Media Ownership: Data Dodges and Double Standards

By Joseph Miller

Deregulatory initiatives seem to move much faster at the FCC than efforts to improve media ownership diversity. The FCC is expected to relax its long-standing blanket ban on the ownership of a broadcast station and a newspaper in the same market even though minority and female media ownership data on how it will affect “viewpoint diversity” is sparse.  Relaxing the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule (NBCO) seems inconsistent with federal case law requiring the agency to gather enough background information on minority and female media ownership before changing other media ownership rules.

Congress has mandated that the FCC must review its media ownership rules every four years (i.e.“quadrennially”), to ensure enforcing the rules remains in the public interest.  The current Quadrennial Review began in 2010 and the Commission issued proposed rules last December.  Among these proposed rules is a relaxation of NBCO.

This is not the first time the FCC has attempted to relax NBCO.  In 2008, following its 2006 Quadrennial Review, the FCC went so far as to issue an order relaxing NBCO.  That time, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Prometheus II, sent the new rules back to the Commission because the Commission had not complied with Administrative Procedures Act (APA) provisions requiring federal agencies to notify the public that new rules have been proposed and allowing the public to comment on the proposed rules before issuing a final order.

The current proposed rule from the 2010 Quadrennial Review to relax NBCO would end the complete ban on owning a newspaper and broadcast station in the same market by allowing exceptions to the rule in instances where owning a newspaper and broadcast station in the same market would “carry public interest benefits.” The FCC would assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether proposals to own a broadcast station and a newspaper in the same market affect “viewpoint diversity”. This time, the rule underwent the APA-mandated notice and comment process, and the FCC is expected to vote on the final order before the end of the year.  FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski sent a draft of the NBCO order to the 4 other FCC Commissioners on Wednesday.

But the Court in Prometheus II also ruled that the FCC failed to “examine the relevant data [on broadcast ownership by minorities and women] and articulate a satisfactory explanation” for defining a term in a different proceeding.  In its 2008 Diversity Order, the FCC defined the meaning of the term “eligible entities” to give effect to several rules applying to prospective buyers of broadcast stations. In enacting these rules, the FCC claimed they would increase the number of stations owned by minorities and women. But the Court reasoned that the FCC provided no data on minority and female ownership that would support its claim that its eligible entity rules would lead to an increase in minority and female station ownership. In fact, the Court held, the FCC’s eligible entities definition was not likely to have an effect on minority and female media ownership at all.  The Court thus concluded that the eligible entity definition was “arbitrary and capricious” and remanded it, along with the APA-deficient NBCO rules, back to the FCC.

It could similarly be argued that the FCC has not used minority and female audience data to satisfactorily explain the effect that relaxing NBCO would have in improving viewpoint diversity, since minority and female ownership data is an element of viewpoint diversity. As the Court noted in Prometheus II, the FCC has itself maintained that “diversification of ownership would enhance the possibility of achieving greater diversity of viewpoints.”

It has taken nearly two decades for the FCC to release a 16-page report on minority and female media ownership.  Also on Wednesday, the FCC issued a long-awaited minority and female media ownership report showing that white media ownership increased while minority media ownership decreased.  Blacks own just .7% of commercial television stations, compared to the 69.4% of television stations owned by whites. Latinos own just 2.9% of commercial TV stations. Whites also own 80% of AM and FM stations. But this report comes 17 years after the Supreme Court decided Adarand v. Peña, in which the Court held that laws including racial classifications must satisfy “strict scrutiny.” This standard requires the FCC to exhaust race neutral alternatives before considering race conscious initiatives to improve minority media ownership. The short report the FCC released on Wednesday is but a small step toward fulfilling that mandate. Indeed, the report suggests that revising NBCO would actually hurt viewpoint diversity even further by bolstering large newspapers and broadcast outlets even as minority and female ownership has stagnated and, in some cases, declined.

