Issuu

A CRITICAL WORK SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES

Child Care

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Nearly 14 million women and girls live in Texas1 – working, going to school and caring for families. When the women of Texas are financially secure, families and communities are strong and stable. When women are healthy and well-educated, their strength creates a positive ripple effect for their families and communities. Texas women have made great strides over the last several decades by increasing their education and taking more leadership roles in the business world. But even with significant educational and economic progress, Texas could do more to close the gaps that still exist for women and ensure they reach their full potential. As reported in Economic Issues for Women in Texas 2014, four essential building blocks are critical to women’s economic security: education, child care, health insurance and housing. Education is a pathway to economic security; child care is a critical work support for families; health insurance is a financial shield against the unexpected; and housing is the anchor of economic security. All four work together to support financially strong women, girls and families.

EDUCATION

CHILD CARE

HEALTH INSURANCE

HOUSING

Child Care: A Critical Work Support for Families is one in a four-part series that focuses on each of the building blocks of women’s financial security. The entire Economic Issues for Women in Texas series is available at www.dallaswomensfdn.org/economicissues.

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division; Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015. Table PEPAGESEX

WHAT TO DO

Things You Should Know About Texas Women and Child Care

Removing barriers to affordable child care strengthens women and their families, and gives them the means they need to succeed.

• 62 percent of Texas moms are in the paid labor force.2 • The majority of Texas children are part of families where both parents work outside the home, or one parent if in a single-parent family. This describes 59 percent (1.3 million) of children under age 6, and 62 percent (1.7 million) of children ages 6 to 12.3

• State legislators can build off of existing Pre-K programs and provide additional funding to support full-day programs. • For school districts that offer full-day Pre-K programs, Texas can fund Pre-K students at the same rate as K-12 students (instead of at half the rate, as is currently the case).

• The average yearly cost of full-time child care in Texas is between $7,000 to $9,000, depending on the age of the child.4 • Access to child care helps women increase their employment, wages, job stability and advancement.5

• School districts can choose to serve Pre-K students beyond the funded student eligibility categories, and charge students tuition if necessary.

• Fewer than 10 percent of eligible children receive child care subsidies.6

• The State of Texas can create a public-private partnership to increase the amount of funding available to subsidize child care costs for working families, modeled after Florida’s Child Care Executive Partnership.

• Pre-K provides child care and early education to 220,000 children in Texas.7

• Employers can institute “family-friendly” policies and work options, such as paid family leave, dependent care reimbursement accounts, flex time, telecommuting and greater employee choice in managing work hours.

Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of 2014 American Community Survey iPUMS data. IPUMS-USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org. Mothers are defined as women age 16 or older with own children in the household. 3 The Annie E. Casey Foundation, KIDS COUNT Data Center, http://datacenter.kidscount.org. Children Under Age 6 With All Available Parents in the Labor Force. http://bit.ly/2fVkUS4. Children Ages 6 to 12 With All Available Parens in the Labor Force. http://bit.ly/2eGa8t1 4 Schwab, J., et. al. (2016). 2016 Texas Child Care Market Rate Survey prepared for the Texas Workforce Commission. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, Child & Family Research Institute, Ray Marshall Center. http://bit.ly/2fFWqJg Yearly estimates are based on multiplying average daily cost of full-time care at child care centers by 250 day per year. 2

Lee, S. (2007). Keeping Moms on the Job. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research. See also Hofferth, S. L., & Collins, N.J. (1997). Child rearing and employment turnover. Washington, DC: Insitute for Women’s Policy Research. http://bit.ly/2eYOXHL 6 Most workforce boards use an eligibility cutoff of 85 percent of the state median income or approximately $51,000 per year for a family of three. Census data show more than 2.3 million Texas children under age 12 live below this threshold (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B17024), and 183,000 children receive subsidies. 7 Texas Education Agency. (2016). Texas public prekindergarten programs and enrollment ages 3 and 4 (2014-2015) [Data File]. http://bit.ly/2fxJYtQ 5

WOMEN’S FINANCIAL SECURITY Families are increasingly dependent on women’s financial security. In Texas, 61 percent of families rely wholly or substantially on women’s incomes.8 But women also tend to be more financially vulnerable than men, with a greater likelihood of poverty and lower median incomes overall.9 Although the likelihood of poverty is similar in childhood, as women and men age, women become increasingly more likely to fall below the poverty line. For adult Texans, women are 1.4 times more likely to live in poverty than men in the same age group.10 Child care is a critical piece of supporting women’s financial security.

WOMEN AND GIRLS IN TEXAS ARE RACIALLY AND ETHNICALLY DIVERSE: 17

Nearly 14 million females live in Texas11 • The median age of Texas women is 35, compared to 39 for the U.S.12

• 17 percent of women and girls live in poverty, compared to 14 percent of men and boys.13

• Child poverty rates between boys and girls are similar, but diverge as women age.14

• 16 percent of Texas women ages 18 to 64 live in poverty, versus 11.5 percent of men in the same age group.15 • Nearly 12 percent of Texas women over 65 live in poverty, compared to 9 percent of men in the same age group.16

ABOUT HALF OF TEXAS WOMEN (OVER AGE 18) ARE MARRIED: 18

8% 38%

13 %

43%

53% 26%

5% 12 %

HISPANIC/LATINA (Any Race)

BLACK/ AFRICANAMERICAN

WHITE/ANGLO

ASIAN

MULTIRACIAL (Non-Hispanic)

Erickson, R., Corley, D., & Buchanan, M.J. (2016). Fast facts: Economic security for Texas families. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. http://ampr.gs/2f69rh5 9 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table C17001 and B20017 10 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table C17001. 11 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division; Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015, Table PEPAGESEX 12 Ibid. 13 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table C17001 8

CURRENTLY MARRIED

WIDOWED

NEVER MARRIED

DIVORCED

Ibid. Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Center for Public Policy Priorities Analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015. Table PEPSR6H. Does not add to 100% due to rounding. The Census Bureau uses the term “Hispanic” to describe persons who may identify as Hispanic, Latino or Spanish. For consistency, we use “Hispanic” throughout. 18 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B12002. 14 15

CHILD CARE

A Critical Work Support for Families

• 62 percent of Texas moms are in the paid labor force.28

Child care sustains the economic security of families, supporting women who want or need to work outside the home or further their education. The supportive effect of child

• The majority of Texas children live in families where both parents, if married, or the single parent, work outside the home: 59 percent of children (1.3 million) under age 6; and 62 percent of children (1.7 million) ages 6 to 12.29

care is critical for women, because they tend to be more financially vulnerable than men, with a greater likelihood of living in poverty and having lower median incomes overall.19 They are also more likely to have greater child care responsibilities within a family.20 At the same time, families are increasingly dependent on women’s incomes. In Texas, 61 percent of families rely wholly or substantially on women’s incomes.21 And most moms in Texas work, out of necessity and/or preference. Sixty-two percent of Texas moms (ages 16 and over) with children at home are in the labor force.22

However, for many moms, the lack of affordable child care can keep them from being able to find or sustain work, and the cost becomes a financial burden. Many women use multiple child care arrangements, such as child care centers or homes and family members to cover work schedules and keep costs down. Census research shows that nationally, both part-time and full-time working mothers spend about eight percent of their monthly family incomes on child care costs.23 However, this percentage varies widely. For women who live below the poverty level (approximately $20,000 per year for a family of three), families often spend 30 percent of their income on child care.24 Researchers believe the rising cost of child care may be one reason that more mothers have decided to opt out of the workforce after decades of women increasingly working outside the home.25 Nationally, the overall women’s labor force participation rate has declined slightly since its peak in 1999,26 and in Texas, female labor participation rates have also declined.27

Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table C17001 and B20017 20 Parker, K. (2015, Mar 5). Despite progress, women still bear heavier load than men in balancing work and family. [Pew Research Center blog post]. http://pewrsr.ch/2gr3XLD 21 Erickson, R., Corley, D., & Buchanan, M.J. (2016). Fast facts: Economic security for Texas families. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. http://ampr.gs/2f69rh5 22 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of 2015 American Community Survey iPUMS data. IPUMS-USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org. 23 Laughlin, L. (2013). Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Spring 2011. Table 6. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. http://bit.ly/2fosiRz 24 Ibid. 25 Drew, D. (2014). Rising cost of child care may help explain recent increase in stay-at-home moms. Pew Research Center. http://pewrsr.ch/2en1vIN. See also Kreider, R. M., & Elliott, D.M. Historical changes at stay-at-home mothers: 1969 to 2009. http://bit.ly/2foBJR3 26 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). Women in the labor force: A Databook. Table 2. http://bit.ly/2fVpShP 27 Current Population Survey data, 2003-2016. Data from http://bit.ly/2ivLfqu 28 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of 2014 American Community Survey iPUMS data. IPUMS-USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org. 29 The Annie E. Casey Foundation, KIDS COUNT Data Center, http://datacenter.kidscount.org. Children Under Age 6 With All Available Parents in the Labor Force. http://bit.ly/2fVkUS4

KEY DATA POINTS

• The average yearly cost of full-time child care at child care centers and homes in Texas is between $7,000 to $9,000, depending on the age of the child.30 • Child care subsidies serve fewer than 10 percent of children who may be eligible.31

Child care helps women increase their levels of employment. Especially for the most economically vulnerable mothers (i.e. lowincome, single women) and mothers of young children ages 0-5, access to child care substantially increases employment and the number of hours women are able to work.32 Child care helps women’s job stability and advancement. Having regular child care is important for the job stability and advancement of mothers of all income levels.33 Having access to regular child care means fewer missed days of work34 and reduced job turnover.35 Consistent child care also saves employers money – it is estimated that child care breakdowns leading to employee absences cost U.S. businesses $3 billion annually. 36 Child care supports women’s financial self-sufficiency and reduces the earning gap between men and women. The positive effects of child care on women’s employment can help low-wage workers, particularly single mothers, progress towards higher earnings and self-sufficiency.37 Child care can also help reduce the “wage gap” between men and women. About 11 percent of the gap is due to the fact that women typically have less time in the labor force than men, as they are more likely to have breaks in their work history because of child care responsibilities.38

Schwab, J., et. al. (2016). 2016 Texas Child Care Market Rate Survey prepared for the Texas Workforce Commission. The University of Texas at Austin, Child & Family Research Institute, Ray Marshall Center. http://bit.ly/2fFWqJg Yearly estimates are based on multiplying average daily cost of full-time care at centers by 250 days per year. 31 Most workforce boards use an eligibility cutoff of 85 percent of state median income or approximately $51,000 per year for a family of three. Census data show more than 2.3 million Texas children under age 12 live below this threshold (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B17024), and 183,000 children receive subsidies. 32 Guzman, J. (2007). Child care subsidies and the work effort of single mothers. http://bit.ly/2fUL8Ac 33 Lee, S. (2007). Keeping Moms on the Job. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research 34 Forry, N.D., & Hofferth, S. L. (2011). Maintaining work: The influence of child care subsidies on child carerelated work disruptions. Journal of Family Issues. 32(3), 346-368. http://bit.ly/2fk5xR4 35 Hofferth, S. L., & Collins, N.J. (1997). Child rearing and employment turnover. Washington, DC: Insitute for Women’s Policy Research. http://bit.ly/2eYOXHL 36 Shellenback, K. (2004). Child care and parent productivity: Making the business case. http://bit.ly/2fGmBO1 37 Acs, G., Loprest, P.J, & Ratcliffe, C. (2010). Progress toward self-sufficiency for low-wage workers. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. http://urbn.is/2gQAVIC 38 Blau, F.D., & Kahn, L.M. (2007). The gender pay gap. Academy of Management Perspectives 21, 7-23. http://bit.ly/2insUsQ 30

CHILD CARE IN TEXAS

What options do women have?

More than 2.3 million children under the age of 6 live in Texas,39 and of these, 1.3 million have parents who work outside the home and thus need child care.40 Additionally, 1.7

million children ages 6-12 have parents who work outside the home, and these children may require care before or after school, during school holidays, and over the summer, when school is not in session.41 Working moms with young children can consider several options for child care in Texas, but each has different benefits, costs and limitations.

Child care centers or homes are an expensive option for many Texas families.

Child care centers or homes can be private businesses or non-profit organizations, run out of a provider’s home or a separate facility. Statewide, the capacity of all regulated child care centers or homes is approximately 1.0 million children42 – clearly not enough to meet the child care needs of the more than 3.0 million children whose parents work outside the home.43 “Capacity” is determined by the maximum square footage allowed per child, not the actual number of children in care.44 NUMBER AND CAPACITY OF CHILD CARE CENTERS IN TEXAS. 45

2,785,000 2,350,000 1,700,000

1,300,000 1,031,055

85,849 MAX. CAPACITY OF CHILD CARE HOMES

MAX. CAPACITY OF CHILD CARE CENTERS

Number of Children Able to be Cared for in Facilities

CHILDREN AGES 0-5

CHILDREN AGES 6-12

Children with Parents who Work Outside the Home

Total Children

Texas Demographic Center. 2014 population estimates for Texas. [Data file] Population estimates data tool: http://bit.ly/2gqvDAl 40 The Annie E. Casey Foundation, KIDS COUNT Data Center, http://datacenter.kidscount.org. Children Under Age 6 With All Available Parents in the Labor Force. http://bit.ly/2fVkUS4 41 The Annie E. Casey Foundation, KIDS COUNT Data Center, http://datacenter.kidscount.org. Children Ages 6 to 12 With All Available Parents in the Labor Force. http://bit.ly/2eGa8t1 42 Data requested from Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. Total capacity of child day care centers and homes, August 2016. 43 See notes 40 and 41. 44 See Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Minimum Standards for Child Care Centers, §745.21 and §746.4213. http://bit.ly/2fZxD1D. 45 Maximum capacity data requested from Texas Department of Family and Protective Services; see note 42. Estimates of children with parents who work outside the home from Kids Count Data Center; see notes 40 and 41. Total child population estimates from Texas Demographic Center; see note 39. 39

Many families choose child care centers or homes, but the cost of child care often squeezes family budgets. The average annual cost of full-time infant care ($8,853) is greater than the average annual tuition and fees at a Texas public university ($8,347).46 Capacity is also often limited, and wait lists at child care centers are common. Child care center hours may also not align with women’s work schedules. THE AVERAGE YEARLY COST OF FULL-TIME INFANT CARE AT A CHILD CARE CENTER IS GREATER THAN THE AVERAGE COST OF COLLEGE IN TEXAS. 47

$7,175

$7,513

Yearly rate of full-time care for School-Age child

Yearly rate of full-time care for Preschooler

$8,853

$8,078

Yearly rate of full-time care for Toddler

Yearly rate of full-time care for Infant

$8,347

Average tuition and fees, TX public universities, FY 2016 (2 semesters)

Child Care After School Nearly one in five school-age children (935,000) in Texas are alone and unsupervised in the hours after school.48 About 880,000 participate in afterschool programs, which are run by a wide variety of organizations in Texas, such as public schools, Boys and Girls Clubs and YMCAs.49 In one study, 69 percent of Texas parents agree that afterschool programs help working parents keep their jobs, and the vast majority agreed that afterschool programs help give parents peace of mind about their children when they are at work.50 Parents cited cost as the top reason for not participating in afterschool programs.51

Note: Yearly estimates are based on multiplying average daily cost of full-time care at child care centers by 250 days per year.

