Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Good News/Bad News

I have a confession to make: I fight with my daughter almost every morning. Well, “fight” might be a strong word, but part of our morning ritual is to tussle over who gets the Business section of the paper. She is the household meteorologist (a word she learned in her first grade section on “community workers”), and – in this era of downsized newspapers – the weather map in the Los Angeles Times is found in the Business section. She usually wins, finds our neighborhood in the map and declares what we can expect for the weather today.

I look at the Business page because…..well, I guess I’m a glutton for punishment. Besides some obligatory stories on the latest techie tools that are going to revolutionize consumer electronics, here are a some sober headlines from the January 6 LA Times Business section:

“Lower number of new deals under contract shows shakiness in the housing recovery.”

“Mixed data on the recover stifle stocks.”

“Only 45% of workers are happy with their jobs, the lowest rate in 22 years, survey finds.”

“Banks take revenge for new consumer-protection rules”

The media has been looking for any good news where it can find it (worker productivity is up!), but unemployment is still high, housing and stocks are shaky, and workers and consumers are still taking it on the chin.

Here’s more bad news: I’m on my way to Chicago and the weather page says to expect a high of 23 degrees. However, when I get back to LA on Friday, it’ll be sunny and 72. I guess my daughter knows something I don’t: if you live in LA and want good news, check the weather.

The end of the year brings with it a slew of “top 10/best of/worst of” lists.  This week’s issue of Time magazine(with Ben Bernanke on the cover as Person of the Year) provides a number of lists, from books to gadgets, business deals to scandals.  On the page of Top 10 Essential Stories, there is an asterisk with what they cite as “The Most Underreported Story of 2009”

According to a January report from UCLA’s Civil Rights Project, African-American and Latino schoolchildren are more segregated than they have been since the time of Martin Luther King Jr.’s death, in 1968. In the 2006-07 school year, nearly 40% attended schools–many of them subpar “dropout factories”–where students of color made up 90% to 100% of the student body.

The report they are referring to is Reviving the Goal of an Integrated Society: A 21st Century Challenge , written by noted education and civil rights scholar Gary Orfield.

Not only do many public schools remain segregated by race, the report points out, but also by income as those same schools tend to be segregated by economic class.  Add to that the fact that those schools tend to be more likely to have unprepared teachers, college prep courses and enrichment activities and you have a whole class of students starting far behind.

If segregation is so obvious, why don’t we hear more about it?  Orfield provides this explanation of why whites think segregation is over:

Even as black and Latino students are becoming more isolated, the typical white child is in a school that is more diverse than the school white children attended a generation ago. This factor makes it especially hard for whites to understand the degree to which resegregation has taken place. In 1988, 53% of white students attended schools that were 90-100% white, but that number has slipped to 36% in the newest data. 94% of whites were in majority white schools then, but that has dropped to 87% in the most recent data. The share of whites attending multiracial schools has risen from 7% to 14%.

So, whites are becoming less segregated, but African Americans and Latinos are becoming more segregated. Overall, segregation is growing because non-whites are growing in proportion to whites.  But apparently that still isn’t much of a story.

And the winner is…

Most of the world – outside the U.S. anyway – was fixated over the last week on South Africa to learn the draw for next summer’s soccer World Cup. The 32 teams that qualified for the competition were divided into eight round-robin groups. The top two teams from each group then go into the single-elimination final sixteen until a champion is crowned on July 11, 2010 in Johannesburg.

Winners and losers will, of course, be decided on the soccer pitch, but how would these countries fare if their success were based on how well they meet the needs of their residents? The Human Development Index (HDI) is a widely used measurement of the quality of life in countries around the world. Using the HDI as a proxy for how countries would perform the World Cup (i.e. the country with the higher HDI wins each game), matchups in the second round would include (see table at the bottom for the most recent HDI for each of the countries in the World Cup, except North Korea):

Switzerland vs. Brazil
Italy vs. Japan
Portugal vs. Spain
Netherlands vs. New Zealand
Greece vs. Uruguay
Australia vs. England
U.S. vs. Germany
France vs. South Korea

Following the same logic, the quarterfinals matches would be:

Japan vs. Switzerland
Greece vs. Australia
France vs. U.S.
Netherlands vs. Spain

Australia would beat Japan in one semifinal and Netherlands would squeak by France in the other.

In the final, Australia would win over the Netherlands, giving the Socceroos their first World Cup title.

While Australia has been improving in recent years, I think I speak for most fans of the beautiful game in concluding that it’s a good thing that the HDI doesn’t determine the results on the field. Brazil, certainly one of the favorites to raise the cup, is ranked 23rd in HDI among the countries in the World Cup. Ivory Coast, with one of the lowest HDI rankings in the world (163rd out of 182), is the top team in Africa and a leading candidate to stage some major upsets.

While human development levels may be somewhat predictable and unsurprising, sport can be thoroughly unpredictable. Global inequalities persist, but soccer is the great equalizer.

