- Author: Lisa M. Rawleigh
When it comes to those with the least means to pay for daily and monthly necessities, a lack of energy efficiency in America's major cities presents a disproportionate economic burden on low-income urban communities, as a recent report found.
The report, published by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and the Energy Efficiency for All (EEFA) coalition, found in a review of 48 major U.S. metropolitan areas that the economic burden of energy costs on low-income households can be up to three times higher than the overall burden on higher-income households.
This applies especially for low-income African American and Latino households, which spend a disproportionate amount of their income on energy. In a hopeful note, the study also found that implementing more energy efficiency measures could close that gap by at least one third.
Big Takeaways
- Low-income households pay 7.2 percent of households income on utilities,
- That's three times more than higher income households pay (about 2.3 percent),
- Latino households experience the greatest energy burdens in the south and southwest United States,
- Midwest and Southeast regions had the highest energy burden across all demographics,
- Inefficient, out of date, low income housing contributes to the problem significantly,
- African American households experienced an average energy burden that was 64 percent greater than white households,
- Latino households paid lower utilities on average than African American and white households, but experienced an average energy burden 24 percent greater than white households,
- Renters pay 20 percent more than home owners, indicating rented homes tend to be less efficient.
Ranking Cities
Some cities across the U.S. fared better than others in measurements of energy efficiency and overall energy burden for residents, and the report pointed out the metropolitan areas with greater energy burdens depending on low-income demographics.
For Latinos, the greatest energy burdens were in the cities of Memphis, Providence, Philadelphia, Kansas City, Atlanta, Birmingham, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth and Detroit.
For African American households, the worst energy burdens were in the cities of Memphis, Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Kansas City, Birmingham, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Atlanta.
The ACEEE found that increasing energy efficiency levels in average homes across the U.S. would eliminate about 35 percent of the average low-income energy burden in these areas. And for low-income Latino households, the average energy burden that could be eliminated through efficiency was a much greater share than any other group, at 68 percent.
The report focused on 2011 data from the U.S. Census Bureau along with the 2013 American Housing Survey to determine the overall energy burdens for the 48 largest U.S. cities. The report defined low-income households as those with incomes at or below 80 percent of each area's median income, and focused on the relative burden for each demographic in those low-income communities.
You can request a copy of the report here.
Source: Published originally on LatinPost.com as More Green: Why Energy Efficiency Matters to Low Income Latinos, Urban Minorities by Robert Schoon, May 10, 2016.
The Institute on Assets and Social Policy (IASP) develop an analysis, "Less Debt, More Equity: Lowering Student Debt While Closing the Black-White Wealth Gap," which assesses the effect of public policy on the wealth gap that exists between white and Black households. Wealth inequity has surged over the past several decades, resulting in 1 percent of households controlling 42 percent of U.S. wealth. Also, nearly 50 percent of wealth accumulated over the past three decades has gone directly to pockets of the top 0.1.
Meanwhile, the wealth belonging to the bottom 90 percent of U.S. household continues to lessen. People of color, who are historically disenfranchised and overrepresented in the bottom 90 percent, are growing in numbers. In a matter of short decades, the U.S. will be a "minority majority" nation, which will continue to be affected by preexisting wealth divide. Today, the average white family owns $13 for every $1 held by the average black household and white households own $10 for every $1 held by the average U.S. Latino household.
According to the report, black students tend to take on more debt when attaining postsecondary degrees. They, like other students of color, are more likely to borrow money to attend college, which deepens wealth inequalities. With that said, patterns of student debt differ for black and Latinos students. The report focuses specifically on the black-white wealth gap because of historic roots of inequality and student debt's contribution to wealth disparities, but also acknowledges how inequality influences the experiences of other communities of color in the U.S.
Loan debt and barriers to education impact Latinos differently than black and white households. The data revealed that Latinos attend and graduate from college at lower rates than whites and blacks. Consequently, lower rates of college attendance likely contribute to Latino households owning less student loan debt than blacks and whites. Also, evidence suggests that Latino students are more opposed to taking on student loan debt. Interestingly, Latino students are less likely than blacks and whites to take on debt at public institutions, but they're more likely to take on debt at private for-profit institutions, where they're more likely to depart before completion.
The Latino-white wealth gap could be attributed to differences in education attainment. Latinos households have lower college completion rates and lower levels of household wealth. The report suggests that universal debt reduction policies targeted at borrowers making $50,000 and below would only benefit Latinos moderately; instead white families would have greatly benefit. However, reduction policy targeted at those making $25,000 or less would reduce the racial wealth gap for median and low-wealth Latino households. Latinos in the lowest wealth bracket tend to face a number of barriers when seeking higher education, which reduces the likelihood that they will start college or take out loans. Thus, eliminating some cost challenges should spur enrollment.
