urban planner :: public servant :: change agent

Latest

On The Concept of a American Child Allowance Policy

Part of Cory Booker’s plan to end child poverty as President is creating a universal per child allowance of $250-$300 per month. It’d go to every family, and would be payable in monthly disbursements. I offer some thoughts prompted by the plan and a conversation with a voter, but these are entirely my own opinions. For more information on the campaign’s plan, you can check it out here: corybooker.com/endchildpoverty.
 
Have you ever had any experience with the concept of a university child allowance program? I haven’t until recently. The US is rare among it’s industrialized peers in not having a universal or near universal child allowance program that would provide perhaps $200-$400 per month. It’s also no coincidence that our child poverty rate is second to only Bulgaria in some studies.
 
We may think of TANF (cash assistance) as the back-stop for families on hard times, but only a quarter of families in poverty actually receive TANF because it’s just so darn hard to get into with all the barriers enacted since the 90s.
 
EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) is the closest we have to such a policy, and research shows it helps families at every stage of life (maternal health, school enrollment, college enrollment, work and earning, even helping their retirement through higher social security payments)…but EITC doesn’t do much of anything for parents without income, a total of 13 million families get no safety net support at all (food stamps, housing, cash assistance, etc.), and food stamps themselves can’t pay for rent, bus fare, gas or diapers. Can anyone seriously argue that enables a family to thrive?
 
As I was reminded yesterday, there’s an uncomfortable gut instinct among some (including those with more personal connection to the problem than me) to immediately think of single (black) mother for whom such a policy would discourage work and encourage more child-bearing. But the research suggests the larger effect is actually married moms opting to work more in the home because of how little additional benefit is gained from working outside given the cost childcare. And an increase in the fertility rate (which is likely) would result in a more solvent Social Security system as result to re-balance all the baby boomers retiring.
There’s bias at play that shapes how we view social welfare programs and it stands in the way. The reason I know that the foundation of this argument rests on the proposition that black recipients will be behave differently than the far greater number of white recipients in the program. If that were the case, it would be the socially-constructed role of race that was the explanatory variable and not the program (though it would pose some compelling questions on the program’s design). If it isn’t the case, there’d be no reason to have such a racialized view of the program and we could have a more honest conversation over the whether is good or not. This bias must be recognized and examined, it is likely most easily done by pointing out the racial makeup of the program’s participants and asking about the universalism of the concerns.  We should continue to vigorously raise up and examine the policies on their merits.
 
Big picture, it’s a shame when we understate the extent to which we have gutted our safety net programs that were never adequate in the first place. This includes not just the popularly considered (but pejoratively misnamed) “welfare” programs, but also inadequate primary and secondary education, inadequate heath care and public health, and is compounded by both the racist and structural inequality that that continue to deprive equal opportunity to so many.
Additional Resources
  • https://www.vox.com/2016/5/23/11440638/child-benefit-child-allowance
  • https://ifstudies.org/blog/cash-for-kids-assessing-the-american-family-act
  • https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/13-million-people-in-poverty-are-disconnected-from-the-social-safety-net-most-of-them-are-white/2019/02/04/807516a0-2598-11e9-81fd-b7b05d5bed90_story.html
  • https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/04/15/map-how-35-countries-compare-on-child-poverty-the-u-s-is-ranked-34th/

Analysis of Chicago’s Affordable Requirement Ordinance Data

The Affordable Requirements Ordinance, the City of Chicago’s inclusionary housing policy, was first created in 2003 to promote affordable housing as was a major victory for housing activists. It’s 2007 iteration required approved projects covered to set-aside 10% of units for affordable housing (20% if receiving city financial assistance) or pay $100,000 into a fund for affordable housing. For sale housing units needed to be affordable to households below 100% of Area Median Income (AMI) and rental units needed to be affordable to households below 60% of AMI. The 2015 amendment to the ordinance significantly adjusted the framework, separating out developments in low-to-moderate, high-income and downtown zones, setting in-lieu payment fees between $50,000 to $225,000 per unit, and setting more stringent requirements for including at least a portion of the units in the subject development. In 2017, a new Pilot program was created for the rapidly gentrifying areas of Logan Square, Near West Side and Near North Side (and expanded to Pilsen and Little Italy in early 2019) that went further in creating a units integrated into the approved developments covered under the Ordinance. If that doesn’t make it abundantly clear, the policy implemented by the Department of Planning & Development (DPD) is certainly a maze to navigate.

Read the rest of this page »

A Housing Agenda for Chicago’s Future

Chicago’s next mayor should move the city closer to realization of the right to housing. This is not intended to suggest a merely symbolic statement, but a call to action for a comprehensive framework to expand access to decent, affordable housing that serves as the foundation for household safety and security that extends to the neighborhood. Shelter is a need shared by all, with housing existing as a multi-faceted policy priority that is no more important anywhere but Chicago.

I have worked over the past several weeks to articulate a vision and a series of proposals for the future of housing policy in Chicago, particularly focusing on a policy framework that moves the needle on increasing equity.

Read the rest of this page »