TAblE OF CONTENTS. Introduction 1. Policy at the State Level 4. Assets & Opportunity Policy Campaign 5. About the Scorecard 6

Transcription

1

2 TAblE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Policy at the State Level 4 Assets & Opportunity Policy Campaign 5 About the Scorecard 6 Findings 8 Financial Assets & Income 8 Businesses & Jobs 12 Housing & Homeownership 14 Health Care 16 Education 18 Summary of Scorecard Tools 20 Acknowledgments 22 State Issue Area Grades 23 State Policy Priority Ratings Scorecard Outcomes and Policies 26 Overall State Grades About CFED Back Cover Back Cover This Executive Summary outlines the key findings of the Assets & Opportunity Scorecard. For a more complete exposition of all Scorecard data, and to find data on each state, go to CFED s Assets & Opportunity Scorecard Web site at Assets & Opportunity Scorecard published by CFED. September 2009.

3 CFED: ASSETS & OPPORTUNITY SCORECARD INTRODUCTION We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand. We must build our house upon a rock. We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity a foundation that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest. President Barack Obama, April 2009 President Obama has spoken on several occasions of the need for America to move from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest. But to do that we need to understand the many factors that contribute to the financial security of U.S. households and the hard choices that individuals and families face when trying to balance short- and long-term term financial needs. Also required is a clear understanding of the ways in which public policies encourage or discourage families in their efforts to gain a more solid financial foothold in the economy. For more than three decades, CFED has worked to raise awareness about the importance of creating sensible and broadly applicable policies that help Americans build and protect assets and overcome the hurdles that keep us from building real economic security. Now in its fourth edition, the Assets & Opportunity Scorecard continues this tradition. By assessing 92 distinct performance and policy measures and five interrelated Issue Areas (Financial Assets & Income, Businesses & Jobs, Housing & Homeowernship, Health Care and Education) the Scorecard offers insights that will help policymakers, practitioners, researchers and advocates build a stronger foundation for our future. The first step toward building a new, stronger foundation is taking stock of the current state of asset ownership and financial security. The reality is sobering: The Federal Reserve reported that from 2007 to 2009, U.S. households lost $14 trillion in wealth, a sum representing nearly a quarter of all personal wealth and the largest loss of wealth in generations. 1 The scope and speed of economic decline is unprecedented. But even before the overall picture deteriorated so rapidly, the extent of economic vulnerability in America was spreading ever wider. The findings in the Assets & Opportunity Scorecard give credence to the claim that in the years leading up to the financial crisis, the façade of financial prosperity was indeed built on a foundation of sand. Even as leading indicators such as net worth were still on the rise and seemingly telling a story of increasing prosperity, there was compelling evidence that Americans especially low- and moderate-income individuals and families were becoming more financially overextended and vulnerable. Consider these facts: 2 U.S. households overall registered a 27% increase in median net worth between 2004 and 2006, but during that same time median net worth fell for the 40% of U.S. households earning less than $37,000 a year. For every dollar held by a household in the highest income quintile, a household in the poorest income quintile held only 2 cents. While net worth increased for much of the decade preceding the recession, there was no significant reduction in household poverty rates: 12.3% of households continue to live below the federal income poverty line and nearly double that amount (22.5%) are asset poor, meaning they have insufficient assets to keep them out of poverty for three months in Median Household Net Worth Median Household Net Worth Median Household Net Worth median Net Worth by Income Quintiles $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 0 $6,697 Bottom Quintile $301,000 Top Quintile median Net Worth by Race $150,000 $120,000 $90,000 $60,000 $30,000 0 $20,132 Minority $81,460 Female $122,505 White median Net Worth by gender $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 0 $98,175 Male 1 Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States: Flows and Outstandings. (2009, First Quarter, June 11). Washington, DC: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. This fi gure also includes losses by nonprofi t organizations. 1

4 the event of income loss. More than 14% of American households live in extreme asset poverty, which means they have zero or negative net worth. The median amount of revolving debt, including credit card debt, rose 64% between 2006 and 2008, from $1,805 to $2,960. Americans are not only taking on increasing amounts of consumer debt, but also are using debt to finance education. Nearly 60% of college students graduate with education debt, and the average amount owed by graduating students today is more than $20,000. Between 2006 and 2008, national foreclosure rates increased more than 200% from.99% to 2.93%. The spike in foreclosures is a direct consequence of sub-prime mortgage financing, falling home values and increasing unemployment. The percentage of individuals with employer-provided health insurance coverage fell sharply to 60.9% in the time period, down from 63.2% in years A closer look at the Scorecard data also reveals deep disparities and economic disadvantages faced by minority households. Minority households are more than twice as likely to be asset poor, three times as likely to have a high-cost mortgage loan and four times as likely to be unbanked. While 71.5% of white Americans own their homes, only 48% of minorities are homeowners. Roughly one in three whites has a four-year college degree, compared with a rate of only one in five for minorities. This financial disparity between minority and white households has persisted over the years, raising serious questions about the basic fairness of an economic system that continues to produce such outcomes. The breadth and depth of the current recession and its impact on financial security invite a reassessment of both the equity and productivity of our existing economic policies. Fundamentally, public policy should create and support an opportunity structure where families and communities can prosper. To do so, governments must employ the range of strategies at their disposal. They should remove counterproductive barriers to saving and building assets; they should create positive incentives to encourage all families to save; and they should ensure broad access to sound financial and insurance products so families can protect the assets they accumulate. 2 The Scorecard draws from a number of data sources, and uses the most recent data available. The outcome data in the Scorecard were collected primarily from sources published between 2006 and Full citations for all source material are available at 3 Woo, L. & Bucholz, D. (2007). Return on Investment? Getting More from Federal Asset-Building Policies. Washington, DC: CFED. The federal government currently provides a host of incentives to encourage asset building. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2005, the federal government provided more than $360 billion in tax subsidies to incentivize asset building. However, because these incentives are delivered via tax breaks, they are unavailable to the millions of low- and moderate- income Americans who have limited or no tax liability. More than 45% of the FY 2005 benefits went to the top 1% of households, whose average income exceeded $1 million. In contrast, the lowest 60% of households by income received less than 3% of the benefits. 3 Policies to create parallel opportunities for those with lower incomes have been debated, but Congress has yet to provide meaningful incentives to save and invest for all income groups. Federal policymakers also have taken steps though many argue too few, too late to protect homeowners and prevent future foreclosures. In 2008, the Federal 2 executive summary

