state asset development report card - community-wealth.org

CORPORATION FOR ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT

Benchmarking asset development

in fighting poverty

State asset developmentreport card

Acknowledgments

CFED would like to thank a number of people whose support,

guidance, advice, knowledge, and patience helped to make this

document possible.

First, we would like to express our gratitude to a number of

researchers who guided us in our search for good data, including

Andrew Reamer, Tim Bates, and Roberto Quercia. An advisory group

helped to get us and keep us on track.

Special thanks go to the father-and-son economist team of Bob and

Jon Haveman. It was their work that generated the first-ever state

level data on wealth accumulation and distribution.

Kudos, of course, to the CFED team that put this report together:

Sara Lawrence, Matt Hull, Bill Schweke, Paige Brown, Fiona Adams,

Cecilia Cuthbert, Heather Tyler, Jennifer Malkin, Sean Stickle, Liesl

Heeter, and Bruce Ruffin.

Finally, a great deal of thanks goes to the generous funders whose

patience and wise investments helped to make this project a

reality: the Ford Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the

Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and

the Center for the Study of Social Policy.

—Carl Rist, State Asset Development Report Card Project Manager

An interactive version of this report is

online at sadrc.cfed.org. Use this resource

to search the 68 measures and to cross-

reference any combination of the

measures with any combination of states.

The Corporation for Enterprise

Development (CFED) fosters widely shared

and sustainable economic well-being by

promoting asset-building and economic

opportunity strategies—primarily in low-

income communities—that bring together

practice, public policy, and private markets

in new and effective ways.

CFED supports the public, private, and

nonprofit sectors through research and

demonstration; field services; policy design,

analysis, and advocacy; and

communications. Founded in 1979, CFED is

an independent, national nonprofit

organization headquartered in Washington,

DC, with additional offices in San Francisco,

CA, and Durham, NC.

(202) 408-9788

www.cfed.org

CORPORATION FOR ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT

2002Benchmarking asset development

in fighting poverty

State asset developmentreport card

This report and analysis are based on original source material that has not been developed by the

Corporation for Enterprise Development. Consequently, CFED cannot guarantee the accuracy of such material.

Although all reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this report, CFED cannot accept any liability

for any consequence arising from the use thereof or from the information contained within.

Copyright 2002 by the Corporation for Enterprise Development.

This publication may be quoted with credit to writers, original source information, and the Corporation for Enterprise

Development. Copies of any material quoting from this publication would be appreciated.

ISBN 1-883187-37-0

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Introduction: The Importance of Asset Development in Fighting Poverty . . . . . 9

A Call to Action—10

Key Findings—11

How States Can Benefit—14

Recommendations—16

Measures and Method: The Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

The Three Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Asset Outcomes Index—20

Asset Policy Index—22

Tax Policy And Accountability—24

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

A Word of Introduction on Data Definitions and Limitations—24

How Grades Were Derived—28

State by State: A Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Alabama—32

Alaska—33

Arizona—34

Arkansas—35

California—36

Colorado—37

Connecticut—38

Delaware—39

Florida—40

Georgia—41

Hawaii—42

Idaho—43

Illinois—44

Indiana—45

Iowa—46

Kansas—47

Kentucky—48

Louisiana—49

Maine—50

Maryland—51

Massachusetts—52

Michigan—53

Minnesota—54

Mississippi—55

Missouri—56

Montana—57

Nebraska—58

Nevada—59

New Hampshire—60

New Jersey—61

New Mexico—62

New York—63

North Carolina—64

North Dakota—65

Ohio—66

Oklahoma—67

Oregon—68

Pennsylvania—69

Rhode Island—70

South Carolina—71

South Dakota—72

Tennessee—73

Texas—74

Utah—75

Vermont—76

Virginia—77

Washington—78

West Virginia—79

Wisconsin—80

Wyoming—81

3

Contents

C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T

(continued on next page)

Measure by Measure: Rationale and Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Asset Outcomes Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Mean Net Worth—85

Asset Inequality by Race—86

Asset Inequality by Gender—87

Asset Poverty—88

Asset Poverty by Race—89

Asset Poverty by Gender—90

Households with Zero Net Worth—91

Homeownership Rate—93

Median Value of Home—94

Homeownership by Race—95

Homeownership by Income—96

Homeownership by Gender—97

Financial Assets

Homeownership

Capital

S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D

Asset Policy Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Tax Policy and Accountability Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

IDA Policy—121

Income Tax Threshold—122

State Earned Income Tax Credit—123

State Minimum Wage—125

Asset Limits for Public Assistance—126

State Tax Expenditure Report—171 State Tax Incidence Study—172

Mortgage Revenue Bonds—129

State Housing Trust Fund—130

Property Tax Circuit Breaker—131

First-Time Homebuyer Assistance

Programs—132

Supplementary Funds for Head Start—135

State-Funded Pre-K Program—136

K–12 Education Expenditures—137

School Spending Equalization—138

Funding for Customized Job Training—139

Need-Based Financial Aid—140

College Savings Plan with Matching

Funds—141

Small Business Investment Company

Investments—143

Capital Access Program—144

State Microenterprise Policy—145

State CDFI Program—146

Policies to Assist Asset-Poor Farmers—147

Unemployment Insurance—

Self-Employment Option—148

Employee Ownership Policy—149

Lifeline Banking Regulations—151 State Community Reinvestment Act

Regulations—152

Workers’ Compensation—Coverage—154

Workers’ Compensation—

Benefit Index—155


Benefit Level—156

Unemployment Insurance Reforms—157

Family Leave Benefits—159

State Children’s Health Insurance Program

and Medicaid Expansion for Parents—162

Medicaid Expansion for Low-Income

Adults Without Children—163

Transitional Medical Assistance—164

State Subsidy for Small Business

Health Care—165

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Anti-Predatory Lending Legislation—167 Anti-Insurance Redlining Policies—168

Head Start Coverage—99

Basic Educational Proficiency—100

Associate’s Degree Attainment—101

College Attainment—102

College Attainment by Race—103

College Attainment by Income—104

College Attainment by Gender—105

Small Business Ownership Rate—107

Private Loans to Small Businesses—108

Minority Entrepreneurship—109

Women’s Business Ownership Rate—110

Business Ownership Value by Race—111

Business Ownership Value by Gender—112

Households with a Checking Account—114 Households with a Saving Account—115

Employer-Provided Health Insurance—117

Uninsured Low-Income Children—118

Uninsured Low-Income Parents—119

4


Human Capital

Business Capital

Bank Access

Asset Protection

Financial Asset

Building

Affordable

Homeownership

Human Capital

Development

Small Business

Development

Bank Access

Wage

Protection

Health Insurance

Property Protection

Tax Expenditure

Disclosure

Assets matter. Assets mean economic security. Assets mean mobility. Assets mean op-

portunity.

The United States has a strong record of promoting the accumulation of assets among

its citizenry. The Homestead Act and the G.I. Bill are two prominent historical—and very

successful—examples of asset-building programs, but current 401(k) tax incentives,

home mortgage interest deductions, and other incentives provided by the government

are equally powerful. Most of these incentives, however, are delivered

through the tax code and targeted toward middle- and upper-income

households. Thus, the benefits provided are completely out of the

reach of impoverished families. Worse, given asset limits established in

many public assistance programs, low-income families can actually be

sanctioned for saving for long-term investments that could make last-

ing change in their economic lives.

For the most part, public policies designed to fight poverty in the

United States are structured to focus solely on income. Income is im-

portant; it creates the necessary cash flow to provide food, housing,

health care, and other urgent needs. Yet, in 1998, 25.5% of all

American households had insufficient net worth to sustain living at

the federal poverty level for three months if their income were to be

disrupted. That means that nearly one quarter of American house-

holds—even those with current income streams—could plummet into

economic disaster in times of job loss, divorce, long-term illness, eco-

nomic downturns, and other factors that commonly disrupt income.

As a point of reference, less than 13% of households were identified

as living below the federal poverty level that same year.

There is a large and growing body of scholarly evidence that suggests

that emerging public policies must balance the importance of both income and assets to

meaningfully address issues associated with poverty and self-sufficiency. Given the in-

creasing importance and power of states—both in terms of funding and responsibility

for public policy and in experimenting with new policy directions—the time is right to ex-

amine asset-based policies among states and to encourage bold action that will lead to

strong asset outcomes for low-income people. States have a unique historical opportu-

nity to serve as the leaders and incubators for a policy shift that could change the face

of poverty alleviation strategies in America.

5

Executive summaryA call to action


The United States has a

strong record of promoting

asset accumulation among

its citizenry. But the

benefits provided are

completely out of the reach

of impoverished families.


With its particular emphasis on populations that are often left out of the economic

mainstream, the State Asset Development Report Card considers 68 socioeconomic and

policy measures to compare states on how assets are accumulated, distributed, and pro-

tected among their citizens. Taken together, the measures both describe each state’s

performance as well as highlight a possible blend of asset-based policies that could en-

hance future outcomes.

The Report Card is a call to attention, further inquiry, and action. This

groundbreaking tool captures the most up-to-date data available on

asset distribution and policy and presents it individually for each of the

50 states. Further, it provides rich new data that have never before been

available on a state-by-state basis and highlights some of the myriad of

opportunities for states to assume leadership roles in this exciting area

of policy development.

In fact, even though they may be just another form of money, assets

have different dynamics and effects. Assets are the way resources can

be moved through time. They are durable and can be leveraged—allowing

for relatively great appreciation. They are flexible and can be used to

survive a time without a job, meet an emergency, invest in a business,

purchase a house, or finance an education. In a very real sense, it is as-

sets that allow people to live in and for the future—they provide the rea-

son to believe in it, the confidence to shape it, the impetus to plan for it,

the investment to make it real. (This is why Michael Sherraden, in his

1991 book Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy [Armonk,

NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.], calls them “hope in concrete form.”)

These benefits are as important for poor families as for non-poor fami-

lies. Yet the data presented here clearly show families in the United

States do not reap these benefits equally. Through a range of unique

indicators—many that present data at the state level for the very first

time—the Report Card finds for example that overall net worth by

household ranges from a high of $164,318 (in Hawaii) to a low of

$74,431 (in Oklahoma). Further, in Iowa, for example, only 14% of the population classi-

fied as asset poor. By contrast 32% of all New Yorkers are asset poor, meaning they

lack sufficient net worth to subsist at the poverty level for three months without

other support.

Differences between white and non-white households are staggering. For the 28 states

with available data, Tennessee has the most even distribution of wealth among the

races—and still, white households hold more than twice the assets of non-white house-

holds. This figure reaches it peak in Virginia, where white households hold more than five

times the assets of their non-white peers.

6


Assets allow people

to live in and

for the future—

they provide the

reason to believe in it,

the confidence to shape it,

the impetus to plan for it,

the investment to

make it real.

Other key findings of the State Asset Development Report Card include the

following:

■ In all but one state, asset poverty is greater than income poverty.

■ Asset poverty varies significantly by race, gender, and geography.

■ No state can yet claim the right blend of policies at sufficient scope and

scale to eliminate asset poverty.

While states have experimented with a wide range of asset-building and protec-

tion policies, there is a need and opportunity for large-scale, innovative action.

More work must be done to find the right mix and to implement asset-building

policies of a scope and scale to meet the needs of more than a fraction of the

low-income population that can benefit from them. To do so, states must pay

attention to the assets, not just the incomes, of poor families. Further, policy-

makers must evaluate and enhance their states’ current blend of activities with

regard to asset accumulation and protection for low-income people.

Given scarce time and resources, policymakers may choose to begin with a

small list of activities. If so, three areas deserve particular attention: large-

scale Individual Development Account (IDA) initiatives, asset-protection

measures, and tax expenditure and incidence reporting.

Although no state comes close to meeting the assets challenge, a few are

starting to stand out as true pioneers. Five states earned a spot on the

Honor Roll by receiving an A in both of the State Asset Development Report

Card’s main indices—Asset Outcomes and Asset Policies. The Honor Roll states are Maine,

Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. In addition, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa,

Ohio, and Wisconsin earned an honorable mention by receiving either an A or B in both

indices. There were some regional patterns as well. The industrial Midwest, the

Northeast, and the Pacific Coast did fairly well overall, while the South and Mountain

West had the lowest grades.

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 7


Key findings of the

State Asset Development

Report Card:

... In all but one state,

asset poverty is greater than

income poverty.

...Asset poverty varies

significantly by race, gender,

and geography.

...No state can yet claim the

right blend of policies at

sufficient scope and scale to

eliminate asset poverty.

Interactive online report: sadrc.cfed.org

Use this resource to search the 68 measures and to cross-reference any

combination of measures with any combination of states.

1S E C T I O N 1

For the most part, public policies designed to fight poverty

in the United States are structured to focus solely on in-

come. Income is important; it creates the necessary cash

flow to provide food, housing, health care, and other ur-

gent needs. Yet, in 1998, 25.5% of all American households

had insufficient net worth to sustain living at the federal

poverty level for three months if their income were to be

disrupted.1 That means that nearly one quarter of American

households—even those with current income streams—

could plummet into economic disaster in times of job loss,

divorce, long-term illness, economic downturns, or other

factors that commonly disrupt income. As a point of refer-

ence, less than 13% of households were identified as living

below the federal poverty level that same year.

Arguably the most influential measure in the history of

American domestic policy has been the federal poverty

level—which is based solely on income. Economist James Tobin once said

in response to the official government statement of poverty, “No politi-

cian will be able to ... ignore the repeated solemn acknowledgement of

our society’s obligation to its poorer members.”2 Now we are calling for a

similar response to the long neglected importance of assets as a meas-

ure of poverty.

9

Introduction The importance of asset development in fighting poverty


Arguably the most

influential measure in

the history of American

domestic policy has been

the federal poverty level—

based solely on income.

Now we are calling for a

similar response to assets,

long neglected as a

measure of poverty.


Assets matter. Assets mean economic security. Assets mean mobility.

Assets mean opportunity.

The United States has a strong record of promoting the accumulation of

assets among its citizenry. The Homestead Act and the G.I. Bill are two

prominent historical—and very successful—examples of asset-building

programs, but current 401(k) tax incentives, home mortgage interest

deductions, and other incentives provided by the government today are

equally powerful. Most of these incentives, however, are provided

through the tax code and targeted toward middle- and upper-income

households. Thus, the benefits provided by them are completely out of

the reach of impoverished families. Worse, given asset limits established

in many income-maintenance programs, low-income families can actually

be penalized or sanctioned for working to save to make long-term invest-

ments that could make lasting changes in their economic outlook.

A call to action

A large and growing body of scholarly evidence6 suggests that emerging

public policies must balance the importance of both income and assets

to meaningfully address issues associated with poverty and self-suffi-

ciency. Given the increasing importance and power of states—both in

terms of funding and responsibility for public policy and in experimenting

with new policy directions—the time is right to examine asset-based poli-

cies among states and to encourage bold action that will lead to strong asset outcomes

for low-income people. States have a unique historical opportunity to serve as the lead-

ers and incubators for a policy shift that could change the face of poverty alleviation

strategies in America.

With a particular emphasis on populations that are often left out of the economic main-

stream, the State Asset Development Report Card considers 68 socioeconomic and pol-

icy measures to compare states on how assets are accumulated, distributed, and pro-

tected among their citizens. Taken together, the measures both describe each state’s

performance as well as highlight a possible blend of asset-based policies that could en-

hance future outcomes.

The Report Card is a call to attention, further inquiry, and action. This groundbreaking

tool captures the most up-to-date data available on asset distribution and policy and

presents it individually for each of the 50 states. Further, it provides rich new data that

have never before been available on a state-by-state basis and highlights some of the

myriad of opportunities for states to assume leadership roles in this exciting area of pol-

icy development.

10


More Americans are asset

poor than income poor:

...12.7% of American

households were classified as

income poor in 1998, while 25.5%

were estimated to be asset poor.3

...45.3% of all American

households have fewer than

$5,000 in liquid assets.4

...20% of wage earners

command 43% of America’s

income but 86% of the nation’s

net financial assets.5

Key findings

In all but one state, asset poverty is greater than income poverty.

While the U.S. Census Bureau’s most recent figures report that the national poverty rate

(based on income) is 11.3%,7 conservative estimates indicate that in every state except

New Mexico, the asset poverty rate is higher than the income poverty rate.8

Iowa has the lowest level of asset poverty—reporting a rate of 14%—but in 32 other

states, asset poverty rates exceed 20% of their total populations. In New York, where

asset poverty is the highest, it is estimated that almost one third of New Yorkers do not

have sufficient net worth to live for more than three months at the federal poverty

level without other support.

Asset poverty varies significantly by race, gender, and geography.

Race. In their book, Black Wealth/White Wealth,9 Oliver and Shapiro

report that over 60% of African American households and 54% of

Hispanic households have zero or negative net financial assets10

compared with only one third of all American households. The Report

Card considers several measures, including asset inequality by race and

by gender, as well as asset poverty by race and by gender. Without

exception, the Report Card’s findings reinforce Oliver and Shapiro’s

assertion.

In no state is wealth distributed even close to equally between white and

non-white families.11 The state with the least inequality between white

and non-white households is Tennessee, but even there, the mean net

worth of non-white families is less than 50% that of white families. Other

states with (comparatively) low inequality include California, Missouri,

Colorado, and Florida. The state with the worst asset inequality by race is

Virginia, with the average white family holding more than five times the

wealth of the average non-white family.

In Mississippi—the state with the smallest gap in asset poverty by race—

the rate for non-white families is almost twice that of white families.

Asset poverty by race grows to staggering proportions in many states,

with wealthy Connecticut posting the worst score. In Connecticut, where

overall asset poverty is around 22%, the asset poverty rate of non-white

households is almost four times that of white families. Connecticut is

joined at the bottom on this measure by several other Northeastern

states, including New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

S E C T I O N 1 : I N T R O D U C T I O N 11


The state with the

least inequality between

white and non-white

households is Tennessee,

but even there,

the mean net worth

of non-white families is

less than 50%

that of white families.


Gender. In Who Are the Asset Poor?, Haveman and Wolff—using the

least restrictive definition of asset poverty—assert that 53.7% of fe-

male-headed homes with children are asset poor, compared with only

25.3% of married families with children.12 Again, the Report Card docu-

ments similar conclusions on a state-by-state basis, although asset

inequality by gender is not as large as asset inequality by race, nor does

it have as wide a range.

Nevertheless, in no state is wealth distributed equally among male-

headed and female-headed households. Washington has the smallest gap,

with male-headed households—at the mean—holding 20% more net

worth than the average female-headed household. At the bottom is

Louisiana, where female-headed households hold—on average—less than

half of male-headed households.

The gap in asset poverty by gender is smallest in Arizona, where the

asset poverty rate of female-headed households is only 16% greater

than that of male-headed households. Other states with (compara-

tively) small gender gaps in asset poverty include Colorado, West

Virginia, Oregon, and Nebraska. In the worst state, Mississippi—where al-

most 20% of all families are asset poor—the asset poverty rate of fe-

male-headed households is more than twice that of male-headed

households.

Geography. Using unique estimates of financial wealth,13 the Report Card finds an in-

teresting pattern of wealth accumulation and distribution in the states. The state with

the highest reported mean household net worth is Hawaii, at $164,318 per household.

(It bears pointing out that the cost of living in Hawaii is exceptionally high.) Other

states in the top 10 for mean net worth are more predictable, such as Rhode Island,

New Jersey, and Connecticut. Missing from the top of the list, however, is New York,

whose posting of $103,177 ranks 29th nationally. Oklahoma ranks lowest in the nation

with mean household net worth of $74,431.

Regional patterns emerged as well. As Phillips notes in his book, Wealth and Democracy,14

uneven regional wealth relationships and their shifting nature have always been a feature

of the United States’ economic and political history. This goes back to the Revolutionary

War—the financing and supply of which helped to establish the Northeast as the new na-

tion’s wealthiest region—and continued through the New Deal and post-World War II ex-

pansion, which saw the rise of the Sun Belt industries and the decline of some of the tra-

ditional centers of wealth in the Northeast and Midwest.

12


The state with the

least inequality between

white and non-white

households is Tennessee,

but even there,

the mean net worth

of non-white families is

less than 50%

that of white families.

Based on the Report Card, the leading regions are the Northeast, the

Midwest, and the Pacific Coast:

■ The Midwest posted the highest grades in the Asset Outcomes Index,

with seven of the region’s eight states receiving an A or a B. In addi-

tion, half of the states in the Midwest received an A or a B in the Asset

Policy Index, and no state earned less than a C.

■ The Northeast posted the highest grades in the Asset Policy Index,

with 90% of the states in the region earning an A or B and no states

receiving less than a C.

■ The Pacific Coast performed well on both indices, with 80% of the

states in the region receiving an A or a B in the Asset Outcomes Index

and 60% posting an A in the Asset Policy Index.

The regions with the lowest grades include the South and the Mountain West:

■ Three quarters of the states in the South earned a D or an F in the Asset Outcomes

Index. At the same time, almost 60% of the region’s states earned a D or an F in the

Asset Policy Index, and only one state (North Carolina) earned above a C.

■ Mountain West states also posted relatively low grades, especially in the Asset Policy

Index, with over 60% earning a D or an F, and only one state (Arizona) earning above a C.

13


S E C T I O N 1 : I N T R O D U C T I O N

Mountain

WestMidwest

...highest

grades in Asset

Outcomes Index

Plains

South

Northeast

...highest

grades in Asset

Policy Index

Pacific

Coast

Using unique estimates

of financial wealth,

the Report Card finds an

interesting pattern of

wealth accumulation and

distribution in the states.


No state can yet claim the right blend of policies at sufficient scope

and scale to eliminate asset poverty.

Given the infancy of anti-poverty policies based on assets, it is premature to look in this

Report Card for measurable correlations between asset policy and asset outcome ranks

and scores. However, there are already a great deal of evaluative data about public poli-

cies and programs—such as community reinvestment, anti-predatory lending, IDAs, and

other asset-building strategies targeted toward low-income people—to document the

potential of these programs.

Report Card data show that, of the 10 states that earned an A in the Asset Policy Index:

■ Six require state-chartered banks to provide low-cost transaction accounts (commonly

called lifeline accounts) to assist all families in accessing the mainstream financial system.

■ Eight have enacted a state Earned Income Tax Credit (in addition to the federal credit)

to help working families keep more of their income and save to build assets.

■ Nine have adopted some form of IDA program to help low-income families save, learn,

and accumulate assets.

■ Seven provide funding to help low-income entrepreneurs start microenterprises.

■ Seven offer support to community development financial institutions (CDFIs) to make

loans and provide banking services to low-income communities.

■ Eight prepare and make public tax expenditure reports so that tax-based subsidies

provided by the state are transparent to its citizens.

Yet, as is evident by the sometimes alarming data presented in the

Asset Outcomes Index, even states that are enacting policies to encour-

age the accumulation and protection of the assets of low-income peo-

ple can be plagued by high rates of asset poverty, inequality, and eco-

nomic vulnerability among their citizens. More work must be done to

find the right mix of policies and to implement asset-building policies of

a scope and scale to serve more than a fraction of the low-income pop-

ulations who can benefit from them.

How states can benefit

Now, more than ever, states are constrained by tight fiscal resources. In

an age where new ideas travel at web speed, state policymakers must sift

through more suggestions, more demands, and more proposed programs

than ever before. What makes this suggestion—that poverty policy em-

brace asset building as well as income maintenance—any better than the

myriad other proposals out there? What makes it worthy of a state’s

scarce resources?

14

More work must be done to

find the right mix and to

implement asset-building

policies of a scope and scale

to serve more than

a fraction of the

low-income population that

can benefit from them.


Since the time of Adam Smith, economists have recognized the important

role that assets15 play in the economy. In many respects, assets are recog-

nized as a critical underpinning of household economic security, opportu-

nity, and progress. They represent the ability to invest in the future—to

build skills to earn living incomes, to acquire the security of a home, to

enter the marketplace with a new idea or venture, to invest in one’s children

or oneself.

More recent scholarship16 and community practice provide solid evidence

that even a small amount of assets—in the form of savings, home equity,

business ownership, or human capital—is critical to the well-being of lower-

income families.

In fact, even though they may be just another form of money, assets have

different dynamics and effects. Assets are the way resources can be

moved through time.17 They are durable and can be leveraged—allowing for

relatively great appreciation. They are flexible and can be used to survive a

time without a job, meet an emergency, invest in a business, purchase a

house, or finance an education. In a very real sense, it is assets that allow

people to live in and for the future—they provide the reason to believe in

it, the confidence to shape it, the impetus to plan for it, the investment to

make it real. (This is why Sherraden calls them “hope in concrete form.”18)

These benefits are as important for poor families as for non-poor families. In

fact, recent evaluations of asset-building demonstrations have begun to

show a number of positive effects of assets on low-income children, families, and neigh-

borhoods.19 These and similar studies have documented that, with budget counseling and

financial incentives, the poor can and will save to change their long-term economic futures.

Furthermore, assets can:

■ provide greater household stability,

■ create long-term thinking and planning,

■ lead to greater effort in maintaining assets,

■ lead to greater development of human capital,

■ provide a foundation for taking prudent risks,

■ increase personal efficacy and a sense of well-being,

■ increase social status and social “connectedness,”

■ increase community involvement and civic participation, and

■ enhance the well-being and life chances of offspring.



Assets represent the ability

to invest in the future—

to build skills to earn

living incomes, to acquire

the security of a home,

to enter the marketplace

with a new idea or venture,

to invest in one’s children

or oneself.


Every one of these benefits could be easily extrapolated to mean that asset owners

may spend less time cycling on and off various public assistance programs and more

time as wage earners, consumers, and productive members of the

state’s economy.

Recommendations

Government at all levels—federal, state, and local, should

pay attention to assets—not just the incomes—of poor

families.

This study has demonstrated that asset poverty and inequity matter.

Unfortunately, the data on assets at the state level is virtually nonexist-

ent. The federal government should take an active lead in developing and

collecting data on an asset-based poverty level that will provide regular

updates on the number and percentage of families that are asset poor—

nationwide and in each state. Moreover, states and the federal govern-

ment should collaborate to collect and make available state-level esti-

mates on a number of important asset indicators, including retirement

savings and asset accumulation and distribution among different minor-

ity populations.

Policymakers should act now to improve their states’

current package of public policies with regard to asset

accumulation and protection for low-income people.

Clearly, no state has yet to find the right combination, scope, or scale of public policies

to eliminate asset poverty. The 38 policy measures evaluated in this Report Card offer a

good starting point about which policies to consider.

Given scarce time and resources, policymakers may choose to begin with a small list of

activities. If so, three areas deserve particular attention:

■ Large-Scale IDA Initiatives. IDAs have proven effective. By providing savings

matches and financial education to help low-income people purchase homes, start

businesses, or finance education, more than 10,000 Americans are working and saving

to change their long term economic futures. Nationwide, it is estimated that more

than 65 million people could benefit from this innovative asset-building strategy.

■ Asset-Protection Measures. Emerging public policies must balance the importance

of both income and assets to meaningfully address issues associated with poverty and

self-sufficiency. However, strides forward can be seriously eroded by unscrupulous

marketers and bad luck if certain protections are not in place for asset owners. Such

16


Asset owners may

spend less time

cycling on and off various

public assistance programs

and more time as

wage earners, consumers,

and productive members of

the state’s economy.

measures include access to reasonable health coverage, unemploy-

ment insurance, and protection from predatory lending practices.

■ Tax Expenditure and Incidence Reporting. Subsidies for the ac-

cumulation and protection of assets appear only rarely in discrete, ap-

propriated budget line items. As with the federal model, many state

asset subsidies are delivered via the tax code. The beginning of devel-

oping more equitable policies is to know where this huge, annual in-

vestment in tax subsidies is going. Then, thoughtful consideration can

be given to the productivity and fairness of the current expenditure.

States must improve the transparency of their budgets

to enable a more complete analysis of asset development

policy.

Beyond a lack of data on assets, developing a complete picture of state

policy related to asset development is complicated because states, just

like the federal government, subsidize asset building and protection via

direct expenditures and tax-based subsidies. Tracking direct spending at

the state level is no problem, but trying to measure so called “tax expen-

ditures” is a whole different ballgame. Only about two-thirds of the

states prepare any kind of report to itemize the full list of tax expendi-

tures and to estimate the amount of revenue foregone through these

tax expenditures. Moreover, only eight states have developed a multi-tax

“economic incidence” model that can determine the distribution of the

benefits of various tax expenditures by income level.



Clearly, no state

has yet to find the right

combination, scope, or

scale of public policies

to eliminate asset poverty.

The 38 policy measures

evaluated in this report

offer a good starting point

about which

policies to consider.

Interactive online report: sadrc.cfed.org

Use this resource to search the 68 measures and to cross-reference any

combination of measures with any combination of states.

2S E C T I O N 2

19

Measures and method The approach


The State Asset Development Report Card is a benchmarking tool,

whereby each state is evaluated relative to the performance of the

other 49 states. Information has been collected on each of the 50 states

in three main areas: asset outcomes, asset policy, and tax policy and ac-

countability. Of these, the first two indices are analyzed comparatively

across states and grades are given. The third is provided for informa-

tional purposes only; states are not compared against one another.

The framework for the Report Card was developed after an extensive

literature review and based on the advice of an advisory committee that

included state policy experts, researchers, community development

practitioners, budget and tax experts, and funders.

S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D20


The three indices

Asset Outcomes Index. This index is comprised of 30 socioeconomic data measures

grouped into six categories. The Asset Outcomes Index answers the following questions:

■ How wealthy are a state’s residents, especially those with lower-incomes, and how

evenly is that wealth distributed?

■ How well do residents have access to opportunities to save, especially at financial insti-

tutions?

■ How well are assets protected?

A S S E T S O U TC O M E S C AT E G O R I E S A N D M E A S U R E S : A S S E T B U I L D I N G

Financial Assets

Mean Net Worth

Asset Inequality by Race

Asset Inequality by Gender

Asset Poverty

Asset Poverty by Race

Asset Poverty by Gender

Households with Zero Net Worth

Homeownership Capital

Homeownership Rate

Median Value of Home

Homeownership by Race

Homeownership by Income

Homeownership by Gender

Human Capital

Head Start Coverage

Basic Educational Proficiency

Associate’s Degree Attainment

College Attainment

College Attainment by Race

College Attainment by Income

College Attainment by Gender

Business Capital

Small Business Ownership Rate

Private Loans to Small Businesses

Minority Entrepreneurship

Women’s Business Ownership Rate

Business Ownership Value by Race

Business Ownership Value by Gender

Bank Access

Households with a Checking Account

Households with a Saving Account

Asset Protection

Employer-Provided Health Insurance

Uninsured Low-Income Children

Uninsured Low-Income Parents

A S S E T O U TC O M E S C AT E G O R I E S A N D M E A S U R E S : A S S E T P R O T E C T I O N

S E C T I O N 2 : M E A S U R E S A N D M E T H O D 21


R A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E

Iowa 1 A

New Hampshire 2 A

Oregon 3 A

Maine 4 A

Vermont 5 A

Minnesota 6 A

Washington 7 A

Colorado 8 A

Wisconsin 9 A

Utah 10 A

Alaska 11 B

Ohio 12 B

Pennsylvania 13 B

Indiana 14 B

Nebraska 15 B

Missouri 16 B

Delaware 17 B

Michigan 18 B

Hawaii 19 B

Connecticut 20 B

North Carolina 21 C

Virginia 22 C

Massachusetts 23 C

Kansas 24 C

California 25 C

Illinois 26 C

North Dakota 27 C

Maryland 28 C

Montana 29 C

New Jersey 30 C

Rhode Island 31 C

Idaho 32 C

Wyoming 33 C

Florida 34 C

Oklahoma 35 C

South Dakota 36 D

Kentucky 37 D

New Mexico 37 D

Mississippi 39 D

Tennessee 40 D

West Virginia 41 D

Alabama 42 D

Georgia 43 D

South Carolina 44 D

Arkansas 45 D

Nevada 46 F

Texas 47 F

New York 48 F

Arizona 49 F

Louisiana 50 F

FDCBARanking indicated by number in map; grade indicated by color:

A S S E T O U TC O M E I N D E X : O V E R A L L S TAT E R A N K I N G A N D G R A D E S



Asset Policy Index. This index is comprised of 36 policy measures grouped into eight

categories. The Asset Policy Index answers the following questions:

■ How well do a state’s public policies incentivize asset accumulation, particularly for low-

income families?

■ How well do a state’s public policies protect the assets of low-income families?

■ How well do a state’s public policies facilitate access to the financial mainstream?

■ To what extent has the state removed barriers to asset accumulation?

Wage Protection


Coverage


Benefit Index


Benefit Level

Unemployment Insurance

Reforms

Family Leave Benefits

Health Insurance

State Children’s Health

Insurance Program and

Medicaid Expansion for

Parents

Medicaid Expansion for Low-

Income Adults Without

Children

Transitional Medical Assistance

State Subsidy for Small Business

Health Care

Property Protection

Anti-Predatory Lending

Legislation

Anti-Insurance Redlining Policies

Financial Asset Building

IDA Policy

Income Tax Threshold

State Earned Income Tax Credit

State Minimum Wage

Asset Limits for Public

Assistance

Affordable

Homeownership

Mortgage Revenue Bonds

State Housing Trust Fund

Property Tax Circuit Breaker

First-Time Homebuyer

Assistance Programs

Human Capital

Development

Supplementary Funds for Head

Start

State-Funded Pre-Kindergarten

Program

K–12 Education Expenditures

School Spending Equalization

Funding for Customized Job

Training

Need-Based Financial Aid

College Savings Plan with

Matching Funds

Small Business

Development

Small Business Investment

Company Investments

Capital Access Program

State Microenterprise Policy

State CDFI Program

Policies to Assist Asset-Poor

Farmers

Unemployment Insurance—Self-

Employment Option

Employee Ownership Policy

Bank Access

Lifeline Banking Regulations

State Community Reinvestment

Act Regulations

A S S E T P O L I C Y C AT E G O R I E S A N D M E A S U R E S : A S S E T B U I L D I N G

A S S E T P O L I C Y C AT E G O R I E S A N D M E A S U R E S : A S S E T P R O T E C T I O N



R A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E

A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X : O V E R A L L S TAT E R A N K I N G A N D G R A D E S

FDCBARanking indicated by number in map; grade indicated by color:

New York 1 A

Massachusetts 2 A

Vermont 3 A

Minnesota 4 A

California 5 A

Washington 6 A

New Jersey 7 A

Maine 8 A

Illinois 9 A

Oregon 10 A

Delaware 11 B

Connecticut 12 B

Wisconsin 13 B

Iowa 14 B

Maryland 15 B

North Carolina 16 B

Ohio 17 B

Texas 18 B

Arizona 19 B

Rhode Island 20 B

Michigan 21 C

Pennsylvania 22 C

Hawaii 23 C

Oklahoma 24 C

Indiana 25 C

Kansas 26 C

South Carolina 27 C

Missouri 28 C

Colorado 29 C

Florida 30 C

Nebraska 31 C

New Hampshire 32 C

Virginia 33 C

New Mexico 34 C

Georgia 35 C

West Virginia 36 D

Arkansas 37 D

Kentucky 38 D

Idaho 39 D

Utah 40 D

Montana 41 D

Louisiana 42 D

North Dakota 43 D

Tennessee 44 D

Alaska 45 D

Nevada 46 F

South Dakota 47 F

Mississippi 48 F

Wyoming 49 F

Alabama 50 F



Tax Policy and Accountability. This index is comprised of two measures which an-

swer the following questions:

■ How transparent are the state’s tax-based subsidies?

■ Who benefits from these subsidies?

Methodology

A Word of Introduction

With any research endeavor, the data are never completely sufficient.

This is no less true for the State Asset Development Report Card. Most

of the data were gathered from publicly available sources, such as the

U.S. Census Bureau and nonprofit research and policy organizations.

Because CFED is driven by what needs to be known, not just by what is

readily known, about assets, new data were commissioned for this

Report Card, and, in some instances, proxies—indirect means of getting

answers to important questions—were used. In general, these situations

arose because no one previously had asked about or collected data on

these issues at the state level.

Data Definitions and Limitations

What’s an Asset?

“Assets” is a business accounting term that refers to anything that has

money value. In this sense, income and assets are quite similar—each re-

flecting a different way of representing financial resources. Yet, as it is

most commonly used, assets refer to the accumulation of money, wealth

resources, or property (“stocks”) rather than income spent on consump-

tion (“flows”). Even in this sense, the interpretation of assets can be quite

broad, including everything from financial assets and human capital to

social capital and environmental assets.

For simplicity’s sake, and also because one of the primary objectives in

developing the Report Card is to measure the performance of states in

TA X P O L I C Y A N D A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y C AT E G O R I E S A N D M E A S U R E S

Tax Expenditure Disclosure

State Tax Expenditure Report

State Tax Incidence Study

Because CFED is driven by

what needs to be known,

new data were commissioned.

In some cases, proxies—

indirect means of getting

answers to important

questions—were used.

In general, these situations

arose because no one had

previously researched these

issues at the state level.



helping individuals and families build assets as a tool for achieving economic self-suffi-

ciency, a more traditional, strictly financial definition of assets is utilized. Thus, the

Report Card includes as assets either financial assets or assets that can be quickly con-

verted into financial assets and that typically appreciate in value. This is similar to Edward

Wolff’s concept of “fungible wealth,” meaning that which is saleable and therefore has

current market value.20 Even this definition can be broad and encompasses a range of as-

sets including home equity, stocks and fund shares, vehicles, business capital, checking

accounts, other interest-bearing accounts, and retirement savings. Based on our defini-

tion, the Report Card does not include certain assets, such as natural capital and social

capital, which have important economic value, but for which it is difficult

to assign a market value.

New State-by-State Data on Assets

Data on assets and wealth have never been collected as thoroughly as

data on income. In fact, until now, data have never been available on as-

sets or wealth at the state level. The Survey of Consumer Finances,

which is released annually by the Federal Reserve Board and is one of the

two main sources of data on wealth, presents net worth indicators

(mean and median) in four regions and in nine divisions in the United

States, but not state-by-state. The other main source of data on wealth,

the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), released periodi-

cally by the Census Bureau, also has detailed data on household asset

ownership but does not provide any state-level data or estimates. To

shed light on important aspects of asset accumulation, CFED commis-

sioned researchers Robert and Jon Haveman to generate estimates of

household net worth, asset inequality, and asset poverty at the state

level. The data generated by the Havemans include the following meas-

ures used in the Report Card:21

■ Mean net worth

■ Asset inequality by race

■ Asset inequality by gender

■ Asset poverty

■ Asset poverty by race

■ Asset poverty by gender

■ Households with zero net worth

■ Households with checking account

■ Households with savings account

Data on assets and wealth

have never been

collected as thoroughly

as data on income.

In fact, until now,

data have never been

available on assets or wealth

at the state level.

These indicators were all produced using data collected for the SIPP.

However, as the weighting scheme in the SIPP has been developed to pro-

vide a sample that is representative of demographics at the national level

and not at the state level, the Havemans used the data from Current

Population Surveys over a three-year period (1998-2000) to rescale the

weights. The rescaling was designed to make the sample of observations

present in the SIPP data set consistent with the Current Population

Surveys on the basis of race, gender, and broad income status.

