No result found
Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival (PPC:NCMR);
This project aims to explore the disproportionate effects of COVID-19 on poor communities in the US by connecting data about COVID-19 deaths at the county level with other demographic characteristics. In doing so, it offers an initial analysis of the deadly community-level consequences of poverty, economic insecurity, and systemic racism. Although data gaps obscure a more detailed analysis of person-level outcomes, combined with other research, these results highlight the characteristics of some of the communities that were most impacted by the pandemic.
Throughout the 2021–22 school year, parents of color and parents with low incomes have expressed worries about their children's mental health, socialization, and academic skills. Many schools and districts have developed targeted interventions. But as schools and districts develop these programs to address students' academic and social needs, the data show those programs do not always reach the students and families most affected by the pandemic.
Most researchers and policymakers rely on the share of students eligible for free and reduced-price meals when describing student socioeconomic background in schools. But shares of students receiving free and reduced-price meals, and other measures related to the distribution of school meals, vary by state and across time because of changes in school meal eligibility criteria.In this report, we describe the development of a new measure: Model Estimates of Poverty in Schools (MEPS). This measure estimates the school-level share of students from households with incomes at or below the federal poverty level between fall 2013 and fall 2018. The MEPS measure aims to be comparable across states and over time and to broadly align with the school's enrolled population (as opposed to a neighborhood measure).We find that MEPS broadly aligns with aggregate state measures of student poverty and are strongly correlated with geographic district poverty as measured by the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) program. We also find that MEPS can under- or overestimate poverty shares for certain districts. In particular, we find that our model underestimates school-level poverty for districts enrolling high shares of Black students. To correct for this, we produce modified MEPS, a second measure that mechanically adjusts our estimate to align with geographic district poverty rates. Because of wider margins of error for districts with small populations in the SAIPE data, we recommend using modified MEPS only for analysis of geographic districts with more than 65,000 residents.These statistical estimates should be used primarily by researchers. MEPS could be useful for those conducting research across states or years or for policymakers who want to understand how a school's socioeconomic characteristics may have changed over time. But these estimates are not appropriate for allocating resources within a state or district or for other uses when having a true count, rather than a model estimate, is required.
This is our fourth Living Standards Outlook, exploring how household incomes and inequalities may change over the next five years, based on the latest economic forecasts and Government policy. We explore how Covid-19 has buffeted incomes over the last two years; what exceptionally high inflation, the conflict in Ukraine and policy changes will mean for UK living standards this year; and the longer-term prospects for recovery. Our projections use Bank of England and Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts for prices, wages, employment and more, but our modelling looks beyond averages to show what these aggregate forecasts could mean for real living standards across society.
Street homelessness is one of the most extreme, and visible, manifestations of profound injustice on the planet, but often struggles to achieve priority attention at international level. The Institute of Global Homelessness (IGH's) A Place to Call Home initiative, launched in 2017, represented a concerted effort to support cities across the globe to eradicate street homelessness. A first cohort of 13 'Vanguard Cities' committed to a specific target on ending or reducing street homelessness by December 2020. Our independent evaluation of this initiative found that:Two Vanguard Cities – Glasgow and Sydney – fully met their self-defined target reductions for end 2020. In addition, Greater Manchester, while it did not meet its exceptionally ambitious goal of 'ending all rough sleeping', recorded an impressive 52% reduction against baseline.Overall, there was evidence of reductions in targeted aspects of street homelessness in over half of the Vanguard Cities. In most of the remaining cities data limitations, sometimes as a result of COVID, meant that it was not possible to determine trends. In only one Vanguard City – Edmonton – was there an evidenced increase in street homelessness over baseline levels.Key enablers of progress in reducing street homelessness included the presence of a lead coordinating agency, and coordinated entry to homelessness