated workers it is important to incorporate supportive services.
  • Recruiting and retaining participants is a major activity for training programs, and a particular challenge when targeting on widely varying populations.
  • At the time grantees were contacted, most had reached or were close to reaching their capacity-building and training goals.

4. Management and meeting federal grant requirements

  • It is important to begin to focus on post-grant sustainability well before grant funds are exhausted.
  • DOL/ETA staff provided various types of technical assistance and guidance to HGJTI grantees, but many needed more federal grants management support.
  • Grantees found that they needed a longer grant performance period.

Abstract and introduction.
Full paper. 

Child Care and Early Education News

Vouchers for Housing and Child Care: Common Challenges and Emerging Strategies
By Margery Austin Turner, Gina Adams, Monica Rohacek, Lauren Eyster
Urban Institute
August 2007

Highlights promising strategies for tackling challenges to housing and child care vouchers’ success.  Vouchers play an important role in federal efforts to help low-income families obtain both housing and child care. These programs constitute essential components of the promise of welfare reform to encourage and support work among low-income families. And both types of vouchers have the potential to enhance long-term outcomes for children.

Although federal housing and child care voucher programs differ in important respects, they also face common challenges. First, the success of both programs in helping families access high-quality services depends upon the supply of these services in the private market and the willingness of providers to accept voucher families. If acceptable rental housing units or child care slots are not available where families need them, vouchers are not effective. In addition, low-income families may face challenges in negotiating the private market, gathering information about available child care or housing options, or identifying providers that meet their needs and offer good quality. Finally, both housing and child care voucher programs have to balance requirements to avoid any overpayment of subsidies (either by serving ineligible families or by miscalculating the appropriate subsidy amount) with a mandate to support work and enhance well-being among low-income families.

Abstract and introduction. 
Full paper. 

Pre-Kindergarten to 3rd Grade (PK-3) School-based Resources and Third Grade Outcome
By Brett V. Brown and Kimber Bogard
ChildTrends
August 2007

Examines multiple PK-3 school based resources that tap into children’s experiences of early elementary grade learn to PK-3 school-based resources by key social groups of children defined by poverty status, parental education, and race/ethnicity.

While the majority of children had access to most positive PK-3 school influences, marked inequalities in access were still found. Unequal access to these school resources were observed by parental education and income level, as well as race and Hispanic origin. The most educationally at risk children (i.e., parents have less than a high school education, family income below the poverty level, Black non-Hispanic children) were the least likely groups of children to access high resource elementary schools. This finding clearly indicates that the quality of elementary schools must be considered when examining questions concerning achievement gaps by income and race/ethnicity.

Our preliminary multi-variate analyses point to some core school variables that predict academic and behavior skills necessary for future success and well-being. Of particular interest are the differential relationships between two clearly defined sets of PK- 3 school-based resources reported in kindergarten, and their relationships to academic and behavior outcomes in third grade. Reading and math scores were consistently predicted by strong principal leadership, high academic standards, and teachers collaboratively developing curricular materials. Teacher turnover, which can be considered indicative of instability within a school, was related to lower rates of self-control and school engagement among third grade children. These findings suggest that there may be PK-3 school-based resources that independently predict academic and behavioral outcomes. Though these results are preliminary, we believe they are the strongest research evidence yet that such factors each have influence over levels of school readiness in young children.

Full paper. 

Health and Safety News

Access to Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance among Low-Income Families: Who Has Access and Who Doesn’t?
By Lisa Clemans-Cope, Genevieve M. Kenney, Matthew Pantell, Cynthia Perry
Urban Institute
September 11, 2007

Examines access to employer-sponsored health insurance among low-income families.

  • In 2003 and 2004, about one in two children in low-income families did not have access to ESI, despite having one or more employed adults in the family.
  • Among low-income working families, families with lower levels of income, families with lower parental education, families where parents work in smaller establishments, and families in which no parent has union representation are all less likely to have access to ESI.
  • Public insurance fills a substantial part of the gap in health insurance coverage left by lack of ESI access for children in low-income working families, but parents without an offer of ESI remain uninsured at high rates. In fact, among families without an ESI offer, children are twice as likely—and parents nearly three times as likely—to be uninsured than families with an offer.

