Investing in Education, Workforce Development and the Safety Net Will Close the Income Gap
By Terri Lee Freeman President, The Community Foundation for the National Capital Region
Ours is a region of breathtaking wealth and heartbreaking poverty. A new report released earlier this month by the DC Fiscal Policy Institute confirms just how large that income inequity gap really is. The analysis, which focuses on the District in particular, reveals that the richest five percent of households have an average income of $473,000, the highest among the 50 largest cities in the United States. Meanwhile, the poorest 20 percent of District households have incomes averaging under $10,000. Income disparity in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs is increasing as well.
In other words, while our region’s economy has led to economic growth and prosperity for many on the middle and higher rungs of the ladder, residents on the bottom of the income scale largely are being left behind.
This is hardly a surprise to those of us who are involved with philanthropy. As one of the leading funders of nonprofits in the Washington region, The Community Foundation for the National Capital Region is committed to promoting equity, access and opportunity for all residents of our community by investing in effective nonprofits. If anything, the new report only reinforces what we see every day through the hundreds of organizations funded by our community of givers.
Our philanthropic efforts take on a new urgency as local and state governments are grappling with budget cuts that would have a devastating effect on low-income residents already hit hard by the recession. As jurisdictions in the District, Maryland and Virginia weigh tight budget proposals and consistently return to human services and housing for cuts, we recognize that it will take both increases in public revenues and increased investments from philanthropy to assure that all residents have access to our region’s prosperity.
While philanthropy alone cannot address income inequality, it can make a difference. We believe economic security can be achieved by investing in three key areas: education, workforce development and the safety net.
1. Education. How can we expect young people to be successful and eventually achieve economic security if their educational foundation is unreliable? We must invest in education to increase the percentage of youth who graduate from high school ready for post-secondary activities. Philanthropy can catalyze change by investing in strategies that prevent youth from falling off track, intervene with at-risk students, reengage students and accelerate completion of graduation requirements, and target drop-out populations for re-enrollment toward an educational and career trajectory.
2. Workforce development. Employers in our region have thousands of positions that go unfilled but for a skilled workforce. We must increase the number of employable adults by investing in effective workforce development that provides workers both increased skills and marketable credentials, post high school. We have too many positions in the region that go unfilled but for a skilled workforce.
3. Safety net. The Washington region has one of the strongest economies in the country, yet poverty continues to grow and the demand for basic safety net services such as food and shelter continues to increase as public resources decrease. Job loss or reduction in hours and the collapse of the housing market make it difficult for families to keep their homes and has led to an increase in requests for emergency services. The impact of the economic crisis is far from over. The Community Foundation’s focus is on helping the region’s safety net operate more effectively, increasing and preserving safety-net funding and improving policies to reduce poverty over the long-term.
In the end, it will take public, private, and nonprofit partners working together to catalyze positive community change and ensure we are no longer a region of haves and have nots.
Beyond Good Intentions: Using Data to Promote Economic Opportunity.
By Benton Murphy Program Officer, The Community Foundation for the National Capital Region
When you hear the word “data,” what springs to mind? Your dreaded math class back in high school? Morning radio stories bringing more bad news on the state of our economy? A roomful of scientists huddled around a computer screen? Whatever the word conjures for you, relatively few amongst us would characterize data as “sexy.”
Which is a shame, actually. Sexy issues seem to get the lion’s share of media, political, and funder attention these days. Sexy issues grab headlines and pull heartstrings because they seem important, immediate, and interesting.
In partnership with our colleagues at Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program, DC Appleseed, and the DC Jobs Council, the Community Foundation for the National Capital Region’s Greater Washington Workforce Development Collaborative released a new policy brief today, Beyond Good Intentions: Using Data to Promote Economic Opportunity. The brief makes recommendations on how to improve the District’s outcomes for workers by strengthening its capacity to collect, analyze, and use data, setting forth a vision for instilling a data-driven culture in the District’s workforce development system.
We’d like to make the argument that the way we use, collect, and analyze data is worthy of a headline or two.