5 CFED: ASSETS & OPPORTUNITY SCORECARD Reserve required lenders to begin verifying borrowers income and ensuring they have the ability to repay before making a loan. Unfortunately, federal enforcement has been inconsistent. In 2006 and 2007, federal policymakers capped the interest rates payday lenders could charge military personnel, but those protections have yet to be extended to all individuals. Currently, Congress is considering important ways to expand health insurance coverage to protect families from losing their assets due to a medical emergency or illness. But, as of this writing, it is uncertain which measures, if any, will be approved. Federal policymakers also have taken steps in recent years to remove some of the barriers to creating a personal safety net for very low-income people: the 2008 Farm Bill lessened the disincentives to save by making the asset test in the federal food assistance program less harsh. Unfortunately, it did not eliminate the punitive test entirely, and other programs such as Supplemental Security Income still impose unnecessary asset caps that relegate many people with disabilities to a poverty-line existence. At the state level, policymakers face similar issues with a broad set of policy tools available to them. They have the opportunity both to supplement federal programs and to create initiatives of their own. In recent years, state policymakers have added potency to federal policies (e.g., by enacting state Earned Income Tax Credits); exercised authority where they have discretion (by eliminating asset limits in public benefit programs); taken the lead where the federal government has failed to step up (by regulating payday lending for all individuals); and adopted innovative policies where no federal policy exists (by creating new incentives for families to save for college). Looking across the states, we see that many have taken positive policy actions: a majority of states have taken steps to remove barriers to savings, create new incentives to build assets and protect the assets families already have. Yet most states need to take important additional actions to strengthen their policies: for only one of the 12 state policy priorities that CFED assesses in the Scorecard do a majority of states have a policy rated as strong or very strong. State Policy Priority Adoption, June 2009 States with some policy States with strong or very strong policy College Savings Incentives State IDA Program Support Access to Quality K-12 Education Housing Trust Fund Predatory Mortgage Lending Protections State Microenterprise Support State Earned Income Tax Credit Access to Health Insurance Lifting Asset Limits in Public Benefit Programs Payday Lending Protections Early Childhood Education First-Time Homebuyer Assistance 3

6 Policy at the State Level Number of Policy Priorities Acted on by States Vermont Maine Massachusetts Arkansas Minnesota Kansas Maryland New Jersey New Mexico Indiana North Carolina Washington District of Columbia Georgia Iowa New York Ohio Oregon Illinois Louisiana Virginia West Virginia Missouri Pennsylvania Connecticut Delaware Wisconsin Colorado Michigan Oklahoma Nevada North Dakota Arizona Nebraska Rhode Island Montana New Hampshire Texas Florida South Carolina Kentucky California Tennessee Uath Hawaii Wyoming Alaska Idaho Alabama Mississippi South Dakota # of policies on which state receives rating of strong or 5 very strong # of policies on which some 1 3 action has been taken 1 3 The Scorecard assesses states on the strength of their policies to expand economic opportunity. It includes a detailed assessment of 12 policy priorities across the five Issue Areas. A chart that assesses all the states and DC on each of the 12 policy priorities can be found on pages The 12 policy priorities are: 1. Lifting Asset Limits in Public Benefit Programs 2. State Earned Income Tax Credit 3. State IDA Program Support 4. Payday Lending Protections 5. State Microenterprise Support 6. Predatory Mortgage Lending Protections 7. First-time Homebuyer Assistance 8. Housing Trust Fund 9. Access to Health Insurance 10. Early Childhood Education 11. Access to Quality K-12 Education 12. College Savings Incentives While every state has taken action on some of these policies, the amount of activity varies across the states ranging from South Dakota and Mississippi that acted on only three policies to Vermont and Maine that have acted on all 12. A state must currently meet at least one CFED criterion on a policy priority in order to qualify as taken action. In addition, only about a third of the policies that are in place are considered strong or very strong by the Scorecard, leaving much room for improvement. Leading the country are five states that have strong or very strong policies in place for at least half of the 12 policy priorities: Maryland, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Trailing the rest are five others that have no policies that are considered strong or very strong by the Scorecard: South Carolina, Florida, Wyoming, Hawaii and Alabama. 4 executive summary

7 CFED: ASSETS & OPPORTUNITY SCORECARD assets & opportunity policy campaign Through the Assets & Opportunity Scorecard and Policy Campaign, CFED is committed to improving state policy across America. In addition to providing policymakers with comprehensive and timely data and assessments and broadly sharing the Scorecard findings and recommendations with allied organizations and the media, CFED also has partnered with organizations in 25 states to build coalitions that will utilize the Scorecard to advocate for state policy change. This two-year Policy Campaign has four distinct objectives: Educate policymakers, the public and the media on asset building and the policies that can help Americans build and protect assets and financial security Build the capacity of organizations to formulate agendas and advocate effectively for state and federal policies Promote increased engagement of policymakers, asset advocates and the media on the racial dimension of wealth disparities Increase the number and diversity of organizations that see asset building as important to their missions CFED s Assets & Opportunity Policy Campaign State Partners State with campaign partner State without campaign partner AK HI WA OR NV CA ID AZ UT MT WY CO NM ND SD NE KS OK TX MN WI IA MO AR LA IL MS NY MI PA IN OH WV VA KY NC TN SC AL GA ME VT NH MA NJ CT RI DE MD DC FL 5