Why should the FCC be required to develop such a robust database on minority and female ownership to support its eligible entities definition but not its changes to NBCO?  More than 200 civil rights organizations had the same question, which is why they filed a letter at the Commission last week urging it to consider minority and female media ownership when it revises any of its media ownership rules.

This is no time for the FCC to procrastinate even further in developing a reliable database on minority and female media ownership. It should begin to do so immediately, before it relaxes anymore ownership rules and further dilutes the weight of minority and female ownership data.

Joseph Miller, Esq., is Deputy Director and Senior Policy Counsel for the Media and Technology Institute at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. More information on Mr. Miller and his work can be found at the Joint Center website.

Historic U.S. Supreme Court Decision Ruling the ACA Constitutional Keeps the Nation on Track to Advance Health Equity

By Brian Smedley, Ph.D.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) represents a significant advancement in the effort to repair the deeply broken U.S. healthcare system and promote equitable opportunities for good health for all.  As long as its provisions are fully funded by Congress, the law will improve access to health insurance for more than 32 million Americans, prevent insurance companies from cherry-picking enrollees and denying claims because of pre-existing conditions, and incentivize more health-care providers to work in medically underserved communities.  These are among the benefits that the law is already providing, in addition to what is expected as provisions of the ACA come into force over the next two years.

In addition to ruling that the law’s mandate requiring insurance coverage is constitutional, the Court’s decision ensures that other key provisions of the legislation remain intact, many of which hold great promise to address the needs of those who face the greatest barriers to good health—particularly people of color, who are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population.

Many people of color face poorer health than the general population in the form of higher rates of infant mortality, chronic disease and disability and premature death.  Not only do these health inequities carry a tremendous human toll, but they also impose an enormous economic burden on the nation at large.  A study released by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies found that the direct medical costs associated with health inequities—in other words, additional costs of health care incurred because of the higher burden of disease and illness experienced by minorities—was nearly $300 billion in the four years between 2003 and 2006.  Adding the indirect costs associated with health inequities—such as lost wages and productivity and lost tax revenue—the total costs of health inequities to our society was $1.24 billion in the same time span.

How might the ACA change these dismal statistics?

By expanding access to private insurance through state health exchanges, improving access for more people who live in poverty through Medicaid expansions, and other reforms, more than 32 million uninsured Americans will gain coverage.  All of these provisions would improve the current state of health care for people of color, who are disproportionately un- and under-insured and who face greater barriers than whites to receiving high-quality care, even when insured.

Many other provisions of the ACA have great potential to reduce the risks that make people sick in the first place.  These provisions—particularly those that invest in prevention and improving the distribution of health care resources—can significantly improve opportunities for good health for all Americans, and particularly people of color.

A major reason why health inequalities persist is because of differences in the neighborhoods of minorities and non-minorities.  Research shows that racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than whites to live in segregated, high-poverty communities, communities that have historically suffered from a lack of health care investment, so they have fewer primary care providers, hospitals, and clinics.  To make matters worse, many of these communities face a host of health hazards—such as high levels of air, water and soil pollution, and a glut of fast food restaurants and liquor stores—and have relatively few health-enhancing resources, such as grocery stores where fresh fruits and vegetables can be purchased.

Several provisions of the ACA, such as the authorization to expand the National Health Service Corps, which provides incentives and removes barriers for health care providers who want to work in medically underserved communities, and the Prevention and Public Health Fund, the first mandatory funding stream aimed at improving the public’s health, will directly address these place-related barriers to good health.

Consistent with today’s ruling, efforts to improve opportunities for good health and improve health equity can—and must—be increased.  Government at all levels can, for example, improve health opportunities by stimulating public and private investment to help make all communities healthier.  They can do so by creating incentives to improve neighborhood food options, by aggressively addressing environmental degradation, and by de-concentrating poverty from inner-cities and rural areas through smart housing and transportation policy.