Human Development Index for World Cup 2010 Countries

Rank Country HDI
1 Australia 0.970
2 Netherlands 0.964
3 France 0.961
4 Switzerland 0.960
5 Japan 0.960
6 United States 0.956
7 Spain 0.955
8 Denmark 0.955
9 Italy 0.951
10 New Zealand 0.950
11 Germany 0.947
12 England 0.947
13 Greece 0.942
14 South Korea 0.937
15 Slovenia 0.929
16 Portugal 0.909
17 Slovakia 0.880
18 Chile 0.878
19 Argentina 0.866
20 Uruguay 0.865
21 Mexico 0.854
22 Serbia 0.826
23 Brazil 0.813
24 Paraguay 0.761
25 Algeria 0.754
26 Honduras 0.732
27 South Africa 0.683
28 Ghana 0.526
29 Cameroon 0.523
30 Nigeria 0.511
31 Ivory Coast 0.484
32 North Korea n/a

Source: Human Development Report 2009

The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) today released a study by the Economic Roundtable that provides even more evidence that providing permanent supportive housing for the chronically homeless can ultimately provide public cost savings. These savings have been documented in research in cities across the nation, with the early work being done by Dennis Culhane and colleagues on New York.

Finally, we are beginning to have numbers that show similar savings in Los Angeles. Last month, United Way of Greater Los Angeles released a case study report of four individuals that showed a 40% decline in public costs.

Economic Roundtable’s Where We Sleep report
shows similar levels of savings, but with a much more comprehensive data set (including 10,000 recipients of General Relief in the County). This chart from the report shows how much public costs decline after someone is placed into supportive housing.

Average Monthly Public Costs for Persons in Supportive Housing and Comparable Homeless Persons

Average Monthly Public Costs for Persons in Supportive Housing and Comparable Homeless Persons

Source: Economic Roundtable, Where We Sleep, 2009

That’s a 79% reduction in average public costs. Even when accounting for the cost to provide permanent housing (average of $750 for capital and $352 for operational costs per month), there is a 41% decline in costs.

For years, studies around the country have shown similar cost savings; but a common response in Los Angeles has been, “well, we don’t know if that’s true for L.A.” (we are special here after all). With this evidence, what’s our excuse for not doing everything we can to provide permanent supportive housing for those who need it? Not only is it the right thing to do: it’s the smart thing to do.

This past weekend I participated in the third annual HomeWalk, an event to raise funds and awareness to end homelessness in Los Angeles, with thousands of other people. The walk raises hundreds of thousands of dollars each year that are distributed to organizations working to house the homeless. The money is great, but potentially more important are the efforts through the walk to educate walkers, donors and the general public about the myths and realities of, and solutions to, homelessness. By putting a human face on this tragedy, organizers help people understand that “those people” are more like “us” than we tend to think.

How we approach an issue is most often shaped by personal experiences and relationships. This point was driven home for me again by a letter to the editor in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times, in response to Gregory Rodriguez’s recent column belittling a Senator’s proposal to exclude the undocumented from the 2010 Census:

I am a lifelong Republican who voted for Richard Nixon in 1960, but have always been concerned about dehumanizing our immigrant families and workers in the U.S.

I got involved with the Day Workers Center in Laguna Beach originally to get these day laborers out of our neighborhoods. But I have come to know many of the workers. They are hardworking, believers in family values, honest and bent on improving their lives.

They do pay taxes. They do try to get their children educated. They do contribute to our local economy. More important, they teach our Anglo children the meaning of diversity and respect for difference.

Rodriguez is right in insisting that we recognize our productive noncitizen families and workers — not just because they enhance our population for congressional representation and federal spending allocations but because they belong to our local communities.

Carl Schwarz

Aliso Viejo

This guy started out wanting to get rid of day laborers, but in getting to know them he realized they just wanted the same things he did. Wouldn’t it be great if more people would take a chance to get to know “those people” they put down so much? Maybe they’d realize they’re really just a lot like “us.”

I recently introduced the authors of the American Human Development Report at a presentation and made the point that just as the GDP has been criticized for not reflecting how the economy affects everyday people, the last year has driving home how out of touch stock market performance is with most regular folks. As this chart from a Huffington Post article when the Dow Jones hit 10,000 a couple weeks ago shows, unemployment has continued to rise even as Wall Street has rallied over the last seven months.

In this vein, TIME’s recent cover story describes “What’s Still Wrong with Wall Street.” Allan Sloan writes:

Welcome to Round 2 of Main Street vs. Wall Street. The divide is the worst I’ve seen in my 40 years of writing about finance. In a new TIME poll, 75% of the respondents say they believe Wall Street will revert to business as usual, 67% want the government to force pay cuts, and 59% want more government regulation.

Main and Wall are never going to love each other. And they probably shouldn’t, because their interests aren’t identical. But if we’re going to get through this mess as a society and regain our prosperity, Main Street and Wall Street need to understand each other. And they don’t.

(To see some interesting poll data, as well as a telling graph from Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez’s research on income inequality, check out the PDF version of the article.)