8 About the Scorecard The Assets & Opportunity Scorecard describes and measures the many forces that impact the financial strength of households, and outlines the centrality of building and protecting assets to the financial success of families and individuals. It offers the most comprehensive, timely assessment available of the financial security of households and individuals at the state level and allows comparison by state and, where possible, race, gender and income. Its scope and framework give a useful, strategic view of economic drivers and of the policies that can accelerate and spread asset building and economic opportunity. The Scorecard assesses all states on their relative ability to provide opportunities for residents to build and retain assets. The state outcome grades are a measure of financial prosperity and how well that prosperity is shared and safeguarded. The Scorecard ranks the 50 states and the District of Columbia on 58 performance measures in five Issue Areas: Financial Assets & Income, Businesses & Jobs, Housing & Homeownership, Health Care and Education. The overall state outcome grade is determined by the rankings each state receives for outcome measures within each Issue Area. The outcome grades in the Scorecard are distributed on a curve, based on how each state fares compared with all other states. The Scorecard also separately assesses states on the strength of their policies to expand economic opportunity. The Scorecard includes a detailed assessment of 12 policy priorities, as well as information on 22 additional policies. Taken together, these 34 policies provide a comprehensive view of what states can do to help residents build and protect assets in the Issue Areas described above and in one additional category related to community investment and accountability policies. Unlike the outcome measures, the strength of a state s policies is assessed based on fixed criteria arrived at through consultation with issue experts and CFED s own knowledge of asset policies that are promising, proven or effective in helping families build and protect assets. These policy assessments do not factor in the state outcome grades. This edition of the Scorecard has been updated and improved in several significant ways from the edition. For the first time, the Scorecard incorporates measures on job quality and assesses states on wage and income trends, in acknowledgement of the fact that overall earning potential and job stability are critical elements of savings and asset building. The Scorecard also offers an expanded view of health care by including data on the cost of health insurance and out-of-pocket medical expenses. The Scorecard also includes new data on college debt that describes the financial burden students and families must take on to access the education critical to attaining future income and financial security. In addition to these changes to the outcome measures, the mix of policy priorities and the criteria used to assess the strength of state action have been revisited to reflect the best thinking on what states can and should do to promote economic opportunity. This edition of the Scorecard also describes a number of innovative policies that, while not all currently enacted, are under active consideration by state policymakers. These policies represent some of the most promising and inventive actions states can take to expand economic opportunity. 6 executive summary

9 CFED: ASSETS & OPPORTUNITY SCORECARD Data Sources Outcome and policy data for the Assets & Opportunity Scorecard are gathered from a range of public and proprietary data sources and from nonprofit research and policy organizations. For outcome measures, CFED collects the most recent data available from sources that have sample sizes large enough to allow for credible disaggregation and analysis at the state level, primarily surveys conducted by the Census Bureau and other federal agencies. All of the net worth and asset poverty data are drawn from the most recent wave of the U.S. Census Bureau s Survey of Income and Program Participation. Many government surveys are only conducted periodically (such as the U.S. Census Bureau s Survey of Small Business Owners), and even in cases where data is collected annually, the data collection, cleaning and analysis process creates an unavoidable time lag between data collection and data release. As a result, some of the outcome measures reported in this edition of the Scorecard describe the state of financial security prior to and just at the start of the current economic recession. Full citations for all data sources and descriptions of how each measure is calculated are available on CFED s Assets & Opportunity Scorecard Web site at Policy data for the Scorecard is drawn from research and resources created mainly by policy organizations, academic institutions and think tanks with expertise in the specific Issue Areas covered in the Scorecard. The particular policies selected for inclusion in the Scorecard and the criteria for assessing the strength of those policies were identified by conversations with experts and CFED s own knowledge of asset policies that are promising, proven or effective in helping families build and protect assets. Where information on the state-by-state status of policies was not already documented, CFED consulted with experts and conducted original research using StateNet, online surveys and telephone interviews. Data for the 12 policy priorities are current as of June 30, Data for additional policies are drawn from latest published reports, usually from 2007 or Full explanation of data sources for priority and additional policies are available at CFED s Assets & Opportunity Scorecard Web site at POlICY PRIORITY ASSESSmENT For the Scorecard s 12 policy priority measures, state policies are assessed against fi xed criteria that constitute a strong policy. Policy icons are used to represent the strength of these polices. Very strong policy Strong policy, but some room for improvement Some policy, but much room for improvement Minimal policy in place No policy in place For more information on the specifi c criteria for each policy, go to CFED presents data on states adoption of the 22 additional policies; however, the strength of these policies is not assessed. Scorecard Assessments The Scorecard s 58 outcome measures are ranked best to worst with #1 being the most desirable and #51 the least desirable. Grades are given on a curve; 10 states get As, 10 get Bs, 16 get Cs, 10 get Ds and five get Fs. Grades for each Issue Area are calculated by averaging the ranks of measures within that Issue Area. The overall outcome grade is calculated by adding together the average score from each Issue Area and ranking those scores. Policy measures do not factor in state grades. 7

10 Findings The Assets & Opportunity Scorecard assesses both outcome measures and policies for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia in five Issue Areas: Financial Assets & Income, Businesses & Jobs, Housing & Homeownership, Health Care and Education. The following sections highlight both the main outcomes and the status of states adoption of policy priorities in each of these areas. For a more complete exposition and to find detailed data on each state, go to CFED s Assets & Opportunity Scorecard Web site at Financial Assets & Income Are there widespread opportunities for wealth creation and protection, particularly for low-income citizens? Asset ownership and financial security are interconnected. Owning more assets means having greater economic stability and mobility. Assets enable millions of Americans to plan for the future, buy a home, prepare for retirement, send their children to college and weather unexpected financial storms. But in order to build and maintain assets, particularly in low-income communities, a financial environment must be in place to provide adequate tools and incentives to earn, save and invest. Accumulated assets must then be preserved and protected so that the benefits of holding onto assets may continue. The Financial Assets & Income Issue Area measures 13 outcomes including household net worth, income poverty, asset poverty, unbanked households and debt. Key Outcomes The highest income households had 45 times the net worth of the lowest, which means that for every dollar owned by a household in the highest income quintile, a household in the lowest income quintile had just 2 cents (down from 3 cents in the Scorecard). African-American households had 10 cents and Latino households had 15 cents in wealth for every dollar held by white households. The disparity in wealth by race varies considerably across states. For example, in Nevada, minority households had 41 cents for every dollar in white households, while in New York, minority households had only 1 cent for every dollar held by white households. Female-headed households had 83 cents for every dollar held by a maleheaded household. The median borrower in the United States had almost $3,000 in revolving debt, which includes credit card debt a 64% increase from the Scorecard. Borrowers in Alaska had the highest median credit card debt at nearly $5,000, but in Iowa, median debt was slightly more than $2, executive summary

