state asset development report card - community-wealth.org
TRANSCRIPT
CORPORATION FOR ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT
Benchmarking asset development
in fighting poverty
State asset developmentreport card
Acknowledgments
CFED would like to thank a number of people whose support,
guidance, advice, knowledge, and patience helped to make this
document possible.
First, we would like to express our gratitude to a number of
researchers who guided us in our search for good data, including
Andrew Reamer, Tim Bates, and Roberto Quercia. An advisory group
helped to get us and keep us on track.
Special thanks go to the father-and-son economist team of Bob and
Jon Haveman. It was their work that generated the first-ever state
level data on wealth accumulation and distribution.
Kudos, of course, to the CFED team that put this report together:
Sara Lawrence, Matt Hull, Bill Schweke, Paige Brown, Fiona Adams,
Cecilia Cuthbert, Heather Tyler, Jennifer Malkin, Sean Stickle, Liesl
Heeter, and Bruce Ruffin.
Finally, a great deal of thanks goes to the generous funders whose
patience and wise investments helped to make this project a
reality: the Ford Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and
the Center for the Study of Social Policy.
—Carl Rist, State Asset Development Report Card Project Manager
An interactive version of this report is
online at sadrc.cfed.org. Use this resource
to search the 68 measures and to cross-
reference any combination of the
measures with any combination of states.
The Corporation for Enterprise
Development (CFED) fosters widely shared
and sustainable economic well-being by
promoting asset-building and economic
opportunity strategies—primarily in low-
income communities—that bring together
practice, public policy, and private markets
in new and effective ways.
CFED supports the public, private, and
nonprofit sectors through research and
demonstration; field services; policy design,
analysis, and advocacy; and
communications. Founded in 1979, CFED is
an independent, national nonprofit
organization headquartered in Washington,
DC, with additional offices in San Francisco,
CA, and Durham, NC.
(202) 408-9788
www.cfed.org
CORPORATION FOR ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT
2002Benchmarking asset development
in fighting poverty
State asset developmentreport card
This report and analysis are based on original source material that has not been developed by the
Corporation for Enterprise Development. Consequently, CFED cannot guarantee the accuracy of such material.
Although all reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this report, CFED cannot accept any liability
for any consequence arising from the use thereof or from the information contained within.
Copyright 2002 by the Corporation for Enterprise Development.
This publication may be quoted with credit to writers, original source information, and the Corporation for Enterprise
Development. Copies of any material quoting from this publication would be appreciated.
ISBN 1-883187-37-0
Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Introduction: The Importance of Asset Development in Fighting Poverty . . . . . 9
A Call to Action—10
Key Findings—11
How States Can Benefit—14
Recommendations—16
Measures and Method: The Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
The Three Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Asset Outcomes Index—20
Asset Policy Index—22
Tax Policy And Accountability—24
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A Word of Introduction on Data Definitions and Limitations—24
How Grades Were Derived—28
State by State: A Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Alabama—32
Alaska—33
Arizona—34
Arkansas—35
California—36
Colorado—37
Connecticut—38
Delaware—39
Florida—40
Georgia—41
Hawaii—42
Idaho—43
Illinois—44
Indiana—45
Iowa—46
Kansas—47
Kentucky—48
Louisiana—49
Maine—50
Maryland—51
Massachusetts—52
Michigan—53
Minnesota—54
Mississippi—55
Missouri—56
Montana—57
Nebraska—58
Nevada—59
New Hampshire—60
New Jersey—61
New Mexico—62
New York—63
North Carolina—64
North Dakota—65
Ohio—66
Oklahoma—67
Oregon—68
Pennsylvania—69
Rhode Island—70
South Carolina—71
South Dakota—72
Tennessee—73
Texas—74
Utah—75
Vermont—76
Virginia—77
Washington—78
West Virginia—79
Wisconsin—80
Wyoming—81
3
Contents
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
(continued on next page)
Measure by Measure: Rationale and Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Asset Outcomes Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Mean Net Worth—85
Asset Inequality by Race—86
Asset Inequality by Gender—87
Asset Poverty—88
Asset Poverty by Race—89
Asset Poverty by Gender—90
Households with Zero Net Worth—91
Homeownership Rate—93
Median Value of Home—94
Homeownership by Race—95
Homeownership by Income—96
Homeownership by Gender—97
Financial Assets
Homeownership
Capital
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Asset Policy Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Tax Policy and Accountability Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
IDA Policy—121
Income Tax Threshold—122
State Earned Income Tax Credit—123
State Minimum Wage—125
Asset Limits for Public Assistance—126
State Tax Expenditure Report—171 State Tax Incidence Study—172
Mortgage Revenue Bonds—129
State Housing Trust Fund—130
Property Tax Circuit Breaker—131
First-Time Homebuyer Assistance
Programs—132
Supplementary Funds for Head Start—135
State-Funded Pre-K Program—136
K–12 Education Expenditures—137
School Spending Equalization—138
Funding for Customized Job Training—139
Need-Based Financial Aid—140
College Savings Plan with Matching
Funds—141
Small Business Investment Company
Investments—143
Capital Access Program—144
State Microenterprise Policy—145
State CDFI Program—146
Policies to Assist Asset-Poor Farmers—147
Unemployment Insurance—
Self-Employment Option—148
Employee Ownership Policy—149
Lifeline Banking Regulations—151 State Community Reinvestment Act
Regulations—152
Workers’ Compensation—Coverage—154
Workers’ Compensation—
Benefit Index—155
Unemployment Insurance—
Benefit Level—156
Unemployment Insurance Reforms—157
Family Leave Benefits—159
State Children’s Health Insurance Program
and Medicaid Expansion for Parents—162
Medicaid Expansion for Low-Income
Adults Without Children—163
Transitional Medical Assistance—164
State Subsidy for Small Business
Health Care—165
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Anti-Predatory Lending Legislation—167 Anti-Insurance Redlining Policies—168
Head Start Coverage—99
Basic Educational Proficiency—100
Associate’s Degree Attainment—101
College Attainment—102
College Attainment by Race—103
College Attainment by Income—104
College Attainment by Gender—105
Small Business Ownership Rate—107
Private Loans to Small Businesses—108
Minority Entrepreneurship—109
Women’s Business Ownership Rate—110
Business Ownership Value by Race—111
Business Ownership Value by Gender—112
Households with a Checking Account—114 Households with a Saving Account—115
Employer-Provided Health Insurance—117
Uninsured Low-Income Children—118
Uninsured Low-Income Parents—119
4
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Human Capital
Business Capital
Bank Access
Asset Protection
Financial Asset
Building
Affordable
Homeownership
Human Capital
Development
Small Business
Development
Bank Access
Wage
Protection
Health Insurance
Property Protection
Tax Expenditure
Disclosure
Assets matter. Assets mean economic security. Assets mean mobility. Assets mean op-
portunity.
The United States has a strong record of promoting the accumulation of assets among
its citizenry. The Homestead Act and the G.I. Bill are two prominent historical—and very
successful—examples of asset-building programs, but current 401(k) tax incentives,
home mortgage interest deductions, and other incentives provided by the government
are equally powerful. Most of these incentives, however, are delivered
through the tax code and targeted toward middle- and upper-income
households. Thus, the benefits provided are completely out of the
reach of impoverished families. Worse, given asset limits established in
many public assistance programs, low-income families can actually be
sanctioned for saving for long-term investments that could make last-
ing change in their economic lives.
For the most part, public policies designed to fight poverty in the
United States are structured to focus solely on income. Income is im-
portant; it creates the necessary cash flow to provide food, housing,
health care, and other urgent needs. Yet, in 1998, 25.5% of all
American households had insufficient net worth to sustain living at
the federal poverty level for three months if their income were to be
disrupted. That means that nearly one quarter of American house-
holds—even those with current income streams—could plummet into
economic disaster in times of job loss, divorce, long-term illness, eco-
nomic downturns, and other factors that commonly disrupt income.
As a point of reference, less than 13% of households were identified
as living below the federal poverty level that same year.
There is a large and growing body of scholarly evidence that suggests
that emerging public policies must balance the importance of both income and assets to
meaningfully address issues associated with poverty and self-sufficiency. Given the in-
creasing importance and power of states—both in terms of funding and responsibility
for public policy and in experimenting with new policy directions—the time is right to ex-
amine asset-based policies among states and to encourage bold action that will lead to
strong asset outcomes for low-income people. States have a unique historical opportu-
nity to serve as the leaders and incubators for a policy shift that could change the face
of poverty alleviation strategies in America.
5
Executive summaryA call to action
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
The United States has a
strong record of promoting
asset accumulation among
its citizenry. But the
benefits provided are
completely out of the reach
of impoverished families.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
With its particular emphasis on populations that are often left out of the economic
mainstream, the State Asset Development Report Card considers 68 socioeconomic and
policy measures to compare states on how assets are accumulated, distributed, and pro-
tected among their citizens. Taken together, the measures both describe each state’s
performance as well as highlight a possible blend of asset-based policies that could en-
hance future outcomes.
The Report Card is a call to attention, further inquiry, and action. This
groundbreaking tool captures the most up-to-date data available on
asset distribution and policy and presents it individually for each of the
50 states. Further, it provides rich new data that have never before been
available on a state-by-state basis and highlights some of the myriad of
opportunities for states to assume leadership roles in this exciting area
of policy development.
In fact, even though they may be just another form of money, assets
have different dynamics and effects. Assets are the way resources can
be moved through time. They are durable and can be leveraged—allowing
for relatively great appreciation. They are flexible and can be used to
survive a time without a job, meet an emergency, invest in a business,
purchase a house, or finance an education. In a very real sense, it is as-
sets that allow people to live in and for the future—they provide the rea-
son to believe in it, the confidence to shape it, the impetus to plan for it,
the investment to make it real. (This is why Michael Sherraden, in his
1991 book Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy [Armonk,
NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.], calls them “hope in concrete form.”)
These benefits are as important for poor families as for non-poor fami-
lies. Yet the data presented here clearly show families in the United
States do not reap these benefits equally. Through a range of unique
indicators—many that present data at the state level for the very first
time—the Report Card finds for example that overall net worth by
household ranges from a high of $164,318 (in Hawaii) to a low of
$74,431 (in Oklahoma). Further, in Iowa, for example, only 14% of the population classi-
fied as asset poor. By contrast 32% of all New Yorkers are asset poor, meaning they
lack sufficient net worth to subsist at the poverty level for three months without
other support.
