What's up, Doc? What's really happening with the trends?

As election time draws near, we hear a great deal about conditions in our communities, our state, and our nation.

Opposing candidates have their own spins on what has gone well and not so well. The challengers always blame the incumbents for the bad stuff, while the incumbents explain that whatever bad things exist stem from the time when the challenger’s party held office. Each candidate has a plan for the future; each opponent can explain why that plan won’t work.

So, we thought we would share what we know, from data which have recently emerged on community conditions. Any resemblance of this information to statements made by candidates is purely coincidental. However, we do hope that all candidates use these data as their reference point for their platforms, that they draw conclusions based on valid information, and that they build strategies with a sound understanding of the reality of our population.

Because, of course: “We are all entitled to our own opinions; but we are not entitled to our own facts.”

How much money do we make?

Most of the information on this topic tells us things that we will not relish. Some candidates will quote these data; others will try to conceal these data or explain them away.

• Median household income has dropped $3,000 since 2006, from nearly $60,000 to $57,000. (That means that half of all households in Minnesota make less than $57,000 per year.)
• Since 2006, younger households (headed by people 24 and younger) have lost the most ground financially -- their median income decreased more than $5,000. On the other hand, older (65+ years) households actually gained $1,700 in median income.
• Foreign-born households saw median incomes decline faster than other households.
• Minnesota’s median income ranks 11^th best among the 50 states; the Twin Cities metro ranks 6^th among the largest 25 metropolitan regions in the U. S.

Who lives in poverty?

• Poverty rates have increased in Minnesota and the U.S. as a whole. Nationally, in just one year, 2010, two million additional people dropped below the poverty line.
• Minnesota ranks 11^th in the nation for having one of the lowest shares of people below the poverty level (not number 1, but better than 39 other states).
• Statewide, and in the Twin Cities, poverty rates for children under 5 continue to rise, as do the rates for people 18-64, though a bit more slowly. The 5-17 age group rate has leveled off in the past year, and those 65+ are seeing a smaller share in poverty. Females, more often than males, live in poverty.
• People of color in Minnesota more often live in poverty than do whites. Our racial gap looks worse than the nation’s. Of particular note: Thirty points separate the share of white (non-Hispanic) and American Indian Minnesotans in poverty.

What are the jobs? Are people working?

Like it or not, the economy has a substantial influence on all elements of our quality of life. “It’s still the economy...” (I’m certain that some candidate, at some time, has said that.)

• The three largest industry sectors in the state are education and health, professional and business services, and manufacturing. These three sectors comprise nearly half of all jobs in the state (49%).
• Minnesota ranks fourth among states for the proportion of adults working; however, current participation is below the 2008 level.
• Nationally and statewide, 70 percent of foreign-born adults are working. In Minnesota, 77 percent of native-born adults are working.
• Something not to celebrate: Minnesota is among the worst states in the nation for our 21 point gap between the proportion of black adults working (57%) and the proportion of white adults working (78%).

Health insurance for everyone?

Whether it’s Obamacare or Romneycare, let’s hope that all of us have health insurance.  At present:

• The share of Minnesotans without health insurance remains at 1 in 10—that places Minnesota at 5^th best in the nation.
• However, our share of kids 17 and younger without health insurance has remained steady at 6%, which places us back at 28^th in the nation.
• About 16% of 18 to 34 year-olds lack health insurance—a number that raises questions about the quality and existence of benefits for early career adults.
• The share of 18 to 24 year olds with coverage has increased—most likely as a result of the law allowing young adults under 26 to stay on their parents' health care plans.
• Those below the poverty level are nearly twice as likely to be without health insurance as those above, but nonetheless about one in 10 Minnesotans who are not poor do not have health insurance.
• The geography of uninsured matches poverty: Ramsey County has the highest share of both in the Twin Cities metro.

What about education?