Average cost of full-time infant care is from Schwab, J., et. al. (2016). 2016 Texas Child Care Market Rate Survey prepared for the Texas Workforce Commission. UT Austin, Child & Family Research Institute, Ray Marshall Center. http://bit.ly/2fFWqJg Yearly estimates are based on multiplying average daily cost of fulltime care at centers by 250 day per year. Average cost of tuition and fees is from Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Average cost of resident undergraduate tuition and fees. http://bit.ly/2fC3ZTK

Ibid. Afterschool Alliance. (2016). Afterschool in Texas. http://bit.ly/2gd3cb8 49 Ibid. 50 Afterschool Alliance. America After 3 pm. Texas. http://bit.ly/2g1I5JK 51 Ibid. 47 48

Although the Texas Workforce Commission conducts an annual study on the cost of child care in child care centers and homes throughout Texas, there is little data collection on how much Texas families actually spend on child care. Because the cost of full-time care at a center or home is unaffordable for many women, they may choose to use a combination of options to lower their child care expenses, including relying on family members, friends or neighbors and/or staying home to provide child care themselves. Nationally, research on how much it costs to raise a child shows that, for families who pay for child care and education, these expenses combined are the second-highest childrearing expense after housing.52 Data show that women who live in poverty and pay for child care spend on average 30 percent of their small incomes on child care.53 For women living in poverty, the high cost of child care places a heavy burden on already tight budgets that also need to cover housing, transportation, food and other costs.

Early education programs — Pre-K, Head Start and Early Head Start — provide extra benefits but lack capacity. For many mothers, early education programs are an option that provide both child care and early education that prepare children for success in school. Approximately 220,000 3- and 4-year-olds are enrolled in public Pre-K in Texas. About half of Pre-K students are enrolled in full-day programs (4+ hours), and half are enrolled in half-day programs (2-4 hours). Public Pre-K programs are increasingly but not universally available: 86 percent of districts offer some level of Pre-K, and 69 percent offer full-day programs.54

care, offer a range of early learning, health and parent engagement services. Texas does not add to federal Head Start or Early Head Start funding. However, half of U.S. states use additional federal or state funds to supplement Early Head Start. In 2012, 10 of these states used general revenue, tobacco settlement money or gaming revenue to extend the day or year of Early Head Start services or expand the capacity of existing programs.57 Public early education programs are mostly targeted to low-income families in Texas and are provided at no cost to families.58 However, Head Start and Early Head Start programs are not available in many areas of Texas,59 and though public Pre-K programs are more widely available, they are not universally available, especially when it comes to full-day programs.60 Furthermore, many low and moderate-income families who desire and need child care and early education may be income-ineligible for programs and lack access to other affordable options. To be income-eligible for public Pre-K, most students must qualify for free/reduced lunch (for a family of three, less than $37,000 annual income).61 For Head Start and Early Head Start, families must live below the poverty line (for a family of three, less than $20,000 annual income).62 Children who do not speak English, are homeless or in foster care, or have active military parents are also eligible for public Pre-K.63 Enrollment in Texas early education programs

Public Pre-K is mostly restricted to certain categories of children, including English-language learners, those from low-income families, and military families. Many families choose private, nonprofit or faith-based Pre-K options. An estimated 160,000 young children in Texas are enrolled in non-public Pre-K programs.55

Lino, M. (2014). Expenditures on children by families, 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. http://bit.ly/2fGamos “Child care and education” expenses consist of day care tuition and supplies; baby-sitting; and elementary and high school tuition, books, fees and supplies. 53 Laughlin, L. (2013). Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Spring 2011. Table 6. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. http://bit.ly/2fosiRz 54 Texas Education Agency. (2016). Texas public prekindergarten programs and enrollment ages 3 and 4 (2014-2015) [Data File]. http://bit.ly/2fxJYtQ 55 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table C14002. 56 The Annie E. Casey Foundation, KIDS COUNT Data Center, http://datacenter.kidscount.org. 57 Colvard, J. & Schmit, S. (2012). Expanding access to Early Head Start. The Center for Law and Social Policy and ZERO TO THREE. http://bit.ly/2fKM4ca 58 Texas Education Agency. Eligibility for prekindergarten. http://bit.ly/175hD9L

NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN TEXAS64

Under 3

1,184,814

3 and 4 year olds

780,048

PROGRAM

2015 ENROLLMENT 65

Texas public pre-school

219,668

Private pre-school

160,000

Head Start

63,820

Early Head Start

8,073

(3 and 4 year olds) (3 and 4 year olds)

Federally funded Head Start and Early Head Start programs in Texas offer approximately 72,000 enrollment slots for very lowincome children under age five.56 Head Start (3- and 4-year-olds) and Early Head Start (under age 3) can be operated by public, nonprofit or private organizations, and in addition to providing child 52

AGE GROUP

(3 and 4 year olds) (Under 3)

Giles, A. (2016). Texas Head Start State Office and Collaboration Office: Needs assessment and strategic plan 2016-2017. http://bit.ly/2hhAkM7 60 See note 54. 61 See note 58. 62 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Head Start policy and regulations, Part 1302.12. Determining, verifying and documenting eligibility. http://bit.ly/2iblRFJ 63 See note 58. 64 Texas Demographic Center. 2014 population estimates for Texas. [Data file] Population estimates data tool: http://bit.ly/2gqvDAl 65 Public preschool data from Texas Education Agency; see note 54. Private pre-school estimates from U.S. Census Bureau; see note 55. Head Start and Early Head Start data from the Annie E. Casey Foundation; see note 56. 59

Family, friend or neighbor care is a common option for families.

Having a parent, family member, friend or neighbor care for a child while a woman works is the most common form of child care in the U.S.66 Most commonly, it is another relative, especially a grandmother who may live nearby. Nationally, an estimated 42 percent of children ages 0-5 are regularly cared for by a relative.67 Many women who use child care centers or early education programs also use family, friend or neighbor care.68 Families across all income levels use this type of care, though low-income families are more likely to rely on it.69 Family, friend or neighbor care is used by many women because of the lower cost, convenience, familiarity and flexibility.70 Many mothers, especially those in lower-wage jobs, tend to work hours outside of normal child care center hours or may have unpredictable work schedules that make using child care centers challenging.71 However, reliable relatives, friends or neighbors are not available to all children, and relatives’ or friends’ homes may not always provide the level of safety, social engagement or educational quality desired by parents.72

Problems finding regular, affordable child care affects women’s financial security.

Many Texas women provide child care to their families, but finding child care outside of the home can be difficult due to the cost or a lack of reliable options. Many women decide to leave the workforce, or work fewer hours than they want or need, because of the difficult tradeoffs between child care and work. In fact, about 14 percent of Texas families report that a family member had to quit a job, not take a job or dramatically change a job because of problems with child care.73 In addition to cost, location and hours of operation also affect child care choices and accessibility. When affordable child care is not near a woman’s home or work, transportation is a challenge. When child care and work schedules conflict, convenience becomes a key consideration, especially for mothers with high amounts of stress.74 As a result of these challenges, the financial security of many women and their families is weakened, both in the short- and long-term. Sixty-one percent of families with children rely wholly or substantially on women’s incomes,75 and families may struggle financially when women have to reduce work hours for child care. A portion of the wage gap (11%) can be explained by differences in length of time in the labor force, as women are more likely than men to take time out of the labor force because of child care responsibilities.76 Laughlin, L. (2013). Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Spring 2011. Table 6. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. http://bit.ly/2fosiRz 67 The Annie E. Casey Foundation, KIDS COUNT Data Center, http://datacenter.kidscount.org. Early Head Start Enrollment. http://bit.ly/2fGsqLg 68 Laughlin, L. (2013). Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Spring 2011. Table 6. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. http://bit.ly/2fosiRz 69 The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2006). Family, friend and neighbor care. Baltimore, MD. http://bit.ly/2gQjI1U 70 Ibid. 71 Susman-Stillman, A. & Banghart, P. (2008). Demographics of family, friend, and neighbor child care in the United States. http://bit.ly/2fKA8aJ 66

See note 69. National Survey of Children’s Health 2011/12. Data from the Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative, Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health: www.childhealthdata.org. 74 Forry, N., et. al. (2013). Child care decision making literature review. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 75 Erickson, R., Corley, D., & Buchanan, M.J. (2016). Fast facts: Economic security for Texas families. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. http://ampr.gs/2f69rh5 76 Blau, F.D., & Kahn, L.M. (2007). The gender pay gap. Academy of Management Perspectives 21, 7-23. http://bit.ly/2insUsQ 72 73

A CLOSER LOOK AT CHILD CARE Child care subsidies help low-income women with the cost of child care, but current funding levels meet only a fraction of the need.

Child care costs vary widely in Texas and represent a large financial burden for many working women. To assist low-income moms who are transitioning off of public cash assistance and participating in employment or training programs, the state operates a financial assistance program that helps subsidize child care costs for parents with children under age 13. Families pay on a sliding-scale basis, and very low-income families may be exempt from the cost of child care.77

funding and the rising cost of child care, 81 the number of children served by child care subsidies has steadily declined since a peak of 233,000 children in 2005.82 Furthermore, workforce boards commonly employ waitlists due to lack of funding or insufficient numbers of child care providers. In 2016, a monthly average of approximately 24,000 children statewide were on waitlists for child care subsidies.83

Local workforce boards operate child care subsidy programs in each region of Texas. In 2015, approximately 183,000 young children received child care subsidies statewide.78 However, the need is far greater than currently available funds. Although eligibility varies by workforce board, most workforce boards use an eligibility cutoff of 85 percent of state median income or approximately $51,000 per year for a family of three.79 Census data shows that there are more than 2 million children statewide under age 12 living below this income level, meaning that less than 10 percent of potentially eligible children are served despite long waiting lists.80 Due to lack of

In 2014, the federal Child Care and Development Block Grant was reauthorized, creating many changes in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) program to increase the quality of child care and stabilize eligibility for families. While these updates are good for children, families and child care centers, the implementation has also resulted in uncertainty and unintentional changes. For example, the increase in eligibility without a corresponding increase in funding has resulted in a state mandated freeze on all child care subsidy enrollments starting August 2016, until further notice.84

For more information, see Texas Workforce Commission, Child Care Services Program Overview: http://bit. ly/2i8u8YB 78 The Annie E. Casey Foundation, KIDS COUNT Data Center, http://datacenter.kidscount.org. Children (0-12) receiving subsidized child care. http://bit.ly/2gC8Hgu 79 Texas Workforce Commission. (2016). Board income limits for CCDF eligibility. http://bit.ly/2hnXTWN 80 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B17024.

Matthews, H. & Walker, C. (2016). Child care assistance spending and participation in 2014. Washington, DC: The Center for Law and Social Policy. http://bit.ly/2fKD6vB 82 See note 78. 83 Texas Workforce Commission. (2016). Child care waitlist data request. [Data File]. 84 Workforce Solutions Capital Area. (2016, Aug 24). Notice on child care services enrollment freeze. [PDF Document]. http://bit.ly/2filP9z

Nationally, only 14 percent of workers have access to paid family leave through their employers, where parents can take time off with partial pay to care for a new child.91

State public Pre-K funding in Texas has been inadequate and unstable. Public Pre-K is a popular option for mothers of 3- and 4-year-olds in Texas. Research shows that investments in high-quality Pre-K yield high returns both to the child and society, measured by higher educational attainment, employment and earnings, and less crime.85 Yet Pre-K is not available to all Texas families. The vast majority of state support for public Pre-K comes through the Texas Education Agency’s Foundation School Program, the basic funding mechanism for public primary and secondary education. However, the state funds only a half day of instruction for Pre-K students (funding per Pre-K student is half the rate per K-12 student).86 Grant programs that support Pre-K have been an unstable source of funding. In 2011, the Legislature eliminated the Pre-Kindergarten Early Start Grant Program, which provided $208 million to Pre-K. In 2013, the Legislature appropriated $30 million in supplemental funding for Pre-K, which came out to about $77 per Pre-K student per year. And in 2015, the Legislature created the High Quality PreKindergarten Grant Program to provide grants to districts, so they can expand existing half-day programs to a full-day or otherwise improve the quality of their Pre-K programs. Because of the high demand for grants, individual awards in 578 districts were $367 per student for each year of the program.87 For many districts, this amount fell below the full cost of expanding programs or improving their quality; more than 20 districts decided to refuse funds because the grant amounts would not adequately compensate the costs of fulfilling the grant requirements.88 Recently, in the absence of greater state support, some school districts have relied on families and local taxpayers to support increased availability of Pre-K. Several districts, such as the Austin, Dallas and El Paso ISDs, offer tuition-based Pre-K for families that fall outside of the funded eligibility categories for free public Pre-K, and tuition they pay help to fund Pre-K for eligible kids in those districts. for public Pre-K, and the tuition they pay helps to fund Pre-K in those districts.89 The City of San Antonio instituted a 1/8 cent sales tax to fund the creation and operation of four additional early education centers in San Antonio that offer full-day Pre-K and afterschool child care until 6 pm. The program, called “Pre-K for SA” also offers tuition-sponsored slots to families on a sliding scale basis.90 Heckman, et. al. (2010). The rate of return to the HighScope Perry Preschool Program. Journal of Public Economics 94: 114-128. http://bit.ly/2fX1s2N 86 Pre-K is funded at 0.5 Average Daily Attendance. See Villanueva, C. (2016). Texas Pre-K: Looking ahead to the 2017 legislative session. Austin, TX: Center for Public Policy Priorities. http://bit.ly/2fB9fEg 87 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employee Benefits Survey. Table 32. http://bit.ly/2eO6Ozx 88 Villanueva, C. (2016). Texas Pre-K: Looking ahead to the 2017 legislative session. Austin, TX: Center for Public Policy Priorities. http://bit.ly/2fB9fEg 88 S. Rubin via C. Villanueva, personal communication, Sept 27, 2016. Data requested from the Texas Education Agency by Texans Care for Children.

Women have limited and uneven access to workplace policies that help balance child care and work. Many working women struggle to balance child care and work, especially when a baby is born or adopted. Nationally, only 14 percent of workers have access to paid family leave through their employers, where parents can take time off with partial pay to care for a new child. Eighty-eight percent have access to unpaid leave, where employment is protected while caring for a new child, but the leave is unpaid. Low wage-earners are the least likely to have access to paid or unpaid leave, and many workers who are guaranteed unpaid leave can’t afford to take it.92 Some employers try to assist their employees with the financial burden of child care. Thirty-nine percent of U.S. workers have access to dependent care reimbursement accounts, similar to health savings accounts, where employees can save some of their wages tax-free to pay for child care. Employers may also fund or operate child care centers for their employees, but this is a limited benefit available to only 11 percent of U.S. workers.93 Lastly, more employers now offer options and flexibility around managing work time and location, so employees can better balance child care and work. These options include telecommuting or working from home and flex time (work days with flexible start and finish times).94 However, many hourly workers with non-standard and changing work schedules may not be able to take advantage of these options, because they do not have control over their work hours. For more information, see Dallas ISD (http://bit.ly/2hnUNCg), El Paso ISD (http://bit.ly/2hIbAh0) and Austin ISD (http://bit.ly/2ixVl69) 91 For more information, see https://www.sanantonio.gov/Pre-K-4-San-Antonio 92 See note 87. 93 Stolzfus, E.R. (2015). Access to dependent care reimbursement accounts and workplace-funded childcare. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://bit.ly/2fiiF5Y 94 Matos, K., & Galinsky, E. (2014). 2014 National study of employers. Families and Work Institute. http://bit.ly/2eO98X2 90

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Mothers may seek child care from an array of options, depending on their incomes, preferences and children’s ages. Because there is no one method of child care in Texas, strengthening child care options to support the financial security of working women will require a variety of approaches. For mothers with pre-school age children, state legislators can provide additional funding for Pre-K grants to establish additional half-day programs in Texas or extend existing halfday programs to full-day programs. Pre-K programs have the benefit of not only providing care for young children during the day but also providing early education to young students. Demand for the High Quality Pre-K Grant Program passed in 2015 was very high, and building on the program would assist districts with the funding they need to expand their programs to longer days or to more students.