Differences between white and non-white households are staggering. For the 28 states
with available data, Tennessee has the most even distribution of wealth among the
races—and still, white households hold more than twice the assets of non-white house-
holds. This figure reaches it peak in Virginia, where white households hold more than five
times the assets of their non-white peers.
6
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Assets allow people
to live in and
for the future—
they provide the
reason to believe in it,
the confidence to shape it,
the impetus to plan for it,
the investment to
make it real.
Other key findings of the State Asset Development Report Card include the
following:
■ In all but one state, asset poverty is greater than income poverty.
■ Asset poverty varies significantly by race, gender, and geography.
■ No state can yet claim the right blend of policies at sufficient scope and
scale to eliminate asset poverty.
While states have experimented with a wide range of asset-building and protec-
tion policies, there is a need and opportunity for large-scale, innovative action.
More work must be done to find the right mix and to implement asset-building
policies of a scope and scale to meet the needs of more than a fraction of the
low-income population that can benefit from them. To do so, states must pay
attention to the assets, not just the incomes, of poor families. Further, policy-
makers must evaluate and enhance their states’ current blend of activities with
regard to asset accumulation and protection for low-income people.
Given scarce time and resources, policymakers may choose to begin with a
small list of activities. If so, three areas deserve particular attention: large-
scale Individual Development Account (IDA) initiatives, asset-protection
measures, and tax expenditure and incidence reporting.
Although no state comes close to meeting the assets challenge, a few are
starting to stand out as true pioneers. Five states earned a spot on the
Honor Roll by receiving an A in both of the State Asset Development Report
Card’s main indices—Asset Outcomes and Asset Policies. The Honor Roll states are Maine,
Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. In addition, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa,
Ohio, and Wisconsin earned an honorable mention by receiving either an A or B in both
indices. There were some regional patterns as well. The industrial Midwest, the
Northeast, and the Pacific Coast did fairly well overall, while the South and Mountain
West had the lowest grades.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 7
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Key findings of the
State Asset Development
Report Card:
... In all but one state,
asset poverty is greater than
income poverty.
...Asset poverty varies
significantly by race, gender,
and geography.
...No state can yet claim the
right blend of policies at
sufficient scope and scale to
eliminate asset poverty.
Interactive online report: sadrc.cfed.org
Use this resource to search the 68 measures and to cross-reference any
combination of measures with any combination of states.
1S E C T I O N 1
For the most part, public policies designed to fight poverty
in the United States are structured to focus solely on in-
come. Income is important; it creates the necessary cash
flow to provide food, housing, health care, and other ur-
gent needs. Yet, in 1998, 25.5% of all American households
had insufficient net worth to sustain living at the federal
poverty level for three months if their income were to be
disrupted.1 That means that nearly one quarter of American
households—even those with current income streams—
could plummet into economic disaster in times of job loss,
divorce, long-term illness, economic downturns, or other
factors that commonly disrupt income. As a point of refer-
ence, less than 13% of households were identified as living
below the federal poverty level that same year.
Arguably the most influential measure in the history of
American domestic policy has been the federal poverty
level—which is based solely on income. Economist James Tobin once said
in response to the official government statement of poverty, “No politi-
cian will be able to ... ignore the repeated solemn acknowledgement of
our society’s obligation to its poorer members.”2 Now we are calling for a
similar response to the long neglected importance of assets as a meas-
ure of poverty.
9
Introduction The importance of asset development in fighting poverty
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Arguably the most
influential measure in
the history of American
domestic policy has been
the federal poverty level—
based solely on income.
Now we are calling for a
similar response to assets,
long neglected as a
measure of poverty.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Assets matter. Assets mean economic security. Assets mean mobility.
Assets mean opportunity.
The United States has a strong record of promoting the accumulation of
assets among its citizenry. The Homestead Act and the G.I. Bill are two
prominent historical—and very successful—examples of asset-building
programs, but current 401(k) tax incentives, home mortgage interest
deductions, and other incentives provided by the government today are
equally powerful. Most of these incentives, however, are provided
through the tax code and targeted toward middle- and upper-income
households. Thus, the benefits provided by them are completely out of
the reach of impoverished families. Worse, given asset limits established
in many income-maintenance programs, low-income families can actually
be penalized or sanctioned for working to save to make long-term invest-
ments that could make lasting changes in their economic outlook.
A call to action
A large and growing body of scholarly evidence6 suggests that emerging
public policies must balance the importance of both income and assets
to meaningfully address issues associated with poverty and self-suffi-
ciency. Given the increasing importance and power of states—both in
terms of funding and responsibility for public policy and in experimenting
with new policy directions—the time is right to examine asset-based poli-
cies among states and to encourage bold action that will lead to strong asset outcomes
for low-income people. States have a unique historical opportunity to serve as the lead-
ers and incubators for a policy shift that could change the face of poverty alleviation
strategies in America.
With a particular emphasis on populations that are often left out of the economic main-
stream, the State Asset Development Report Card considers 68 socioeconomic and pol-
icy measures to compare states on how assets are accumulated, distributed, and pro-
tected among their citizens. Taken together, the measures both describe each state’s
performance as well as highlight a possible blend of asset-based policies that could en-
hance future outcomes.
The Report Card is a call to attention, further inquiry, and action. This groundbreaking
tool captures the most up-to-date data available on asset distribution and policy and
presents it individually for each of the 50 states. Further, it provides rich new data that
have never before been available on a state-by-state basis and highlights some of the
myriad of opportunities for states to assume leadership roles in this exciting area of pol-
icy development.
10
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
More Americans are asset
poor than income poor:
...12.7% of American
households were classified as
income poor in 1998, while 25.5%
were estimated to be asset poor.3
...45.3% of all American
households have fewer than
$5,000 in liquid assets.4
...20% of wage earners
command 43% of America’s
income but 86% of the nation’s
net financial assets.5
Key findings
In all but one state, asset poverty is greater than income poverty.
While the U.S. Census Bureau’s most recent figures report that the national poverty rate
(based on income) is 11.3%,7 conservative estimates indicate that in every state except
New Mexico, the asset poverty rate is higher than the income poverty rate.8
Iowa has the lowest level of asset poverty—reporting a rate of 14%—but in 32 other
states, asset poverty rates exceed 20% of their total populations. In New York, where
asset poverty is the highest, it is estimated that almost one third of New Yorkers do not
have sufficient net worth to live for more than three months at the federal poverty
level without other support.
Asset poverty varies significantly by race, gender, and geography.
Race. In their book, Black Wealth/White Wealth,9 Oliver and Shapiro
report that over 60% of African American households and 54% of
Hispanic households have zero or negative net financial assets10
compared with only one third of all American households. The Report
Card considers several measures, including asset inequality by race and
by gender, as well as asset poverty by race and by gender. Without
exception, the Report Card’s findings reinforce Oliver and Shapiro’s
assertion.
In no state is wealth distributed even close to equally between white and
non-white families.11 The state with the least inequality between white
and non-white households is Tennessee, but even there, the mean net
worth of non-white families is less than 50% that of white families. Other
states with (comparatively) low inequality include California, Missouri,
Colorado, and Florida. The state with the worst asset inequality by race is
Virginia, with the average white family holding more than five times the
wealth of the average non-white family.
In Mississippi—the state with the smallest gap in asset poverty by race—
the rate for non-white families is almost twice that of white families.
Asset poverty by race grows to staggering proportions in many states,
with wealthy Connecticut posting the worst score. In Connecticut, where
overall asset poverty is around 22%, the asset poverty rate of non-white
households is almost four times that of white families. Connecticut is
joined at the bottom on this measure by several other Northeastern
states, including New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.
S E C T I O N 1 : I N T R O D U C T I O N 11
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
The state with the
least inequality between
white and non-white
households is Tennessee,
but even there,
the mean net worth
of non-white families is
less than 50%
that of white families.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Gender. In Who Are the Asset Poor?, Haveman and Wolff—using the
least restrictive definition of asset poverty—assert that 53.7% of fe-
male-headed homes with children are asset poor, compared with only
25.3% of married families with children.12 Again, the Report Card docu-
ments similar conclusions on a state-by-state basis, although asset
inequality by gender is not as large as asset inequality by race, nor does
it have as wide a range.
Nevertheless, in no state is wealth distributed equally among male-
headed and female-headed households. Washington has the smallest gap,
with male-headed households—at the mean—holding 20% more net
worth than the average female-headed household. At the bottom is
Louisiana, where female-headed households hold—on average—less than
half of male-headed households.
The gap in asset poverty by gender is smallest in Arizona, where the
asset poverty rate of female-headed households is only 16% greater
than that of male-headed households. Other states with (compara-
tively) small gender gaps in asset poverty include Colorado, West
Virginia, Oregon, and Nebraska. In the worst state, Mississippi—where al-
most 20% of all families are asset poor—the asset poverty rate of fe-
male-headed households is more than twice that of male-headed
households.
Geography. Using unique estimates of financial wealth,13 the Report Card finds an in-
teresting pattern of wealth accumulation and distribution in the states. The state with
the highest reported mean household net worth is Hawaii, at $164,318 per household.
(It bears pointing out that the cost of living in Hawaii is exceptionally high.) Other
states in the top 10 for mean net worth are more predictable, such as Rhode Island,
New Jersey, and Connecticut. Missing from the top of the list, however, is New York,
whose posting of $103,177 ranks 29th nationally. Oklahoma ranks lowest in the nation
with mean household net worth of $74,431.
Regional patterns emerged as well. As Phillips notes in his book, Wealth and Democracy,14
uneven regional wealth relationships and their shifting nature have always been a feature
of the United States’ economic and political history. This goes back to the Revolutionary
War—the financing and supply of which helped to establish the Northeast as the new na-
tion’s wealthiest region—and continued through the New Deal and post-World War II ex-
pansion, which saw the rise of the Sun Belt industries and the decline of some of the tra-
ditional centers of wealth in the Northeast and Midwest.
12
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
The state with the
least inequality between
white and non-white
households is Tennessee,
but even there,
the mean net worth
of non-white families is
less than 50%
that of white families.
Based on the Report Card, the leading regions are the Northeast, the
Midwest, and the Pacific Coast:
■ The Midwest posted the highest grades in the Asset Outcomes Index,
with seven of the region’s eight states receiving an A or a B. In addi-
tion, half of the states in the Midwest received an A or a B in the Asset
Policy Index, and no state earned less than a C.