Timeliness of the Data

Because of the lag between the time data are gathered and when they

are available for use, the data in this Report Card provide a snapshot of

the recent past. Although the most current data available for all meas-

ures have been utilized, in some cases the data were collected as far

back as the mid-1990s.22 Moreover, the data do not reflect the very re-

cent past, including the impacts of the events of September 11th and

the recent downturn in U.S. financial markets.

Types of Data—Quantitative and Qualitative

To provide a picture, from an asset-based perspective, of both policy

and performance at the state level, CFED gathered two different kinds

of data for the Report Card. For the Asset Outcomes Index, primarily

quantitative data that are relatively easy to rank, present, and under-

stand were used. For the Asset Policy Index, primarily qualitative data

were used. Because these qualitative data present particular challenges

with respect to ranking states, presenting the data in a manner that is

easily comprehensible, and comparing the data across both indices, a few

words should be said about the policy data in the Report Card.

First, the process of identifying the most effective public policies in a

particular policy area, such as housing or small business development, is complicated.

Determining conclusively which policies actually “work,” and for those that work, which

ones truly benefit low-income populations, can be a huge academic undertaking. Second,

even when it is clear which policies make a difference, problems in measurement arise:

■ Even for the same policy, such as a capital access program, it can be difficult to

capture fully the design, scale, scope, and quality of implementation, all of which

are critical.

■ It can be difficult to decipher whether a state-level program, which is not necessarily

operated by the state, is still a state responsibility and worth “counting.”

■ Comparable 50-state data are not always available.



Because of the lag

between the time data are

gathered and when they

are available for use, the

data in this Report Card

provide a snapshot of

the recent past.

They do not reflect the

very recent past,

including the impacts of the

events of September 11th

and the recent downturn in

U.S. financial markets.

The particular policies selected for inclusion in the Assets Policy Index by CFED were

identified by the Report Card’s advisory committee, conversations with experts, and

CFED’s knowledge of asset-based policies that are the most promising, proven, or effec-

tive. In some cases, these policies were evaluated based on one or more thresholds or

minimum standards to allow some measure of their effectiveness and enable ranking

among states with that policy. In other cases, states earned credit for a particular policy

on a “yes/no” basis, that is, either the state had a policy or it did not.

Finally, because of the different kinds of data used in the two main in-

dices, one should be hesitant to directly compare the grades in the

Asset Outcomes and Asset Policy Indices. First, many promising policies

measured here are not yet being implemented to scale. Second, some of

the current outcomes reflect the legacy of past policies rather than

current ones. Finally, each index incorporates a broad range of indica-

tors—from measures of homeownership to health insurance coverage—

that are not all directly related.

What’s Not Included

A number of important issues or factors related to asset building for

low-income households are not included in the Report Card because the

data are not available or because these issues were beyond the scope of

the Report Card.

Retirement Capital. Retirement savings is one of the most important

components of wealth for most Americans, with pension accounts mak-

ing up the fourth largest share of total household wealth in 1998.23 Yet,

while the number of wage and salary workers participating in a pension

plan at work increased during the 1990s, the Employee Benefits

Research Institute reports that only 52.3% of workers participated in a

pension plan in 2000.24 Moreover, workers not participating in an em-

ployer-sponsored pension plan are more likely to be single, female, less

educated, part-time employees, or non-white.25 Despite the importance

of retirement savings, data at the state level on employer-provided pen-

sion coverage or private savings in the form of Individual Retirement

Accounts or Keogh accounts are nonexistent. However, this lack of data on an important

wealth component is mitigated by two factors. First, research shows that retirement

savings is not as important to most poor households because they tend to be relatively

young.26 In addition, when these households reach retirement, Social Security replaces a

very high percentage of lifetime earnings, and Medicare provides relatively generous

health benefits. Third, federal regulations under the Employee Retirement and Income

Security Act preempt state policy on retirement savings, making the state policy role

less important.



One should be hesitant to

directly compare the grades

in the Asset Outcomes and

Asset Policy Indices. Many

promising policies measured

here are not yet being

implemented to scale.

And some of the

current outcomes reflect

the legacy of past policies

rather than current ones.

Measures Other than Health Insurance Under Asset Protection Outcomes. As noted

earlier, families protect their assets in a number of ways, from health insurance and car

insurance to homeowners’ insurance to life insurance. While this range of asset protec-

tion mechanisms is addressed in the Asset Policy Index, the total lack of data on life and

homeowners’ insurance meant that only health insurance could be in-

cluded in the asset protection category of the Asset Outcomes Index.

Wealth Data Among Different Minority Populations. As noted above,

asset inequality is especially pronounced when comparing racial minori-

ties to the rest of the population. Yet, while racial minorities, overall,

tend to have significantly lower levels of wealth than white households,

the level of asset accumulation among particular racial minorities, such

as African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans, also varies.

Moreover, as demographics shift in the United States, the relative wealth

position of different racial minorities is also changing.

For example, new Census data shows that, after years as the leader in

minority business ownership, African Americans now rank third behind

Hispanics and Asian Americans.27 Although these differences among mi-

nority populations are important, data that would illuminate this issue at

the state level are not available. Thus, the indicators used in the Report

Card that provide breakdowns of various measures of assets “by race”

are simply ratios of white to non-white assets.

Impact of Differing State Legal Climates

Beyond policies and regulations that may be in place in a state, the ac-

tual legal code and how it is interpreted in a particular state can have a

significant impact on asset accumulation and protection for low-income

families. Among the state laws that have an impact on assets are the

treatment of a primary residence in the case of bankruptcy. Some

states put no limit on the exemption for a primary residence when fil-

ing for bankruptcy, while others allow no homestead exemption. In ad-

dition, since unpaid medical costs are a major cause of bankruptcy, the

extent of a patient’s right to sue a malefactor, doctors, and/or hospitals is also a sig-

nificant factor in holding onto assets. While these factors can play an important role in

asset accumulation and protection, their strictly legal nature was somewhat outside

the scope of the Report Card.



While differences in the

level of asset accumulation

among particular minority

populations are important,

data that would

illuminate this issue at the

state level are not available.

Thus, measures of

assets “by race” are

simply ratios of white to

non-white assets.

How Measures Were Derived

Grades for the State Asset Development Report Card were calculated as described

here. (See also the section “Measure-by-Measure Rationale and Raw Data.”)

Asset Outcomes Index

Raw data were collected for the 30 measures.

1. Each state was ranked on every measure based on the raw data ob-

tained. The best state was ranked 1st, and the worst was ranked 50th.

2. The ranks for each measure in the index were added so that each

measure contributed equally to the overall index grade.

3. The sum of the ranks produced an overall score for each state. The

lower the score, the better the state’s overall performance.

4. The score was ranked and a grade assigned to each state. Again, the

best rank was 1st, and the worst rank was 50th.

5. States that ranked from 1st to 10th earned an A; 11th to 20th a B;

21st to 35th a C; 36th to 45th a D; 46th to 50th an F.

Asset Policy Index

1. Raw data were collected for the 36 measures.

2. Each policy measure with a quantitative value was ranked based on the

raw data. The best rank was 1st, and the worst was 50th.

3. Each measure with a qualitative answer—such as a “yes/no” or cate-

gorical response—was changed to a quantitative outcome as follows:

a. All qualitative measures were scored on a scale from 0 to 1. The

best score was 1, and the worst was 0.

b. For measures with a series of thresholds or a categorical-type an-

swer, each threshold met earned a partial point. If all criteria were

satisfied, a “perfect” score was obtained, and the state received a total score of 1.

The partial points awarded within a measure depended on how many thresholds

were contained in the measure. For example, the evaluation of IDA policy consisted

of three thresholds: 1) Is support for IDAs at least $1 million?, 2) Are IDAs included as

part of the state Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) plan?, 3) Is there a

state IDA program either in development or in operation? For this measure, if a

state satisfied none of the thresholds it earned 0, if it met one it earned 0.33, if it

met two it earned 0.67, and if it met all three it earned 1.

c. Measures that yielded a “yes/no” response were transformed into a 0-to-1 scale in a

similar fashion. If the state had the designated policy, it earned a 1. If the state did



To provide a picture,

from an asset-based

perspective, of both

policy and performance

at the state level,

CFED gathered two

different kinds of data—

primarily quantitative for

the Asset Outcomes Index,

primarily qualitative

for the Asset Policy Index.



not have the policy, it earned 0 points. For example, in the state minimum wage law

measure, states that had a law that exceeded the federal minimum wage scored 1

point, while states that did not have such a law scored none.

d. The points for all qualitative measures (“yes/no” and categorical responses) in the

index were summed and a total obtained.

e. The sums were then ranked—the higher the figure, the better the performance. The

best rank was 1st, and the worst was 50th.

f. The single ranking of the qualitative measures was weighted to account for the

number of these measures in relation to the total number of measures in the index,

so that all measures weighed in equally for the overall grade.

4. The single qualitative rank was added to the ranks of the quantitative measures in the

index to obtain an overall index score. This total value for the index was then ranked.

The best rank was 1st, and the worst was 50th.

5. States that ranked from 1st to 10th earned an A; 11th to 20th a B; 21st to 35th a C;

36th to 45th a D; 46th to 50th an F.

Tax Policy and Accountability Index

While not part of the formal framework and, thus, not graded, the tax policy and ac-

countability commentary for the 50 states was calculated as follows:

1. Each measure was given one point for a positive response. For measures with a series

of thresholds, each threshold met was given a partial point that would total one if all

criteria were satisfied (as described for the qualitative measures evaluated for the

Asset Policy Index).

2. The points for the two measures were added, and scores were obtained for each

state. Scores were categorized, with 2 being the best and 0 being the worst.

3. States were not ranked because of the low number of measures in this index.

Important Notes

Missing data were accounted for by shifting the weight of the rank onto the other meas-

ures in the index. Therefore, a state was not punished due to a lack of data availability.

As a result, the remaining measures in the index weighed more heavily in the state’s

grade than they did for a state that had data available for all measures.

When a tie occurred, each state received the same rank, and the next performing state

was ranked as if the tie had not occurred. For example, if two states had the best score,

each was ranked 1st, and the next state was ranked 3rd.

3S E C T I O N 3

No state has yet to find a way to harness the power of asset building for

all low-income families. However, the Report Card is a benchmarking tool

that grades the 50 states against one another on a curve. As such, a

handful of states stand out among their peers and earn their place on

the honor roll. To earn a place on the Honor Roll, a state had to earn an A

in both main indices—Asset Outcomes and Asset Policy. To earn an hon-

orable mention, a state had to receive either an A or B in both indices.

31

State by state: A summary of findings

H O N O R R O L L A N D H O N O R A B L E M E N T I O N S

Honor roll states:

Maine

Minnesota

Oregon

Vermont

Washington

Honorable mention:

Connecticut

Delaware

Iowa

Ohio

Wisconsin

O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T

C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G

A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 42 D A S S E T P O L I C Y : 50 FR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E

Asset Outcomes. Asset distribution among all of Alabama’s residents is substandard

compared with the rest of the nation. The state ranks 42nd in Asset Outcomes, receiving

a D in the index. Financial assets are average in Alabama. The median value of a home in

Alabama is $84,364 (37th), and homeownership rates are above average at 73% (14th).

Alabama ranks 38th in mean net worth at $92,858 and ranks a respectable 16th in terms

of proportion of households with sufficient net worth to subsist for three months. The

state has particularly low scores in the category of human capital, where it scores 43rd

in college attainment, 46th in college attainment by income, and 49th in college attain-

ment by gender.

Business capital in the state is mixed. While private loans to small businesses are relatively

high (5th), the small business ownership rate is lower than average, ranking 39th. Closer

examination of small business ownership reveals that women and minorities face particu-

larly difficult challenges (women’s business ownership rate is 3%, ranking 49th, and mi-

nority entrepreneurship is 48th). Bank access also varies. The state has a relatively high

proportion of households with non-interest-bearing checking accounts (47%, ranking

4th) but a lower percentage of households with a savings account (54%, 42nd).

Asset Policy. There is a critical need for state policymakers to address asset building

and asset protection through state policy in Alabama; the state receives an F and

ranks last in the United States in the Asset Policy Index. In almost all of the policy

measures the state falls in the bottom 20%. Asset protection in the state is minimal—the

state either has no protection policy or it is very limited in scale and scope in terms of

improved access to healthcare for low-income people. Encouraging signs in state policy

occur in the categories of asset limits for public assistance, where the state allows all ve-

hicles to be excluded from the countable asset limits. Alabama also shows some promis-

ing efforts in customized job training (15th) and in equalizing spending among its school

districts (23rd).

Tax Policy and Accountability. Alabama does a below-average job on tax policy ac-

countability. The state fails to prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value

of revenues foregone via tax breaks. The state does analyze the impact of state taxes or

changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all income levels.

K E Y M E A S U R E S

MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$92,858

RANK— 38

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—16

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—38

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—20.0%

RANK—16

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—15

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—31

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—13.4%

RANK—18

Alabama


33



MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$101,462

RANK—31

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—18.9%

RANK—7

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—N/A

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—11.3%

RANK—5

Alaska

S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E

Asset Outcomes. Alaska ranked 11th overall in Asset Outcomes, missing an A by one

place. Alaska is particularly strong in terms of asset distribution, with the 5th-lowest

share of households with zero net worth and the 7th-lowest percentage of asset-poor

families. Alaska also performs well on a number of measures of human capital accumula-

tion. This includes a top ranking for the percentage of low-income kids covered by Head

Start programs. Moreover, along with the 16th-best college attainment, Alaska has the

3rd-lowest gap in college attainment between rich and poor and the 6th-lowest gap in

college attainment between men and women.

On measures of business capital accumulation, Alaska’s performance was somewhat mixed.

While the value of private loans to small businesses and the women’s business ownership

rate are both 1st in the nation, the value of both businesses owned by women and those

owned by non-whites in Alaska ranked among the bottom 10 nationally. Alaska scores mostly

poor on measures of homeownership capital, with a rank of 40th on homeownership rate

and a median home value among the five worst states.

Asset protection in the form of health insurance is also sub-par in Alaska. Employer-pro-

vided health insurance is well below the median. At the same time, 25% of Alaska’s low-in-

come children are uninsured, and 30% of low-income parents are uninsured.

Asset Policy. Alaska does poorly on Asset Policy—landing a D and ranking 45th among

states. Alaska lacks a number of key policies that help low- and moderate-income entre-

preneurs access financing and build business capital. For example, Alaska has no capital ac-

cess program, no small business investment company financing, no state microenterprise

policy, and no initiatives or programs that support community development financial insti-

tutions. While the state ranks 3rd nationally in funding for customized job training, it is

also at the bottom in offering need-based financial aid. Also, the state’s support for af-

fordable homeownership is only modest, with a number of first-time homebuyer pro-

grams but no housing trust fund. Finally, Alaska scores low on policies to protect the as-

sets of working families. For example, the state scores low in measures of wage

protection, ranking 44th in the share of workers covered by workers’ compensation and

47th in the level of unemployment insurance benefits.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Alaska scores poorly on tax policy accountability. The

state does not prepare a tax expenditure report to itemize the value of revenues fore-

gone via tax breaks, nor does it have the ability to determine the impact of state taxes

or changes in the tax code on all taxpayers.

S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E 33

A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 11 B A S S E T P O L I C Y : 45 DR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E

A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 49 F A S S E T P O L I C Y : 19 BR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E

Arizona


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$98,641

RANK—34

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—17

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—18

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—28.8%

RANK—48

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—4

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—1

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—16.3%

RANK—42

Asset Outcomes. Arizona is among the lowest scoring states in Asset Outcomes, rank-

ing 49th in the nation and receiving an F. The state ranks below average in most of the

Asset Outcome measures, with only a few bright spots surfacing in its performance.

Particularly noteworthy scores are the low gaps in asset poverty between whites and

non-whites (4th) and between male- and female-headed households (1st). These accom-

plishments are clouded however by a high level of asset poverty (48th), which is the

number of households lacking a safety net to subsist for three months, and of house-

holds with zero net worth (42nd).

Asset protection in terms of health care is a serious concern in Arizona; the state falls near

the bottom in all three measures. Employers provide health insurance for 58% of residents

(47th), 29% of low-income children are uninsured (48th), and 46% of low-income parents are

uninsured (48th).

Asset Policy. The state fares much better in Asset Policy, earning a B and ranking 19th.

Policymakers have made strides in promoting homeownership and expanding health in-

surance to all of the state’s residents. The state facilitates homeownership for lower-in-

come residents by offering a dedicated funding source through state housing trust

funds, reducing property taxes on low- and middle-income people through property tax

circuit breaker programs, and offering a variety of first-time homebuyer assistance pro-

grams. Health care, a form of asset protection, is made available to more of the state’s

population through Medicaid expansion to low-income adults, transitional medical assis-

tance for people moving from welfare to work (one of only 14 states to do so), Medicaid

expansion for parents, and state subsidies for small business health care coverage (one

of only nine states to do so).

Arizona is mixed in terms of polices that protect family finances in the event of injury or

job loss. Arizona does well in providing quality workers’ compensation coverage, ranking

9th. However, unemployment insurance policies are neglected. The state ranks 48th in a

ranking of the unemployment insurance benefit as a percentage of the state’s average

wage and only incorporates one of three positive reforms in its unemployment insurance

program.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Arizona does an average job on tax policy accounta-

bility. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues

foregone via tax breaks, though this report is not available on the web. Arizona also has

developed measures to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code

on taxpayers of all income levels.

34



Asset Outcomes. Asset distribution among all of Arkansas’ residents is substandard

compared with the rest of the nation. The state ranks 45th in Asset Outcomes, receiving

a D in the index. The state scores erratically in measures of financial assets—ranking 44th

in mean net worth, 49th in households with zero net worth (only one state, New York,

did worse), and 49th in terms of the number of households deemed “asset poor.”

However, the gap in asset poverty between whites and non-whites is relatively small

(ranking 2nd) and the gap in asset equality between male- and female-headed households

is also small (8th).

In terms of human capital, Arkansas has a decent record in early childhood education

(Head Start coverage: 12th), yet struggles to keep up in the rankings for higher educa-

tion. Overall, the state ranks 49th in college attainment, the gap in college attainment

between men and women is relatively large (44th), and the gap in college attainment be-

tween high-income earners and low-income earners put the state at 35th. Moreover,

Arkansas is ranked low in the percentage of adults with associate’s degrees (48th).

Business capital ownership in the state is mixed. While the amount of private loans to

small businesses (per worker) is relatively high (10th), the women’s business ownership

rate is low (47th), as is overall minority entrepreneurship (49th). The value of women-

owned firms, however, is relatively high (13th). Bank access also varies here. The state

has a relatively high proportion of households with non-interest-bearing checking ac-

counts (ranking 7th) but a very low number of households with savings accounts (44th).

Asset Policy. As with most other southern states, Arkansas policies on asset building

are relatively weak, ranking 37th and earning a D. Arkansas is a forerunner in support-

ing Individual Development Accounts, with over $1.5 million invested in helping the

poor save for small business development, education, or homeownership. Areas of

concern are K–12 education expenditures (46th), which are important for promoting

human capital development in the state, and Medicaid expansion for parents (48th),

which is key for increasing health care coverage for adults and children alike (studies

have linked coverage of parents to increased coverage for children).

Tax Policy and Accountability. Arkansas does a poor job of tax policy accountability.

The state fails to prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues

foregone via tax breaks. Arkansas also has no capacity to determine the impact of state

taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all income levels.

35


A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 45 D A S S E T P O L I C Y : 37 DR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$81,270

RANK—44

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—18

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—8

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—31.0%

RANK—49

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—2

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—13

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—22.2%

RANK—49

Arkansas


California

Asset Outcomes. California earns a C for Asset Outcomes, but its average grade masks

some extreme highs and lows in performance. On the one hand, California has the na-

tion’s 11th highest average net worth per household and ranks 2nd and 3rd, respec-

tively, in the wealth gap between white and non-white households and between men

and women. On the other hand, California ranks among the bottom 10 states for its

large percentage of asset-poor families and families with zero net worth. On measures

of business capital accumulation, California’s performance is again uneven, ranking 47th

on the value of minority-owned firms, but 6th on the value of women-owned firms.

California yields mixed indicators on measures of human capital accumulation, with the 9th-

best college attainment and 15th-lowest gap in college attainment between rich and poor,

indicating that California universities are financially within reach of lower-income people. For

younger learners, however, the state needs to do better. California ranks a dismal 48th in

Head Start coverage. Finally, California’s performance on measures of homeownership is ir-

regular, with the 3rd-highest median home value but the 3rd-lowest homeownership rate.

Asset protection in the form of health insurance is one of California’s clear weaknesses.

Nearly 26% of California’s low-income children and 39% of low-income parents lack health

care, ranking the state 40th and 44th, respectively, on these two measures.

Asset Policy. Since the Report Card grades on a curve, California earns an A in Asset

Policy, coming in 5th overall. While the state outperforms its peers with a broad range of

policies, it must do more to address the problem of asset poverty. The state has the low-

est income tax threshold, allowing low-income people to pay less in income taxes and

have more to save. And though the state provides strong support for affordable home-

ownership, with a large share of its bond allocation dedicated to home mortgage finance

and a variety of first-time homebuyer assistance programs, it also has a housing trust

fund that has not received funding for some years.

California does less well on policies designed to protect assets, though changes in the

2002 legislative session helped to address this. Until this year, California had the worst

unemployment insurance benefits and the 3rd-worst workers’ compensation benefits,

meaning that until very recently California had done a poor job of protecting wages

from injury or job loss. Finally, California is one of only a few states that protect home

equity by limiting predatory lending practices and has used Medicaid to aggressively ex-

panded health coverage for low-income working families.

Tax Policy and Accountability. California does a pretty good job on tax policy ac-

countability. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of rev-

enues foregone via tax breaks and makes the report available on the web. The state also

has some capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on

all taxpayers, but this capacity is still limited.


A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 25 C A S S E T P O L I C Y : 5 AR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$131,913

RANK—11

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—2

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—3

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—28.5%

RANK—47

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—7

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—10

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—16.7%

RANK—43


Asset Outcomes. Colorado earns an A and ranks 8th in the Asset Outcomes Index, indi-

cating that asset distribution is relatively good compared with the rest of the nation.

The state ranks in the top 10 in 11 measures. Colorado ranks 1st in the percentage of

heads of households with a college degree and in the ratio of degrees attained by the

wealthy and the poorest—indicating that college is within reach of the poor.

Households headed by women do not lag behind male-headed households in terms of

homeownership, attainment of a college degree, or in having a three-month financial

safety net (Colorado places 2nd in homeownership by gender, 8th in college attainment

by gender, and 2nd in asset poverty by gender). This indicates that women have a more

equal share in asset holdings when compared with other states. Colorado also scores high

on measures of women’s business ownership (3rd) and the gap in assets between white-

and non-white-headed households (4th); further, the gap between white and non-white

households in terms of a three-month savings safety net is small (8th).

There is room for improvement in terms of health care as a form of asset protection.

The state performs poorly in providing health insurance to low-income parents (ranking

37th) and their children (ranking 44th).

Asset Policy. In Asset Policy, Colorado earns an average grade of C and ranks 29th.

State policymakers are supporting asset building through several measures including,

Individual Development Accounts, state-funded pre-kindergarten programs, and policies

to beginning farmers and other farmers who lack the significant amount of capital

needed to enter the field. The state is particularly strong in its efforts to help disadvan-

taged entrepreneurs through its small business investment company financing (these are

companies that target financing to economically and socially disadvantaged entrepre-

neurs), ranking 2nd. The state has also equalized spending among its school districts

(ranking 5th).

Scores could improve if policymakers focused more on protecting family finances in

the event of injury or job loss workers, as the average weekly workers’ compensation

benefit level ranks 43rd. The state could also improve health care policies (it ranks 39th

in Medicaid expansion for parents, which is key, as covering parents has been linked to in-

creased coverage for children).

Tax Policy and Accountability. Colorado could improve its tax policy accountability.

Colorado fails to prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues

foregone via tax breaks. However, Colorado does determine the impact of state taxes or


37


A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 8 A A S S E T P O L I C Y : 29 CR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$113,530

RANK—24

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—4

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—7

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—23.9%

RANK—38

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—8

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—2

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—15.6%

RANK—34

Colorado


Asset Outcomes. Connecticut scores slightly above the national average, earning a B

and ranking 20th in the Asset Outcomes Index. The state’s final grade resulted from ex-

tremely high and low scores across the index. For example, in the measures of financial

assets, Connecticut boasts a mean net worth of $140,989 (6th), yet the state has a

below-average rank on the gap in asset poverty between white and non-white house-

holds (28th), a higher average asset poverty rate (ranking 29th), and a significant num-

ber of households possessing zero net worth (36th). The asset gap between men and

women, though, is relatively small (6th). The state also dips down in opportunities to ac-

cumulate business capital, ranking 2nd to last in private loans to small businesses (49th).

Owning a home is the largest source of assets for most Americans, but in Connecticut,

this opportunity is limited. The homeownership rate in Connecticut is below the median

(28th), and in particular, the gap in homeownership between white and non-white fami-

lies is the 5th largest among all states.

With regard to human capital measures, Connecticut ranks 1st and 3rd in the nation for

basic educational proficiency in reading and math, respectively, and 5th for overall college

attainment. The state sinks back down again when considering parity with regard to income,

race, or gender, ranking 39th in Head Start coverage, 42nd in the gap in college attainment

between whites and non-whites, and 47th in the gap in college attainment between men

and women. The state improves when looking specifically at measures of asset protection

and health coverage, ranking 1st in the nation in employer-provided health insurance.

Asset Policy. Connecticut earns a B on the Asset Policy Index, ranking 12th in the na-

tion. Importantly, Connecticut is one of very few states with a state minimum wage

higher than the federal minimum wage. State policymakers show commitment to in-

vestments in human capital assets, as evidenced by a state-funded pre-kindergarten pro-

gram, supplementary funds for Head Start, and significant investments in K–12 educa-

tion expenditures (6th).

On the other hand, Connecticut’s asset protection policies need significant improvement.

Connecticut ranks 48th in the nation in unemployment insurance benefit levels and has

no state policy promoting public or private family leave benefits. These policies can help

protect families from financial hardship when working members must take essential time

off for family reasons. State policymakers have also not taken adequate steps to protect

homeowners from predatory lending or insurance redlining.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Connecticut does a fair job on tax policy accountabil-

ity. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues

foregone via tax breaks, and places this report on the web. It does not, however, have

the capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on tax-

payers of all incomes.

38


A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 20 B A S S E T P O L I C Y : 12 BR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E

Connecticut


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$140,989

RANK—6

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—12

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—6

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—22.5%

RANK—29

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—28

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—14

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—16.1%

RANK—36


Asset Outcomes. Delaware earns a B and ranks 17th in the Asset Outcome Index, indi-

cating above-average levels of asset distribution and protection in the state. Mean net

worth in Delaware is $131,466 (14th), and asset poverty rates in the state earn it the

rank of 30th in that measure. Home equity is the single largest source of wealth for

Americans, and the state performs exceptionally well in homeownership measures, earn-

ing above-average ranking in overall homeownership rates (72%, ranking 17th) and enjoy-

ing the 6th-highest median value of homes in the nation ($126,761). It has a relatively

small gap in homeownership between high-income earners and low-income earners (4th)

and in homeownership between whites and non-whites (18th), indicating that low-income

and minority residents have more equal access to homeownership options when com-

pared with other states. The gap between homeownership for men and women in

Delaware, however, lags far behind (44th).

Delaware shows mixed results when examining human capital measures, earning re-

spectable ranks in Head Start coverage (10th) and overall college attainment (17th) but

below-average scores in the gap in college attainment between whites and non-whites

(28th) and between men and women (34th).

Asset Policy. Delaware shows above average performance with regard to state asset-

building and protection policies. Financial assets could be bolstered by enacting an

Individual Development Account policy and a state Earned Income Tax Credit, both of

which were recommended by a recent Governor’s Task Force for Financial Independence.

Delaware’s minimum wage is higher than the federal minimum wage, helping the state’s

workers earn more and have more to save.

With regard to asset-protection policies, Delaware ranks 3rd in the nation in workers’

compensation coverage and provides transitional medical assistance to former wel-

fare recipients. These policies help workers protect family finances in the event of in-

jury, job loss, or inadequate employer-provided benefits. Delaware could do more to

help families protect assets. For example, improving the state’s rank (44th) in the benefit

level of unemployment insurance would help protect family assets temporarily when a

worker loses his/her job. Also, policies to stop harmful predatory lending and insurance

redlining practices could be enacted to protect property owners.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Delaware does a pretty good job on tax policy ac-


enues foregone via tax breaks and makes the report available on the web. The state also

has some capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on

all taxpayers, but this capacity is still limited.

39




MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$131,466

RANK—14

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—22.6%

RANK—30

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—N/A

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—14.0%

RANK—23

Delaware


Asset Outcomes. Asset distribution among all of Florida’s residents is just below the median

compared with the rest of the nation. The state ranks 34th in Asset Outcomes, receiving a C

in the index. Florida has a relatively low level of asset poverty (proportion of households that

lack savings to subsist for three months), ranking 11th. While scoring generally in the middle

of the class in most categories, the state receives high marks for having a relatively small

gap in mean net worth between white- and non-white-headed households (5th) and also a

small gap in the three-month safety net held by male- and female-headed households (9th).

Florida ranks around the middle (22nd) in terms of mean net worth, with a value of $117,023.

Florida has the highest score in minority entrepreneurship, ranking 1st in the nation,

but scores very low (48th) in the value of minority businesses. These measures would

seem to indicate that Florida’s non-white population owns a significant share of busi-

nesses in the state; however the value of these firms is relatively low considering their

high representation in the state. Human capital in terms of early childhood education

could use a boost in Florida (it is 47th in Head Start coverage and 30th in basic educa-

tional proficiency in reading). Overall college attainment is mediocre (32nd), yet the gap

in college attainment between whites and non-whites is relatively small (14th). The gap in

college attainment between men and women, though, is of greater concern (41st).

Florida also could do much better in health coverage, ranking 44th in percentage of indi-

viduals covered by employer-provided health insurance and 41st in the percentage of

uninsured low-income parents.

Asset Policy. Florida’s record in Asset Policy is mixed, ranking 30th and earning a C

overall. Florida does well in homeownership policy, using mortgage revenue bonds to help

low-income people purchase homes (8th), having adequate homebuyer assistance pro-

grams, and establishing a state housing trust fund. Financial assets for lower-income

Floridians could be increased with a stronger policy of Individual Development Accounts

and a state minimum wage higher than the federal minimum.

Although Florida has a state-funded pre-kindergarten program, policymakers could do

more to support human capital development. The state ranks low in K–12 education

spending (37th) and ranks near the bottom (44th) in investments in customized job train-

ing. Decision-makers in Florida need to focus more attention on health and property pro-

tection. Policies to consider include Medicaid expansion for low-income adults without chil-

dren, better family leave benefits, transitional medical assistance, and state subsidies for

small business health care coverage. In terms of property protection, policies restricting

predatory lending and insurance redlining could be enacted.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Florida has a mixed record on tax policy accountabil-

ity. Florida prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues fore-

gone via tax breaks. However, it has no capacity to determine the impact of state taxes

or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all income levels.

40


A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 34 C A S S E T P O L I C Y : 30 CR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E

Florida


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$117,023

RANK—22

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—5

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—24

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—19.6%

RANK—11

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—20

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—9

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—13.2%

RANK—17


Asset Outcomes. Asset distribution among all Georgia’s residents is low compared with

the rest of the nation. The state ranks 43rd in Asset Outcomes, receiving a D in the

index. As with most other southern states, mean net worth is low (40th) at $89,855. The

proportion of households lacking savings to subsist for three months is also low (41st), as

is the proportion of households with zero net worth (44th). Homeownership capital in

the state fares better. The overall homeownership rate is 70% (30th), and the median

value of homes is $110,337 (11th). Furthermore, the gap in homeownership between

high-income earners and low-income earners is relatively small (11th), and this same gap

between male- and female-headed households is also small (13th).

Georgia does better than most other southern states in business and education rank-

ings, landing around the middle of the class, with the exception of percentage of the

population with associate’s degrees (42nd). In terms of business capital, Georgia’s rank

of the value of businesses owned by women is the highest in the south and 5th nation-

ally. Yet the overall small business ownership rate is relatively low at 10.5% (42nd), and

minority entrepreneurship is also somewhat low (40th). Bank access could also be im-

proved here. The number of households with a non-interest-bearing checking account

ranks 30th, and the number of households with a savings account ranks 47th.

Asset Policy. Georgia generally falls in the middle in Asset Policy, receiving a C in the

index. Georgia has done well in helping low-income people purchase homes, as the state

has implemented adequate first-time homebuyer assistance programs. It highest rank-

ings are in equalizing spending among its school districts (18th) and in support for disad-

vantaged entrepreneurs through small business investment company financing (these

are companies that target financing to economically and socially disadvantaged entre-

preneurs; Georgia ranks 15th). Georgia is also one of 14 states to offer transitional med-

ical assistance as people move from welfare to work, protecting assets of low-income

workers with medical assistance.

However, Georgia does not do well on a variety of other measures, such as unemploy-

ment insurance benefit levels (40th), and Medicaid expansion for low-income parents

(39th), which has been linked to increasing Medicaid enrollment for low-income children.

With better policy in these areas, worker protection and health care could be enhanced

for lower-income families in the state.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Georgia does a poor job on tax policy accountability.


foregone via tax breaks. It also has no capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or


41


A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 43 D A S S E T P O L I C Y : 35 CR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$89,855

RANK—40

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—23

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—21

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—25.5%

RANK—41

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—16

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—25

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—17.1%

RANK—44

Georgia


Asset Outcomes. Overall, Hawaii earned a B in Asset Outcomes. Hawaii has the nation’s

highest average net worth per household and relatively small gaps in most measures

of wealth accumulation between white and non-white households. For example, Hawaii

has the lowest gap in homeownership between white and non-white households and the

2nd-lowest gap in college attainment between white and non-white households. On meas-

ures of business capital, Hawaii is among the top 20 in small business ownership and ranks

7th in minority entrepreneurship. Hawaii’s performance is uneven on homeownership capi-

tal, with the highest median home value but the 2nd-lowest homeownership rate.

Hawaii’s Achilles’ heel is asset accumulation among lower-income households. Eighteen

percent of Hawaiian households have zero or negative net worth (ranking 47th), and

asset poverty is relatively high (ranking 40th). Hawaii also has the 3rd-highest gap in

homeownership between rich and poor. Asset protection in the form of health insurance

is a bright spot; Hawaii has the lowest percentage of low-income uninsured parents of all

states and the 11th lowest percentage of uninsured low-income children.

Asset Policy. Hawaii turns in a mixed performance in Asset Policy, thus earning a C. The

major bright spot for Hawaii is its affordable homeownership policies. These policies are

critical given Hawaii’s sky-high median home value. The upside is that homes are valuable

assets in Hawaii; the downside is that homes are expensive. To help low-income families

purchase homes, Hawaii has a housing trust fund, funds a variety of first-time home-

buyer assistance programs, provides property tax relief for elderly and disabled home-

owners, and ranks 13th in the share of private activity bonds dedicated to home mort-

gage finance.

Hawaii is also strong on asset-protection policies. With the best unemployment insurance

benefits and the 7th-best workers’ compensation benefits, Hawaii does a good job of

protecting wages from injury or job loss. In addition, Hawaii has done a good job of pro-

tecting households from large medical costs by using Medicaid to expand health cover-

age to low-income working parents and low-income adults without children.

Hawaii could do better in terms of facilitating business ownership by improving access to

capital for low- and moderate-income entrepreneurs. While Hawaii offers financing

through a small business investment company, the state has no capital access program,

minimal state microenterprise policies, no support for community development financial

institutions, and has not enacted a state Community Reinvestment Act to cover state-

chartered banks. Action on any of these fronts could enhance business formation by

low-income and other nontraditional entrepreneurs.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Hawaii scores poorly on tax policy accountability. The

state prepares neither a tax expenditure report to itemize the value of revenues fore-

gone via tax breaks, nor does it have the ability to determine the impact of state taxes

or changes in the tax code on all taxpayers.

42


A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 19 B A S S E T P O L I C Y : 23 CR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E

Hawaii


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$164,318

RANK—1

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—25.2%

RANK—40

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—N/A

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—18.1%

RANK—47


Asset Outcomes. Idaho ranks 32nd in Asset Outcomes, earning a C. The state scores

well in some of the measures capturing the parity of asset distribution, for example,

the gap in homeownership by male- and female-headed households is low (3rd), and

the gap in college attainment by wealthy and poor residents is relatively low (5th).

Overall, Idaho ranks 34th in the proportion of households lacking the savings to subsist

for three months (one measure of asset poverty) and 37th in mean net worth ($96,358).

Other measures show that there remains room for improvement in asset equity. For ex-

ample, there is a large gap between the percentage of white and non-white heads of

households with a college degree (43rd). Some commendable rankings for Idaho include

households with non-interest-bearing checking accounts (50%, ranking 3rd) and percent-

age of residents with associate’s degrees (6th). However, a low percentage of Idahoans

(45%) hold savings accounts, ranking 49th nationwide.

Health coverage is also an area needing improvement. Idaho ranks 46th in the percent-

age of uninsured low-income children (28%) and 47th in the percentage of uninsured

low-income parents (43%).

Asset Policy. Idaho comes in below average in the Asset Policy Index, earning a D and

ranking 39th. The state has only a few policies to protect family finances and health in

the event of injury or job loss, such as strong workers’ compensation provisions and

health care. Idaho does have a handful of policies that encourage asset building among

all of its residents. Of these, state policymakers have supported limited Individual

Development Account policies and multiple initiatives to help first-time homebuyers.

However, more needs to be done. Efforts to support education are weaker in Idaho com-

pared with the rest of the nation (K–12 expenditures rank 45th, and need-based financial

aid for college is 40th). In addition, Idaho could increase workers’ compensation coverage

(40th).

Tax Policy and Accountability. Idaho does a fair job on tax policy accountability. The

state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues foregone

via tax breaks and makes this report easily available by placing it on the web. Idaho, how-

ever, has no capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code

on taxpayers of all income levels.

43


A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 32 C A S S E T P O L I C Y : 39 DR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$96,358

RANK—37

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—23.5%

RANK—34

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—12

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—15.3%

RANK—30

Idaho


Asset Outcomes. Illinois is average in Asset Outcomes, earning a C and ranking 26th na-

tionwide. On measures of financial assets, the state is middle-of-the-road, ranking 20th

for mean net worth ($118,146 per household), 15th for the percentage of asset poor

families (20%) and 29th for the percentage of households with zero net worth (15%).

Notable achievement comes in the gap in wealth between white and non-white house-

holds, which is the nation’s 6th smallest. On measures of homeownership capital, Illinois is

equally lackluster. Only 68% of families own their own homes (ranking 39th) and the gap

in homeownership between rich and poor and between white and non-white households,

ranking 35th and 36th respectively, is relatively large. Finally, besides a relatively small

gap in college attainment between white-headed and non-white-headed households,

Illinois has uninspiring scores on measures of human capital accumulation.

Asset protection in the form of health insurance is also average in Illinois. The state ranks

above the median for the percentage of residents covered by employer-provided health

insurance (15th) and the percentage of uninsured low-income parents (21st), but ranks

31st in the percentage of uninsured low-income children (almost 22% of the state’s low-

income children).