For school districts that offer full-day Pre-K programs, the State could fund Pre-K students at the same rate as K-12 students. State funding per Pre-K student is currently half the rate per K-12 student (Pre-K is funded at 0.5 Average Daily Attendance, or ADA). However, recognizing the value of full-day programs to students and families, 69 percent of school districts in Texas squeeze their budgets to offer full-day Pre-K.95 Equalizing the funding between Pre-K and K-12 students would help these districts continue offering full-day programs and ease budget pressures. School districts can choose to serve Pre-K students beyond the funded student eligibility categories, and charge students tuition if necessary. School districts are allowed to serve Pre-K students beyond the eligibility categories, and many districts have found that offering Pre-K attracts new families into the public education system. However, lack of funding may make offering Pre-K to students beyond the mandated eligibility categories difficult. Some districts have chosen to charge tuition to families who fall outside of the funded eligibility categories in order to help fund their Pre-K programs (Austin ISD, Dallas ISD, El Paso ISD).

Texas Education Agency. (2016). Texas public prekindergarten programs and enrollment ages 3 and 4 (2014-2015) [Data File]. http://bit.ly/2fxJYtQ

Local governments can financially support full-day Pre-K programs. In the absence of state support for full-day Pre-K, many Pre-K programs can partner with local governments to find creative ways to offer full-day programs (4+ hours). In San Antonio, the city raised the local sales tax by 1/8 cent to support additional full-day programs. Miami-Dade County in Florida uses a small property tax to finance early childhood programs, and several California county commissions use funds from a dedicated sales tax on cigarettes.96 State legislators can create a public-private partnership to increase the amount of funding available to subsidize child care costs for working families. The need for financial assistance for child care is far greater than the funds available. Fewer than 10 percent of potentially eligible children receive child care subsidies,97 and the number of children served has been declining.98 Tens of thousands of Texas children are on waitlists.99 Studies across the U.S. show that a significant portion of families on child care waitlists lose or have to quit their jobs while waiting for subsidies.100 Without additional resources, fewer families are able to access the subsidies that make regular child care affordable for low-income families.

Texas can use existing child care funds as incentives to match local funds from employers that financially assist their employees in getting child care. Florida’s Child Care Executive Partnership is one successful example. A portion of state subsidy funds are set aside as matching funds, and local coalitions recruit businesses to match the state dollars and provide subsidies as a benefit for their employees who fall under a certain income limit.101 Employers can institute “family-friendly” policies and work options, such as paid family leave, dependent care reimbursement accounts, flex time, telecommuting and greater employee choice in managing time. Employers can play a role in helping women manage work and child care responsibilities through different strategies. Many workers find these options attractive, and research suggests that they strengthen financial security as well – women in states with family leave policies are less likely to receive public assistance during the year after the birth of a child.102 Employers also see benefits from these policies. Employers who offer many of these options to their employees report that the top reasons for “family-friendly” policies are employee retention, helping employees manage work/life balance, recruitment and increased productivity.103

About Dallas Women’s Foundation

Dallas Women’s Foundation is the largest regional women’s fund in the world. With the support of its donors, the Foundation unlocks resources to advance women’s economic security and women’s leadership through research, grantmaking and advocacy. The Foundation’s work improves education and quality of life, gives voice to issues affecting women and girls, and cultivates women leaders for the future. Since its founding in 1985, Dallas Women’s Foundation has granted more than $32 million to help create opportunities and solve issues for women and girls. For more information, visit www.DallasWomensFdn.org Friede, E., & Barnett, W.S. (2011).Improving public financing for early learning programs. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. http://bit.ly/2fFwiwK 97 Most workforce boards use an eligibility cutoff of 85 percent of the state median income or approximately $51,000 per year for a family of three. Census data shows that more than 2.3 million children under age 12 live below this income level in Texas (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B17024), and 183,000 children receive subsidies. 98 The Annie E. Casey Foundation, KIDS COUNT Data Center, http://datacenter.kidscount.org. Children (0-12) receiving subsidized child care. http://bit.ly/2gC8Hgu 96

Texas Workforce Commission. (2016). Child care waitlist data request. [Data File]. National Women’s Law Center. (2013) Child care: A core support to children and families. http://bit. ly/2fvWjTf 101 For more information, see Child Care Executive Partnership Program, http://bit.ly/2ibgPcu 102 Houser, L., & Vartanian, T.P. (2012). Policy matters: Public policy, paid leave for new parents, and economic security for U.S. workers. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Women and Work, Rutgers. http://bit.ly/2fV6v4c 103 Matos, K., & Galinsky, E. (2014). 2014 National study of employers. Families and Work Institute. http:// bit.ly/2eO98X2 99

100

Higher Education

A PATHWAY TO ECONOMIC SECURITY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EDUCATION

CHILD CARE

HEALTH INSURANCE

HOUSING

Education: A Pathway to Economic Security is one in a fourpart series that focuses on each of the building blocks of women’s financial security. The entire Economic Issues for Women in Texas series is available at www.dallaswomensfdn.org/economicissues.

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division; Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015. Table PEPAGESEX.

Things You Should Know About Texas Women and Higher Education

WHAT TO DO Removing barriers to higher education strengthens women and their families, and gives them the means they need to succeed.

• 41 percent of Texas women ages 25-34 have a higher education degree or credential—8 percentage points higher than Texas men in the same age range.2 • The median earnings of full-time working women with at least a bachelor’s degree are $19,000 higher than women with some college or an associate’s degree. However, women with a bachelor’s still earn $27,000 less than Texas men with a bachelor’s degree.3

• Dual enrollment courses, where high school students concurrently earn high school and college credit, have been an effective strategy to increase higher education for Texas students, and 57 percent of dual enrollment students are female.14 The state can assure access by helping to lower the cost for families.

• While college costs have increased, state financial support for higher education has declined, leaving a larger burden on students and families.4

• Texas can increase investments in grant aid and/or support services that help more students complete postsecondary education and training.

• Financial insecurity creates challenges that make it less likely students will complete a higher education degree or credential.5

• The state can support and expand higher education pathways including transfer agreements between universities and community colleges, and Affordable Baccalaureate Programs that provide efficient pathways to higher education degrees often needed for management career advancement.

• The higher education system in Texas serves a student body who is majority female.6 The majority of female students attend community college but still desire to attain a bachelor’s degree.7 • Young female students across racial and ethnic groups report similarly high aspirations to go to college. However, enrollment rates are particularly low for Hispanic female students,8 who report less guidance during the enrollment process and a hesitancy to take on debt as major barriers.9 Black female students see a decline between enrollment and completion,10 with lack of social connection and support identified as major barriers.11

• Many female students with aspirations of earning bachelor’s degrees begin their postsecondary education at community colleges due to cost or accessibility.15 When such additions do not duplicate the programs at nearby universities, the state can consider granting more community colleges the authority to offer bachelor’s degrees in high-demand sectors that build off of “middle-skill” jobs.

• A third of jobs are “middle-skill,” requiring some postsecondary training, such as a certificate or industry credential, but not necessarily a bachelor’s degree.12 22 percent of Texas women have some college education, but no degree.13

Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of 2015 American Community Survey iPUMS data. IPUMS-USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org. “Higher education” is an associate’s degree or above. 3 Population Reference Bureau analysis of 2015 American Community Survey iPUMS data. IPUMS-USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org. 4 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board data, Sources and Uses FY 2015 and FY 2004. http://bit.ly/2hPZnYj 5 Ross, T., et. al. (2012). Higher education: Gaps in access and persistence study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. http://bit.ly/2gJhIoU 6 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board data. (2016). Higher Education Accountability System. http://bit.ly/2jB7CuX 7 The Century Foundation. (2013). Bridging the higher education divide, 3-4. NY: Century Foundation Press. http://bit.ly/2g171zY 8 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. 8th grade cohorts tracked through higher education, FY 2005 8th Grade Cohort [Data file] http://bit.ly/2gIUU8K. Drop-off rates in enrollment and completion are high for males as well. 2

Roderick, M., et. al. (2008). From high school to the future. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago. http://bit.ly/2ghpQfR. See also Ortiz, N.C. & Perez, E.A. (2014). Impact of financial aid on student college access and success. Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education. http://bit.ly/2gQQ5e7 10 See note 8. 11 Nichols, A.H., et. al. (2016). Rising tide II: Do Black students benefit as grad rates increase? Washington, DC: The Education Trust. http://bit.ly/2eYA2cZ 12 J.P. Morgan Chase. (2015). Strengthening Dallas-Fort Worth. http://bit.ly/2ex0Ikv 13 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table C15002. 14 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of 2014-2015 dual enrollment data request from Texas Education Agency. 15 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Community College Student Outcomes. Table 1-A. http://bit.ly/2jix5Xh 9

WOMEN’S FINANCIAL SECURITY Families are increasingly dependent on women’s financial security. In Texas, 61 percent of families rely wholly or substantially on women’s incomes.16 But women also tend to be more financially vulnerable than men, with a greater likelihood of poverty and lower median incomes overall.17 Although the likelihood of poverty is similar in childhood, as women and men age, women become increasingly more likely to fall below the poverty line. For adult Texans, women are 1.4 times more likely to live in poverty than men in the same age group.18 Education is the key pathway to more and better economic opportunities for women.

Nearly 14 million females live in Texas19 • The median age of Texas women is 35, compared to 39 for the U.S.20

• 17 percent of women and girls live in poverty, compared to 14 percent of men and boys.21

• Child poverty rates between boys and girls are similar, but diverge as women age.22

• 16 percent of Texas women ages 18 to 64 live in poverty, versus 11.5 percent of men in the same age group.23 • Nearly 12 percent of Texas women over 65 live in poverty, compared to 9 percent of men in the same age group.24

WOMEN AND GIRLS IN TEXAS ARE RACIALLY AND ETHNICALLY DIVERSE: 25

ABOUT HALF OF TEXAS WOMEN (OVER AGE 18) ARE MARRIED: 26

8% 38%

13 %

43%

53% 26%

5% 12 %

HISPANIC/LATINA (Any Race)

BLACK/ AFRICANAMERICAN

WHITE/ANGLO

ASIAN

MULTIRACIAL (Non-Hispanic)

Erickson, R., Corley, D., & Buchanan, M.J. (2016). Fast facts: Economic security for Texas families. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. http://ampr.gs/2f69rh5 17 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Tables C17001 and B20017. 18 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table C17001. 19 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division; Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015, Table PEPAGESEX 20 Ibid. 21 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table C17001. 16

CURRENTLY MARRIED

WIDOWED

NEVER MARRIED

DIVORCED

Ibid. Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Center for Public Policy Priorities Analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015. Table PEPSR6H. Does not add to 100% due to rounding. The Census Bureau uses the term “Hispanic” to describe persons who may identify as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish. For consistency, we use “Hispanic” throughout. 26 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B12002. 22 23

HIGHER EDUCATION

KEY DATA POINTS

A Pathway to Economic Security

• The state’s strategic plan for higher education (2015-2030) is called 60x30TX. The goal is for 60 percent of Texans ages 25 to 34 to have a higher education degree or credential by 2030.33

Higher education is a pathway to financial security because it provides greater opportunities for women and their families. Texas families depend on women for an increasingly large

• In 2015, 41 percent of Texas women (ages 25-34) had a higher education degree or credential (8 percentage points higher than Texas men in the same age range). 34

share of their incomes. Sixty-one percent get at least a quarter of family income from women’s earnings.27 Fortunately, with each step up in their education, women earn more and are less likely to fall into poverty. This is critical because women tend to be more financially vulnerable than men, with a greater likelihood of living in poverty,28 having more student debt,29 earning less after school30 and having lower median incomes overall.31

• Yet these women earn on average $20,000 less than men with a higher education degree or credential.35

$82,589

Ensuring women have access to affordable, high quality education is an investment in the future for the individual, her family and the broader community. AT EVERY LEVEL OF EDUCATION, WAGES ARE LOWER FOR FULL-TIME WORKING WOMEN THAN FOR MEN.

$55,268

$50,080 $39,230 $30,042

$28,574

$36,229

$20,119

Median Earnings for Full-Time Workers in Texas, by gender and educational attainment (2015)32 MEN

Erickson, R., Corley, D., & Buchanan, M.J. (2016). Fast facts: Economic security for Texas families. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. http://ampr.gs/2f69rh5 28 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table C17001. 29 Data from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2011-12 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study. https://nces.ed.gov/datalab/ 30 Corbett, C. & Hill, C. (2012). Graduating to a pay gap. Washington, DC: The American Association of University Women. http://bit.ly/2fPn8C6 31 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Tables S2701 and B20017. 32 Population Reference Bureau analysis of 2015 American Community Survey iPUMS data. IPUMS-USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org. 27

WOMEN

LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL

HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA ONLY

SOME COLLEGE OR ASSOCIATE’S DEGREE

BACHELOR’S, GRADUATE OR PROFESSIONAL DEGREE

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2015). Texas higher education strategic plan: 2015-2030 (60x30 TX). http://bit.ly/2eRS82z 34 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of 2015 American Community Survey iPUMS data. IPUMS-USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org. 35 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of 2015 American Community Survey iPUMS data. IPUMS-USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org. Women and men ages 25 and over with earned income and associate’s degree or higher. 33

The benefits of education for women ripple out to their families and society. In addition to providing a pathway to greater economic security for women and their families, a large body of research also shows that maternal education positively correlates with child health and academic achievement.36 These positive outcomes include lower rates of infant mortality and low birthweight,37 better school readiness and lower rates of grade retention.38 Women earn more with every step up in their education. Education is a good investment for women. The largest value-add occurs when women obtain a bachelor’s degree or higher. The median earnings in Texas for full-time working women with at least a bachelor’s degree ($55,268) are $19,000 higher than full-time working women with only some college or an associate’s degree.39 Even with similar levels of education and comparing only men and women who work full-time, women tend to earn less. For Texas’ full-time workers, women with a bachelor’s degree or higher earn $27,000 less than men with a bachelor’s degree. Fulltime working women with a high school education tend to earn less than men who did not finish high school. Full-time working women with some college education or an associate’s degree tend to earn less than men with only a high school education.40

Kaushal, N. (2014). Intergenerational payoffs of education. The Future of Children 24 (1). http://bit. ly/2gVAokF 37 Grossman, M. (2005). Education and nonmarket outcomes: Working paper 11582. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. http://bit.ly/2ghB0RO 38 Magnuson, K. (2003). The effect of increases in welfare mothers’ education on their young children’s academic and behavioral outcomes. Institute for Research on Poverty. http://bit.ly/2fPpT6E 36

Women and the “Wage Gap”

The “wage gap,” or the difference in earnings between men and women, exists at all education levels and in all occupations and industries. Research shows that this gap is due to multiple factors. Many occupations and industries are predominantly male or female, and many professions that are predominantly female are low-paid. Furthermore, women are more likely than men to take time off of work for caretaking responsibilities, and the shorter length of paid work experience diminishes women’s lifetime earning potential relative to men.41 However, evidence shows that both overt and implicit gender discrimination also play a role. Studies where identical resumes with different gendered names are submitted find that males are more likely to get interviews and job offers. The use of blind auditions for symphony orchestras, where a screen concealed the gender of the candidate, increased the share of women in orchestras. And court cases have revealed employment practices that discriminate against women still occur in many companies.42 Although the research indicates that increasing education for women will not succeed in closing the wage gap alone, education remains a strong predictor of financial security, and is critical to increasing women’s incomes and economic opportunities.