Abstract and introduction. 
Full paper. 

Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance and the Low-Income Workforce: Limitations of the System and Strategies for Increasing Coverage
By Linda J. Blumberg
Urban Institute
May 2007

Outlines the problems with employer-sponsored insurance from the perspective of employers, specifically those employing low-income workers, and discusses potential strategies for addressing them.  Problems with employer-sponsored insurance from the perspective of employers:

  • When employers competing for the same pool of workers tend to offer health insurance, then the pressure to offer such benefits increases for the other employers in that labor market. Likewise, in markets where ESI is not common, the pressure to offer it is significantly lessened.
  • One of the more controversial and complex issues related to the employer decision to offer insurance is whether the incidence of employer premium contributions falls upon the employer or upon the worker. While the best empirical evidence available indicates that, at least in large part, employer payments are passed back to workers via reduced wages, most employers do not believe this is the case.
  • Firms employing significant numbers of modest-wage workers will not be able to offer health insurance to their workers. This is because low-income workers will tend to prefer employment that provides additional wages as opposed to health insurance benefits to a significantly greater extent than will high-income workers.
  • Another aspect of the price of health insurance to employers is labor turnover. The administrative costs associated with health plan enrollment and disenrollment are higher for employers with high-turnover workforces.

Policy options to address shortcomings of the system:

  • Providing government subsidies for insurance coverage.
  • Requiring all residents to obtain a minimum level of insurance: individual mandates.
  • Requiring employers to participate in the financing of health insurance coverage for their workers: employer mandates.
  • Approaches for controlling health care costs.

Abstract and introduction. 
Full paper. 

Other News and Research

The Feminization of Poverty
by Megan Thibos, Danielle Lavin-Loucks, and Marcus Martin
The J. McDonals Williams Institute
May 2007

Examines the evidence for the feminization of poverty and analyzes the factors that contribute to the phenomenon; provides a portrait of feminized poverty at national and local levels; examines the role of public policy in alleviating women’s poverty and proposes policies that could significantly reduce the magnitude of the feminization of poverty.

Two schools of thought on the reasons for the feminization of poverty:

The feminization of poverty exists because of significant changes in the family structure such that households headed by females are not only a larger proportion of households but also are disproportionately impacted by factors contributing to poverty compared with other types of households.

Structural changes in the economy have caused the displacement of many women into occupational sectors that are gender-specific, low-wage, and low-benefit employment opportunities—such as pinkcollar jobs. Moreover, the shift into a knowledge-based economy has meant that those females with the least educational attainment and the least work skills will be least likely to experience work opportunities that can effectively and permanently move them and their families out of poverty.

Our focus is on three broad public policy areas that can have a positive impact on moving female-headed households out of poverty and into the self-sufficiency:

1) Expanding educational opportunities
2) Livable wages
3) Equitable wages and occupational segregation

Full report.

Thanks and see you next month with more research from the Stepping Stones issue areas!

Economic security: looking beyond income to assets.

Posted on by Lisa Kays

Today, the Urban Institute posted more of the answer in their report, The Balance Sheets of Low-Income Households: What We Know About Their Assets and Liabilities.

The report explores the balance sheets of low-income households, and evaluates their assets and debts–a critical piece in building true economic security.  Often, people consider income as a sign of economic security, but income is just money that flows into a household and then right back out.

Assets describe those critical savings and investments that enable an individual or family to build wealth over time and to guard against unknowns like unemployment, illness or disability.

For a recent example of what happens when a family doesn’t have a strong base of assets and then suddenly loses their income, check out one of Will Smith’s most recent films.

Even someone earning $100,000 a year in income, if some of that isn’t being turned into savings and assets, won’t fare well for very long should s/he suddenly be unable to work. 

Just like an illness can brew under the surface, without symptoms for a long while, so too can financial insecurity. 