■ The Northeast posted the highest grades in the Asset Policy Index,
with 90% of the states in the region earning an A or B and no states
receiving less than a C.
■ The Pacific Coast performed well on both indices, with 80% of the
states in the region receiving an A or a B in the Asset Outcomes Index
and 60% posting an A in the Asset Policy Index.
The regions with the lowest grades include the South and the Mountain West:
■ Three quarters of the states in the South earned a D or an F in the Asset Outcomes
Index. At the same time, almost 60% of the region’s states earned a D or an F in the
Asset Policy Index, and only one state (North Carolina) earned above a C.
■ Mountain West states also posted relatively low grades, especially in the Asset Policy
Index, with over 60% earning a D or an F, and only one state (Arizona) earning above a C.
13
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
S E C T I O N 1 : I N T R O D U C T I O N
Mountain
WestMidwest
...highest
grades in Asset
Outcomes Index
Plains
South
Northeast
...highest
grades in Asset
Policy Index
Pacific
Coast
Using unique estimates
of financial wealth,
the Report Card finds an
interesting pattern of
wealth accumulation and
distribution in the states.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
No state can yet claim the right blend of policies at sufficient scope
and scale to eliminate asset poverty.
Given the infancy of anti-poverty policies based on assets, it is premature to look in this
Report Card for measurable correlations between asset policy and asset outcome ranks
and scores. However, there are already a great deal of evaluative data about public poli-
cies and programs—such as community reinvestment, anti-predatory lending, IDAs, and
other asset-building strategies targeted toward low-income people—to document the
potential of these programs.
Report Card data show that, of the 10 states that earned an A in the Asset Policy Index:
■ Six require state-chartered banks to provide low-cost transaction accounts (commonly
called lifeline accounts) to assist all families in accessing the mainstream financial system.
■ Eight have enacted a state Earned Income Tax Credit (in addition to the federal credit)
to help working families keep more of their income and save to build assets.
■ Nine have adopted some form of IDA program to help low-income families save, learn,
and accumulate assets.
■ Seven provide funding to help low-income entrepreneurs start microenterprises.
■ Seven offer support to community development financial institutions (CDFIs) to make
loans and provide banking services to low-income communities.
■ Eight prepare and make public tax expenditure reports so that tax-based subsidies
provided by the state are transparent to its citizens.
Yet, as is evident by the sometimes alarming data presented in the
Asset Outcomes Index, even states that are enacting policies to encour-
age the accumulation and protection of the assets of low-income peo-
ple can be plagued by high rates of asset poverty, inequality, and eco-
nomic vulnerability among their citizens. More work must be done to
find the right mix of policies and to implement asset-building policies of
a scope and scale to serve more than a fraction of the low-income pop-
ulations who can benefit from them.
How states can benefit
Now, more than ever, states are constrained by tight fiscal resources. In
an age where new ideas travel at web speed, state policymakers must sift
through more suggestions, more demands, and more proposed programs
than ever before. What makes this suggestion—that poverty policy em-
brace asset building as well as income maintenance—any better than the
myriad other proposals out there? What makes it worthy of a state’s
scarce resources?
14
More work must be done to
find the right mix and to
implement asset-building
policies of a scope and scale
to serve more than
a fraction of the
low-income population that
can benefit from them.
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Since the time of Adam Smith, economists have recognized the important
role that assets15 play in the economy. In many respects, assets are recog-
nized as a critical underpinning of household economic security, opportu-
nity, and progress. They represent the ability to invest in the future—to
build skills to earn living incomes, to acquire the security of a home, to
enter the marketplace with a new idea or venture, to invest in one’s children
or oneself.
More recent scholarship16 and community practice provide solid evidence
that even a small amount of assets—in the form of savings, home equity,
business ownership, or human capital—is critical to the well-being of lower-
income families.
In fact, even though they may be just another form of money, assets have
different dynamics and effects. Assets are the way resources can be
moved through time.17 They are durable and can be leveraged—allowing for
relatively great appreciation. They are flexible and can be used to survive a
time without a job, meet an emergency, invest in a business, purchase a
house, or finance an education. In a very real sense, it is assets that allow
people to live in and for the future—they provide the reason to believe in
it, the confidence to shape it, the impetus to plan for it, the investment to
make it real. (This is why Sherraden calls them “hope in concrete form.”18)
These benefits are as important for poor families as for non-poor families. In
fact, recent evaluations of asset-building demonstrations have begun to
show a number of positive effects of assets on low-income children, families, and neigh-
borhoods.19 These and similar studies have documented that, with budget counseling and
financial incentives, the poor can and will save to change their long-term economic futures.
Furthermore, assets can:
■ provide greater household stability,
■ create long-term thinking and planning,
■ lead to greater effort in maintaining assets,
■ lead to greater development of human capital,
■ provide a foundation for taking prudent risks,
■ increase personal efficacy and a sense of well-being,
■ increase social status and social “connectedness,”
■ increase community involvement and civic participation, and
■ enhance the well-being and life chances of offspring.
S E C T I O N 1 : I N T R O D U C T I O N 15
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Assets represent the ability
to invest in the future—
to build skills to earn
living incomes, to acquire
the security of a home,
to enter the marketplace
with a new idea or venture,
to invest in one’s children
or oneself.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Every one of these benefits could be easily extrapolated to mean that asset owners
may spend less time cycling on and off various public assistance programs and more
time as wage earners, consumers, and productive members of the
state’s economy.
Recommendations
Government at all levels—federal, state, and local, should
pay attention to assets—not just the incomes—of poor
families.
This study has demonstrated that asset poverty and inequity matter.
Unfortunately, the data on assets at the state level is virtually nonexist-
ent. The federal government should take an active lead in developing and
collecting data on an asset-based poverty level that will provide regular
updates on the number and percentage of families that are asset poor—
nationwide and in each state. Moreover, states and the federal govern-
ment should collaborate to collect and make available state-level esti-
mates on a number of important asset indicators, including retirement
savings and asset accumulation and distribution among different minor-
ity populations.
Policymakers should act now to improve their states’
current package of public policies with regard to asset
accumulation and protection for low-income people.
Clearly, no state has yet to find the right combination, scope, or scale of public policies
to eliminate asset poverty. The 38 policy measures evaluated in this Report Card offer a
good starting point about which policies to consider.
Given scarce time and resources, policymakers may choose to begin with a small list of
activities. If so, three areas deserve particular attention:
■ Large-Scale IDA Initiatives. IDAs have proven effective. By providing savings
matches and financial education to help low-income people purchase homes, start
businesses, or finance education, more than 10,000 Americans are working and saving
to change their long term economic futures. Nationwide, it is estimated that more
than 65 million people could benefit from this innovative asset-building strategy.
■ Asset-Protection Measures. Emerging public policies must balance the importance
of both income and assets to meaningfully address issues associated with poverty and
self-sufficiency. However, strides forward can be seriously eroded by unscrupulous
marketers and bad luck if certain protections are not in place for asset owners. Such
16
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Asset owners may
spend less time
cycling on and off various
public assistance programs
and more time as
wage earners, consumers,
and productive members of
the state’s economy.
measures include access to reasonable health coverage, unemploy-
ment insurance, and protection from predatory lending practices.
■ Tax Expenditure and Incidence Reporting. Subsidies for the ac-
cumulation and protection of assets appear only rarely in discrete, ap-
propriated budget line items. As with the federal model, many state
asset subsidies are delivered via the tax code. The beginning of devel-
oping more equitable policies is to know where this huge, annual in-
vestment in tax subsidies is going. Then, thoughtful consideration can
be given to the productivity and fairness of the current expenditure.
States must improve the transparency of their budgets
to enable a more complete analysis of asset development
policy.
Beyond a lack of data on assets, developing a complete picture of state
policy related to asset development is complicated because states, just
like the federal government, subsidize asset building and protection via
direct expenditures and tax-based subsidies. Tracking direct spending at
the state level is no problem, but trying to measure so called “tax expen-
ditures” is a whole different ballgame. Only about two-thirds of the
states prepare any kind of report to itemize the full list of tax expendi-
tures and to estimate the amount of revenue foregone through these
tax expenditures. Moreover, only eight states have developed a multi-tax
“economic incidence” model that can determine the distribution of the
benefits of various tax expenditures by income level.
S E C T I O N 1 : I N T R O D U C T I O N 17
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Clearly, no state
has yet to find the right
combination, scope, or
scale of public policies
to eliminate asset poverty.
The 38 policy measures
evaluated in this report
offer a good starting point
about which
policies to consider.
Interactive online report: sadrc.cfed.org
Use this resource to search the 68 measures and to cross-reference any
combination of measures with any combination of states.
2S E C T I O N 2
19
Measures and method The approach
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
The State Asset Development Report Card is a benchmarking tool,
whereby each state is evaluated relative to the performance of the
other 49 states. Information has been collected on each of the 50 states
in three main areas: asset outcomes, asset policy, and tax policy and ac-
countability. Of these, the first two indices are analyzed comparatively
across states and grades are given. The third is provided for informa-
tional purposes only; states are not compared against one another.
The framework for the Report Card was developed after an extensive
literature review and based on the advice of an advisory committee that
included state policy experts, researchers, community development
practitioners, budget and tax experts, and funders.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D20
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
The three indices
Asset Outcomes Index. This index is comprised of 30 socioeconomic data measures
grouped into six categories. The Asset Outcomes Index answers the following questions:
■ How wealthy are a state’s residents, especially those with lower-incomes, and how
evenly is that wealth distributed?
■ How well do residents have access to opportunities to save, especially at financial insti-
tutions?
■ How well are assets protected?