Population Reference Bureau analysis of 2015 American Community Survey iPUMS data. IPUMS-USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org. 40 Ibid. 41 Blau, F.D., & Kahn, L.M. (2007). The gender pay gap. Academy of Management Perspectives 21, 7-23. http://bit.ly/2insUsQ 42 Ibid. 39

HIGHER EDUCATION IN TEXAS Trends & Context

The higher education system in Texas serves a student body who is majority female.43 More women pursuing postsecondary education in Texas

enroll in community colleges, where there are fewer admission requirements and costs are traditionally lower than in universities.44 In fall 2015, approximately 338,000 female students enrolled in Texas public universities, and more than 402,000 female students enrolled in community colleges.45 The vast majority of students entering community college for the first time express a desire to earn a bachelor’s degree,46 but only 13 percent of full-time students and six percent of part-time students actually do so in six years.47 Even still, Texas women have increased their attainment of associate’s, bachelor’s and graduate degrees, putting more women on a pathway to financial security. Today, a similar percentage of Texas men and women (ages 25 and up) have a postsecondary credential of an associate’s degree or above.48 And in the young adult age group (25-34), Texas women are more likely to have a postsecondary degree or credential than men in the same age range.49 Though both men and women have increased their levels of education in the last 50 years, women have done so at a faster rate.50

Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board data. (2016). Higher Education Accountability System. http://bit.ly/2jB7CuX 44 Though community colleges have fewer admission requirements than four-year colleges, students must demonstrate ‘college readiness’ via the Texas Success Initiative (TSI) Assessment or a waiver before earning college-level credit. See TSI Overview: http://bit.ly/2iAQxwl. 45 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Higher Education Accountability System. Fall 2015 Enrollment Data, Statewide. Universities: http://bit.ly/2jgnGiE; Community Colleges: http://bit.ly/2iZsrgz. 46 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Community College Student Outcomes. Table 1-A. http://bit.ly/2jix5Xh 47 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Baccalaureate’s/Associate’s Graduation Rates. Community and technical colleges – 6 yr rate, 2009 Full Time and Part Time [Excel file]. http://bit.ly/2gP8bjn 48 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table C15002. 43

Between 2000 and 2016, the cost of mandatory tuition and fees at community colleges grew from $1,755 to $2,446 annually,51 and at universities from $5,989 to $8,347 annually52 (adjusted for inflation and not counting the cost of books, supplies, room and board, etc.).

Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of 2015 American Community Survey iPUMS data. IPUMS-USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org. Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of 1964-2014 Current Population Survey iPUMS data. IPUMSCPS, University of Minnesota. www.ipums.org 51 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2016). [Tuition and fees data]. Higher education accountability system. http://bit.ly/2fC1bFY. Tuition and fees for 30 credit hours over two semesters. Many schools charge additional fees that may differ by program or major. CPPP adjusted the numbers for inflation to use constant 2016 dollars using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator: http://bit.ly/2kox33p. 52 See note 51. [Average cost of resident undergraduate tuition and fees]. http://bit.ly/2fC3ZTK. CPPP adjusted the numbers for inflation to use constant 2016 dollars using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator: http://bit.ly/2kox33p. 49

28%

26%

25% 21%

18%

WOMEN AND MEN IN TEXAS HAVE SIMILAR LEVELS OF EDUCATION.

22%

17%

Educational attainment in Texas for adults 25 and over, by gender, 201553 MEN

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE

(includes equivalency)

The cost of higher education has risen steadily for the last several years, even as a higher education degree has become more necessary for women’s financial security. Between 2000 and 2016, the cost of mandatory tuition and fees at community colleges grew from $1,755 to $2,446 annually,54 and at universities from $5,989 to $8,347 annually55 (adjusted for inflation and not counting the cost of books, supplies, room and board, etc.).57 Rising costs have led to increased student debt and also discourage students hesitant to take on debt to enroll in college.58 Women and men have similar student loan amounts.59 But because women tend to earn less than men, even in the same occupations,60 that means the debt burden is often higher for women than for men. Data on the “debt-to-income” ratios show that male students had lower debt-

U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table C15002. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2016). Higher education accountability system. Tuition and fees: http://bit.ly/2fC1bFY. Tuition and fees for 30 credit hours over two semesters. Many schools charge additional fees that may differ by program or major. CPPP adjusted the numbers for inflation to use constant 2016 dollars using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator: http://bit.ly/2kox33p. 55 See note 54. Average cost of resident undergraduate tuition and fees: http://bit.ly/2fC3ZTK. 56 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2016). College costs – 2016-2017 – Public Universities. http://bit.ly/2dZXrxC. 57 Ibid. 54

WOMEN LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL

29%

SOME COLLEGE, NO DEGREE

ASSOCIATE’S DEGREE

BACHELOR’S OR ABOVE

to-income ratios than female students.61 One of the primary reasons for the increase in college costs is that the revenue structure of public colleges and universities has changed. The State of Texas used to be the largest source of funding for Texas public four-year universities. However, over time, the state has reduced its share of support. Today, Texas families are the biggest contributors to university funding in the form of tuition and fees. The state’s share of support for community colleges has remained relatively constant.62

Rice, E. (2013). Financial aid at the crossroads. Austin, TX: TG Research and Analytical Services. http://bit.ly/2jBdXXk Data from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2011-12 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/npsas 60 Blau, F.D., & Kahn, L.M. (2007). The gender pay gap. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 7-23. http://bit.ly/2insUsQ 61 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2016). Student loan debt as a percentage of first year wages. 2016 Texas Public Higher Education Almanac, 13. http://bit.ly/2jB810q 62 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board data. Sources and Uses FY 2015 and FY 2004: http://bit.ly/2hPZnYj 58

A CLOSER LOOK AT HIGHER EDUCATION

Who faces the greatest barriers to completing higher education? Achieving a higher education credential provides many more economic opportunities for women. The state has set a goal of 60x30TX, meaning 60 percent of Texas adults ages 25 to 34 will have a certificate or postsecondary degree (associate’s, bachelor’s or above) by 2030.63 Texas women are currently at 41 percent.64 REDUCING RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES IS CRITICAL TO RAISING OVERALL EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR YOUNG WOMEN IN TEXAS.

72%

60% 60 percent is the state’s higher ed goal to reach by 2030.

25% HISPANIC

55% 41%

34%

BLACK

WHITE

Higher Education Attainment for Texas women ages 25-34, by race/ethnicity (2015) 65

TOTAL

Note: Higher education includes associate’s degrees, bachelor’s degrees and above

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2015). Texas higher education strategic plan: http://bit.ly/2eRS82z 64 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of 2015 American Community Survey iPUMS data. IPUMS-USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org. “Higher education” is an associate’s degree or above. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 63

ASIAN

Raising higher education attainment for Hispanic and Black women is critical to reaching the state’s goals.

Nearly three-quarters of Asian women in Texas ages 25-34 have some level of higher education, and White women are close to the state’s 60 percent goal (55 percent). Hispanic women (25 percent) and African-American women (34 percent) have much lower rates of higher education attainment,66 and are more likely to face multiple educational barriers throughout their lives. Hispanic students in Texas are seven times more likely than White students to attend high-poverty schools, and Black students are most likely to attend schools with higher rates of inexperienced teachers and teacher turnover, affecting students’ academic preparation.67 The rising cost of college also acts as a barrier for many low-income families, who are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.68 Social advantages and disadvantages reproduce themselves through generations. For many who are the first in their families to attend college, the difficult process of applying becomes a barrier in itself.69 Once enrolled, financial insecurity and a lack of connection to peers and advisors can also hinder completion efforts.70 Female students of all races and ethnicities report a strong desire to go to college (more than 95 percent of female high school seniors report that they plan to continue their education after high school).71 But the data show there are many points where students are likely to face challenges reaching the next step in their education. Lee, J. et. al. (2016). State of Texas children 2016. Austin, TX: Center for Public Policy Priorities. http://bit.ly/2gVLV3u 68 Saunders, K. (2015). Barriers to success. Center for Postsecondary and Economic Success at CLASP. http://bit.ly/2gJf0zK 69 Roderick, M., et. al. (2008). From high school to the future. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago. http://bit.ly/2ghpQfR. 70 Commegna, P. (2013). The barriers to a college degree. Population Reference Bureau. http://bit.ly/2fTZuPT 67

All students need a significant amount of assistance to successfully enroll in college. The required steps before classes even start can be onerous – planning for college, researching and selecting colleges, filling out federal financial aid forms, applying for one or multiple schools, gaining acceptance and enrolling. Between high school graduation and college enrollment, Hispanic students are the most likely to drop off.72Many Hispanic students report lacking the structured and personal assistance most students require to manage this complicated process.73

students who are low-income or Black, can have drastically different graduation rates for Black students. Colleges that have higher graduation rates do a better job of providing supports that were not just financial or academic, but also social and cultural, connecting students with faculty mentors and facilitating connections with peers and community groups.77

Family financial obligations can also compete with student aspirations. When San Antonio implemented its “Student Aid Saturdays” program, it found that Hispanic parents understand the importance of college and encourage their children to pursue higher education. However, many Hispanic students are highly committed to familial obligations and were wary of the cost of college and potential future debt burden to not only themselves but their families.74 Many students who are confused about a specific career they’d like to pursue decide to delay college, which they see as an expensive risk to take, and struggle to return to school later.75

Texas female students’ educational pathways (8th grade through higher education), by race/ethnicity78

Very high proportions of Black female students who graduate from high school enroll in college, but suffer a large drop-off in college completion rates.76 Research shows that even colleges that are similar in terms of size, admissions requirements and share of

FEMALE STUDENTS OF ALL RACES AND ETHNICITIES LEAVE AT VARIOUS POINTS ALONG THE EDUCATION PATHWAY.

100%

80%

60%

44%

40%

34% 20%

17% 16%

0% EIGHTH GRADERS ENROLLED IN 2005

% GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL

ASIAN, MULITRACIAL OR OTHER RACE

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Higher education: Gaps in access and persistence study. Table E-30-1. http://bit.ly/2h31xX5 72 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. 8th grade cohorts tracked through higher education, FY 2005 8th Grade Cohort [Data file]. http://bit.ly/2gIUU8K 73 Roderick, M., et. al. (2008). From high school to the future. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago. http://bit.ly/2ghpQfR. 71

% ENROLLED IN TX HIGHER ED

WHITE

% COMPLETED TX HIGHER ED

BLACK

HISPANIC

Ortiz, N.C. & Perez, E.A. (2014). Impact of financial aid on student college access and success. Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education. http://bit.ly/2gQQ5e7. See also TG, Many Hispanics hesitant to borrow money for college. http://bit.ly/2hWb4MF 75 See note 73. 76 See note 72. 77 Nichols, A.H., et. al. (2016). Rising tide II: Do Black students benefit as grad rates increase? Washington, DC: The Education Trust. http://bit.ly/2eYA2cZ 78 See note 72. 74

Financial insecurity creates challenges for college completion.

Female Students and Dual Enrollment

Low-income students of all races and ethnicities face many barriers along the educational pathway. Both actual cost and the perception that college is unaffordable often act as barriers to college enrollment. Research shows that lower-income students are more likely to enroll in college when they receive assistance filling out federal financial aid forms, which helps address student concerns about large debts.79

Financial instability while pursuing higher education creates challenges that ultimately lead many students to leave school for the workforce, even though most would like to earn a bachelor’s degree. Financial insecurity leads to housing instability80 and food insecurity,81 which affects school performance. Nationally, 30 percent of community college students and 15 percent of four-year college students are also parents who may need to balance school, child care and often work. Most student parents (71 percent) are women, and 43 percent of student parents are single mothers.82 Strategies that lower-income students employ to increase financial security may also inadvertently hurt them. For example, students who work over 20 hours per week to help cover expenses are much less likely to complete a degree than students who work fewer hours.83 Bettinger, E., et. al. (2012). The role of application assistance and information. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127 (3), 1205-1242. http://bit.ly/2j5CDXn 80 Broton, K., & Goldrick-Rab, S. (2013). Housing instability among college students. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education and Center for Financial Security. http://bit.ly/2faZLQf 81 Goldrick-Rab, S., Broton, K., & Eisenberg, D. (2015). Hungry to learn. Madison, WI: University of WisconsinMadison, Wisconsin Hope Lab. http://bit.ly/2exeRhs 79

Dual enrollment (also known as “dual credit”) has proven to be an effective and popular option that allows students to concurrently earn college credits while in high school. Fiftyseven percent of enrollees are female, and of these students, 47 percent are Hispanic and 41 percent are low-income. Students who enroll in dual credit courses are more likely to enroll in college, have higher first-year college GPAs, remain in college and complete college.85

Evidence shows that need-based grants that reduce student’s out-of-pocket costs, allowing them to purchase books, reduce work hours and have more consistent access to food and transportation, are effective at increasing college retention and completion.84 Supporting low-income female students through college is critical, because the data show that even with higher education, women tend to be much more financially vulnerable than men.