And yet, according to the report, much of the policy around alleviating poverty focuses on increasing income, and meeting basic consumption needs, but not on savings and building assets.  Asset-building economic policy does not tend to benefit low-income families, the report says, for three primary reasons:

  • First, this population is less likely to own homes, investments, or retirement accounts, where most asset-based policies are targeted.
  • Second, with little or no federal income tax liability, the low-income have little or no tax incentives, or other incentives, for asset accumulation.
  • Third, asset limits in means-tested transfer policies have the potential to discourage saving by the low-income population. In many respects, this population does not have access to the same structures and incentives for asset accumulation.

So, who are these families, and how do their assets and debts balance out?  A few findings from the report:

Low income families:
Assets:

  • The typical bottom quintile family may own a car valued at $4,500 and hold a checking or savings account valued at $600. 
  • Most families do not own a home, have no retirement account, and have no business equity.
  • Social Security and Medicare, if considered wealth, comprise roughly 90 percent of expected wealth for low-income families.

Debt:

  • The typical bottom quintile family may hold debt valued at $7,000, one-sixth the amount of debt that most third quintile families hold. Bottom quintile family debt is most likely to be credit card debt valued at $1,000, installment loans valued at $5,600, and home-secured debt valued at $37,000.
  • 27 percent of bottom quintile families made debt service payments that exceeded 40 percent of family income. 

The combination of assets and liabilities for bottom quintile families results in median net worth valued at $7,500, nearly one-tenth the net worth of third quintile families.

Single-headed families: 
Assets:

  • The typical single-headed family may own a home worth $120,000, a car valued at $7,600, and hold a checking or savings account valued at $2,000.
  • In total, a typical single-headed family may own assets worth $83,400, or less than one-third of the assets owned by the typical married or cohabiting family.
  • Most singleheaded families do not own any retirement accounts, financial assets beyond their checking or savings account, or any business equity.

Debt:

  • The typical single-headed family may hold debt valued at $24,000, a little more than a quarter of the debt that most married or cohabiting families hold. The reason for the disparity is that, very similar to less-educated families, only 32 percent of single-headed families owe mortgage debt compared with 59 percent of married or cohabiting families.
  • The typical debts owed by a single-headed family, therefore, are most likely to be credit card debt valued at $1,000 or installment loan debt valued at $8,600. 

The combination of assets and liabilities for single families results in median net worth valued at $40,000, or about one-fourth the net worth of married or cohabiting families. The net worth gap by marital status starts out small at younger ages and then widens sharply with age.

Nonwhite or Hispanic families:
Assets:

  • The typical family headed by someone who is a nonwhite or Hispanic owns a vehicle worth $9,800 and a checking or savings account worth $1,500, compared to the typical white non-Hispanic headed family who owns a vehicle worth $15,700 and a checking or savings account worth $5,000.
  • This nonwhite or Hispanic headed family may own a home worth $130,000 or a retirement account worth $16,000.
  • A typical nonwhite or Hispanic headed family holds total assets worth $60,000, or a little more than a quarter of the assets held by a white non-Hispanic headed family ($224,500). While only 49 percent of nonwhite or Hispanic headed families do not own a home, 67 percent have no retirement account and 94 percent have no business equity.

Debts:

  • The typical nonwhite or Hispanic headed family holds debt valued at $30,500, less than half of the debt that most white non-Hispanic families hold, or $69,500.
  • Nonwhite or Hispanic headed family debt is somewhat more likely to be credit card debt valued at $1,600 or installment loan debt valued at $9,600, than mortgage debt.

The combination of assets and liabilities for nonwhite or Hispanic headed families results in median net worth valued at $25,000, less than one-sixth the net worth of white non-Hispanic-headed families.

The report explains the value of looking at these numbers in evaluating financial security–and policies to help build it, particularly among low-income families–saying, "Building assets and avoiding excessive debt can help low-income families insure against unforeseen disruptions, achieve economic independence, and improve socio-economic status."

The key (or the Stepping Stones if one were to be shamefully self-promoting) to true long-term social change then–within individuals, within families, within communities–lies not only in getting families into better, more high paying jobs, but into helping them grow their assets by paying down debt, buying homes and increasing savings and other investments.