Given that by the year 2042, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, half of the people living in the United States will be people of color, it is imperative that we be prepared to address the health needs of an increasingly diverse population.  Lawmakers should continue to focus on the goal of health equity – a goal that is not only consistent with the American promise of opportunity, but in our long-term economic interest, as well.

Brian Smedley, Ph.D., is Vice President and Director of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Health Policy Institute.

Unconscious Bias

By Michael Wenger, Senior Fellow

In all likelihood the racial disparities that still persist in the institutions of our society will not be much talked about by the two major candidates in the upcoming Presidential election.  President Obama will avoid the issue of racial bias in order not to be labeled as the African American President and risk scaring off white voters.  Governor Romney will avoid the issue because the Republican Party appears to have little interest in attracting black voters, and its policies reflect this lack of interest.

Yet, because the W.K. Kellogg Foundation has recognized the importance to our moral integrity, our economic strength, and our political stability of eliminating these disparities, it will not allow them to be totally ignored.  The Foundation recently held its second annual America Healing conference in New Orleans.  It was attended by more than 500 people, most of whom are engaged on a daily basis in trying to promote racial equity and foster racial healing in communities throughout the country.  The Joint Center, as one of the Foundation’s designated “anchor organizations,” played a significant role at the conference.

When Kellogg issued its first request for proposals under the America Healing initiative about two years ago, it received more than 900 funding requests from community-based organizations in all but one of our 50 states.  It was able to provide funds to more than 100 organizations, and it was these grantees who gathered in Asheville, NC last year and in New Orleans last month.    This year’s conference featured small group sessions designed to promote racial healing, workshops designed to inform participants about promising activities to combat structural racism, a film about Harry Belafonte’s inspiring life and a live on-site conversation with him, and plenary sessions on the generational divide, power and democracy, the work of the “anchor organizations,” and unconscious bias.

Perhaps the most compelling plenary session was the one on unconscious bias.  It featured research that illustrates the reality that most, if not all, of us harbor within our unconscious minds biases toward those from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.  According to the polling data, one of the great paradoxes of race relations in today’s American society is that the vast majority of us believe in justice and fair play for all of our citizens, but our behavior often doesn’t match our beliefs.  This disconnect shows up consistently in research documenting that, despite good intentions, school officials disproportionately punish students of color for bad behavior in schools, employers discriminate against applicants of color, and law enforcement officials disproportionately profile, prosecute, and incarcerate young men of color for non-violent crimes.

Sadly, none of us are immune from this bias.  So, in order to make our behavior more consistent with our beliefs, we must not only recognize the persistence of these disparities, we also must acknowledge our role in perpetuating them.  Until we do so, our behavior will continue to privilege white Americans while victimizing non-white Americans, and our entire society will suffer.

Michael R. Wenger is a Senior Fellow at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. More information on Mr. Wenger and his work can be found on the Joint Center website.

Idea Theft and Black Unemployment

By Joseph Miller, Esq.

Black unemployment is a symptom of persistent racial discrimination and skills gaps, but competition and trade policies play a role in unemployment that policy makers too often overlook.  Information technology (IT) and intellectual property (IP) theft is a significant threat to U.S. companies’ ability to generate revenue and thereby jobs.  Earlier this week, U.S. Senators Mary L. Landrieu (D-Louisiana) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, along with a bipartisan group of 14 other committee members, wrote a letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) urging it to assist 36 state attorneys general in confronting the growing problem of IT and IP theft from U.S. companies by foreign manufacturers.

Some have noted that many African Americans are already grappling with a silent economic depression.  While the nation’s employment picture has slowly improved over recent months to an unemployment rate of 8.3 percent in February 2012, the unemployment rate for African-Americans still stands at 14.1 percent, which is up from 13.6 percent in January.  This is significantly higher than the Great Recession peak overall unemployment rate of 10.2% in October of 2009.