Gault, B., et. al. (2014). 4.8 million college students are raising children. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research. http://bit.ly/2iZpYCV 83 Ross, T., et. al. (2012). Higher education: Gaps in access and persistence study. Chapter 8. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. http://bit.ly/2gJhIoU 84 Goldrick-Rab, S., et. al. (2015). Reducing income inequality in educational attainment. Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty. http://bit.ly/2eb6TcN 85 Community College Research Center. (2012). What we know about dual enrollment. NY, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. http://bit.ly/2fsByrX 82

Factors of College Completion Students who enrolled in and completed college were more likely to have…

• Earned college-level credits in high school • Enrolled in a 4-year college

• Had a family with a higher income Students who did NOT complete college were more likely to: • Be financially insecure

• Have worked more than 20 hours per week during school • Be enrolled in college part-time86

“Middle-skill” jobs represent both financial and educational opportunities for the many women in Texas with some level of higher education but no degree. Higher education leads to greater economic opportunity. Although the road to a higher education degree ends in a bachelor’s degree for many women, approximately one in five (22 percent) of Texas women ages 25 and over have some level of college education but no degree. That’s compared to 29 percent of women with a bachelor’s degree and seven percent with an associate’s degree.87

At the same time, growing “middle-skill” jobs require some level of postsecondary education or training, but not necessarily a bachelor’s degree (nurses, pharmacy technicians, carpenters). Currently, a third of workers are in these types of occupations, and over a third of all projected job openings (from 2014 to 2024) are in middle-skill occupations.88 The majority of future middle-skill job openings are in occupations with median annual earnings of at least $35,000 and can be stepping stones to higher-paying careers.89 For example, a medical assistant or health information technician with a high school diploma and certificate, is on the path to become a health information manager with additional training and education.90 Many Texas community colleges offer the training required for entry to middle-skills jobs. However, not all of these jobs have high pay, and, women are more likely than men to work in “middle-skill” jobs that are lower-paid.91

Ross, T., et. al. (2012). Higher education: Gaps in access and persistence study. Chapter 8. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. http://bit.ly/2gJhIoU 87 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table C15002. 88 Institute for Women’s Policy Research. (2016). Pathways to equity. Washington, DC. http://bit.ly/2eRKIfK 89 Ibid. 90 JP Morgan Chase. (2015). Strengthening Dallas-Fort Worth. http://bit.ly/2ex0Ikv 91 See note 88. 86

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS We can make policy choices that help women stay on the education pathway and maximize their educational outcomes. Subsidize student costs for participation in dual enrollment courses. Dual credit, or dual enrollment, courses have proven to be an effective and popular option that allows students to concurrently earn college credits while in high school. A similar but separate program is Early College High Schools, with one difference being Early College High Schools cannot charge students for tuition, fees or required textbooks.92 The cost of textbooks, which may be hundreds of dollars, and transportation to courses taught on college campuses, reduces access for low-income students.93 Texas can provide funding to maximize access to dual enrollment courses at community colleges and universities. For example, Georgia has created a program where the state pays community colleges a set amount for the tuition, fees and textbooks for high school dualenrollment students. Students and families do not pay these costs. Georgia high schools may also apply for transportation grants for students enrolled in dual enrollment courses on college campuses through an additional grant program.94 Colleges and universities participating in dual enrollment programs in Texas can develop creative methods to remove cost as a barrier to participation. Increase investments in grant aid and/or support services that help more students complete postsecondary education and training. Research shows that financial insecurity (housing instability, a lack of consistent access to food, lack of transportation, need for child care) creates challenges to completing college for lowincome students.95 By increasing investments in need-based grant aid or student support services, such as meal programs or housing assistance, Texas can reduce the number of students who get to college but fail to complete a degree, and more efficiently increase the number of higher education graduates.96 Evidence also shows

programs that strengthen social supports for students among peers, with faculty and community groups, help increase college completion for students of color.97 Support and expand Affordable Baccalaureate Programs that provide efficient pathways to higher education and to management career advancement. This includes degrees that consider past work and certifications as well as stronger transfer agreements between universities and community colleges for traditional students. Transfer agreements help students save time and money by virtually eliminating unnecessary courses. Examples of affordable programs include Bachelor’s in Applied Sciences and Bachelor’s in Applied Arts and Sciences offered by Texas Woman’s University.98 These degrees, in areas like business and health technology, combine earlier workforce coursework or certifications with specific upper level university classes in ways that are conducive to working students and to students returning mid-career. Often offered online, affordable programs help reduce barriers of transportation, child care and scheduling. Allow certain community colleges to offer bachelor’s degrees connected to high-demand fields that build off of “middle-skills” jobs. Community colleges serve the majority of female students in Texas.99 Many students in two-year colleges express a desire to earn a bachelor’s degree,100 and the return on investment for a bachelor’s degree is very high for Texas women.101 Where community colleges do not duplicate programs of nearby universities and where there are high unmet workforce needs in a specific sector, allowing community colleges to offer bachelor’s degrees can be a cost-effective way to provide more opportunities for women to earn bachelor’s degrees and increase their financial security. Currently three Texas community colleges (South Texas, Brazosport and Midland Colleges) offer bachelor’s degrees in applied technology and sciences (IT, medical and health services management). In addition, there is support to allow Dallas County Community College to begin offering an Early Childhood to 3rd Grade teaching certificate (versus a K to 6th Grade certificate) to address the need for over 4,000 early childhood teachers to provide quality Pre-K and Head Start education.

About Dallas Women’s Foundation

Dallas Women’s Foundation is the largest regional women’s fund in the world. With the support of its donors, the Foundation unlocks resources to advance women’s economic security and women’s leadership through research, grantmaking and advocacy. The Foundation’s work improves education and quality of life, gives voice to issues affecting women and girls, and cultivates women leaders for the future. Since its founding in 1985, Dallas Women’s Foundation has granted more than $32 million to help create opportunities and solve issues for women and girls. For more information, visit www.DallasWomensFdn.org Texas Administrative Code. §102.1091. Early College High Schools. http://bit.ly/2gQSvcN Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Dual credit – Frequently asked questions. http://bit.ly/2gvO2OK. Colleges and school districts can enter into agreements so students do not have to pay tuition for dual enrollment courses, but this depends on local arrangements. 94 Education Commission of the States. (2016). Dual enrollment. http://bit.ly/2gVRGhF 95 Goldrick-Rab, S., et. al. (2015). Reducing income inequality in educational attainment. Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty. http://bit.ly/2eb6TcN 96 Ibid. 97 Nichols, A.H., et. al. (2016). Rising tide II: Do Black students benefit as grad rates increase? Washington, DC: The Education Trust. http://bit.ly/2eYA2cZ 92 93

This study was published in 2017 by Dallas Women’s Foundation. It was authored by Jennifer Lee and Frances Deviney, Ph.D., of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, and supported by Texas Woman’s University. See Texas Woman’s University Undergraduate Programs: http://www.twu.edu/som/undergraduate-programs/. 99 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Higher Education Accountability System. Fall 2015 Enrollment Data, Statewide. Universities: http://bit.ly/2jgnGiE; Community Colleges: http://bit.ly/2iZsrgz. 100 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Community College Student Outcomes. Table 1-A. http://bit.ly/2jix5Xh 101 Population Reference Bureau analysis of 2015 American Community Survey iPUMS data. IPUMS-USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org. Median earnings for full-time working women with a bachelor’s degree are $19,000 higher than for women with some college or an associate’s degree. 98

Health Insurance

A FINANCIAL SHIELD AGAINST THE UNEXPECTED

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EDUCATION

CHILD CARE

HEALTH INSURANCE

HOUSING

Health Insurance: A Financial Shield Against the Unexpected is one in a four-part series that focuses on each of the building blocks of women’s financial security. The entire Economic Issues for Women in Texas series is available at www.dallaswomensfdn.org/economicissues.

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division; Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015. Table PEPAGESEX.

Things You Should Know About Texas Women and Health Insurance

WHAT TO DO Removing barriers to health insurance strengthens women and their families, and gives them the means they need to succeed. Although it is always difficult to predict what policy changes will occur, drastic overnight changes are not likely, and policymakers can take several actions now to increase women’s access to health insurance.

• In Texas, 2.2 million women and girls (16 percent) are effectively left out of the health care system because they do not have health insurance,2 which puts their health and their family’s financial security at risk. • From 2013 to 2015, the female uninsured rate in Texas decreased by 5 percentage points, from 21 to 16 percent. The male uninsured rate also decreased by 5 percentage points in Texas, from 23 to 18 percent.3 • Although women report that the biggest barrier to health insurance is cost,4 30 percent of uninsured females in Texas are actually income-eligible for financial assistance that can significantly reduce the cost of health insurance.5

• State legislators can direct the Texas Department of Insurance to enact and enforce standards for mental health parity in the regulation of insurance plans.

• Statewide, nearly $2.4 billion in local property taxes went to pay for uncompensated care costs for uninsured patients receiving services at Texas hospitals and to make up for low Medicaid rates paid to Texas hospitals.6

• State and local legislators can make paid sick leave an earned benefit that is available to more working women, so they can go to the doctor or stay home when they or their children are sick.

• Even with health insurance, many Texas workers (45 percent of private-sector workers) lack paid sick days to take themselves or family members to the doctor.7 Working mothers are more likely than working fathers to report staying at home when a child gets sick.8

• State legislators can provide grants to community-based organizations to assist Texas women in navigating their health insurance and financial assistance options. • State legislators can craft a health insurance option that closes the “Coverage Gap” for low-income adult women and helps Texas retain billions in federal aid from the 1115 Medicaid Transformation waiver. The 1115 Medicaid waiver today helps Texas hospitals provide innovative care to publicly insured and low-income uninsured Texans, and expires in 2017.

• Younger women (ages 18-35) and Hispanic women are the least likely to be insured.9 • More than 1 in 5 U.S. women (ages 18 and older) experienced mental illness in the past year.10 In studies conducted before federal mental health parity laws took effect, many women seeking mental/behavioral health care found that insurers limit benefits for mental health care more than they do for physical health care.11 Those mental health parity laws are now considered vulnerable to repeal or weakening by Congress.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2701. Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 and 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2701. 4 The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2016). Women’s health insurance coverage. Oct 2016 Fact Sheet. http://kaiserf.am/2dYRuRy 5 The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2016). Women’s health insurance coverage. Nov 2015 Fact Sheet. Please contact Kaiser for report. 6 Health Management Associates. (2016). Evaluation of uncompensated care and Medicaid payments in Texas hospitals and the role of Texas’ uncompensated care pool. Texas Health and Human Services http://bit.ly/2ghbq2f 2 3

The Institute for Women’s Policy Research and The National Partnership for Women and Families. (2015). Worker’s access to paid sick days in the states. http://bit.ly/2eCKoBz 8 Smith, K., & Schaefer, A. (2012). Who cares for the sick kids? Parents’ access to paid time to care for a sick child. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire. http://bit.ly/2eUiiQE 9 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of 2015 American Community Survey iPUMS data. IPUMS-USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org. Uninsured rates for women by age and race/ethnicity. 10 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2016). 2015 National survey on drug use and health: Detailed tables. Table 8.1 B. http://bit.ly/2eOgGcw 11 Goodall, S. (2014, Apr 3). Health Policy Brief: Mental Health Parity. Health Affairs. http://bit.ly/2iOVSQZ 7

WOMEN’S FINANCIAL SECURITY Families are increasingly dependent on women’s financial security. In Texas, 61 percent of families rely wholly or substantially on women’s incomes.12

Nearly 14 million females live in Texas15 • The median age of Texas women is 35, compared to 39 for the U.S.16

But women also tend to be more financially vulnerable than men, with a greater likelihood of poverty and lower median incomes overall.13 Although the likelihood of poverty is similar in childhood, as women and men age, women become increasingly more likely to fall below the poverty line than men. For adult Texans, women are 1.4 times more likely to live in poverty than men in the same age group.14 Health insurance is a financial shield that protects women, especially low-income women, from financial catastrophe due to medical costs.

WOMEN AND GIRLS IN TEXAS ARE RACIALLY AND ETHNICALLY DIVERSE: 21

• 17 percent of women and girls live in poverty, compared to 14 percent of men and boys.17

• Child poverty rates between boys and girls are similar, but diverge as women age.18

• 16 percent of Texas women ages 18 to 64 live in poverty, versus 11.5 percent of men in the same age group.19 • Nearly 12 percent of Texas women over 65 live in poverty, compared to 9 percent of men in the same age group.20

ABOUT HALF OF TEXAS WOMEN (OVER AGE 18) ARE MARRIED: 22

8% 38%

13 %

43%

53% 26%

5% 12 %

HISPANIC/LATINA (Any Race)

BLACK/ AFRICANAMERICAN

WHITE/ANGLO

ASIAN

MULTIRACIAL (Non-Hispanic)

Erickson, R., Corley, D., & Buchanan, M.J. (2016). Fast facts: Economic security for Texas families. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. http://ampr.gs/2f69rh5 13 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Tables C17001 and B20017. 14 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table C17001. 15 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division; Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015, Table PEPAGESEX 16 Ibid. 17 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table C17001. 12

CURRENTLY MARRIED

WIDOWED

NEVER MARRIED

DIVORCED

Ibid. Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Center for Public Policy Priorities Analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015. Table PEPSR6H. Does not add to 100% due to rounding. The Census Bureau uses the term “Hispanic” to describe persons who may identify as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish. For consistency, we use “Hispanic” throughout. 22 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B12002. 18 19

HEALTH INSURANCE A Financial Shield Against the Unexpected

Health insurance is a critical building block of women’s financial security. It shields women from spiraling into debt when illness or accident occurs — and also smooths the financial challenges of familiar events in women’s lives, such as having a child or getting sick. Women tend to

be more financially vulnerable than men, with a greater likelihood of living in poverty and having lower median incomes overall.23 Without the protection of adequate health insurance, families are often one incident away from financial hardship. Being uninsured endangers Texas women’s health. While some uninsured Texans have the option to get health care from a safety net hospital or community clinic, the uninsured are far more likely to have no regular source of health care. They are at increased risk of diagnosis in later stages of disease, and even have higher mortality rates. When faced with illness, the uninsured are more likely to invest in other family expenses than their own health care, foregoing or postponing needed medical care due to cost.26 A lack of insurance plays a large role in limiting access to basic health care services that are both unique to and common among women, such as birth control, pregnancy-related care, and breast and pelvic exams. A 2016 report from the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health found that two years after Medicaid coverage expanded under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in their states, lowincome adults in Kentucky and Arkansas received more primary and preventive care, made fewer emergency departments visits, and reported higher quality care and improved health compared with low-income adults in Texas, which did not expand Medicaid.27 Being uninsured weakens Texas families’ financial security. Not having insurance increases the risk of financial insecurity. The lack of health insurance, lack of access to a regular doctor, and delaying or foregoing needed medical care, means greater risk for women being too sick to go to work and earn for their families.

Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Tables C17001 and B20017. 24 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2701. 25 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2701. 26 Garfield, R., et. al. (2016). The uninsured: A primer. Washington, DC: Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. http://kaiserf.am/2iGnzA9 27 Sommers, B.D., et. al. (2016). Changes in utilization and health among low-income adults after Medicad expansion or expanded private insurance. JAMA Internal Medicine 176 (10), 1501-1509. http://bit.ly/2gTn84g 23

KEY DATA POINTS • In Texas, 2.2 million women and girls (16 percent) lack the financial protection of health insurance.24 • Although the uninsured rate for women in Texas has improved dramatically under the Affordable Care Act, Texas remains the state with the worst uninsured rate overall and the highest number of uninsured women and girls in the United States.25

The uninsured also are more likely to suffer financial hardship due to medical bills, more likely to have medical debt, and are at higher risk of falling into medical bankruptcy.28 Given that 61 percent of Texas families depend wholly or substantially on women’s earnings,29 the threat of women becoming ill or injured is a financial risk for many Texas families. When high numbers of Texans are uninsured, more local taxes must go to compensate hospitals.30 Most uninsured people do not get health care for free. In fact, the uninsured and the insured end up paying about the same out-of-pocket costs for doctor’s visits, lab tests, prescription drugs, etc.31 However, when the uninsured require hospitalization, the extremely high cost of hospital care means many bills go unpaid. Hospitals shoulder the majority of “uncompensated care” costs for health care services provided to people who are unable to pay. In 2013, uncompensated care costs for Texas hospitals — which are largely supported by local property taxes — totaled $2.4 billion. Local governments now pay half the matching funds needed for Texas Medicaid payments to hospitals, because of high numbers of uninsured and low payments approved by the Legislature.32

See note 26. Erickson, R., Corley, D., & Buchanan, M.J. (2016). Fast facts: Economic security for Texas families. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. http://ampr.gs/2f69rh5 30 Coughlin, T.A., et. al. (2014). Uncompensated care for the uninsured in 2013. http://bit.ly/2jDWZHj 31 Ibid. 32 Health Management Associates. (2016). Evaluation of uncompensated care and Medicaid payments in Texas hospitals and the role of Texas’ uncompensated care pool. Texas Health and Human Services. http://bit.ly/2ghbq2f 28 29

HEALTH INSURANCE IN TEXAS Trends & Context

Since 2013, the uninsured rate for women has improved significantly, strengthening the economic security of Texas women and their families. The largest improvement occurred

between 2013 and 2015, when the uninsured rate for women and girls decreased by five percentage points, from 21 to 16 percent. This decrease represents 560,000 fewer women who are uninsured,33 reflecting the Affordable Care Act’s requirement for individuals to have health insurance and the opening of health insurance exchanges.34 Although the female uninsured rate has improved dramatically, Texas remains the state with the highest uninsured rate overall and the highest number of uninsured women and girls in the United States. Of the nearly 14 million women and girls in Texas, more than 2.2 million are uninsured. The state with the next highest number, California, has 800,000 fewer uninsured females, even though it is home to nearly 6 million more women and girls.35 TEXAS UNINSURED WOMEN AND GIRLS, 2013 – 201536

2.8 million

2.2 million

21 percent

16 percent

UNINSURED

• Through their own, a spouse’s or a parent’s employer (50 percent)37 • Directly and individually purchased from an insurer, including through the Health Insurance Marketplace (12 percent)38 • Through public programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) or Veterans Affairs programs (30 percent)39 About half of Texas women and girls get insurance through an employer.40 Those who do not have access to this benefit must navigate complicated eligibility rules for public programs (all programs have varying eligibility requirements determined by age, income, pregnancy, etc.) and also navigate an unfamiliar process of enrolling on the Health Insurance Marketplace. The challenges of the process and eligibility rules that leave many with no affordable options for health insurance mean that many women and girls remain uninsured.