Just ask Coach Tate with the Marshall Heights Community Development Organization or check in with Capital Area Asset Builders.  They’re helping women in our area do this every day, and are seeing their self-worth grow right along with their net worth as they achieve their goals and dreams.

What are women business owners contributing to our economy?

Posted on by Lisa Kays

Inspired by Roxana’s post on women entrepreneurs and the study Trinity University conducted for The Women’s Foundation about how to support them, I couldn’t help but click when I came across an article in the Jacksonville Times-Union called "Women mean business: $18 billion worth."

The article cited a study that showed how women-owned businesses in northeast Florida had made an $18.8 billion impact on the local economy and created more than 200,000 jobs.

The study was done similarly to the way that Trinity had done theirs in our area, and revealed some of the same findings.  Including how women just feel that they can do better on their own, rather than working for someone else.

The article states, "For some reason, [women] think they can do better on their own than somewhere else," said Gwen Martin, managing director of research at the Center for Women’s Business Research. "From these numbers, I’d say they’re right."

It all got me thinking more about the local statistics about women-owned businesses, and the power of investing in women entrepreneurs–and in programs that build their skills and help them step out on their own.

Programs like those found in the directory of women’s small business development that Roxana created with her students.

It got me to thinking about the status of women-owned businesses in our area.  From the Center for Women’s Business Research I learned that as of 2006:

  • In D.C.: There are an estimated 21,706 privately-held, 50% or more women-owned firms, generating $5.4 billion in sales and employing 20,667 people.  Between 1997 and 2006, the number of these firms in the District of Columbia increased by 52.3 percent and sales increased by 48.7 percent.
  • In Virginia: There are an estimated 243,756 privately-held, 50% or more women-owned firms, generating more than $42 billion in sales and employing 320,198 people. These firms account for 40.2 percent of all privately-held firms in the state.
  • In Maryland:  There are an estimated 210,751 privately-held, 50% or more women-owned firms, generating more than $32 billion in sales and employing 223,760 people. These firms account for 41.2 percent of all privately-held firms in the state.

Not too shabby, particularly when you consider the challenges that women face in developing a small business, and particularly low-income women like those featured in the Trinity study.  The challenges cited include access to start-up funding, credit issues, lack of business knowledge and training, time constraints, family commitments, health insurance and a fear of failure.

Given that, it would make sense then that one of the study’s most important questions would be why a woman, and particularly a single, low-income woman without another breadwinner in the home, would even attempt it. 

The study found the following answer, "…As minority low-income single mothers, they are more likely to have experienced difficulties and disadvantages in the labor market. Inadequate income, lack of opportunities to build wealth and assets, insecure jobs, little opportunity for advancement, poor working conditions, and conflicts with supervisors appeared to encourage these women to consider self-employment as a more desirable option than their existing wage employment…"

Trends that sound similar to those expressed in a recent DC Women’s Agenda post on the challenges facing women wage earners in Washington, D.C.

Then there are the Portrait Project‘s findings that throughout our region, women earn less than their male counterparts with the same level of education, due largely to the fact that women are crowded into fields that offer lower wages and fewer benefits.  Nationally, for instance, 23 percent of women are in administrative support roles (compared to 5.4 percent of men) and 17 percent of women are in service jobs (compared to 11 percent of men).  When women do hold professional or managerial jobs, they earn from $12,000 to $16,000 less than their male counterparts.

So it may be that women are feeling that they can do better on their own because, by and large, they can–particularly for low-income women looking at jobs that don’t provide stability, security, insurance or paid leave.

The risk of starting a business may seem small in light of the potential reward of succeeding.

And given the statistics about women-owned businesses in our area, it certainly seems as though investing in their success has a similar risk/reward ratio and is highly likely to pay off. 
 
As the Times-Union article stated, "We can reduce that stress so they can get on with the rest of their lives, whatever their dreams might be."

Learn more about how our Stepping Stones initiative is helping women in our area fulfill their dreams–from owning their own business to advancing in a secure career.  And how you can get involved!

Trinity develops resource for D.C.'s entrepreneurial women!