services, alongside investment in specialized and evidence-based interventions, such as assertive street outreach services, individual case management and Housing First.Key barriers to progress included heavy reliance on undignified and sometimes unsafe communal shelters, a preoccupation with meeting immediate physiological needs, and sometimes perceived spiritual needs, rather than structural and system change, and a lack of emphasis on prevention. Aggressive enforcement interventions by police and city authorities, and documentary and identification barriers, were also counter-productive to attempts to reduce street homelessness.A key contextual variable between the Vanguard Cities was political will, with success in driving down street homelessness associated with high-level political commitments. An absolute lack of funds was a major challenge in all of the Global South cities, but also in resource-poor settings in the Global North. Almost all Vanguard Cities cited pressures on the affordable housing stock as a key barrier to progress, but local lettings and other policies could make a real difference.The impact of the COVID-19 crisis differed markedly across the Vanguard Cities, with people at risk of street homelessness most effectively protected in the UK and Australian cities. Responses were less inclusive and ambitious in the North American and Global South cities, with more continued use of 'shared air' shelters, albeit that in some of these contexts the pandemic prompted better coordination of local efforts to address street homelessness.IGH involvement was viewed as instrumental in enhancing the local profile, momentum and level of ambition attached to reducing street homelessness in the Vanguard Cities. IGH's added value to future cohorts of cities could be maximised via a focus on more tailored forms of support specific to the needs of each city, and also to different types of stakeholders, particularly frontline workers.
This report summarizes 36-month findings from the evaluation of the Grameen America program, a microfinance institution that provides loans to women with low incomes in the United States who are seeking to start or expand a small business. Its objective is to reduce poverty through the provision of small loans, financial training, and peer support.The Grameen America evaluation used a randomized controlled trial design to explore the mechanisms of program operations and whether the model leads to improved outcomes for borrowers. The evaluation includes an implementation analysis, which examines how the program operates and the experiences of borrowers and program staff, and an impact analysis, which assesses the program's effects on participants' outcomes, including the study's two primary outcomes: overall net income and types of material hardship. Other outcomes include wage-based work and self-employment, wage-based and self-employment earnings and other income, credit scores, savings, assets and remittances, social support, and financial well-being. The implementation analysis includes outcomes from program-tracking data, as well as findings from interviews with borrowers and Grameen America staff, focus groups, and researchers' observations of the program. The impact findings in this report are based on study participants' responses to a 36-month survey and credit report data from a major credit reporting agency. The Grameen America evaluation was funded by the Robin Hood Foundation.
If you live in a U.S. city, you are probably only a few miles away from a neighborhood with concentrated poverty—and there's a good chance that you are even closer.Neighborhoods with concentrated poverty are defined as census tracts where at least 30% of residents live in poor households. They are found in every medium and large metropolitan area in the United States. It does not matter what region a city is in, nor does it matter if local and state leaders are Democrats or Republicans. The presence of these residential areas is universal.Around one in 15 people in the United States lives in a neighborhood with concentrated poverty—equal to over 20 million people in total. This includes nearly one in five Black people and one in eight Latino or Hispanic people.Previous research has shown that places with high rates of poverty are deeply harmful. People who grow up in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty earn less money in early adulthood and are incarcerated far more often. Children born in these areas are projected to die 5.7 years earlier than those in other neighborhoods.Leaders need better solutions to assist these areas. Fortunately, in recent years, new data and advanced analytical tools have emerged that can offer new insights about these places. This report takes advantage of these opportunities to share three findings demonstrating that positive change is possible.
On March 22, 2023, Nourish California shared key findings from a series of focus groups and recent statewide surveys that asked Californians about their experiences accessing the food they need and want. This research was conducted in partnership with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3).