UNINSURED

Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 and 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2701. 34 Levitt, L., Cox, C., & Claxton, G. (2015). Data note: How has the individual insurance market grown under the Affordable Care Act? http://kaiserf.am/2eXHNjn. 35 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 and 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2701, data for all 50 states, D.C. and Puerto Rico. 36 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 and 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S2701. 33

Texas women and girls who have health insurance obtain it in three main ways:

U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table C27004. Some women are also covered by two kinds of insurance, such as Medicare and employer-sponsored insurance. 38 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table C27005. Some women are also covered by two kinds of insurance. 39 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table C27003. Some women are also covered by two kinds of insurance. 40 See note 37. 37

HEALTH INSURANCE

Nearly two-thirds of uninsured women in Texas between the ages of 18-64 work either full-time or part-time.46

Who is most likely to be uninsured? More than two million Texas women and girls remain uninsured because they fall through the cracks in a system that makes it difficult for many to get health insurance. To reduce barriers to insurance for Texas women and girls, it’s helpful to take a closer look at who is most likely to be uninsured and what barriers they face, in order to create effective policy solutions that connect women and girls to the financial protection of health insurance.

“Working-age” women have the fewest options for health insurance. Among Texas women, uninsured rates are highest between the ages of 18-64, with the highest rates for younger women between the ages of 18-34.41 Uninsured rates are higher in this age group because of extremely limited access to public insurance programs, even for women who are working. For example, a woman with a spouse and one child does not qualify for Medicaid in Texas unless her family income falls below $4,000 a year.42 Other public programs are available mostly for women ages 65 and over (Medicare) and for children under 19 (CHIP, Medicaid).43 “Working-age” women (ages 18-64) are often the “breadwinners,” or the primary income-earners, for their families. Nearly two-thirds of uninsured women in Texas between the ages of 18-64 work either full-time or part-time.44 Although women in this age group are responsible for a large share of their families’ income and also are often taking the lead caretaking role, they are also the least likely to have the financial protection of health insurance.45

UNINSURED RATES ARE HIGHEST FOR WOMEN AGES 18-34. Number of Texas females by age and insurance status (2015)47

Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B27001. 42 Texas Health and Human Services. (2017). Medicaid for an adult caring for a child. http://bit.ly/2jRCvZ5 43 Texas Health and Human Services Commission. (2015). Texas Medicaid and CHIP in perspective, 10th Ed. http://bit.ly/2dYQblU. See 1-13, 5-1, 9-3, and Figure 3.1.

INSURED

6,000,000

19% 4,000,000

10%

27%

2,000,000

Women in this 18-64 age group mostly rely on employer-based options, when available, and the private market.

UNINSURED

UNDER 18

18-34

35-64

65+

Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B27012. 45 See note 41. 46 See note 44. 47 See note 41. 44

Women and Business Ownership In Texas, more than 866,000 firms are privately owned by women. These include small and large companies, self-employed people and people working for others as consultants or independent contractors. The vast majority of these firms are owned and operated by individual women and do not have paid employees. Women-owned firms are more likely than male-owned firms to have no paid employees (this describes 91 percent of Texas firms owned by women, compared to 82 percent for men).48 Self-employed workers in Texas are more likely to be uninsured than those who work for wages and have access to employer-sponsored insurance.49

Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Survey of Business Owners, Table SB1200CSA01. Women-owned firms are more likely to have no paid employees due to a variety of factors, including lower levels of financial capital and concentration of women-owned companies in industries such as healthcare, education and personal services. For more, see U.S. Department of Commerce, Women-Owned Businesses in the 21st century: http://bit.ly/2ew0utW

After implementation of the Health Insurance Marketplace, the uninsured rate for self-employed women improved by nine percentage points (35 to 26 percent).50 There is also some evidence that greater access to health insurance apart from employers spurs entrepreneurship, as individuals launching their own businesses have options for coverage apart from job-based insurance.51 While it is too early to assess the full effect of the Affordable Care Act on self-employed women and their businesses, the individual and small business marketplaces (Small Business Health Options Program, or SHOP) have improved coverage rates.

Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of 2013-2015 American Community Survey iPUMS data. IPUMS-USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org. Health insurance coverage for Texas females by class of worker. 50 Ibid. 51 Blumberg, L.J, Corlette, S., & Lucia, K. (2013). The Affordable Care Act: Improving incentives for entrepreneurship and self-employment. http://urbn.is/2f9ckLm 49

Hispanic women in Texas are the most likely to face multiple barriers to health insurance. In the past five years, health insurance rates have improved for Texas women and girls of all races and ethnicities, but Hispanic women are significantly more likely to be uninsured. In 2015, 26 percent of Hispanic women and girls in Texas lacked the financial protection of health insurance.52 Although women of other races and ethnicities also face barriers to accessing health insurance, Hispanic women are more likely to face multiple barriers that decrease their odds of accessing health insurance. These barriers include:

Immigration status-related barriers:57 • Immigration status, even for those who legally reside in Texas, may make women ineligible for coverage, or cause confusion about eligibility. For example, adult non-citizens who are legally present in Texas are not eligible for Medicaid, but they are eligible for Marketplace subsidies. • Individuals in “mixed-status” families are often fearful of exposing undocumented family members by applying for programs. • Lawfully present immigrants sometimes erroneously believe that using public programs may endanger their ability to obtain citizenship status in the future.

• Language barriers: 31 percent of Hispanics (male and female) living in Texas speak English “less than very well.”53

HISPANIC WOMEN AND GIRLS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE UNINSURED IN TEXAS.

• Financial barriers: Hispanic women have the lowest individual incomes, with a median earned income of just $19,200 per year.54

Uninsured rates for Texas females by race/ethnicity, 2015 58

• Educational barriers: 86 percent of Hispanic women in Texas have less than a bachelor’s degree.55 Women with more education are more likely to have jobs with health insurance as a benefit and higher incomes, which increases access to health insurance.56

14% 9% WHITE

Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of 2015 American Community Survey iPUMS data. IPUMS-USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org. Health insurance coverage for Texas females by race and Hispanic origin. 53 Center for Public Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B16005I. 54 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of 2015 American Community Survey iPUMS data. IPUMS-USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org. Includes women ages 18 to 64 with earned income. 55 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of 2015 American Community Survey iPUMS data. IPUMS-USA, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org. 52

BLACK

26% 16%

12% ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER

HISPANIC (ANY RACE)

TOTAL

Center on Society and Health. (2014). Why education matters to health. Virgina Commonwealth University. http://bit.ly/2jD7ScA 57 Perreira, M., et.al. (2012). Barriers to immigrants’ access to health and human services program. (ASPE Issue Brief). http://bit.ly/2fduQB8 58 See note 52. 56

Women and Paid Sick Days Even with health insurance for herself or her child, without paid sick days, women face difficult choices between losing wages and taking time to recover from illness, go to the doctor, or care for a sick loved one. The Institute for Women’s Policy Research estimates that 45 percent of private-sector workers in Texas lack access to paid sick days.59 Mothers are more likely than fathers to report staying at home from work when a child gets sick, even when both mothers and fathers work and have a similar likelihood of having access to paid sick days.60 Research shows that, at minimal cost to employers, offering paid sick days leads to decreases in employee turnover, improved financial stability for workers, and fewer missed days of work for caregivers.61

The Institute for Women’s Policy Research and The National Partnership for Women and Families. (2015). Worker’s access to paid sick days in the states. http://bit.ly/2eCKoBz 60 Smith, K., & Schaefer, A. (2012). Who cares for the sick kids? Parents’ access to paid time to care for a sick child. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire. http://bit.ly/2eUiiQE 61 Milli, J., Xia, J., & Min, Jisun. (2016). Paid sick days benefit employers, workers, and the economy. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research. http://bit.ly/2fdRwGh 62 The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2016). Women’s health insurance coverage. Nov 2015 Fact Sheet. Please contact Kaiser for report. 63 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B27001.

A quarter of uninsured women in Texas fall into the “Coverage Gap,” and many additional women would benefit from outreach and enrollment assistance.62 In Texas, approximately 1.8 million “working-age” women are uninsured,63 and the vast majority of them are ineligible for public insurance programs due to eligibility rules that limit access only to women who are pregnant, disabled or an extremely low-income parent.64 However, 27 percent of uninsured women are incomeeligible for financial assistance to help pay for private health insurance purchased through the Health Insurance Marketplace.65 Another slightly smaller group (23 percent) of Texas uninsured women falls into the “Coverage Gap,” and is ineligible for Medicaid or subsidies.66 The “Coverage Gap” is the situation when a woman’s income is too high to qualify her for Medicaid, but too low to qualify for Marketplace financial assistance. In Texas, to qualify for Medicaid, a mother in a family of three would have to earn less than $4,000 a year, yet Marketplace financial assistance would not start until family income was above $20,000. This gap leaves many low-income women without health insurance options. An estimated 734,000 Texans fell into this gap in 2015,67 and the majority are women.68 Texas Health and Human Services Commission. (2015). Texas Medicaid and CHIP in perspective, 10th Ed. http://bit.ly/2dYQblU. See 1-13, 5-1, 9-3, and Figure 3.1. 65 See note 62. 66 Ibid. 67 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of 2015 American Community Survey data. Email from A. Dunkelberg, Nov 23, 2016. For more information on methodology, see Dunkelberg, A. (2016, Jun 15). Texas Medicaid expansion and Coverage Gap estimates need some updating: http://bit.ly/2jEpsMY 68 Garfield, R., & Damico, A. (2016). The Coverage Gap: Poor uninsured adults in states that do not expand Medicaid. Table 1. Washington, DC: The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. http://kaiserf.am/1VQAs67 64

Women and Mental Health

Slightly less than half of working-age uninsured women are not eligible for financial assistance for varying reasons: their incomes may be too high for Marketplace subsidies; they may have an offer of employer-based coverage that they have declined; or their immigration status may make them ineligible for assistance.69

Mental health conditions affected more than one in five women in the U.S. in 2015.71 Two of the most prevalent disorders, anxiety and depression, are more common among women than men.72 Some conditions, such as maternal depression, are unique to women, and left untreated increase health risks for both mothers and children, including greater rates of preterm birth, low birthweight and developmental delays.73

70 PERCENT OF UNINSURED TEXAS WOMEN ARE INELIGIBLE FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO HELP PAY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE. Texas uninsured women ages 19-64, 2014 70

Eligible for Medicaid, but not enrolled

In the “Coverage Gap” (income too high for Medicaid, income too low for subsidies) Eligible for subsidies to help pay for plans on Healthcare.gov, but remains uninsured No financial assistance available due to income, offer of employer-based coverage, immigration status, etc.

3% 23% 27% 47% % Out of Uninsured Women in Texas, ages 19-64 (Total = 1.8 million uninsured in this age group)

The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2016). Women’s health insurance coverage. Nov 2015 Fact Sheet. Please contact Kaiser for report. 70 Ibid. 71 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). 2013-2014 National survey on drug use and health. Table 24. http://bit.ly/2forBYK 72 National Institute of Mental Health. (2016). Women and mental health. http://bit.ly/2f65VTW

Most of these conditions are treatable, and yet many women seeking mental/behavioral health care or addiction treatment find that insurers limit their benefits, causing them to pay more out-ofpocket for treatment, prescriptions and services, than they would for physical health care.74 The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 established the principle that there should be no disparity in insurance between mental health and general medical benefits, and the ACA extended protections to small group and individual insurance. States have had the primary responsibility to enforce parity laws, and Texas is not currently enforcing this Act.75 With the current debates over the ACA’s future, coverage of mental health services may decline further if parity standards are weakened.