A S S E T S O U TC O M E S C AT E G O R I E S A N D M E A S U R E S : A S S E T B U I L D I N G
Financial Assets
Mean Net Worth
Asset Inequality by Race
Asset Inequality by Gender
Asset Poverty
Asset Poverty by Race
Asset Poverty by Gender
Households with Zero Net Worth
Homeownership Capital
Homeownership Rate
Median Value of Home
Homeownership by Race
Homeownership by Income
Homeownership by Gender
Human Capital
Head Start Coverage
Basic Educational Proficiency
Associate’s Degree Attainment
College Attainment
College Attainment by Race
College Attainment by Income
College Attainment by Gender
Business Capital
Small Business Ownership Rate
Private Loans to Small Businesses
Minority Entrepreneurship
Women’s Business Ownership Rate
Business Ownership Value by Race
Business Ownership Value by Gender
Bank Access
Households with a Checking Account
Households with a Saving Account
Asset Protection
Employer-Provided Health Insurance
Uninsured Low-Income Children
Uninsured Low-Income Parents
A S S E T O U TC O M E S C AT E G O R I E S A N D M E A S U R E S : A S S E T P R O T E C T I O N
S E C T I O N 2 : M E A S U R E S A N D M E T H O D 21
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
R A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
Iowa 1 A
New Hampshire 2 A
Oregon 3 A
Maine 4 A
Vermont 5 A
Minnesota 6 A
Washington 7 A
Colorado 8 A
Wisconsin 9 A
Utah 10 A
Alaska 11 B
Ohio 12 B
Pennsylvania 13 B
Indiana 14 B
Nebraska 15 B
Missouri 16 B
Delaware 17 B
Michigan 18 B
Hawaii 19 B
Connecticut 20 B
North Carolina 21 C
Virginia 22 C
Massachusetts 23 C
Kansas 24 C
California 25 C
Illinois 26 C
North Dakota 27 C
Maryland 28 C
Montana 29 C
New Jersey 30 C
Rhode Island 31 C
Idaho 32 C
Wyoming 33 C
Florida 34 C
Oklahoma 35 C
South Dakota 36 D
Kentucky 37 D
New Mexico 37 D
Mississippi 39 D
Tennessee 40 D
West Virginia 41 D
Alabama 42 D
Georgia 43 D
South Carolina 44 D
Arkansas 45 D
Nevada 46 F
Texas 47 F
New York 48 F
Arizona 49 F
Louisiana 50 F
FDCBARanking indicated by number in map; grade indicated by color:
A S S E T O U TC O M E I N D E X : O V E R A L L S TAT E R A N K I N G A N D G R A D E S
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D22
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Asset Policy Index. This index is comprised of 36 policy measures grouped into eight
categories. The Asset Policy Index answers the following questions:
■ How well do a state’s public policies incentivize asset accumulation, particularly for low-
income families?
■ How well do a state’s public policies protect the assets of low-income families?
■ How well do a state’s public policies facilitate access to the financial mainstream?
■ To what extent has the state removed barriers to asset accumulation?
Wage Protection
Workers’ Compensation—
Coverage
Workers’ Compensation—
Benefit Index
Unemployment Insurance—
Benefit Level
Unemployment Insurance
Reforms
Family Leave Benefits
Health Insurance
State Children’s Health
Insurance Program and
Medicaid Expansion for
Parents
Medicaid Expansion for Low-
Income Adults Without
Children
Transitional Medical Assistance
State Subsidy for Small Business
Health Care
Property Protection
Anti-Predatory Lending
Legislation
Anti-Insurance Redlining Policies
Financial Asset Building
IDA Policy
Income Tax Threshold
State Earned Income Tax Credit
State Minimum Wage
Asset Limits for Public
Assistance
Affordable
Homeownership
Mortgage Revenue Bonds
State Housing Trust Fund
Property Tax Circuit Breaker
First-Time Homebuyer
Assistance Programs
Human Capital
Development
Supplementary Funds for Head
Start
State-Funded Pre-Kindergarten
Program
K–12 Education Expenditures
School Spending Equalization
Funding for Customized Job
Training
Need-Based Financial Aid
College Savings Plan with
Matching Funds
Small Business
Development
Small Business Investment
Company Investments
Capital Access Program
State Microenterprise Policy
State CDFI Program
Policies to Assist Asset-Poor
Farmers
Unemployment Insurance—Self-
Employment Option
Employee Ownership Policy
Bank Access
Lifeline Banking Regulations
State Community Reinvestment
Act Regulations
A S S E T P O L I C Y C AT E G O R I E S A N D M E A S U R E S : A S S E T B U I L D I N G
A S S E T P O L I C Y C AT E G O R I E S A N D M E A S U R E S : A S S E T P R O T E C T I O N
S E C T I O N 2 : M E A S U R E S A N D M E T H O D 23
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
R A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X : O V E R A L L S TAT E R A N K I N G A N D G R A D E S
FDCBARanking indicated by number in map; grade indicated by color:
New York 1 A
Massachusetts 2 A
Vermont 3 A
Minnesota 4 A
California 5 A
Washington 6 A
New Jersey 7 A
Maine 8 A
Illinois 9 A
Oregon 10 A
Delaware 11 B
Connecticut 12 B
Wisconsin 13 B
Iowa 14 B
Maryland 15 B
North Carolina 16 B
Ohio 17 B
Texas 18 B
Arizona 19 B
Rhode Island 20 B
Michigan 21 C
Pennsylvania 22 C
Hawaii 23 C
Oklahoma 24 C
Indiana 25 C
Kansas 26 C
South Carolina 27 C
Missouri 28 C
Colorado 29 C
Florida 30 C
Nebraska 31 C
New Hampshire 32 C
Virginia 33 C
New Mexico 34 C
Georgia 35 C
West Virginia 36 D
Arkansas 37 D
Kentucky 38 D
Idaho 39 D
Utah 40 D
Montana 41 D
Louisiana 42 D
North Dakota 43 D
Tennessee 44 D
Alaska 45 D
Nevada 46 F
South Dakota 47 F
Mississippi 48 F
Wyoming 49 F
Alabama 50 F
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D24
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Tax Policy and Accountability. This index is comprised of two measures which an-
swer the following questions:
■ How transparent are the state’s tax-based subsidies?
■ Who benefits from these subsidies?
Methodology
A Word of Introduction
With any research endeavor, the data are never completely sufficient.
This is no less true for the State Asset Development Report Card. Most
of the data were gathered from publicly available sources, such as the
U.S. Census Bureau and nonprofit research and policy organizations.
Because CFED is driven by what needs to be known, not just by what is
readily known, about assets, new data were commissioned for this
Report Card, and, in some instances, proxies—indirect means of getting
answers to important questions—were used. In general, these situations
arose because no one previously had asked about or collected data on
these issues at the state level.
Data Definitions and Limitations
What’s an Asset?
“Assets” is a business accounting term that refers to anything that has
money value. In this sense, income and assets are quite similar—each re-
flecting a different way of representing financial resources. Yet, as it is
most commonly used, assets refer to the accumulation of money, wealth
resources, or property (“stocks”) rather than income spent on consump-
tion (“flows”). Even in this sense, the interpretation of assets can be quite
broad, including everything from financial assets and human capital to
social capital and environmental assets.
For simplicity’s sake, and also because one of the primary objectives in
developing the Report Card is to measure the performance of states in
TA X P O L I C Y A N D A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y C AT E G O R I E S A N D M E A S U R E S
Tax Expenditure Disclosure
State Tax Expenditure Report
State Tax Incidence Study
Because CFED is driven by
what needs to be known,
new data were commissioned.
In some cases, proxies—
indirect means of getting
answers to important
questions—were used.
In general, these situations
arose because no one had
previously researched these
issues at the state level.
S E C T I O N 2 : M E A S U R E S A N D M E T H O D 25
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
helping individuals and families build assets as a tool for achieving economic self-suffi-
ciency, a more traditional, strictly financial definition of assets is utilized. Thus, the
Report Card includes as assets either financial assets or assets that can be quickly con-
verted into financial assets and that typically appreciate in value. This is similar to Edward
Wolff’s concept of “fungible wealth,” meaning that which is saleable and therefore has
current market value.20 Even this definition can be broad and encompasses a range of as-
sets including home equity, stocks and fund shares, vehicles, business capital, checking
accounts, other interest-bearing accounts, and retirement savings. Based on our defini-
tion, the Report Card does not include certain assets, such as natural capital and social
capital, which have important economic value, but for which it is difficult
to assign a market value.
New State-by-State Data on Assets
Data on assets and wealth have never been collected as thoroughly as
data on income. In fact, until now, data have never been available on as-
sets or wealth at the state level. The Survey of Consumer Finances,
which is released annually by the Federal Reserve Board and is one of the
two main sources of data on wealth, presents net worth indicators
(mean and median) in four regions and in nine divisions in the United
States, but not state-by-state. The other main source of data on wealth,
the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), released periodi-
cally by the Census Bureau, also has detailed data on household asset
ownership but does not provide any state-level data or estimates. To
shed light on important aspects of asset accumulation, CFED commis-
sioned researchers Robert and Jon Haveman to generate estimates of
household net worth, asset inequality, and asset poverty at the state
level. The data generated by the Havemans include the following meas-
ures used in the Report Card:21
■ Mean net worth
■ Asset inequality by race
■ Asset inequality by gender
■ Asset poverty
■ Asset poverty by race
■ Asset poverty by gender
■ Households with zero net worth
■ Households with checking account
■ Households with savings account
Data on assets and wealth
have never been
collected as thoroughly
as data on income.
In fact, until now,
data have never been
available on assets or wealth
at the state level.
These indicators were all produced using data collected for the SIPP.
However, as the weighting scheme in the SIPP has been developed to pro-
vide a sample that is representative of demographics at the national level
and not at the state level, the Havemans used the data from Current
Population Surveys over a three-year period (1998-2000) to rescale the
weights. The rescaling was designed to make the sample of observations
present in the SIPP data set consistent with the Current Population
Surveys on the basis of race, gender, and broad income status.
Timeliness of the Data
Because of the lag between the time data are gathered and when they
are available for use, the data in this Report Card provide a snapshot of
the recent past. Although the most current data available for all meas-
ures have been utilized, in some cases the data were collected as far
back as the mid-1990s.22 Moreover, the data do not reflect the very re-
cent past, including the impacts of the events of September 11th and
the recent downturn in U.S. financial markets.
Types of Data—Quantitative and Qualitative
To provide a picture, from an asset-based perspective, of both policy
and performance at the state level, CFED gathered two different kinds
of data for the Report Card. For the Asset Outcomes Index, primarily
quantitative data that are relatively easy to rank, present, and under-
stand were used. For the Asset Policy Index, primarily qualitative data
were used. Because these qualitative data present particular challenges
with respect to ranking states, presenting the data in a manner that is
easily comprehensible, and comparing the data across both indices, a few
words should be said about the policy data in the Report Card.
First, the process of identifying the most effective public policies in a
particular policy area, such as housing or small business development, is complicated.
