Womenstake

She Says, 'I'm Legally Married to a Same-Sex Partner.' The Census Bureau Says, 'Nah Nah Nah, I Can't Hear You!'

by Kristina Gupta, Policy Fellow
National Women’s Law Center

The NWLC relies on data from the U.S. Census Bureau for a lot of our research on topics like child care, women’s poverty and women’s health insurance coverage.

Yet, Census data systematically misrepresents the familial relationships of lesbian women and gay men. In the 2000 Census, same-sex couples who reported that they were married were re-classified as unmarried, same-sex partners, and same-sex couples who reported they were married but did not have children were not counted as families. This may have made some sense in 2000, when same-sex marriage was not legal in any state.

Things have changed, however, since 2000 – same-sex marriage has been legalized in Massachusetts and California. But, as reported by the New York Times on Friday, for the 2010 Census, even legally married same-sex couples in CA and MA will continue to be reclassified as unmarried, same-sex partners, and, once again, legally married same-sex couples without children will not be counted as families, even though married opposite-sex couples without children are counted as families.

Plain and simple – this is the U.S. Census Bureau reclassifying out of existence the legally recognized familial relationships of lesbian women and gay men. According to the Census Bureau, the federal Defense of Marriage Act bars the agency from recognizing same-sex marriage. In sum, homophobia, enshrined in federal law, has triumphed over the need for accurate data reporting, and has compromised our ability to develop a true picture of the lives of American women, straight and gay.

Educational Reform Not a Zero-Sum Game

by Kristina Gupta, Policy Fellow
National Women’s Law Center

In recent years, some commentators have argued that boys are in “crisis,” falling behind girls on a wide variety of educational indicators. According to many of these commentators, improvements in education for girls over the past 30 years have come only at the expense of boys.

A report released today by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) argues that this simply isn’t the case. In fact, both girls and boys have been doing better than ever before on a number of measures of educational achievement, including standardized tests such as the NAEP, SAT, and ACT. As the report points out, educational achievement is not a zero-sum game – gains for girls have not come at the expense of boys.

The report also concludes that gender differences in educational achievement vary by family income level and by race/ethnicity, with boys and girls from middle- and upper-income families and white boys and girls generally outperforming boys and girls from low-income families and African American and Hispanic boys and girls.

Overall, what the report suggests is that the picture of the so-called boys’ crisis painted by some commentators is far too simplistic. These commentators have proposed a range of “solutions” to the boys’ crisis, including single-sex education and teaching strategies targeted to boys. Based as they are on a simplistic picture of our education system, these “solutions” are unlikely to succeed – and may actually harm the educational prospects of students of both genders. What we need instead are evidence-based, culturally sensitive, and targeted improvements in the education system in order to improve learning for all children, both girls and boys.

Food Stamps or Tax Breaks for Racehorses? We're Betting on the Ponies

by Joan Entmacher, Vice President for Family Economic Security
and Kristina Gupta, Policy Fellow

We at the National Women’s Law Center have blogged about the Farm Bill before, but for those of you who may not know, the Farm Bill is a massive piece of legislation which includes a variety of programs – including agricultural subsidies, conservation, and nutrition programs. It comes up for reauthorization every five years, and negotiations between the House and Senate – and the White House – have been going on for months.

Reauthorization of the Farm Bill would mean an increase in funding for nutrition programs including food stamps and emergency food assistance. These increases are critically needed at a time when food prices are going through the roof, and are especially important for women – nearly 70 percent of adult food stamp recipients are women.

Yet, action on these critical nutrition improvements is stalled as some members of Congress continue to insist on dubious tax cuts and subsidies for wealthy farmers and agribusinesses.  One that borders on the ridiculous is the tax break for racehorse owners being promoted by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (racehorse owners would be able to deduct the cost of their racehorse purchases over three years instead of seven). The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this provision will cost $61 million in 2009 and $489 million between 2008 and 2017. Just to provide some comparisons: In 2009, the proposed tax break for racehorses could pay for food stamp benefits for an additional 49,000 Americans, Pell grants for an additional 23,000 students, or childcare subsidies for an additional 10,000 children.

Planning to Retire Ever? Support Fair Pay for Women!

by Kristina Gupta, Policy Fellow
National Women’s Law Center

The pay gap between men and women can have serious repercussions for women as they age. In 2006, women working full-time, year-round earned on average about 77 percent of what full-time, year-round male workers earned.