National Institute for Health Care Management. (2010). Identifying and treating maternal depressions. http://bit.ly/2f97i1u 74 Goodall, S. (2014, Apr 3). Health Policy Brief: Mental Health Parity. Health Affairs. http://bit.ly/2iOVSQZ 75 For more, see Mental Health America, Position statement 15: Parity in health insurance, http://bit.ly/2fr8Wzz and Community Catalyst, Mental health parity: The basics, http://bit.ly/2fAKsmx 73

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Increasing the number of Texas women who have the financial shield of health insurance will require a multipronged approach aimed at filling gaps in a complicated system. Although it is always difficult to predict what policy changes will occur, drastic overnight changes are not likely, and policymakers can take several actions now to increase women’s access to health insurance. State legislators can direct the Texas Department of Insurance to enact federal standards related to mental health parity in regulation of private insurance plans. Many women seeking mental or behavioral health care or addiction treatment find that insurance limits their benefits, causing them to pay more out-ofpocket for treatment, prescriptions and services.76 Given the proper authority, the Texas Department of Insurance can review health insurance plans, investigate consumer complaints and enforce mental health parity laws within its regulatory role.77 State legislators can make paid sick leave an earned benefit that is available to more working women. The Institute for Women’s Policy Research estimates that 45 percent of private-sector workers in Texas lack access to paid sick days.78 Seven states and Washington, D.C. have recently passed laws that guarantee more workers can earn paid sick days.79 The laws vary in the maximum number of hours of paid sick leave that workers can accrue, how quickly hours accrue, and to which employers the law applies. For example, in Arizona, employees can earn sick leave at the rate of one hour of paid time per 30 hours worked, with a maximum dependent on the size of the employer.80 State legislators can provide grants to organizations that assist women in navigating their health insurance and financial assistance options. Affordability is the greatest perceived barrier to getting health insurance, but data show that 30 percent of uninsured women in Texas are already eligible for some type of financial assistance to help pay for insurance. The vast majority of these women are eligible for subsidies to help defray the cost of private health insurance, not public health insurance.81 Grants should prioritize outreach to those with the highest uninsured rates, such as Hispanic communities and younger adults. Grants should also target efforts to reach small businesses about options for their employees in the individual Health Insurance Marketplace, as well as the insurance options and tax credits available in the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP). Goodall, S. (2014, Apr 3). Health Policy Brief: Mental Health Parity. Health Affairs. http://bit.ly/2iOVSQZ For more, see Community Catalyst, (May 2015), Mental health parity: The basics. http://bit.ly/2fAKsmx 78 The Institute for Women’s Policy Research and The National Partnership for Women and Families. (2015). Worker’s access to paid sick days in the states. http://bit.ly/2eCKoBz 79 A Better Balance. (2016, Oct 5). Overview of paid sick time laws in the United States. http://bit.ly/2fUSgj0 80 Pasternak, D.B. (2016, Nov 9). Arizona voters approve paid sick leave for employees and minimum wage increase. The National Law Review. http://bit.ly/2f1vSCZ 81 The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2016). Women’s health insurance coverage. Nov 2015 Fact Sheet. Please contact Kaiser for report. 76

State legislators can craft a health insurance option that closes the “Coverage Gap” for low-income adult women, helps Texas retain billions in federal aid from the 1115 Medicaid Transformation waiver, and brings home billions more for Texas health care. The five-year Section 1115 waiver has earned Texas over $17 billion in federal matching funds since 2011 to reimburse hospitals caring for uninsured patients, offset low Medicaid payments, and help Texas hospitals provide innovative care to publicly insured and low-income uninsured Texans. Texas hospitals today receive about 40 percent of their Medicaid dollars through the 1115 programs.82 The waiver is set to expire in 2017, and Texas faces the loss of an estimated $1.3 billion in federal 1115 funds in 2018 alone.83 With the change in federal administration, the policy landscape is expected to change dramatically, but it will be some time before we know the shape of those changes. It is unclear whether Texas will be allowed to retain its current $3.5 billion in annual federal 1115 Medicaid funds, or keep access to the potential $6 billion

a year for covering poor parents and other adults. Texas leaders should continue to protect current Medicaid populations — children, seniors, Texans with disabilities and pregnant women — and fight for Texas to keep waiver and expansion funding. At present, the federal government has approved Section 1115 waivers for six states84 to cover low-income adults in flexible ways, including a “premium assistance” model that charges modest premiums and co-pays for some adults, and uses sliding-scale subsidies. States that have covered low-income individuals, through waiver plans or Medicaid expansion, saw significantly larger decreases in uninsured rates, a reduction in uncompensated care costs, savings in state spending on mental health and substance abuse treatment, and increased revenue from provider taxes.85 If Texas keeps access to federal funds for the 1115 waiver and the larger allocation for adult coverage, it could be positioned to also use a premium assistance model to provide health insurance to the more than 734,000 Texans in the “Coverage Gap,”86 the majority of whom are female.87

About Dallas Women’s Foundation

Dallas Women’s Foundation is the largest regional women’s fund in the world. With the support of its donors, the Foundation unlocks resources to advance women’s economic security and women’s leadership through research, grantmaking and advocacy. The Foundation’s work improves education and quality of life, gives voice to issues affecting women and girls, and cultivates women leaders for the future. Since its founding in 1985, Dallas Women’s Foundation has granted more than $32 million to help create opportunities and solve issues for women and girls. For more information, visit www.DallasWomensFdn.org Milligan, M. (2016, Nov 30). 1115 Waiver Panel. Presentation at 2016 Center for Public Policy Priorities Dare Texas Summit. http://bit.ly/2hZDBnF 83 Dunkelberg, A. (2016). Looking ahead to 2018: Can Texas avoid the loss of $1.3 billion in health care waiver funds? Center for Public Policy Priorities. http://bit.ly/2h7rQeb 84 The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (Oct 14, 2016). Status of state action on the Medicaid expansion decision. http://bit.ly/1zpMoMk 82

Dorn, S. et. al. (2015). The effects of Medicaid expansion on state budgets. The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. http://kaiserf.am/2gJXko3 86 Center for Public Policy Priorities. (2016). What is the Texas Coverage Gap? http://bit.ly/22Ia03S 87 Garfield, R., & Damico, A. (2016). The Coverage Gap. Table 1. Washington, DC: The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. http://kaiserf.am/1VQAs67 85

THE ANCHOR OF ECONOMIC SECURITY

Housing

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EDUCATION

CHILD CARE

HEALTH INSURANCE

HOUSING

Housing: The Anchor of Economic Security is one in a fourpart series that focuses on each of the building blocks of women’s financial security. The entire Economic Issues for Women in Texas series is available at www.dallaswomensfdn.org/economicissues.

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division; Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015. Table PEPAGESEX

Things You Should Know About Texas Women and Housing • The “rule of thumb” for housing costs being too high is when a household spends 30 percent or more of its income on housing.2 Using this threshold, 20 percent of Texas homeowners and 44 percent of renters were burdened by housing costs in 2015.3 Single women and women of color are at higher risk.4 • Women are at higher risk for eviction than men.5 Eviction has been connected to long-term negative effects on physical and mental health,6 and increases the risk of job loss and homelessness.7 • Locating affordable housing developments in areas with less poverty provides improved health, mental health and educational outcomes for residents,8 as well as greater economic mobility.9 • 84 percent of Texas households that use housing vouchers to help pay for housing are headed by females.10 Many landlords refuse to rent to families who use vouchers.11 • The state awards tax credits to developers to help subsidize the development of affordable housing through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. The process of determining which developments receive tax credits has been criticized for increasing economic and racial segregation.12

Schwartz, E., & Wilson, E. (2008). Who can afford to live in a home? U.S. Census Bureau. http://bit.ly/2glJV8o For renters, housing costs include rent and utilities; for homeowners, mortgage payments, utilities, taxes, insurance and any fees. 3 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table DP04. 4 Population Reference Bureau analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample. 5 White, G. B. (2016, Mar 1). America’s insidious eviction problem. The Atlantic. http://theatln.tc/2g211YA 6 Desmond, M., & Kimbro, R. T. (2015). Eviction’s fallout: Housing, hardship and health. Social Forces 94: 295-324. http://bit.ly/2g0YuKk 7 Greenberg, D. et. al. (2016). Discrimination in evictions: Empirical evidence and legal challenges. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 51: 115-158. http://bit.ly/2go5aav 2

WHAT TO DO Removing barriers to financial and housing stability strengthens women and their families and gives them the means they need to succeed. • State legislators can allow cities to pass local ordinances that protect low-income renters who use vouchers — the vast majority of whom are women — from housing discrimination. • The Legislature can reform the process of awarding tax credits through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program to minimize the influence of individual state representatives in determining which developments receive awards. • Local governments can use one of the proven, city-based strategies to increase and preserve affordable housing. • Local governments can invest in legal services for women and families facing eviction.

Chetty, R., Hendren, N., & Katz, L.F. (2016). The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children. American Economic Review 106(4): 855-902. http://bit.ly/2h4jXDz 9 Chetty, R. & Hendren, N. (2015). The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility. Harvard University and National Bureau of Economic Research. http://bit.ly/2h7idtS 10 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2016). Picture of subsidized households - Texas [Data file] http://bit.ly/2eLQ65q 11 Austin Tenants’ Council. (2012). Voucher holders need not apply. http://bit.ly/2g0TyFx 12 Texas Low Income Housing Information Service. (2015). 2015 Housing tax credit report. http://bit.ly/2fKDIPI. 8

WOMEN’S FINANCIAL SECURITY Families are increasingly dependent on women’s financial security. In Texas, 61 percent of families rely wholly or substantially on women’s incomes.13 But women also tend to be more financially vulnerable than men, with a greater likelihood of poverty and lower median incomes overall.14 Although the likelihood of poverty is similar in childhood, as women and men age, women become increasingly more likely to fall below the poverty line than men. For adult Texans, women are 1.4 times more likely to live in poverty than men in the same age group.15 Housing anchors women’s financial security and provides access to other opportunities, yet the high cost can sometimes burden a family budget.

WOMEN AND GIRLS IN TEXAS ARE RACIALLY AND ETHNICALLY DIVERSE: 22

Nearly 14 million females live in Texas16 • The median age of Texas women is 35, compared to 39 for the U.S.17

• 17 percent of women and girls live in poverty, compared to 14 percent of men and boys.18

• Child poverty rates between boys and girls are similar, but diverge as women age.19

• 16 percent of Texas women ages 18 to 64 live in poverty, versus 11.5 percent of men in the same age group.20 • Nearly 12 percent of Texas women over 65 live in poverty, compared to 9 percent of men in the same age group.21

ABOUT HALF OF TEXAS WOMEN (OVER AGE 18) ARE MARRIED: 23

8% 38%

13 %

43%

53% 26%

5% 12 %

HISPANIC/LATINA (Any Race)

BLACK/ AFRICANAMERICAN

WHITE/ANGLO

ASIAN

MULTIRACIAL (Non-Hispanic)

Erickson, R., Corley, D., & Buchanan, M.J. (2016). Fast facts: Economic security for Texas families. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. http://ampr.gs/2f69rh5 14 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table C17001 and B20017 15 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table C17001. 16 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division; Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015, Table PEPAGESEX 17 Ibid. 18 Center for Public Policy Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table C17001 13

CURRENTLY MARRIED

WIDOWED

NEVER MARRIED

DIVORCED

Ibid. Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Center for Public Priorities Analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015. Table PEPSR6H. Does not add to 100% due to rounding. The Census Bureau uses the term “Hispanic” to describe persons who may identify as Hispanic, Latino or Spanish. For consistency, we use “Hispanic” throughout. 23 Center for Public Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B12002. 19 20

HOUSING

The Anchor of Economic Security Housing is a critical building block of a woman’s economic security. It is often the largest and highest priority expense in family budgets and provides the stability women need to access other opportunities, such as education and jobs. However, too-high housing costs are a heavy financial burden and leave too few remaining resources for other key areas of economic security.

KEY DATA POINTS The “rule of thumb” policymakers use to determine when housing costs are too high and detrimental to financial stability is when a household spends 30 percent or more of its combined income on housing costs. These households are considered “housing cost burdened.”24 Households that spend more than half their income on housing are considered “severely cost burdened.” In 2015:

HOUSING COST BURDENED

spending >30% of income on housing SEVERELY HOUSING COST BURDENED

spending >50% of income on housing

TEXAS HOMEOWNERS

TEXAS RENTERS

20%

44%

21%

nearly 1.2 million households 25

457,000 households 27

1.6 million households 26

767,000 households 28

Schwartz, E., & Wilson, E. Who can afford to live in a home? U.S. Census Bureau. http://bit.ly/2glJV8o For renters, housing costs include rent and utilities; for homeowners, mortgage payments, utilities, taxes, insurance and any fees. 25 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table DP04. 26 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table GCT2515 27 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25091 28 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25070 24

High housing costs and housing instability are linked to food insecurity, and diminished health and educational outcomes for children. There is ample evidence of the strong link between high housing costs and food insecurity, because people can more easily skip meals than skip rent.29 Frequent moving, also a sign of housing insecurity, is associated with many negative effects for children and adolescents in particular, including irregular health care and more frequent use of emergency rooms;30 problems in school, such as grade retention;31 higher rates of depression; and increased teenage pregnancy rates.32 Housing locations and neighborhood contexts can have profound and long-lasting impacts on multiple aspects of well-being for women and families. Research on families that used housing vouchers (nearly all headed by women) and who moved to lower-poverty neighborhoods found benefits to adults’ physical and mental health, such as improvements in obesity rates, diabetes, depression and psychological distress.33 The same study found large improvements in the mental health of teenage girls in these households, while the same impact was not seen in boys. Recent research has found that the positive effects of living in lower-

Popkin, S.J. & Dubay, L. (2014, Feb 3). Can housing assistance help protect children from hunger? [Urban Institute blog post] http://urbn.is/2fbE0mj 30 Fowler, M.G., Simpson, G.A., & Schoendorf, K.C. (1993). Families on the move and children’s health care. Pediatrics 91(5). http://bit.ly/2fbDvsv 31 US General Accounting Office (1994). Elementary School Children: Many Change Schools Frequently, Harming Their Education. Washington, DC. http://bit.ly/2hcLJld 32 Jelleyman, T., & Spencer, N. (2008). Residential mobility in childhood and health outcomes. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 62 (7): 584-591. http://bit.ly/2glcra1 33 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2011). Moving to opportunity for fair housing demonstration program: Final impacts evaluation. http://bit.ly/2fveBTg 29

poverty neighborhoods has a particular impact on children that can be traced throughout their lives, including better educational outcomes; a lower likelihood of becoming a single parent;34 and a lower likelihood of living in poverty as an adult.35 A home is the biggest financial asset that most women own. Common assets include cash savings, investment or retirement accounts, and owned homes. Assets provide a financial cushion that helps people weather financial crises such as job loss, a medical emergency or car repair. In addition to their function as residences, homes are also wealth-building vehicles that help strengthen women’s long-term financial security. However, there is a large “wealth gap,” or disparity in the value of assets, between households in Texas and the U.S., and between women and men. Data on median net worth (assets minus debts and loans) for U.S. households is $70,000, compared to $53,000 for Texas households.36 Nationally, median wealth (value of assets only) for married couples is $78,000; $10,150 for single males; and just $3,210 for single females. For single women of color, the gap is even worse. Single white women have median wealth of $15,640, compared to $200 for single Black women and $100 for single Hispanic women.37

Chetty, R., et. al. (2016). The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children. American Economic Review 106(4): 855-902. http://bit.ly/2h4jXDz. 35 Chetty, R. & Hendren, N. (2015). The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility. Harvard University and National Bureau of Economic Research. http://bit.ly/2h7idtS 36 Corporation for Enterprise Development. Assets and opportunity scorecard: Net worth, 2011. http://bit.ly/2fsq9Di 37 Chang, M. (2015). Women and wealth. Asset Funders Network. http://bit.ly/2fvinfa 34

HOUSING IN TEXAS

Women and Eviction

Who are housing costs most likely to burden? Housing cost burden has two factors: the price of housing and the incomes of women and families. When available housing is too expensive relative to income, or income is too low relative to available housing, housing costs burden households.

New research shows that eviction is much more common than previously understood. Furthermore, eviction disproportionately affects women, especially women of color.42 In cities across the U.S., the majority of tenants facing eviction and appearing in housing courts are women.43 Research on low-income mothers showed that those who had been evicted suffered long-term negative effects to health and mental health.44 Eviction puts women at risk of job loss, severe challenges finding subsequent adequate housing, and homelessness.45 Because of its prevalence and negative impact, researchers have compared the effects of eviction on the lives of lowincome women of color to the effects of incarceration on the lives of low-income men of color.46

One reason housing costs are of particular concern to women’s financial security is that women often hold lower paying jobs, but housing costs are the same regardless of gender. If a woman is married, she may have the benefit of a combined income, but slightly less than half of Texas women (over age 18) are single, widowed or divorced.38 The median income of a single femaleheaded household in Texas is $32,000, compared to $46,000 for a single male-headed household.39 Not surprisingly, households with lower incomes are more likely to be burdened by housing costs. Higher wages for women would increase household incomes and reduce the housing-cost burden for women and their families.

Female-headed families, women of color and renters are particularly vulnerable to housing cost burden.