11 CFED: ASSETS & OPPORTUNITY SCORECARD Income and Asset Poverty Rates Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Income poverty Asset poverty 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 United States 16.7% 21.8% 8.5% n/a 12.0% 26.0% 17.6% 22.5% 11.0% 25.0% 11.1% 21.5% 8.1% 22.3% 10.0% 16.2% 14.7% 24.4% 11.4% 19.8% 13.3% 24.2% 8.8% 18.7% 11.5% 15.4% 11.4% 21.8% 11.7% 21.8% 10.9% 18.6% 10.8% 21.8% 17.2% 23.5% 18.1% 28.0% 12.5% 21.7% 8.0% 18.6% 10.5% 25.0% 13.0% 19.7% 9.5% 14.9% 19.8% 23.8% 13.1% 21.8% 13.6% 31.7% 11.2% 18.3% 9.3% 27.9% 7.4% 18.7% 8.6% 20.2% 16.8% 25.4% 13.2% 32.5% 14.1% 25.8% 13.2% 22.8% 13.0% 22.6% 15.4% 22.7% 12.6% 26.2% 11.5% 19.3% 12.1% 17.1% 14.6% 26.5% 12.7% 18.6% 15.2% 22.9% 14.6% 24.8% 9.1% 30.8% 10.2% n/a 9.8% 14.8% 10.8% 21.0% 17.1% 18.3% 10.4% 19.5% 8.4% 19.6% 12.3% 22.5% Asset Poverty Asset Poverty A useful way to illustrate the value of assets by is Race to consider what would happen if a family lost its steady income source due to factors including job loss or medical crisis and had to live off only its assets. In the Scorecard, we assess household economic security in part by looking at this scenario with a measure called asset poverty. A household is asset poor if it has insufficient net worth to subsist at the federal poverty level for three months in the absence of income. And the measure we call extreme asset poverty calls out the percentage of households with zero or negative net worth (i.e., households with no savings or assets whatsoever to help buffer against financial hardship). Taken together, these two measures reveal how leveraged and vulnerable households may be, regardless of their earnings. The Scorecard Asset shows Poverty that the percentage of households in asset by poverty Gender consistently exceeds those living in income poverty. Asset Poverty by the Numbers: 22.5% of American households are asset poor 27.3% of households with children are asset poor Minority households are more than twice as likely to be asset poor than white households (37.2% compared with 16.4%) 14.3% of all households and 23.8% of minority households experience extreme asset poverty Percent of Population in Asset Poverty 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0 Asset Poverty by Race 16.4 White 37.2 Minority Percent of Population in Asset Poverty 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0 Asset Poverty by Gender 20.2 Male 24.1 Female 9

12 27 State Earned Income Tax Credit Lifting Asset Limits in Public Benefit Programs State Policies that Can Increase Financial Assets and Income States can adopt a number of policies that can increase the financial assets and income of families. These policies include adopting a state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) so that families have sufficient income to put away for a rainy day; lifting asset limits in public benefit programs so that very lowincome families are not discouraged from saving; supporting matched savings programs such as Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) to create incentives to save; and protecting people s income and savings from predatory payday lending. The Scorecard tracks the adoption of these policies across the country. State EITCs The EITC is one of the largest and most effective wage-support programs for low- and moderate-income families. It supplements the earnings of workers by reducing their tax burden. When the EITC is greater than the amount of taxes owned, the taxpayer receives a refund. Every year, millions of Americans use these refunds to get out of debt and start saving for the future. States should enact their own EITCs that build on the federal credit. Twenty-four states (counting the District of Columbia) have adopted a state-level EITC; CFED considers 11 of these states policies strong or very strong. Lifting Asset Limits in Public Benefit Programs Many public benefit programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Medicaid limit eligibility to those with few or no assets. If a family has assets over the state s limit, it must spend down longer-term savings in order to receive what is often short-term public assistance. These asset limits, which were originally intended to ensure that public resources did not go to asset-rich individuals, are a relic of entitlement policies that in some cases no longer exist. Personal savings and assets are precisely the kinds of resources that allow families to move off of public benefit programs. States should eliminate asset limits from public benefit programs. Twenty-three states have eliminated asset limits in Medicaid; three states have eliminated them for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; and 24 have eliminated them in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 10 executive summary

13 CFED: ASSETS & OPPORTUNITY SCORECARD State IDA Program Support One policy that helps low- and moderate-income people build assets is a statesupported IDA program. IDAs are special savings accounts that match the deposits of low- and moderate-income savers, provided that they participate in financial education and use the savings for targeted purposes most commonly postsecondary education, homeownership or capitalizing a small business. Research demonstrates that these accounts make families more financially secure and communities more stable. States should provide funds and support for local IDA programs. State IDA Program Support Seventeen states had funded state IDA programs in 2009; CFED considers six of these states policies strong or very strong. Payday Lending Protections Predatory payday lending refers to the practice of repeatedly making small, short-term loans at annual interest rates averaging about 400%, trapping borrowers in a cycle of debt. While payday lenders generally locate in urban areas, they are disproportionately concentrated among communities of color. By far the most important strategy for curbing predatory lending is banning these loans outright or effectively banning them by imposing small-loan interest rate caps of 36% Annual Percentage Rate (APR) or less. States should adopt these caps and help families avoid predatory payday loans in the first place by promoting alternative, safer small-dollar loan products and adopting policies that encourage low- and moderate-income families to save. Fifteen states have either banned payday lending altogether or effectively eliminated it by enforcing interest rate caps of 36% APR or less. CFED considers these 16 states to have strong or very strong policies. 34 Payday Lending Protections Additional Policies that Can Increase Financial Assets and Income In addition to the above noted policy priorities, the Scorecard also provides data on state adoption of the following policies that impact financial assets and income. They are: Income tax threshold Minimum wage Requirement to teach financial education in schools Number of states with: Very strong policy Strong policy, but some room for improvement Some policy, but much room for improvement Minimal policy in place No policy in place 11