The report listed that a number of policies that could make a sizable difference in the lives of students of color. They believe debt-free public higher education should be guaranteed for low-income and middle-class students. Institutional accountability and debt forgiveness should be provided for students attending low-quality institutions. There should be incremental debt forgiveness for students locked into public, low-wage professionals. Also, student loans should be discharged in bankruptcy like other forms of consumer debt.
Source: Published originally on LatinPost.com as Low-Income Latino Students Less Likely to Take on Student Debt, Attend College: Report, by By Nicole Akoukou Thompson, December 1, 2015.
Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice published a report in Sept., which provided insights into Latinos' thoughts on education. "Latino Perspectives on K-12 Education & School Choice" revealed a number of important discoveries, including one-in-five Latinos (22 percent) naming education as the nation's second most important issue, preceded only by the economy and jobs (27 percent). Also, education was named over immigration (13 percent).
Latinos would like to send their children to charter schools and private schools, yet many are unable, whether it's due to cost or distance. The snapshot of the Latino community revealed Latinos' overwhelming support of education saving accounts (ESAs), tax-credit scholarships and school vouchers, which is far more than the general market. According to the report, southern Latinos were more likely to be concerned about education, compared to Latinos living in the west (27 percent compared to 16 percent). Also, young (30 percent) and middle-age Latino respondents (17 percent) were more likely to be concerned about education than seniors (10 percent).
U.S. Latinos also have firm opinions when it comes to K-12 education. Approximately 53 percent of Latinos stated K-12 education was on the "wrong track," while just 38 percent indicated that it was headed in the "right direction." However, Latinos were more likely than the general market to say K-12 education was "going in the right direction" (38 percent compared to 32 percent). Overall, roughly 60 percent of the nation indicated K-12 education was on the "wrong track," compared to just 53 percent of Latino respondents.
The numbers showed that middle-age Latino respondents (45 percent) and low-income (47 percent) were more positive than younger Latinos (31 percent) and middle-income (32 percent) and high-income Latinos (26 percent) about the direction of K-12 education. The report also showed that Latinos are weary about federal involvement in K-12 education, and 73 percent have a dim view of the federal government's performance in K-12 education.
With regards to education spending, fewer than 14 percent of Latino respondents could estimate the correct per-student spending range for the national average, suggesting that Latinos need to learn more about current expenditures. Also, the survey's results show that Latinos are less likely to say public school spending is "too low."
Latino respondents were far more likely to give private schools in their communities high marks (82 percent), compared to their local public schools (50 percent). Nearly half of Latinos selected private schools as the ideal educational option for their child (46 percent), while just 32 percent of respondents chose regular public school. Just 12 percent selected charter schools and 9 percent chose homeschooling as their top choice. However, enrollment patterns in the U.S. don't match expectations. Only 3.5 percent of students enrolled in private schools are Latino, and just 4.5 percent of student in public charter schools. Researchers were unable to find reliable data regarding how many Latino students are homeschooled. Around 92 percent of Latino K-12 students attend public schools.
While 62 percent of Latinos support charter schools, 26 percent of Latino survey participants said they opposed charter schools. Nonetheless, Latinos were more likely to support charter schools than the national average. However, 53 percent of Latino respondents were against state government interventing to convert "low-performing" schools to charters schools. Instead, they believe vouchers and scholarships would be valuable contributions to affected schools and families.
More than 70 percent of Latinos favor school vouchers, and were more likely than other respondents to express an "intensely favorable view toward vouchers." Likewise, 73 percent of Latinos supported an "education savings account" system (ESA), and they were significantly more supportive of ESAs than non-Hispanic whites (57 percent). Additionally, Latino respondents were nearly five times as likely to support a tax-credit scholarship program. Moreover, Latino respondents (56 percent) voiced support of the Common Core State Standards (Common Core).
The report suggests that a candidate is more likely to win the Latino vote if they have affirming positions on school vouchers, ESAs and Common Core.
Source: Published originally on latinpost.com as US Latinos believe education is one of the nation's most important issues: Report, by Nicole Akoukou Thompson, November 10, 2015.
The Institute on Assets and Social Policy (IASP) develop an analysis, "Less Debt, More Equity: Lowering Student Debt While Closing the Black-White Wealth Gap," which assesses the effect of public policy on the wealth gap that exists between white and Black households. Wealth inequity has surged over the past several decades, resulting in 1 percent of households controlling 42 percent of U.S. wealth. Also, nearly 50 percent of wealth accumulated over the past three decades has gone directly to pockets of the top 0.1.