Determining conclusively which policies actually “work,” and for those that work, which
ones truly benefit low-income populations, can be a huge academic undertaking. Second,
even when it is clear which policies make a difference, problems in measurement arise:
■ Even for the same policy, such as a capital access program, it can be difficult to
capture fully the design, scale, scope, and quality of implementation, all of which
are critical.
■ It can be difficult to decipher whether a state-level program, which is not necessarily
operated by the state, is still a state responsibility and worth “counting.”
■ Comparable 50-state data are not always available.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D26
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Because of the lag
between the time data are
gathered and when they
are available for use, the
data in this Report Card
provide a snapshot of
the recent past.
They do not reflect the
very recent past,
including the impacts of the
events of September 11th
and the recent downturn in
U.S. financial markets.
The particular policies selected for inclusion in the Assets Policy Index by CFED were
identified by the Report Card’s advisory committee, conversations with experts, and
CFED’s knowledge of asset-based policies that are the most promising, proven, or effec-
tive. In some cases, these policies were evaluated based on one or more thresholds or
minimum standards to allow some measure of their effectiveness and enable ranking
among states with that policy. In other cases, states earned credit for a particular policy
on a “yes/no” basis, that is, either the state had a policy or it did not.
Finally, because of the different kinds of data used in the two main in-
dices, one should be hesitant to directly compare the grades in the
Asset Outcomes and Asset Policy Indices. First, many promising policies
measured here are not yet being implemented to scale. Second, some of
the current outcomes reflect the legacy of past policies rather than
current ones. Finally, each index incorporates a broad range of indica-
tors—from measures of homeownership to health insurance coverage—
that are not all directly related.
What’s Not Included
A number of important issues or factors related to asset building for
low-income households are not included in the Report Card because the
data are not available or because these issues were beyond the scope of
the Report Card.
Retirement Capital. Retirement savings is one of the most important
components of wealth for most Americans, with pension accounts mak-
ing up the fourth largest share of total household wealth in 1998.23 Yet,
while the number of wage and salary workers participating in a pension
plan at work increased during the 1990s, the Employee Benefits
Research Institute reports that only 52.3% of workers participated in a
pension plan in 2000.24 Moreover, workers not participating in an em-
ployer-sponsored pension plan are more likely to be single, female, less
educated, part-time employees, or non-white.25 Despite the importance
of retirement savings, data at the state level on employer-provided pen-
sion coverage or private savings in the form of Individual Retirement
Accounts or Keogh accounts are nonexistent. However, this lack of data on an important
wealth component is mitigated by two factors. First, research shows that retirement
savings is not as important to most poor households because they tend to be relatively
young.26 In addition, when these households reach retirement, Social Security replaces a
very high percentage of lifetime earnings, and Medicare provides relatively generous
health benefits. Third, federal regulations under the Employee Retirement and Income
Security Act preempt state policy on retirement savings, making the state policy role
less important.
S E C T I O N 2 : M E A S U R E S A N D M E T H O D 27
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
One should be hesitant to
directly compare the grades
in the Asset Outcomes and
Asset Policy Indices. Many
promising policies measured
here are not yet being
implemented to scale.
And some of the
current outcomes reflect
the legacy of past policies
rather than current ones.
Measures Other than Health Insurance Under Asset Protection Outcomes. As noted
earlier, families protect their assets in a number of ways, from health insurance and car
insurance to homeowners’ insurance to life insurance. While this range of asset protec-
tion mechanisms is addressed in the Asset Policy Index, the total lack of data on life and
homeowners’ insurance meant that only health insurance could be in-
cluded in the asset protection category of the Asset Outcomes Index.
Wealth Data Among Different Minority Populations. As noted above,
asset inequality is especially pronounced when comparing racial minori-
ties to the rest of the population. Yet, while racial minorities, overall,
tend to have significantly lower levels of wealth than white households,
the level of asset accumulation among particular racial minorities, such
as African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans, also varies.
Moreover, as demographics shift in the United States, the relative wealth
position of different racial minorities is also changing.
For example, new Census data shows that, after years as the leader in
minority business ownership, African Americans now rank third behind
Hispanics and Asian Americans.27 Although these differences among mi-
nority populations are important, data that would illuminate this issue at
the state level are not available. Thus, the indicators used in the Report
Card that provide breakdowns of various measures of assets “by race”
are simply ratios of white to non-white assets.
Impact of Differing State Legal Climates
Beyond policies and regulations that may be in place in a state, the ac-
tual legal code and how it is interpreted in a particular state can have a
significant impact on asset accumulation and protection for low-income
families. Among the state laws that have an impact on assets are the
treatment of a primary residence in the case of bankruptcy. Some
states put no limit on the exemption for a primary residence when fil-
ing for bankruptcy, while others allow no homestead exemption. In ad-
dition, since unpaid medical costs are a major cause of bankruptcy, the
extent of a patient’s right to sue a malefactor, doctors, and/or hospitals is also a sig-
nificant factor in holding onto assets. While these factors can play an important role in
asset accumulation and protection, their strictly legal nature was somewhat outside
the scope of the Report Card.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D28
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
While differences in the
level of asset accumulation
among particular minority
populations are important,
data that would
illuminate this issue at the
state level are not available.
Thus, measures of
assets “by race” are
simply ratios of white to
non-white assets.
How Measures Were Derived
Grades for the State Asset Development Report Card were calculated as described
here. (See also the section “Measure-by-Measure Rationale and Raw Data.”)
Asset Outcomes Index
Raw data were collected for the 30 measures.
1. Each state was ranked on every measure based on the raw data ob-
tained. The best state was ranked 1st, and the worst was ranked 50th.
2. The ranks for each measure in the index were added so that each
measure contributed equally to the overall index grade.
3. The sum of the ranks produced an overall score for each state. The
lower the score, the better the state’s overall performance.
4. The score was ranked and a grade assigned to each state. Again, the
best rank was 1st, and the worst rank was 50th.
5. States that ranked from 1st to 10th earned an A; 11th to 20th a B;
21st to 35th a C; 36th to 45th a D; 46th to 50th an F.
Asset Policy Index
1. Raw data were collected for the 36 measures.
2. Each policy measure with a quantitative value was ranked based on the
raw data. The best rank was 1st, and the worst was 50th.
3. Each measure with a qualitative answer—such as a “yes/no” or cate-
gorical response—was changed to a quantitative outcome as follows:
a. All qualitative measures were scored on a scale from 0 to 1. The
best score was 1, and the worst was 0.
b. For measures with a series of thresholds or a categorical-type an-
swer, each threshold met earned a partial point. If all criteria were
satisfied, a “perfect” score was obtained, and the state received a total score of 1.
The partial points awarded within a measure depended on how many thresholds
were contained in the measure. For example, the evaluation of IDA policy consisted
of three thresholds: 1) Is support for IDAs at least $1 million?, 2) Are IDAs included as
part of the state Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) plan?, 3) Is there a
state IDA program either in development or in operation? For this measure, if a
state satisfied none of the thresholds it earned 0, if it met one it earned 0.33, if it
met two it earned 0.67, and if it met all three it earned 1.
c. Measures that yielded a “yes/no” response were transformed into a 0-to-1 scale in a
similar fashion. If the state had the designated policy, it earned a 1. If the state did
S E C T I O N 2 : M E A S U R E S A N D M E T H O D 29
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
To provide a picture,
from an asset-based
perspective, of both
policy and performance
at the state level,
CFED gathered two
different kinds of data—
primarily quantitative for
the Asset Outcomes Index,
primarily qualitative
for the Asset Policy Index.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D30
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
not have the policy, it earned 0 points. For example, in the state minimum wage law
measure, states that had a law that exceeded the federal minimum wage scored 1
point, while states that did not have such a law scored none.
d. The points for all qualitative measures (“yes/no” and categorical responses) in the
index were summed and a total obtained.
e. The sums were then ranked—the higher the figure, the better the performance. The
best rank was 1st, and the worst was 50th.
f. The single ranking of the qualitative measures was weighted to account for the
number of these measures in relation to the total number of measures in the index,
so that all measures weighed in equally for the overall grade.
4. The single qualitative rank was added to the ranks of the quantitative measures in the
index to obtain an overall index score. This total value for the index was then ranked.
The best rank was 1st, and the worst was 50th.
5. States that ranked from 1st to 10th earned an A; 11th to 20th a B; 21st to 35th a C;
36th to 45th a D; 46th to 50th an F.
Tax Policy and Accountability Index
While not part of the formal framework and, thus, not graded, the tax policy and ac-
countability commentary for the 50 states was calculated as follows:
1. Each measure was given one point for a positive response. For measures with a series
of thresholds, each threshold met was given a partial point that would total one if all
criteria were satisfied (as described for the qualitative measures evaluated for the
Asset Policy Index).
2. The points for the two measures were added, and scores were obtained for each
state. Scores were categorized, with 2 being the best and 0 being the worst.
3. States were not ranked because of the low number of measures in this index.
Important Notes
Missing data were accounted for by shifting the weight of the rank onto the other meas-
ures in the index. Therefore, a state was not punished due to a lack of data availability.
As a result, the remaining measures in the index weighed more heavily in the state’s
grade than they did for a state that had data available for all measures.
When a tie occurred, each state received the same rank, and the next performing state
was ranked as if the tie had not occurred. For example, if two states had the best score,
each was ranked 1st, and the next state was ranked 3rd.
3S E C T I O N 3
No state has yet to find a way to harness the power of asset building for
all low-income families. However, the Report Card is a benchmarking tool
that grades the 50 states against one another on a curve. As such, a
handful of states stand out among their peers and earn their place on
the honor roll. To earn a place on the Honor Roll, a state had to earn an A
in both main indices—Asset Outcomes and Asset Policy. To earn an hon-
orable mention, a state had to receive either an A or B in both indices.
31
State by state: A summary of findings
H O N O R R O L L A N D H O N O R A B L E M E N T I O N S
Honor roll states:
Maine
Minnesota
Oregon
Vermont
Washington
Honorable mention:
Connecticut
Delaware
Iowa
Ohio
Wisconsin
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 42 D A S S E T P O L I C Y : 50 FR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
Asset Outcomes. Asset distribution among all of Alabama’s residents is substandard
compared with the rest of the nation. The state ranks 42nd in Asset Outcomes, receiving
a D in the index. Financial assets are average in Alabama. The median value of a home in
Alabama is $84,364 (37th), and homeownership rates are above average at 73% (14th).