Asset Policy. Policymakers in Illinois have passed a good set of initiatives for asset build-

ing and asset protection when compared with the rest of the United States. The state

ranks 9th in the index and earns an A. For example, financial asset accumulation is en-

couraged through support for Individual Development Account policies and more gen-

erous asset limits for public assistance. Moreover, the state has enacted a number of

programs to support small business development and the accumulation of business capi-

tal, including a capital access program, support for community development financial in-

stitutions, and policies to support employee ownership. Finally, the state is one of only

six to increase access to asset-building opportunities by passing lifeline banking regula-

tions that require banks to offer lower fee accounts for senior citizens. To help low-in-

come families keep more of their earnings and have more to save, the state should con-

sider making its Earned Income Tax Credit more generous and refundable.

Illinois does a good job of protecting assets in homes, with policies to prevent insurance

redlining and predatory mortgage lending. At the same time, Illinois lacks many health in-

surance policies that could help shield family finances from medical emergencies. To im-

prove in this area, state policymakers should consider enacting state family leave bene-

fits and extending transitional medical assistance beyond 12 months for people leaving

welfare for work.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Illinois does an above-average job on tax policy ac-


enues foregone via tax breaks, though this report is not available on the web. Illinois also

analyzes the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all income

levels.

44



Illinois


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$118,146

RANK—20

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—6

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—12

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—20.0%

RANK—15

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—21

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—30

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—15.0%

RANK—29


Asset Outcomes. Indiana is above average in Asset Outcomes; the state receives a B in

the index and ranks 14th overall. Although the proportion of households lacking savings

to subsist for three months (a measure of asset poverty) is just below average (27th),

the state has a small gap in asset poverty between white-headed and non-white-headed

households (12th), and the gap in mean net worth between white-headed households

and non-white-headed households is relatively small (14th). Indiana’s mean net worth is

$101,622, ranking only 30th.

On the whole, measures of homeownership are strong. The homeownership rate is

75% (8th), and the gap in homeownership between white- and non-white-headed

households is relatively small, with Indiana ranking 4th in this measure of racial parity.

Indiana boasts good scores in educational proficiency in math (4th). The gap in college at-

tainment between white- and non-white-headed households is small (4th), and the gap of

college attainment between the wealthiest and poorest residents is small (6th).

Conversely, the overall rate of college attainment is not good (47th), nor is the percent-

age of residents who have obtained an associate’s degree; both measures are worrisome,

as education helps determine economic prospects.

Measures of health insurance also vary. Employer-provided health insurance is good (8th),

yet 23% of low-income children (36th) and 29% of low-income parents are uninsured

(19th).

Asset Policy. Falling at the midpoint exactly (25th), Indiana earns a C in Asset Policy. The

state was one of the pioneers in supporting financial asset building through Individual

Development Account policies and encourages homeownership with a housing trust fund

and multiple first-time homebuyer assistance programs. Efforts to spur business and

human capital are also notable, such as the state’s capital access program (which pro-

vides incentives for private banks to make loans to low- and moderate-income communi-

ties). In terms of human capital, Indiana ranks 7th in provision of need-based financial aid

and 10th in K–12 expenditures.

More attention needs to be placed on asset protection in the state. For example, the

state has not been aggressive at expanding health care coverage to parents of Medicaid-

eligible children, nor has it passed anti-predatory mortgage lending laws or anti-insurance

redlining laws to protect the assets of low-income homeowners.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Indiana does a poor job on tax policy accountability.


foregone via tax breaks. It also has no capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or


45




MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$101,622

RANK—30

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—14

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—20

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—22.2%

RANK—27

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—12

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—29

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—13.6%

RANK—21

Indiana


Asset Outcomes. Iowa ranks 1st in the nation on Asset Outcomes. Its success is

broad-based, with strong outcomes in most measures of asset accumulation and dis-

tribution. For example, Iowa has not only the 5th-highest average household net worth,

but also the lowest rates of asset poverty and households with zero net worth. Iowa also

ranks high on most measures of human capital accumulation and distribution—landing in

the top 10 nationwide in basic educational proficiency in both math and reading and

ranking 11th in the category of adults with at least an associate’s degree. In addition,

Iowa is among the 10 states with the lowest gaps in college attainment between rich and

poor, whites and non-whites, and males and females.

Iowa’s performance shows more mixed results in homeownership capital accumulation.

The state has the 6th-best homeownership rate and the 5th-lowest gap in homeowner-

ship between rich and poor. Yet, the state ranks 46th in homeownership by race, mean-

ing that non-white-headed households have low homeownership rates relative to white-

headed households. Finally, asset protection in the form of health insurance is also a

bright spot, with Iowa having the 12th lowest percentage of uninsured low-income chil-

dren and the 4th-lowest percentage of low-income uninsured parents.

Asset Policy. Iowa earned an above average B in Asset Policy, ranking 14th among all states.

The state does a good job of helping families to build financial assets, with a state Earned

Income Tax Credit and a fairly high income tax threshold, which allow low-income tax-

payers to pay less in income taxes and have more to save. Iowa has also been at the

forefront of the new movement to provide wealth-building incentives for low-income

households and was the first state to enact Individual Development Accounts legislation.

Iowa also has strong policies to support human capital accumulation, ranking 1st in cus-

tomized job training investments per capita, 8th in need-based financial aid, and among

the top 20 in K–12 expenditures and investments to equalize per-pupil spending among

all the state’s school districts.

Iowa also performs well on asset protection policies. With the 4th-highest unemployment

insurance benefits and the 20th-highest workers’ compensation benefits, Iowa does well

in protecting wages from injury or job loss. Iowa also does a good job of protecting

households from large medical costs that can deplete assets. For example, the state has

been relatively aggressive at expanding health coverage to low-income working parents

using Medicaid. In addition, Iowa is also one of nine states to offer subsidies for small

businesses to offer health insurance to their employees.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Iowa performs well on tax policy accountability. The

state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues foregone

via tax breaks and makes the report available on the web. The state also has some capac-

ity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on all taxpayers,

but this capacity is still limited.

46


A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 1 A A S S E T P O L I C Y : 14 BR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E

Iowa


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$142,327

RANK—5

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—14

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—14.2%

RANK—1

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—32

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—8.9%

RANK—1


Asset Outcomes. Kansas earns a C in Asset Outcomes, ranking 24th out of all states.

The majority of its asset outcome measures also fell into this mediocre range (rather

than exhibiting a mix of highs and lows, as with California). Mean net worth in Kansas is

$120,112, ranking 19th and asset poverty is somewhat higher here, receiving a rank of

32nd. Other financial assets of Kansas residents tend toward the low end: the state

ranked 32nd in the proportion of residents who lack sufficient net worth to subsist at

the poverty level for three months. Kansas also came in 35th in terms of the gap in as-

sets between men and women and 20th in the gap in asset poverty between men and

women.

Kansas also falls into the middle range for business capital—about 12% of Kansans ac-

tively holds business capital, landing Kansas 21st among states in the business ownership

rate. Kansas ranks 25th for minority entrepreneurship, showing that the state has a

mediocre share of non-white firms in the state. Kansas does better in terms of business

ownership value by race, ranking 15th.

As with other sectors, Kansas, does middling for health care—almost 20% of the state’s

low-income children lack insurance, and 28% of low-income parents lack insurance.

Asset Policy. Kansas earned a C in Asset Policy, ranking 26th among all states. Kansas

does fairly well on wage protection, offering 45% of the average weekly wage as an

unemployment benefit, earning the state a 2nd-place ranking. (In contrast, the bot-

tom state, California, offers only 22% of the state’s average weekly wage as an unem-

ployment benefit.) Ninety percent of Kansas’ workers are covered by workers’ compensa-

tion, leading to a ranking of 19th. These measures—unemployment insurance and

workers’ compensation—help protect family finances in the event of injury or job loss.

Kansas has a good foundation of housing policies on which to build. The state ranks

10th in funding for mortgage revenue bonds, allocating 70% of its private activity bonds

for affordable housing. Also, Kansas funds a state housing trust fund, reduces property

taxes for some low-income homeowners, and offers several first-time homebuyer assis-

tance programs.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Kansas does a poor job on tax policy accountability.

The state does not prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues

foregone via tax breaks. It has some capacity, though, to determine the impact of state


47




MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$120,112

RANK—19

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—35

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—23.0%

RANK—32

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—20

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—13.9%

RANK—22

Kansas


Asset Outcomes. Kentucky ranks 37th in Asset Outcomes, receiving a D. As with most

other southern states, mean net worth of Kentucky’s residents is quite low compared

with other parts of the country (42nd). The state ranks 26th in the proportion of house-

holds lacking financial savings to subsist for three months (a measure of asset poverty).

Kentucky has success in the area of homeownership, ranking 13th in homeownership

rates and 8th in homeownership by income. The state has comprehensive Head Start

coverage (24%), ranking 11th, but as with most other southern states, ranks near the

bottom in percentage of residents with associate’s degrees (46th) and overall college at-

tainment (44th). The gap between female-headed households and male-headed house-

holds with a college degree is relatively large (40th), as is the gap in college attainment

between the wealthiest and poorest residents (49th, with only Mississippi doing worse).

It does, however, outrank all other southern states in having a small gap in college

attainment between white- and non-white-headed households, placing 5th nationally.

Business capital in the state is mixed, with the women’s business ownership rate being

relatively low, leading to a ranking of 45th, but business ownership value by race is rela-

tively high, leading to a ranking of 6th. Bank access is also varied; a relatively high per-

centage of Kentuckians have non-interest-bearing checking accounts (8th), but a low

percentage have savings accounts (43rd).

Asset Policy. As with most other southern states, Kentucky’s policies on asset build-

ing are relatively weak, ranking 38th nationally and earning a D. The state does partic-

ularly well in terms of using a solid set of policies to assist first-time homebuyers. Areas

of concern include the state’s lack of small business investment company financing

(these are companies that target financing to economically and socially disadvantaged

entrepreneurs [42nd]).

Kentucky has a mixed record with regard to education, doing relatively well in K–12 edu-

cation expenditures (18th) and need-based financial aid (15th), but low in the degree to

which the state has equalized spending among its school districts (39th), which raises eq-

uity concerns.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Kentucky has a good record on tax policy accountabil-

ity. Kentucky does prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues

foregone via tax breaks, though this report is not available on the web. Also, it has the

capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers

of all income levels.

48



Kentucky


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$83,482

RANK—42

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—19

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—22.0%

RANK—26

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—22

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—13.5%

RANK—20


Asset Outcomes. Louisiana scores the lowest among the 50 states and receives an F in

the Asset Outcomes index. The state ranks among the bottom 10 on a variety of meas-

ures of financial asset accumulation and distribution, including mean household net

worth (41st), asset poverty (43rd), asset inequality by gender (41st), and households

with zero net worth (46th). Louisiana is also very weak on measures of human capital

accumulation, ranking well below the median on every measure, especially higher educa-

tion. For example, Louisiana ranks last in attainment of associate’s degrees, 48th in col-

lege attainment by gender, 40th in college attainment, 40th in college attainment by in-

come, and 39th in college attainment by race.

On measures of business capital accumulation, Louisiana also does poorly, with an overall

small business rate below the median (31st) and dismal ranks on minority entrepreneur-

ship (47th) and women’s business ownership (48th). Homeownership is also well below the

median (37th), and while the gap in homeownership among rich and poor is the nation’s

8th lowest, the state has the largest gender gap in homeownership.

Asset Policy. As with most other southern states, Louisiana’s policies on asset building

are relatively poor, earning the state a D. The state lacks a number of policies that would

help to make work pay and allow low-income families to have more to save, such as a

state minimum wage or a state Earned Income Tax Credit. Besides devoting a large share

of the state’s private activity bonds to mortgage finance, the state does little else for

affordable homeownership, with no housing trust fund, few first-time homebuyer pro-

grams, and no circuit-breaker provisions to lower property taxes for elderly and disabled

homeowners. The state’s investments in human capital accumulation are also lackluster,

ranking 32nd in K–12 expenditures, 34th in investments to equalize per-pupil expendi-

ture, and 45th in need-based financial aid. On the bright side, Louisiana has imple-

mented several innovative policies to directly incentivize asset accumulation among

low-income households, including Individual Development Accounts and offering a

match for low-income families saving in the state’s college savings plan.

Finally, Louisiana has done little to protect the assets of low-income and working-poor

families. In particular, with unemployment insurance benefits ranking 42nd and the 2nd-

worst workers’ compensation benefits, Louisiana does a poor job of protecting wages

from injury or job loss.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Louisiana does a fair job on tax policy accountability.

One the one hand, it does prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of

revenues foregone via tax breaks and makes the report available on the web. On the

other hand, the state has no capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes

in the tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.

49


A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 50 F A S S E T P O L I C Y : 42 DR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$88,614

RANK—41

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—21

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—41

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—25.9%

RANK—43

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—24

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—28

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—17.7%

RANK—46

Louisiana


Asset Outcomes. Maine is among the highest scoring state in Asset Outcomes, ranking

4th in the nation and receiving an A in the index. The state ranks in the top 10 in 11

measures. Most notably, Maine leads the nation in homeownership measures, enjoying

a 76.5% homeownership rate (2nd). The state has the smallest gap in the nation in

homeownership between high-income earners and low-income earners. It has the 8th-

lowest gap in homeownership between men and women. It is important to note, though,

that Maine has the lowest median home value in the nation ($55,276), which may explain

its high levels of access to homeownership among low-income residents and women.

Financial asset measures are mixed in the state. Maine’s residents have a relatively high

mean net worth (12th) and a somewhat average level of asset poverty (22nd), but the

state is burdened by a high number of overall households with zero net worth (32nd).

This means that residents who have financial assets enjoy relatively high average asset

levels, but a number of residents in Maine have no financial assets at all. With regard to

business capital, Maine has high levels of small business ownership (5th) and minority en-

trepreneurship (6th) but, surprisingly, ranks last in the nation in private loans to small

businesses.

Asset Policy. Maine also receives an A in the Asset Policy Index, ranking 8th in the coun-

try. The state leads the nation in policies that support business assets, including state

funding dedicated to microenterprise development and a state-supported community

development financial institution initiative. State policymakers have also enacted legisla-

tion that encourages employee ownership and allows residents to pursue self-employ-

ment and remain eligible for unemployment benefits. Financial assets are promoted with

Individual Development Accounts (IDAs). Although more could be done, the state has allo-

cated $200,000 in state funds to Maine’s IDA program and includes IDAs in its Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) plan.

Despite its strong performance in policies that build and facilitate asset accumula-

tion, Maine needs improvement with regard to asset protection. The state has no spe-

cific policies to protect a family’s finances during hard times. Workers could benefit from

better protection from job injury with more comprehensive workers’ compensation cov-

erage (39th). Moreover, health care policies also need to be enacted. State policymakers

should consider providing family leave benefits to help families when they must take es-

sential time off, expand Medicaid to low-income adults without children to help provide

all adults with health care, and provide incentives to small businesses to offer health care

coverage for employees.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Maine also does a fairly good job on tax policy ac-


enues foregone via tax breaks, although it does not make this report available on the

web. It also has full capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the

tax code on taxpayers of all income levels.

50


A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 4 A A S S E T P O L I C Y : 8 AR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E

Maine


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$131,525

RANK—12

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—28

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—21.8%

RANK—22

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—6

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—15.4%

RANK—32


Asset Outcomes. Maryland has average levels of asset distribution, earning a C and

ranking 28th in the Asset Outcomes Index. Overall, Maryland performs well in financial

assets measures with relatively low levels of asset poverty (12th) and high levels of

mean net worth ($138,422, ranking 9th) among residents. However, Maryland’s per-

formance is mixed when examining measures of homeownership capital and human capi-

tal. Maryland has a high median home value ($150,254, ranking 2nd), yet suffers from

below-average overall homeownership rates (just fewer than 70% and ranking 29th). The

state has a strong showing in college attainment (2nd), yet the gap between college at-

tainment for higher-income earners and lower-income earners is troublesome (44th).

Small business ownership and access to private capital is poor in Maryland, with the state

ranking 44th in both small business ownership and private loans to small businesses and

showing low levels of business wealth among minorities and women (45th and 33rd, re-

spectively). With regard to asset protection, the state has the 2nd-highest level of em-

ployer-provided health insurance, but more must be done. Twenty-eight percent of low-

income children (43rd) and 40% of low-income parents (46th) are uninsured in the state.

Asset Policy. Maryland improves its scores when considering Asset Policy, earning a B

and ranking 15th. State lawmakers have enacted some important policies supporting af-

fordable homeownership including the development of a state housing trust fund and al-

locating a healthy percentage of its private activity bonds towards affordable homeown-

ership (mortgage revenue bonds, 2nd). The state also shows support for business capital

with self-employment policies. For example, the state designates some funds for micro-

enterprise development, enacts legislation to encourage employee ownership, and allows

residents to pursue self-employment and remain eligible for unemployment benefits.

Maryland’s asset protection policies lag behind its asset building policies, particularly

around health coverage and unemployment insurance for its residents. The state pro-

vides no health care benefits to non-disabled low-income adults without children and

ranks 38th in access to publicly provided health insurance for low-income parents (state

Children’s Health Insurance Program and Medicaid expansion). Moreover, the benefit level

of unemployment insurance could be improved (40th).

Tax Policy and Accountability. Maryland does a mediocre job on tax policy accounta-


foregone via tax breaks, though this report is not available on the web. It also has limited



51


A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 28 C A S S E T P O L I C Y : 15 BR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$138,422

RANK—9

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—13

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—34

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—19.8%

RANK—12

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—19

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—19

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—15.3%

RANK—31

Maryland


Asset Outcomes. Massachusetts earned a C in the Asset Outcomes Index, ranking 23rd

when compared with other states. While mean net worth in the state is $132,292, rank-

ing 10th nationwide, asset poverty is relatively high (33rd) and the number of house-

holds with zero net worth is also surprisingly high (41st). This means that many house-

holds do not share the overall wealth of the state. The state has a strong showing in

human capital measures, illustrated by high levels of basic educational proficiency in

reading (3rd) and math (2nd) and strong overall college attainment (3rd).

Areas in need of improvement in Massachusetts include facilitating homeownership and

small business development. The homeownership rate is only 60% (47th) and worsens

when examining the gap in homeownership between whites and non-whites (45th) and

the gap between higher-income earners and low-income earners (47th). Small business

capital could be enhanced with more private loans to small businesses (48th). Asset pro-

tection in the form of health insurance, on the other hand, is relatively strong in

Massachusetts. Only 12% of low-income children and 18% of low-income parents are

uninsured (6th and 3rd, respectively).

Asset Policy. Massachusetts fares much better in Asset Policy, earning an A and ranking

2nd in the country. Although the state does not currently fund Individual Development

Accounts to help build financial assets, it provides a high level of support for building

business assets. It ranks 1st in small business investment company financing to low-in-

come and minority businesses and provides state funding for community development

financial institutions. The state also has a capital access program to encourage private

lenders to make loans to low- and moderate-income customers. With regard to financial

services, Massachusetts’ lawmakers have enacted lifeline banking regulations requiring

banks to offer basic low-cost financial services. Notably, Massachusetts is one of only

two states that have enacted Community Reinvestment Act legislation that encour-

ages state-chartered banks to lend in underserved communities.

Massachusetts also scores better in its asset protection policies than most other states.

It has implemented unemployment insurance reforms that provide increased benefits

and protection to workers who have lost their jobs, and it is one of only a few states

that have enacted policies to protect property owners against insurance redlining. The

state, however, does not offer at least one year of transitional medical assistance to for-

mer welfare recipients and lags behind other states in the provision of family leave bene-

fits, both of which could help improve health insurance coverage in the state.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Massachusetts does an above-average job on tax pol-

icy accountability. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of

revenues foregone via tax breaks and makes this report available on the web. It also has

limited capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on

taxpayers of all income levels.

52



Massachusetts


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$132,292

RANK—10

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—24

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—16

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—23.0%

RANK—33

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—25

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—34

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—16.3%

RANK—41


Asset Outcomes. Michigan performs above average in the Asset Outcomes Index, earn-

ing a B and ranking 18th nationwide. Highlights include a mean net worth in the state of

$122,900, which is slightly above average (17th). Residents experience less asset

poverty, as measured by the proportion of households lacking savings to subsist for

three months here (8th), compared with the other states. Michigan also ranks tops in

the nation with a homeownership rate of 77.2%. Finally asset protection in the form of

health insurance is strong with employer-provided health insurance ranking Michigan

12th, and only 14% of low-income children lacking insurance.

On measures of the distribution of assets, Michigan is also strong. For example, financial

assets are more evenly distributed by race in Michigan. The gap in mean net worth be-

tween white- and non-white-headed households in relatively small (15th), and the gap in

asset poverty between white- and non-white and non-white-headed households is mod-

erate (11%). Further, the gap in college attainment between white and non-white house-

holds is relatively small, though college attainment overall is still only ranked 31st.

The state lags behind the rest of the nation in several key measures. The gaps in mean

net worth between female-headed households male-headed households is relatively large

(40th), as is the gap in asset poverty between male-headed and female-headed house-

holds (36th). In terms of small business ownership, the state ranks 48th and 43rd in mi-

nority entrepreneurship.

Asset Policy. Asset policy is average in Michigan. The state ranks 21st, receiving a C.

Michigan offers several key policies to incentivize asset accumulation for low-wealth resi-

dents. Some of these are comprehensive Individual Development Account policies, more

generous asset limits for public assistance, numerous first-time homebuyers assistance

programs, and offering matching grants to low- and moderate-income families with col-

lege savings plans.

Policymakers, however, need to incorporate more initiatives to protect families’ health

and finances in the event of injury or job loss. Health insurance, workers’ compensation,

and measures of property protection are ranked in the lower third relative to other

states.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Michigan does a very good job on tax policy accounta-


foregone via tax breaks and makes this report available on the web. Michigan also has the



53




MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$122,900

RANK—17

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—15

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—40

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—19.0%

RANK—8

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—11

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—36

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—13.2%

RANK—15

Michigan


Asset Outcomes. Minnesota is very strong in the Assets Outcomes Index, ranking 6th

overall, earning an A. Minnesotans enjoy a fair distribution of assets among all residents,

compared with the rest of the nation. Most notably, the state performs well in several

measures of financial assets. Minnesota ranks 2nd in having low levels of asset poverty as

measured by the proportion of households lacking savings to subsist for three months is

low and a low proportion of households with zero net worth, ranking 3rd. Mean net worth is

above average ($129,624), ranking 15th. While the overall homeownership rate is high (76%,

ranking 4th), the distribution of homeownership among different people is more trouble-

some. The gap in homeownership between the wealthiest and poorest Minnesotans is large,

ranking 40th, and the gap in homeownership between male- and female-headed households

is also relatively large, ranking 39th.

Minnesota is helping to spearhead the field of health coverage for low-income people.

Employer-provided health insurance is relatively high, with 76% of residents covered,

ranking 3rd. A relatively low 22% of low-income parents lack insurance (9th), while 15% of

low-income children lack insurance (15th).

Asset Policy. Although there is still much work to do in designing comprehensive

asset policy, Minnesota is remarkable compared with its peers. The state earns an A,

ranking 4th overall. Policymakers have made concerted efforts to boost financial assets,

human capital, and small business development. Minnesota boasts support for Individual

Development Account policies and a state Earned Income Tax Credit and has the 2nd-

highest income tax threshold ($25,600) for public assistance. In terms of human capital, the

state spends resources to help its students afford college (ranking 3rd in need-based finan-

cial aid) and offers matching funds to low- and moderate-income families participating in a

college savings plan.

Minnesota boasts a strong set of health care policies. It is one of 10 states that offers

Medicaid expansion for low-income adults without children, it offers family leave bene-

fits, and it is ranked 1st in Medicaid expansion for low-income parents. Moreover, it is one

of eight states that requires property insurers to disclose where and to whom they pro-

vide insurance in order to attempt to prevent insurance redlining.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Minnesota performs well in the transparency and ac-

countability measures. Minnesota prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the

value of revenues foregone via tax breaks and makes this report available on the web.

Also, Minnesota has the capacity to determine the impact of changes in the tax code on

taxpayers of all income levels.

54



Minnesota


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$129,624

RANK—15

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—2

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—15.7%

RANK—2

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—16

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—10.0%

RANK—3


Asset Outcomes. Mississippi earns a D on the Asset Outcomes Index, but there are

some signs of hope. On measures of financial asset accumulation and distribution,

Mississippi’s rankings are mixed. Like most southern states, mean net worth is very low

(45th). However, Mississippi has the nation’s 10th-lowest asset poverty rate (19%), its per-

centage of households with zero net worth is the 4th-lowest (11%), and it has the small-

est gap in asset poverty between whites and non-whites (1st). Troubling, though, is the

extent to which Mississippians lack connections to basic mechanisms to accumulate as-

sets—the state ranks 48th in households with a non-interest-bearing checking account

and last in households with a savings account.

Measures of homeownership capital are also decidedly mixed. The homeownership rate is

the nation’s 6th best, but the median values of homes ranks 48th. The benefits of home-

ownership are spread fairly evenly across Mississippi, though, with the 7th-lowest gap in

homeownership both between white and non-white households and between rich and

poor households.

On measures of human capital accumulation, Mississippi is mostly poor. Though the state

ranks high in the percentage of kids covered by Head Start, it is well below the median on

basic math and reading proficiency, ranks 46th in college attainment, and ranks last in the

gap in college attainment between whites and non-whites. There are some positive signs

in measures of business capital accumulation, with the 3rd-highest value of private loans

to small business and an overall ownership rate of small businesses that is above the me-

dian. However, the ownership of small businesses is not widely distributed, with the worst

rate of minority entrepreneurship and the worst women’s business ownership rate.

Asset Policy. Mississippi ranks 48th nationally and earns an F on the Asset Policy Index.

In general, state government support for policies to build or protect assets, particularly

those of lower-income households, is very weak. Mississippi has low rankings in some of

the basics of state policy, such as need-based financial aid (47th), K–12 spending (44th),

and use of private activity bonds for home mortgage finance (35th). The state also

lacks innovative policies, such as a state Earned Income Tax Credit, support for mi-

croenterprise development, aid for asset-poor farmers, or funding for Individual

Development Accounts.

Mississippi also performs poorly on asset-protection policies. With unemployment insur-

ance benefits well below the median and a ranking among the bottom 10 for the per-

centage of workers covered by workers’ compensation, Mississippi does a poor job of

protecting wages from injury or job loss.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Mississippi does a fair job on tax policy accountability.

The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues foregone

via tax breaks, though this report is not available on the web. It also has limited capacity to

determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.

55




MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$79,552

RANK—45

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—20

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—27

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—19.4%

RANK—10

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—1

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—40

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—10.7%

RANK—4

Mississippi


Asset Outcomes. Missouri has done well in Asset Outcomes measures, ranking 16th and

earning a B in the index. Mean net worth in the state is $105,861, ranking 28th. The gap

in assets between whites and non-whites is relatively small here (3rd), but this same

gap between men and women is much larger (39th). Asset poverty in Missouri is 20th,

yet this same measure examined by gender is much more telling. The gap in asset poverty

between men and women is relatively bigger, ranking 39th in the nation. The measures

of homeownership capital are somewhat similar. The overall homeownership rate is 74%

(ranking 10th), yet the gap in homeownership between men and women ranks 38th.

In terms of human capital, Missouri’s rankings are mixed. The state falls near the median

in basic education proficiency (15th in reading and 19th in math) but near the bottom in

adult education, as measured by the number of associate’s degrees (43rd). Overall col-

lege attainment is about average at almost 24% (24th). The gap in college attainment be-

tween men and women is quite small here (3rd), and this same gap is a little larger be-

tween whites and non-whites (11th); the gap grows when high-income earners and

low-income earners are compared (43rd). Health insurance coverage for lower-income

families is commendable here. The percentage of uninsured low-income children is 12

(7th), and 20% of low-income parents are uninsured (6th).

Asset Policy. Missouri is average in Asset Policy, ranking 28th and earning a C in the

index. Financial assets are encouraged here with Individual Development Account pro-

grams and more flexible asset limits for public assistance. Further financial asset build-

ing could be enhanced with a state Earned Income Tax Credit and a state minimum wage

that is higher than the federal minimum wage. These two policies would help boost the

income of low-wage workers in Missouri. Policymakers support homeownership and,

therefore, the valuable asset of home equity through a state housing trust fund, some

property tax circuit breakers, and limited assistance for first-time homebuyers.

Small business capital and bank access could be improved in Missouri. Although the state

provides assistance to asset-poor farmers and some support for microentrepreneurs, poli-

cymakers could also enact employee ownership policies and a state community develop-

ment financial institution to encourage the growth of small business capital. Bank access

could be addressed with the implementation of two key policies. Lifeline banking regulations

would help all residents have basic banking services, and a state Community Reinvestment

Act could encourage banks to lend in underserved communities. In terms of property pro-

tection, Missouri has not implemented legislation against predatory lending, but it is note-

worthy that it is one of the few states to pass initiatives against insurance redlining.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Missouri does a very good job on tax policy accounta-


foregone via tax breaks and puts this report on the web so that it is easily accessible. It

also has full capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code

on taxpayers of all incomes.




MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$105,861

RANK—28

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—3

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—39

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—21.3%

RANK—20

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—17

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—39

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—13.1%

RANK—14


Missouri

56

Asset Outcomes. Falling just below average, Montana ranks 29th and earns a C in Asset

Outcomes. The mean net worth of state residents is $97,647, ranking 35th, and the state

ranks 36th in asset poverty, which means it is average in the proportion of the popula-

tion of households without sufficient net worth to subsist at the poverty level for three

months. Most notably, Montana has the highest small business ownership rate, at al-

most 20%, and the 4th-highest women’s business ownership rate. However, the value

of these women-owned firms is relatively low (a mean of $9,139), ranking 47th.

Investments in human capital are also apparent, especially for children. Basic educational

proficiency is good (the state ranks 3rd in reading and 12th in math), and Head Start cov-

erage is 15th in the nation. While overall college attainment is below average (30th),

women and those of lower income have higher college attainment rates (12th and 8th,

respectively) than many other states, indicating that colleges in the state are accessible

to all residents. The percentage of adults with associate’s degrees is relatively low,

though (5%, ranking 45th). One area of particular concern is health insurance. The state

ranks near the bottom in all such measures. The percentage of uninsured low-income

children (27%) is 41st, and 34% of low-income parents are also uninsured (34th).

Meanwhile, employer-provided health insurance ranks 49th.

Asset Policy. Montana is weak in Asset Policy, coming in 41st and receiving a D in the

Index. The state has mediocre financial asset-building strategies, with a decent Individual

Development Account policy leading the pack. Some housing policies are also in force

through property tax circuit breakers and a state housing trust fund. Measures of

human capital are somewhat lacking here. Spending on public schools across the state is

relatively unequal (45th), and need-based financial aid for undergraduates is 42nd.

Moreover policies are absent for supplementary funds for Head Start, state-funded pre-

kindergarten, and college savings plans with matching funds.

Business capital is also failing here. Investments in small businesses are sparse (small busi-

ness investment company investments rank 48th). Key policies to help these entrepre-

neurs are also missing. Neither a state microenterprise policy, a capital access program,

nor a state community development financial institution exists here, although these pro-

grams could possibly help build business assets among Montanans. On a positive note,

state legislators support employee ownership and some initiatives for asset-poor farm-

ers. Asset protection measures are virtually nonexistent here. The only asset-protec-

tion policy is partial support for family leave benefits.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Accountability and transparency in the state are rela-

tively good. The state produces a tax expenditure report, revealing how it spends tax-

payer dollars, and makes this report easily available on the web. It has also developed a

limited capacity to analyze the impact that changes in the tax code will have on all resi-

dents before it passes new tax laws.

57




MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$97,647

RANK—35

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—22

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—23.8%

RANK—36

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—33

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—14.2%

RANK—24

Montana


Asset Outcomes. Nebraska ranks 15th among all states in Asset Outcomes, landing a

solid B in the index. Mean net worth here is $108,831 (27th), and the percentage of

households with zero to negative net worth is 13%. Financial asset measures examined by

gender are more striking. The gap in assets between men and women is relatively small

(9th), and the same gap for asset poverty is even smaller (5th). Nebraska could improve

homeownership capital, with 70% of state residents owning homes (26th). Nebraska

ranks 34th in the gap in homeownership between whites and non-whites and 32nd in the

gap in homeownership between the top income earners and the bottom income earners

in the state. This means that homeownership is not equal among high- and low-income

people or between white- and non-white-headed households.

Nebraska could do better in education, as it ranks in the mid- to low 30s in college attain-

ment measures. On the bright side, Nebraska does well facilitating build-up in business

capital; 15% of Nebraskans actively hold business capital, and Nebraska ranks 11th in pri-

vate loans to small businesses. Nebraska also does well in health care, landing in the top

10, ranking 8th in the percentage of low-income uninsured children, and ranking 9th

for low-income uninsured parents.

Asset Policy. Nebraska needs to revisit its asset policy approach, as the state earned a

C, ranking 31st among all states. Nebraska has a mixed basket of policies to assist people

purchasing homes. For example, it ranks last in allocating state funds for mortgages to

support affordable homeownership, yet Nebraska is one of only three states to offer

the full complement of possible first-time homebuyer assistance programs. The state

also offers a capital source through a state housing trust fund and reduces property

taxes with a circuit breaker program for some low-income homeowners.

Policymakers need to target asset protection as a policy priority in the state. In terms

of health insurance, Nebraska expands Medicaid for low-income parents to 55% of the

poverty level, leaving the state 33rd in the rankings. On the upside, Nebraska is one of

only 14 states to provide transitional medical assistance to families moving from welfare

to work, where they may still be unable to afford health insurance. Property protection

could also be enhanced in Nebraska with policies and legislation restricting insurance

redlining and predatory lending.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Nebraska does a very good job on tax policy account-

ability. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues

foregone via tax breaks and puts this report on the web so that it is easily accessible. It

also has full capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code

on taxpayers of all incomes.

58



Nebraska


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$108,831

RANK—27

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—9

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—21.4%

RANK—21

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—5

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—13.2%

RANK—16


Asset Outcomes. Nevada fails in Asset Outcomes, ranking 46th in the index. Low scores

are mostly attributed to a lack of business capital. Small business ownership is the lowest in

the nation (9%), perhaps due to the low levels of private loans to small businesses (38th).

Women’s business ownership is minimal (3%, ranking 40th), yet the value of these busi-

nesses is relatively high (a mean of $17,926, ranking 3rd). Financial assets, on the whole, are

below average here. Asset poverty—the proportion of households that cannot subsist

at the poverty level for three months—ranks 35th. Moreover, the number of house-

holds with zero net worth is 22% (ranking 48th), which is troublesome.

Overall homeownership capital is low; the homeownership rate is 64% (43rd), yet the gap

in homeownership between men and women is the smallest in the nation. The median

value of a home is relatively high and also ranks well (8th). Policymakers need to do more

to improve health insurance coverage for low-income residents here. The percentage of

uninsured low-income children is among the highest in the United States (31%, ranking

49th), while low-income parents are not faring much better (39%, ranking 44th).

Asset Policy. Nevada is also 46th in Asset Policy, receiving an F in this index as well. Bright

spots in the state’s asset policy include some initiatives to support affordable homeowner-

ship (mortgage revenue bonds [5th], a state housing trust fund, property tax circuit break-

ers, and limited assistance for first-time homebuyers). There are, though, many areas in

which Nevada is behind its peers. Much needs to be done to boost financial assets for resi-

dents in the state. Policymakers should consider enacting legislation to support

Individual Development Accounts and a state minimum wage higher than the federal

minimum wage—both of which would bolster earnings for lower-wage workers.

Attention also needs to be focused on policies to promote human capital. Although the

state allocates funds relatively equally across all school districts (2nd), more investments

could be made in early childhood education (a state-funded pre-kindergarten program and

state funds for Head Start initiatives) and higher education (providing college savings plans

with matching funds and better need-based financial aid for college students). It is interest-

ing to note that workers’ compensation coverage in Nevada is the best in the United States;

however, benefits for these workers are relatively slim (the workers’ compensation benefit

index level is the worst in the nation). Other asset protection initiatives barely exist here.

Substantive areas that need improvement include expanding health care policies to low-in-

come people and enacting property protection initiatives, such as policies against predatory

lending and property insurance redlining.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Better accountability measures need to be developed

in Nevada. The state does not prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value

of revenues foregone via tax breaks. It also fails to determine the impact of state taxes

or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.

59


A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 46 F A S S E T P O L I C Y : 46 FR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$113,637

RANK—23

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—23.6%

RANK—35

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—N/A

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—22.0%

RANK—48

Nevada


Asset Outcomes. New Hampshire leads the nation in asset distribution and protection,

ranking 2nd and earning an A in the Asset Outcomes Index. The state particularly excels

with regard to financial asset measures, illustrated by its high rank (3rd) in mean net

worth ($145,550), combined with lower levels of asset poverty (18% and ranking 6th)

and fewer households with zero net worth (11% and ranking 6th). With the exception

of Head Start coverage (where it ranks 49th), New Hampshire has generally high scores in

human capital measures, ranking 2nd in the nation in basic educational proficiency in read-

ing, 2nd in the number of adults with associate’s degrees, and 10th in college attainment.

Despite its overall high grades, New Hampshire’s homeownership rate is below average

(32nd), and the gap in homeownership between high-income earners and low-income earners

is relatively large (39th), indicating that low-income earners have a hard time securing home-

ownership—an important asset in the form of home equity—in the state. Bank access is also

mixed, with high levels of households with a savings account (2nd) but low levels of house-

holds with a non-interest-bearing checking account (46th). Finally, New Hampshire performs

relatively well with regard to health insurance coverage. Seventy-six percent of employers

provide health insurance, and only 10% of low-income children are uninsured (3rd).

Asset Policy. In contrast to its high scores in the Asset Outcomes Index, New Hampshire

performs below average in Asset Policy measures, ranking 32nd and earning a C. Financial

asset policy could be improved here with support for Individual Development Accounts

and a state minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage. These initiatives

could help boost the earnings of low-income residents. The state has made strides in

promoting affordable homeownership, though, by establishing a state housing trust

fund and investing in some first-time homebuyer assistance programs.

Policymakers here also need to target more investments in human capital assets.

Although it provides supplementary funds for Head Start, New Hampshire spends its dol-

lars for schools relatively unequally across all the state’s school districts (46th), and it has

no state-funded pre-kindergarten program. New Hampshire is also below average in asset

protection. Although it has taken some steps to improve health insurance and wage pro-

tection with policies supporting family leave benefits and some key reforms in its unem-

ployment insurance system, state legislators have not enacted policies to build on these

efforts. The benefits for unemployment insurance are relatively low (36th), and the

state does not extend Medicaid to low-income adults without children.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Transparency and accountability in state spending in

New Hampshire is adequate, although there is room for improvement. The state prepares

a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues lost by tax breaks, but it

does not put this report on the web. It does, however, have some capacity to determine

the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.


A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 2 A A S S E T P O L I C Y : 32 CR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$145,550

RANK—3

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—11

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—18.0%

RANK—6

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—18

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—11.4%

RANK—6


NewHampshire

60

Asset Outcomes. With mostly average scores overall, New Jersey ranks 30th and earns

a C in Asset Outcomes. Financial assets in the state are relatively good here; mean net

worth is $145,243 (4th), and the number of households with zero net worth ranks 11th.