HOUSING COST BURDEN IS WIDESPREAD FOR SINGLE WOMEN IN TEXAS.47

45%

Renters are more likely than homeowners to pay a high share of their income on housing. Housing costs burden over 40 percent of Texas renters, compared to 20 percent of Texas homeowners.40 Housing costs are more likely to burden female-headed families. In Texas, housing costs burden 45 percent of all female-headed families (renters and owners combined), compared to 31 percent of male-headed families and 20 percent of married-couple families. Housing costs burden nearly 50 percent of the 1.3 million Texas women who live alone, compared to 37 percent for men living alone. The situation is particularly challenging for single mothers who rent their homes: 63 percent are considered housing cost burdened, and nearly 42 percent live in poverty.41

47% 37% 31%

20% MARRIED-COUPLE SINGLE FEMALEFAMILIES HEADED FAMILIES

FEMALE, LIVING ALONE

MALE, LIVING ALONE

SINGLE MALEHEADED FAMILIES

Percentage of Texas households spending more than 30 percent of income on housing, by household type, 2015 Note: Includes renters and owners.

Center for Public Priorities analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B12002 39 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B19126 40 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table DP04 41 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B17019 42 White, G. B. (2016, Mar 1). America’s insidious eviction problem. The Atlantic. http://theatln.tc/2g211YA 43 Greenberg, D., Gershenson, C., & Desmond, M. (2016). Discrimination in evictions: Empirical evidence and legal challenges. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 51: 115-158. http://bit.ly/2go5aav 38

Desmond, M., & Kimbro, R. T. (2015). Eviction’s fallout: Housing, hardship and health. Social Forces 94: 295-324. http://bit.ly/2g0YuKk 45 Greenberg, D., Gershenson, C., & Desmond, M. (2016). Discrimination in evictions: Empirical evidence and legal challenges. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 51: 115-158. http://bit.ly/2go5aav 46 Desmond, M. (2016). Evicted: Poverty and profit in the American City. New York, NY: Crown Publishers. 47 Population Reference Bureau analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample. 44

Housing costs are also more likely to burden women of color. Although housing costs strain female-headed households of all races and ethnicities, housing costs burden half of Hispanic and Black women who are single heads of household, compared to 36 percent of White and Asian women. Although the rates of housing cost burden are lower for married couples, similar racial/ethnic patterns exist.49

HOUSING COSTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BURDEN ASIAN, HISPANIC AND BLACK MARRIED COUPLES AND FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS. Housing cost burden for Texas renters and homeowners by race/ ethnicity of head of household and family type, 201548

53% 47%

41%

36% 36%

34% 27%

24% 26% 24%

31%

15% SINGLE FEMALE-HEADED FAMILIES

Note: Because of small sample size, differences in housing cost burden between Asian single maleheaded families and other racial/ethnic groups and family types is not statistically significant.

MARRIED-COUPLE FAMILIES

WHITE

ASIAN

HISPANIC

SINGLE MALE-HEADED FAMILIES

BLACK

Population Reference Bureau analysis of U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample. 49 Ibid. 48

The prevalence of housing cost burden for renters varies among Texas cities, but it is widespread throughout the state. Housing cost burden is widespread throughout Texas, affecting communities all across the state. The cities with the highest share of renters burdened by housing costs include places as different as Denton (in North Texas), Edinburg (in South Texas) and Tyler (in East Texas). However, the prevalence of the problem varies widely. In cities with the lower share of cost burden, 25 to 30 percent of renters are housing cost burdened, and in cities with the highest share, more than 50 percent of renters are housing cost burdened.50 Based on the 2016 report from the Dallas Mayor’s Taskforce on Poverty, 181,652 Dallas households (48 percent of renters and 31 percent of homeowners) are housing cost burdened.51 Texas cities with highest and lowest percentage of renters who are housing cost burdened.52 HIGHEST HOUSING COST BURDEN FOR RENTERS

LOWEST HOUSING COST BURDEN FOR RENTERS

Percentage of renters who spend >30% income on housing

Mesquite........................... 62% College Station................ 56% Denton............................... 55% Edinburg............................ 53% Tyler.................................... 52%

League City....................... 26% Flower Mound.................. 29% Sugar Land........................ 30% Pearland............................ 30% Odessa............................... 33%

DENTON

FLOWER MOUND TYLER

ODESSA

MESQUITE COLLEGE STATION SUGAR LAND

PEARLAND

LEAGUE CITY

EDINBURG

U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table GCT2515 Mayor’s Task Force on Poverty, City of Dallas. (2016, Sep 7). Reducing the epidemic of poverty and ending the opportunity gap [Powerpoint presentation]. http://bit.ly/2hTLf0k 52 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table GCT2515 50

A CLOSER LOOK AT HOUSING

Federal, state and local roles in affordable housing for women and families Federal, state and local policies all play a role in supporting housing as a building block of financial security for women and families. Although much of the financial investment in housing comes from the federal government, the state plays an important role in establishing the policies and processes that ensure housing programs have the best outcomes for families.

of Texas households that received housing vouchers in 2014 were headed by women.56

Rental assistance for families: The Housing Choice Voucher Program Recognizing the gap that many families experience between their monthly incomes and rents, the federal government provides rental assistance to over 278,000 households in Texas. In 2014, 28 percent of these households were headed by a person over age 65, and 24 percent were headed by disabled adults.53 The largest rental assistance program in Texas is the Housing Choice Voucher Program, which assisted over 142,000 Texas households in 2014.54 Eighty-four percent of these households were headed by women.55 Families using housing vouchers must pay 30 percent of their income towards rent and utilities, and vouchers pay for the remainder. Vouchers are able to be used only at rentals that cost up to a locally determined limit.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2016). Texas fact sheet: Federal rental assistance. http://bit.ly/2g3GJf7 54 Ibid. 55 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2016). Picture of subsidized households Texas [Data file] http://bit.ly/2eLQ65q 56 Ibid. 53

Although vouchers assist many low-income families in paying for housing, many who apply for rental assistance do not receive it. Long waiting lists for the voucher program are common, and many housing authorities have closed waiting lists for years. For example, in 2014, the City of Austin’s Housing Authority opened its waitlist after eight years of being closed.57 The average wait time for people who finally were able to access vouchers is 23 months.58 Additionally, many women and families face discrimination in housing markets. Many landlords will not rent to families who use housing vouchers, even though vouchers are a stable source of a portion of the rent. One study of the Austin metro area found that only 11 percent of rental units under the maximum allowable rent accepted vouchers.59 Weidaw, K. (2014, Oct 22). Waiting list opens for Section 8 in Austin. Austin, TX: KXAN. http://bit.ly/2g3AWpK 58 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2016). Picture of subsidized households Texas [Data file] http://bit.ly/2eLQ65q 59 Austin Tenants’ Council. (2012). Voucher holders need not apply. http://bit.ly/2g0TyFx 57

Subsidies for affordable housing developers: Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) In addition to providing rental assistance to families, public policies can help encourage the development of affordable housing. According to analysis by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, Texas has only 24 affordable and available units of rental housing for every 100 “extremely low income” renter households, and the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington metro area has one of the lowest availability of affordable rental units for low-income households (19 units per 100 renter households).60 In another study, three Texas counties – Denton, Collin and Travis – were among the worst out of the 100 largest counties in the country for having adequate, affordable and available units for extremely low-income renters.61 The federal policy that subsidizes the construction of affordable housing is Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Tax credits are assigned to states that in turn award the tax credits to developers, who reserve a minimum number of units for lower-income families. In 2016, the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) awarded more than $65 million of tax credits to developers. Demand is high; only half of applications were approved for tax credits.62 Although TDHCA does collect some information on the demographic characteristics of residents in LIHTC-subsidized properties, the agency does not collect information on the gender or family structure of residents.

Aurand, A., et. Al. (2016). The Gap: The affordable housing gap analysis 2016. Washington, DC: The National Low Income Housing Coalition. http://bit.ly/2go5zdg “Extremely low-income” is defined as households with income at or below 30 percent of area median income. For example, in Dallas for a family of three, this would be $20,160. 61 Leopold, J., et. al. (2015). The housing affordability gap for extremely low-income renters in 2013. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. http://urbn.is/2fKDubE 62 Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. Competitive Housing Tax Credits Award and Waiting List (September 23) [Excel file]. http://bit.ly/2hkWrkX 60

Texas has only 24 affordable and available units of rental housing for every 100 “extremely low income” renter households.63

The state is responsible for setting the criteria that determine which developments receive tax credits. The current system awards points for a variety of factors, including support from the state legislator who represents the district where the development would be located (this applies to state representatives only, not state senators). Research has shown that by locating developments in slightly lower-poverty areas, residents experience improved health, mental health and educational outcomes,64 and children were more able to move up on the income ladder during their lifetimes.65 However, analysis of the points system reveals that the current process results in fewer approvals for family housing (as opposed to elderly-only housing), with approved construction concentrated in areas of greater poverty and racial isolation.66

Aurand, A., et. Al. (2016). The Gap: The affordable housing gap analysis 2016. Washington, DC: The National Low Income Housing Coalition. http://bit.ly/2go5zdg. See note 60. 64 Ibid. 65 Chetty, R. & Hendren, N. (2015). The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility. Harvard University and National Bureau of Economic Research. http://bit.ly/2h7idtS 66 Texas Low Income Housing Information Services. (2015). 2015 Texas housing tax credit report. http://bit.ly/2fKDIPI 63

Local strategies to increase and preserve affordable housing Texas cities are increasingly using a variety of strategies to both expand and preserve existing affordable housing. • Cities and developers can voluntarily enter into agreements that increase the number of affordable housing units in new developments. These agreements reserve a share of units (typically 10 to 15 percent) for lower-income renters in exchange for city fee waivers; allowances to build at greater density than allowed for by normal zoning; reduced parking requirements; etc.67 Austin and San Antonio are two Texas cities that have used this strategy.68 • Cities can designate areas Homestead Preservation Districts, also called Homestead Preservation Reinvestment Zones. Under this designation, a portion of the property taxes collected within the district/zone is deposited into a special fund dedicated to preserving and developing affordable housing for low and moderateincome residents of the district. Homestead Preservation Districts are usually used in areas with lower-income residents where property values are increasing rapidly. First authorized by Texas legislation in 2005,69 Austin created the first Homestead Preservation District in Texas.70 • Neighborhoods have used community land trusts to preserve the affordability of existing housing in areas where housing prices have rapidly increased. Community land trusts separate the ownership of houses (owned by the family) from the land (owned by a public or non-profit organization). Because land value makes up a large portion of property value, this arrangement keeps homes affordable for families in quicklychanging neighborhoods.71 Guadalupe Neighborhood Development Corporation is one non-profit organization that manages a community land trust in East Austin.72

C67. Though regulations that set maximum home prices are not allowable in Texas, voluntary incentive and bonus programs designed to increase housing supply for low and moderate-income households are allowable. See Local Government Code Sec. 214.905 http://bit.ly/2fmnk7J 68 See City of Austin Development Incentive Programs, http://bit.ly/2gfVz5k and San Antonio Unified Development Code Sec. 35-360. http://bit.ly/2h7mYDb 69 Local Government Code Sec 373A. http://bit.ly/2g1dx84 70 City of Austin, Neighborhood Housing and Community Development. Homestead preservation districts. http://bit.ly/2h1Rj4L 67

By locating developments in slightly lower-poverty areas, residents experience improved health, mental health and educational outcomes.73

Most low-income families do not receive any type of housing assistance. Although the Housing Choice Voucher Program and LIHTC-subsidized housing are critical to increasing housing affordability, most low-income Texans do not receive any type of housing assistance. When combining all major federal rental assistance programs, approximately 278,000 Texas households received housing assistance to keep their rent payments below 30 percent of their incomes.74 However, data show that in 2015, nearly 2.8 million Texas households (both renters and homeowners) paid more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. This includes 1.1 million households that earn less than $20,000 per year.75

For more information, visit the National Community Land Trust network, http://cltnetwork.org/ For more information, see http://www.guadalupendc.org/?page_id=243 73 Chetty, R., et. al. (2016). The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children. American Economic Review 106(4): 855-902. http://bit.ly/2h4jXDz 74 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2016). Texas fact sheet: Federal rental assistance. http://bit.ly/2g3GJf7 75 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25095 and C25074 71 72

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS State legislators can allow cities to pass local ordinances that protect low-income renters who use vouchers — the vast majority of whom are women — from housing discrimination. Low-income renters who use vouchers to help pay a portion of their rent often find that apartments refuse to rent to them because they use federal rental assistance. Many states and cities across the U.S have passed laws that protect renters from this type of discrimination. However, Texas has gone in the other direction. Current state law bars cities from passing ordinances that would provide this protection, leaving these families (84 percent of whom are headed by women) with few choices in finding safe and affordable housing. The Legislature can reform the process of awarding tax credits through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program to minimize the influence of individual state representatives in determining which developments receive awards. The LIHTC program helps to subsidize the construction of affordable housing in Texas by awarding tax credits to housing developers who agree to keep a share of units affordable. However, under the current program, individual state representatives effectively hold veto power to determine if developments proposed within their district are approved for credits and can move forward. (The law does not

allow Texas state senators to intervene in the process.)76 Research shows that this process has resulted in fewer approvals of affordable housing developments in moderate or mixed-income areas,77 and has contributed to racial, ethnic and economic segregation. Local governments can use proven strategies to increase and preserve affordable housing. In recent years, Texas cities have used various innovative strategies to respond to housing needs within their communities. These include Homestead Preservation Districts, which dedicate a portion of increased property tax revenue to investments in housing affordability; community land trusts; and density bonus programs (or other agreements with developers) to increase the number of rental units available for lower-income renters. Local governments should invest in legal services for women and families facing eviction. Eviction is a serious problem that disproportionately affects women.78 The vast majority of tenants facing eviction cannot afford legal representation, while most landlords can.79 Women can be evicted for a variety of reasons: withholding of rent because of unmet repair needs, sudden change of rent amounts by landlords, a change in building ownership, or even being a victim of domestic violence.80 Pilot programs have shown that providing tenants with legal services led to fewer evictions, and may even save cities money due to public costs related to homelessness.81

About Dallas Women’s Foundation

Dallas Women’s Foundation is the largest regional women’s fund in the world. With the support of its donors, the Foundation unlocks resources to advance women’s economic security and women’s leadership through research, grantmaking and advocacy. The Foundation’s work improves education and quality of life, gives voice to issues affecting women and girls, and cultivates women leaders for the future. Since its founding in 1985, Dallas Women’s Foundation has granted more than $32 million to help create opportunities and solve issues for women and girls. For more information, visit www.DallasWomensFdn.org L76. Livesley-O’Neill, W. (2016, Jun 13). Federal report calls out political influence on affordable housing locations in Texas. [Texas Housers blog post]. http://bit.ly/2g872jB 77 Texas Low Income Housing Information Services. (2015). 2015 Texas housing tax credit report. http://bit.ly/2fKDIPI 78 White, G. B. (2016, Mar 1). America’s insidious eviction problem. The Atlantic. http://theatln.tc/2g211YA 76

This study was published in 2017 by Dallas Women’s Foundation. It was authored by Jennifer Lee and Frances Deviney, Ph.D., of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, and supported by Texas Woman’s University. Greenberg, D., et. al. (2016). Discrimination in evictions: Empirical evidence and legal challenges. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 51: 115-158. http://bit.ly/2go5aav Desmond, M. (2016). Evicted: Poverty and profit in the American City. New York, NY: Crown Publishers. 81 Seedco Policy Center. (2010). Housing help program: Homelessness prevention pilot final report. New York, NY. http://bit.ly/2g3NugY 79