• Minnesota continues to be one of the most highly educated states in the nation. Compared to other states, Minnesota ranks 10^th in the share of adults with a bachelor’s degree or higher (32%).
• Minnesota is home to an even larger share of young adults between the ages of 25 and 34 with a bachelor’s degree or higher (38%)—ranking 8^th among the fifty states and affirming our ability to retain and attract young, highly educated residents.
• The Twin Cities ranks 5^th among major metropolitan areas for the share of young, educated adults, just behind the young professional epicenters of Boston, Washington, DC, San Francisco, and New York City.
• Nonetheless, we see locally a stagnating share of adults of color with a bachelor’s degree. Since the start of the recession, the gap in educational attainment between non-Hispanic white adults and adults of color has widened. This has occurred both statewide and in the Twin Cities.

So, there you have it…

I’m not running for office. So, you can definitely trust me! However, if you don’t trust me, or even if you do but you want to find specific numbers, sources, and definitions, please explore Minnesota Compass, and have fun fact checking your favorite candidates and their opponents.

Connecting for Health - Do our friends really affect our blood pressure?

Not only do our friends affect our blood pressure, but our “social connectedness” can influence our levels of stress, how our immune systems respond, and possibly even our susceptibility to chronic disease. Some evidence suggests that the amount of trust we have in our neighbors influences how long we can expect to live – even more indication that our neighborhoods can kill us or preserve us, in ways we do not immediately realize.

Discussion about all this arose at an exciting seminar two weeks ago for about 150 of us, who yearned to understand how our social connectedness can improve our communities’ health. In partnership, the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota Foundation, Bush Foundation’s InCommons Project, and Wilder Research brought together individuals from around the Twin Cities to learn more about the importance of our connections to other people (aka “social capital”), and about what the indicators on social connectedness in Minnesota portend for the future. In previous months, we produced the same seminar in Rochester and in Duluth.

Melanie Ferris, Jane Tigan, and Allison Churilla of Wilder Research framed the issues at these gatherings. They explained that lack of connections constitutes a risk factor for obesity, high blood pressure, cancer, and diabetes. In addition, as we might expect, isolated people – whether rich or poor, old or young, male or female – report more depression, although the poor and the elderly do report negative impacts of social isolation more often than do other groups.

Fortunately, they noted, the data show that Minnesotans on average stay connected. We have one of the highest rates of volunteering in this country. Two-thirds of us feel that people work together well to improve our communities. Three-quarters of Minnesota students report having a caring adult in their lives. However, while the glass may be two-thirds or three-quarters full, some emptiness still exists, and that emptiness more likely occurs for lower-income residents. (Minnesota Compass contains all this information and more.)

Also positive for Minnesota: the wonderful array of projects honored at the seminar for their entry into the Connect for Health challenge. These included initiatives developed by community groups, large institutions, or even both in combination. They represented different approaches to strengthening social connections to improve the lives and health of people in their communities. (For a list see Connect for Health Challenge.)

To move forward and make a difference, seminar participants noted that we need to build momentum to promote social connectedness. We need to raise awareness of its importance; we need to recognize and celebrate whatever good work takes place to promote positive social connections. As the residents of our communities grow older, the imperative to fight isolation and increase social connectedness grows dramatically.

“It’s not so terribly difficult to get started,” said one participant. “Just step out to welcome someone; build some simple connections in your own apartment building or on your own block.” Connections do, after all, depend on nothing more than one person relating to another. From there, larger networks can accrete – people relating to one another face-to-face and aided by social media. Communities and neighborhoods can promote interaction by creating activities and spaces that bring residents together.

An extra acquaintance or two might add some years to our lives!

Will Robot Day Replace Labor Day?

“A new wave of robots, far more adept than those now commonly used by automakers and other heavy manufacturers, are replacing workers around the world...”

We can’t glibly dismiss this statement in a recent New York Times article as science fiction, or bury our heads in the sand and pretend that these robots won’t come to our town. Increasingly, robots have begun to perform tasks that we have always assumed humans must perform. One scientist: ‘We’re on the cusp of completely changing manufacturing and distribution. I think it’s not as singular an event, but it will ultimately have as big an impact as the Internet.”