The fates of African Americans have been tied to the manufacturing sector since the end of World War II.  John Schmitt and Ben Zipperer of the Center for Economic and Policy Research have noted that manufacturing jobs “built the black middle class after World War II.”  However, between 1979 and 2007, the share of African Americans working in manufacturing fell from 23.9 percent to 9.8 percent.  During the Great Recession’s incipient stages between December 2007 and December 2009, the manufacturing sector experienced a 14.6 percent decline in employment–among 13 service sector industries, only construction experienced a steeper decline in jobs during that period. African-Americans were among those workers who were hardest hit during this period and are now under-represented in manufacturing.

Improving African-American unemployment trends will require a multi-agency effort.  The U.S. Department of Labor and other agencies have already granted a consortium of 10 universities in South Carolina and an HBCU $20 million to develop 37 new online courses in emerging jobs in manufacturing and other key sectors.  While this approach addresses skills gaps, the FTC can do its part by addressing IT and IP theft and ensuring the competitive landscape remains conducive to job growth.

Joseph Miller, Esq. is Deputy Director and Senior Policy Director of the Media and Technology Institute of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington, DC.  More information on Mr. Miller and his work can be found at the Joint Center website.

Joint Center Statement on Legislation Extending the Payroll Tax Cut

by Ralph Everett, Esq.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies released the following statement after Congress passed and sent President Obama legislation to extend the payroll tax cut and long-term unemployment benefits and authorize wireless spectrum auctions that will help pay for them. The President has said he will sign it:

The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies applauds President Obama and Congress for enacting legislation that will simultaneously restructure the nation’s wireless spectrum and extend the payroll tax cut and long-term unemployment benefits.

The African American and Latino communities experience joblessness at disproportionately high rates. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in January 2012, 13.6 percent of African Americans and 10.5 percent of Hispanics were unemployed, as compared to 8.3 percent overall unemployment and 7.4 percent unemployment for whites. While this is partially an indicator of the need to ensure that all Americans have the skills that will allow them to compete in an intensely competitive job market, unemployment benefits provide Americans with the support they need while they are learning new skills or looking for work.

The extension of the payroll tax cut also helps to address significant earning disparities between the races. Last year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that “Hispanics and African Americans have considerably lower earnings than Asians and whites.” In 2010, median weekly full-time earnings were $611 for blacks and $535 for Hispanics compared to $765 for whites and $855 for Asians. The payroll tax cut will allow weekly earnings to be slightly more than they would be without the tax cut. This extra money can be used to purchase basic necessities which will help stimulate the economy and potentially create more jobs that pay more.

We further commend President Obama and Congress for authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to conduct spectrum auctions to help pay for these benefits and help solve the nation’s spectrum shortage. The wireless broadband services and applications markets have grown exponentially in recent years. People of color are leading the way in that growth. According to Nielsen, 45 percent of Hispanics, 45 percent of Asian Americans and 33 percent of African Americans own smartphones, compared to 27 percent of whites According to a 2010 Joint Center broadband adoption report, African Americans are ahead of all other racial and ethnic groups in mobile access, with 11 percent of African Americans reporting that their cell phone was their preferred device for accessing the Internet. Forty-seven percent of African Americans and 41 percent of Hispanics both reported higher usage rates of wireless broadband service as compared to their white counterparts (38 percent).

Clearly, this legislation addresses the key areas that affect the ability of African Americans to be full participants in our economy. Its support for the unemployed and tax benefits to working people will help further stimulate the economy and create jobs, while spectrum policy reform will help ensure that people of color continue to have access to the technology that can enable them to get ahead in life.

Ralph Everett, Esq., is the President and CEO of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington, DC. More information on Mr. Everett and his work can be found on the Joint Center website.

Ask Someone Who Isn’t Working …

by Wilhelmina A. Leigh, Ph.D.