Alabama ranks 38th in mean net worth at $92,858 and ranks a respectable 16th in terms
of proportion of households with sufficient net worth to subsist for three months. The
state has particularly low scores in the category of human capital, where it scores 43rd
in college attainment, 46th in college attainment by income, and 49th in college attain-
ment by gender.
Business capital in the state is mixed. While private loans to small businesses are relatively
high (5th), the small business ownership rate is lower than average, ranking 39th. Closer
examination of small business ownership reveals that women and minorities face particu-
larly difficult challenges (women’s business ownership rate is 3%, ranking 49th, and mi-
nority entrepreneurship is 48th). Bank access also varies. The state has a relatively high
proportion of households with non-interest-bearing checking accounts (47%, ranking
4th) but a lower percentage of households with a savings account (54%, 42nd).
Asset Policy. There is a critical need for state policymakers to address asset building
and asset protection through state policy in Alabama; the state receives an F and
ranks last in the United States in the Asset Policy Index. In almost all of the policy
measures the state falls in the bottom 20%. Asset protection in the state is minimal—the
state either has no protection policy or it is very limited in scale and scope in terms of
improved access to healthcare for low-income people. Encouraging signs in state policy
occur in the categories of asset limits for public assistance, where the state allows all ve-
hicles to be excluded from the countable asset limits. Alabama also shows some promis-
ing efforts in customized job training (15th) and in equalizing spending among its school
districts (23rd).
Tax Policy and Accountability. Alabama does a below-average job on tax policy ac-
countability. The state fails to prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value
of revenues foregone via tax breaks. The state does analyze the impact of state taxes or
changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all income levels.
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$92,858
RANK— 38
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—16
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—38
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—20.0%
RANK—16
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—15
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—31
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—13.4%
RANK—18
Alabama
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D32
33
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$101,462
RANK—31
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—18.9%
RANK—7
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—N/A
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—11.3%
RANK—5
Alaska
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. Alaska ranked 11th overall in Asset Outcomes, missing an A by one
place. Alaska is particularly strong in terms of asset distribution, with the 5th-lowest
share of households with zero net worth and the 7th-lowest percentage of asset-poor
families. Alaska also performs well on a number of measures of human capital accumula-
tion. This includes a top ranking for the percentage of low-income kids covered by Head
Start programs. Moreover, along with the 16th-best college attainment, Alaska has the
3rd-lowest gap in college attainment between rich and poor and the 6th-lowest gap in
college attainment between men and women.
On measures of business capital accumulation, Alaska’s performance was somewhat mixed.
While the value of private loans to small businesses and the women’s business ownership
rate are both 1st in the nation, the value of both businesses owned by women and those
owned by non-whites in Alaska ranked among the bottom 10 nationally. Alaska scores mostly
poor on measures of homeownership capital, with a rank of 40th on homeownership rate
and a median home value among the five worst states.
Asset protection in the form of health insurance is also sub-par in Alaska. Employer-pro-
vided health insurance is well below the median. At the same time, 25% of Alaska’s low-in-
come children are uninsured, and 30% of low-income parents are uninsured.
Asset Policy. Alaska does poorly on Asset Policy—landing a D and ranking 45th among
states. Alaska lacks a number of key policies that help low- and moderate-income entre-
preneurs access financing and build business capital. For example, Alaska has no capital ac-
cess program, no small business investment company financing, no state microenterprise
policy, and no initiatives or programs that support community development financial insti-
tutions. While the state ranks 3rd nationally in funding for customized job training, it is
also at the bottom in offering need-based financial aid. Also, the state’s support for af-
fordable homeownership is only modest, with a number of first-time homebuyer pro-
grams but no housing trust fund. Finally, Alaska scores low on policies to protect the as-
sets of working families. For example, the state scores low in measures of wage
protection, ranking 44th in the share of workers covered by workers’ compensation and
47th in the level of unemployment insurance benefits.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Alaska scores poorly on tax policy accountability. The
state does not prepare a tax expenditure report to itemize the value of revenues fore-
gone via tax breaks, nor does it have the ability to determine the impact of state taxes
or changes in the tax code on all taxpayers.
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E 33
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 11 B A S S E T P O L I C Y : 45 DR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 49 F A S S E T P O L I C Y : 19 BR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
Arizona
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$98,641
RANK—34
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—17
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—18
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—28.8%
RANK—48
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—4
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—1
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—16.3%
RANK—42
Asset Outcomes. Arizona is among the lowest scoring states in Asset Outcomes, rank-
ing 49th in the nation and receiving an F. The state ranks below average in most of the
Asset Outcome measures, with only a few bright spots surfacing in its performance.
Particularly noteworthy scores are the low gaps in asset poverty between whites and
non-whites (4th) and between male- and female-headed households (1st). These accom-
plishments are clouded however by a high level of asset poverty (48th), which is the
number of households lacking a safety net to subsist for three months, and of house-
holds with zero net worth (42nd).
Asset protection in terms of health care is a serious concern in Arizona; the state falls near
the bottom in all three measures. Employers provide health insurance for 58% of residents
(47th), 29% of low-income children are uninsured (48th), and 46% of low-income parents are
uninsured (48th).
Asset Policy. The state fares much better in Asset Policy, earning a B and ranking 19th.
Policymakers have made strides in promoting homeownership and expanding health in-
surance to all of the state’s residents. The state facilitates homeownership for lower-in-
come residents by offering a dedicated funding source through state housing trust
funds, reducing property taxes on low- and middle-income people through property tax
circuit breaker programs, and offering a variety of first-time homebuyer assistance pro-
grams. Health care, a form of asset protection, is made available to more of the state’s
population through Medicaid expansion to low-income adults, transitional medical assis-
tance for people moving from welfare to work (one of only 14 states to do so), Medicaid
expansion for parents, and state subsidies for small business health care coverage (one
of only nine states to do so).
Arizona is mixed in terms of polices that protect family finances in the event of injury or
job loss. Arizona does well in providing quality workers’ compensation coverage, ranking
9th. However, unemployment insurance policies are neglected. The state ranks 48th in a
ranking of the unemployment insurance benefit as a percentage of the state’s average
wage and only incorporates one of three positive reforms in its unemployment insurance
program.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Arizona does an average job on tax policy accounta-
bility. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues
foregone via tax breaks, though this report is not available on the web. Arizona also has
developed measures to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code
on taxpayers of all income levels.
34
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Asset Outcomes. Asset distribution among all of Arkansas’ residents is substandard
compared with the rest of the nation. The state ranks 45th in Asset Outcomes, receiving
a D in the index. The state scores erratically in measures of financial assets—ranking 44th
in mean net worth, 49th in households with zero net worth (only one state, New York,
did worse), and 49th in terms of the number of households deemed “asset poor.”
However, the gap in asset poverty between whites and non-whites is relatively small
(ranking 2nd) and the gap in asset equality between male- and female-headed households
is also small (8th).
In terms of human capital, Arkansas has a decent record in early childhood education
(Head Start coverage: 12th), yet struggles to keep up in the rankings for higher educa-
tion. Overall, the state ranks 49th in college attainment, the gap in college attainment
between men and women is relatively large (44th), and the gap in college attainment be-
tween high-income earners and low-income earners put the state at 35th. Moreover,
Arkansas is ranked low in the percentage of adults with associate’s degrees (48th).
Business capital ownership in the state is mixed. While the amount of private loans to
small businesses (per worker) is relatively high (10th), the women’s business ownership
rate is low (47th), as is overall minority entrepreneurship (49th). The value of women-
owned firms, however, is relatively high (13th). Bank access also varies here. The state
has a relatively high proportion of households with non-interest-bearing checking ac-
counts (ranking 7th) but a very low number of households with savings accounts (44th).
Asset Policy. As with most other southern states, Arkansas policies on asset building
are relatively weak, ranking 37th and earning a D. Arkansas is a forerunner in support-
ing Individual Development Accounts, with over $1.5 million invested in helping the
poor save for small business development, education, or homeownership. Areas of
concern are K–12 education expenditures (46th), which are important for promoting
human capital development in the state, and Medicaid expansion for parents (48th),
which is key for increasing health care coverage for adults and children alike (studies
have linked coverage of parents to increased coverage for children).
Tax Policy and Accountability. Arkansas does a poor job of tax policy accountability.
The state fails to prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues
foregone via tax breaks. Arkansas also has no capacity to determine the impact of state
taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all income levels.
35
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 45 D A S S E T P O L I C Y : 37 DR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$81,270
RANK—44
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—18
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—8
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—31.0%
RANK—49
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—2
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—13
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—22.2%
RANK—49
Arkansas
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
California
Asset Outcomes. California earns a C for Asset Outcomes, but its average grade masks
some extreme highs and lows in performance. On the one hand, California has the na-
tion’s 11th highest average net worth per household and ranks 2nd and 3rd, respec-
tively, in the wealth gap between white and non-white households and between men
and women. On the other hand, California ranks among the bottom 10 states for its
large percentage of asset-poor families and families with zero net worth. On measures
of business capital accumulation, California’s performance is again uneven, ranking 47th
on the value of minority-owned firms, but 6th on the value of women-owned firms.
California yields mixed indicators on measures of human capital accumulation, with the 9th-
best college attainment and 15th-lowest gap in college attainment between rich and poor,
indicating that California universities are financially within reach of lower-income people. For
younger learners, however, the state needs to do better. California ranks a dismal 48th in
Head Start coverage. Finally, California’s performance on measures of homeownership is ir-
regular, with the 3rd-highest median home value but the 3rd-lowest homeownership rate.
Asset protection in the form of health insurance is one of California’s clear weaknesses.
Nearly 26% of California’s low-income children and 39% of low-income parents lack health
care, ranking the state 40th and 44th, respectively, on these two measures.
Asset Policy. Since the Report Card grades on a curve, California earns an A in Asset
Policy, coming in 5th overall. While the state outperforms its peers with a broad range of
policies, it must do more to address the problem of asset poverty. The state has the low-
est income tax threshold, allowing low-income people to pay less in income taxes and
have more to save. And though the state provides strong support for affordable home-
ownership, with a large share of its bond allocation dedicated to home mortgage finance
and a variety of first-time homebuyer assistance programs, it also has a housing trust
fund that has not received funding for some years.