Data is surely important in making decisions. We all use data every day—from deciding whether to drive to work or take Metro when it’s snowing to deciding whether or not to eat that second donut at breakfast, we all use the information around us to help us make the decisions that shape our lives. Effectively using data to inform the big decisions on how to best serve local workers seeking employment or job training is a huge issue in the District, largely because it doesn’t have a lot of this data in the first place. The District simply does not have the data and information it needs to decide priorities, track progress, evaluate programs, and make improvements. The policy brief argues that improving the workforce development system’s ability to collect, analyze, and use data to improve outcomes for local workers is critically important, especially in the light of the fact that more than $110 million was spent on workforce development across 30 District agencies in 2010, according to new research from the DC Fiscal Policy Institute.
The way we use data to inform the way the District supports its residents is most definitely an immediate issue. The lasting impact of the Great Recession is still being felt, with some parts of the District suffering with unemployment rates above 25%. The good news is that over the past year, DC has made strides to strengthen its workforce development infrastructure. New leadership at the Department of Employment Services and the Deputy Mayor’s Office for Planning and Economic Development, the reinvigoration of the Workforce Investment Council, and the promise of the upcoming workforce intermediary position 2012 as a prime opportunity to make lasting improvements to benefit the District’s workers. Ensuring the effectiveness and sustainability of these new efforts, however, will require a renewed emphasis on and investment in, the District’s ability to use data to decide on priorities, track progress, and make improvements.
So is data interesting? It may depend on the audience and how the question is approached. The authors of the brief certainly think it is interesting. Workers who’ve lost their jobs and are hoping to build their skills to start a new career would certainly find great interest in data on what jobs are in demand locally. Employers who are hoping to hire District residents to fill critical jobs would certainly be interested in data on where to find highly qualified workers. District agencies, policymakers, and taxpayers in general would be interested in data to help ensure workforce development resources are being used in the most effective way.
So, if data is important, immediate, and interesting, can we call it sexy? I’d wager to say many people would still say “no,” but will acknowledge that it warrants our attention regardless. The Greater Washington Workforce Development Collaborative is paying attention, and working to support efforts like this research brief to improve outcomes for our region’s workers. Sexy or not, in 2012, I invite us all to take a look and learn more about how we can support better practices in using data. For more information on the Collaborative, please contact us at 202-955-5890.
Like this:
Philanthropy is a Personal Choice: A Response to an Editiorial in the Chronicle for Philanthropy
By Terri Lee Freeman
President, The Community Foundation for the National Capital Region
I remember when I first became involved in philanthropic activities and the company where I worked was considering establishing a corporate foundation. The most challenging part of the process was determining the focus for the foundation’s activities. It truly was a process. I met with the majority of officers at the corporation and there were many suggestions and ideas. But after it was all said and done, we determined that we would focus on children, youth and families, with a specific interest in supporting foster children and the foster care system, and preventing child abuse and neglect.
Fast forward to my time at The Community Foundation, where I am continually fascinated by the variety of giving interests of our donor partners, some focus predominantly on health, both institutional based and issue based. Some demonstrate more of an interest in social justice and research. Others have found their niche in the arts and culture arena, supporting a thriving local arts community as well as prominent national institutions. And the list of interests goes on and on. But ultimately all are interested in contributing to the public good through their contribution to The Community Foundation.
That’s why I was taken aback at an editorial published in the Chronicle of Philanthropy last week that took direct aim at individual philanthropy that supports programs outside the realm of social services. I strongly believe that the beauty of our American system of philanthropy is based on two elements. First, it is extremely personal. An individual can contribute and create change in the issues they find most interesting and by their definition, those needing their support, as long as it is genuinely philanthropic. Second, we provide an incentive through tax deductions for philanthropic support of the public good. One of the most rewarding parts of my job is being able to introduce donors to nonprofit organizations in our region, doing incredible work and supporting our most vulnerable residents.
Perhaps a donor supports animal welfare by contributing to the National Zoo. I can affirm that giving as well as encourage them to support local organizations like the Washington Animal Rescue League. Or maybe their interest is in supporting higher education through scholarships to private institutions. I can provide them with information about Generation Hope, an organization that supports teen parents trying to obtain their college degree. It can be a both/and situation as opposed to an either/or.
While my personal giving interests may be on sustaining a safety net for the families in our region, I’m satisfied to know that someone has an interest in maintaining our national monuments. Their philanthropic investment is a benefit to all of the children and families I want to help, as well as the region and the nation.