“If you think the system is working, ask someone who isn’t.”  Acting on this bumper-sticker advice by surveying people who are not working reveals not only their anguish and depression about being unemployed, but also their belief that the labor market system, and particularly government employment services, are broken and must be fixed.   The American Jobs Act of 2011, recent legislation developed by the Obama administration, offers ways to fix this system.

Unemployed workers surveyed in both 2008 (Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., for the National Employment Law Project) and 2009 (Knowledge Networks for the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University) agreed that the public workforce system is broken.  In addition, the system has been found to contribute to longstanding racial/ethnic disparities in the labor market, such as those reflected in the September 2011 unemployment rates among African Americans (16.0 percent), Hispanics (11.3 percent), and whites (8.0 percent). A 2005 Joint Center study entitled A Mixed Record found that the public workforce system had just that kind of record in providing jobs for African Americans and Hispanics.  By every performance measure associated with Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs (the centerpiece of the public workforce system), adult programs were found to be less successful for blacks and Hispanics than for whites and Asians.  Another study finding—that black and Hispanic WIA adult populations were less likely than whites to receive WIA training services—may help explain these differentials.  The WIA Dislocated Worker program, on the other hand, was equally successful for blacks, Hispanics and whites.

Elements of the American Jobs Act of 2011 could create a more even-handed public workforce system.  The Act explicitly prohibits discrimination by employers and employment agencies on the basis of an individual’s status as unemployed (Title III, Subtitle D, “Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011”).  If rigorously enforced, this Act could narrow the persistent unemployment rate gaps between people of color and whites.  Along with the “stick” of prohibiting discrimination on the basis of employment status, another provision (Title III, Subtitle B) would offer a “carrot” to employers to hire the long-term unemployed.  Employers who hire individuals who have been unemployed at least six months would be eligible for a maximum tax credit of $4,000.

Yes, people who are not working think the public workforce system is not working, either.  In addition, people of color who are not working achieve mixed outcomes from this system.  Features of the American Jobs Act of 2011—specifically, its mandate not to discriminate against the unemployed and its incentive to hire the long-term unemployed—could go a long way toward resolving these problems.

Wilhelmina A. Leigh is Senior Research Associate of the Economic Security Initiative of the Civic Engagement and Governance Institute at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. More information on Dr. Leigh and her work can be found at the Joint Center website.

This is Inner City…

by Joseph Miller, Esq.

“Don’t take away the music.  It’s the only thing I’ve got.  It’s my piece of the rock.” 

-        From the lyrics of Don’t Take Away the Music by Tavares.

“[T]he market shapes programming to a tremendous extent. Members of minority groups who own licenses might be thought, like other owners, to seek to broadcast programs that will attract and retain audiences, rather than programs that reflect the owner’s tastes and preferences.”

-        From Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s Dissenting Opinion in Metro Broadcasting Inc. v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990)

When the walls started shaking at the Joint Center’s offices during last week’s earthquake, I was faced with one question: leave the building or stay inside?  Similarly, the seismic transformation of the broadcasting industry brought on by mobile devices, personal computers, and digital video recorders has presented new problems for broadcasters.  But Black-owned radio stations targeting African-American audiences are faced with their own fight or flight question:  Can they stay profitable by offering black-only programming?  What is the tipping point at which diversifying their programming will begin to alienate their listener base?

Earlier this week, Inner City Media Corporation’s creditors filed an involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition against it. Inner City Media Corporation is the holding company of Inner City Broadcasting, one of the nation’s leading black-owned broadcasters and owner of WBLS-FM/WLIB-AM in New York City.  Inner City’s creditors claim that it owes some $254 million.

Inner City Broadcasting is rooted in the civil rights movement.  The late Percy Sutton, former attorney to Malcolm X and a former Manhattan Borough President; and Clarence Jones, former publisher of The New York Amsterdam News, one of the oldest black-owned newspapers in the United States, founded the company in 1970.  WBLS has been home to legendary black radio personalities like Hal Jackson, Frankie Crocker, Wendy Williams and DJ Red Alert.  WLIB has changed formats many times over the years, but it too has featured notable personalities including Betty Shabazz, Malcolm X’s widow; and Rev. Al Sharpton.  Inner City owns 15 other stations in San Francisco, CA, Columbia, SC, and Jackson, MS.