The state ranks 17th in asset poverty—the proportion of households without sufficient

net worth to subsist at the poverty level for three months. Business capital is fair, with

the business ownership rate coming in at 11% and ranking 34th. The ratio of minority en-

trepreneurship, ranking 12th, is stronger here than in many other states, but the value

of these firms is below average (34th). Women-owned firms, however, serve as a rela-

tively more substantial player in the state’s business capital (business ownership value by

gender is 1st). Human capital measures hover around the average with a few exceptions:

college attainment ranks 6th, and college attainment by race is 10th. The state could do

more, though, to boost the number of adults obtaining associate’s degrees (40th).

New Jersey is in the middle of the range in bank access. Thirty-three percent of house-

holds have a non-interest-bearing checking account (25th), and 68% of households have

a savings account (23rd). Health insurance coverage is also fair. While employer-provided

health insurance is relatively high (10th), the state ranks 17th in percentage of uninsured

low-income children (16%) and 34th for uninsured low-income parents (34%).

Asset Policy. New Jersey surpasses its peers in Asset Policy, ranking 7th and earning an

A in the index. Policymakers have enacted substantial legislation in financial asset build-

ing. The state has an Individual Development Account initiative, a state Earned Income

Tax Credit and a decent income tax threshold ($20,000, ranking 12th). Homeownership

policy is fair but could be boosted with more funds allocated to mortgage revenue bonds

(45th) and perhaps a state housing trust fund.

Early childhood education policies are in force here (K–12 expenditures rank 2nd and

there are supplementary funds for the Head Start program as well as a state-funded

pre-kindergarten initiative), yet spending across school districts needs to be more equal

(41st). Higher education and training are also notable. Need-based financial aid for under-

graduates ranks 6th, and customized job training ranks 7th. Policies supportive of busi-

ness capital are also apparent here, but the needs of the state’s residents need to be

better addressed. A specific area of concern is property protection policy; no legisla-

tion restricts predatory lending or insurance redlining.

Tax Policy and Accountability. New Jersey does a poor job on tax policy accountabil-

ity. The state does not prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of rev-

enues foregone via tax breaks. It does, however, have some capacity to determine the

impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.

61




MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$145,243

RANK—4

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—19

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—23

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—20.5%

RANK—17

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—26

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—35

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—12.8%

RANK—11

New Jersey


Asset Outcomes. New Mexico is falling behind the rest of the nation in Asset

Outcomes, landing a D in the index, with a rank of 37th. Many below-average grades con-

tribute to this score, yet particularly low points are evident in the area of health insur-

ance as a measure of asset protection. The state is 50th in employer-provided health in-

surance, 49th in uninsured low-income parents, and 45th in uninsured low-income

children. Although minority entrepreneurship appears to be good (5th), indicating broad

ownership of small capital (ranking 41st), other business capital measures are trouble-

some. Private loans to small businesses rank 40th, and the relatively large gaps between

men and women (ranking 41st) and whites and non-whites (ranking 49th) in business

ownership value is significant.

The state performs well in a handful of measures. In terms of financial assets, asset

poverty is 3rd, meaning there are fewer households without sufficient net worth to sub-

sist at the poverty level for three months than in all but two states. Also, the number of

households with zero net worth ranks 7th. The mean net worth is $111,102, ranking 26th.

On measures of homeownership, New Mexico also shows some strong scores. The overall

homeownership rate is 12th, while the gap in homeownership between rich and poor is

low (6th), as is the gap in homeownership between whites and non-whites (2nd).

Asset Policy. Landing an average grade, New Mexico ranks 34th in Asset Policy and

earns a C. The state holds the most promising set of policies in the measures of home-

ownership. New Mexico has a number of policies to assist first-time homebuyers, offers

circuit breaker protections, has a housing trust fund, and ranks 11th in the share of pri-

vate activity bonds used for mortgage finance. Other high points include a ranking of

4th in school spending equalization, 5th in customized job training, and 5th in workers’

compensation benefit index levels.

Much more focus needs to be targeted toward quality asset-building and asset-protec-

tion policy. Although the benefits for workers’ compensation are good, New Mexico only

covers 78% of its workforce (47th), meaning the finances of workers who are injured on

the job may be in jeopardy. Most of the gaps are apparent in business capital. The state

lacks many promising policies used in other states, such as capital access programs, mi-

croenterprise support initiatives, support for state level community financial develop-

ment institutions, initiatives to assist asset-poor farmers, and employee ownership.

Tax Policy and Accountability. New Mexico does a poor job on tax policy accountabil-

ity. The state does not prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of rev-

enues foregone via tax breaks. It also has no capacity to determine the impact of state


62



New Mexico


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$111,102

RANK—26

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—33

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—17.4%

RANK—3

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—38

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—11.9%

RANK—7


Asset Outcomes. The state fails in Asset Outcomes, ranking 48th nationwide. Mean net

worth is $103,177 (29th), but New York has the nation’s worst asset poverty and the

largest percentage of households with zero net worth, indicating that New York must do

much more to help all families build and protect assets. Homeownership is of great con-

cern. The state ranks last in homeownership rate, and there are significant gaps in home-

ownership between men and women, whites and non-whites, and the wealthy and poor.

(The state ranks 49th in homeownership by income, 48th in homeownership by gender,

and 43rd in homeownership by race.)

On measures of human capital, business capital, bank access, and health care, New York

does better, though not outstanding. Some high points are in the measures of business

capital, including private loans to small businesses (13th), women’s business ownership

rate (19th), and the value of women-owned businesses (14th).

Asset Policy. New York exemplifies the asset development challenges faced by all the

states. New York rises to the top of its class, ranking 1st in Asset Policy. The state has a

broad portfolio of asset-based policies and ranks high on many of the basics, ranking

1st in the level of need-based financial aid for undergraduates and 4th in K–12 expen-

ditures. The state also has a large percentage of private activity bonds targeted to af-

fordable housing and a good collection of first-time homebuyer assistance programs.

New York also can take credit for many innovative policies. These include state legislation

to support community development financial institutions and employee ownership

strategies, regulations that require state-chartered banks to offer low-cost lifeline ac-

counts and to abide by state community reinvestment regulations, and prohibitions

against predatory lending.

Yet, together, these policies are not operating to scale and lack the necessary scope

to address the large challenge of asset poverty and inequality. Specific areas needing

more attention fall within the areas of human capital and property protection. Residents

could benefit from more equal spending among the state’s school districts (48th) and

greater investment in customized job training (42nd).

Tax Policy and Accountability. New York does a good job on tax policy accountability.

The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues fore-

gone via tax breaks and makes this report available on the web. It also has some capacity

to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all in-

comes.

63


A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 48 F A S S E T P O L I C Y : 1 AR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$103,177

RANK—29

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—22

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—15

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—32.1%

RANK—50

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—27

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—23

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—23.8%

RANK—50

New York


Asset Outcomes. North Carolina receives a C on the Asset Outcomes Index, but its over-

all rank (21st) and leading position among the southern states calls for some recognition.

On overall asset accumulation, the state’s performance is weak, with average household

net worth below the median (33rd). However, the state does relatively well on asset distri-

bution, with the 9th-lowest gap in wealth between white and non-white households and

the 9th-lowest gap in asset poverty between white and non-white households. On meas-

ures of homeownership capital, the state’s performance is modest, ranking 21st in home-

ownership rates and 28th in median home value. However, the state deserves credit for

the having the 10th-lowest gap in homeownership rates between the rich and poor and

the 7th-lowest gap in homeownership rates between males and females.

On measures of human capital accumulation, North Carolina is equally modest. The state

ranked roughly in the middle in all higher education measures, except for dismal showing

in the gap in college attainment between rich and poor (45th). On measures of business

capital accumulation, North Carolina ranks 7th in the value of private loans to small busi-

nesses and 7th in the value of women-owned businesses, but it ranks very low (44th) in

minority entrepreneurship.

Asset Policy. Overall, North Carolina performs the best of all the southern states in

the Asset Policy Index, ranking 16th and earning a B. The state’s strength comes from

having implemented some of the most innovative policies for asset building and protec-

tion. For example, the state is one of the nation’s leaders with respect to support for

Individual Development Accounts and has one of the nation’s toughest anti-predatory

mortgage lending laws. The state also supports innovative small business finance in the

form of a capital access program and funding for microenterprise development and

community development financial institutions. Further, with the 10th-best per capita

funding for customized job training, North Carolina is making sound investments in the

human capital of incumbent workers.

On some of the basics, though, North Carolina’s performance is less stellar. In terms of

affordable homeownership, the state has a housing trust fund but has underinvested for

the last several years. The state also is near the bottom with respect to the percentage

of private activity bonds devoted to home mortgages. In education, despite increased

focus in recent years, the state ranks 40th in K–12 expenditures.

Finally, with the 15th-highest unemployment insurance benefits and the 12th highest

share of workers covered by workers’ compensation benefits, North Carolina does an

above-average job of protecting family finances from the dangers of injury or job loss.

Tax Policy and Accountability. North Carolina does a fair job on tax policy accountability.


via tax breaks, though this report is not available on the web. It also has limited capacity to

determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.




MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$100,561

RANK—33

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—9

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—32

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—20.0%

RANK—13

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—9

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—24

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—13.4%

RANK—19


North Carolina

64

Asset Outcomes. North Dakota ranks 27th out of the 50 states, earning a C in Asset

Outcomes. North Dakota earns its C by a mix of high and low scores in a variety of cate-

gories. Most notably, the state could improve its financial assets measures. North Dakota

ranks 44th in overall asset poverty and 39th in terms of the number of households

with zero net worth, indicating that a number of North Dakotans are asset poor. Mean

net worth is nearly the worst in the nation, ranking 47th, at $79,353.

In terms of human capital, North Dakota is 1st in the nation in the percentage of people

attaining associate’s degrees, but too many adults in the state stop there. College attain-

ment could be higher, as North Dakota ranks 39th in that measure. The state lands in the

top 10 for college attainment by women and the poor, yet 40th in college attainment by

non-whites. North Dakota is similarly mixed on business capital development, ranking 2nd

in private loans to small businesses and 3rd in small business ownership. However, the

state is 32nd in minority entrepreneurship.

Health care is similarly mixed. Twenty-two percent of low-income children (33rd) and 27%

of low-income parents (16th) lack insurance.

Asset Policy. North Dakota needs to put more work into asset building and protection,

as the state ranked 43rd and earned a D. The state has a mixed record in housing pol-

icy; it ranks 3rd in the percentage of state funds allocated to mortgages and offers

some first-time homebuyer assistance programs, yet the state has no state housing

trust fund.

Policymakers could improve support for small business ownership by adopting policies

that offer capital sources to low- and moderate-income entrepreneurs. North Dakota

comes in 41st in dollars made available through its small business investment company,

has no capital access program, and does not support microenterprise or community de-

velopment financial institutions at all. Asset protection in the form of health care could

be bolstered in North Dakota. Although the state ranks a respectable 20th on Medicaid

expansion for low-income parents, it does not expand Medicaid to low-income adults

without children (only 10 states do), nor does it provide transitional welfare-to-work

medical assistance for more than 12 months (offered by 14 states).

Tax Policy and Accountability. North Dakota does a poor job on tax policy accounta-

bility. The state does not prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of

revenues foregone via tax breaks. It also has no capacity to determine the impact of

state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all income levels.

65




MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$79,353

RANK—47

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—26.9%

RANK—44

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—N/A

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—16.2%

RANK—39

North Dakota


Asset Outcomes. Coming in above average, Ohio shows a decent record in Asset

Outcomes. The state ranks 12th and earns a B in the index. Most of the financial asset

measures are relatively high compared with the rest of the states. Asset poverty is 17.6%

(4th), indicating the state has a relatively small proportion of households without suffi-

cient net worth to subsist at the poverty level for three months. Asset inequality be-

tween men and women is low (4th), asset inequality between whites and non-whites is

relatively minimal (11th), and the number of households with zero net worth is also

relatively few, ranking 8th. While the overall small business rate is low (just under 10%,

ranking 46th), and minority entrepreneurship is also lagging (37th), the value of minority-

owned firms is relatively high (9th).

Health insurance coverage in Ohio is better than in most states. Employer-provided

health insurance is 9th, the percentage of uninsured low-income parents ranks 9th

(22%), and the percentage of uninsured low-income children ranks 18th (16%). Bank ac-

cess could be improved here. Only 29% of households have a non-interest-bearing check-

ing account (ranking 44th).

Asset Policy. Ohio ranks 17th in the Asset Policy Index, collecting another good grade by

receiving a B. The state has made attempts to boost financial assets for its lower-wealth

residents through limited Individual Development Account policy and establishing less pe-

nalizing asset limits for public assistance eligibility. Policymakers here have shown a dedica-

tion to early childhood education (providing a state-funded pre-kindergarten program and

supplementary funds for Head Start), yet more emphasis could be placed on adult training

(customized job training ranks 36th).

Efforts to support business capital are apparent. Ohioan entrepreneurs benefit from mi-

croenterprise policy, assistance for asset-poor farmers, one of the most remarkable

employee ownership initiatives, and a relatively high level of small business investment

company investments (14th). Policies to enhance asset protection are needed in Ohio.

The state is missing key policies for property protection (policies restricting predatory

lending and insurance redlining) and for health insurance (transitional medical assistance

for more than 12 months and state subsidies for small business health care coverage). The

state does, however, have good workers’ compensation coverage (6th).

Tax Policy and Accountability. Ohio has good accountability practices in place. The

state issues a Tax Expenditure Report on the web, allowing state residents to easily view

how the state government spends taxpayer dollars. Also, there is some capacity in Ohio

to analyze how changes in the tax law will impact all taxpayers before legislation is

passed. This is a sound practice in understanding the impacts of taxes of different in-

come groups.

66



Ohio


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$113,481

RANK—25

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—11

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—4

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—17.6%

RANK—4

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—18

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—15

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—12.0%

RANK—8


Asset Outcomes. Oklahoma earns a C in Asset Outcomes, ranking 35th overall. There is

the much room for improvement in the state’s educational rankings. The youngest

Oklahomans fare well, as the state ranks 7th in Head Start coverage. But Oklahoma ranks

36th in the percentage of adults with associate’s degrees and 41st in college attainment.

The gap in college attainment between high-income earners and low-income earners is

somewhat large here (36th), and this same gap between men and women is even larger

(42nd) when compared with the other states. On the bright side, Oklahoma ranks a re-

spectable 17th in the gap in college attainment between whites and non-whites.

In terms of financial asset building, 21% of households are asset poor, lacking sufficient

net worth to subsist at the poverty level for three months. The state does relatively

well in terms of the number of households with zero net worth, coming in 10th. But

the state ranks last in mean net worth ($74,431). It is more encouraging that the gap in

asset poverty between whites and non-whites is relatively small in Oklahoma (3rd). This

same gap for asset inequality is also small (8th).

Oklahoma needs to pay closer attention to health care for its residents. Twenty-seven

percent of low-income children are uninsured, leading to a ranking of 42nd in this meas-

ure. Low-income parents fare slightly better as 33% are uninsured, landing Oklahoma a

ranking of 27th.

Asset Policy. Oklahoma earned a C in Asset Policy, ranking 24th overall. Oklahoma is at

the forefront of a new asset-building instrument—Individual Development Accounts for

low-income people. Despite being in the forefront of this policy, many of Oklahoma’s

rankings in asset policy measures fall squarely in the middle of the pack, which led to the

C grade. A sample of Oklahoma’s asset policies finds the state ranking 23rd in mortgage

revenue bond provision (which helps promote affordable homeownership), 31st in K–12

expenditures (a policy choice to support education), 27th in need-based financial aid (bol-

stering the number of people earning a higher education), and 36th in workers’ compen-

sation coverage (a policy option to protect family finances in the event of injury).

Oklahoma could improve health care policies, as it ranks 36th on expansion of Medicaid to

low-income parents (studies have found that providing health care for parents increases

the percentage of insured children). Also, Oklahoma does not expand Medicaid to adults

without children, nor does it provide transitional medical assistance to help those who

have recently left the welfare system to go back to work.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Oklahoma does a substandard job on tax policy ac-


enues foregone via tax breaks, though this report is not available on the web. Also, it has

not developed the capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax

code on taxpayers of all incomes.

67




MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$74,431

RANK—50

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—8

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—26

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—20.8%

RANK—19

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—3

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—N/A

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—12.7%

RANK—10

Oklahoma


Asset Outcomes. In a nation that is sub-par, Oregon is on the right track and ranks 3rd

overall, just after Iowa and New Hampshire. Oregon earns its A based on strong rank-

ings in human capital development through education: the state ranks 14th in overall

college attainment and has the smallest gap in college attainment between whites

and non-whites and the 4th-smallest gap in college attainment between high-income

earners and low-income earners. Oregon also has a strong showing in financial assets—

coming in 24th in the number of asset-poor households and 12th in the number of

households with zero net worth, meaning that relative to other states, Oregon’s resi-

dents hold some assets and have a financial safety net. Overall, mean net worth is

$139,706, ranking 7th. The gap in asset poverty between men and women is also small

here, ranking 4th in the United States.

Oregon could improve homeownership, however, as it ranks 42nd and has a relatively

larger gap in the rates of homeownership between upper-income earners and lower-in-

come earners (34th), indicating problems with affordability or access to capital for low-

income homebuyers. The gap in homeownership between whites and non-whites offers

good news, as it is relatively small (12th).

Oregon is only fair in health care measures as a form of asset protection. The state ranks

30th in the percentage of uninsured low-income children and 17th in the percentage of

uninsured low-income parents.

Asset Policy. Oregon earns an A in Asset Policy to accompany its A in Asset Outcomes.

The state is trying to address the problems of affordable homeownership with an array

of policies. The state ranks 15th in terms of allocating private activity bonds for mort-

gage revenue bonds, provides capital through a state housing trust fund, and has multi-

ple first-time homebuyer assistance programs. For financial asset building, the state has

implemented Individual Development Accounts and offers a state Earned Income Tax

Credit to allow low-income workers to keep more of their pay and have more to save.

Oregon supports small business development in a number of ways—through small busi-

ness investment company dollars (21st in funding levels), capital access programs, and

state microenterprise programs.

Oregon is also a strong standout on health care policies, meaning household finances are

better protected against illness. It is one of nine states to offer a subsidy for small business

health care coverage and one of 10 states that extends Medicaid to low-income adults with-

out children. Oregon also ranks 15th in Medicaid expansion for low-income parents.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Oregon has a very good record on tax policy account-

ability. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues

lost through tax breaks, and it makes this report available on the web. It also has sound


of all incomes.

68



Oregon


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$139,706

RANK—7

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—10

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—21.8%

RANK—24

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—4

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—13.0%

RANK—12


Asset Outcomes. Coming in at 13th, Pennsylvania receives a B in Asset Outcomes. Mean

net worth here is $117,385 (21st), while asset poverty is relatively low (5th), meaning a

small proportion of households do not have sufficient net worth to subsist at the poverty

level for three months. In addition, the number of households with zero net worth is also

low (13th). On measures of homeownership, Pennsylvania is also above average. The home-

ownership rate is 75% (9th), the gap between whites and non-whites in homeownership is

relatively low at 16th, as is the divide between the rich and poor in homeownership (16th).

Overall business ownership could use improvement in Pennsylvania—the small business

ownership rate is just over 10% (40th), and the women’s business ownership rate ranks

44th. Interestingly, though, the value of women-owned and minority-owned firms is larger

here than in most states (business ownership value by gender is 9th and by race, 10th).

The state also has above average banking access. Forty-one percent of households have

a non-interest-bearing checking account (9th), and 69% of households have a savings ac-

count (21st). Asset protection in the form of health insurance is particularly strong in

Pennsylvania. The number of uninsured low-income children is 11% (5th), though the

number of uninsured low-income parents is somewhat higher (23%), ranking 13th. The

state also ranks 11th in employer-provided health insurance.

Asset Policy. Pennsylvania fares average in Asset Policy, ranking 22nd and earning a C.

Financial asset-building policy is above average. Notably, the state has an Individual

Development Account policy, more generous asset limits for public assistance, and a rela-

tively high income tax threshold ($21,500, ranking 8th). The measures of affordable

homeownership are mixed, though. While the state has some first-time homebuyer assis-

tance and a property tax circuit breaker, it does not have a state housing trust fund and

could allocate a higher percentage of private activity bonds to mortgage finance.

State policies to support small businesses are a strength in Pennsylvania. There is a

capital access program, assistance for microentrepreneurs, assistance for asset-poor

farmers, an employee ownership policy, a statewide community development financial in-

stitution, and provisions to allow the use of unemployment insurance for self-employ-

ment. The most room for improvement, though, resides in the human capital policies.

State policymakers should consider enacting policies to buttress early childhood educa-

tion, such as supplementary funds for Head Start and a state-funded pre-kindergarten

program. Noteworthy rankings occur in workers’ compensation policies (coverage is 91%,

ranking 14th, and the workers’ compensation benefit index level is the best in the na-

tion). These policies help protect family finances in the event of worker injury.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Pennsylvania does a satisfactory job on tax policy ac-



web. It also has some capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the

tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.

69




MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$117,385

RANK—21

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—27

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—31

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—18.0%

RANK—5

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—22

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—37

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—13.1%

RANK—13

Pennsylvania


Asset Outcomes. Due to uneven performance, with a number of high and low scores,

Rhode Island averages out at a C (31st) in Asset Outcomes. The state can be proud of

having the nation’s 2nd-highest mean net worth ($157,476) per household. However, on

measures of asset distribution, the state is not so stellar. For example, 22% of the state’s

households are asset poor (25th), and 15% have zero net worth (26th). On measures of

human capital accumulation, Rhode Island shows good signs in early childhood education

(5th in Head Start coverage and 11th in basic reading proficiency), but it is lopsided with

respect to higher education. For example, while college attainment is above average

(19th), the state has one of the largest gaps in college attainment between white and

non-white households.

Homeownership capital is of particular concern in Rhode Island, as the state ranks in the

bottom 10 in all of these measures. Some examples include a very low homeownership

rate (46th), the 3rd-largest gap in homeownership between white and non-white house-

holds, the 2nd-largest homeownership gap between men and women, and the worst

homeownership gap between rich and poor.

Finally, the state performs well in measures of asset protection in the form of health insur-

ance. It ranks 5th in employer-provided health insurance, 4th in the percentage of unin-

sured low-income children, and 6th in the percentage of uninsured low-income parents.

Asset Policy. Ranking 20th, Rhode Island barely earns a B in Asset Policy. With the 5th-

highest income tax threshold ($24,400), a state Earned Income Tax Credit, and a state

minimum wage, the state does a good job of boosting the incomes of low-income

households both before and after taxes, allowing them to have more to save. However,

with no statewide Individual Development Account program, the state has not invested in

enough comprehensive incentives to encourage the poor to save. The state also performs

well on policies to encourage the accumulation of human capital (2nd in customized job

training per capita and 8th in K–12 expenditures).

However, there is a great need to enact strong policies to support small business devel-

opment in Rhode Island. Aside from some programs to support microentrepreneurs, the

state lacks many other tools that could help small businesses owners start up, succeed,

and accumulate business capital. Possible policy options include a capital access program,

facilitating employee ownership, and state support for community development financial

institutions.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Rhode Island does an average job on tax policy ac-



web. It also has some capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the

tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.

70



Rhode Island


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$157,476

RANK—2

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—22.0%

RANK—25

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—N/A

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—14.8%

RANK—26


Asset Outcomes. South Carolina turns in a poor performance on the Asset Outcomes

Index, ranking 44th overall and earning a D. On measures of asset accumulation and distri-

bution, South Carolina is generally below the median, ranking 36th in average net worth

($97,521 per household) and 37th in asset poverty. While the state earns a high rank for a

relatively small gap in asset poverty between white and non-white families, this just means

everybody is asset poor at the bottom of the economic ladder. One sign of real hope is on

measures of homeownership capital: South Carolina has the nation’s 2nd-highest home-

ownership rate and the 3rd-lowest gap in homeownership between white and non-white

families. The median value of a home in the state, however, is only $89,286 (31st).

South Carolina’s real weakness is in measures of human capital accumulation, especially

at the postsecondary education level. The state ranks near the bottom in college attain-

ment (42nd), college attainment by gender (46th), and college attainment by income

(47th). The state also scores mostly poor on measures of business capital accumulation,

ranking in the bottom 10 in small business ownership rate (41st), minority entrepreneur-

ship (45th), and women’s business ownership rate (46th).

Finally, many households lack even the basic mechanisms to connect to the mainstream fi-

nancial system and begin to save. The state ranks last in households with a non-interest-

bearing checking account and only a bit better (34th) in households with a savings account.

Asset Policy. South Carolina ranks 27th and earns a C on the Asset Policy Index, but this

is among the best performances in the South, 2nd only to North Carolina. The state

helps low-income families build financial wealth through an innovative Individual Develop-

ment Account program, somewhat generous asset limits for public assistance recipients,

and a decent income tax threshold that allows working families to pay less in income taxes

and have more to save. The state also scores above average on policies to support human

capital accumulation, including K–12 expenditures (28th) and need-based financial aid for

undergraduate students (24th), and has the 8th-best ranking for equalizing per-pupil

spending on primary and secondary education among all the state’s school districts.

South Carolina also performs modestly on asset-protection policies. With the unemploy-

ment insurance benefits and workers’ compensation benefits near or just below the me-

dian, South Carolina does an average job of protecting wages from injury or job loss.

However, besides providing more generous transitional medical assistance for families

leaving welfare for work, the state has not been aggressive at expanding health insur-

ance for low-income and working families.

Tax Policy and Accountability. South Carolina does a below-average job on tax policy

accountability. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of

revenues foregone via tax breaks, though this report is not available on the web. It also

has no capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on

taxpayers of all incomes.

71




MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$97,521

RANK—36

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—26

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—36

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—23.9%

RANK—37

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—6

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—21

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—16.0%

RANK—35

South Carolina


Asset Outcomes. South Dakota is below average among its peers, earning a D and a

rank of 36th in the index. Scores are relatively low in the index, but several high marks

shine through. The measures of financial assets are somewhat dismal. Mean net worth in

South Dakota is $79,353 (47th); asset poverty ranks 44th, indicating there are many

more households without sufficient net worth to exist at the poverty level for three

months than in other states; and the number of households with zero net worth ranks

39th. Homeownership is also a little bleak. Although the overall homeownership rate is

71% (20th), the median value of a home is $80,080 (43rd), and the gap in homeowner-

ship between the rich and poor is significant, ranking 45th.

Some highlights appear in the human capital measures. South Dakota has the 2nd-highest

coverage of Head Start and ranks 12th in the number of adults with associate’s degrees.

Small business capital seems to be relatively good overall (the small business ownership rate

ranks 4th, and private loans provided to small businesses also rank 4th). When these meas-

ures are broken out, a slightly different story emerges. Minority entrepreneurship is 46th,

yet the value of these firms is relatively high (5th). The value of women-owned firms is

much lower in the rankings (48th), even though the state ranks 27th in women’s business

ownership rate.

Asset Policy. South Dakota fails in Asset Policy, ranking 47th. Financial asset-building

strategies are very limited here, with only a mediocre incentive for accumulation in

asset limits for public assistance. Affordable homeownership policies are slightly bet-

ter, with most efforts relying on first-time homebuyers assistance and limited circuit

breaker programs. Policies promoting human capital are also weak. The state ties with

Alaska for last place in need-based financial aid to help undergraduates attend college

and offers no state-funded pre-kindergarten program or supplementary funds for Head

Start.

Asset protection is somewhat more promising in the state, even if many key policies re-

main absent here. Workers receive the most policy attention. Workers’ compensation

coverage and benefits are average (both rank 29th), and unemployment insurance bene-

fits rank 19th. These policies help protect family finances in the event of injury or tem-

porary job loss. Most of the policies targeted to increase access to health care are miss-

ing. In addition the state has not enacted property protection measures (no legislation

restricts predatory lending or insurance redlining).

Tax Policy and Accountability. South Dakota also fails on tax policy accountability.


foregone via tax breaks. It also does not have the capacity to determine the impact of

state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.



South Dakota


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$79,353

RANK—47

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—26.9%

RANK—44

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—N/A

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—16.2%

RANK—39


Asset Outcomes. Like most of the other southern states, Tennessee performs poorly in

the Asset Outcomes Index and earns a D. On measures of asset accumulation and distribu-

tion, Tennessee is at or below the median. The state ranks 39th in mean household net

worth ($92,551), 31st in asset poverty, and 25th for the share of households with zero net

worth. However, the state can be proud that it ranks 1st in the nation for having the

lowest gap in net worth between white and non-white families. Still, white households

control more than twice the assets of non-white households. Tennessee is also mostly

lackluster on measures of homeownership capital accumulation, though the state has the

nation’s 3rd-lowest gap in the homeownership rate between rich and poor families.

The state’s greatest weakness is in measures of human capital accumulation, with a num-

ber of bottom-10 rankings, including 44th in Head Start coverage, 47th in associate’s de-

grees awarded, 48th in college attainment, 48th in college attainment by income, and

last (50th) in college attainment by gender. The state also scores mixed on measures of

business capital accumulation. The state’s overall small business ownership rate is at the

median. The state scores much lower on minority entrepreneurship (42nd) and women’s

business ownership rate (38th).

Asset protection in the form of health insurance is a very bright spot. Tennessee ranks

highest in the nation in its percentage of uninsured low-income children (8.8%) and 4th

for its percentage of uninsured low-income parents (19%).

Asset Policy. Tennessee ranks 44th on the Assets Policy Index and earns a D. The state

has implemented few policies to help low-income families build or protect their assets.

Besides very limited support for Individual Development Accounts, the state has done little

either to directly incentivize asset building or to enhance the income of working families to

make saving possible. With respect to homeownership capital accumulation, the state has

no housing trust fund, though it is above median in the share of private activity bonds de-

voted to home mortgage finance. The pattern continues with below-median rankings on

most policies to support human capital accumulation, including 41st in K–12 expenditures,

31st in customized job training investment, and 29th in need-based financial aid.

Finally, Tennessee’s below-average performance concludes with lackluster marks on

asset-protection policies. With unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation ben-

efits at or below the median, Tennessee does a very average job of protecting family fi-

nances from injury or job loss.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Tennessee also does a below-average job on tax policy

accountability. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of

revenues foregone via tax breaks, but this report is not available on the web. It also has

no capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on tax-


73




MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$92,551

RANK—39

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—1

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—37

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—22.9%

RANK—31

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—10

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—27

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—14.7%

RANK—25

Tennessee


Asset Outcomes. Asset Outcomes in Texas are dire. The state falls to the bottom of the

rankings (47th) and earns and F. Surprisingly, financial assets are a mixed bag in Texas. The

measures of overall performance are poor, yet scores improve when these measures are

counted in terms of race, gender, and income. For example, mean net worth is $81,314

(43rd), and asset poverty is 42nd, indicating that 25% of households lack sufficient net

worth to exist at the poverty level for three months. In addition, the share of households

with zero net worth (17%) is also high, ranking 45th. However, in distribution by race and

gender, Texas scores better relative to its peers. The gap in assets between whites and

non-whites is relatively small (7th), the same gap between men and women ranks 13th,

and the gap in asset poverty between men and women is also low (8th). A similar pattern

emerges with homeownership. The overall homeownership rate is poor, ranking 44th, but

the gap between whites and non-whites in homeownership is small, ranking 10th, and the

divide between men and women is also small in homeownership, ranking 11th.

Access to banking institutions is a serious concern for Texans. The percentages of house-

holds with a checking account (29%) or savings account (55%) are quite low, ranking 43rd

and 41st, respectively. Another alarming outcome lies in the protection measures of

health insurance. Low-income families suffer from a lack of health insurance. Nearly 35%

of low-income children are uninsured (50th), and 47% of their parents are uninsured

(49th). Moreover, employer-provided health insurance is also low (45th).

Asset Policy. Asset Policy in Texas is somewhat better. The state receives a B in the

index and ranks 18th. Efforts to promote human capital are evident in early childhood

and adult education initiatives. There is a state-funded pre-kindergarten program, spend-

ing among the state’s school districts is relatively equal (12th), and customized job train-

ing investment ranks 8th. Policymakers also support business capital. Access to business

capital is enhanced through limited microenterprise policy, a capital access program, a

state community development financial institution, employee ownership initiatives and

some assistance for asset-poor farmers.

Texas policymakers could improve their asset policy by pushing for more financial

asset-building initiatives, such as more comprehensive Individual Development

Accounts, a living wage measure, and more generous asset limits for public assis-

tance. Specific needs for improvement lie within workers’ compensation initiatives.

Workers’ compensation coverage is 50th, and the workers’ compensation benefit index

level is 42nd. These policies could help protect family finances in the event of injury on

the job. It is noteworthy, however, that Texas has some property protection measures in

force, namely a policy restricting insurance redlining.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Texas does a superior job on tax policy accountability.


via tax breaks and makes this report available on the web. It also has full capacity to deter-

mine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.

74

A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 47 F A S S E T P O L I C Y : 18 BR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E

Texas


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$81,314

RANK—43

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—7

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—13

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—25.5%

RANK—42

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—5

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—8

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—17.1%

RANK—45



Asset Outcomes. Utah ranks 10th in Asset Outcomes, barely reaching the curve to

land an A in the index. Human capital in the state provides the most striking set of

asset outcomes in the state. The state ranks 3rd in associate’s degrees, 8th in col-

lege attainment, 13th in college attainment by race, and 16th in college attainment

by income. The difference in college attainment between men and women is signifi-

cant, though, coming in 43rd. The gender difference is also noted in homeownership

capital. Utah performs well in measures of the median value of homes (4th), homeown-

ership rates (15th), and minimal disparities between whites and non-whites in homeown-

ership (9th). Yet, the homeownership gap between men and women is clear, ranking

42nd. This trend is contradicted by the measure of asset inequality between men and

women, where the gap between the sexes is small and the state soars near the top of

the scale (5th).

Other notable scores include good standings in asset protection. Employer-provided

health insurance ranks 7th, and the rate of uninsured low-income parents is 21% (8th). In

terms of financial assets, asset poverty ranks 14th, meaning that there are fewer house-

holds without sufficient net worth to exist at the poverty level for three months than in

other states, but the mean net worth ranks 32nd at $100,567.

Asset Policy. There is room for improvement in Utah’s asset-building and protection

policy. The state ranks 40th and earns a D in the index. Overall, the state exhibits

mediocre scores across the board. A few bright spots emerge in school spending equal-

ization across all of the state’s school districts (3rd) and in some measures of affordable

homeownership policy (Utah has a housing trust fund, some property tax circuit

breaker coverage, and some elements that support first-time homebuyers). Conversely,

the state sinks to the bottom of the rankings in per-pupil K–12 expenditures (50th) and

is not so supportive of lower-income undergraduate students (need-based financial aid

ranks 39th).

Measures of business capital and bank access policies are almost entirely missing in the

state. Moreover, financial asset building could be improved with a more comprehensive

Individual Development Account policy, a state Earned Income Tax Credit, and a state

minimum wage. Asset protection could be boosted with more focus on health care policy

and property protection policy.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Utah does a mediocre job on tax policy accountability.


foregone via tax breaks. However, it does have some capacity to determine the impact

of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all income levels.

75


A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 10 A A S S E T P O L I C Y : 40 DR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$100,567

RANK—32

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—5

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—20.0%

RANK—14

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—N/A

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—14.9%

RANK—27

Utah


Asset Outcomes. Vermont excels in Asset Outcomes compared with its peers. It earns

an A and ranks 5th in the index. This commendable performance is attributable to strong

marks across the board. Financial assets are relatively sound here, with mean net worth

of $131,525 (12th) per household and a relatively small (6th) gap in asset poverty be-

tween men and women. Human capital is particularly strong in Vermont. In terms of basic

education the state ranks 6th in math proficiency, and higher education outcomes are

even more sound and evenly distributed. For example, the number of associate’s degrees

ranks 7th, college attainment ranks 12th, income differences in college attainment is

minimal at 7th, and the disparity in college attainment between men and women is also

small at 7th. Still, with almost 22% of households classified as asset poor, Vermont

cannot rest on its laurels.

Business capital is also solid. Vermont’s small business ownership rate is 17% (6th), and its

women’s business ownership rate is 2nd. However, the value of women-owned firms is

the lowest in the nation (50th). Bank access is fair here; the state ranks 17th in both

households with a savings account and households with a checking account. The percent-

age of low-income parents (11%, coming in 1st) and children (9%, ranking 2nd) who lack

health insurance is low here compared with the rest of the United States.

Asset Policy. Vermont scores even higher in Asset Policy, coming in 3rd and landing its

second A. Policymakers are putting forth a solid effort to encourage financial asset

building. Vermont has established a state minimum wage higher than the federal mini-

mum, an Earned Income Tax Credit, policy for Individual Development Accounts, and

more generous asset limit levels for public assistance. Housing policy is also targeted in

the state with a state housing trust fund, property tax circuit breaker protections, and

several first-time homebuyer assistance programs. Business capital is also adequately

backed. Policymakers have invested in a capital access program, microenterprise initia-

tives, employee ownership policy, and some assistance to asset-poor farmers.

There is room for improvement in human capital policy in Vermont. Although the state

has a pre-kindergarten program and ranks 5th in need-based financial aid for undergrad-

uates, it fares poorly in the equality of spending across all of the state’s school districts

(50th). This is due to a strong reliance on the property tax for school spending. Asset-

protection policies are fair here. There is a substantially good mix of policy, but some key

ones are still missing. For example, the state’s homeowners could benefit from better

property protection with measures restricting predatory lending and insurance redlining.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Vermont does a mediocre job on tax policy accounta-

bility. The state does not prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of

revenues foregone via tax breaks. It only has some capacity to determine the impact of

state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.

76



Vermont


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$131,525

RANK—12

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—28

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—21.8%

RANK—22

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—6

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—15.4%

RANK—32


Asset Outcomes. Virginia ranks 22nd and earns a C on Asset Outcomes. Though only

average on a national basis, Virginia’s grade is one of the best in the South. Mean net

worth per household ($122,320) ranks 18th nationally and is the highest of all south-

ern states. However, with 22% of households considered asset poor, Virginia is below

the median. Moreover, Virginia has the nation’s largest gap in wealth between white and

non-white households. On measures of homeownership capital, Virginia performs well

overall, with a strong homeownership rate (11th), high median home values (7th), and

the 5th-smallest gap in homeownership between men and women.

With the nation’s 4th-highest ranking for college attainment, Virginia scores well on

measures of human capital accumulation. However, the state does not do as well on

measures of business capital accumulation, ranking 47th in small business ownership rate

and 41st in private loans to small businesses. It also ranks near the bottom in asset pro-

tection in the form of health insurance (47th in uninsured low-income children and 41st

in uninsured low-income parents).

Asset Policy. Virginia ranks 33rd in Asset Policy measures, earning a C in the index.

Besides a small statewide Individual Development Account program to encourage di-

rectly the accumulation of assets, Virginia has done little to help working-poor fami-

lies keep more of their earnings so they can build financial assets. In addition, the

state lags behind its peers in state support for affordable homeownership, with no state

housing trust fund and a low ranking (36th) on the share of private activity bonds de-

voted to home mortgages.