If we have concerns about the future quality of life in our communities, and specifically about poverty and its consequences, should we fear the robots?

Poverty lies at the root of many of the challenges we face in our communities across the nation; it also results in many of the problems that we end up trying to alleviate through our health care, human service, and education systems, or in some cases, that we must deal with through our corrections system. For some people, poverty derives from their individual behavior, attitudes, or circumstances: lack of literacy; a poor work ethic; a too-early pregnancy; etc. However, for others, poverty stems from social or structural causes: racism as a barrier to success or lack of economic activity in a community, for example.

Will robots change the structure of work in a way that pushes more people below the poverty line, or at least closer to it?

So far, evidence suggests that robots’ “encroachment into human skills” has both positive and negative effects. Some types of jobs do increase. In certain cases, the productivity of robots requires that companies find more workers, to oversee the increased workflow and to accomplish the increased amount of work necessary to support the increased productivity. However, the need for workers with certain skills has plummeted in some industries.

The net result in the long term – more jobs or fewer – remains to be seen.

The robots will certainly take over a lot of labor territory. They cost less, run more efficiently, and have higher productivity than humans for an increasing number of tasks. Market forces will push them into the factories of the future. Robot manufacturers can demonstrate convincing cost-benefit analyses. Union opposition might moderate, but cannot mitigate, the extent to which jobs for human beings will decrease.

All of us who want to promote prosperity, reduce social and economic disparities, and improve the quality of life for everyone in our communities need to consider this latest wave of automation as we develop strategies for economic development. We need to convert this potential threat to a potential tool – with innovative thinking to create industries which both use modern means of automation and create more jobs for human beings.

I hope you enjoy your Labor Day weekend, but I also hope that you reflect seriously on the future that we want to create for our workforce.

Nonprofits in post-recession times: rebuilding; merging; thriving

Hull House in Chicago, the iconic model of a nonprofit multi-service agency, the original “settlement house” founded by the Nobel-prize-winning social worker, Jane Addams, closed its doors abruptly in 2012 – succumbing to the formidable social and economic challenges faced by contemporary nonprofit organizations.

Times are tough. We know that. Those of us who manage organizations serving the community and who have worked through demanding times before also recognize that, with creativity and hard work, we can persevere; we can succeed in continuing to meet the needs of the community.

A recent United Way conference, New Structures for New Times, reviewed the challenges which nonprofits face and shared findings from a new study by Wilder Research and MAP for Nonprofits that elucidates one approach potentially useful for some agencies to preserve and strengthen services.

Regarding the challenges, Sarah Caruso, Greater Twin Cities United Way president and CEO, identified a triple threat: First, the number of nonprofit organizations has increased, yet resources to support them have not. Second, social needs have increased. More people live in poverty. Third, funds to address needs will decline. Government funding will decrease, and private philanthropy (individual donors and foundations) cannot make up for that decrease.

Paul Grogan, president of the Boston Foundation, reiterated the same three threats in his assessment of the environment which presently surrounds nonprofit organizations. He warned the audience – comprised of over 500 people, mostly leaders of nonprofit agencies and foundations – that nonprofits currently focus too little attention on sustainability. They must realistically take a long term look at themselves.

Nonetheless, neither of these speakers became messengers of pessimism. Both remained resolute that we can overcome the challenges facing us. Grogan suggested that we must work to have the sector as a whole “be all that we can be.” Caruso emphasized that our goal is to meet needs, not to preserve specific organizations. Taken together, these remarks set up the discussion of one reasonable approach for some organizations to consider: Merge. Combine strengths with another organization in order to sustain community impact in the face of declining resources.