Inner City’s failure to repay its debt could be attributed to any number of causes, such as poor financial management.   But saying that poor financial management is the sole culprit, and leaving it there, does little to address the issue of why Inner City’s stations have failed to generate enough revenue to pay the bills.

Let’s take WBLS as an example.

WBLS’ Glass Ceiling

WBLS has hit a glass ceiling.  Barring a complete revamping of its format to include more mainstream content, it appears that WBLS has attained the highest ranking possible with an urban adult contemporary (Urban AC) format in New York.  According to Arbitron, the Urban AC format is the most popular format among African-Americans.  It features music by artists such as Maze Featuring Frankie Beverly, Earth, Wind & Fire Marvin Gaye, R. Kelly, Alicia Keys, Eric Benet, Ne-Yo and Usher.  The “average quarter hour” (AQH) rating of a radio station is the average percentage of a population being measured listening to a radio station for at least five minutes during a 15-minute period.  With a 3.6% AQH overall rating, WBLS is the number one station in New York targeting a predominantly black audience.  It also ranks #8 among all radio stations in the New York metro area.  WLIB, WBLS’ sister station, ranks 34^th, with a .4 AQH rating.

WBLS’ closest competitor, Emmis Communications’ WRKS-FM (98.7 Kiss FM)—the only other Urban AC station in the market—is ranked at a distant #16 overall.  But Kiss is half of Emmis’ combo which includes WQHT-FM (Hot 97), an urban station that skews toward the 18-34 demographic with hip-hop and r&b artists.  Hot 97 posted a 3.3% AQH share in July, placing it at #12 in the overall rankings.  But with the ratings of Kiss and Hot 97 combined, Emmis is actually pulling a 6.2% AQH overall rating, compared to a 4.0 combined rating for Inner City’s WBLS/WLIB combo.

Further, Inner City has been hauled into bankruptcy, while its publically traded counterpart is carrying a similar long-term debt load without repercussions.  The $254 million that Inner City owes to Yucaipa Cos. and others does not appear to be that unusual.  Not taking into account other liabilities, Inner City’s debt-per-station based on the $254 million alone is $14.9 million. At the end of 2Q’11, Emmis held long term debt obligations of $327.2 million.  Spread across Emmis’ 22-station portfolio, its debt-per-station is $14.8 million, just $100, 000 shy of Inner City’s obligation.

Should WBLS Change Formats to Increase Inner City’s Revenue?

Radio stations change formats all the time.  If a particular format is not working, most station owners are generally not averse to abruptly switching formats.  For example, the radio station at 101.9 FM in the New York Metro area, also owned by Emmis, has changed formats four times over the past seven years.  In 2004, the station switched from Smooth Jazz (Kenny G, Sade, Yellowjackets, Anita Baker) to an electronic/ambient music format (Massive Attack, Thievery Corporation).  It switched back to Smooth Jazz in 2005 and, in 2008, flipped to Rock (Kings of Leon, Pearl Jam, Black Crowes, Blink 182).  Finally, on August 12^th of this year, the station changed formats (and owners) yet again, switching to an all-News format.

Inner City is no stranger to programming formats targeting non-African-American audiences.  Among Inner City’s 15 other stations, only 6 target African-Americans specifically.  Inner City’s station portfolio also includes progressive talk, rock, classic rock (Allman Brothers, Rolling Stones, The Beatles, the Yardbirds), oldies (Elvis Presley, The Beach Boys, The Supremes, The Four Seasons, and Sam Cooke), Chinese-language, Vietnamese-language, and two sports talk, ESPN Radio affiliates.