The consequences for women of lower lifetime earnings can be severe in later life. In part because of lower earnings, women save less in private pension plans like IRAs and 401(k)s. In 2006, women age 65 and older on average received less than half of what men in the same age group received, on average, in pension income ($3,033 vs. $7,474). In addition, women accumulate fewer assets before retirement. Women also receive less in Social Security, on average, because Social Security income is based on lifetime earnings. Finally, the wage gap continues into later life – women who work past retirement age earn significantly less than men who work past retirement age.

Question: What do Baltimore, Cleveland and Indianapolis have in common? Answer: Some of the Worst Graduation Rates in the Country

by Kristina Gupta, Policy Fellow
National Women’s Law Center

The EPE Research Center released a new report about the high school graduation crisis in our nation’s largest cities. The report examines graduation rates in the principal school system (largest and most central school district) in the largest 50 cities in the country. According to the report, only about half (52 percent) of students in these districts complete high school on time with a standard diploma. This is way below the national graduation rate and below the average graduation rate for all urban school districts in the country. The worst offenders were the principal school districts in Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, and Indianapolis – shockingly, fewer than 35 percent of students in these districts graduate.

The report also examined differences between urban and suburban school districts in the metropolitan areas of these 50 cities. About 58 percent of students in the urban districts in these metropolitan areas graduate, compared with 75 percent of students in the suburban districts in these metropolitan areas. Baltimore, Columbus, Cleveland, New York, Denver, Philadelphia, and Indianapolis have the largest urban-suburban graduation rate gap – for each of these cities, the suburban graduation rate was more than 30-points higher than the urban graduation rate.

The Media Gets It: Downturn Hitting Poor Women & Families Hard

by Joan Entmacher, Vice President for Family Economic Security
and Kristina Gupta, Policy Fellow 
National Women’s Law Center

We observed a few days ago that the poor finally made it to page one. This week, the media continues to call attention to the ways the downturn is affecting economically vulnerable people, mostly women and children – just in time for the returning Congress to do something about it.

The Washington Post ran two excellent articles about the effects of the economic downturn. The first article talks about how states are dealing with budget shortfalls (unlike the federal government, almost all states must balance their budgets each year). Mostly, states are slashing services instead of looking for ways to raise revenue. The story highlights the effects of these cuts on the most vulnerable, including poor women in Cook County, Illinois, who no longer have access to free mammograms, and low-income Californians with AIDS who are losing access to life-saving retroviral treatments. The second article talks about the impact of rising energy prices on low-income people and the struggling middle-class. According to the article, more and more families are unable to pay their utility bills and are turning to private charities and the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) for aid. But neither private charities nor the underfunded federal program are able to meet current needs.

Need Money? The IRS Can Help…Really.

by Kristina Gupta, Policy Fellow
National Women’s Law Center

Hopefully, everyone has heard by now that Congress has passed and President Bush has signed into law an economic stimulus bill that will provide “stimulus payments” to tax filers around the country. Eligible individuals can receive $300 to $600 (eligible married couples can receive $600 to $1,200). In addition, families can receive an additional $300 per qualifying child.

Now, you may ask, how do I get this money? You must file a tax return, and then the IRS will automatically calculate your stimulus payment and send it out to you. If you normally file a tax return, simply do so before April 15 (or get an extension). If you are one of more than 20 million people who aren’t required to file tax returns but are eligible to receive economic stimulus payments – including low-income retirees, disabled veterans, and low-wage earners with at least $3,000 in qualifying income – you have to file a return in order to receive your payment.

No need to worry. If you are filing a tax return just to receive a stimulus payment, the form is simple, and the deadline isn’t until Oct. 15, 2008. And there is lots of help available. On Saturday, March 29, the IRS and its partners will open hundreds of locations around the country to help people who are filing a return solely to receive a stimulus payment. Information about this so-called “Super Saturday,” including a list of the locations that will be open, is available on the IRS website. For more information about eligibility for the stimulus payment and how to claim your payment, visit NWLC’s Economic Stimulus Payments webpage.

7 Questions with NWLC's Kristina Gupta

by Jessica Lauredan, Outreach Intern
National Women’s Law Center

This post is part of a weekly series profiling our blog authors.