Greg Owen of Wilder Research outlined some factors which make mergers more successful. For example, having an “executive champion,” strong board involvement, and line staff involvement in the transition activities correlated positively with success. He pointed out that, even if mergers produce long term financial advantages, they can still have a negative financial effect in the short run. Putting into play the factors identified by the research can mitigate those negative effects and contribute to long term financial health.

Organizational mergers don’t offer the solution to all problems, but they can serve as an effective remedy for some problems. In appropriate situations, merger participants will find very practical insight that comes from this study.

At Wilder Research we work directly with hundreds of organizations each year. I’m proud of the talents that my nonprofit colleagues in these organizations bring to their work. I’m inspired by their devotion to mission and by their willingness to do everything they can to improve our lives and make our communities better places to inhabit. I’m impressed by their uncompromising dedication in the face of so many challenges which could put their agencies out of business. So, I’m glad we could partner with MAP for Nonprofits to complete this study, to assist all nonprofits to recognize and act on options available for them to continue to serve us well.

What works for the French, in bed and out?

After listening on Bastille Day morning to a rousing version of La Marseillaise, performed by the Royal Opera Covent Garden Orchestra, the French Army Choir, and soloist Roberto Alagna, my caffeinated mind asked: How does France differ from the United States? So, I refilled my coffee mug, settled in with my laptop, and, just for the fun of it, browsed the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) “Society at a Glance” social indicators.

France, of course, learned a lot about us almost two hundred years ago, after sending Alexis de Tocqueville to visit. He admired our democracy, our aspirations toward equality, and our voluntary associations which contributed to our community vitality. He thought that Europe could take a lesson. What might he think now? What do current indicators tell us?

The notable American trait of voluntary association, identified by DeToqueville, persists: We still have the highest rates of “pro-social behavior” (giving money, volunteering time) among any of the countries measured by the OECD. France ranks in the middle of the pack on this indicator. With respect to “anti-social behavior” (primarily indicated by crime), the two countries rank about the same.

We surpass France in terms of household income. (However, the French have two-tier universal health care coverage; so that advantage effectively gives them an income boost which narrows the difference between the two nations.)

The bad news: Both our poverty rate and the rate of income inequality in the U.S. exceed the French rates on those indicators. An interesting indicator developed by the OECD reveals the ease of elevating oneself from low-income status. France does much better than the United States on that measure. In fact, of 31 countries ranked on that measure, the U.S. placed at number 31 – the very bottom – with the implication that, compared to poor people in all other countries, poor people here have more difficulty bringing themselves above the poverty level.

We also fall behind France (and most other countries) in voting rates. So, while “Democracy in America” may have impressed deToqueville, many Americans do not, or cannot, participate in democratic decision-making.

If you have a French birth certificate, good for you. You have a longer life expectancy. Since life expectancy rates tend to reflect a composite of social, cultural, and lifestyle attributes of a population, influenced as well by access to, and quality of, health care, the French probably have a number of other positive things going for them that we fall short on in the U.S. Relatedly, France does better on infant mortality; a higher rate of infant deaths occur in the United States.

Interestingly, if you dig a bit into the data, you will see that the United States stands at the top in spending the highest percentage of its Gross Domestic Product on health care: 16%. France comes in second, but only at 11%. The U.S. spends more per capita than does France on health care. Whereas, for most countries, increased health care spending relates to longer life expectancy, the high level of health care spending in the United States does not produce that positive effect.

So, in total, we probably do not win the quality of life indicators competition with the Patrie des droits de l’homme (the country of human rights).

Notwithstanding all the eye-opening, mind expanding days I’ve spent in French museums, large and small, the quality of which is difficult to match in the United States – notwithstanding as well all the exciting nights I’ve enjoyed in Paris – my intuition still tells me that we in the U.S. should have the capacity to at least match the achievements of the French, shouldn’t we? Why have we not done so?

Oh yes, the bed part. OECD time use studies indicate that the French spend more time in bed than do people in any other country. Les français also have the highest fertility rates of any OECD-measured population. Perhaps that statistical correlation tells us something??....