But what is often a business-as-usual decision to change formats carries an additional layer of complexity for black-oriented stations.  As in the case of WBLS, radio stations targeting a predominantly African-American audience are often intimately tied to the very heritage of the communities they serve.  In our communities, having the ability to listen to black music, on radio stations owned by people who look like us, with credible air personalities we can relate to, is often about much more than entertainment.  In an era of high unemployment, mortgage foreclosures, disproportionate incarceration rates, and widening achievement gaps in education, listening to black-oriented radio has a cathartic effect.

WBLS could change formats, but why should it?  Arbitron reports a .5 percent increase in the number of African-Americans who listen to Adult Contemporary radio stations (Eric Clapton, Whitney Houston, Chicago, and Christopher Cross) since Fall of 2009.  It also reports an increase in the number of Blacks who listen to Pop Contemporary Hits (Ke$ha, Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars, Pink, Black Eyed Peas).  But this is far from a death-knell for black radio.  Radio stations targeting mainstream audiences have diversified their playlists, but black-oriented radio stations have not.

Those African-Americans that listen to both black-oriented stations and mainstream stations are signaling a desire for more diverse content.  Their behavior indicates an impulse to seek out contexts that communicate—as Pepper Miller of the Hunter-Miller group describes it—“a universal situation … living parallel to mainstream” rather than isolated in a silo with no mass appeal relevance.  This does not require black-oriented stations to change formats completely.  But what it does require is learning a lot more about black listeners who are less loyal to Urban AC formats, and addressing some of their programming needs.  If Inner City doesn’t do it, someone else will, and it is starting to look more and more like that may very well be the scenario.

Joseph Miller, Esq. is Deputy Director and Senior Policy Director for the Media and Technology Institute for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

It’s Time to Focus on Poverty and Inequality to improve our National Security and Prosperity

Brian D. Smedley, Ph.D.

Brian D. Smedley, Ph.D.

The U.S. Census Bureau released chilling statistics this week:  nearly one in six Americans is living in poverty.  The number of Americans with incomes below the official poverty line ($22,314 for a family of four) rose by 2.6 million in 2010 to 46.2 million.

The poverty rate in 2010 reached its second-highest point since 1965, median income declined, and the number of Americans without health insurance reached record highs.

Nearly one in 10 children (9.9 percent) fell below half of the poverty line in 2010, up from 9.3 percent in 2009.  Disproportionately, children of color are poor:  over one-third of black children (39.1 percent) and Hispanic children (35.0 percent) are living in poverty.

New research released by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies also shows that the number of Americans living in neighborhoods with a high proportion of poor residents is at a record high:  over 22 million Americans live in these neighborhoods, and doing so typically keeps them poor because of their limited access to good schools, good jobs, and good capital.  (link to report:  http://jointcenter.org/research/a-lost-decade-neighborhood-poverty-and-the-urban-crisis-of-the-2000s)

Those living in high-poverty neighborhoods are disproportionately people of color.  And the concentration of people of color in racially- and economically-segregated neighborhoods is a major driver of the health inequalities that many minorities experience relative to whites, which span from the cradle to the grave.  A second report released last week by the Joint Center shows that metropolitan areas with the highest levels of segregation also experience the worst health inequalities, as measured by rates of infant mortality.  Were people of color and whites integrated, over 2,800 black infant deaths could have been averted in  2008.  (link to report:  http://www.jointcenter.org/research/segregated-spaces-risky-places-the-effects-of-racial-segregation-on-health-inequalities)

Clearly, the issue of poverty – and particularly the concentration of people of color in poor neighborhoods – needs more national attention.  Poverty and inequality are arguably a greater threat to our security and prosperity than any outside our nation’s borders.

The good news is that – be seated, now – government can help.

The level of hardship we see now would have been much worse if not for key federal programs such as unemployment insurance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, and Medicaid. Without unemployment insurance, for instance, 3.2 million more Americans would have fallen into poverty.  And the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) increased the number of people employed by between 1.0 million and 2.9 million jobs as of June 2010.