On policies to protect family finances from injury or job loss, Virginia scores fairly well,

with the 9th-best workers’ compensation benefits and the 12th best unemployment in-

surance benefits. However, Virginia has not acted aggressively to expand health coverage

as a way to protect the assets of working-poor families from medical emergencies. The

state should consider making it easier for the parents of Medicaid-eligible children to

qualify for Medicaid, providing more than 12 months of transitional medical assistance

for families leaving welfare for work, and encouraging more small businesses to offer

health care coverage.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Virginia does an average job on tax policy accountabil-

ity. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues

foregone via tax breaks, although it does not make this report available on the web. It

also has some capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax

code on taxpayers of all incomes. This increases the likelihood of recognizing regressive

tax policies and makes it easier to analyze the impact of such policies on households of

differing income levels.

77




MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$122,320

RANK—18

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—28

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—25

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—22.3%

RANK—28

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—14

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—26

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—15.0%

RANK—28

Virginia


Asset Outcomes. Washington earned an A in Asset Outcomes, ranking 7th overall. With

a mean net worth of $139,348, households in Washington are the nation’s 8th most

wealthy. However, the distribution of assets in Washington is very uneven. Almost 25%

of Washington’s households are asset poor (lacking a three-month financial safety net),

ranking 39th nationally. In addition, 16% of the state’s households have zero net worth,

ranking 37th. On the plus side, Washington has the smallest gap in assets between men

and women.

Washington scores very well on measures of human capital accumulation, ranking 11th in

overall college attainment. Moreover, access to educational opportunities is widely

shared. The state has the 3rd-lowest gap in college attainment between whites and non-

whites and the 4th-lowest gap in college attainment between men and women.

Asset protection in the form of health insurance is also strong in Washington, with high

ranks in insurance for low-income parents (9th) and insurance for low-income children

(16th).

Asset Policy. Washington also earned an A in Asset Policy, ranking 6th overall.

Washington is at the forefront of a new asset-building tool for low-income people—

Individual Development Accounts (IDAs). Washington has appropriated over $1 million dol-

lars for IDAs, included IDAs in their state Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

plan, and has a state IDA program. The state does well overall on support for homeown-

ership, ranking just below the median in the share of private activity bonds for home

mortgages but supporting a state housing trust fund and offering an array of first-time

homebuyer assistance programs.

Washington leads in affordable health care policies and thus helps to shield family fi-

nances from medical emergencies. Washington is one of only 10 states that has ex-

panded Medicaid for low-income adults without children and one of nine states to offer

a subsidy for small businesses that offer health care coverage for their employees.

Washington has also been the 2nd most aggressive state in expanding Medicaid coverage

to low-income parents, covering parents who earn up to 200% of the poverty level.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Washington has a very good record of tax policy ac-

countability. Washington prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of

revenues foregone via tax breaks and makes this report available on the web. It also has

the capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on tax-


78



Washington


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$139,348

RANK—8

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—25

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—1

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—24.0%

RANK—39

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—13

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—11

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—16.1%

RANK—37


Asset Outcomes. West Virginia generally falls near the bottom in Asset Outcome meas-

ures, ranking 41st and earning a D in the index. The state ranks 46th in mean household

net worth ($79,415), reflecting its overall lack of wealth and low incomes. However, it

performs much better in measures of asset poverty (9th), the gap in asset poverty

between men and women (3rd), and the number of households with zero net worth

(2nd). In terms of homeownership capital, the state ranks 5th in homeownership rate

(76%), but these homes are of relatively low value, ranking 44th in median value of home.

Policymakers need to focus more on developing human capital in West Virginia. The state

ranks just above the median in basic educational proficiency (15th in reading and 26th in

math). However, its higher education measures are not good: the number of associate’s de-

grees is low (49th), as is the level of overall college attainment (50th), and the gap in college

attainment between high-income earners and low-income earners is relatively large (42nd).

The state’s business rankings are mainly poor. While ranking 3rd in minority entrepreneurship,

West Virginia ranks 45th in small business ownership rate, 43rd in women’s business owner-

ship rate, and 43rd in business ownership value by gender. Completing the financial picture,

the state ranks 1st in the nation in the percentage of households with non-interest-bearing

checking accounts but 45th in households with savings accounts. An important dimension of

asset protection is lacking as well: the state is 43rd in the percentage of employers who pro-

vide health insurance, which can help families protect their assets in times of medical emer-

gencies.

Asset Policy. West Virginia ranks 36th in Asset Policy measures, earning a D in the index.

Financial assets could be improved here with Individual Development Account programs and

a state Earned Income Tax Credit, both of which help low-income earners build wealth. Some

wealth creation is encouraged, however, with less penalizing restrictions on asset holdings re-

quired to qualify for public assistance programs. Affordable housing is supported by the

state with a state housing trust fund and some assistance for first-times homebuyers. Sadly,

the state appears not to be addressing its entrepreneurial needs. It has no program for pro-

moting microenterprise development, nor does it offer aid to asset-poor farmers.

The state is investing in its skill base for the future: it runs a state-funded pre-kinder-

garten program, it ranks 1st in K–12 education spending ($9.18 per pupil) and 6th in

school spending equalization. Worker protections seem to be uneven: West Virginia is

43rd in workers’ compensation coverage but ranks higher in benefit levels provided

through unemployment insurance (15th).

Tax Policy and Accountability. West Virginia does produce a report showing where it

allocates state expenditures but does not make it available on the web. It also does not

have the capacity to conduct a tax impact analysis of how changes to the tax code will

affect taxpayers before enacting legislation. This makes it difficult to assess the effects

of varied tax reform options on households with differing incomes.

79




MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$79,415

RANK—46

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—17

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—19.2%

RANK—9

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—3

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—9.5%

RANK—2

West Virginia


Asset Outcomes. Wisconsin gets earns an A in Asset Outcomes, ranking 9th overall.

The state’s mean net worth is $129,102 per household (16th). The state has the 10th-

smallest gap in assets between white and non-white households. The state also has the

9th-smallest percentage of households with zero net worth (13%). On measures of busi-

ness capital, Wisconsin scores below the median on the small business ownership rate

(12%), but ranks among the top 10 in providing private loans to small businesses.

Interestingly the women’s business ownership rate is a low 3% (42nd), but the value of

these firms is high ($17,532, ranking 4th). Minority entrepreneurship ranks below average

at 31st, yet business ownership value by race ranks 3rd nationwide ($1,589,015). This re-

flects the larger size of the state’s minority and women-owned firms.

The state deserves special attention for its high rankings in bank access. Wisconsin has

the highest percentage of households with savings accounts (79%), and ranks 10th in

households with non-interest-bearing checking accounts (41%).

The outcomes in health insurance, as a measure of asset protection, are above average,

but they leave room for improvement. Twenty-six percent of low-income parents are

uninsured (ranking 15th), as are 13% of low-income children (9th).

Asset Policy. Still performing well, Wisconsin earns a B in Asset Policy and ranks 13th. To

encourage financial asset building, the state has a comprehensive Earned Income Tax

Credit policy that allows low-income workers to keep more of their wages and have some

to save. The state could do more though by investing in the many Individual Development

Account programs operating in the state. Early childhood education is supported here

through a Head Start program and relatively high K–12 expenditures ($8.52 per pupil,

ranking 3rd). Yet, there is room for improvement in postsecondary education. Wisconsin

ranks 38th in customized job training.

While the state has several good business capital policies (capital access programs, some

assistance for asset-poor farmers and support for employee ownership), it lacks initia-

tives in microenterprise development and state-level community development financial

institutions. Wisconsin also does a good job of protecting assets. The state provides

subsidies for small business health care coverage and has initiated efforts against

property insurance redlining. Although the state’s unemployment insurance still needs

reforms in certain areas, its benefit level is good (7th), meaning family finances are rela-

tively well-protected against job loss.

Tax Policy and Accountability. Wisconsin does an above average job on tax policy ac-


enues lost from tax breaks and makes this report is available on the web. It also has some


of all incomes.

80


A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 9 A A S S E T P O L I C Y : 13 BR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E

Wisconsin


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$129,102

RANK—16

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—10

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—30

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—20.5%

RANK—18

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—23

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—17

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—12.7%

RANK—9


Asset Outcomes. Asset Outcomes in Wyoming are only average. The state ranks 33rd

and receives a C in the index. Scores in this index range widely. However, most of the

best performance lies in its business capital measures. Wyoming has the 2nd-highest

small business ownership rate, ranks 7th in women’s business ownership rate, and ranks

8th in minority entrepreneurship. The value of women-owned firms, though, is quite low

(49th). The state also claims high ranks in the individual measures of homeownership by

gender (4th), Head Start coverage (5th), and households with savings accounts (11th).

Wyoming’s indicators for financial assets and human capital lower its performance rela-

tive to its peers. Mean net worth in Wyoming is $79,353 (47th), asset poverty ranks

44th, and households with zero net worth rank 38th. The deficit of intellectual capital

lies mostly in higher education performance. Overall, college attainment in the state is

just under 20% (45th), while college attainment by race is 44th, and college attainment

by gender is 45th. On a more promising note, college attainment by income is 12th, indi-

cating that all income earners have more equal access to colleges than in most other

states.

Asset Policy. Almost in the cellar, Wyoming ranks 49th in Asset Policy and earns a failing

grade in the index. It lacks most of the critical asset-based policies identified in the

Report Card. State policymakers here have much work to do and many policies to choose

from to catch up with their peers. Investments in Individual Development Account policy

and more generous asset limits to qualify for public assistance would be a good place to

start bolstering the financial assets of residents. Policies to support affordable home-

ownership and business capital also demand attention.

Asset protection needs greater attention too. Although the state is 2nd in the workers’

compensation benefit index level, it ranks 41st in the number of workers covered (82%).

However, the state does exhibit solid spending efforts for K–12 expenditures (9th), but

this result is countered by a poor ranking in need-based financial aid for undergraduates

(45th).

Tax Policy and Accountability. Transparency and accountability in state spending and

taxation could be improved in Wyoming. The state fails to produce a tax expenditure re-

port that accounts for revenues lost by tax breaks. In addition, the state also does not

possess a tax incidence model, which would allow policymakers to analyze the impact of

new taxes (or tax cuts) on all of the state’s income earners.

81


A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 33 C A S S E T P O L I C Y : 49 FR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E


MEAN NET WORTH

VALUE—$79,353

RANK—47

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET INEQUALITY

BY GENDER

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

VALUE—26.9%

RANK—44

ASSET POVERTY

BY RACE

RANK—N/A

ASSET POVERTY

BY GENDER

RANK—N/A

HOUSEHOLDS WITH

ZERO NET WORTH

VALUE—16.2%

RANK—38

Wyoming


4S E C T I O N 4

In this section, all 68 indicators behind the state grades and rankings are

reviewed in detail. For each indicator, a table containing the raw data is

provided, along with the following:

1) rationale—why the indicator is important to track, other factors to

which it might relate

2) measure—exactly what each indicator reflects

3) source—how the data was obtained

83

Measure by Measure: Rationale and raw data




Asset outcomes indexFinancial assets

The indicators in the financial assets grouping provide direct state-level

estimates of household wealth accumulation, asset poverty, and the dis-

tribution of assets between various population groups. These are first-

time estimates of wealth indicators available at the state level. To gener-

ate these important estimates, the Corporation for

Enterprise Development (CFED) commissioned researchers

Robert and Jon Haveman. The Havemans produced the esti-

mates used in the Report Card with data collected from the

Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), which is

released periodically by the U.S. Census Bureau. However, as

the weighting scheme in the SIPP has been developed to

provide a sample that is representative of demographics at

the national level and not at the state level, the Havemans

used the data from the March Current Population Surveys

to rescale the weights. Three years of data were used to

create an adequate sample size. The rescaling was designed to make the

sample of observations present in the SIPP data set consistent with the

Current Population Surveys on the basis of race, gender, and broad in-

come status.

The financial assets

used in this report

are first-time estimates

of wealth indicators

available at the state level.

Mean Net Worth

Rationale: Measuring household net worth at the mean provides a basic indica-

tion of the level of wealth for average families in a state. For this measure, the data

is presented at the mean rather than the median. Median measures are very sensitive

to zero values, and a large proportion of the sample reported zero net worth.

Measure: Net worth of households, at the mean (expressed in 1996 dollars). Net worth

equals the sum of assets attributable to any individual age 15 years and above in the house-

hold less any liabilities. Assets included in this measure are interest-earning assets, stocks

and mutual fund shares, real estate (own home, rental property, vacation homes, and land

holdings), own business or profession, mortgages held by sellers, and motor vehicles.

Liabilities covered include debts secured by any asset, credit card or store bills, banks loans,

and other unsecured debts.

Source: Calculations by Robert and Jon Haveman based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau

of the Census. Survey of income program population [Electronic data tape]. (1995 and 1996).

Washington, D.C.: Author.

85


Measuring

household net

worth at the

mean provides a

basic indication of

the level of

wealth for

average families

in a state.

S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T O U T C O M E S I N D E X

Alabama $92,858 38

Alaska 101,462 31

Arizona 98,641 34

Arkansas 81,270 44

California 131,913 11

Colorado 113,530 24

Connecticut 140,989 6

Delaware 131,466 14

Florida 117,023 22

Georgia 89,855 40

Hawaii 164,318 1

Idaho 96,358 37

Illinois 118,146 20

Indiana 101,622 30

Iowa 142,327 5

Kansas 120,112 19

Kentucky 83,482 42

Louisiana 88,614 41

Maine 131,525 12

Maryland 138,422 9

Massachusetts 132,292 10

Michigan 122,900 17

Minnesota 129,624 15

Mississippi 79,552 45

Missouri 105,861 28

Montana $97,647 35

Nebraska 108,831 27

Nevada 113,637 23

New Hampshire 145,550 3

New Jersey 145,243 4

New Mexico 111,102 26

New York 103,177 29

North Carolina 100,561 33

North Dakota 79,353 47

Ohio 113,481 25

Oklahoma 74,431 50

Oregon 139,706 7

Pennsylvania 117,385 21

Rhode Island 157,476 2

South Carolina 97,521 36

South Dakota 79,353 47

Tennessee 92,551 39

Texas 81,314 43

Utah 100,567 32

Vermont 131,525 12

Virginia 122,320 18

Washington 139,348 8

West Virginia 79,415 46

Wisconsin 129,102 16

Wyoming 79,353 47

A M O U N T R A N K A M O U N T R A N K

Due to a variety

of factors,

racial minorities

accumulate

—on average—

much less than

white families.

Number of decimal places are

limited for presentation purposes.

State ranks are based on full

number. Two states might

therefore have different ranks

even though the measures here

appear the same.

Asset Inequality by Race

Rationale: Due to a variety of factors, including starting out with

differential wealth endowments and facing outright discrimina-

tion, racial minorities accumulate—on average—much less than

white families. For example, on the basis of data from the Federal

Reserve, the National Council of La Raza reports that, in 1998, the

median net worth of Hispanic households was $9,200, that of African

American households was $15,000, and that of white households was

$95,610.28 The measure used in the Report Card indicates how equally

assets are distributed between white and non-white households.

Measure: Mean net worth of white-headed households divided by the mean net worth of

non-white-headed households (expressed in 1996 dollars).






Alabama 3.73 16

Alaska — —

Arizona 3.86 17

Arkansas 3.94 18

California 2.30 2

Colorado 2.38 4

Connecticut 3.47 12

Delaware — —

Florida 2.57 5

Georgia 4.40 23

Hawaii — —

Idaho — —

Illinois 2.93 6

Indiana 3.66 14

Iowa — —

Kansas — —

Kentucky — —

Louisiana 4.11 21

Maine — —

Maryland 3.50 13

Massachusetts 4.54 24

Michigan 3.73 15

Minnesota — —

Mississippi 4.00 20

Missouri 2.37 3

Montana — —

Nebraska — —

Nevada — —

New Hampshire — —

New Jersey 3.97 19

New Mexico — —

New York 4.39 22

North Carolina 3.28 9

North Dakota — —

Ohio 3.46 11

Oklahoma 3.11 8

Oregon — —

Pennsylvania 4.90 27

Rhode Island — —

South Carolina 4.85 26

South Dakota — —

Tennessee 2.03 1

Texas 3.07 7

Utah — —

Vermont — —

Virginia 5.02 28

Washington 4.61 25

West Virginia — —

Wisconsin 3.40 10

Wyoming — —

R AT I O R A N K R AT I O R A N K

Historically,

women have

faced barriers

to or been

prevented from

acquiring assets,

especially

property and

capital.







appear the same.

Asset Inequality by Gender

Rationale: Historically, women have

faced barriers to or been prevented

from acquiring assets, especially

property and capital. This measure is

an indication of how equally assets are

distributed between men and women.

Measure: Mean net worth of male-headed households divided

by the mean net worth of female-headed households (expressed

in 1996 dollars).




S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T O U T C O M E S I N D E X 87


Alabama 1.84 38

Alaska — —

Arizona 1.41 18

Arkansas 1.31 8

California 1.26 3

Colorado 1.28 7

Connecticut 1.28 6

Delaware — —

Florida 1.47 24

Georgia 1.43 21

Hawaii — —

Idaho — —

Illinois 1.36 12

Indiana 1.42 20

Iowa 1.37 14

Kansas 1.79 35

Kentucky 1.42 19

Louisiana 2.21 41

Maine 1.55 28

Maryland 1.77 34


Michigan 1.97 40

Minnesota 1.26 2

Mississippi 1.51 27

Missouri 1.97 39

Montana 1.45 22

Nebraska 1.32 9

Nevada — —

New Hampshire 1.34 11

New Jersey 1.46 23

New Mexico 1.58 33

New York 1.39 15



Ohio 1.26 4

Oklahoma 1.49 26

Oregon 1.33 10





Tennessee 1.82 37

Texas 1.36 13

Utah 1.27 5

Vermont 1.55 28

Virginia 1.48 25

Washington 1.20 1

West Virginia 1.40 17

Wisconsin 1.56 30

Wyoming — —


Asset Poverty

Rationale: Given the importance of

assets for household economic

self-sufficiency, this measure ex-

pands the notion of poverty to in-

clude a minimum threshold of wealth

needed for both security and mobility.

Research shows that—even using a liberal

definition of asset poverty—the asset poverty rate

(25.5%) is twice that of the income poverty rate (12.7%).29

Measure: Percentage of the population of households without sufficient net worth to

subsist at the poverty level for three months without other support (as of 1996).






Research

shows that—

even using a

liberal definition

of asset poverty—

the asset poverty

rate (25.5%) is

twice that of the

income poverty

rate (12.7%).







appear the same.

Alabama 20.0% 16

Alaska 18.9 7

Arizona 28.8 48

Arkansas 31.0 49

California 28.5 47

Colorado 23.9 38

Connecticut 22.5 29

Delaware 22.6 30

Florida 19.6 11

Georgia 25.5 41

Hawaii 25.2 40

Idaho 23.5 34

Illinois 20.0 15

Indiana 22.2 27

Iowa 14.2 1

Kansas 23.0 32

Kentucky 22.0 26

Louisiana 25.9 43

Maine 21.8 22

Maryland 19.8 12


Michigan 19.0 8

Minnesota 15.7 2

Mississippi 19.4 10

Missouri 21.3 20

Montana 23.8% 36

Nebraska 21.4 21

Nevada 23.6 35


New Jersey 20.5 17

New Mexico 17.4 3

New York 32.1 50


North Dakota 26.9 44

Ohio 17.6 4

Oklahoma 20.8 19

Oregon 21.8 24

Pennsylvania 18.0 5

Rhode Island 22.0 25


South Dakota 26.9 44

Tennessee 22.9 31

Texas 25.5 42

Utah 20.0 14

Vermont 21.8 22

Virginia 22.3 28

Washington 24.0 39


Wisconsin 20.5 18

Wyoming 26.9 44

P E R C E N TA G E R A N K P E R C E N TA G E R A N K







appear the same.

Asset Poverty by Race

Rationale: This measure is an indication of

the difference in asset poverty between

white and non-white households.

Measure: Asset poverty rate of white-

headed households divided by the asset poverty

rate of non-white-headed households (as of 1996).


of the Census. (1995 and 1996). Survey of income program population [Electronic data tape].


89


Alabama 0.40 15

Alaska — —

Arizona 0.54 4

Arkansas 0.57 2

California 0.49 7

Colorado 0.49 8

Connecticut 0.29 28

Delaware — —

Florida 0.37 20

Georgia 0.39 16

Hawaii — —

Idaho — —

Illinois 0.34 21

Indiana 0.43 12

Iowa — —

Kansas — —

Kentucky — —

Louisiana 0.32 24

Maine — —

Maryland 0.38 19


Michigan 0.44 11

Minnesota — —

Mississippi 0.57 1

Missouri 0.39 17

Montana — —

Nebraska — —

Nevada — —


New Jersey 0.30 26

New Mexico — —

New York 0.30 27



Ohio 0.38 18

Oklahoma 0.54 3

Oregon — —





Tennessee 0.48 10

Texas 0.54 5

Utah — —

Vermont — —

Virginia 0.42 14

Washington 0.43 13


Wisconsin 0.32 23

Wyoming — —



Asset Poverty by Gender

Rationale: This measure is an indication

of the difference in asset poverty be-

tween men and women.

Measure: Asset poverty rate of male-

headed households divided by the asset

poverty rate of female-headed households

(as of 1996).











appear the same.


Alabama 0.56 31

Alaska — —

Arizona 0.86 1

Arkansas 0.74 13

California 0.75 10

Colorado 0.85 2

Connecticut 0.71 14

Delaware — —

Florida 0.76 9

Georgia 0.61 25

Hawaii — —

Idaho 0.75 12

Illinois 0.59 30

Indiana 0.60 29

Iowa 0.56 32

Kansas 0.67 20

Kentucky 0.63 22

Louisiana 0.60 28

Maine 0.77 6

Maryland 0.68 19


Michigan 0.53 36

Minnesota 0.69 16

Mississippi 0.44 40

Missouri 0.48 39

Montana 0.55 33

Nebraska 0.81 5

Nevada — —


New Jersey 0.54 35

New Mexico 0.52 38

New York 0.62 23



Ohio 0.70 15

Oklahoma —

Oregon 0.82 4





Tennessee 0.60 27

Texas 0.77 8

Utah —

Vermont 0.77 6

Virginia 0.61 26

Washington 0.75 11


Wisconsin 0.69 17

Wyoming — —


Households with

Zero Net Worth

Rationale: This measure provides

a way to describe the intensity of

asset poverty and highlights the

depth of the challenge of helping

all families to build assets.

Measure: Percentage of households with zero (or

less than zero, i.e., negative) net worth (as of 1996).




91

This measure

highlights

the depth of

the challenge of

helping all families

to build assets.







appear the same.


Alabama 13.4% 18

Alaska 11.3 5

Arizona 16.3 42

Arkansas 22.2 49

California 16.7 43

Colorado 15.6 34

Connecticut 16.1 36

Delaware 14.0 23

Florida 13.2 17

Georgia 17.1 44

Hawaii 18.1 47

Idaho 15.3 30

Illinois 15.0 29

Indiana 13.6 21

Iowa 8.9 1

Kansas 13.9 22

Kentucky 13.5 20

Louisiana 17.7 46

Maine 15.4 32

Maryland 15.3 31


Michigan 13.2 15

Minnesota 10.0 3

Mississippi 10.8 4

Missouri 13.1 14

Montana 14.2% 24

Nebraska 13.2 16

Nevada 22.0 48


New Jersey 12.8 11

New Mexico 11.9 7

New York 23.8 50



Ohio 12.0 8

Oklahoma 12.7 10

Oregon 13.0 12





Tennessee 14.7 25

Texas 17.1 45

Utah 14.9 27

Vermont 15.4 32

Virginia 15.0 28

Washington 16.1 37

West Virginia 9.5 2

Wisconsin 12.7 9

Wyoming 16.2 38



Homeownership Capital

The homeownership capital measures in the Report Card assess how

many of a state’s residents own their own home, the average level of

wealth accumulated in homes, and the extent to which homeownership

is a source of equity for all of the state’s residents.

Measures of homeownership capital are included in the

Report Card because home equity is the single largest

source of wealth for most Americans. According to the

Census Bureau, home equity accounts for the largest

share of net worth in U.S. households, totaling 44.4% of

measured net worth.30

However, while the primary objective of the Report Card is

to measure the value of homes in the form of home eq-

uity, no direct measures of home equity exist at the state

level. Therefore, the measures included in this grouping

are all proxies for both the overall level of home equity

and the extent to which different population groups have

accumulated home equity. Also, the reader will note that

no measure of housing affordability is included here. While

we recognize that being able to afford a home is a prereq-

uisite for accumulating home equity, we could find no

straightforward measure of homeownership affordability

that did not raise more questions than it answered.

However, one can assume that affordability is accounted

for to some extent by some of the measures included here (especially

the various measures of homeownership rate).



Home equity is the single

largest source of wealth

for most Americans.

However, no direct

measures of home equity

exist at the state level.

The measures included here

are thus proxies for both

home equity overall and the

extent to which different

population groups have

accumulated home equity.

Homeownership Rate

Rationale: A home is an asset that al-

lows stability, fosters long-term

thinking, and builds both financial

equity and commitment to a neigh-

borhood. While not directly measur-

ing home equity, this measure pro-

vides an indication of how many families

in a state have the opportunity to build

wealth in the form of home equity.

Measure: Homeownership rates by state (in 2000).

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (February 2001). 2000 Housing

vacancy survey. Washington, D.C.: Author.

93


While not

directly measuring

home equity, this

measure provides

an indication of

how many families

in a state have

the opportunity

to build wealth

in the form of

home equity.




number. Two states might therefore

have different ranks even though

the measures here appear the

same.


Alabama 73.2% 14

Alaska 66.4 40

Arizona 68.0 38

Arkansas 68.9 33

California 57.1 48

Colorado 68.3 36

Connecticut 70.0 28

Delaware 72.0 17

Florida 68.4 35

Georgia 69.8 30

Hawaii 55.2 49

Idaho 70.5 25

Illinois 67.9 39

Indiana 74.9 8

Iowa 75.2 6

Kansas 69.3 31

Kentucky 73.4 13

Louisiana 68.1 37

Maine 76.5 2

Maryland 69.9 29


Michigan 77.2 1

Minnesota 76.1 4

Mississippi 75.2 6

Missouri 74.2 10

Montana 70.2% 26

Nebraska 70.2 26

Nevada 64.0 43


New Jersey 66.2 41

New Mexico 73.7 12

New York 53.4 50



Ohio 71.3 19

Oklahoma 72.7 15

Oregon 65.3 42

Pennsylvania 74.7 9




Tennessee 70.9 23

Texas 63.8 44

Utah 72.7 15

Vermont 68.7 34

Virginia 73.9 11

Washington 63.6 45


Wisconsin 71.8 18

Wyoming 71.0 22


Median Value of Home

Rationale: The value of a home indicates the worth of that asset and

its resale value for the homeowner. Together with the homeowner-

ship rate, this measure is an indirect attempt to estimate home equity,

though it should be made clear that homes with higher value do not nec-

essarily correlate with higher home equity. All things equal, though, the

higher the value of a home, the more one can borrow against it to invest

in additional assets, such as college education or a small business.

Measure: Median value of households that own their primary residence, three-year aver-

age (1997–1999), adjusted for cost of living.


of the Census. March current population surveys [Electronic data tape]. (1998, 1999, and 2000).

Washington, D.C.: Author. Cost of living data from the Missouri Economic Research and Information

Center [On-line]. Available: ded.state.mo.us/business/researchandplanning/indicators/cost_of_liv-

ing/index.shtml. (May 2002) based on data from the American Chamber of Commerce Researchers

Association [On-line] Available: www.coli.org.


All things equal,

the higher the

value of a home,

the more one can

borrow against it

to invest in

additional assets,

such as college

education or a

small business.


Alabama $84,364 37

Alaska 75,245 46

Arizona 89,370 30

Arkansas 99,183 21


Colorado 117,596 9


Delaware 126,761 6

Florida 97,336 23

Georgia 110,337 11

Hawaii 172,771 1

Idaho 100,432 18

Illinois 103,346 14

Indiana 101,937 17

Iowa 85,533 34

Kansas 68,822 49

Kentucky 91,220 29

Louisiana 84,388 36

Maine 55,276 50

Maryland 150,254 2


Michigan 82,102 39

Minnesota 92,955 27


Missouri 85,324 35

Montana $72,464 47

Nebraska 88,933 32

Nevada 119,617 8




New York 76,923 45



Ohio 98,650 22

Oklahoma 81,250 41

Oregon 102,639 16





Tennessee 94,444 25

Texas 88,443 33

Utah 136,502 4

Vermont 99,819 19

Virginia 122,574 7



Wisconsin 108,588 12

Wyoming 80,890 42

VA L U E R A N K VA L U E R A N K

Homeownership by Race

Rationale: Homeownership is especially important for asset accumulation among

populations that tend to have lower levels of wealth, such as African Americans and

Hispanics. While home equity represents, at the median, 40% of the net worth of white

families, it represents 57% of the net worth of African American homeowners and 71%

of the net worth of Hispanic families.31 Yet, minority populations have lower homeowner-

ship rates than white families. According to the U.S. Census, only 45% of African

Americans and 41% of Hispanics own their own homes, compared with 67% of whites.

Given the importance of homeownership for racial minorities, this measure gives an indi-

cation of how similar or dissimilar the homeownership rate is between white and non-

white households.

Measure: Homeownership among white-headed households divided by homeownership

among non-white-headed households, based on a three-year average (1997-1999).




95


Homeownership is

especially

important for

asset accumulation

among populations

that tend to have

lower levels of

wealth, such as

African Americans

and Hispanics.

Number of decimal places are limited

for presentation purposes. State

ranks are based on full number. Two

states might therefore have

different ranks even though the

measures here appear the same.


Alabama 1.44 20

Alaska 1.42 17

Arizona 1.37 11

Arkansas 1.53 29

California 1.40 14

Colorado 1.37 13

Connecticut 2.33 42

Delaware 1.42 18

Florida 1.50 28

Georgia 1.50 27

Hawaii 0.85 1

Idaho 1.59 32

Illinois 1.72 36

Indiana 1.31 4

Iowa 2.57 46

Kansas 2.04 40

Kentucky 1.54 30

Louisiana 1.49 25

Maine — —

Maryland 1.31 5


Michigan 1.62 33

Minnesota 1.93 38

Mississippi 1.32 7

Missouri 1.45 22

Montana 1.34 8

Nebraska 1.66 34

Nevada 1.46 23


New Jersey 1.97 39

New Mexico 1.10 2

New York 2.40 43



Ohio 1.56 31

Oklahoma 1.44 21

Oregon 1.37 12





Tennessee 1.72 35

Texas 1.37 10

Utah 1.35 9

Vermont — —

Virginia 1.40 15

Washington 1.31 6


Wisconsin 2.18 41

Wyoming 1.48 24


Homeownership by Income

Rationale: Low-Income families tend to have lower rates of home-

ownership, though studies of asset accumulation among low-in-

come households note the particular importance of home equity.

For low-income families, homeownership represents both an important

source of wealth and direct consumption value.32 This indicator measures

how equal the homeownership rate is among rich and poor families.

Measure: Ratio of homeownership among household heads in the top

income quintile to homeownership among household heads in the bottom income quin-

tile, based on a three-year average (1997-1999).





For low-income

families,

homeownership

represents both

an important

source of wealth

and direct

consumption

value.







appear the same.


Alabama 1.68 14

Alaska 1.56 2

Arizona 1.90 28

Arkansas 1.96 33

California 2.36 44

Colorado 1.93 31

Connecticut 2.00 37

Delaware 1.57 4

Florida 1.73 19

Georgia 1.66 11

Hawaii 2.85 48

Idaho 1.72 18

Illinois 1.97 35

Indiana 1.85 24

Iowa 1.57 5

Kansas 2.34 43

Kentucky 1.60 8

Louisiana 1.63 9

Maine 1.50 1

Maryland 1.90 27


Michigan 1.69 15

Minnesota 2.19 40

Mississippi 1.59 7

Missouri 1.85 23

Montana 1.75 21

Nebraska 1.96 32

Nevada 1.92 29


New Jersey 2.40 46

New Mexico 1.58 6

New York 3.07 49



Ohio 2.07 38

Oklahoma 1.72 17

Oregon 1.96 34





Tennessee 1.56 3

Texas 1.87 25

Utah 1.89 26

Vermont 1.99 36

Virginia 1.66 12

Washington 2.33 42


Wisconsin 2.19 41

Wyoming 1.73 20


Homeownership by Gender

Rationale: Given the historic difficulty

women have had owning, acquiring,

and inheriting property, women have

lagged behind in this important asset.

This indicator measures how equal the

homeownership rate is between male-

and female-headed households.

Measure: Ratio of homeownership among male-headed house-

holds to homeownership among female-headed households, based on a three-year aver-

age (1997-1999).




97


Given the

historic difficulty

women have had

owning, acquiring,

and inheriting

property, women

have lagged

behind in this

important asset.







appear the same.


Alabama 1.23 35

Alaska 1.10 6

Arizona 1.18 27

Arkansas 1.25 40

California 1.22 34

Colorado 1.09 2

Connecticut 1.13 10

Delaware 1.27 44

Florida 1.14 14

Georgia 1.14 13

Hawaii 1.19 28

Idaho 1.10 3

Illinois 1.27 45

Indiana 1.18 26

Iowa 1.18 24

Kansas 1.15 17

Kentucky 1.20 30

Louisiana 1.39 50

Maine 1.10 8

Maryland 1.20 29


Michigan 1.23 36

Minnesota 1.24 39

Mississippi 1.15 19

Missouri 1.24 38

Montana 1.24 37

Nebraska 1.32 47

Nevada 1.06 1


New Jersey 1.29 46

New Mexico 1.14 12

New York 1.33 48



Ohio 1.18 23

Oklahoma 1.11 9

Oregon 1.14 15





Tennessee 1.25 41

Texas 1.13 11

Utah 1.25 42

Vermont 1.18 25

Virginia 1.10 5

Washington 1.14 16


Wisconsin 1.16 21

Wyoming 1.10 4


Human Capital

The human capital measures in the Report Card assess the education and

skill levels of a state’s population from early childhood through adult-

hood and the extent to which human capital (in the form

of education and skill levels) has been accumulated among

different population groups. Measures of human capital

accumulation are included in the Report Card because

“human capital theory” argues that people can be viewed

as an economic asset in which increased investment in

health, skills, and knowledge provide future returns for

the economy through increases in labor productivity.

Moreover, for individual workers in a global information-

age economy, education levels now determine economic

prospects. For example, the weekly earnings payoff differ-

ence between a high school graduate and a college gradu-

ate has more than doubled between 1980 and 2000.33

Thus, human capital is not only an asset in itself, but also

(at higher levels) results in higher wages that can be saved

to accumulate wealth.

Measuring actual levels of human capital presents significant method-

ological problems. Therefore, the human capital indicators used in the

Report Card represent a proxy for human capital accumulation and dis-

tribution.



“Human capital theory”

argues that people can be

viewed as an economic

asset in which increased

investment in health, skills,

and knowledge provide

future returns for the

economy through increases

in labor productivity.

Head Start Coverage

Rationale: Head Start is an educa-

tional program proven to prepare

low-income children to arrive at

school ready to learn. Head Start

programs are an important compo-

nent in ensuring that all children have a

chance to succeed in school.

Measure: The percentage of children from ages 0 to 5 years

who are in poverty and are served by a Head Start program (as

of 2001).

Source: National Head Start Association. (2001). Head Start yellow pages (8th Ed.). Alexandria VA:

National Head Start Association.

99


Head Start

programs are

an important

component in

ensuring that

all children

have a chance to

succeed in school.







appear the same.


Alabama 17.1 31

Alaska 46.4 1

Arizona 14.6 43

Arkansas 23.9 12

California 12.0 48

Colorado 23.4 13

Connecticut 15.2 39

Delaware 24.6 10

Florida 12.2 47

Georgia 16.3 36

Hawaii 20.8 24

Idaho 14.7 42

Illinois 16.2 37

Indiana 16.8 34

Iowa 21.4 19

Kansas 20.1 26

Kentucky 24.0 11

Louisiana 15.2 39

Maine 26.6 8

Maryland 16.7 35


Michigan 18.9 28

Minnesota 21.4 19

Mississippi 34.3 3

Missouri 21.2 22

Montana 22.1 15

Nebraska 17.7 30

Nevada 13.8 45


New Jersey 17.0 33

New Mexico 15.9 38

New York 11.2 50


North Dakota 30.4 4

Ohio 26.5 9

Oklahoma 26.7 7

Oregon 21.0 23


Rhode Island 27.1 5


South Dakota 35.3 2

Tennessee 14.5 44

Texas 13.3 46

Utah 21.5 18

Vermont 21.7 17

Virginia 19.7 27

Washington 20.2 25


Wisconsin 22.9 14

Wyoming 27.1 5


Basic Educational Proficiency

Rationale: The National Assessment of Educational Progress test,

given in several subjects at several grade levels, measures stu-

dents’ proficiency levels in vital skills such as reading and math. Like

other standardized tests, some biases may exist. However, this is

the only measure of student performance that is uniform across the

participating states.

Measure: Percentage of fourth-grade students proficient in reading

(using 1998 test results) and math (using 2000 test results).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1998 reading report card for the states. Washington,

D.C.: Author; and U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2001).

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2001 mathematics report card for the nation

and states. Washington, D.C.: Author.



Alabama 24% 28 14% 35

Alaska — — — —

Arizona 22 32 17 30

Arkansas 23 30 13 38

California 20 36 15 34

Colorado 34 8 — —

Connecticut 46 1 32 3

Delaware 25 26 — —

Florida 23 30 — —

Georgia 24 28 18 26

Hawaii 17 39 14 35

Idaho — — 21 24

Illinois — — 21 24

Indiana — — 31 4

Iowa 35 7 28 8

Kansas 34 8 30 5

Kentucky 29 15 17 30

Louisiana 19 37 14 35

Maine 36 5 25 12

Maryland 29 15 22 22

Massachusetts 37 3 33 2

Michigan 28 22 29 6

Minnesota 36 5 34 1

Mississippi 18 38 9 40

Missouri 29 15 23 19

Montana 37% 3 25% 12

Nebraska — — 24 17

Nevada 21 35 16 32

New Hampshire 38 2 — —

New Jersey — — — —

New Mexico 22 32 12 39

New York 29 15 22 22

North Carolina 28 22 28 8

North Dakota — — 25 12

Ohio — — 26 11

Oklahoma 30 12 16 32

Oregon 28 22 23 19

Pennsylvania — — — —

Rhode Island 32 11 23 19

South Carolina 22 32 18 26

South Dakota — — — —

Tennessee 25 26 18 26

Texas 29 15 27 10

Utah 28 22 24 17

Vermont — — 29 6

Virginia 30 12 25 12

Washington 29 15 — —

West Virginia 29 15 18 26

Wisconsin 34 8 — —

Wyoming 30 12 25 12

R E A D I N G R A N K M AT H R A N K R E A D I N G R A N K M AT H R A N K

Associate’s Degrees

Rationale: In today’s economy,

more and more new jobs require

that applicants have at least an

associate’s degree. This level of

education represents the entry

point for well-paying jobs of the future.