Posted on by Roxana Moayedi

As a recent Stepping Stones Grantee Partner (I’m an associate professor at Trinity University in Washington, D.C.), I partnered with students in three of my courses over two semesters to develop, conduct, and analyze two community-based research projects to benefit D.C.-area women.

Trinity University takes seriously its role as a member of our community and one of the ways we work to fulfill our social justice mission is by partnering with other community-based organizations to identify and address our area’s needs.

Our community work takes a number of different forms both on and off campus. Not only do we encourage our students to volunteer, we require students to engage in course-based service projects that benefit our community while reinforcing and extending what they learn in class.

And, unusual for an undergraduate institution, we also provide opportunities for undergraduates to perform hands-on research—something which is usually limited to graduate students at larger universities.  These opportunities not only introduce them to sophisticated and rigorous concepts and methods, but allows them to use their own community as a laboratory and a lens, adding depth, dimension, and a grounding in reality to their college educations.

Our students learn “in the ivory tower” as well as “in the neighborhood.”

Our two community-based research projects had different, yet complimentary, focuses. In one course, my students and I conducted three focus groups bringing together low-income single mothers in the D.C. area to gauge their potential interest in starting their own small businesses.

Our key finding was that these women believed that they would never be able to get ahead as someone else’s employee.  They saw small business ownership as the only way they would ever be able to get ahead financially while balancing the competing (and often conflicting) needs of work and family. We compiled our research findings and analysis into a comprehensive report.

Our research explored both the opportunities and advantages women envisioned when considering self-employment, as well as the obstacles they perceived to be keeping them from making the leap from wage employment to micro entrepreneurship. One of the biggest obstacles our research participants identified was a lack of information about resources out there to help them plan—then actually launch—their businesses (primary need, start-up funding).

This finding neatly segued into our second, parallel research project: an online directory of D.C.-area micro enterprise assistance organizations, a project that we researched and compiled over two semesters.

My students and I developed a research instrument to find out specific information about each organization we studied. We compiled a list of local organizations to survey, and students tenaciously contacted these organizations, surveying them then analyzing survey results to judge whether they met our criteria for inclusion. The Association for Enterprise Opportunity’s member directory served as the foundation for this asset-mapping project.

We were able to build on the information they provided and we eventually identified 25 organizations in the Washington metropolitan area that provided micro loans, business training and technical assistance, and/or other relevant information and assistance that women in our community can use to make their entrepreneurial dreams a reality.

Roxana Moayedi is associate professor of sociology at Trinity University, a Grantee Partner of The Women’s Foundation.

The sister next door, in Prince George's county.

Posted on by Lisa Kays

Deborah Avens asks us to take a thoughtful, real look at our sisters next door on her new blog, Sister Table Talk.

Avens is the founder and president of Virtuous Enterprises, Inc., a Grantee Partner that provides programs and services designed to give women and girls of all walks of life the skills they need to succeed in academic, business, and work environments.

With its inaugural post put up yesterday, Avens invites us to consider how poverty seems to weigh more heavily on women than men, and how, in particular, this is due to the insufficient lack of access to affordable housing and healthcare.

And she’s doing so to provide a unique perspective on these issues–that of low-income women in Prince George’s County, Maryland.

A welcome voice and perspective, given the recent efforts to bring nonprofits, government and citizens in Prince George’s County together to build relationships, forge collaborative strategies and advocate for policies and practices that work for this unique area where only four nonprofits have budgets of more than $25,000 per year.

Avens’ new blog is therefore a much needed and welcome one to contribute to the discussion around the realities facing women in Prince George’s County, which are unique and often lesser known, as Donna Callejon found out during a forum there earlier this month.

Avens’ asks a serious set of questions in her first post, writing:  "What will it take to decrease or eradicate the growing ‘trend of poverty among low-income, headed families in particularly in Prince George’s County, Maryland? What will it take for the economical gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ to close? What will it take for policy makers to increase the livable wage so that people can live the true American Dream without constantly working to simply pay bills and taxes. What will it take for the general public to move with more compassion and less criticism?"

She reminds us that it will take a true understanding of the realities facing the sister next door–and surely Sister Table Talk will serve as a great resource for those interested in getting to know their sisters next door in Prince George’s County.