14 Businesses & Jobs Is the opportunity to work in a high-quality job or to start and grow a business available for all who seek these opportunities? Business ownership and high-quality wage employment each play an important role in helping families earn income and build wealth over time. Earned income is the single most important contributing factor to a household s ability to save money, access affordable credit and build assets. Business equity is second only to homeownership nationally as a share of household wealth. The Scorecard s Businesses & Jobs Issue Area assesses the level of access American households have to business ownership and quality job opportunities. The Business & Jobs Issue Area measures 15 outcomes on employment growth, business creation rate, small business ownership rate, microenterprise ownership rate, minority business ownership rate, unemployment rate, average annual pay, employee ownership and private loans to small business, among others. Key Outcomes More than 22% of jobs in this country are in occupations that pay a median wage that is insufficient to raise the earner s family above the poverty line. Washington, DC has the lowest percentage of low-wage jobs (7.3%), while in West Virginia, 38.5% of jobs are low-wage. Unemployment rates for African Americans are double those of white Americans. More than 10% of African Americans were unemployed in 2008, and that number has risen to 15.3% in the first quarter of % of workers participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan. That rate is highest in Iowa with 58.3% of workers participating, and HOW THE STATES RANK: LOW WAGE JOBS DESCRIPTION: Percentage of jobs in occupations with median annual pay below 100% of poverty threshold for a family of four ($20,615), Percent of Jobs Paying Less Than the Poverty Threshhold 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% NJ CO VT MN OR NH CT WA AK MA OH HI VA PA ME CA NV WI IL MI MD NY RI National Average (22.2%) West Virginia (38.5%) NM SD LA MT AR AL OK TX SC MO TN AZ KY KS IN WY ID ND GA FL IA UT NC NE DE MS 5% District of Columbia 7.3% 0 1 State Rankings executive summary

15 CFED: ASSETS & OPPORTUNITY SCORECARD lowest in Florida where only 36.4% of workers participate in employersponsored retirement plans. 55.8% of private sector establishments offer health care benefits to employees, but there is a great deal of variation among states. In Hawaii, 89.6% of employers offer health care benefits, the highest level in the nation. In contrast, only 40.1% of Montana s employers offer health insurance to their employees. Small business ownership runs at 17.7 businesses per 100 workers. Montana continues to have the highest rate of small business ownership at 22.7%. Wisconsin has the smallest percentage of small business owners at 14.3%. State Policies that Can Increase Opportunities to Start Businesses and Find High-Quality Jobs States can adopt a number of policies that can expand business ownership opportunities and improve job quality. These policies include supporting very small businesses and entrepreneurial ventures to help individuals and families earn income and build wealth over time. Small business creation has consistently been a path to America s middle class particularly for minorities, immigrants and the economically disadvantaged. State Microenterprise Support State Microenterprise Support Very small businesses, or microenterprises, are a proving ground for new entrepreneurs and a key income generation and economic revitalization strategy. Microenterprises increase income for the poor, help people move out of poverty and off of public assistance and help poor households build both business and personal assets over time. Many of the estimated 20 million Americans who operate microenterprises face disadvantages in establishing and operating their own businesses including women, minorities, low-income individuals and people with disabilities. States should provide funding and support to programs that help these individuals succeed as entrepreneurs. Thirty-six states have taken some action to support microenterprises through their public policies; CFED considers 10 of these states policies strong or very strong. Additional Policies that Can Support Businesses and Jobs In addition to the policy priority of State Microenterprise Support, the Scorecard also provides data on state adoption of the following policies that impact businesses, jobs and income. They include: Percentage of workers covered by Workers Compensation Unemployment benefit level Unemployment benefit eligibility for workers Expansion of family leave benefits Incentives for employee ownership Number of states with: Very strong policy Strong policy, but some room for improvement Some policy, but much room for improvement Minimal policy in place No policy in place 13

16 Housing & Homeownership Homeownership Rate Homeownership Rate Homeownership Rate 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Homeownership by Race 71.5 White 89.3 Top quintile Male 48.2 Minority Homeownership by Income 32.6 Bottom quintile Homeownership by Gender Female Are housing and homeownership contributing to the wealth creation of citizens, or impeding it? Even in today s tough housing market, the home represents the single largest component of household wealth and is a fundamental asset for millions of Americans. For those who are not ready or able to buy a home, access to affordable, high-quality rental housing is essential. Many renters of limited means are forced to accept substandard or unsafe living conditions in order to find housing that they can afford. Whether owning or renting, having a safe, affordable place to live provides physical and financial security. Yet all too often, affordability is out of reach. More than 37% of homeowners and 45% of renters in the United States are cost-burdened, meaning they spend more than onethird of their income on housing costs. The Housing & Homeownership Issue Area measures 10 outcomes including homeownership rates by race, gender and income; foreclosure rates; home affordability; high-cost loans; housing cost burden for homeowners and renters; and mortgage debt as a percentage of home value. Key Outcomes The national homeownership rate fell by 5 percentage points since the Scorecard, from 69% to 64%. The highest homeownership rate in the country was in Minnesota (nearly 75%), while New York had the lowest rate of homeownership at 53%. 48.2% of minorities own their homes, whereas nearly 71.5% of whites own their homes. The largest disparity is seen in North Dakota (31% versus 66%), while New Mexico has the smallest rate of homeownership disparity (65% versus 68%). 89.3% of the highest income households own homes, almost triple the 32.6% homeownership rate among households in the lowest income bracket. National foreclosure rates have increased more than 200% since the Scorecard and continue to rise (The rate rose from.99% in the 2nd quarter of 2006 to 2.93% in the 3rd quarter of 2008). In part, the rise in foreclosures can be attributed to a rise in subprime lending. In 2007, high-cost loans (often referred to as subprime) made up 17.5% of all home financing. The median home in the United States costs 3.5 times the median income. Kansas has the most affordable housing in the nation, with the median home price twice the median annual income. Homeownership is least affordable in Massachusetts, where the median home costs six times the median income. State Policies that Can Advance Housing and Homeownership States can adopt a number of policies that can increase the ability of families to buy and keep a home and to assure affordable housing for both owners and renters. These policies include curbing predatory mortgage lending; providing first-time homebuyer assistance so low-income workers can afford a downpayment on a home; and establishing a state housing trust fund to address a variety of affordable housing challenges. 14 executive summary