As the deficit-busting “Super Committee” convenes, they should prioritize public sector investments that help people survive the economic downturn.

Dr. Brian D. Smedley is Vice President and Director of the Health Policy Institute of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington, DC.  More information on Dr. Smedley and his work can be found at the Joint Center website.

Can a Two-Legged Stool Stand?

by Wilhelmina A. Leigh, Ph.D.
originally published in The Florida Courier

For today’s working adults, retirement is more likely to be based on the safety-net level of benefits from Social Security, supplemented with personal savings and investment.

The catch is, however, that too many African-Americans are saving too little for retirement.  The fact that 70 percent of African-American workers had saved less than $25,000 for retirement, according to a 2007 survey by the Employment Benefit Research Institute, suggests there will be little “gold” in our golden years.

The ‘stool’

Traditionally, retirement income has come from three sources – Social Security, employer pensions, and personal savings and investment –a three-legged stool.  The ongoing, gradual disappearance of employer-sponsored defined benefit pensions (that provide a monthly payout based on years worked and salary level) and their replacement by employer-sponsored defined contribution retirement plans (that provide retirement income based on the amount of employee contributions while working) suggests, however, that the retirement income stool will soon have only two legs.  One leg will be Social Security, and the other will be personal savings and investment – both through an employer and independent of employment.

Nearly two of every five African-Americans in a 2009 Joint Center poll indicated that they expected Social Security to be a major source of income during their retirement.  This expected major source of retirement income, however, provided average monthly retirement benefits at the end of 2009 of only $1,120 for African-American males and $960.50 for African-American females.  These monthly average benefits generate an annual income of $10,458 – slightly greater than the federal poverty threshold for persons 65 years and older.

Problems coming

Over the next 75 years, if no modifications are made to the Social Security program, payments will fall below their already modest levels.  Because FICA taxes paid into the Social Security system by workers in a given year are expended that same year to fulfill obligations to current beneficiaries, the retiring of the large Baby Boomers born between 1946 and 1964; increased life expectancy of the “older” old; and declining birth rates – threaten the solvency of Social Security.

Employer pensions and retirement plans do not look especially promising for African-Americans, who are more likely to be unemployed and underemployed than other racial/ethnic groups – a fact that has been unchanged for many decades.

When employed, African-Americans are hit hard by the shrinking availability of employer-sponsored retirement plans. Though more than half (56 percent) of Black workers ages 25-59 were offered retirement plans or pensions by their employers in 2009; less than half (45 percent) actually enrolled in them.  In addition, low-income earners – among whom African-Americans are overrepresented – are less likely than high-income earners to be offered employer retirement plans.

African-American workers constitute 20 percent of the low-income labor force –individuals whose earnings are less than the federal poverty level even though they are employed for 27 or more weeks per year – in contrast to the 11 percent they make up of the workforce at all income levels. Personal saving and investment independent of employment (for example, Individual Retirement Accounts) become the major source of income to supplement Social Security retirement benefits.

Income is critical

A key issue is having the disposable income to save.  A 2009 Joint Center poll found that 53 percent of African-Americans at all income levels – and 65 percent with income of $35,000 or less – wanted to save but did not have enough money to.  This same poll found that African-Americans are less likely than Whites to have invested in IRAs (28 percent vs. 47 percent), in stocks or mutual funds (27 percent vs. 49 percent), or in bonds (17 percent vs. 27 percent).

Raising our current retirement income status from only 30 percent who have saved $25,000 or more for their retirement should become a priority for African-Americans.  Otherwise, our definition of retirement may become confined to working either full-time or part-time until the day we die – or eking out an existence on Social Security benefits alone.

Wilhelmina A. Leigh is Senior Research Associate of the Economic Security Initiative of the Civic Engagement and Governance Institute at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. More information on Dr. Leigh and her work can be found at the Joint Center website.