The Women’s Foundation is proud to have Virtuous Enterprises within its Grantee Partner community and applauds the addition of their voice to the important dialogue about how to make investments in women and girls work for the women and girls they work with every day.

From Texas to Tchad to Takoma, investing in women works.

Posted on by Lisa Kays

Becky Sykes, Executive Director of the Dallas Women’s Foundation, wrote in the Dallas Morning News last week that when you help a woman, there’s a ripple effect.

Spoken like a true international development specialist, often quoted as saying, "To educate a woman is to educate a family," or other statements that tie the welfare of women to the welfare of families, and, by default, entire communities.

But Sykes accurately ties this accepted aspect of work developing communities abroad to the work of women’s foundations operating in communities throughout the U.S. 

Because the same principles that apply internationally to developing communities and the status of women also apply here at home, even if they are harder for us to see. 

Sykes writes, "International development studies and projects have shown time and again that an investment in women – more than any other – is the fastest and surest way to affect an entire community.  Here in North Texas, we often mistakenly assume that the needs of women and girls are not as critical as in other, less fortunate communities. What a dangerously incorrect assumption."

Sykes notes the realities that make this true for Dallas, and our region is no different.  Our Portrait Project has shown that in the Washington metropolitan area:

  • Women-headed households, especially those headed by single mothers, suffer disproportionately from the region’s growing poverty.  In the District of Columbia, 30% of women-headed families live in poverty – above the national average and the highest in the region.
  • Women still earn less than their male counterparts. In Fairfax County, where the discrepancy is largest, men’s annual median earnings outpace women’s by $18,700. 
  • In 2000, in the District of Columbia, women-headed families at the median income ($26,500) could afford to buy only 8% of homes in the city. Many families are faced with childcare expenses that consistently exceed earnings. For example, the estimated cost of childcare in Montgomery County for an infant and a preschooler is $15,329, more than one-third of the median income for women-headed families in that county.
  • Despite the improvement in the rates of teen pregnancy, communities in our region still lag behind in infant-mortality rates, a key indicator of healthy pregnancies. The District of Columbia and Prince George’s County have the highest infant mortality rates in the region.
  • The District of Columbia has a higher incidence (new cases) of AIDS among women than anywhere else in the country. The rate of new AIDS cases among adolescent and adult women in the District of Columbia is 10 times the national rate.

As Sykes explains, " When you see women in trouble like this, it is often an early warning signal of deeper, growing problems. Because, just as helping a woman has a ripple effect, so does letting her sink into poverty and disenfranchisement."

Luckily, there is another side to this story, one of communities coming together to invest in programs and work that supports women, lifts families out of poverty and creates stronger cities, neighborhoods and regions for all of us. 

And when they do, the level of impact and transformation they achieve can be astounding.

That’s the work of foundations and funds like The Women’s Foundation that are operating throughout the country and world. 

As Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations has noted repeatedly, "Study after study has taught us that there is no tool for development more effective than the empowerment of women. No other policy is as likely to raise economic productivity, or to reduce infant and maternal mortality. No other policy is as sure to improve nutrition and promote health—including the prevention of HIV/AIDS. No other policy is as powerful in increasing the chances of education for the next generation."

Just as these problems are not unique to countries and communities abroad, neither are the solutions.  The power of Investing in women is a principle that is just in true in Mauritania as it is in Maryland. 

Ready to invest in the single most effective strategy for improving your community?  If you’re in the Washington metropolitan area, learn more about The Power of Giving Together.

Elsewhere, visit the Women’s Funding Network to find a women’s foundation or fund near you.

SOME: Helping D.C.'s homeless access food, a new future.

Posted on by Nathania H. Dallas

On almost any street in D.C., you will probably encounter people sleeping on the sidewalk or asking for money, and the majority will probably be men.  Such encounters with homelessness have generated the idea that it primarily affects the male population.  (And, as was mentioned earlier on this blog, so have some films and the media.)

Although it is true that almost 85 percent of DC’s “chronically homeless” – those who are in and out of shelters or living on the streets – are men, there are countless homeless women and children who are “couch surfing” or doubled and tripled up, staying with friends and family.