17 CFED: ASSETS & OPPORTUNITY SCORECARD Predatory Mortgage Lending Protections Between 1994 and 2005, the subprime mortgage market grew from $34 billion to $665 billion. During that period of growth, experts warned of the potential for a foreclosure crisis. As predicted, the eventual collapse of the housing market was fueled by high-cost, high-risk subprime loans that borrowers could no longer afford. States should restrict the terms or provisions of mortgage loans, strengthen regulation of mortgage lenders and brokers, require lenders and brokers to engage in sound underwriting practices and ensure that laws can be enforced to protect consumers. Thirty-six states have taken some action to curb predatory mortgage lending; CFED considers nine of these states policies strong or very strong. First-time Homebuyer Assistance Low- and moderate-income families face a number of barriers to homeownership, including building up sufficient savings for a lump-sum downpayment and closing costs; accessing affordable and safe mortgage products; and acquiring basic information about what to expect from the homebuying process and how to protect their interests. States can help address these challenges by: providing downpayment assistance; offering competitively-priced mortgage lending products directly to homebuyers; investing in homebuyer education; and providing other programs designed specifically to assist low-income renters who wish to become homeowners. States should offer a comprehensive package of products and services to assist first-time homebuyers. Predatory Mortgage Lending Protections First-time Homebuyer Assistance Although nearly every state has taken some action to encourage first-time homeownership, many states still have room for improvement. Fifty states offer some support to first-time homebuyers; CFED considers 28 of these states policies strong or very strong Housing Trust Fund Housing trust funds are one way that states can help make homeownership affordable for low- and moderate-income families. They use dedicated public monies for a variety of affordable housing solutions. These include preserving affordable rental housing, addressing homelessness, construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing, helping families become first-time homeowners, emergency repair and foreclosure prevention. States should establish a housing trust fund capitalized through a dedicated and recurring funding source. Some 600 housing trust funds exist in cities, counties and 41 states. Thirty-five states meet one or more of CFED s criteria of having a dedicated funding source, funding at a meaningful level, stability in funding over time and having a state agency steward. CFED considers seven of these states policies strong or very strong. Additional Policies that Can Advance Housing and Homeownership In addition to the policy priorities noted above, the Scorecard also provides data on state adoption of the following policies that impact housing and homeownership: Reserves of low-income housing tax credits to preserve affordable rental housing Property tax relief programs Foreclosure protections that make it harder for owners to lose their homes Legislation to support resident ownership of manufactured housing communities Housing Trust Fund Number of states with: Very strong policy Strong policy, but some room for improvement Some policy, but much room for improvement Minimal policy in place No policy in place 15

18 Health Care Is there broad access to health insurance as protection against income interruption and asset depletion from medical bills? There is no greater threat to a family s financial security than the expenses of a major medical emergency or treatment of a chronic illness. Access to health care provides individuals and families with a safety net that complements their asset ownership. Yet today, 45 million Americans do not have health insurance. While federal solutions have been debated for decades, states have and will continue to have a role in widening access to those who have trouble finding coverage. The Health Care Issue Area measures nine outcomes including overall uninsured rates along with uninsured rates by race, gender and income; cost burden of medical expenses; employees insured by employer; employee share of premiums; and uninsured low-income parents and children. Key Outcomes 17% of non-elderly Americans do not have health insurance, but rates of uninsured vary by geography, race and income. Massachusetts has the largest percentage of its residents insured, with only 8.9% uninsured. In contrast, 27.5% of the population of Texas is without health insurance. Minorities are twice as likely to lack health insurance as white individuals, while low-income individuals are uninsured at a rate almost 4 times higher than those with incomes above 200% of the federal poverty line. The percentage of uninsured children fell slightly since the Scorecard from 18.5% to 18.3%. West Virginia had the lowest rate of uninsured children at 7.5%, while 30.5% of children in Florida lacked health insurance. HOW THE STATES RANK: UNINSURED POPULATION DESCRIPTION: Percentage of nonelderly population without health insurance, two year average Percentage of Population Uninsured 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% National Average (17.2%) MO IL NY VA TN UT ID KS WVWY KY AL MD VT NH ND IN HI MN MA RI IA MI OH SD WA DE NE PA DC CT WI Massachusetts (8.9%) OK CA CO MT GA OR NV NC AR SC AK NJ Texas (27.5%) NM FL LA AZ MS 5% 0 1 State Rankings executive summary

19 CFED: ASSETS & OPPORTUNITY SCORECARD The number of uninsured low-income parents has risen to 37.2% from 36% in the Scorecard. More than half of low-income parents in Colorado (50.1%) and Texas (56.9%) are uninsured. The percentage of individuals covered by employer-provided health insurance fell significantly since the previous Scorecard, from 63.2% to 60.9%. On average, insured employees pay a quarter of the cost of their family s premium. Across the states that rate ranges from a high of 33% in Florida to a low of 19% in Wyoming. In addition to premiums, families paid 19% of medical expenses out-ofpocket. In Wisconsin, the rate was 14.7%, while in Colorado, 25.4% of medical expenses were paid out-of-pocket. Access to Health Insurance State Policies that Can Improve Health Care Coverage States can adopt a range of policies that provide health care coverage to those who are currently uninsured. States can expand access to federal programs such as Medicaid and the Children s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); they can encourage employers to offer health insurance to their workers; and they can enact comprehensive reform to work toward universal coverage. Access to Health Insurance The majority of Americans receive health insurance coverage through their employers, but given the decrease in employer-sponsored insurance in the last decade, more families are at risk. In the 1960s, Medicaid was created to address the lack of insurance among low-income families, seniors and people with disabilities. In 1997, the federal government created CHIP to address the rising incidence of uninsured low-income children. States should expand eligibility for public programs, subsidize the costs of private insurance and mandate coverage extensions for those whose benefits would otherwise be terminated. Thirty-nine states have taken some action to expand access to health insurance; CFED considers 11 of these states policies strong or very strong. Additional Policies that Can Improve Health Care Coverage In addition, the Scorecard also provides data on state adoption of the following policies that impact the breadth of health care coverage. They include: Creating high-risk pools to help high-risk individuals get health coverage Extending Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act coverage to small-business employees Number of states with: Very strong policy Strong policy, but some room for improvement Some policy, but much room for improvement Minimal policy in place No policy in place 17