All things being equal, those who earn more

than enough income to meet current consumption needs

are more likely to save.

Measure: Percentage of population over age 25 who have an associate’s degree (as of

2000).

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. (May 2002). Profile of selected social

characteristics, 2000. Washington, D.C.: Author.

101


An associate’s

degree

represents

the entry point

for well-paying

jobs of the

future.







appear the same.


Alabama 6.1% 31

Alaska 7.5 10

Arizona 6.9 22

Arkansas 4.5 48

California 7.2 14

Colorado 6.5 25

Connecticut 6.3 28

Delaware 6.1 32

Florida 7.0 21

Georgia 5.3 42

Hawaii 7.9 8

Idaho 7.9 6

Illinois 6.1 30

Indiana 5.4 41

Iowa 7.5 11

Kansas 5.8 34

Kentucky 4.6 46

Louisiana 3.1 50

Maine 8.0 4

Maryland 5.5 39


Michigan 7.2 15

Minnesota 7.1 19

Mississippi 6.4 27

Missouri 5.2 43

Montana 5.1% 45

Nebraska 7.9 5

Nevada 5.6 37

New Hampshire 8.7 2

New Jersey 5.4 40

New Mexico 5.5 38

New York 7.1 18


North Dakota 9.2 1

Ohio 5.9 33

Oklahoma 5.6 36

Oregon 6.5 26

Pennsylvania 6.2 29

Rhode Island 7.3 13


South Dakota 7.4 12

Tennessee 4.6 47

Texas 5.1 44

Utah 8.3 3

Vermont 7.9 7

Virginia 5.7 35

Washington 7.8 9


Wisconsin 7.2 16

Wyoming 7.1 17


College Attainment

Rationale: In today’s economy, knowledge is itself a traded com-

modity. Those with a college degree earn significantly more than

those with just a high school diploma. Moreover, data from the

Survey of Consumer Finances indicate that, in 1998, families in

which the head of household had a college degree had twice the net

worth—at the median—as families whose head of household had only

some college.34

Measure: Percentage of heads of households with at least four years of college,

based on a three-year average (1997-1999).





in 1998, families

in which the head

of household had

a college degree

had twice the net

worth—at the

median—as

families whose

head of

household had

only some college.







appear the same.


Alabama 20.50% 43

Alaska 26.33 16

Arizona 23.33 25

Arkansas 15.63 49

California 29.23 9

Colorado 35.90 1

Connecticut 31.54 5

Delaware 26.19 17

Florida 22.44 32

Georgia 21.48 37

Hawaii 25.17 20

Idaho 21.81 34

Illinois 26.10 18

Indiana 18.54 47

Iowa 22.87 29

Kansas 27.65 13

Kentucky 20.31 44

Louisiana 21.18 40

Maine 21.72 35

Maryland 33.73 2


Michigan 22.66 31

Minnesota 29.76 7

Mississippi 18.75 46

Missouri 23.50 24

Montana 22.70% 30

Nebraska 21.37 38

Nevada 21.60 36


New Jersey 31.01 6

New Mexico 24.30 21

New York 26.88 15



Ohio 23.14 27

Oklahoma 21.08 41

Oregon 27.24 14





Tennessee 18.02 48

Texas 24.01 22

Utah 29.57 8

Vermont 27.99 12

Virginia 31.60 4

Washington 28.00 11


Wisconsin 23.17 26

Wyoming 19.74 45


College Attainment by Race

Rationale: This measure gives an indica-

tion of how similar or dissimilar college

attainment is between white and non-

white families.

Measure: Percentage of white heads of house-

holds with a college degree divided by the percentage

of non-white heads of households with a college degree,

based on a three-year average (1997-1999).




103








appear the same.


Alabama 1.66 25

Alaska 1.85 33

Arizona 2.17 38

Arkansas 1.62 24

California 1.66 26

Colorado 1.74 31

Connecticut 2.43 42

Delaware 1.67 28

Florida 1.45 14

Georgia 1.80 32

Hawaii 1.11 2

Idaho 2.58 43

Illinois 1.42 12

Indiana 1.15 4

Iowa 1.20 6

Kansas 1.57 23

Kentucky 1.20 5

Louisiana 2.19 39

Maine — —

Maryland 1.52 19


Michigan 1.29 9

Minnesota 1.25 7

Mississippi 1.46 16

Missouri 1.35 11

Montana 1.57 21

Nebraska 1.87 34

Nevada 1.53 20


New Jersey 1.30 10

New Mexico 3.46 46

New York 1.67 27



Ohio 1.46 15

Oklahoma 1.51 17

Oregon 1.10 1

Pennsylvania 1.29 8




Tennessee 1.57 22

Texas 2.34 41

Utah 1.44 13

Vermont — —

Virginia 1.70 30

Washington 1.14 3


Wisconsin 2.14 36

Wyoming 2.88 44


College Attainment

by Income

Rationale: Lower-income families

tend to have lower levels of college

attainment. This measures gives an

indication of how similar or dissimilar

college attainment is between rich and

poor families.

Measure: Ratio of college attainment for the wealthiest

20% of residents to college attainment for the poorest 20% of

residents, based on a three-year average (1997-1999).





Lower-income

families tend to

have lower levels

of college

attainment.







appear the same.


Alabama 10.10 46

Alaska 3.76 3

Arizona 4.59 11

Arkansas 7.31 35

California 4.99 15

Colorado 3.19 1

Connecticut 7.25 33

Delaware 6.07 23

Florida 5.42 18

Georgia 6.97 28

Hawaii 8.18 41

Idaho 4.04 5

Illinois 7.24 32

Indiana 4.18 6

Iowa 4.38 9

Kansas 4.50 10

Kentucky 15.81 49

Louisiana 8.16 40

Maine 5.45 19

Maryland 8.66 44


Michigan 7.19 31

Minnesota 7.05 30

Mississippi 16.17 50

Missouri 8.52 43

Montana 4.31 8

Nebraska 7.26 34

Nevada 5.48 20


New Jersey 6.47 25

New Mexico 6.53 26

New York 6.21 24


North Dakota 3.36 2

Ohio 7.85 39

Oklahoma 7.77 36

Oregon 3.95 4





Tennessee 11.80 48

Texas 7.79 37

Utah 5.12 16

Vermont 4.26 7

Virginia 5.34 17

Washington 4.88 13


Wisconsin 7.04 29

Wyoming 4.86 12


College Attainment

by Gender

Rationale: This measure gives an in-

dication of how similar or dissimilar

college attainment is between

men and women.

Measure: Percentage of male heads of

households with a college degree divided by

the percentage of female heads of households with a

college degree, based on a three-year average (1997-1999).




105








appear the same.


Alabama 1.65 49

Alaska 1.07 6

Arizona 1.41 37

Arkansas 1.51 44

California 1.30 24

Colorado 1.11 8

Connecticut 1.60 47

Delaware 1.39 34

Florida 1.46 41

Georgia 1.32 28

Hawaii 1.14 10

Idaho 1.29 23

Illinois 1.33 29

Indiana 1.24 17

Iowa 0.97 2

Kansas 1.13 9

Kentucky 1.44 40

Louisiana 1.60 48

Maine 0.86 1

Maryland 1.30 25


Michigan 1.29 22

Minnesota 1.30 26

Mississippi 1.42 38

Missouri 0.97 3

Montana 1.17 12

Nebraska 1.35 31

Nevada 1.19 14


New Jersey 1.40 35

New Mexico 1.39 33

New York 1.30 27


North Dakota 1.04 5

Ohio 1.38 32

Oklahoma 1.46 42

Oregon 1.25 18





Tennessee 1.67 50

Texas 1.34 30

Utah 1.47 43

Vermont 1.09 7

Virginia 1.24 16

Washington 1.01 4


Wisconsin 1.26 20

Wyoming 1.53 45


Business Capital

The business capital measures in the Report Card gauge

the rate at which a state’s residents own their own busi-

nesses, the extent to which business ownership has been

achieved across various population groups, and the level

of business wealth accumulated by a state’s nontraditional

entrepreneurs (especially women and minorities).

Measures of business capital accumulation are included in

the Report Card because, according to data from the

Survey of Consumer Finances, equity in unincorporated

businesses made up the second largest share (17.7%) of

total household wealth in 1998.35 Moreover, business for-

mation has traditionally been a route into the middle class

for large numbers of U.S. households, including immi-

grants. In the United States, business ownership also con-

fers a certain amount of respect upon the business owner.

Direct measures of business capital accumulation are diffi-

cult to find and are nonexistent at the state level.

Therefore, the measures used in the Report Card are

proxies for business capital formation and its distribution among nontra-

ditional business owners, such as women and minorities.



Equity in unincorporated

businesses made up the

second largest share

(17.7%) of total

household wealth in 1998.

Business formation has also

traditionally been a route

into the middle class

for large numbers

of U.S. households,

including immigrants.

Small Business Ownership Rate

Rationale: Business ownership is a fundamental en-

gine for wealth creation. While not a direct measure

of business capital, this indicator shows what per-

centage of the state’s labor force own their own

businesses. The higher the business ownership rate, the

higher the percentage of residents who have the opportu-

nity to build wealth through business capital accumulation.

Measure: Percentage of labor force that owns employer and non-employer

firms (as of 2000).

Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, Office and Advocacy. (2002). Small business economic

indicators for 2000; and Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2002). Labor force data for states and selected

areas, 1970-2001 annual average. Washington, DC: Author.

107



The

higher

the

business

ownership

rate, the higher

the percentage of

residents who

have the

opportunity to

build wealth

through business

capital

accumulation.







appear the same.

Alabama 10.8% 39

Alaska 14.0 12

Arizona 11.1 35

Arkansas 11.8 23

California 14.3 11

Colorado 13.9 13

Connecticut 12.6 20

Delaware 11.4 30

Florida 11.0 38

Georgia 10.5 42

Hawaii 12.6 18

Idaho 15.8 8

Illinois 9.5 49

Indiana 10.5 43

Iowa 13.4 17

Kansas 12.4 21

Kentucky 11.3 33

Louisiana 11.4 31

Maine 17.2 5

Maryland 10.3 44


Michigan 9.8 48

Minnesota 12.6 19

Mississippi 12.0 22

Missouri 11.0 37

Montana 19.9% 1

Nebraska 15.3 9

Nevada 9.3 50


New Jersey 11.1 34

New Mexico 13.8 16

New York 11.3 32


North Dakota 17.9 3

Ohio 10.0 46

Oklahoma 13.9 14

Oregon 16.2 7




South Dakota 17.8 4

Tennessee 11.7 25

Texas 11.7 26

Utah 11.6 29

Vermont 16.9 6

Virginia 9.9 47

Washington 13.8 15


Wisconsin 11.6 27

Wyoming 18.5 2


Private Loans to Small Businesses

Rationale: Small businesses make a great contribution to their

state’s economy—employing over half of the workforce (on av-

erage) and leading the way in new job growth, innovation, and

productivity. For these businesses to prosper, they must have

adequate access to credit from financial institutions. This measure is

an attempt to capture the opportunity to build wealth through small

business ownership. All things being equal, the larger the amount of

loans made to small businesses in a state, the better the opportunity

to succeed and build wealth in a business.

Measure: The dollar amount of private business loans under $1 million per worker (in

1999).

Source: Ou, Charles, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, Office of Economic

Research, (Personal communication, June 2001) from Community Reinvestment Act data.

Washington, D.C.



All things

being equal, the

larger the amount

of loans made to

small businesses

in a state,

the better

the opportunity

to succeed

and build wealth

in a business.

Alabama $1,891 5

Alaska 2,062 1

Arizona 800 46

Arkansas 1,523 10

California 1,141 26

Colorado 1,245 21

Connecticut 621 49

Delaware 1,333 15

Florida 1,102 31

Georgia 1,450 12

Hawaii 896 43

Idaho 1,241 22

Illinois 1,362 14

Indiana 1,547 9

Iowa 1,095 32

Kansas 1,082 33

Kentucky 1,174 24

Louisiana 1,041 36

Maine 526 50

Maryland 848 44

Massachusetts 669 48

Michigan 1,326 17

Minnesota 1,120 28

Mississippi 1,933 3

Missouri 1,205 23

Montana $1,250 20

Nebraska 1,506 11

Nevada 1,017 38

New Hampshire 735 47

New Jersey 1,006 39

New Mexico 991 40

New York 1,372 13



Ohio 1,270 19

Oklahoma 1,074 34

Oregon 1,121 27


Rhode Island 829 45



Tennessee 1,327 16

Texas 947 42

Utah 1,114 29

Vermont 1,145 25

Virginia 973 41

Washington 1,060 35


Wisconsin 1,816 6

Wyoming 1,301 18

A M O U N T R A N K

(in thousands)

A M O U N T R A N K

(in thousands)

Minority Entrepreneurship Rate

Rationale: Social cohesion is improved by

equalizing the opportunity to own a busi-

ness across various population groups.

This indicator measures how prevalent

business ownership is among non-whites in

a state. The higher the prevalence of minor-

ity-owned firms in a state, the greater the likeli-

hood that non-white families will succeed in business and

accumulate business capital.

Measure: Share of minority-owned firms relative to the minority adult population (age 18

years and older) divided by the share of total firms relative to the total adult population.

Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy. (November 2001). Minorities in busi-

ness 2000. Washington, D.C.: Author. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. (2000). Race

for the population 18 years and over. Washington, D.C.: Author.

109



The higher the

prevalence of

minority-owned

firms in a state,

the greater the

likelihood that

non-white families

will succeed in

business and

accumulate

business capital.







appear the same.

Alabama 0.06 48

Alaska 0.11 24

Arizona 0.14 13

Arkansas 0.06 49

California 0.16 10

Colorado 0.13 15

Connecticut 0.10 36

Delaware 0.10 34

Florida 0.24 1

Georgia 0.08 40

Hawaii 0.18 7

Idaho 0.13 17

Illinois 0.11 23

Indiana 0.10 33

Iowa 0.13 16

Kansas 0.11 25

Kentucky 0.10 35

Louisiana 0.07 47

Maine 0.20 6

Maryland 0.10 29


Michigan 0.08 43

Minnesota 0.08 41

Mississippi 0.06 50

Missouri 0.11 27

Montana 0.11 22

Nebraska 0.09 39

Nevada 0.12 19


New Jersey 0.15 12

New Mexico 0.21 5

New York 0.12 18



Ohio 0.10 37

Oklahoma 0.09 38

Oregon 0.13 14





Tennessee 0.08 42

Texas 0.17 9

Utah 0.12 20

Vermont 0.24 2

Virginia 0.12 21

Washington 0.16 11


Wisconsin 0.10 31

Wyoming 0.18 8


Women’s Business

Ownership Rate

Rationale: This indicator measures the

rate at which women in a state own

their own businesses. The higher the

rate of women’s business ownership in a

state, the greater the likelihood that

women will succeed in business and accu-

mulate business capital.

Measure: The number of total firms owned by women, divided by adult female popula-

tion (in 1997).

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. (1997). 1997 Economic census, minority

and women-owned business by state. Washington, D.C.: Author; and U.S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of Census, Population Estimates Program. (1997). Population estimates for states by age,

race, sex, and Hispanic origin. Washington, D.C.: Author.



Alabama 3.0% 49

Alaska 5.5 1

Arizona 3.5 37

Arkansas 3.1 47

California 4.1 17

Colorado 5.4 3

Connecticut 4.1 16

Delaware 3.4 41

Florida 4.1 15

Georgia 3.5 35

Hawaii 4.3 11

Idaho 4.0 20

Illinois 3.8 25

Indiana 3.5 36

Iowa 3.9 22

Kansas 4.0 18

Kentucky 3.2 45

Louisiana 3.1 48

Maine 4.7 5

Maryland 4.2 12


Michigan 3.6 30

Minnesota 4.4 8

Mississippi 2.6 50

Missouri 3.6 32

Montana 5.0% 4

Nebraska 3.9 23

Nevada 3.4 40

New Hampshire 4.3 9

New Jersey 3.6 33

New Mexico 4.2 13

New York 4.0 19


North Dakota 3.9 21

Ohio 3.5 34

Oklahoma 3.8 24

Oregon 4.7 6

Pennsylvania 3.2 44

Rhode Island 3.7 29


South Dakota 3.7 27

Tennessee 3.4 38

Texas 3.6 31

Utah 3.8 26

Vermont 5.5 2

Virginia 3.7 28

Washington 4.2 14


Wisconsin 3.3 42

Wyoming 4.5 7


The higher

the rate of

women’s business

ownership

in a state,

the greater

the likelihood

that women will

succeed in

business and

accumulate

business capital.







appear the same.

Business Ownership Value

by Race

Rationale: In measuring asset accu-

mulation for minority households,

what matters ultimately is not legal

ownership but whether the business

has value. Though not a direct meas-

ure of business capital, this indicator pro-

vides a gauge of the relative size of minority-owned

firms in a state by showing their share of total revenues.

Measure: Average sales and receipts for minority-owned businesses (calculated for 1997).


and women-owned business by state. Washington, D.C.: Author.

111



In measuring

asset

accumulation

for minority

households,

what matters

ultimately is not

legal ownership

but whether

the business

has value.







appear the same.

Alabama $823,642 24

Alaska 281,425 46

Arizona 467,422 42

Arkansas 810,722 25


Colorado 570,691 35

Connecticut 1,085,857 11

Delaware 935,077 19

Florida 260,312 48

Georgia 568,581 36

Hawaii 92,700 50

Idaho 825,980 23

Illinois 744,566 27

Indiana 1,260,236 7

Iowa 1,776,247 1

Kansas 1,038,097 15

Kentucky 1,293,867 6

Louisiana 581,868 33

Maine 1,052,542 14

Maryland 301,608 45


Michigan 1,076,676 12

Minnesota 1,493,606 4


Missouri 1,028,886 16

Montana $634,359 32

Nebraska 1,619,123 2

Nevada 502,140 38

New Hampshire 1,232,190 8



New York 437,171 43


North Dakota 1,064,011 13

Ohio 1,178,891 9

Oklahoma 473,336 40

Oregon 838,866 22

Pennsylvania 1,175,640 10



South Dakota 1,413,551 5

Tennessee 871,373 21

Texas 353,849 44

Utah 908,193 20

Vermont 803,197 26

Virginia 489,150 39


West Virginia 1,001,260 17

Wisconsin 1,589,016 3

Wyoming 687,655 30

A M O U N T R A N K

(in thousands)

A M O U N T R A N K

(in thousands)

Business Ownership Value by Gender

Rationale: This indicator provides a gauge of

the relative size (and value) of women-owned

firms in a state by showing their share of

total revenues.

Measure: Average sales and receipts in thousands

of dollars for female-owned businesses for each

state (calculated for 1997).


and women-owned business by state. Washington, D.C.: Author.









appear the same.

Alabama $14,717 17

Alaska 11,678 40

Arizona 12,733 30

Arkansas 15,242 13

California 17,300 6

Colorado 11,988 38


Delaware 13,403 25

Florida 14,286 21

Georgia 17,357 5

Hawaii 12,606 34

Idaho 9,337 46

Illinois 18,468 2

Indiana 12,680 32

Iowa 14,069 22

Kansas 12,680 31

Kentucky 14,972 15

Louisiana 16,248 11

Maine 10,498 44

Maryland 12,657 33


Michigan 14,355 20

Minnesota 12,413 35


Missouri 14,478 19

Montana $9,139 47

Nebraska 13,554 23

Nevada 17,927 3


New Jersey 19,312 1


New York 15,100 14



Ohio 14,922 16

Oklahoma 13,206 27

Oregon 12,831 28





Tennessee 14,572 18

Texas 17,057 8

Utah 12,136 37

Vermont 7,711 50

Virginia 13,225 26



Wisconsin 17,533 4

Wyoming 8,475 49

A M O U N T R A N K

(in thousands)

A M O U N T R A N K

(in thousands)

Bank Access

The bank access measures in the Report Card

gauge the level of participation of a state’s resi-

dents in the mainstream financial system. These

measures are included in the Report Card because

research on saving in low-income households36

finds that the ability to accumulate assets de-

pends on a number of factors, including income

and savings incentives, but also access to financial

products. According to the Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency, 78% of “banked” in-

dividuals have savings, compared with only 30%

of the “unbanked.”37 Moreover, of the unbanked

who saved, only 40% held savings in formal instruments—in most cases,

the bank account of another person. The other 60% of the unbanked

save in informal ways, including holding cash, jewelry, and gold. The two

measures used in the bank access grouping are also first-time estimates

of financial inclusion that have never before been available at the state

level. CFED commissioned researchers Robert and Jon Haveman to create

estimates for these two measures.

113


Research on saving in

low-income households

finds that the ability to

accumulate assets depends

on a number of factors—

including access to

financial products.


Households with

Checking Accounts

Rationale: Research shows that at

every level of income, “unbanked”

households are worse off financially than

their “banked” counterparts.38 This meas-

ure is an indicator of the share of house-

holds that holds a transaction account.

Measure: The percentage of households with non-interest-bearing checking accounts (as

of 1996).






At every

level of income,

“unbanked”

households are

worse off

financially than

their “banked”

counterparts.







appear the same.

Alabama 46.7% 4

Alaska 31.7 37

Arizona 32.4 31

Arkansas 44.0 7

California 39.5 12

Colorado 33.5 24

Connecticut 31.9 35

Delaware 46.3 5

Florida 31.8 36

Georgia 32.5 30

Hawaii 29.9 42

Idaho 49.9 3

Illinois 35.8 20

Indiana 35.2 21

Iowa 38.9 13

Kansas 30.2 38

Kentucky 43.0 8

Louisiana 32.9 28

Maine 36.3 17

Maryland 32.2 32


Michigan 32.2 33

Minnesota 34.8 22

Mississippi 21.0 48

Missouri 45.9 6

Montana 36.9% 16

Nebraska 36.0 19

Nevada 38.0 14


New Jersey 33.5 25

New Mexico 37.6 15

New York 32.5 29



Ohio 28.5 44

Oklahoma 33.2 26

Oregon 50.6 2

Pennsylvania 41.8 9




Tennessee 32.9 27

Texas 28.7 43

Utah 27.9 45

Vermont 36.3 17

Virginia 32.1 34

Washington 40.3 11


Wisconsin 40.7 10

Wyoming 30.1 39


Households with

Savings Accounts

Rationale: Savings accounts are one

of the most basic asset-accumulation

tools.

Measure: The percentage of households that

hold interest-bearing checking, savings, or money

market accounts (as of 1996).




115



Savings accounts

are one of the

most basic

asset-accumulation

tools.

Number of decimal places are limited

for presentation purposes. State

ranks are based on full number. Two

states might therefore have

different ranks even though the

measures here appear the same.

Alabama 53.8% 42

Alaska 49.6 46

Arizona 54.6 40

Arkansas 52.3 44

California 57.8 36

Colorado 70.9 15

Connecticut 77.3 3

Delaware 64.1 27

Florida 58.1 35

Georgia 48.6 47

Hawaii 74.2 7

Idaho 45.0 49

Illinois 63.3 28

Indiana 65.3 25

Iowa 74.6 6

Kansas 73.0 10

Kentucky 53.7 43

Louisiana 47.9 48

Maine 70.2 17

Maryland 70.7 16


Michigan 66.0 24

Minnesota 69.2 20

Mississippi 34.1 50

Missouri 59.7 30

Montana 68.4% 22

Nebraska 74.2 8

Nevada 55.7 38


New Jersey 68.0 23

New Mexico 56.0 37

New York 59.0 33



Ohio 64.5 26

Oklahoma 55.5 39

Oregon 70.0 19


Rhode Island 75.0 4



Tennessee 59.1 32

Texas 54.6 41

Utah 75.0 5

Vermont 70.2 17

Virginia 59.8 29

Washington 73.7 9


Wisconsin 78.8 1

Wyoming 72.3 11


Asset Protection

The asset protection measures in this grouping indicate

the extent to which a state’s residents, including low-in-

come parents and children, are covered by either private

or publicly provided health insurance. These measures are

included in the Report Card because health insurance pro-

vides protection against the kind of large medical costs

that can result in the loss or depletion of household as-

sets. Research shows that medical costs are a major cause

of bankruptcy. In a recent study of 1.1 million personal

bankruptcies in 1999, 326,441 were directly caused by ill-

ness or injury to a family member, while substantial med-

ical bills were a contributing factor in 267,575 cases.39

While there are many forms of insurance that protect

families and personal property, including health insurance,

life insurance, and property insurance, the measures in

this grouping include the most readily available insurance

data, which is largely in the field of health insurance.



Medical costs are a

major cause of bankruptcy.

In a recent study of

1.1 million personal

bankruptcies in 1999,

326,441 were directly

caused by illness or injury

to a family member, while

substantial medical bills

were a contributing factor

in 267,575 cases.

Employer-Provided

Health Insurance

Rationale: In the United States,

most workers receive health care

coverage in the workplace

through their employers. Examining

the share of workers who are covered

by employer-sponsored health insurance is

the best single measure of the extent to which a

state’s households are protected with health insurance.

Measure: Percentage of non-elderly population covered by employer-based health plans

(calculated for 2000).

Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute. (2000). Sources of health insurance and characteris-

tics of the uninsured. Washington, D.C.: Author.

117



Examining the

share of workers

who are covered

by employer-

sponsored health

insurance is the

best single

measure of the

extent to which

a state’s

households are

protected with

health insurance.







appear the same.

Alabama 65.0% 29

Alaska 62.1 39

Arizona 57.7 47

Arkansas 62.4 38

California 58.3 46

Colorado 67.7 21

Connecticut 77.4 1

Delaware 69.6 17

Florida 60.1 44

Georgia 63.4 37

Hawaii 72.0 14

Idaho 64.7 30

Illinois 71.3 15

Indiana 73.3 8

Iowa 74.5 6

Kansas 68.2 20

Kentucky 66.5 24

Louisiana 57.2 48

Maine 67.7 21

Maryland 76.2 2


Michigan 72.5 12

Minnesota 76.0 3

Mississippi 62.1 39

Missouri 72.5 12

Montana 57.0% 49

Nebraska 66.5 24

Nevada 64.1 34


New Jersey 72.8 10

New Mexico 52.2 50

New York 62.1 39



Ohio 73.2 9

Oklahoma 62.1 39

Oregon 66.1 26


Rhode Island 74.6 5



Tennessee 64.5 31

Texas 58.8 45

Utah 73.7 7

Vermont 63.7 35

Virginia 69.3 19

Washington 64.4 32


Wisconsin 71.2 16

Wyoming 65.3 27


Uninsured

Low-Income Children

Rationale: For uninsured children,

states can offer health care coverage

through Medicaid or their own chil-

dren’s health coverage programs. The

greater the number of uninsured chil-

dren, the greater the likelihood that a

household’s assets are at risk.

Measure: Percentage of children in families at or below 200% of the poverty line without

health insurance (for 1998–2000).

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (2001). Current population survey:

Health insurance statistics. Washington, D.C.: Author.



The greater

the number of

uninsured

children,

the greater the

likelihood that

a household’s

assets are at risk.







appear the same.

Alabama 16.6% 19

Alaska 25.8 39

Arizona 29.3 48

Arkansas 20.9 27

California 26.0 40

Colorado 27.7 44

Connecticut 19.1 24

Delaware 17.6 22

Florida 24.7 37

Georgia 17.6 23

Hawaii 14.5 11

Idaho 27.8 46

Illinois 21.9 31

Indiana 23.2 36

Iowa 14.7 12

Kansas 19.8 25

Kentucky 20.9 28

Louisiana 25.6 38

Maine 15.4 13

Maryland 27.6 43


Michigan 13.7 10

Minnesota 15.4 15

Mississippi 22.5 35

Missouri 12.3 7

Montana 26.7% 41

Nebraska 12.8 8

Nevada 30.6 49


New Jersey 16.0 17

New Mexico 27.7 45

New York 17.4 21



Ohio 16.0 18

Oklahoma 27.5 42

Oregon 21.7 30

Pennsylvania 11.0 5

Rhode Island 10.3 4



Tennessee 8.8 1

Texas 35.0 50

Utah 17.1 20

Vermont 9.4 2

Virginia 28.4 47

Washington 15.7 16


Wisconsin 13.4 9

Wyoming 22.2 33


Uninsured Low-Income Parents

Rationale: Health insurance is often out of reach of working, low-income parents, ei-

ther because employer-sponsored coverage is unavailable or because the cost of private

or employer-offered coverage is unaffordable. States have expanded coverage for chil-

dren through Medicaid and other programs since the inception of the State Children’s

Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), but adults in low-income families often can qualify for

coverage only if their income falls below the welfare income eligibility limits that their

state used prior to enactment of the 1996 federal welfare law. The greater the number

of uninsured parents in a state, the greater the likelihood that their assets are at risk.

Measure: Percentage of parents living in families with income below 200% of poverty

without health insurance (in the late 1990s).

Source: Guyer, J. (2001). Congress has a $28 billion opportunity to expand coverage for low-income

working families with children. Washington D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; and Lazere,

E., Fremstad, S., & Goldberg, H. (May 2001). States and counties are taking steps to help low-income

working families make ends meet and move up the economic ladder. Washington D.C.: Center on

Budget and Policy Priorities.

119


The greater

the number of

uninsured parents

in a state,

the greater the

likelihood that

their assets

are at risk.

Alabama 37.0% 41

Alaska 30.0 21

Arizona 46.0 48

Arkansas 33.0 27

California 39.0 44

Colorado 35.0 37

Connecticut 30.0 21

Delaware 29.0 19

Florida 37.0 41

Georgia 34.0 34

Hawaii 11.0 1

Idaho 43.0 47

Illinois 30.0 21

Indiana 29.0 19

Iowa 19.0 4

Kansas 28.0 17

Kentucky 36.0 39

Louisiana 33.0 27

Maine 30.0 21

Maryland 40.0 46


Michigan 30.0 21

Minnesota 22.0 9

Mississippi 33.0 27

Missouri 20.0 6

Montana 34.0% 34

Nebraska 22.0 9

Nevada 39.0 44


New Jersey 34.0 34

New Mexico 47.0 49

New York 33.0 27



Ohio 22.0 9

Oklahoma 33.0 27

Oregon 28.0 17


Rhode Island 20.0 6



Tennessee 19.0 4

Texas 47.0 49

Utah 21.0 8

Vermont 11.0 1

Virginia 37.0 41

Washington 22.0 9


Wisconsin 26.0 15

Wyoming 33.0 27



Financial Asset Building

The financial asset-building policy measures in the Report

Card gauge state support for policies that lead directly to

the accumulation of financial assets. This includes policies

that help to increase pre- and post-tax income so that

working families can save, policies to directly incentivize

the accumulation of assets, and policies that reduce disin-

centives to saving. These policy measures are included in

the Report Card because research40 shows there are a

number of determinants in asset accumulation in low-

income households. Among these are: 1) limited income

needed to meet current consumption needs and 2) dis-

criminatory government policies, which either fail to in-

centivize or actually create barriers to saving on the part of low-income

households.



Asset policy index

The financial asset-building

policy measures

in the Report Card gauge

state support for policies

that lead directly to

the accumulation of

financial assets.

IDA Policy

Rationale: IDAs are a relatively new policy innovation designed to give poor and

low-income citizens a direct incentive to save. IDAs are matched savings accounts

whose use is restricted to high-return investments, such as buying a home, starting a

business, or paying for postsecondary education. IDAs encourage families to save by pro-

viding a direct match to participant contributions, most often from public funding

sources. In-depth evaluations of IDA demonstrations have found strong evidence that

IDA holders can and will save.41

Measure: States receive credit for one or more of the following IDA initiatives: 1) appro-

priating $1 million or more for IDAs, 2) including IDAs in the state TANF plan, 3) operating

a state IDA program as of 2002. A state receives 0 points if it does not have any of the

initiatives, 0.33 points if it has one of the initiatives, 0.67 points if it has two, and 1 point

if it has all three.

Source: Edwards, K., Center for Social Development, Washington University & Rist, C., Corporation

for Enterprise Development (Personal communication, 2002). St. Louis, MO.

121


S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X

Alabama —

Alaska —

Arizona — ✔ ✔

Arkansas 1,506 ✔ ✔

California — ✔

Colorado 20 ✔ ✔

Connecticut 400 ✔ ✔

Delaware —

Florida — ✔ On hold

Georgia — ✔

Hawaii — ✔

Idaho — Developing

Illinois 1,000 ✔ ✔

Indiana 5,000 ✔ ✔

Iowa 1,700 ✔ ✔

Kansas — ✔

Kentucky — ✔

Louisiana 2,000 ✔ Developing

Maine 200 ✔ ✔

Maryland 100 Developing

Massachusetts —

Michigan 5,000 ✔ ✔

Minnesota 2,500 ✔

Mississippi —

Missouri 200 ✔ ✔

Montana 100 ✔ Developing

Nebraska — ✔

Nevada —

New Hampshire —

New Jersey 2,000 ✔ ✔

New Mexico — ✔

New York — ✔

North Carolina 3,000 ✔ ✔

North Dakota —

Ohio 308 ✔

Oklahoma 1,000 ✔ ✔

Oregon 68 ✔ ✔

Pennsylvania 8,000 ✔ ✔

Rhode Island — ✔

South Carolina 650 ✔ ✔

South Dakota —

Tennessee 300 ✔ ✔

Texas — ✔ On hold

Utah — ✔ On hold

Vermont 200 ✔ ✔

Virginia 800 ✔ ✔

Washington 1,800 ✔ ✔

West Virginia —

Wisconsin — ✔

Wyoming —

S U P P O R T I DA I N S TAT E I DA

(in thousands) TA N F P R O G R A M

S U P P O R T I DA I N S TAT E I DA

(in thousands) TA N F P R O G R A M

Income Tax Threshold

Rationale: The income tax threshold

measures the income level at which

residents in a particular state begin

paying income taxes. States with

higher thresholds allow low-income fam-

ilies to keep more of their limited incomes,

thus increasing the potential for saving.

Measure: State income tax thresholds for one-parent families

of three (in 2000).

Source: Zahradnik, B.; Johnson, N.; & Mazerov, M; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (2001).

State income tax burdens on low-income families in 2000: Assessing the burden and opportunities

for relief. Washington, D.C.: Author.



States with

higher income tax

thresholds

allow low-income

families to keep

more of their

limited incomes,

thus increasing

the potential

for saving.

Alabama $4,600 41

Alaska — —

Arizona 20,100 11

Arkansas 13,000 26

California 35,000 1

Colorado 24,400 5


Delaware 14,700 22

Florida — —

Georgia 12,100 31

Hawaii 9,200 37

Idaho 14,900 21

Illinois 12,500 29

Indiana 9,000 38

Iowa 17,400 18

Kansas 20,200 10

Kentucky 5,000 40

Louisiana 11,000 32

Maine 20,600 9

Maryland 24,600 4


Michigan 9,900 35

Minnesota 25,600 2


Missouri 12,500 29

Montana $7,800 39

Nebraska 15,400 19

Nevada — —




New York 22,600 7



Ohio 10,200 33

Oklahoma 9,300 36

Oregon 12,700 28





Tennessee — —

Texas — —

Utah 12,800 27

Vermont 25,500 3

Virginia 14,200 24

Washington — —


Wisconsin 17,700 16

Wyoming — —


State Earned Income

Tax Credit

Rationale: The Earned

Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a

tax policy tool to supple-

ment the after-tax earnings

of low- and moderate-in-

come working families. The

federal government adminis-

ters the EITC through the

federal income tax. A grow-

ing number of states have also enacted EITCs as a way to reduce child poverty, reward

families moving from welfare to work, and increase the disposable income of families

struggling to make ends meet. Having greater disposable income increases the poten-

tial for saving.

Measure: State EITCs for tax year 2000. States receive credit for having one or more of

the following:

1. a state EITC,

2. a state EITC that is refundable for all families who have children and receive the fed-

eral EITC,

3. a refundable state EITC with credit set at least at 15% of the federal credit

A state receives 0 points if it does not have any of the initiatives, 0.33 points if it has

one, 0.67 points if it has two, and 1 point if it has all three.

123


A number of

states use EITCs

to reduce child

poverty, reward

families moving

from welfare to

work, and

increase the

disposable income

of families

struggling to

make ends meet.



State Earned Income Tax Credit

(continued from previous page)

Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (November 2000). A hand up: How state Earned Income Tax Credits

help working families escape poverty. Washington, D.C.: Author.



Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado ✔ ✔

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois ✔

Indiana ✔

Iowa ✔

Kansas ✔ ✔

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine ✔

Maryland ✔ ✔ ✔

Massachusetts ✔ ✔ ✔

Michigan

Minnesota ✔ ✔ ✔

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey ✔ ✔

New Mexico

New York ✔ ✔ ✔

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma ✔ ✔

Oregon ✔

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island ✔ ✔

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont ✔ ✔ ✔

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin ✔ ✔ ✔

Wyoming

EITC REFUNDABLE >15% EITC REFUNDABLE >15%

State Minimum Wage

Rationale: Establishing a minimum wage

is a policy tool used to increase the pre-

tax earnings of low-wage workers to

help better meet basic consumption

needs. With additional disposable income, all

things being equal, low-wage workers also will

have a greater opportunity to save some money.

The federal government established a national minimum wage,

but a number of states have also established a minimum wage

that exceeds the federal standard.

Measure: States with a minimum wage higher than the federal level

(as of January 1, 2002).

Source: U.S. Department of Labor. Minimum wage laws in the states [On-line]. Available:

http://www.dol.gov/dol/esa/public/minwage/america.htm.

125



The federal

government

established

a national

minimum wage,

but a number of

states have also

established a

minimum wage

that exceeds the

federal standard.

Alabama

Alaska ✔

Arizona

Arkansas

California ✔

Colorado

Connecticut ✔

Delaware ✔

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii ✔

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine ✔

Maryland

Massachusetts ✔

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon ✔

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island ✔

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont ✔

Virginia

Washington ✔

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

> F E D E R A L > F E D E R A L

Asset Limits for Public Assistance

Rationale: Ironically, while public policies create a num-

ber of incentives for non-poor families to save, families on

public assistance actually face disincentives to saving. In particu-

lar, low-income families receiving food stamps, Medicaid, Supplemental

Security Income, and TANF face “asset barriers.” First, those on assistance are

not allowed to accumulate assets beyond a federally or state specified level. Second,

those seeking assistance must first spend down or deplete their assets to that level be-

fore qualifying for such assistance. In a review of the literature on asset tests, Orszag

notes, “The evidence that is available generally suggests that the asset tests act as a dis-

incentive to saving among lower-income families.”42 Orszag further concludes that, given

the extremely low levels of assets allowed under most public assistance programs, an in-

crease in the level of allowable assets is good policy.

Measure: States that meet one or more of the following standards: 1) a countable asset limit

for TANF recipients greater than or equal to $10,000 (a level equivalent to the asset limit es-

tablished in the federal Assets for Independence Act); 2) exclusion of the value of at least

one vehicle from the vehicle asset limit under TANF (as 26 states have done); 3) elimination

of the asset test for Medicaid receipts (as 18 states have done); 4) exclusion of the value of

all vehicles in determining the countable asset limit for food stamps (as 17 states have done).

A state receives 0 points if it does not meet any of the standards, 0.25 points if it meets

one, 0.5 if it meets two, 0.75 if it meets three, and 1 point if it meets all four.

