(Why) Are African Americans and Latinos underrepresented among UI beneficiaries? An exploratory look
- 1. (Why) Are African Americans and Latinos underrepresented among UI beneficiaries? An exploratory look Andrew Grant-Thomas Deputy Director, Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity Annual Conference NASI- “Meeting Today's Challenges in Social Security, Health Reform, and Unemployment Insurance January 27-28, 2011 National Press Club, Washington DC 1
- 2. Blacks and Latinos have endured especially high unemployment during the latest recession 2
- 3. Blacks and Latinos also are overrepresented among the long-term unemployed (Dec 2010) 25 20 % of Labor Force 15 % of Unemployed % of Long-term Unemployed (52 10 weeks+) 5 0 BLACKS LATINOS ASIAN AMERICANS Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey 3
- 4. The relationship between race/ethnicity and long-term unemployment holds over time 4
- 5. However, Blacks seem to be somewhat underrepresented and Latinos very underrepresented among UI recipients There are 15 states for which we have fairly good race/ethnicity data on UI recipients in 2009. The unemployed in these states include 2.9 million whites, 1.1 million African Americans, and 360,000 Latinos. Recipiency rates by race/ ethnicity across 15 states, 2009 45.0% 40.0% 42.8% 41.0% 35.0% 39.1% 30.0% 32.4% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Overall White Black Latino Source: BLS Local Area Employment Statistics and DOL Employment and Training Administration, Characteristics of the Insured Unemployed for Calendar Year 2009; BLS Preliminary 2009 Data on Employment Status by State and Demographic Group 5
- 6. There is significant variation in relative recipiency rates by race/ethnicity at the state level Recipiency rates by race/ethnicity in most populous of the 15 states, 2009 70% 60% White recipiency rate Black recipiency rate 50% Latino recipiency rate 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Ohio Maryland Georgia Illinois North Carolina Pennsylvania Tennessee Source: DOL Employment and Training Administration, Characteristics of the Insured Unemployed for Calendar Year 2009; BLS Preliminary 2009 Data on Employment Status by State and Demographic Group 6
- 7. Underrepresentation of Blacks/Latinos in UI worrisome because their families are very vulnerable financially 7 Insight CCED, "Social Security at 75: Building Economic Security, Closing the Racial Wealth Gap“ webinar. June 17, 2010.
- 8. Even “high income” African American families can ill afford missed paychecks 8 Source: Institute on Assets and Social Policy, “The Racial Wealth Gap Increases Fourfold.” May 2010.
- 9. Possible explanations: It may be that… 1. Blacks and Latinos more likely to live/work in low- coverage states (geographic distribution/bad-luck ) 2. Blacks and Latinos less likely to meet state eligibility criteria (worker status issue/bad luck) 3. Disparities by race/ethnicity are not coincidental; the Unemployment Insurance program is “racialized” in design and by the role of bureaucratic discretion in its implementation 4. Unemployed Blacks/Latinos less likely to apply for UI 5. Undocumented immigrants more likely to count among the unemployed than to receive UI benefits 9
- 10. 1. Relative to Whites, Blacks and Latino populations are unfavorably distributed in re state UI recipiency rates Distribution of US population by race/ethnicity and state recipiency rates – low (20%-41%), medium (41%-50%), and high (51%-69%) – in November 2009 100% 90% 27% 27% 32% 80% 33% 70% 60% 20% 37% 31% High 50% 32% Medium 40% Low 30% 53% 20% 35% 36% 38% 10% 0% White population Black population Latino population Entire population Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "Estimates of the Resident Population by Race and Hispanic Origin for the United States and States: July 1, 2008 (SC-EST2008-04),“ and ProPublica, “Is Your State's Unemployment System in Danger? November 2009/ http://www.propublica.org/special/is-your-states-unemployment-system-in-danger-603 10