Trying to dictate where an individual should give is a very slippery slope; one that I have no interest in sledding down.
By Terri Lee Freeman
President, The Community Foundation for the National Capital Region
Over the course of this week (January 9 – 13) I had the opportunity to participate in two very thought provoking forums that evoked the name and the spirit of Dr. King. The first was a screening of a film, The MLK Streets Project, hosted by the Black Philanthropic Alliance. The second was the annual meeting of the Consumer Health Foundation where Angela Glover-Blackwell, founder and CEO of PolicyLink presented equity as the new economic growth model.
The MLK Streets Project was developed by Straight, No Chaser Productions and One Common Unity. With a group of young people in tow, they toured many Streets, Boulevards, Avenues and Ways across this great country, named in honor of Dr. King. Regrettably, many of these streets are in a state of disrepair and generally found in segregated communities. Do they embody Dr. King’s “dream?” Absolutely not! You see, Dr. King’s “dream” wasn’t simply about judging people based on the content of their character, but achieving economic parity across racial, ethnic and gender lines. Thus providing the perfect segue to Ms. Glover-Blackwell’s definition of equity. Equity, as she defines it, is just and fair inclusion that allows everyone to reach their full potential. In the District of Columbia the lowest hourly wage of the wealthiest resident is approximately $58 per hour versus the highest hourly wage of the poorest resident, at little more than $9 per hour. Based on that piece of data alone, I don’t think we’ve achieved equity. Neither have we achieved Dr. King’s desire for economic security for all people.
So, where do we go from here? Well, for starters, how about engaging in the civic discourse and investing in the people and the places that many seem to want to forget. We can encourage our public officials to include everyone in discussions/decisions that impact our communities. I believe Dr. King would have been encouraged by the Occupy Movement and its message of economic inequality. But, he would implore those involved to define the desired outcome and set a path of action that would lead to success. This leads to my final point. Dr. King was not a dreamer, but a man of action. His goal: just and fair inclusion that would lead to economic stability.
Where do we go from here? We can either begin to create economic opportunities that allow a much larger group of people to participate and succeed or we can promote an American caste system that will surely cost more in the long run.
Where DC Spends Its Workforce Development Dollars: A Resource Map
Today, DCFPI is releasing a “resource map” of workforce development services in the District of Columbia. This project, a culmination of nearly two years of effort, offers a visual way to see how our city spends its resources on services to help residents get and retain jobs. We hope it’s a policy brief that would make the character Rod Tidwell—“Show Me The Money”—in the 1996 film Jerry Maguire proud.
Many states assemble similar resource guides every few years to help elected and appointed officials set strategic workforce policy. The map shows what the District spends on workforce development, what services are offered and who is served. Accompanying the map is additional information—where it was made available by agencies — on grantees including non-profit organizations, colleges and for-profit training providers.
A copy of the map is here. Over the next few days, we will go into some detail to explain it.
Today, we’ll share a few general notes on the map and how it was put together. The map reflects spending in Fiscal Year 2010, the most recent year in which we could obtain accurate information, though we include Fiscal Year 2011 dollars for the University of the District of Columbia Community College to reflect its evolving size and mission. We contacted every DC agency we thought is likely to have workforce development services, in our effort to obtain the most accurate picture of services offered and money spent. We also worked with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the mayor’s budget office, and various advocates involved in workforce development.
The map is intended to be a snapshot of funding and services not a precise audit of dollars.
What are a few big takeaways from the map? First, the Department of Employment Services isn’t the only agency involved in workforce development in DC. The map shows that there are a dozen agencies involved in helping residents enter and re-enter the workforce. The Department of Employment Services plays a big role, but agencies including the Department of Human Services and the Office of the State Superintendent also have significant funding.
What doesn’t the map speak a lot about? Very simply, outcomes. How many residents get employment after engaging in these programs and services? There is very little information available on that. Given our limited resources, it is valuable to know what services are most effective. We hope our elected and appointed officials will improve the data on outcomes and build in accountability measures in upcoming years.
Tomorrow we’ll talk about the major federal funding sources in workforce development and how they are deployed to help DC residents.