126


Families on public

assistance

actually face

dis incentives

to saving.


Alabama $2,000 1/driver $2,000 Excludes ALL vehicles

Alaska 1,000 1/household 1,000 Excludes 1/household

Arizona 2,000 1/household No asset test Excludes certain vehicles

based on use

Arkansas 3,000 1/household 3,100 Excludes 1/household

California 2,000 $4,650 3,150 Maintains federal rules

Colorado 2,000 1/household 2,000 Excludes 1/household

Connecticut 3,000 9,500 No asset test Maintains federal rules

Delaware 1,000 4,650 No asset test Excludes ALL vehicles

Florida 2,000 8,500 6,000 Excludes certain vehicles

based on use

Georgia 1,000 4,650 1,000 Maintains federal rules

Hawaii 5,000 1/household 3,250 Maintains federal rules

Idaho 2,000 4,650 1,000 Maintains federal rules

Illinois 2,000 1/household No asset test Maintains federal rules

Indiana 1,500 5,000 1,000 Excludes ALL vehicles

Iowa 5,000 3,959 2,000 Maintains federal rules

Kansas 2,000 1/household 2,000 Excludes ALL vehicles

Kentucky 2,000 1/household 2,000 Excludes ALL vehicles

Louisiana 2,000 10,000 3,025 Excludes ALL vehicles

Maine 1,000 1/household 2,000 Excludes certain vehicles

based on use

TA N F A S S E T V E H I C L E M E D I C A I D V E H I C L E A S S E T L I M I T S

L I M I T S E XC L U S I O N A S S E T L I M I T S I N F O O D S TA M P P G M .

Source: TANF asset limits: Welfare Information Network. State Plan Database [on-line]. Available: http//www.welfareinfo.org. TANF vehicle

asset limits: the Urban Institute: Welfare Rules Database [on-line]. Available: http://anfdata.urban.org. Medicaid asset limits: Broaddus, M.,

Blaney, S., Dude, A., Guyer, J., Ku, L., and Peterson, J. (February 13, 2002). Expanding family coverage: States’ Medicaid eligibility policies for

working families in the year 2000 (Table 4). Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Vehicle asset policies in the food stamp

program: Dean, S., & Horng, R. (February 13, 2002). States’ vehicle asset policies in the food stamp program (Table 2). Washington, D.C.:

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

127



Maryland $2,000 1/household $3,100 Excludes ALL vehicles

Massachusetts 2,500 $10,000 (FMV); No asset test Excludes ALL vehicles

5,000 (equity)

Michigan 3,000 1/household No asset test Excludes ALL vehicles

Minnesota 2,000 7,500 30,000 Maintains federal rules

Mississippi 2,000 4,650 No asset test Maintains federal rules

Missouri 1,000 1/household No asset test Excludes ALL vehicles

Montana 3,000 1/household 3,000 Excludes 1/household

Nebraska 4,000 1/household 6,000 Increased FMV exemption

for first vehicle

Nevada 2,000 1/household 2,000 Excludes 1/household

New Hampshire 1,000 1/driver 1,000 Excludes 1/household

New Jersey 2,000 9,500 No asset test Increased FMV exemption

for first vehicle

New Mexico 3,500 1/household No asset test Excludes ALL vehicles

New York 2,000 4,650 5,300 Excludes 1/household

North Carolina 3,000 1/adult 3,000 Excludes 1/household

North Dakota 8,000 1/household 8,000 Excludes ALL vehicles

Ohio No limit All excluded No asset test Excludes ALL vehicles

Oklahoma 1,000 5,000 No asset test Increased FMV exemption

for first vehicle

Oregon 10,000 10,000 2,000 Excludes ALL vehicles

Pennsylvania 1,000 1/household No asset test Excludes 1/household

Rhode Island 1,000 4,600 (FMV); No asset test Maintains federal rules

1,500 (equity)

South Carolina 2,500 1/driver No asset test Excludes ALL vehicles

South Dakota 2,000 1/household 2,000 Excludes 1/household

Tennessee 2,000 4,600 2,000 Maintains federal rules

Texas 2,000 4,650 2,000 Increased FMV exemption

for first vehicle

Utah 2,000 8,000 3,025 Increased FMV exemption

for first vehicle

Vermont 1,000 1/household No asset test Excludes 1/household

Virginia 1,000 One vehicle, 3,100 Maintains federal rules

if FMV < $7500

Washington 1,000 5,000 No asset test Maintains federal rules

West Virginia 2,000 1/household 3,000 Excludes ALL vehicles

Wisconsin 2,500 10,000 No asset test Excludes ALL vehicles

Wyoming 2,500 12,000 2,500 Increased FMV exemption

for first vehicle

TA N F A S S E T V E H I C L E M E D I C A I D V E H I C L E A S S E T L I M I T S

L I M I T S E XC L U S I O N A S S E T L I M I T S I N F O O D S TA M P P G M .


Affordable Homeownership

Homeownership is the single largest source of equity for

American households. Public policies, such as home mort-

gage interest deduction, have played a pivotal role in in-

centivizing homeownership at the federal level. A number

of state policies have also been implemented to help those

with lower incomes become homeowners.



Homeownership

is the single largest

source of equity for

American households.

Mortgage Revenue Bonds

Rationale: In 1986 Congress gave

states a maximum amount of power

to issue tax-exempt bonds. A 1986

tax law set the cap at $50 per

capita, with a minimum of $150 mil-

lion for low population states. The rev-

enue from tax-exempt bonds can be used

for industrial development bonds, student loans,

mortgages, and other investments. The percentage of pri-

vate activity bonds that a state allocates for mortgage revenue

bonds is a good indication of how that state prioritizes housing assistance.

Measure: The percentage of state allocations of private-activity bonds for mortgage

revenue bonds (in 2000).

Source: State allocations of private activity bonds in 2000. (July 2001). Bond Buyer, 337 (31176), 34.

129



The percentage

of private activity

bonds that a

state allocates

for mortgage

revenue bonds is

a good indication

of how that state

prioritizes housing

assistance.







appear the same.

Alabama 0.34% 42

Alaska 0.60 14

Arizona 0.59 16

Arkansas 0.36 41

California 0.74 6

Colorado 0.57 20

Connecticut 0.49 26

Delaware 0.47 29

Florida 0.73 8

Georgia 0.41 32

Hawaii 0.67 13

Idaho 1.33 1

Illinois 0.45 30

Indiana 0.37 39

Iowa 0.52 25

Kansas 0.70 10

Kentucky 0.48 27

Louisiana 0.79 4

Maine 0.71 9

Maryland 0.84 2


Michigan 0.14 49

Minnesota 0.55 22

Mississippi 0.39 35

Missouri 0.21 47

Montana 0.53 24

Nebraska 0.07 50

Nevada 0.78 5


New Jersey 0.25 45

New Mexico 0.69 11

New York 0.74 7


North Dakota 0.80 3

Ohio 0.68 12

Oklahoma 0.55 23

Oregon 0.59 17





Tennessee 0.56 21

Texas 0.40 34

Utah 0.57 19

Vermont 0.44 31

Virginia 0.39 36

Washington 0.48 28


Wisconsin 0.26 44

Wyoming 0.60 15


State Housing Trust Fund

Rationale: Housing trust funds were created in response to the

Reagan administration’s severe cutbacks in federal support for

affordable housing. Housing trust funds provide a dedicated

source of funding for housing activities at the state level, including

constructing, rehabilitation, and financing housing for low- and

moderate-income families. Housing trust funds generate their rev-

enue from a variety of resources, but the majority rely on recording

fees for real estate documents. Trust awards can take many forms,

including grants to nonprofits, developers, community-based organi-

zations, housing authorities, or public agencies.

Measure: States that have a state-operated housing trust fund (in 2000).

Source: National Council of State Housing Agencies. (2000). State HFA fact book: 2000 NCSHA an-

nual survey results. Washington D.C.: Author.


Housing trust

funds provide a

dedicated source

of funding for

housing activities—

construction,

rehabilitation, and

financing housing

for low- and

moderate-income

families—at the

state level.


Alabama

Alaska

Arizona ✔

Arkansas

California ✔

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware ✔

Florida ✔

Georgia ✔

Hawaii ✔

Idaho

Illinois ✔

Indiana ✔

Iowa ✔

Kansas ✔

Kentucky ✔

Louisiana

Maine ✔

Maryland ✔

Massachusetts ✔

Michigan

Minnesota ✔

Mississippi

Missouri ✔

Montana ✔

Nebraska ✔

Nevada ✔

New Hampshire ✔

New Jersey

New Mexico ✔

New York ✔

North Carolina ✔

North Dakota

Ohio ✔

Oklahoma ✔

Oregon ✔

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina ✔

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas ✔

Utah ✔

Vermont ✔

Virginia

Washington ✔

West Virginia ✔

Wisconsin

Wyoming

T R U S T F U N D T R U S T F U N D

Property Tax Circuit Breakers

Rationale: A large portion of state and local tax revenues come from property

taxes. Circuit breakers are property tax relief programs that target low- and mod-

erate-income homeowners, particularly seniors. Circuit breakers kick in when property

taxes exceed a certain percentage of a household’s income and provide a property tax

rebate or tax subsidy for qualifying households. Circuit breakers are particularly helpful

for seniors on fixed incomes who live in older homes where property taxes are increasing

due to gentrification.

Measure: States that have programs for assisting the elderly and disabled in meeting

their property tax burden (in 1998). States receive credit for having programs that tar-

get any of the following populations: 1) elderly homeowners, 2) all homeowners, 3) eld-

erly renters, 4) all renters. A state receives 0 points if it does not have any circuit

breaker programs, 0.25 if it has one, 0.5 if it has two, 0.75 if it has three, and 1 if it has

all four.

Source: Baer, D., AARP Public Policy Institute. (1998). Awareness and popularity of property tax re-

lief programs. Washington D.C.: Author.

131


Circuit breakers

are particularly

helpful for seniors

on fixed incomes

who live in older

homes where

property taxes

are increasing due

to gentrification.


Alabama

Alaska

Arizona ✔ ✔

Arkansas ✔

California ✔ ✔

Colorado ✔ ✔

Connecticut ✔ ✔

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii ✔

Idaho ✔

Illinois ✔ ✔

Indiana

Iowa ✔ ✔

Kansas ✔ ✔

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine ✔ ✔

Maryland ✔ ✔

Massachusetts

Michigan ✔ ✔

Minnesota ✔ ✔

Mississippi

Missouri ✔ ✔

Montana ✔ ✔

Nebraska ✔

Nevada ✔ ✔

New Hampshire

New Jersey ✔ ✔

New Mexico ✔ ✔

New York ✔ ✔

North Carolina

North Dakota ✔ ✔

Ohio ✔

Oklahoma ✔

Oregon ✔

Pennsylvania ✔ ✔


South Carolina

South Dakota ✔ ✔

Tennessee

Texas

Utah ✔ ✔

Vermont ✔ ✔

Virginia

Washington ✔

West Virginia ✔ ✔

Wisconsin ✔ ✔

Wyoming

O W N E R S R E N T E R S

Elderly All Elderly All

O W N E R S R E N T E R S

Elderly All Elderly All

First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Programs

Rationale: Often, low-income workers can afford the monthly

mortgage costs associated with homeownership, but they can-

not save enough money for the downpayment and closing costs.

Many states offer programs to help low-income families buy homes

through downpayment assistance.

Measure: States receive credit for one or more of the following pro-

grams: 1) direct lending for homeownership, 2) homeownership coun-

seling, 3) funds for second mortgages, 4) funds for construction as-

sistance, 5) lease purchase arrangement, 6) direct grants for downpayments. A states

receives 0 points if it does not have any of the designated programs, 0.17 points if it has

one program, 0.33 if it has two, 0.5 if it has three, 0.67 if it has four, 0.83 if it has five,

and 1 point if it has all six.


Low-income

workers can often

afford monthly

mortgage costs,

but can’t save

enough for the

downpayment

and closing costs.


Alabama ✔ ✔

Alaska ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Arizona ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Arkansas ✔ ✔

California ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Colorado ✔ ✔ ✔

Connecticut ✔ ✔

Delaware ✔ ✔

Florida ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Georgia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Hawaii ✔ ✔ ✔

Idaho ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Illinois ✔ ✔ ✔

Indiana ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Iowa ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Kansas ✔ ✔ ✔

Kentucky ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Louisiana ✔ ✔

Maine ✔ ✔

Maryland ✔ ✔ ✔

Massachusetts ✔ ✔ ✔

Michigan ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔


Mississippi ✔ ✔ ✔

Missouri ✔ ✔

Montana

Nebraska ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

DIRECT 2ND CONST. LEASE DIRECT

LENDING COUNSEL MTGE ASS IST. PURCH. GRANTS

Source: National Council of State Housing Agencies. (2000). State HFA fact book: 2000 NCSHA an-

nual survey results. Washington D.C.: Author.

133



Nevada ✔

New Hampshire ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

New Jersey ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

New Mexico ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

New York ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

North Carolina ✔ ✔


Ohio

Oklahoma ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Oregon ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Pennsylvania ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Rhode Island ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

South Carolina ✔ ✔

South Dakota ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Tennessee ✔ ✔

Texas ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Utah ✔ ✔

Vermont ✔ ✔

Virginia ✔ ✔ ✔

Washington ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

West Virginia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Wisconsin ✔

Wyoming ✔ ✔

DIRECT 2ND CONST. LEASE DIRECT

LENDING COUNSEL MTGE ASS IST. PURCH. GRANTS


Human Capital Development

The measures of human capital development policy assess

state policies that assist in the development of education

and learning, including policies that focus on low-income

families and families living in low-wealth communities.



For workers in a global

information-age economy,

education levels

now determine

economic prospects.

Supplementary Funds for Head Start

Rationale: The first years in a child’s life are critical to healthy intellectual develop-

ment and future academic success. They provide a short window of opportunity with

enormous implications for the rest of a child’s life. Research shows that early childhood

education significantly improves the scholastic success and educational achievements of

poor children even into early adulthood. Moreover, high-quality, targeted interventions,

such as preschool, save money by preventing future expenses for remedial education, in-

carceration, and cash assistance. Public and private investment in early childhood is in-

creasing, with particular focus on early learning and literacy, public awareness, and qual-

ity of care.

Measure: States that provide supplementary funds for the Head Start Education pro-

gram to support early childhood development (as of 1995).

Source: National Center for Children in Poverty. (1996). Map and track: State initiatives for young

children and families. New York, NY: Columbia University.

135


Research shows

that early

childhood

education

significantly

improves the

scholastic success

and educational

achievements of

poor children

even into early

adulthood.


Alabama

Alaska ✔

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut ✔

Delaware ✔

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii ✔

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana ✔

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine ✔

Maryland

Massachusetts ✔

Michigan

Minnesota ✔

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire ✔

New Jersey ✔

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio ✔

Oklahoma ✔

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island ✔

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington ✔

West Virginia

Wisconsin ✔

Wyoming

F U N D S F U N D S

State-Funded Pre-Kindergarten Program

Rationale: At present the current pre-kindergarten system is

haphazard, piecemeal, and underfunded. Studies have shown

that children who enter kindergarten with limited reading and

other cognitive skills are the most likely to develop difficulties later

on and end up in remedial education. Those who are the least skilled

by third grade are the most likely to drop out before finishing high

school. Investing in a quality preschool program is a key element to

long-term educational success and workforce development.

Measure: States that have state-funded pre-kindergarten education programs (in 1996).

Source: National Center for Children in Poverty. (1996). Map and track: State initiatives for young

children and families. New York, NY: Columbia University.



Children who

enter kindergarten

with limited

reading and other

cognitive skills are

the most likely to

develop difficulties

later on and

end up in remedial

education.

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona ✔

Arkansas ✔

California ✔

Colorado ✔

Connecticut ✔

Delaware

Florida ✔

Georgia ✔

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois ✔

Indiana ✔

Iowa ✔

Kansas

Kentucky ✔

Louisiana ✔

Maine ✔

Maryland ✔

Massachusetts ✔

Michigan ✔

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey ✔

New Mexico

New York ✔

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio ✔

Oklahoma ✔

Oregon ✔

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina ✔

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas ✔

Utah

Vermont ✔

Virginia ✔

Washington ✔

West Virginia ✔

Wisconsin

Wyoming

P R E - K P R O G R A M P R E - K P R O G R A M

K–12 Education Expenditures

Rationale: While the relationship between education spending and achievement is

not a simple one, it is clear that investments in education can have a significant impact

on the long-term economic health of households and communities. Scholarly research

has demonstrated a significant relationship between education spending and future

earnings. Moreover, in an information-age economy that increasingly places a premium

on skilled workers, gross underfunding of education in certain districts has serious con-

sequences for the life chances of disadvantaged students.

Measure: Per-pupil expenditures for K–12 students from federal, state, and local sources,

adjusted for cost-of-living differences among states (in 1999–2000).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Current ex-

penditures for public, elementary, and secondary education by state: 1969-70 to 1998-99.

Washington, D.C.: Author; and Technical documentation for the American Federation of Teachers

cost-of-living index from Nelson, F. H. (2000) An interstate cost-of-living index. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 13 (1) pp. 103-111. Index values for Alaska and Hawaii from the

American Chamber of Commerce Researchers Association. (2002). Intercity cost-of-living index.

Louisville, KY: Author.

137


Research has

demonstrated a

significant

relationship

between

education

spending and

future earnings.







appear the same.

Alabama $5.54 43

Alaska 7.11 19

Arizona 5.07 47

Arkansas 5.27 46

California 4.76 48

Colorado 5.93 39

Connecticut 8.22 6

Delaware 7.50 14

Florida 6.08 37

Georgia 6.27 33

Hawaii 4.60 49

Idaho 5.34 45

Illinois 6.22 35

Indiana 7.82 10

Iowa 7.32 16

Kansas 6.85 23

Kentucky 7.27 18

Louisiana 6.32 32

Maine 7.61 12

Maryland 6.92 22


Michigan 7.80 11

Minnesota 7.99 7

Mississippi 5.50 44

Missouri 6.02 38

Montana $6.68 25

Nebraska 6.71 24

Nevada 5.70 42


New Jersey 8.67 2

New Mexico 6.23 34

New York 8.37 4



Ohio 6.95 21

Oklahoma 6.38 31

Oregon 7.47 15

Pennsylvania 8.24 5

Rhode Island 7.90 8



Tennessee 5.82 41

Texas 6.58 27

Utah 4.24 50

Vermont 7.58 13

Virginia 7.07 20

Washington 6.44 30


Wisconsin 8.52 3

Wyoming 7.86 9

A M O U N T R A N K

(in thousands)

A M O U N T R A N K

(in thousands)




School Spending Equalization

Rationale: State courts across the

United States have ruled that the

method of funding public education,

which relies primarily on local property

tax revenues and often leads to spending

disparities between rich and poor school

districts, violates fundamental constitu-

tional guarantees of equal opportunity to

education. Many states have acted to address these inequities. This measure is an indica-

tor of how equal school spending is across all of a state’s school districts.

Measure: The ratio of the amount spent on pupils below the median in a state to the

amount needed to be spent to achieve “equity” (as of 1997).

Source: The McLoone Index. Education Week. XX (17), pp.104-105. (January 2001) Bethesda, MD:

Editorial Projects in Education Inc.

Public school

funding currently

relies heavily

on local property

tax revenues

and often leads

to spending

disparities

between rich

and poor

school districts.







appear the same.

Alabama 0.93 23

Alaska 0.87 48

Arizona 0.93 31

Arkansas 0.94 15

California 0.93 26

Colorado 0.97 5

Connecticut 0.95 13

Delaware 0.94 21

Florida 0.95 11

Georgia 0.94 18

Hawaii 1.00 1

Idaho 0.94 19

Illinois 0.87 47

Indiana 0.92 37

Iowa 0.95 14

Kansas 0.94 21

Kentucky 0.91 39

Louisiana 0.92 34

Maine 0.91 42

Maryland 0.91 43


Michigan 0.92 33

Minnesota 0.93 30

Mississippi 0.94 20

Missouri 0.92 36

Montana 0.91 45

Nebraska 0.91 40

Nevada 0.99 2


New Jersey 0.91 41

New Mexico 0.97 4

New York 0.87 48


North Dakota 0.96 7

Ohio 0.92 35

Oklahoma 0.96 9

Oregon 0.93 28





Tennessee 0.92 32

Texas 0.95 12

Utah 0.99 3

Vermont 0.86 50

Virginia 0.93 29

Washington 0.94 17


Wisconsin 0.93 24

Wyoming 0.93 27


138

Funding for

Customized Job Training

Rationale: The American workplace

is undergoing profound changes

that require all workers to acquire

advanced skills to stay competitive in

a global economy. A skilled workforce

is key to maintaining the nation’s produc-

tivity and economic competitiveness.43 In addition, all

things being equal, those with higher skills and higher pay

will have a greater ability to save.

Measure: State rank with respect to funding for customized job training per capita

(as of 1997).

Source: Regional Technology Strategies, Inc. (1999). A comprehensive look at state-funded, em-

ployer-focused job training programs. Washington, DC: National Governor’s Association, Center for

Best Practices.

139



All things being

equal, those with

higher skills and

higher pay will

have a greater

ability to save.

Alabama 15

Alaska 3

Arizona 33

Arkansas 40

California 6

Colorado 26

Connecticut 32

Delaware 35

Florida 44

Georgia 27

Hawaii 20

Idaho 13

Illinois 23

Indiana 12

Iowa 1

Kansas 11

Kentucky 37

Louisiana 22

Maine 17

Maryland 30

Massachusetts 46

Michigan 9

Minnesota 24

Mississippi 18

Missouri 4

Montana —

Nebraska 41

Nevada 43

New Hampshire —

New Jersey 7

New Mexico 5

New York 42

North Carolina 10

North Dakota 28

Ohio 36

Oklahoma 14

Oregon 45

Pennsylvania 16

Rhode Island 2

South Carolina 19

South Dakota 34

Tennessee 31

Texas 8

Utah 25

Vermont 39

Virginia 21

Washington 47

West Virginia 29

Wisconsin 38

Wyoming —

R A N K R A N K

Need-Based Financial Aid

Rationale: Access to college is signif-

icantly affected by households’ abil-

ity to pay for college. Low-income

families have great difficulty being

able to save enough to afford col-

lege. Need-based assistance is a critical

measure of a state’s commitment to equal

access to higher education.

Measure: Estimated need-based aid to undergraduates per

resident population (in 1998–1999).

Source: National Association of States Student Grant Aid Programs. (July 2002) 30th Annual

National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs survey report [On-line]. Available:

http://www.nassgap.org/researchsurveys/default.htm.



Need-based

assistance is a

critical measure

of a state’s

commitment to

equal access to

higher education.







appear the same.

Alabama $0.47 43

Alaska 0.00 49

Arizona 0.60 41

Arkansas 6.31 22

California 10.28 13

Colorado 10.76 11

Connecticut 10.13 14

Delaware 1.92 37

Florida 2.50 36

Georgia 0.06 48

Hawaii 0.42 44

Idaho 0.62 40

Illinois 26.53 2

Indiana 16.97 7

Iowa 16.92 8

Kansas 3.23 32

Kentucky 9.84 15

Louisiana 0.32 45

Maine 6.20 23

Maryland 7.56 20


Michigan 9.44 16

Minnesota 24.20 3

Mississippi 0.31 47

Missouri 3.70 30

Montana $0.54 42

Nebraska 2.83 35

Nevada 3.52 31


New Jersey 19.98 6

New Mexico 9.38 17

New York 34.13 1



Ohio 8.32 19

Oklahoma 5.24 27

Oregon 4.94 28





Tennessee 3.85 29

Texas 3.18 33

Utah 0.95 39

Vermont 21.66 5

Virginia 9.35 18

Washington 13.22 10


Wisconsin 10.39 12

Wyoming 0.32 45


College Savings Plan

with Matching Funds

Rationale: Having a college education is strongly correlated with higher income and

higher levels of net worth. Unfortunately, the cost of a college education is still beyond

the financial means of many families. State college savings (or 529) plans allow families to

begin saving early for a child’s education, thus ensuring that they will have enough

money when college begins. Thanks to recent tax law changes, which make withdrawals

from the plan for qualified expenses tax exempt, investors, financial institutions, and

states have all been showing greater interest in these college savings vehicles. For the

most part, college savings plans appear to be a new wave in tax-sheltered asset accumu-

lation for moderate- and higher-income households. Recognizing this, a few leading

states provide some level of matching funds to low- and moderate-income families to

encourage participation in their state’s college savings plan.

Measure: States that provide matching grants to the college savings plans of low- to

moderate-income families (in 2002).

Source: M. Clancy. (Personal communication, March 2002). St. Louis MO: Center for Social

Development, Washington University at St Louis.

141


A few leading

states provide

some level of

matching funds

to low- and

moderate-income

families to

encourage

participation in

the state’s college

savings plan.

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana ✔

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan ✔

Minnesota ✔

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

S AV I N G S P L A N S AV I N G S P L A N


Small Business Development Policy

The small business development policy measures look at

state policies that facilitate business ownership through

access to capital for low- and moderate-income entrepre-

neurs.



There is wide support

throughout the country

for supporting

low-income individuals by

helping them set up

their own businesses, thus

getting off welfare and

climbing out of poverty.

Small Business Investment Company

Investments

Rationale: Small business investment company (SBIC) fi-

nancing is important because it helps small companies in

their critical start-up phase obtain much-needed, vital seed

capital. Most states boast a number of public or nonprofit

business investment or loan funds. SBICs are federally licensed in-

vestment companies that target financing to economically and socially disad-

vantaged entrepreneurs. SBICs offer hard-to-find, patient, growth-oriented capital

in the form of long-term loans, equity, or convertible debt. In exchange for a pledge to

invest exclusively in small business, SBICs qualify for federal Small Business Administration

guarantees.

Measure: SBIC Financing to businesses by state (in dollars) per worker (in 2000).

Source: U.S. Small Business Administration. (2001). SBIC financing statistics. Washington D.C.:

Author.

143


SBICs

are federally

licensed

investment

companies that

target financing

to economically

and socially

disadvantaged

entrepreneurs.







appear the same.


Alabama $12.4 35

Alaska 0.0 48

Arizona 39.7 10

Arkansas 4.3 43

California 79.2 4

Colorado 94.4 2

Connecticut 84.6 3

Delaware 16.2 33

Florida 22.0 28

Georgia 33.6 15

Hawaii 37.0 12

Idaho 2.3 45

Illinois 26.1 24

Indiana 7.2 40

Iowa 14.1 34

Kansas 28.7 20

Kentucky 6.6 42

Louisiana 26.9 22

Maine 16.6 32

Maryland 25.1 25


Michigan 11.2 36

Minnesota 24.1 27

Mississippi 9.1 38

Missouri 32.4 16

Montana $0.0 48

Nebraska 0.6 46

Nevada 8.2 39


New Jersey 62.7 6

New Mexico 10.6 37

New York 66.2 5


North Dakota 6.6 41

Ohio 34.6 14

Oklahoma 3.2 44

Oregon 27.0 21


Rhode Island 44.6 7


South Dakota 0.5 47

Tennessee 44.6 8

Texas 35.4 13

Utah 29.9 19

Vermont 31.9 17

Virginia 30.1 18

Washington 24.5 26


Wisconsin 16.8 31

Wyoming 0.0 48


Capital Access Programs

Rationale: Capital access programs (CAPs) aim to encourage banks to make slightly

more risky loans to typically more low- to moderate-income communities. With

CAPs, borrowers and the lending institution pay an upfront insurance premium

(3–7% of the amount of the loan). This amount is matched by the state and placed in a

reserve fund at the originating bank. This pool of money protects the entire collection of

CAP loans, therefore providing banks with more security for making loans to less conven-

tional borrowers and, as a result, increasing investments in underserved populations.

Measuring CAP lending in a state helps identify which states are actively seeking ways to

promote asset building in underserved communities. Presently, 20 states are involved

with CAP lending. States perform differently in the following aspects of CAPs:


Measuring CAP

lending in a state

helps identify

which states are

actively seeking

ways to promote

asset building in

underserved

communities.


Measure: States that have capital access programs.

Source: U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Community Development Policy. (2001). Capital ac-

cess programs: A summary of nationwide performance. Washington D.C.: Author.

■ Volume of CAP lending

■ Number of banks involved

■ Targeted lending (7 states)

■ Low- to moderate-income

areas (geographic targeting)

■ Minority ownership

■ Female ownership

■ Disabled person ownership

■ Industry targeting

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas ✔

California ✔

Colorado ✔

Connecticut ✔

Delaware ✔

Florida ✔

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois ✔

Indiana ✔

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts ✔

Michigan ✔

Minnesota ✔

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire ✔

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina ✔

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma ✔

Oregon ✔

Pennsylvania ✔

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas ✔

Utah

Vermont ✔

Virginia ✔

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin ✔

Wyoming

C A P C A P

144


State Microenterprise Policy

Rationale: There is wide support throughout the country for encouraging microenterprise

as a strategy to support low-income individuals by helping them set up their own busi-

nesses, thus getting off welfare and climbing out of poverty. Multistate demonstrations of

microenterprise have proven that welfare recipients and other disadvantaged populations

can use self-employment as a route to economic independence and wealth creation.44

Measure: States receive credit for having one or more of the following sources of fund-

ing for microenterprise: 1) state general funds, 2) TANF funds, 3) Community

Development Block Grant funds, 4) welfare-to-work funds, 5) other funds. A state re-

ceives 0 points if it does not have any of the sources of funding, 0.2 if it has one source,

0.4 if it has two, 0.6 if it has three, 0.8 if it has four, and 1 if it has all five.

Sources: Brown, P., Corporation for Enterprise Development. (Interviews and electronic correspon-

dence, February 2002). Washington, D.C.

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Colorado ✔

Connecticut

Delaware Possibly*

Florida

Georgia ✔

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa ✔

Kansas ✔

Kentucky ✔

Louisiana ✔

Maine ✔ ✔ ✔

Maryland ✔ ✔

Massachusetts ✔

Michigan


Mississippi

Missouri ✔

Montana

Nebraska ✔ ✔

Nevada

New Hampshire ✔

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York ✔

North Carolina ✔

North Dakota

Ohio ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Oklahoma

Oregon ✔



South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee ✔ ✔

Texas ✔ **

Utah

Vermont ✔ ✔ ✔

Virginia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

GENERAL TANF CDBG W-TO-W OTHER GEN TANF CDBG W-TO-W OTHER


* The state grants the First State Community Loan Fund a very small amount for Grant-in-Aid which may go to microenterprise. The state also grants the YWCA

money for Grant–in-Aid but we could not confirm whether the money goes towards microenterprise. Email: Caroline E.W. Glackin; First State Community Loan Fund.

** The Texas Association of Community Development Corporations was able to get the Texas CDFI Fund established (funded) this last legislative session. The fund is set up

to be open to all CDFI business models and is not exclusive to micro at all. It is possible that none of the money will go towards microenterprise. Email correspondence.

145

CDFIs make

loans and

investments

that may be

considered

unbankable by

conventional

industry

standards and

serve borrowers,

investees, and

customers not

serviced by

mainstream

financial

institutions.

State CDFI Program

Rationale: CDFIs are private financial institutions

that have community development as a primary

mission and develop a range of programs and meth-

ods to meet the needs of low-income communities.

CDFIs make loans and investments that may be consid-

ered unbankable by conventional industry standards

and serve borrowers, investees, and customers not

serviced by mainstream financial institutions. State support for CDFIs indi-

cates the level of commitment by state-level policymakers to foster lending to under-

served businesses and communities within the state. State programs tend to support

CDFIs either through state tax credits or direct funding.

Measure: States that have initiatives or programs in support of a state CDFI industry (as

of 2001).

Source: The Illinois Facilities Fund. (October 2001). State programs: A directory of programs that

support the CDFI industry. Chicago, IL: Author.



Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California ✔

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida ✔

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois ✔

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine ✔

Maryland

Massachusetts ✔

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey ✔

New Mexico

New York ✔

North Carolina ✔

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania ✔

Rhode Island

South Carolina ✔

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas ✔

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington ✔

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

C D F I P R O G R A M C D F I P R O G R A M

Policies to Assist Asset-Poor Farmers

Rationale: The family farm and ranch system is at a critical juncture. The disappearance

of family farms is contributing to the dissolution of rural towns, as agribusiness does not

employ enough people to support a town. Agriculture is an important source of employ-

ment in rural America. To maintain family farms, it is important to increase new farmer

recruitment, reverse the bias toward large-scale farming and corporate concentration,

and assist asset-poor future farmers to obtain capital to get into farming.

Measure: States receive credit for having one or more of the following policies to assist

asset-poor farmers: 1), agricultural bonds, 2) finance programs for farmers, 3) targeted

programs for asset-poor farmers. A state receives 0 points if it does not have any of

these policies; 0.33 points if it has one, 0.67 if it has two, and 1 point if it has all three.

Sources: Information compiled by Wyatt Fraas of Rural Opportunities and Stewardship Program

Center for Rural Affairs in Hartington, NE (Personal communication, 2002). Additional information

from Communicating for Agriculture and Self Employed. List of State Beginning Farmer and Rancher

Aggie Bond Finance Programs and Contacts. [On-line] Available: www.selfemployedcountry.org/be-

ginfarm/two.html. (August 2002).

Alabama ✔

Alaska ✔

Arizona

Arkansas ✔ ✔

California ✔

Colorado ✔ ✔

Connecticut ✔

Delaware

Florida ✔

Georgia ✔

Hawaii ✔

Idaho ✔ ✔

Illinois ✔ ✔

Indiana ✔ ✔

Iowa ✔ ✔

Kansas ✔ ✔

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland ✔

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota ✔ ✔

Mississippi

Missouri ✔ ✔

Montana ✔

Nebraska ✔

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina ✔


Ohio ✔ ✔

Oklahoma ✔

Oregon

Pennsylvania ✔

Rhode Island

South Carolina


Tennessee

Texas ✔

Utah

Vermont ✔

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin ✔

Wyoming

FINANCE TARGETED

BONDS PROGRAMS PROGRAMS

FINANCE TARGETED

BONDS PROGRAMS PROGRAMS


147S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X


Self-employment

options using

unemployment

insurance funds

can provide

time-specific

self-employment

allowances to

previously

unemployed

persons who start

a new business.



Self-Employment Option

Rationale: Self-employment options

using unemployment insurance funds

have been used successfully in a few

states for time-specific self-employment

allowances to previously unemployed per-

sons who start a new business.

Measure: States allowing unemployment insurance for self-employment (as of 1997).

Source: O’Leary, C, & Wander, S. (Eds.). (1997). Unemployment insurance in the United States:

Analysis of policy issues. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. pp. 535.

Note: Though not included in the data reported in O'Leary and Wander, Pennsylvania also passed

the Self-Employment Assistance Program Act in 1997 to allow the use of unemployment insurance.

See PA House Bill #1475, Session of 1997.

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California ✔

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware ✔

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine ✔

Maryland ✔

Massachusetts ✔

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey ✔

New Mexico

New York ✔

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon ✔

Pennsylvania ✔

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington ✔

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

A M O U N T A M O U N T

Employee Ownership Policy

Rationale: Employee ownership promotes more widely shared asset accumulation in a

state, therefore countering the growing disparity between high-wealth and low-wealth in-

dividuals. It broadens the scope of business capital ownership by placing shares in the

hands of many employees, rather than the hands of a few owners. It can also help prevent

plant shutdowns and decrease the risk of capital flight from the state.

Currently, 28 states have passed employee ownership legislation over the past 28 years.

Legislation ranges from simple statements encouraging the practice to the allocation of

state funds for employee ownership programs. State-sponsored employee ownership initia-

tives include the following: tax credits, exemption of employee stock ownership plans from

state securities regulations, legal recognition of workers’ cooperatives, earmarked loan

funds and loan guarantees, interest rate subsidies, technical assistance, state employee

ownership centers, and using employee ownership as a means to privatize state services.

Measure: States that have passed employee ownership legislation (as of 2001).

Source: Grummell, J., & Logue, J. (2001). Employees and ownership: Trends, characteristics, and pol-

icy implications of state employee ownership legislation. Kent, OH: Ohio Employee Ownership Center,

Kent State University.

149


Employee

ownership

legislation ranges

from simple

statements

encouraging

the practice to

the allocation of

state funds

for employee

ownership

programs.

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California ✔

Colorado

Connecticut ✔

Delaware ✔

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii ✔

Idaho ✔

Illinois ✔

Indiana

Iowa ✔

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine ✔

Maryland ✔

Massachusetts ✔

Michigan ✔

Minnesota

Mississippi ✔

Missouri

Montana ✔

Nebraska ✔

Nevada

New Hampshire ✔

New Jersey ✔

New Mexico

New York ✔

North Carolina ✔

North Dakota

Ohio ✔

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania ✔

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas ✔

Utah

Vermont ✔

Virginia ✔

Washington ✔

West Virginia ✔

Wisconsin ✔

Wyoming

PA S S E D PA S S E D




Bank Access

The bank access policy measures in the Report Card assess

state policies to ensure equal access to basic financial

services, such as making deposits and receiving loans. One

of the basic factors that determines the ability of low-in-

come households to accumulate assets is access to main-

stream financial products and services.

One of the basic factors

that determines the ability

of low-income households

to accumulate assets

is access to

mainstream financial

products and services.

Lifeline Banking Regulations

Rationale: Holding a basic bank account provides households with access to finan-

cial services and the mainstream economy. Moreover, families with access to main-

stream financial services are much more likely to accumulate savings. Gale and Carney

find that ownership of a transaction account “is associated with very large increases in

the likelihood of owning other forms of wealth, and, controlling for other factors, house-

holds that do not have transaction accounts are 43 percentage points less likely to have

positive holdings of net financial assets, 13 percentage points less likely to have a home,

and 8 percentage points less likely to own a vehicle.”45 Unfortunately, low-income and mi-

nority households are more than twice as likely as others to be among the 10–20% of

the population that is “unbanked.” Research on the unbanked shows that bank fees and

minimum balance requirements are among the main reasons that some households

choose not to establish relationships with banks. Indeed, recent reports both the Public

Interest Research Group and the Federal Reserve Board have documented that bank fees

are rising and are higher at bigger banks.46 In response, several states require banks to

offer customers low-cost, so-called lifeline accounts to permit a small number of

monthly transactions (checks or debits) for a small monthly fee, often just $3/month.

Measure: States that have enacted legislation creating lifeline banking accounts (as of

1998).

Source: Doyle, J., Lopez, J., & Saidenberg, M. (1998). How effective is lifeline banking in assisting the

“unbanked?” Current Issues in Economics and Finance, 4 (6), pp. 1-6.

151


Research on the

unbanked shows

that fees and

minimum balance

requirements are

among the main

reasons that

some households

choose not to

establish

relationships

with banks.


Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois ✔

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts ✔

Michigan

Minnesota ✔

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey ✔

New Mexico

New York ✔

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont ✔

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

ENACTED ENACTED ENACTED

State Community Reinvestment

Act Regulations

Rationale: The Community Reinvestment Act

(CRA) of 1977 states that financial institutions

have an obligation to lend funds in locations

where deposits are made, therefore requiring

banks to lend back to all the communities that

make deposits. This act encouraged lending to

underserved communities and, as a result, enhanced credit

provision to low- and moderate-income earners. Although this is federal legislation, simi-

lar legislation exists at the state level and applies to state-chartered banks.