- 11. 2. Blacks and Latinos overrepresented among unemployed workers most likely to be ineligible Among unemployed, African Americans less likely than whites to be “job losers” in 4th quarter, 2010 58% and Blacks and 64% of whites were “job losers” (vs. new entrants, reentrants, etc) Blacks and Latinos disproportionately low-income. The EPI estimated that in 2009: Blacks were 11% of the workforce, but 18% of workers affected minimum wage increase to $7.25/hr. Hispanics were 14% of the workforce and 19% of workers affected by increase. 11
- 12. 3. Is UI racialized in design and through the role of discretion in its implementation? If so, one would expect, for example: A positive association between recipiency rates and proportion African American and/or Latino A positive association between wrongful denial of UI benefits and proportion Black and/or Latino Relatively favorable results to African Americans and Latinos in states that rely more on automation Greater denial of African Americans and Latinos than of similarly situated White claimants 12
- 13. Black-White Implicit Association Test Results Strong preference for Blacks 2% Moderate preference for Blacks 4% Slight preference for Blacks 6% Little to no preference 17% Slight preference for Whites 16% Moderate preference for Whites 27% Strong preference for Whites 27% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 13 N = 732,881
- 14. A few proven behavioral implications of implicit bias In “shooter game,” mistakes follow clear pattern: people shoot more unarmed blacks and fail to shoot armed whites Doctors’ implicit racial attitudes unequal treatment for Latinos and Blacks compared to Whites Resumes with “white-sounding” names (Emily, Greg, Jill, Todd) receive 50% more call-backs than those with “black-sounding” (Jamaal, Latoya, Tyrone, Lakesha) names. Neighborhoods with White-only residents evaluated much more favorably than same neighborhoods with black residents or racially mixed residents More or less implicit bias corresponds to comfort level and body language in interracial interactions 14 “Emergency Treatment May Only Be Skin Deep.” Science Daily 11 Aug. 2007
- 15. Back to UI -- states with higher proportions of Black Americans do also have lower coverage rates Black state population shares x recipiency rates (2010) (Correlation = -0.40) 0.6 0.5 0.4 IUR/TUR Recipiency 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 Pct. of State Population African American Source: http://www.doleta.gov/unemploy/chartbook/chartrpt.cfm 15
- 16. Same is true for Latinos, but the relation- ship is weaker than for African Americans Latino state population shares x recipiency rate (2010) (Correlation = -0.16) 0.6 0.5 0.4 IUR/TUR Recipiency 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 Pct. of State Population Latino Source: http://www.doleta.gov/unemploy/chartbook/chartrpt.cfm 16
- 17. For Whites, the reverse is true: the greater the White proportion, the higher the coverage rate White population shares & recipiency rates (2010) (Correlation = 0.22) 0.600 0.500 0.400 IUR/TUR Recipiency 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 Pct. of State Population White Source: http://www.doleta.gov/unemploy/chartbook/chartrpt.cfm 17
- 18. The distribution of the black population nationally has not changed dramatically between 1930 and 2000 1930 2000 18
- 19. State shares of B’s/L’s were positively associated with improper monetary denial rates, not with separation/non-separation errors (Correlation = .27) 45% 40% Improper monetary denial rates 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Percent of state population that is Black and Latino Source: DOL Employment and Training Administration, Benefit Accuracy Measurement, Denied Claims Accuracy Report 2009. 19 http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/bam/2009/Denied_Claims_Accuracy_Rates_CY_2009.xls
- 20. Potential Responses To possibility of racial/ethnic bias: Make race/ethnicity data collection mandatory for all UI applicants Conduct audit tests for bias in claims processing Reduce bureaucratic discretion through still- greater use of automation Offer de-biasing training 20
- 21. Potential Responses (cont.) Expanding access and speeding transfer: Support wider state adoption of modernization reforms Require employers to distribute UI information to displaced workers Change the benefit calculation formula to aid low-income workers Allow workers to bank their benefits over time 21
- 22. www.race-talk.org KirwanInstitute on: 22