Sloan concludes with four ideas for fixing the disconnect, the first two geared toward policy makers, the latter two directed to you and me.

1) Break up institutions that are too big to fail so that we can allow them to fail.
2) Tell the truth, and play it down the middle.
3) Put not your faith in the Fed or Uncle Sam.
4) And for heaven’s sake, don’t put your faith in Wall Street.

To reinforce these points, I might add that Nancy Gibbs’s article in the same issue on “The Case for Modesty, in an Age of Arrogance” should be required reading for all of us.

We’ve been suffering through the worst economic recession since the Great Depression over the past year, leading many of us to assume that social conditions have been worsening. Poverty and unemployment, and foreclosures have clearly been on the rise, and certainly we’ve expected that homelessness – the most extreme expression of poverty and insecurity – has been increasing as well.

Well, according to the 2009 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count – released today – it hasn’t. The 2009 figure – 48,053 persons homeless in Los Angeles County every night – represents a 38% decline from the 2007 count. This is actually part of a trend over the past four years, as shown in the following chart:
LA Homeless count

When the 2007 numbers came out lower than 2005, a common justification was that the count became more precise as the methodology improved, implying that the earlier count wasn’t as accurate. Having been briefed on this year’s methodology, I agree that the 2009 count is the most reliable we’ve had yet. But, it still begs the question of whether we’re really seeing declines. As one news article characterizes it, “whether the drop was real or the by-product of fuzzy math in previous years, is hard to say.”

Leaders in Los Angeles are trying to frame the results in the positive, claiming that the decline is the result of increased public and private efforts to house the homeless. As Michael Arnold, Executive Director of LAHSA, stated in reaction to the numbers, “We know, we can sense, we can feel that there’s a change out there. These numbers provide us with some documentation, that things are really happening in Los Angeles.”

As I’ve written about before, there has been real, quiet progress in addressing homelessness in Los Angeles. That work is to be applauded. At the same time, we shouldn’t forget that we still have tens of thousands of people in Los Angeles who will sleep on the streets today. We still have plenty of work to do.

more about “How to Save Tax Dollars: Give the Hom…“, posted with vodpod

It shouldn’t be a surprise, but to many people it is.  It turns out that instead of letting people suffer on the street or in shelters, we should be working to provide housing for them.  Not only is it better for them personally, it’s better for all of us because it leads to much lower costs to society (i.e. the emergency room, criminal justice, drug and alcohol treatment, etc.).

Plenty of research around the country has shown that housing combined with services (aka permanent supportive housing) is the best solution to chronic homelessness. Finally, we are beginning to get some hard numbers of how this plays out in Los Angeles, the “homeless capital of the world.”

A report released today by United Way of Greater Los Angeles and conducted by USC researchers provides data on public costs before and after entering housing for four people. The analysis found that:

The total cost of public services for two years on the streets was $187,288 compared to $107,032 for two years in permanent housing with support services—a savings of $80,256 or almost 43%.

This level of decline in public costs is consistent with findings from another upcoming report on Los Angeles which I’ve had the opportunity to review. Hopefully, these reports will push policy makers and funders to direct increased resources and efforts to address chronic homelessness toward the long-term, cost effective solution of permanent supportive housing rather than short-term, costly attempts such as shelters.

The real price of oil

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about the case of indigenous groups against Texaco/Chevron for polluting the Amazonian region of Ecuador. There is a documentary on this sordid tale that has just come out in theaters (currently in NYC and LA but coming out across the country over the next few weeks). It’s called Crude: The real price of oil and was shown at Sundance and other festivals. If you are in LA, it’s showing at the Nuart in West LA from the 18th-24th (and the filmmaker will be at showings on the first two days).

On a related note, Forbes recently published a commentary on the case by Steven Donziger, the attorney representing the indigenous groups in the case. Almost more interesting than the column itself (which is obviously not un-biased) are the diatribes against it from Forbes readers.

Rise in Poverty in the U.S.

The U.S. Census Bureau released new data on income, poverty and health insurance today and as expected the new isn’t very good. The number of people living in poverty rose from 37.3 million in 2007 to 39.8 million in 2008, and the poverty rate rose from 12.5% to 13.2%, the highest level in eleven years. The number of people without health insurance increased from 45.7 million in 2007 to 46.3 million in 2008.

Poverty in the US 1959 to 2008

The poverty rate has generally been between 10-15% since the mid-1960s, so this isn’t a dramatic trend, but there are obviously concerns that it could continue to rise over the next couple years due to the recession. Also, it is important to remember that the income levels at which poverty is measured are relatively low by today’s standards. For example, for 2008 a single person had to have an income under $10,991 to be considered poor, while a family of two parents and two kids had to have an income under $21,834. Clearly a much higher percentage than 13% of Americans are struggling to make it in this economy.

By the way, if you’re interested in how poverty is measured and current calls to update it to today’s realities, check out http://www.povertymeasure.org/

Older Posts »