20 Percentage with Four-Year Degrees Percentage with Four-Year Degrees Percentage with Four-Year Degrees 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Four-Year Degrees by Race 5% White Four-Year Degrees by Gender Male 56.5 Top quintile Minority Female Four-Year Degrees by Income 11.4 Bottom quintile Education Do people have access to the education and training they need to meet the challenges of a changing economy? Education is an asset that benefits not only the educated individual, but also his or her family and community. Skills and knowledge are central determinants of earning capacity, but also important drivers of the economy. Education also promotes civic responsibility, advances economic competitiveness and expands economic opportunity. The Scorecard s Education Issue Area measures educational opportunity for children born in poverty. It also evaluates basic skills proficiency, and post-secondary educational attainment and affordability. The Education Issue Area measures 11 outcomes including high school attainment; two- and four-year college degree attainment along with attainment by race, gender and income; debt of college graduates; 8th-grade reading and math proficiency; and Head Start coverage. Key Outcomes Education programs targeting children born to low-income and poor households reach only a fraction of their target populations. The federally-funded Head Start program serves only 20.3% of children under six years of age who live below the federal poverty line. In Vermont, 51.2% of poor children are served, while in Nevada only 10.2% of poor children benefit from its program. Only 31% of 8th graders are proficient in math and 29.2% are proficient in reading. In the District of Columbia, 8th-grade math proficiency is only 8%, while in the State of Massachusetts half of 8th graders are at or above proficiency level (50.7%). Math proficiency rates also vary by race. 42% of white 8th graders are proficient, but among African Americans that rate drops to 11%. Only 15% of Latino 8th graders are proficient in math. Racial disparities in college attainment rates persist nationally and in every state. 33.5% of whites in the United States have a college degree, compared with only 21.2% of minorities. The District of Columbia leads the nation in the percent of the population that holds a college degree (52%). But the overall figure masks the fact that while more than 90% of whites in DC have a college degree, a degree is held by only 30% of minorities. State Policies that Can Improve Educational Attainment States can adopt a number of policies to improve the educational attainment of residents throughout their lives. These policies include establishing prekindergarten programs to prepare children to learn; promoting equal access to high-quality public education opportunities so all students have a fair chance to succeed; and providing incentives for college savings to make post-secondary education costs more affordable. 18 executive summary

21 CFED: ASSETS & OPPORTUNITY SCORECARD Early Childhood Education Early childhood education, including pre-kindergarten, results in higher earnings, higher overall economic growth, a more productive and versatile workforce, better health and lower crime. Early childhood development creates a foundation for later school achievement, workforce productivity, responsible citizenship and successful parenting. Pre-K programs prepare children for learning, both in school and later in the workforce, and are vital to a state s economic prosperity. States should establish and fund high-quality pre-k programs that are accessible to all children. Thirty-nine states have an established pre-k program; CFED considers 19 of these states policies strong or very strong. Access to Quality K-12 Education Despite decades of education reforms, inequity persists in education spending and the availability of qualified teachers. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds frequently begin schooling already behind their peers. Yet schools with the highest concentration of students in poverty receive less funding than schools with lower concentrations. Instead of relying on property taxes as the main source of funding, which can disadvantage high-poverty districts, states should defer to statewide sources. States should also target funding to these high-poverty districts while creating and enforcing equity standards in all districts. States also have enormous authority over ensuring that students are taught by qualified teachers, and can set requirements to help improve the quality of the teaching force across the state. States should implement policies to ensure that teachers are prepared and licensed, that they are evaluated regularly and that ineffective teachers are weeded out of the system. Forty-five states have adopted some policy to increase access to high-quality education; CFED considers six of these states policies strong or very strong. College Savings Incentives Post-secondary education is one of the best investments an individual can make in his or her economic future. Yet escalating costs discourage many from pursuing higher education. One way to make the cost of post-secondary education more affordable and increase participation by lower-income individuals is to create incentives for families to save for college. States should create programs to match the deposits of individuals into 529 college savings accounts. Twelve states currently incentivize deposits into 529 college savings plans for some or all of the state s children; CFED considers one of these states policies strong or very strong. Additional Policies that Can Improve Educational Attainment In addition to the policies noted above, the Scorecard also provides data on state adoption of the following policies that impact educational attainment: Level of financial aid for postsecondary education Supplemental funds for Head Start Participants in Workforce Investment Act programs that receive training Workforce training funded through TANF 6 Early Childhood Education Access to Quality K-12 Education College Savings Incentives Number of states with: Very strong policy 9 3 Strong policy, but some room for improvement Some policy, but much room for improvement Minimal policy in place No policy in place 19

22 Summary of Scorecard Tools The findings of the Assets & Opportunity Scorecard are presented and analyzed through a number of publications and resources for policymakers, advocates and researchers. Printable versions of these resources are available for download at In addition, most are also available in hardcopy from CFED. Contact scorecard@cfed.org for more information. Executive Summary: This Executive Summary is a review of the main findings of the Scorecard and provides guidance on how to find and use the various Scorecard tools. State Issue Area Grades: An at-a-glance view at how every state and the District of Columbia scored in each of the Scorecard s five Issue Areas. (Included in this Executive Summary on page 23). State Policy Priority Ratings: An at-a-glance summary of policy ratings on all 12 policy priorities for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. (Included in this Executive Summary on pages 24-25). State Profiles: Individual profiles that summarize state ranking and data on all outcome measures, state ratings for each Policy Priority and information on additional policies, and recommendations for improving outcomes for each state and the District of Columbia. 20 executive summary