California does less well on policies designed to protect assets, though changes in the
2002 legislative session helped to address this. Until this year, California had the worst
unemployment insurance benefits and the 3rd-worst workers’ compensation benefits,
meaning that until very recently California had done a poor job of protecting wages
from injury or job loss. Finally, California is one of only a few states that protect home
equity by limiting predatory lending practices and has used Medicaid to aggressively ex-
panded health coverage for low-income working families.
Tax Policy and Accountability. California does a pretty good job on tax policy ac-
countability. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of rev-
enues foregone via tax breaks and makes the report available on the web. The state also
has some capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on
all taxpayers, but this capacity is still limited.
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 25 C A S S E T P O L I C Y : 5 AR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$131,913
RANK—11
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—2
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—3
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—28.5%
RANK—47
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—7
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—10
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—16.7%
RANK—43
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D36
Asset Outcomes. Colorado earns an A and ranks 8th in the Asset Outcomes Index, indi-
cating that asset distribution is relatively good compared with the rest of the nation.
The state ranks in the top 10 in 11 measures. Colorado ranks 1st in the percentage of
heads of households with a college degree and in the ratio of degrees attained by the
wealthy and the poorest—indicating that college is within reach of the poor.
Households headed by women do not lag behind male-headed households in terms of
homeownership, attainment of a college degree, or in having a three-month financial
safety net (Colorado places 2nd in homeownership by gender, 8th in college attainment
by gender, and 2nd in asset poverty by gender). This indicates that women have a more
equal share in asset holdings when compared with other states. Colorado also scores high
on measures of women’s business ownership (3rd) and the gap in assets between white-
and non-white-headed households (4th); further, the gap between white and non-white
households in terms of a three-month savings safety net is small (8th).
There is room for improvement in terms of health care as a form of asset protection.
The state performs poorly in providing health insurance to low-income parents (ranking
37th) and their children (ranking 44th).
Asset Policy. In Asset Policy, Colorado earns an average grade of C and ranks 29th.
State policymakers are supporting asset building through several measures including,
Individual Development Accounts, state-funded pre-kindergarten programs, and policies
to beginning farmers and other farmers who lack the significant amount of capital
needed to enter the field. The state is particularly strong in its efforts to help disadvan-
taged entrepreneurs through its small business investment company financing (these are
companies that target financing to economically and socially disadvantaged entrepre-
neurs), ranking 2nd. The state has also equalized spending among its school districts
(ranking 5th).
Scores could improve if policymakers focused more on protecting family finances in
the event of injury or job loss workers, as the average weekly workers’ compensation
benefit level ranks 43rd. The state could also improve health care policies (it ranks 39th
in Medicaid expansion for parents, which is key, as covering parents has been linked to in-
creased coverage for children).
Tax Policy and Accountability. Colorado could improve its tax policy accountability.
Colorado fails to prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues
foregone via tax breaks. However, Colorado does determine the impact of state taxes or
changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all income levels.
37
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 8 A A S S E T P O L I C Y : 29 CR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$113,530
RANK—24
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—4
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—7
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—23.9%
RANK—38
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—8
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—2
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—15.6%
RANK—34
Colorado
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. Connecticut scores slightly above the national average, earning a B
and ranking 20th in the Asset Outcomes Index. The state’s final grade resulted from ex-
tremely high and low scores across the index. For example, in the measures of financial
assets, Connecticut boasts a mean net worth of $140,989 (6th), yet the state has a
below-average rank on the gap in asset poverty between white and non-white house-
holds (28th), a higher average asset poverty rate (ranking 29th), and a significant num-
ber of households possessing zero net worth (36th). The asset gap between men and
women, though, is relatively small (6th). The state also dips down in opportunities to ac-
cumulate business capital, ranking 2nd to last in private loans to small businesses (49th).
Owning a home is the largest source of assets for most Americans, but in Connecticut,
this opportunity is limited. The homeownership rate in Connecticut is below the median
(28th), and in particular, the gap in homeownership between white and non-white fami-
lies is the 5th largest among all states.
With regard to human capital measures, Connecticut ranks 1st and 3rd in the nation for
basic educational proficiency in reading and math, respectively, and 5th for overall college
attainment. The state sinks back down again when considering parity with regard to income,
race, or gender, ranking 39th in Head Start coverage, 42nd in the gap in college attainment
between whites and non-whites, and 47th in the gap in college attainment between men
and women. The state improves when looking specifically at measures of asset protection
and health coverage, ranking 1st in the nation in employer-provided health insurance.
Asset Policy. Connecticut earns a B on the Asset Policy Index, ranking 12th in the na-
tion. Importantly, Connecticut is one of very few states with a state minimum wage
higher than the federal minimum wage. State policymakers show commitment to in-
vestments in human capital assets, as evidenced by a state-funded pre-kindergarten pro-
gram, supplementary funds for Head Start, and significant investments in K–12 educa-
tion expenditures (6th).
On the other hand, Connecticut’s asset protection policies need significant improvement.
Connecticut ranks 48th in the nation in unemployment insurance benefit levels and has
no state policy promoting public or private family leave benefits. These policies can help
protect families from financial hardship when working members must take essential time
off for family reasons. State policymakers have also not taken adequate steps to protect
homeowners from predatory lending or insurance redlining.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Connecticut does a fair job on tax policy accountabil-
ity. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues
foregone via tax breaks, and places this report on the web. It does not, however, have
the capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on tax-
payers of all incomes.
38
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 20 B A S S E T P O L I C Y : 12 BR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
Connecticut
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$140,989
RANK—6
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—12
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—6
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—22.5%
RANK—29
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—28
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—14
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—16.1%
RANK—36
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Asset Outcomes. Delaware earns a B and ranks 17th in the Asset Outcome Index, indi-
cating above-average levels of asset distribution and protection in the state. Mean net
worth in Delaware is $131,466 (14th), and asset poverty rates in the state earn it the
rank of 30th in that measure. Home equity is the single largest source of wealth for
Americans, and the state performs exceptionally well in homeownership measures, earn-
ing above-average ranking in overall homeownership rates (72%, ranking 17th) and enjoy-
ing the 6th-highest median value of homes in the nation ($126,761). It has a relatively
small gap in homeownership between high-income earners and low-income earners (4th)
and in homeownership between whites and non-whites (18th), indicating that low-income
and minority residents have more equal access to homeownership options when com-
pared with other states. The gap between homeownership for men and women in
Delaware, however, lags far behind (44th).
Delaware shows mixed results when examining human capital measures, earning re-
spectable ranks in Head Start coverage (10th) and overall college attainment (17th) but
below-average scores in the gap in college attainment between whites and non-whites
(28th) and between men and women (34th).
Asset Policy. Delaware shows above average performance with regard to state asset-
building and protection policies. Financial assets could be bolstered by enacting an
Individual Development Account policy and a state Earned Income Tax Credit, both of
which were recommended by a recent Governor’s Task Force for Financial Independence.
Delaware’s minimum wage is higher than the federal minimum wage, helping the state’s
workers earn more and have more to save.
With regard to asset-protection policies, Delaware ranks 3rd in the nation in workers’
compensation coverage and provides transitional medical assistance to former wel-
fare recipients. These policies help workers protect family finances in the event of in-
jury, job loss, or inadequate employer-provided benefits. Delaware could do more to
help families protect assets. For example, improving the state’s rank (44th) in the benefit
level of unemployment insurance would help protect family assets temporarily when a
worker loses his/her job. Also, policies to stop harmful predatory lending and insurance
redlining practices could be enacted to protect property owners.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Delaware does a pretty good job on tax policy ac-
countability. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of rev-
enues foregone via tax breaks and makes the report available on the web. The state also
has some capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on
all taxpayers, but this capacity is still limited.
39
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 17 B A S S E T P O L I C Y : 11 BR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$131,466
RANK—14
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—22.6%
RANK—30
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—N/A
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—14.0%
RANK—23
Delaware
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. Asset distribution among all of Florida’s residents is just below the median
compared with the rest of the nation. The state ranks 34th in Asset Outcomes, receiving a C
in the index. Florida has a relatively low level of asset poverty (proportion of households that
lack savings to subsist for three months), ranking 11th. While scoring generally in the middle
of the class in most categories, the state receives high marks for having a relatively small
gap in mean net worth between white- and non-white-headed households (5th) and also a
small gap in the three-month safety net held by male- and female-headed households (9th).
Florida ranks around the middle (22nd) in terms of mean net worth, with a value of $117,023.
Florida has the highest score in minority entrepreneurship, ranking 1st in the nation,
but scores very low (48th) in the value of minority businesses. These measures would
seem to indicate that Florida’s non-white population owns a significant share of busi-
nesses in the state; however the value of these firms is relatively low considering their
high representation in the state. Human capital in terms of early childhood education
could use a boost in Florida (it is 47th in Head Start coverage and 30th in basic educa-
tional proficiency in reading). Overall college attainment is mediocre (32nd), yet the gap
in college attainment between whites and non-whites is relatively small (14th). The gap in
college attainment between men and women, though, is of greater concern (41st).
Florida also could do much better in health coverage, ranking 44th in percentage of indi-
viduals covered by employer-provided health insurance and 41st in the percentage of
uninsured low-income parents.
Asset Policy. Florida’s record in Asset Policy is mixed, ranking 30th and earning a C
overall. Florida does well in homeownership policy, using mortgage revenue bonds to help
low-income people purchase homes (8th), having adequate homebuyer assistance pro-
grams, and establishing a state housing trust fund. Financial assets for lower-income
Floridians could be increased with a stronger policy of Individual Development Accounts
and a state minimum wage higher than the federal minimum.
Although Florida has a state-funded pre-kindergarten program, policymakers could do
more to support human capital development. The state ranks low in K–12 education
spending (37th) and ranks near the bottom (44th) in investments in customized job train-
ing. Decision-makers in Florida need to focus more attention on health and property pro-
tection. Policies to consider include Medicaid expansion for low-income adults without chil-
dren, better family leave benefits, transitional medical assistance, and state subsidies for
small business health care coverage. In terms of property protection, policies restricting
predatory lending and insurance redlining could be enacted.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Florida has a mixed record on tax policy accountabil-
ity. Florida prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues fore-
gone via tax breaks. However, it has no capacity to determine the impact of state taxes
or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all income levels.
