Wednesday, July 13, 2011 University of Richmond

MAYOR DWIGHT C. JONES ANTI-POVERTY COMMISSION Wednesday, July 13, 2011 University of Richmond 1

MAYOR DWIGHT C. JONES ANTI ANTI--POVERTY COMMISSION Hon. Ellen Robertson, Co-Chair Vice President, Richmond City Council 6th District Dr. Carolyn Graham, Co-Chair Deputy Chief Administrative Officer for Human Services 2

AGENDA Welcome Hon. Ellen Robertson Greetings Dr. Edward Ayers Presentation: Rethinking Poverty in Holistic Terms Dr. Thad Williamson Presentation: Recommendations of the Mayor s Redistricting Committee Mr. David Hicks Review of Committee Charges Hon. Ellen Robertson Questions Announcements & Closing 3

A Holistic View of Poverty Presentation to Mayor s Anti-Poverty Commission July 13, 2011 Thad Williamson Assoc. Professor of Leadership Studies and Philosophy, Politics, Economics and Law, University of Richmond

Official Poverty Measure Based on bundle of goods meeting basic needs Unchanged since the 1960s Widely criticized; doesn t account for taxes, rising health care costs, in-kind benefits, EITC 2009 poverty thresholds: Individual under 65: $11,161 Family of 2 (1 child): $15,030 Family of 4 (2 children): $22,113

Alternative Measures of Poverty and Disadvantage Revised poverty measure by Garner and Short (2008) based on National Academy of Science (1995) study provides threshold estimate about 25% higher than official level Income less than one-half of median income (measure commonly used in Europe); combines objective and relative measure Income less than 70% of median income; measures those in poverty and at high risk of falling into poverty Extreme economic disadvantage: households earning less than $10,000 annually

Official Poverty Measure in Richmond Official poverty measure (individuals) City of Richmond, 2009: 23.9% Richmond MSA (including city), 2009: 11.2% Richmond MSA (excluding city), 2009: 8.7% Virginia, 2009: 10.5% United States, 2009: 14.3% Source (all charts): 2009 ACS (Census Bureau)

Alternative Poverty Measure in Richmond Measured by households, not individuals Below half of median household income ( < $25,000) City of Richmond, 2009: 35.7% Richmond MSA (includes city), 2009: 19.6% Richmond MSA (excludes city), 2009: 16.3% Virginia, 2009: 19.5% United States, 2009: 24.7%

Measure of Poverty Risk in Richmond Measured by Households, Not Individuals Below 70% of median household income ( < $35,000) City of Richmond, 2009: 47.8% Richmond MSA (includes city), 2009: 30.0% Richmond MSA (excludes city), 2009: 26.3% Virginia, 2009: 28.5% United States, 2009: 35.4%

Family Budget for Richmond MSA Two person, two child family, monthly expense: Housing + essential utilities: $870 Food: $643 Childcare: $897 Transportation: $447 Health care: $367 Other necessities: $364 Taxes: $383 Monthly Total: $3970; Annual Total: $47, 645

Average Hourly Wage for Selected Jobs in Richmond MSA Security guards: $12.22 Cooks : $9.98 Fast Food Workers: $7.89 Maids and Housekeepers: $9.14 Landscaping and Groundskeepers: $11.04 Bus Drivers: $14.56 Child Care Workers: $8.23 Receptionists: $14.31

Overall Distribution of Wages in Rich. MSA, All Workers/Private Sector 10 th Percentile: $10.00/$8.04 25 th Percentile: $13.12/$10.77 Median: $17.79/$16.00 Mean: $ 19.79/$19.35 75 th Percentile: $25.47/$23.08 90 th Percentile: $34.99/$33.41 Source: October 2009 BLS Compensation Survey

Measure of Extreme Economic Deprivation in Richmond Families (households with at least two related people) earning < $10,000 annually City of Richmond, 2009: 10.5% Richmond MSA (includes city), 2009: 3.6% Richmond MSA (excludes city), 2009: 2.6% Virginia, 2009: 3.6% United States, 2009: 4.9%

Capabilities Approach to Well-Being Begins from recognition that money alone can be a misleading measure of human well-being Identifies the different functionings characteristics of a healthy human being More nuanced view of human development that can help point way to practical steps Called capabilities because what is important is not that people exercise each functioning, but they are capable of doing so

Capabilities 1-4 (Nussbaum) Life: Being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length Bodily Health: Being able to have good health, to be adequately nourished, to have adequate shelter. Bodily Integrity: Freedom of movement and freedom from assaults and violence. Sense, Imagination, and Thought: Being able to use the senses, to imagine, to think and reason and to do those things in a way informed by an adequate education.

Capabilities 5-7 (Nussbaum) Emotions: Being able to have attachments to things and people outside ourselves; being capable of love (of self and others) and being capable of expressing one s appreciation for others. Practical reason: Being able to form a rational plan about how one s life will go (and to act on the basis of that plan); being able to revise it as necessary. Affiliation (community): Being able to live with and toward others, to recognize and show concern for other human beings, to engage in various forms of social interaction. Having the social bases of self-respect and non-humiliation. Not being discriminated against on the basis of race, etc.