Homeless women face a very different set of circumstances than homeless men. As detailed in the D.C. Women’s Agenda’s white paper, “Homeless young women are very likely to suffer from bad health, substance abuse, criminal activity, mental disorders, prostitution, and low levels of education.”

These obstacles make it all the more difficult for women to overcome homelessness.

In America, as in most cultures, women are presumed to be responsible for taking care of children and providing meals for their family. For homeless women who are facing the huge challenges that come with that condition, even these seemingly simple responsibilities of parenthood can be overwhelming.  The discontinuity of constantly having to find sources of food can have a damaging effect on children, and the inability of a parent to provide food for her children disrupts the family unit.

Regular access to healthy food can be the first step to helping one’s body recover from the harsh realities of homeless life and generates the energy needed to begin to overcome the obstacles of homelessness.

SOME (So Others Might Eat) is an inter-faith community-based organization that works to help the poor and homeless of Washington, D.C., and is a member of the D.C. Women’s Agenda (a Grantee Partner of The Women’s Foundation). 

Over the past year, volunteers at SOME have been gathering information on food providers for homeless people in the District.  Their research has been compiled in a brand-new Food Assistance for the Homeless Resource.

The Resource consists of Excel spreadsheets, beginning with a master sheet that lists all the providers, their location, contact information, and eligibility requirements. In the subsequent spreadsheets, the providers are listed according to the service they provide, either Food Pantry or Meals. Meals are then categorized by Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, days of the week and, finally, whom they serve: Men, Women, and Families.

This resource is intended to serve three purposes: to help those who are homeless find their next meal, to help service providers make referrals, and to help advocates identify unmet needs. In the near future, we hope to see the creation of a pocket version for people who are in need of food assistance and may have difficulty accessing the Internet.

Ultimately, we want to see a time when providers such as those listed in this resource no longer need to exist because everyone is able to provide their own food, for themselves and their families.

Until we can achieve this long-term goal, we hope that in creating an authoritative resource on food assistance for the homeless we can make it easier for homeless women to feed themselves and their families, and their energy can be used to begin improving their lives.

SOME began in 1970 when Father Horace McKenna started feeding sandwiches to the homeless of D.C. from the back of a church. As people were nourished and their bodies began to recover from life on the streets, SOME was able to extend its services. 

Today SOME helps break the cycle of homelessness by offering a continuum of services, such as affordable housing, job training, addiction treatment, medical and dental care, and counseling. We believe that access to healthy food is the first step in beginning this continuum of care and ending poverty.

Nathania H. Dallas was the summer advocacy and social justice intern in 2007 at So Others Might Eat (SOME, Inc.) in Washington, D.C.

Low-income women missing on Mommy War battlefield.

Posted on by Lisa Kays

The "Mommy Wars," as they’re known, are heating up again, but there are key players missing from the field, it would seem. 

According to a recent article in the San Fancisco Chronicle by Maya Rupert, "The working wounded: Most women don’t have a choice to stay home with kids," it’s time to reframe the way we talk about women, work, motherhood and what the "choice" between family and work really means–and to rethink who is part of this discussion. 

Of note, Rupert writes, "For low-income mothers, summer brings a different set of challenges: finding a new means of child care now that the days aren’t filled with classroom instruction. There often is no money for vacations, and certainly not for the sizable registration fees required at the various day camps. But these concerns aren’t part of the parenting debates — and of the Mommy Wars in particular…The result is an explicit and inexplicable rejection of the view that class should matter in discussing the expectation of mothers to stay home. In essence, it’s an onslaught of negative third-wave feminism, which assumes everyone has the financial security to make a choice and tells low-income and poor mothers that this doesn’t concern them."

And, Rupert reminds us, by including these voices–since really, when it comes to child care, health insurance and the other issues that stand out as challenges for working parents–male and female–we’re likely to be forced to think of ways that are really better for all women, men and children, across income brackets.