Meanwhile, the wealth belonging to the bottom 90 percent of U.S. household continues to lessen. People of color, who are historically disenfranchised and overrepresented in the bottom 90 percent, are growing in numbers. In a matter of short decades, the U.S. will be a "minority majority" nation, which will continue to be affected by preexisting wealth divide. Today, the average white family owns $13 for every $1 held by the average black household and white households own $10 for every $1 held by the average U.S. Latino household.
According to the report, black students tend to take on more debt when attaining postsecondary degrees. They, like other students of color, are more likely to borrow money to attend college, which deepens wealth inequalities. With that said, patterns of student debt differ for black and Latinos students. The report focuses specifically on the black-white wealth gap because of historic roots of inequality and student debt's contribution to wealth disparities, but also acknowledges how inequality influences the experiences of other communities of color in the U.S.
Loan debt and barriers to education impact Latinos differently than black and white households. The data revealed that Latinos attend and graduate from college at lower rates than whites and blacks. Consequently, lower rates of college attendance likely contribute to Latino households owning less student loan debt than blacks and whites. Also, evidence suggests that Latino students are more opposed to taking on student loan debt. Interestingly, Latino students are less likely than blacks and whites to take on debt at public institutions, but they're more likely to take on debt at private for-profit institutions, where they're more likely to depart before completion.
The Latino-white wealth gap could be attributed to differences in education attainment. Latinos households have lower college completion rates and lower levels of household wealth. The report suggests that universal debt reduction policies targeted at borrowers making $50,000 and below would only benefit Latinos moderately; instead white families would have greatly benefit. However, reduction policy targeted at those making $25,000 or less would reduce the racial wealth gap for median and low-wealth Latino households. Latinos in the lowest wealth bracket tend to face a number of barriers when seeking higher education, which reduces the likelihood that they will start college or take out loans. Thus, eliminating some cost challenges should spur enrollment.
The report listed that a number of policies that could make a sizable difference in the lives of students of color. They believe debt-free public higher education should be guaranteed for low-income and middle-class students. Institutional accountability and debt forgiveness should be provided for students attending low-quality institutions. There should be incremental debt forgiveness for students locked into public, low-wage professionals. Also, student loans should be discharged in bankruptcy like other forms of consumer debt.
Source: Published originally on LatinPost.com as Low-Income Latino Students Less Likely to Take on Student Debt, Attend College: Report, by By Nicole Akoukou Thompson, December 1, 2015.
- Author: weather.com
The findings, from Washington State University published in the journal Social Science Review, are just the latest to correlate minorities and low-income Americans of all ethnic groups to areas of higher air pollution. Of particular concern is particulate matter, the microscopic particles emitted from manufacturing and automobiles that can cause cancer, heart disease, respiratory illnesses, birth defects and a host of other ills.
Non-English-speaking immigrants, who are more likely to be Latino, bear the worst of this burden, lead paper author Raoul Liévanos, Ph.D., an assistant professor of sociology at WSU, told weather.com. The underlying reason for this, he said, is that minority immigrant communities are often clustered near pollution-clogged freeways and industrial areas, a trend spanning back to the city planning developments of the late 1800s.
“It seems to be that there are these important historical residential patterns, really shaped by historical housing policies,” he said. “That really informed how these communities were set up and who is living there now.”
The paper correlated U.S. census data with detailed EPA maps of particulate pollution, including industrial and automobile sources, and found that at the regional level, Latinos were the most-likely to live in areas of high pollution. Other minority groups were also highly affected, as were low-income white Americans.
"That may be suggesting that around freeways and industrial areas, in the regional context, it is, a lot of time, the non-white immigrants that are clustered more closely [to these areas]," Liévanos said. Low-income whites are likely to live in these areas as well, just slightly farther away from the primary sources of contamination.
The findings show an association between Latino communities and pollution and do not attempt to discover the rate of pollution-related diseases among these populations. But the data could serve as a guide to future work investigating the burden of pollution on individuals, Liévanos said. Public-health interventions in these cities should be tailored to non-English speaking populations and these communities should be included in future urban planning processes, he said as well.
The paper, "Race, deprivation, and immigrant isolation: The spatial demography of air-toxic clusters in the continental United States," was published in the November issue of Social Science Research.
Source: Published originally on weather.com as Study: Pollution Unequally Affects Latinos, Immigrant Communities, November 2, 2015.