Capabilities 8-10 (Nussbaum) Play: being able to laugh, to play, to enjoy recreational activities Other species and nature: being able to relate to animals, appreciate the natural world. Control over one s environment: Being able to participate in choices that affect one s life. Equal opportunity to seek employment and have property.

Capabilities 11-13 (Wolff, Hicks) Abiding the Law: Being able to meet one s basic needs without breaking the law or cheating other persons or institutions. Understanding the Law and Rights: Being aware of one s rights and knowing how to advocate for them. Being aware of benefits, opportunities to which one is legally entitled. Freedom of spiritual, religious, political expression; being able to express one s self and be listened to

Richmond Street Soccer (White House, 2009)

Harlem Children s Zone

Cleveland Model : Evergreen Cooperative Fund

Discussion & Questions Thad Williamson twilla9@richmond.edu

Presentation on the Mayor s Redistricting Advisory Committee Final Report David Hicks, Senior Policy Advisor Office of the Mayor July 13, 2011

Mayor s Redistricting Advisory Committee Final Report: Executive Summary In April 2011, Mayor Dwight C. Jones established an advisory committee with the objective of viewing redistricting through an economic, social, and demographic lens with an expanded focus on poverty in the City. The full committee met eight times from April through June and presented its report to the Mayor on July 6, 2011.

Mayor s Redistricting Advisory Committee Final Report: The report argues for two major principles with respect to poverty and redistricting: 1) Districts should be internally diverse and politically competitive. 2) Poverty should be sufficiently dispersed across districts such that a majority of districts have poverty rates close to the citywide average.

The Report Proposes Two Redistricting Plans: Plan A and Plan B represent very modest shifts in existing districts as well as the proposed redistricting plans now before Council. Plan C would involve two steps: 1) Starting over from scratch in drawing the City s electoral map; and 2) Exploring whether it might be much easier to achieve the goals of internally diverse, competitive districts and balancing poverty across districts if the number of districts in the city were reduced to five.

General Recommendations: Equitable distribution of polling places. Sufficient infrastructure (number of machines, etc.) in all parts of city. Consideration should be given to increase compensation for Council and School Board, at minimum a living wage.

General Recommendations: Further examination needed to better quantify effect of felon disenfranchisement. Long term issues such as VA independent city/county structure, and the inability to expand through annexation need to be revisited.

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS: Plan A Tweek of 5/16/11 Council Plan. Reduces poverty in the 6 th District Moves Hillside Court from 6 th to 8 th. Moves 1500 residents in tract 706 from 8 th to 5 th Moves approx. 1500 residents from Tracts 108 and/or 107 in the 3 rd to the 6 th.

Plan A -Impact Affects two School Board incumbents (2 nd and 5 th ). Six public housing developments over 400 units would be distributed over 4 rather than 3 Council Districts. 6.8% total deviation.

Plan A:

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS: Plan B More ambitious approach to reducing poverty levels in 6 th District All tract 607 (4450 residents poverty rate of 32%) move from 6 th to 8 th Districts. Large part of Tract 107 (2800 resident poverty rate of 19%) and all of Tract 108 moved from the 3 rd to the 6 th. Jackson Ward moved with Gilpin Court from the 2 nd to the 3 rd District.

Plan B:

Plan B -Impact One School Board incumbent affected (2 nd District). Six public housing developments over 400 units would be distributed over 4 rather than 3 Council Districts. 4.2% total deviation.

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS: Plan C Start from Square One. Consider reducing number of districts from 9 to 5 (same as Henrico and Chesterfield). Expand beyond solely Black/White based structure. Consider moving to partisan based elections.

DISCUSSION & QUESTIONS David Hicks David.Hicks@richmondgov.com 804.646.6919

REVIEW OF CHARGES Job Creation Education/Workforce Development Policy/Legislation Unique, Healthy and Inclusive Communities: Land Use Policy Transportation/Regionalism Asset Building Research and Evaluation (phase II) 38

JOB CREATION Efforts should be made to indentify areas for creating and cultivating meaningful jobs and healthy working conditions for the city s current unemployed and underemployed workforce. Crucial for a significant portion of the City of Richmond s population Families are currently steeped in poverty and living off of less than adequate incomes 47% of Richmond s Female Households with children live in poverty Median household income in Richmond is $37,735

JOB CREATION This committee is charged with identifying areas of projected industry growth and expansion in the region and the country, and their implications for the City of Richmond s current and future workforce. Efforts should be made to identify areas for creating and cultivating meaningful jobs and healthy working conditions for the City s current unemployed and underemployed workforce.

EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT The high school and college completion rate for the City of Richmond s young adult population 18-25 years old is well below the national average. In 2010 the City of Richmond graduation rates for advanced and standard diplomas was 65 percent; Only 32 percent of Richmond s residents have received a bachelor s degree or higher. Workforce development options have been few for the City s residents who, in the face of limited academic achievement, have not had access to sufficient, accessible prevocational and vocational options and opportunities.

EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT This committee is charged with identifying and reviewing effective workforce strategies that are being used by other jurisdictions, which are proving to be effective in educating an uneducated adult population for a changing economy. Recommendations should be focused on strategies that might prove to be effective in the City of Richmond. Innovated approaches that target the basic literacy needs of the subject population should be explored and presented.

POLICY/LEGISLATION Current literature suggests that states and communities around the country have employed a number of creative strategies to elevate population segments mired in generational poverty. The state of Virginia has historically pursued a very conservative path in making federal dollars available to eligible segments of its population.

POLICY/LEGISLATION Some of those strategies have involved use of federal waivers gained through states intervention for greater access to federal dollars to augment the basic income of poorer segments of their population. This strategy served the purposes of enhancing the actual income of the population, and increasing revenue poured into the local economy. For example, Richmond s SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or food stamps) with an eligibility level of 130 % FPL poured over $7M into the local economy in 2010.

POLICY/LEGISLATION This committee is charged with undertaking an analysis of the state s current standards used to determine eligibility for certain federal benefits such as Medicaid, SNAP, Workforce Development (WIB), Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), etc. The committee should undertake a review of strategies that other states have pursued to build family assets. These may include federal revenue, entrepreneurial options, etc., to arrive at a set of recommendations to be pursued in the City of Richmond. Some strategies may require changes in federal, state and local policies to ensure access to such resources.

UNIQUE, HEALTHY & INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES: LAND USE POLICY The City of Richmond has one of the highest concentrations of residents living in public housing south of New York City. Public policy decisions made decades ago involving federal, state and local decision-makers eliminated substantial diverse, working class communities, and concentrated the very poor in public housing that was initially perceived as quality housing. These communities became reservations where multiple generations of residents became locked in poverty.

UNIQUE, HEALTHY & INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES: LAND USE POLICY These communities lacked (and lack) complexity and diversity, and provide few, if any, social outlets to support family stability and encourage healthy child and youth development. Economic diversity was and is non-existent in these communities as are a sufficient supply of pre-school and out-of-school-time options that support early childhood development and positive youth development. Seniors and young families who call these communities home also lack social outlets and options that support healthy aging-in-place, and family stability. These communities are isolated and set apart from the greater Richmond community.

UNIQUE, HEALTHY & INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES: LAND USE POLICY This committee is charged with developing strategies that support the redesign of these communities and the inclusion of social supports and outlets for children, youth, families, and elders. These options may be cross-cutting and address neighborhood configuration as well as public policies that preclude family stability and diversity.

TRANSPORTATION/ REGIONALISM The City of Richmond is landlocked, bordered on each side by thriving and expansive counties that do not necessarily subscribe to a fully integrated regional transportation system. Economic development has occurred at a rapid rate in the neighboring counties The City of Richmond has been left behind with a less than desirable transportation system that is limited to City boundaries, The current system is unable to transport public transportation dependent, job ready City residents to areas where job growth has occurred.

TRANSPORTATION/ REGIONALISM The City possesses resources, including the public transportation system, that might be linked to a broader, regional economic development strategy benefiting the surrounding metropolitan counties and the City of Richmond proper.

TRANSPORTATION/ REGIONALISM This committee is charged with identifying and proposing strategies that might be deployed in effecting greater regional cooperation. These strategies should be aligned with efforts to create a green, sustainable economy. It is also charged with identifying other opportunities where regional cooperation might be beneficial to both the City and localities that exist beyond the existing boundaries.

ASSET BUILDING States and localities across the country are pursuing a variety of strategies to improve the economic plight of citizens by pursuing strategies that build assets and improve family financial literacy and management skills. Residents in lower income communities are often victimized by predatory lending or pay day and title (car) loans.

ASSET BUILDING Predatory lenders have positioned themselves conveniently in low-income communities and are filling the void created by the flight of traditional banking institutions from these communities. Some jurisdictions have enacted aggressive predatory lending laws to protect vulnerable residents.

ASSET BUILDING Asset-based policies are well-established in the United States, and include the home mortgage tax deduction, 401(k) plans, and IRAs. These policies; however, often do not benefit lowincome individuals and families. Asset building strategies assist low-income individuals move toward greater self-sufficiency through programs that facilitate simple savings options and the purchasing of longterm assets. Progressive asset-building policies support and advance strategies that encourage the acquisition of assets such as homes, micro-businesses, as well as investments in education and re-education, etc.

ASSET BUILDING This committee is charged with exploring successful strategies employed by other communities including: The examination of federal and foundation grant opportunities to support the development of a strong financial literacy program in the City of Richmond The examination of micro-lending programs to support entrepreneurial efforts specifically designed for low income residents. A review of predatory lending rules enacted by other jurisdictions as models that might be adapted for the City of Richmond.

DISCUSSION Selection of Committee Workgroups Selection of Committee Chairs Questions 56

ANNOUNCEMENTS Anti-Poverty Commission Website: www.richmondgov.com/content/commissionantipoverty/index.aspx New Email Address: MayorsAntiPoverty.Commission@richmondgov.com 57

CLOSING Next Meeting: August 17, 2011 5:00 pm Location TBD September Meeting: Special Guest Presentation by staff from the Brooking Institute study Missed Opportunity Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America 58