She writes, "The Mommy Wars can be won when we redefine victory…This will require us to rethink what it means to be a good mother. The concession that good motherhood requires an abundance of time to spend at home with children overemphasizes quantity over quality and presents an incredibly simplistic view of motherhood, one that stacks the deck against lower-income moms.  Additionally, it will require us to abandon the very premise of the discussion, which is that child rearing is naturally the domain of women. We need to rethink fatherhood and seriously question why we still expect mothers to take responsibility for the bulk of child care."

As discussed last week, women are being forced to make impossible choices, ones that serve no one–not them, not their children, not their families, not our communities. 

This piece, and the concepts within, are a great reminder of the importance of looking at issues that impact women and our communities through the voices and perspectives of all involved and affected, and of including the voices of those who may be the least likely to be heard by doing the hard work of seeking them out and raising them up. 

Walking the city in women’s shoes.

Posted on by Lisa Kays

Wanna lose weight or get healthy in the cheapest, most easily accessible way possible?

Many sources will tell you to walk.  Roads are free, after all.  (Minus a small taxpayer contribution.)

But what if can’t walk in your neighborhood because the streets aren’t safe from harassment, or worse forms of violence?  What if they’re deteriorated or don’t have maintained sidewalks?

Then your best, low-cost avenue to a more active lifestyle just disappeared faster than you can say “speedwalk.”

I hadn’t thought much about this concrete correlation between neighborhood safety and women’s (or indeed, anyone’s) health until a recent conference call for Leadership Awards volunteers on women’s health in our region, where the speakers explained that a woman’s health (her ability to keep in shape and her weight down) can be greatly impacted by the safety of her streets.

The good news is that some of the greatest health risks for women in our area–diabetes, obesity and heart disease–are all diminished by a more active lifestyle.

The bad news?  That many of the women most at risk for these conditions are low-income women without access to safe streets on which to walk–the most economical form of exercise out there.  They’re also the least likely to be able to afford access to gyms or other types of sports or exercise that will enable them to maintain healthy hearts, weight and other benefits of being active.

This is what came to mind when I read an interesting post on Half Changed World, on Google’s latest attempt to tell us about our lives by measuring how walkable a neighborhood is.

According to WalkScore, the site “shows you a map of what’s nearby and calculates a Walk Score for any property. Buying a house in a walkable neighborhood is good for your health and good for the environment.”

This all seems to be measured by how close your home is to grocery stores, shopping, parks, etc.

I can’t help but do a little experiment.

I calculate the WalkScore for the office of The Women’s Foundation, downtown in northwest D.C.  We get a 98 out of 100.

This is good news, since I walk to work everyday.  Except today, when it’s a million degrees outside, but that’s besides the point.  I don’t think Google accounts for weather.  (Yet.)

Next, I try an address of one of our Grantee Partners, Ascensions, serving families southeast Washington, D.C., in Ward 7 and 8, a target area for Stepping Stones.

Their walk score?  46.  A pretty vast difference, even when you consider that Google isn’t measuring for safe streets, the condition of sidewalks or traffic flow, and that they’re just considering access to stuff.

I consider that not only are families in this area most likely not able to incorporate walking into their daily errands and lifestyle (the easiest way), but also how much harder it could be to access the services provided by Ascensions than it would be for me to find a similar service for myself in my neighborhood in northwest D.C.

Meaning that walkability could be impacting not only physical health, but mental health as well.  Or financial health.  Or any number of other aspects of one’s life that are improved through the involvement of practitioners and specialists to advise, examine and assist.

I can’t help but think that this situation would probably be repeated over and over if I tried WalkScores on our various Grantee Partners serving low-income areas, women and their families.

And how much lower they would be if Google incorporated factors like safety and sidewalks into their calculations.  (Well, it wouldn’t be the first time I was disappointed by Google Map’s accounting for economics.)

It definitely gives me perspective about my daily walks to work in the morning–which I will now stop taking for granted, even when crazy D.C. drivers almost kill me–and a new way of viewing our region and its development in terms of the perspective of the women who are–or aren’t–able to safely take a stroll on its streets.

And the potential for changes made in an effort to improve the walkability and safety of our region and its streets–in all neighborhoods–to improve the lives and health, not only of women and their children, but all of us.

After all, we should all be able to take Bono’s advice and, “Walk on.”