Kristina Gupta is a Policy Fellow for the Family Economic Security and the Education and Employment Departments of NWLC.

Q: What are your fears for women and their families as our economy continues to take a downturn?

Kristina: Low-income women and their families are already struggling to make ends meet. As the economy enters a downturn, the struggle will become that much more difficult. In addition, social supports for women and their families have eroded over the past seven years – sacrificed in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy and funding for the war in Iraq.

Q: You wrote in a recent blog post that more than 1 in 100 American adults are confined in a prison or jail, and that this prison population is increasingly including women. Do you think there is a correlation between this and the feminization of poverty?

Kristina: Well, women do have higher poverty rates than men – in 2006, the poverty rate for women was over 12 percent, while the poverty rate for men was just under 9 percent. Economic status is related to crime and incarceration rates. Another, and perhaps more immediate, factor driving the growing incarceration rate for women is the so-called “war on drugs” – about one-third of women are incarcerated for drug crimes, compared to about one-fifth of men.

Prisons and Priorities: States Spend $44 Billion on Incarceration

by Kristina Gupta, Policy Fellow
National Women's Law Center

The Pew Research Center just released a new report about our prison system, called One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008. According to the report, for the first time in our history, more than 1 in 100 American adults are confined in a prison or jail. Men are still about 10 times more likely to be incarcerated than women, but the female prison population is growing quickly. Incarceration rates for some groups of women are staggeringly high – 1 in 100 Black women between the ages of 35 and 40 are currently incarcerated.

Our decision as a nation to incarcerate a significant proportion of our population (more than any other country in the world) has huge social and political ramifications. Last year states spent more than $44 billion on incarceration costs, which is almost 7 percent of state general funds. State spending on corrections has increased six times as fast as state spending on higher education. This comes at a time when states are facing significant budget shortfalls. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, at least 25 states face budget shortfalls in 2009. State budget cuts mean cuts in programs for low-income women and their families – including cuts in health care, child care, and education funding. Ironically, many of these programs can actually reduce crime and incarceration over the long term.

Over the last 20 years, our country’s prison population has nearly tripled, and all we are doing is incarcerating an ever greater number of non-violent, low-level offenders. There are plenty of cost-effective, evidence-based alternatives for states to manage low-risk offenders while still ensuring public safety. Once again, it all comes down to a question of priorities. Do we want to invest in programs for low-income families like health care, education and child care? Or do we want to continue to spend billions of dollars to imprison 2.3 million Americans, the majority of whom don’t really need to be in prison? The answer is pretty clear to me.

Sex and the Subprime

by Kristina Gupta, Policy Fellow
National Women’s Law Center

Yes, it’s true – sex matters in the housing market. Research shows that women are more likely to receive subprime mortgages than men. And because subprime mortgages are a driving force behind foreclosures, as the housing market continues to struggle, more and more women may lose their homes.

The New York Times has started an excellent new series about the impact of foreclosures on women in the Baltimore area. According to the first article, many of those hit hardest by the housing market crisis are single women of color.

The article’s statistics are based, in part, on a 2006 study by the Consumer Federation of America. According to the study, women and men generally have similar credit profiles. Yet, women are more likely to receive subprime mortgages than men, regardless of income or race.

About a third of women borrowers receive subprime mortgage loans, compared to only a quarter of male borrowers. Although women borrowers account for only 30 percent of mortgage borrowers, they account for almost 40 percent of subprime mortgage borrowers. According to the Consumer Federation, women may be more likely to receive subprime mortgages in part because they are less likely to negotiate or shop around for better rates.

Homeownership is one of the easiest ways to build wealth, but subprime mortgages undermine the wealth-building effects of homeownership. This may be a particular problem for communities of color – African American women represent almost half of African American homebuyers and Latino women represent almost a third of Latino homebuyers. Yet, over 60 percent of African American women and almost 50 percent of Latino women receive subprime mortgages.

As women start to default on their loans, whole communities suffer. In neighborhoods with high foreclosure rates, property values and tax revenue may decline. Vacant homes can also contribute to higher crime rates.

In short, subprime mortgages and the housing market crisis may undermine the efforts of many women to achieve the American dream of homeownership. As policymakers work on “fixes” for the housing market crisis and the economic downturn, they would do well to keep in mind the specific situation of women and to devise solutions that meet the needs of low-income women and their families.