23 CFED: ASSETS & OPPORTUNITY SCORECARD Policy Briefs: One-page summaries for each of the 12 priority policies that outline: Why the policy matters What states can do to improve the policy Elements of a strong policy Impact and results of policy change to date Policy Priority Resource Guides: For each of the 12 policy priorities, a guide with a detailed examination of: Why the policy matters What states can do to improve the policy Elements of a strong policy State precedents Examples of successful policy change strategies Advice on policy campaigns Where to find additional resources NEED COPIES OF THESE TOOLS? Printable versions of these resources are available for download at In addition, most are also available in hardcopy from CFED. Contact scorecard@cfed.org for more information. Policy Innovation Briefs: Policy summaries of new and creative approaches to addressing social issues that, while not currently enacted, are under active consideration in several states. Assets & Opportunity Web site: All Scorecard tools and materials are available on the Assets & Opportunity Scorecard Web site, In addition, the Web site includes full data points for all 92 measures, detailed explanations of each measure, methodology and data sources, resources for policy advocates, answers to frequently asked questions about the Scorecard, and data from the 2007 and 2005 Scorecards. In addition to these resources, CFED will continue to produce research and advocacy tools that update and augment the core portfolio of Scorecard products over the course of the Assets & Opportunity Policy Campaign. These will include special reports, trend analyses and statistical profiles on key issues and populations. 21

24 Acknowledgements CFED thanks the many people whose support, guidance, advice, knowledge and patience were invaluable to this project. Our gratitude goes to the great many expert researchers and practitioners who helped us identify the best data and/or shared their topical knowledge on the Policy Briefs: David Baer, Birny Birnbaum, David Black, Matt Broaddus, Mary Brooks, Carolyn Carter, Stacy Dean, Allison de la Torre, Dale Epstein, Keith Ernst, Jean Ann Fox, Isabel Friedenzohn, Evan Fuguet, Jason Hustedt, Sandi Jacobs, Rose Jaspersen, Nick Johnson, Kara Kaufman, Tracy Kaufman, Uriah King, Joyce Klein, John Logue, Catherine Marshall, Enrique Martinez-Vidal, Michael Mazerov, James McQuiston, Hannah Yang Moore, Colleen Pawling, Valerie Plummer, Andrew Reamer, Matthew Reed, Garth Rieman, Christine Riordan, Brandon Roberts, Donna Cohen Ross, David Rousseau, Judith Solomon, Welthy Soni, Gregory Squires, Steffany Stern, Christina Theokas, Jack VanDerhei, Albert Wat, Sara Weed, Erica Williams, Victoria Williams, Beadsie Woo, Dr. Charles Wu, Jacquelyn Yates and Erol Yildirim. Special thanks to Jon Haveman and Michael Futch from Beacon Economics. Our appreciation goes to our state partner organizations across the country who helped refine our thinking on state policies: Action for Children North Carolina, Capital Area Asset Builders, Center for Public Policy Priorities, Community Action New Mexico, Community Economic Development Association of Michigan, Connecticut Voices for Children, EARN/APIC, Florida Asset Building Coalition, Florida Prosperity Partnership, Hawai i Alliance for Community-Based Economic Development, Heartland Alliance, IDA and Asset-Building Collaborative of North Carolina, ISED Ventures, Kansas Action for Children, MDC, The Midas Collaborative, Minnesota Legal Services Advocacy Project, RAISE Kentucky, RAISE Texas, Neighborhood Partnerships, North Dakota Economic Security Alliance, Oklahoma Policy Institute, Oweesta Corporation, Policy Matters Ohio, Rural Dynamics Inc., Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Southern Good Faith Fund, United Vision for Idaho, Washington Asset Building Coalition and YWCA Delaware. This project was made possible through the generous support of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Levi Strauss Foundation, the Seattle Foundation-STEP, the Bank of America Charitable Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Northwest Area Foundation, the JPMorgan Chase Foundation, and the Annie E. Casey Foundation. A tremendous amount of CFED staff time and talent was devoted to the creation of the Scorecard. We are deeply appreciative of the contributions of the Scorecard team of Jennifer Brooks, Chris Campbell, LeElaine Comer, Justina Cross, Laura Ewald, Kristin Lawton, Genevieve Melford, Amr Moubarak, Ida Rademacher, Alex Siegel, Leigh Tivol, Jerome Uher, Aaron Watts and Kasey Wiedrich as well as many other members of the CFED staff without whose contributions the Scorecard would not be possible. The support and leadership of CFED President Andrea Levere proved invaluable, and the vision and insight of CFED Founder and Board President Robert Friedman were both inspiring and practical. 22 executive summary

25 CFED: ASSETS & OPPORTUNITY SCORECARD state issue area GRADES OVERALL GRADE FINANCIAL ASSETS & INCOME BUSINESSES & JOBS HOUSING & HOMEOWNERSHIP HEALTH CARE EDUCATION Alabama D D D B C F Alaska B D A A B C Arizona F C D D D D Arkansas F D F D C D California C B A F D C Colorado B C A C F A Connecticut B C B D B B Delaware B A D B C C District of Columbia B C A D B C Florida C B C D F C Georgia D D B D F C Hawaii A A A B A A Idaho C D C A C D Illinois C B C D C B Indiana D D D C A C Iowa A A D A B C Kansas A B C A B B Kentucky D C D C B D Louisiana F D C C D F Maine A A B B B C Maryland B C B C C A Massachusetts A C A D A A Michigan C C C D A C Minnesota A A B C C A Mississippi F D F B F F Missouri C C D C B C Montana C F C A D B Nebraska C A C C D C Nevada D C B F D D New Hampshire A A A A C A New Jersey C B A F C B New Mexico D F D A C D New York D F B F C C North Carolina D D D C D D North Dakota C D B B F A Ohio C C D D A C Oklahoma C C C B C C Oregon C C B C D B Pennsylvania B B C B B C Rhode Island D A F F A D South Carolina F F F C C F South Dakota B A C C C B Tennessee C C C B C D Texas D C C C D D Utah C F C A C B Vermont A A A A A A Virginia B B B B D B Washington A B B B B A West Virginia C C F A A F Wisconsin B B C C A B Wyoming A B A A A A 23

26 state policy priority ratings 24 executive summary

27 CFED: ASSETS & OPPORTUNITY SCORECARD For more information on these policy measures and more, go to 25