Measure: States that have enacted CRA legislation covering state-chartered banks (as of

2002).

Source: Goldberg, D., Center for Community Change (Personal communication, March 2002).

Washington D.C.



CRA

regulations

encourage

lending to

underserved

communities and,

as a result,

enhanced credit

provision to low-

and moderate-

income earners.

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts ✔

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York ✔

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

E N A C T E D E N A C T E D

152

Wage Protection

The wage protection policy measures look at

policies that supplement or replace a portion

of wages when a worker leaves employment

due to job loss, injury, or childbirth. These are

crucial supports that allow households to man-

age work changes or sudden events without

depleting assets or increasing debt.

153


Wage protection measures

are crucial supports

that allow households

to manage work changes

or sudden events

without depleting assets

or increasing debt.


Workers’ Compensation—Coverage

Rationale: Workers’ compensation is the oldest social in-

surance institution in the United States. The first was cre-

ated in New York in 1910, at a time when American industrial

injury rates reached their all-time high. The workers’ com-

pensation program represents a no-fault insurance approach

to industrial or work-related accidents. Workers give up some

rights—the right to sue employers for full damages resulting

from a work-related accident—in exchange for (supposedly) swift

and sure payment of medical costs and partial income replacement during re-

habilitation or, in the case of permanent injury, partial damages.

Measure: Percentage of employees in a state covered by workers’ compensation (in

1997–1999).

Source: National Academy of Social Insurance. (2002). Workers’ compensation: Benefits, coverage,

and costs. Washington D.C.: Author.


Workers’

compensation is

the oldest social

insurance

institution in the

United States.







appear the same.


Alabama 79.6% 45

Alaska 80.4 44

Arizona 92.5 9

Arkansas 85.6 33

California 85.4 35

Colorado 93.7 7

Connecticut 94.6 4

Delaware 97.3 3

Florida 89.8 21

Georgia 87.5 25

Hawaii 87.9 24

Idaho 83.6 40

Illinois 90.4 17

Indiana 92.5 10

Iowa 90.7 16

Kansas 90.0 19

Kentucky 86.2 32

Louisiana 90.2 18

Maine 83.7 39

Maryland 81.2 42


Michigan 84.9 37

Minnesota 93.9 5

Mississippi 78.0 46

Missouri 84.0 38

Montana 76.4% 48

Nebraska 92.3 11

Nevada 100.6* 1


New Jersey 91.0 15

New Mexico 77.8 47

New York 93.0 8



Ohio 93.8 6

Oklahoma 85.2 36

Oregon 86.5 31





Tennessee 88.6 22

Texas 72.3 50

Utah 91.6 13

Vermont 87.3 26

Virginia 88.4 23

Washington 86.6 30


Wisconsin 89.9 20

Wyoming 82.4 41


* Due to the approximations of estimates in this measure, this figure caculates to over 100%.


Benefit Index

Rationale: Coverage is not the only way to

examine workers’ compensation. The

amount of the benefit offered relative to

proposed guidelines is an indication of the true

level of support the program provides to workers

who are injured while at work and are unable to con-

tinue working.

Measure: Ratio of benefits under current law to benefits under model act of the

Advisory Committee on Worker’s Compensation on the Council of State Governments (as

of 1998).

Source: Thomason, T., & Burton, J.F. Jr. (November/December, 2001). The adequacy of cash bene-

fits prescribed by workers’ compensation statutes. Workers’ Compensation Policy Review. Volume 1,

Issue 6, 23.

155


The amount

of workers’

compensation

benefits offered

relative to

proposed

guidelines is an

indication of the

true level of

support the

program provides

to workers.







appear the same.


Alabama 36.1 41

Alaska 42.1 34

Arizona 64.9 10

Arkansas 45.3 27

California 24.7 48

Colorado 35.2 43

Connecticut 43.2 30

Delaware 57.6 15

Florida 32.0 46

Georgia 45.3 27

Hawaii 68.7 7

Idaho 53.8 19

Illinois 46.5 26

Indiana 37.0 40

Iowa 52.4 20

Kansas 63.7 11

Kentucky 73.5 3

Louisiana 22.3 49

Maine 67.2 8

Maryland 39.6 38


Michigan 41.1 37

Minnesota 34.1 45

Mississippi 55.4 18

Missouri 41.7 36

Montana 30.7 47

Nebraska 58.4 13

Nevada 20.3 50


New Jersey 48.6 24

New Mexico 70.6 5

New York 58.2 14


North Dakota 69.8 6

Ohio 52.3 21

Oklahoma 38.7 39

Oregon 41.8 35





Tennessee 42.5 32

Texas 35.9 42

Utah 42.5 32

Vermont 73.4 4

Virginia 65.4 9

Washington 56.1 17


Wisconsin 49.6 22

Wyoming 83.0 2


Unemployment Insurance—Benefit Level

Rationale: The nation’s system of unemployment insurance is a unique national

and state partnership. It is based on federal law but executed through state law

and administration. Unemployment insurance was created to provide adequate ben-

efits to protect workers during temporary periods of joblessness. Unemployment in-

surance benefits support workers and their families who are experiencing job (and there-

fore, income) loss, and this support can preserve existing assets and prevent the

accumulation of increased debt as a result of loss of weekly income. There is broad con-

sensus that unemployment insurance wage replacement benefits should replace 50% of

lost weekly earnings over a six-month period. Presently, benefit levels are miserably low

in many states, resulting in financial strain for claimants and their families. The best

measure of a state’s support for unemployment insurance is to compare benefit levels

to the average wages in a state.

Measure: Average weekly benefit as a percentage of the state’s average wage (in 2001).

Source: U.S. Department of Labor. (2002). Unemployment insurance data summary (first quarter

2001), based on calculations by the Economic Policy Institute. Washington D.C.: Author.


There is

broad consensus

that unemployment

insurance benefits

should replace

50% of lost

weekly earnings

over a six-month

period. Benefit

levels are miserably

low in many states,

resulting in financial

strain for claimants

and their families.

Alabama 29% 45

Alaska 28 47

Arizona 27 48

Arkansas 41 7

California 22 50

Colorado 37 24

Connecticut 27 48

Delaware 30 44

Florida 38 19

Georgia 32 40

Hawaii 50 1

Idaho 41 7

Illinois 35 32

Indiana 37 24

Iowa 44 4

Kansas 45 2

Kentucky 38 19

Louisiana 31 42

Maine 38 19

Maryland 32 40

Massachusetts 36 27

Michigan 35 32

Minnesota 44 4

Mississippi 33 37

Missouri 31 42

Montana 41% 7

Nebraska 35 32

Nevada 36 27

New Hampshire 34 36

New Jersey 35 32

New Mexico 36 27

New York 29 45

North Carolina 39 15

North Dakota 45 2

Ohio 37 24

Oklahoma 43 6

Oregon 38 19

Pennsylvania 40 12

Rhode Island 41 7

South Carolina 36 27

South Dakota 38 19

Tennessee 33 37

Texas 36 27

Utah 39 15

Vermont 39 15

Virginia 40 12

Washington 40 12

West Virginia 39 15

Wisconsin 41 7

Wyoming 33 37


156


Unemployment Insurance Reforms

Rationale: Unemployment insurance

benefits are payable as a matter of

right to workers who have enough

qualifying wages and yearly work ex-

perience to meet their state’s mini-

mum conditions; who are free from

disqualification on the basis of their

separation from their last place of

employment; and who are ready, will-

ing, and able to work. If unemployment in-

surance is going to remain the first line of

defense against hardship and the erosion of assets, certain

state reforms are necessary to bring the system more into

sync with the “new economy:”47

■ Adopting an “alternative base period” for determining eligibility. States often consider

the earnings of workers during the first four of the five most recently completed

yearly quarters when considering unemployment insurance benefits. This policy harms

low-wage workers who may not have the work history to qualify for unemployment in-

surance benefits. By allowing an alternate base period, such as counting the four most

recently completed quarters, states require fewer weeks worked and will reach more

low-income workers through unemployment insurance.

■ Changing eligibility rules to require a minimum number of hours worked rather than an

earning threshold. Eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits is often too strin-

gent for the lowest-income workers, many of whom fail to qualify for benefits at all.

States with unemployment insurance eligibility based on earnings, as opposed to hours

worked, are unfairly treating low-income workers.

Measure: States receive credit for one of more of the following:

1. adopting alternative base periods for determining unemployment insurance eligibility,

2. covering workers who only earn the minimum wage,

3. eliminating restrictions on seeking part-time work.

A state receives 0 points if it does not have any of the initiatives, 0.33 points if it has

one, 0.67 points if it has two, and 1 point if it has all three.

157


If unemployment

insurance is going

to remain the

first line of

defense against

hardship and the

erosion of assets,

certain state

reforms are

necessary to

bring the system

more into sync

with the “new

economy.”



Source: Economic Policy Institute, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, & National Employment Law Project. (2001). Failing the unem-

ployed: A state by state examination of unemployment insurance systems. Washington D.C.: Author.



Alabama ✔

Alaska ✔

Arizona ✔

Arkansas ✔ ✔

California ✔ ✔

Colorado ✔ ✔

Connecticut ✔

Delaware ✔ ✔

Florida ✔

Georgia ✔

Hawaii ✔ ✔

Idaho ✔

Illinois ✔

Indiana ✔

Iowa ✔ ✔

Kansas ✔ ✔

Kentucky ✔

Louisiana ✔ ✔

Maine ✔ ✔

Maryland ✔

Massachusetts ✔ ✔

Michigan ✔

Minnesota ✔ ✔

Mississippi ✔

Missouri ✔

Montana ✔

Nebraska ✔ ✔

Nevada ✔

New Hampshire ✔

New Jersey ✔ ✔

New Mexico

New York ✔ ✔


North Dakota

Ohio ✔

Oklahoma ✔ ✔

Oregon ✔


Rhode Island ✔ ✔ ✔

South Carolina ✔


Tennessee ✔

Texas ✔

Utah

Vermont ✔ ✔ ✔

Virginia ✔

Washington ✔ ✔

West Virginia ✔ ✔

Wisconsin ✔ ✔

Wyoming ✔ ✔

ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM PART-TIME

BASE WAGE COV. WORK COV.

ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM PART-TIME

BASE WAGE COV. WORK COV.


Family Leave Benefits

Rationale: The federal Family and

Medical Leave Act of 1993 guarantees

leave from work without pay for the

birth or adoption of a baby, the care of

a close relative who is seriously ill, or the

care of the workers’ own serious illness.

However, too many women and men who qualify

for leave under the act do not take leave because

they cannot afford to go without pay. Moreover, for workers

who must take essential time off for family leave, the result can

be financial hardship. According to the Commission on Family Leave, nearly one in 10

workers who take unpaid family leave are actually forced onto public assistance to make

ends meet.48 To give all workers a meaningful right to leave, a number of states now pro-

vide limited forms of family leave benefits. Doing so also helps ensure that families will

not be forced to deplete their assets in the face of financial hardship caused by taking

essential time off.

Measure: States receive credit for offering one of more of the following:

1. temporary disability insurance,

2. subsidies for infant care for low-income families,

3. allowing public employees to use sick leave to care for sick family,

4. requiring private employers to allow employees to use sick leave to care for sick family.

A state receives 0 points if it does not have any of these policies, 0.25 if it has one, 0.5 if

it has two, 0.75 if it has three, and 1 point if it has all four.

159


According to

the Commission

on Family Leave,

nearly one in ten

workers who

take unpaid

family leave are

actually forced

onto public

assistance to

make ends meet.



Source: National Partnership for Women and Families. (2002). State family leave benefit initiatives in the 2001–2002 state legislatures:

Making family leave more affordable [On-line]. Available: www.nationalpartnership.org.



Alabama

Alaska

Arizona ✔

Arkansas

California ✔ ✔ ✔

Colorado ✔

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida ✔

Georgia

Hawaii ✔

Idaho ✔

Illinois

Indiana ✔

Iowa ✔

Kansas ✔

Kentucky ✔

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland ✔

Massachusetts

Michigan


Mississippi

Missouri ✔

Montana ✔ ✔

Nebraska ✔

Nevada ✔

New Hampshire ✔

New Jersey ✔

New Mexico

New York ✔

North Carolina ✔

North Dakota ✔

Ohio

Oklahoma ✔

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island ✔

South Carolina ✔

South Dakota ✔

Tennessee ✔

Texas ✔

Utah ✔

Vermont

Virginia

Washington ✔ ✔

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

S ICK S ICK

INFANT LEAVE— LEAVE—

DISABIL ITY CARE PUBL IC PR IVATE

S ICK S ICK

INFANT LEAVE— LEAVE—

DISABIL ITY CARE PUBL IC PR IVATE


Health Insurance

The health insurance policy measures examine policies that expand or in-

crease health coverage. Health care costs can be some of the largest ex-

penses faced by a household and often occur without warning. In fact, a

study found that medical bills and other financial effects of illness con-

tributed to nearly half of the more than one million per-

sonal bankruptcy filings in the United States last year.49

Despite the huge risk to family finances from medical emer-

gencies, nearly 44 million Americans are without health in-

surance, and a large proportion of these are the working

poor. According to the Center on Budget and Policy

Priorities, more than one third of working families with in-

comes below 200% of the poverty level have no insurance

coverage, and almost half of working families below 100%

of poverty are uninsured.50

Health insurance is a significant issue for our entire health

care system, but its importance to asset protection cannot

be overstated. Often, public policies to increase health cov-

erage have been targeted to children without recognition

of the impact on children when their parents are not cov-

ered—both in terms of health and household income. No

matter what the household composition, though, health

care costs can completely wipe out whatever assets an individual may

have accrued as well as create staggering debt that can lead directly to

bankruptcy.

161


No matter what the

household composition,

though, health care costs

can completely wipe out

whatever assets an

individual may have accrued

as well as create staggering

debt that can lead directly

to bankruptcy.


SCHIP and Medicaid Expansion for Parents

Rationale: Because of a lack of access to employer-provided health coverage or prohibi-

tive costs when such coverage is available, a large number of low-wage, working

Americans are uninsured. Yet, the main source of public support for health coverage of the

needy—Medicaid—is directed primarily at women and children, the disabled, and the elderly.

Beginning in 1997, as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, all states began to expand

health coverage for children as part of SCHIP. Under SCHIP, states can either use their fed-

eral allotment of funds to expand existing Medicaid programs or create new programs that

fit specified criteria but offer more flexibility. SCHIP, however, often leaves behind the par-

ents of these children. Recognizing that covering parents: 1) increases the likelihood that

children will use health care and 2) is essential for the success of welfare reform, many

states have acted to expand the eligibility of working parents under Medicaid and SCHIP.

Measure: Eligibility level for publicly provided health insurance by percentage of poverty

for parents (in 2001).

Source: Families USA. (2002). Disparities in eligibility for public health insurance: Children and adults

in 2001. Washington D.C.: Author.


Alabama 21% 50

Alaska 79 21

Arizona 107 11

Arkansas 30 48

California 107 11

Colorado 42 39

Connecticut 157 7

Delaware 107 11

Florida 66 27

Georgia 42 39

Hawaii 100 15

Idaho 33 44

Illinois 72 24

Indiana 31 46

Iowa 87 18

Kansas 40 41

Kentucky 75 23

Louisiana 26 49

Maine 157 7

Maryland 43 38

Massachusetts 133 10

Michigan 63 30

Minnesota 275 1

Mississippi 38 42

Missouri 107 11

Montana 69% 25

Nebraska 55 33

Nevada 87 18

New Hampshire 67 26

New Jersey 200 2

New Mexico 58 32

New York 150 9

North Carolina 62 31

North Dakota 81 20

Ohio 100 15

Oklahoma 48 36

Oregon 100 15

Pennsylvania 46 37

Rhode Island 192 4

South Carolina 55 33

South Dakota 65 28

Tennessee 76 22

Texas 32 45

Utah 55 33

Vermont 192 4

Virginia 37 43

Washington 200 2

West Virginia 31 46

Wisconsin 192 4

Wyoming 65 28


Recognizing that

covering parents

increases the

likelihood that

children will use

health care, and is

essential for the

success of welfare

reform, many

states have acted

to expand the

health coverage

eligibility of

working parents

162 S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D

Medicaid Expansion for Low-Income

Adults Without Children

Rationale: All individuals need health care if they

are to be successful workers and contributors to

our society. This population is typically not consid-

ered when confronting Medicaid expansion. The

ability to stay healthy and avoid debt is critical if indi-

viduals are to be productive members of the work-

force and achieve financial self-sufficiency.

Measure: States that provide coverage to non-disabled adults regardless of whether they

are parents and that coverage enables enrollees to see a range of providers and obtain

benefits similar to those available in the Medicaid program (in 2001).

Source: Families USA. (2002). Disparities in eligibility for public health insurance: Children and adults

in 2001. Washington D.C.: Author.

163



The ability to

stay healthy

and avoid debt is

critical if

individuals are to

be productive

members of the

workforce and

achieve financial

self-sufficiency.

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona ✔

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware ✔

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii ✔

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts ✔

Michigan

Minnesota ✔

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey ✔

New Mexico

New York ✔

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon ✔

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont ✔

Virginia

Washington ✔

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

C O V E R A G E C O V E R A G E

Transitional Medical Assistance

Rationale: Recognizing that one of the barriers to sustaining the

transition from welfare to work is the fear of losing publicly provided

health insurance benefits, Congress established guidelines for transi-

tional medical assistance in 1988. Under these guidelines, states must

continue to offer coverage to families with children for at least six

months when the family’s income rises above the state’s Medicaid in-

come-eligibility thresholds because of higher earnings. Through a number

of mechanisms, several states have extended the duration of assistance

beyond 12 months. With this additional protection, families leaving welfare for work are

less likely to deplete their assets in the event of a medical emergency.

Measure: Numbers of months of transitional medical assistance provided by the state

(as of 2000). States get credit for providing assistance for more than 12 months.

Source: Broaddus, M., Blaney, S., Dude, A., Guyer, J., Ku, L., and Peterson, J. (February 13, 2002).

Expanding family coverage: States’ Medicaid eligibility policies for working families in the year 2000

(Table 4). Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.


Recognizing

that one barrier in

moving from

welfare to work is

the fear of losing

publicly provided

health coverage,

some states have

extended medical

benefits beyond

the 12 months

mandated by

Congress.


Alabama 12

Alaska 12

Arizona 24

Arkansas 12

California 24

Colorado 12

Connecticut 24

Delaware 24

Florida 12

Georgia 24

Hawaii 12

Idaho 12

Illinois 12

Indiana 12

Iowa 12

Kansas 12

Kentucky 12

Louisiana 12

Maine 12

Maryland 12

Massachusetts 12

Michigan 12

Minnesota 12

Mississippi 12

Missouri 36

Montana 12

Nebraska 24

Nevada 12

New Hampshire 12

New Jersey 24

New Mexico 12

New York 12

North Carolina 24

North Dakota 12

Ohio 12

Oklahoma 12

Oregon 12

Pennsylvania 12

Rhode Island 18

South Carolina 24

South Dakota 12

Tennessee 18

Texas 12

Utah 24

Vermont 36

Virginia 12

Washington 12

West Virginia 12

Wisconsin 12

Wyoming 12

M O N T H S M O N T H S

State Subsidy for Small Business Health Care Coverage

Rationale: The majority of uninsured people in the United States are workers and

their families.51 For these families, despite fulfilling the social contract by going to work,

the lack of affordable, employer-based health coverage means that one serious illness or

disease could result in financial hardship and put any accumulated wealth in jeopardy. A

majority of these uninsured workers and their families are low-income earners, and many

work for smaller firms. Yet, only 55% of firms with three to 10 employees offered health

care coverage in 1999 (compared with 90% of firms with 50 or more employees).52

Because of their size, small firms face a number of particular barriers to providing health

insurance for their employees, such as higher premiums than those paid by large firms

and narrow profit margins. In order to decrease the number of uninsured working fami-

lies, a number of states have experimented with new policies designed to encourage

small businesses to offer health insurance to their employees. These include direct subsi-

dies using state or Health Insurance Premium Payment funds to reduce the cost of em-

ployer-provided coverage, tax credits for employers newly offering coverage, and strate-

gies to maintain the affordability of coverage (e.g., reinsuring participating plans against

high losses or loosening certain state-mandated benefits).

Measure: States get credit for using state or federal funds other than Medicaid and

SCHIP to encourage employers to provide health insurance for low-income workers.

Source: Silow-Carroll, S., Anthony, S.E., & Meyer, J.A. (November 2000). State and local initiatives to

enhance health coverage for the working uninsured. New York, NY: The Commonwealth Fund.

165


In order to

decrease the

number of

uninsured working

families, some

states have tried

policies designed

to encourage

small businesses

to offer health

insurance to their

employees.


Alabama

Alaska

Arizona ✔

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa ✔

Kansas ✔

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts ✔

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico ✔

New York ✔

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon ✔

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington ✔

West Virginia

Wisconsin ✔

Wyoming

S U B S I DY S U B S I DY S U B S I DY

Property Protection

The property protection policy measures

assess state policies that directly protect

homeowners against the loss of home eq-

uity due to unscrupulous lenders or an in-

ability to acquire homeowners’ insurance.



Under the guise of

providing credit to borrowers

with poor credit histories,

predatory lenders often

target the elderly, minorities,

and poor families with

lending products that can lead

to a loss of home equity.

Anti-Predatory Lending Legislation

Rationale: “Predatory lending” refers to a number of lending abuses that take

place within the so-called “subprime” mortgage industry. Under the guise of pro-

viding credit to borrowers with poor credit histories, predatory lenders often target

the elderly, minorities, and poor families with lending products that can lead to a loss of

home equity. These predatory lending practices include excessive fees that are collected

up front, written into a loan, or charged at the back end (such as prepayment penalties).

Practices also include risk-rate disparities, in which borrowers are charged a higher inter-

est rate than risk can justify for a loan, and excess foreclosures. According to the

Coalition for Responsible Lending, these predatory lending practices cost consumers an

estimated $9.1 billion annually. Recognizing the need to protect homebuyers, homeown-

ers, and other consumers from these deceptive, manipulative, and ultimately costly

practices, a number of states have passed legislation to curb predatory lending.

Measure: States that have enacted policies to curb predatory mortgage lending abuses

(as of 2002). States get credit for the following policies: 1) state legislation or regulations

that exceed federal law in defining and limiting points and fees and 2) state legislation

that comprehensively defines points and fees charged in home loans and limits that

amounts lenders can charge. A state receives 0 points if it does not have either of the

policies, 0.5 points if it has one, and 1 point if it has both.

Source: Calculations by David Beck, Coalition for Responsible Lending, sponsored by Self-Help Credit

Union (Personal communication, April 2002). Durham, NC.

167



Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California ✔

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia ✔ ✔

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois ✔

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York ✔


North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

>FED COMP >FED COMP >FED COMP

Anti-Insurance

Redlining Policies

Rationale: The lack of substantial in-

formation about insurance provi-

sion—or the lack of insurance itself—

hinders our current understanding

about why some neighborhoods and

populations do not have adequate prop-

erty insurance. Better disclosure and trans-

parency will allow policymakers, community groups,

and insurance companies to better understand the trends

and practices of insurance lending and redlining. In turn, better protection of property

assets can result for all property owners, regardless of income, race, or geographical lo-

cation.

The answer to the problem of insurance discrimination and redlining is disclosure—requir-

ing property insurers to share information about to whom and where they provide serv-

ices. Experts in the field argue that legislation similar to the Home Mortgage Disclosure

Act (HMDA) needs to be passed. HMDA was crafted to address discrimination and redlin-

ing in the mortgage lending market by requiring lenders to reveal the geographic areas

(by census tract) where they make loans. The National Community Reinvestment

Coalition credits HMDA with generating over $1 trillion in new lending commitments to

older urban areas and underserved neighborhoods across the United States.

Ideally, academics, community groups, and policy analysts would be able to obtain data

such as geographic location, housing structure, loss costs, information on individual poli-

cyholders, underwriting guidelines, and agent locations. At a minimum, states should be

required to 1) make data available to the public and 2) provide geocoded data.



The National

Community

Reinvestment

Coalition credits the

Home Mortgage

Disclosure Act

with generating

over $1 trillion in

new lending

commitments to

older urban areas

and underserved

neighborhoods

across the

United States.

Measure: States that have some disclosure requirements for property insurers.

Source: Squires, G.D., O’Connor, S., & Silver, J. (2001). The unavailability of information on insurance

unavailability: Insurance redlining and the absence of geocoded data. Housing Policy Debate, 12(2),

pp. 347-372.

169



Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California ✔

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois ✔

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland ✔

Massachusetts ✔

Michigan

Minnesota ✔

Mississippi

Missouri ✔

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas ✔

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin ✔

Wyoming

D I S C LO S U R E R E Q . D I S C LO S U R E R E Q .

The tax policy and accountability index evaluates the level

of transparency of each state’s tax-based subsidies for

asset accumulation. Without accessible public information,

it is difficult to determine precisely how much a state’s

tax code provides incentives for wealth accumulation and

who benefits from these incentives. Two measures of ac-

countability were evaluated using the same point system

as other measures, and a summary assessment based on

the evaluation is included for each state; however, states

were not ranked or graded because of the low number of

measures in this index.



Tax policy and accountability indexWithout accessible

public information,

it is difficult to determine

precisely how much

a state’s tax code

provides incentives

for wealth accumulation

and who benefits from

these incentives.

State Tax Expenditure Report

Rationale: Many states erode their tax base and harm horizontal equity (treating

taxpayers with the same income equally) by providing a variety of tax incentives

and breaks to both businesses and households. An effective way of increasing ac-

countability and tracking the costs to the state in lost revenues due to these incentives

is to require that tax expenditure reports be compiled annually or biannually.

Measure: States get credit for having one of more of the following: 1) having a tax ex-

penditure report, 2) having the report available on the web. A state receives 0 points if it

has no tax expenditure report, 0.8 points if it has such a report, and 1 point if it has a

report and publishes it on the web.

Source: Mazerov, M, Center for Budget Policy Priorities. (Personal communication, March 2002).

Washington D.C.


An effective way

of increasing

accountability

and tracking

tax-break costs

to the state is

to require annual

or biannual

tax expenditure

reports.

S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — TA X P O L I C Y A N D A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y I N D E X

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona ✔

Arkansas

California ✔ ✔

Colorado

Connecticut ✔ ✔

Delaware ✔ ✔

Florida ✔

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho ✔ ✔

Illinois ✔

Indiana

Iowa ✔ ✔

Kansas

Kentucky ✔

Louisiana ✔ ✔

Maine ✔

Maryland ✔

Massachusetts ✔ ✔

Michigan ✔ ✔

Minnesota ✔ ✔

Mississippi ✔

Missouri ✔ ✔

Montana ✔ ✔

Nebraska ✔ ✔

Nevada

New Hampshire ✔

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York ✔ ✔

North Carolina ✔

North Dakota

Ohio ✔ ✔

Oklahoma ✔

Oregon ✔ ✔

Pennsylvania ✔

Rhode Island ✔

South Carolina ✔

South Dakota

Tennessee ✔

Texas ✔ ✔

Utah

Vermont

Virginia ✔

Washington ✔ ✔

West Virginia ✔

Wisconsin ✔ ✔

Wyoming

R E P O R T O N W E B R E P O R T O N W E B

171


State Tax Incidence Report

Rationale: As many states have increased taxes over the past year to counter impend-

ing fiscal shortfalls, states have developed mathematical models for determining the

fiscal impact of changes to the tax code. However, states are much less sophisticated

in analyzing who will pay more or less in taxes as a result of the change. Only a few

states have developed the capacity to determine how proposed changes in their tax laws

would affect the amount of taxes owed by different income groups in their populations or

how total tax obligations are distributed across income groups at a particular point in time.

Only two states mandate that a distributional analysis of their tax laws, called a tax inci-

dence study, be conducted. A multi-tax economic incidence model allows states to see the

distributional effects of tax code changes across different income levels.

Measure: States get credit for one of more of the following: 1) either developing capacity

or having limited capacity for analyzing income tax impact, 2) having a multi-tax economic

incidence model. A state receives 0 points if it has no capacity for such analysis, 0.5 points

if it has some capacity or is developing capacity, and 1 point if it has full capacity.

Source: Mazerov, M. (2002). Developing the capacity to analyze the distributional impact of state

and local taxes. [On-line] Available: www.cbpp.org.

Only a few states

have developed

the capacity to

determine how

proposed changes

in their tax laws

would affect

the amount of

taxes owed by

different income

groups in their

populations.

Alabama ✔

Alaska

Arizona ✔

Arkansas

California ✔

Colorado ✔

Connecticut

Delaware ✔

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois ✔

Indiana

Iowa ✔

Kansas ✔

Kentucky ✔

Louisiana

Maine ✔

Maryland ✔

Massachusetts ✔

Michigan ✔

Minnesota ✔

Mississippi ✔

Missouri ✔

Montana ✔

Nebraska ✔

Nevada

New Hampshire ✔

New Jersey ✔

New Mexico ✔

New York ✔

North Carolina ✔

North Dakota

Ohio ✔

Oklahoma

Oregon ✔

Pennsylvania ✔

Rhode Island ✔

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas ✔

Utah ✔

Vermont ✔

Virginia ✔

Washington ✔

West Virginia

Wisconsin ✔

Wyoming

S O M E F U L L S O M E F U L L

172 S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D

1Haveman, R., & Wolff, E. (April 2001). Who are the asset poor?: Levels, trends, and compositions, 1983–1998.

Discussion paper no. 1227-01. Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

2Tobin James. (1970) Raising the incomes of the poor. In Haveman and Wolff, Who are the asset poor?: Levels, trends,

and composition, 1983-1998. Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

3Haveman & Wolff. (2001). Similar research by the Consumer Federation of America, The National Credit Union

Foundation, and the Credit Union National Association, using the same data but a different definition of asset

poverty yielded similar results. Using a definition of net assets less than $10,000, this study also found that 25% of

all U.S. households are wealth poor. See Montalto, Catherine P. (May 2002). Wealth poor households in the U.S.

Columbus, OH: College of Human Ecology, Ohio State University.

4Haveman & Wolff, 2001.

5Oliver, M., & Shapiro, T. (1997). Black wealth/white wealth: A new perspective on racial inequality (p. 69). New York:

Routledge.

6See, for example, Sherraden, M. (1991). Assets and the poor: A new American welfare policy. Armonk, NY: M.E.

Sharpe, Inc.; Oliver & Shapiro. (1997); Conley, D. (1999). Being Black, living in the red: Race, wealth and social policy in

America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; and Stegman, M. (1999). Savings for the poor: The hidden

benefits of electronic banking. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution Press.

7U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (2001). Poverty in the United States: 2000. Washington, D.C.:

Author.

8Measured as the proportion of the population of households without sufficient net worth to subsist at the poverty

level for three months without other sources of support.

9Oliver & Shapiro, 1997.

10Net financial assets is a measure of liquid financial assets and refers to the value of assets such as cash, checking and

savings accounts, and stocks and bonds, minus credit card and other unsecured debts. It does not include the value

of home equity or the amount of a home mortgage.

11Because of small sample sizes in the data used for the state-level estimates of asset inequality, values were not

available for some smaller states.


13See the section “Measure-by-Measure Rationale and Raw Data” for a more detailed explanation of what these

measures of wealth include.

14Phillips, K. (2002). Wealth and democracy. New York, NY: Broadway Books.

15For the purpose of the Report Card, assets are defined in a strictly financial sense—either financial assets or assets

that can be quickly converted into financial assets and that typically appreciate in value. This is similar to economist

Edward Wolff’s concept of “fungible wealth,” meaning that which is saleable and therefore has current market value.

This definition includes a range of specific kinds of assets, including home equity, stocks and mutual fund shares,

vehicles, business capital, checking accounts, and other interest-bearing accounts.

16For an excellent compilation of the most recent research and thinking on the importance of assets for low-income

families, see Shapiro, T.M., & Wolff, E.N. (Eds.). (2001). Assets for the poor: The benefits of spreading asset ownership.

New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

17Schreiner, M., Sherraden, M., Clancy, M., Johnson, L., Curley, J., Grinstein-Weiss, M., et al. (2001) Savings and asset

accumulation in IDAs: Downpayments on the American Dream Demonstration, a national demonstration of Individual

Development Accounts. St. Louis, MO: Center for Social Development, Washington University in St. Louis.

18Sherraden, 1991.

19For a thorough review of the research findings on asset-building initiatives, see Boshara, R., (Ed). (2001). Building

assets: A report on the asset-development and IDA field. Washington, D.C.: Corporation for Enterprise Development.

173

Endnotes



20Wolff, Edward, N. (2002). “Racial wealth disparities: Is the gap closing?” Levy Economics Institute Public Policy Brief,

No. 66.

21For a more detailed description of each of these measures, please consult Measure-by-Measure Rational and Raw

Data.

22See the description of individual measures for the exact year of the data used.

23See Wolff, 2001.

24Employee Benefits Research Institute. (March 2002). Pension plan participation continued to rise in 2000—what next?

Notes, [On-line] Available: www.ebri.org.

25Shaw, L., & Hill, C. (2002). The gender gap in pension coverage: What does the future hold? Washington, D.C.: Institute

for Women’s Policy Research.

26See Carney & Gale, 2000.

27Asian business owners gaining. (February 27, 2002). USA Today.

28National Council of La Raza. (November 2000). Hispanic savings and Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) fact

sheet. Washington, DC: Author.


30Eller, T.J., & Fraser, W. (1995). Asset ownership of households, 1993. U.S. Bureau of the Census: Current Population

Reports, P70-47 (p. 4). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

31Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard Design School. (2000). The state of the nation’s housing: 2000. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University.

32Carney, S., & Gale, W.G. (December 1998) Asset accumulation among low-income households. Paper presented at a

Ford Foundation conference, “Benefits and Mechanisms for Spreading Asset Ownership in the United States,” New

York, NY: December 10-12, 1998.

33Bradbury, K. (2002) Education and wages in the 1980s and 1990s: Are all groups moving up together? New England

Economic Review, First Quarter 2002, pp. 19-46.

34Kennickell, A.B., Starr-McCluer, M., & Surette, B.J. (January 2000). Recent changes in U.S. family finances: Results from

the 1998 Survey of Consumer Finances. Washington, D.C.: Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System.

35Wolff, E.N. (2001). Recent trends in wealth ownership, from 1983 to 1998. In: Shapiro, T.M., & Wolff, E.N. (Eds.).

Assets for the poor: The benefits of spreading asset ownership. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

36Carney & Gale, 2000. See also Beverly, S. (1997). How can the poor save? Theory and evidence on saving in low-

income households. Working Paper No. 97-3. St. Louis, MO: Center for Social Development, Washington University in

St. Louis.

37Dunham, C. (March 2001). The role of banks and nonbanks in serving low- and moderate income communities.

Presented at a Federal Reserve System conference, “Changing Financial Markets and Community Development.”

Washington, DC: April 5-6, 2001.

38Carney & Gale, 2000

39Warren, E., Sullivan, T., & Jacoby, M. (May 2000). Medical problems and bankruptcy filings. Norton Bankruptcy Law

Advisor.

40Carney & Gale, 2000; Beverly, 1997.

41Sherraden, M., Johnson, L., Clancy, M., Beverly, S., Schreiner, M., Zhan, M., and Curley, J. (2000). Savings patterns in IDA

programs. St. Louis, MO: Center for Social Development, Washington University.

42Orszag, P.R. (April 2001). Asset tests and low savings rates among lower-income families. Washington, D.C.: Center on

Budget and Policy Priorities.

43Regional Technology Strategies, Inc. (1999). A comprehensive look at state-funded, employer-focused job training

programs. Washington, DC: National Governor’s Association, Center for Best Practices.

44Friedman, R., Grossman, B., and Sahay, P. (1995). Building assets: Self-employment for welfare recipients: Overview of

the findings from the self-employment investment demonstration. Washington, D.C.: Corporation for Enterprise

Development.

174


45Carney & Gale, 2000.

46See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. (July 2001). Annual report to the Congress on retail fees and

services of depository institutions. Washington, DC: Author; and Mierzwinski, E., Butler, R., Harkin, A., & Keran, K.

(November 2001). Big banks, bigger fees 2001: PIRG national bank fee survey. Washington, D.C.: Public Interest

Research Group.

47Atkinson, R.D. Unemployment insurance: An industrial-era program, unemployment insurance needs urgent reform

to work for the new economy. Blueprint. Issue 14 [On-line]. Available: www.ndol.org/blueprint/2002_jan-

feb/default.html.

48Commission on Family Leave. (1996). A workable balance: Report to Congress on family and medical leave policies (pp.

98–100). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

49Warren, Sullivan, & Melissa Jacoby, 2000.

50Guyer, J., & Mann, C. (February 1999). Employed but not insured. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy

Priorities.

51Silow-Carroll, S., Anthony, S.E., & Meyer, J.A. (November 2000). State and local initiatives to enhance health coverage

for the working uninsured. New York, NY: The Commonwealth Fund.

52Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research and Educational Trust. (October 1999). 1999 Annual employer health

benefits survey. Washington, D.C.: Author.

E N D N O T E S 175


Acknowledgments

CFED would like to thank a number of people whose support,

guidance, advice, knowledge, and patience helped to make this

document possible.

First, we would like to express our gratitude to a number of

researchers who guided us in our search for good data, including

Andrew Reamer, Tim Bates, and Roberto Quercia. An advisory group

helped to get us and keep us on track.

Special thanks go to the father-and-son economist team of Bob and

Jon Haveman. It was their work that generated the first-ever state

level data on wealth accumulation and distribution.

Kudos, of course, to the CFED team that put this report together:

Sara Lawrence, Matt Hull, Bill Schweke, Paige Brown, Fiona Adams,

Cecilia Cuthbert, Heather Tyler, Jennifer Malkin, Sean Stickle, Liesl

Heeter, and Bruce Ruffin.

Finally, a great deal of thanks goes to the generous funders whose

patience and wise investments helped to make this project a

reality: the Ford Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the

Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and

the Center for the Study of Social Policy.

—Carl Rist, State Asset Development Report Card Project Manager

An interactive version of this report is

online at sadrc.cfed.org. Use this resource

to search the 68 measures and to cross-

reference any combination of the

measures with any combination of states.

The Corporation for Enterprise

Development (CFED) fosters widely shared

and sustainable economic well-being by

promoting asset-building and economic

opportunity strategies—primarily in low-

income communities—that bring together

practice, public policy, and private markets

in new and effective ways.

CFED supports the public, private, and

nonprofit sectors through research and

demonstration; field services; policy design,

analysis, and advocacy; and

communications. Founded in 1979, CFED is

an independent, national nonprofit

organization headquartered in Washington,

DC, with additional offices in San Francisco,

CA, and Durham, NC.

(202) 408-9788

www.cfed.org

national office southern office western office

777 N Capitol St NE 123 W Main St 353 Folsom St

Suite 800 Third Floor San Francisco, CA 27701

Washington, DC 20002 Durham, NC 94105 415.495.2333

202.408.9788 919.688.6444 415.495.7025

202.408.9793 919.688.6580

www.cfed.org

Corporation

For Enterprise

Development

state asset development report card - community-wealth.org

Documents