Heartland Alliance IMPACT Division;
On May 11, 2023, the Biden Administration ended the COVID-19 national emergency, marking a turning point for many extended and newly developed public benefits that occurred during, and in response to, the pandemic. Programs such as Medicaid, health insurance coverage for low-income individuals and families, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), were modified and/or expanded available benefits to meet the growing needs of the nation, particularly individuals living on the verge of poverty.In the midst of the pandemic, Heartland Alliance released a signature report on the domino effect caused by COVID-19, outlining how losing one support can cause others to crumble away for those already living on the edge when disaster strikes. While the pandemic-driven domino effect continues, we examine the additional repercussions caused by changes to public programs that were optimized during the pandemic, and that millions have become reliant upon.This report will explore the pandemic aftermath, with a specific focus on public benefit programs for individuals who are living in poverty or on the verge of poverty. We will examine how communities of color in Illinois have been particularly affected by the pandemic regarding health and economic well-being, and what implications changes to COVID-19 era benefits, specifically as it pertains to healthcare and food assistance, mean for Illinoisans.Findings from this report will expand on an overarching theme. Inequities, as it pertains to people of color, are pervasive, have worsened, and will likely continue to significantly increase post-pandemic.
Heartland Alliance IMPACT Division;
Poverty among children more than doubled from 2021 to 2022 (from 5.2% in 2021 to 12.4% in 2022), according to the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM)1 released by the U.S. Census Bureau. This the largest year-over-year poverty rate increase on record among individuals aged 17 years and younger. Children were hardest hit due, in large part, to the lapse of the Child Tax Credit; however, across all ages gains made from COVID-related assistance in 2021 were lost in 2022. In Illinois, there are over 4 million Illinoisans experiencing poverty, with over 760,000 Illinoisans living in extreme poverty. In 2022 census results, poverty rates for children and communities of color - similar to national trends - remain dramatically higerh than the overall rate.
Human Rights Institute, San Jose State University;
The purposes of the Silicon Valley Pain Index [SVPI] report are to: (1) Provide an efficient, easily digestible, statistical overview of structured inequalities to inform policy and practice in "Silicon Valley."(2) Serve to measure Santa Clara County's performance as a "human rights county," which it declared in 2018 in accordance with the International Bill of Human Rights and in accordance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women [CEDAW] in 2023. (3) Spark collaborations between scholars, students, stakeholders, communities, and policy makers to address inequality and achieve greater human rights practice.Originally inspired by Professor Bill Quigley's Katrina Pain Index following the devastating 2005 hurricane and later by national protests in the wake of the police murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor (2020), the 2020, 2021, and 2022 SVPIs illustrated the persistent racial discrimination in employment, education, and housing as well as the general income/wealth inequality that were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and continue to define our region. In contrast, the 4th Annual (2023) SVPI features new data that highlights the region's persistent inequalities, and the astronomical concentration of wealth into the hands of an incredibly small number of households and companies. As Russel Hancock, President and CEO of Joint Venture Silicon Valley, asserted, "If Silicon Valley were a country, that kind of wealth disparity would be considered politically unstable."
California Community Foundation;
Over the last two years, in California and across the country, billions of public dollars have been allocated to end the digital divide. The Digital Equity LA coalition, supported by the California Community Foundation (CCF) Digital Equity Initiative, has mobilized to ensure these investments are directed to the communities that need them most - those that have been historically marginalized and are disproportionately disconnected - and deployed in support of the most effective long-term solutions.Low-income households, people of color, and immigrants are significantly more likely to be stranded on the wrong side of the digital divide than people living in wealthy, white neighborhoods. The most common reason disconnected people report for not having a fast and reliable connection is affordability; the price is too high, or the service they can afford isn't fast or reliable enough to justify the expense.Digital Equity LA and the CCF Digital Equity Initiative set out in this report to document what people are being asked to pay for home internet in diverse neighborhoods across Los Angeles County. The findings of this report are sobering, raising significant red flags about the higher prices many poorer communities are being charged for the same or inferior service, and the implications of those pricing disparities on the effectiveness of current interventions to close the digital divide.This report is action-driven research intended to lift up the experience of those most affected by inequitable access to broadband. It represents a snapshot documenting the prices on offer to residents of diverse neighborhoods across LA County.