40
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 34 C A S S E T P O L I C Y : 30 CR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
Florida
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$117,023
RANK—22
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—5
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—24
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—19.6%
RANK—11
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—20
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—9
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—13.2%
RANK—17
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Asset Outcomes. Asset distribution among all Georgia’s residents is low compared with
the rest of the nation. The state ranks 43rd in Asset Outcomes, receiving a D in the
index. As with most other southern states, mean net worth is low (40th) at $89,855. The
proportion of households lacking savings to subsist for three months is also low (41st), as
is the proportion of households with zero net worth (44th). Homeownership capital in
the state fares better. The overall homeownership rate is 70% (30th), and the median
value of homes is $110,337 (11th). Furthermore, the gap in homeownership between
high-income earners and low-income earners is relatively small (11th), and this same gap
between male- and female-headed households is also small (13th).
Georgia does better than most other southern states in business and education rank-
ings, landing around the middle of the class, with the exception of percentage of the
population with associate’s degrees (42nd). In terms of business capital, Georgia’s rank
of the value of businesses owned by women is the highest in the south and 5th nation-
ally. Yet the overall small business ownership rate is relatively low at 10.5% (42nd), and
minority entrepreneurship is also somewhat low (40th). Bank access could also be im-
proved here. The number of households with a non-interest-bearing checking account
ranks 30th, and the number of households with a savings account ranks 47th.
Asset Policy. Georgia generally falls in the middle in Asset Policy, receiving a C in the
index. Georgia has done well in helping low-income people purchase homes, as the state
has implemented adequate first-time homebuyer assistance programs. It highest rank-
ings are in equalizing spending among its school districts (18th) and in support for disad-
vantaged entrepreneurs through small business investment company financing (these
are companies that target financing to economically and socially disadvantaged entre-
preneurs; Georgia ranks 15th). Georgia is also one of 14 states to offer transitional med-
ical assistance as people move from welfare to work, protecting assets of low-income
workers with medical assistance.
However, Georgia does not do well on a variety of other measures, such as unemploy-
ment insurance benefit levels (40th), and Medicaid expansion for low-income parents
(39th), which has been linked to increasing Medicaid enrollment for low-income children.
With better policy in these areas, worker protection and health care could be enhanced
for lower-income families in the state.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Georgia does a poor job on tax policy accountability.
The state fails to prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues
foregone via tax breaks. It also has no capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or
changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all income levels.
41
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 43 D A S S E T P O L I C Y : 35 CR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$89,855
RANK—40
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—23
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—21
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—25.5%
RANK—41
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—16
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—25
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—17.1%
RANK—44
Georgia
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. Overall, Hawaii earned a B in Asset Outcomes. Hawaii has the nation’s
highest average net worth per household and relatively small gaps in most measures
of wealth accumulation between white and non-white households. For example, Hawaii
has the lowest gap in homeownership between white and non-white households and the
2nd-lowest gap in college attainment between white and non-white households. On meas-
ures of business capital, Hawaii is among the top 20 in small business ownership and ranks
7th in minority entrepreneurship. Hawaii’s performance is uneven on homeownership capi-
tal, with the highest median home value but the 2nd-lowest homeownership rate.
Hawaii’s Achilles’ heel is asset accumulation among lower-income households. Eighteen
percent of Hawaiian households have zero or negative net worth (ranking 47th), and
asset poverty is relatively high (ranking 40th). Hawaii also has the 3rd-highest gap in
homeownership between rich and poor. Asset protection in the form of health insurance
is a bright spot; Hawaii has the lowest percentage of low-income uninsured parents of all
states and the 11th lowest percentage of uninsured low-income children.
Asset Policy. Hawaii turns in a mixed performance in Asset Policy, thus earning a C. The
major bright spot for Hawaii is its affordable homeownership policies. These policies are
critical given Hawaii’s sky-high median home value. The upside is that homes are valuable
assets in Hawaii; the downside is that homes are expensive. To help low-income families
purchase homes, Hawaii has a housing trust fund, funds a variety of first-time home-
buyer assistance programs, provides property tax relief for elderly and disabled home-
owners, and ranks 13th in the share of private activity bonds dedicated to home mort-
gage finance.
Hawaii is also strong on asset-protection policies. With the best unemployment insurance
benefits and the 7th-best workers’ compensation benefits, Hawaii does a good job of
protecting wages from injury or job loss. In addition, Hawaii has done a good job of pro-
tecting households from large medical costs by using Medicaid to expand health cover-
age to low-income working parents and low-income adults without children.
Hawaii could do better in terms of facilitating business ownership by improving access to
capital for low- and moderate-income entrepreneurs. While Hawaii offers financing
through a small business investment company, the state has no capital access program,
minimal state microenterprise policies, no support for community development financial
institutions, and has not enacted a state Community Reinvestment Act to cover state-
chartered banks. Action on any of these fronts could enhance business formation by
low-income and other nontraditional entrepreneurs.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Hawaii scores poorly on tax policy accountability. The
state prepares neither a tax expenditure report to itemize the value of revenues fore-
gone via tax breaks, nor does it have the ability to determine the impact of state taxes
or changes in the tax code on all taxpayers.
42
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 19 B A S S E T P O L I C Y : 23 CR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
Hawaii
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$164,318
RANK—1
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—25.2%
RANK—40
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—N/A
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—18.1%
RANK—47
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Asset Outcomes. Idaho ranks 32nd in Asset Outcomes, earning a C. The state scores
well in some of the measures capturing the parity of asset distribution, for example,
the gap in homeownership by male- and female-headed households is low (3rd), and
the gap in college attainment by wealthy and poor residents is relatively low (5th).
Overall, Idaho ranks 34th in the proportion of households lacking the savings to subsist
for three months (one measure of asset poverty) and 37th in mean net worth ($96,358).
Other measures show that there remains room for improvement in asset equity. For ex-
ample, there is a large gap between the percentage of white and non-white heads of
households with a college degree (43rd). Some commendable rankings for Idaho include
households with non-interest-bearing checking accounts (50%, ranking 3rd) and percent-
age of residents with associate’s degrees (6th). However, a low percentage of Idahoans
(45%) hold savings accounts, ranking 49th nationwide.
Health coverage is also an area needing improvement. Idaho ranks 46th in the percent-
age of uninsured low-income children (28%) and 47th in the percentage of uninsured
low-income parents (43%).
Asset Policy. Idaho comes in below average in the Asset Policy Index, earning a D and
ranking 39th. The state has only a few policies to protect family finances and health in
the event of injury or job loss, such as strong workers’ compensation provisions and
health care. Idaho does have a handful of policies that encourage asset building among
all of its residents. Of these, state policymakers have supported limited Individual
Development Account policies and multiple initiatives to help first-time homebuyers.
However, more needs to be done. Efforts to support education are weaker in Idaho com-
pared with the rest of the nation (K–12 expenditures rank 45th, and need-based financial
aid for college is 40th). In addition, Idaho could increase workers’ compensation coverage
(40th).
Tax Policy and Accountability. Idaho does a fair job on tax policy accountability. The
state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues foregone
via tax breaks and makes this report easily available by placing it on the web. Idaho, how-
ever, has no capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code
on taxpayers of all income levels.
43
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 32 C A S S E T P O L I C Y : 39 DR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$96,358
RANK—37
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—23.5%
RANK—34
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—12
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—15.3%
RANK—30
Idaho
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. Illinois is average in Asset Outcomes, earning a C and ranking 26th na-
tionwide. On measures of financial assets, the state is middle-of-the-road, ranking 20th
for mean net worth ($118,146 per household), 15th for the percentage of asset poor
families (20%) and 29th for the percentage of households with zero net worth (15%).
Notable achievement comes in the gap in wealth between white and non-white house-
holds, which is the nation’s 6th smallest. On measures of homeownership capital, Illinois is
equally lackluster. Only 68% of families own their own homes (ranking 39th) and the gap
in homeownership between rich and poor and between white and non-white households,
ranking 35th and 36th respectively, is relatively large. Finally, besides a relatively small
gap in college attainment between white-headed and non-white-headed households,
Illinois has uninspiring scores on measures of human capital accumulation.
Asset protection in the form of health insurance is also average in Illinois. The state ranks
above the median for the percentage of residents covered by employer-provided health
insurance (15th) and the percentage of uninsured low-income parents (21st), but ranks
31st in the percentage of uninsured low-income children (almost 22% of the state’s low-
income children).
Asset Policy. Policymakers in Illinois have passed a good set of initiatives for asset build-
ing and asset protection when compared with the rest of the United States. The state
ranks 9th in the index and earns an A. For example, financial asset accumulation is en-
couraged through support for Individual Development Account policies and more gen-
erous asset limits for public assistance. Moreover, the state has enacted a number of
programs to support small business development and the accumulation of business capi-
tal, including a capital access program, support for community development financial in-
stitutions, and policies to support employee ownership. Finally, the state is one of only
six to increase access to asset-building opportunities by passing lifeline banking regula-
tions that require banks to offer lower fee accounts for senior citizens. To help low-in-
come families keep more of their earnings and have more to save, the state should con-
sider making its Earned Income Tax Credit more generous and refundable.
Illinois does a good job of protecting assets in homes, with policies to prevent insurance
redlining and predatory mortgage lending. At the same time, Illinois lacks many health in-
surance policies that could help shield family finances from medical emergencies. To im-
prove in this area, state policymakers should consider enacting state family leave bene-
fits and extending transitional medical assistance beyond 12 months for people leaving
welfare for work.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Illinois does an above-average job on tax policy ac-
countability. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of rev-
enues foregone via tax breaks, though this report is not available on the web. Illinois also
analyzes the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all income
levels.
44
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 26 C A S S E T P O L I C Y : 9 AR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
Illinois
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$118,146
RANK—20
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—6
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—12
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—20.0%
RANK—15
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—21
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—30
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—15.0%
RANK—29
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Asset Outcomes. Indiana is above average in Asset Outcomes; the state receives a B in
the index and ranks 14th overall. Although the proportion of households lacking savings
to subsist for three months (a measure of asset poverty) is just below average (27th),
the state has a small gap in asset poverty between white-headed and non-white-headed
households (12th), and the gap in mean net worth between white-headed households
and non-white-headed households is relatively small (14th). Indiana’s mean net worth is
$101,622, ranking only 30th.
On the whole, measures of homeownership are strong. The homeownership rate is
75% (8th), and the gap in homeownership between white- and non-white-headed
households is relatively small, with Indiana ranking 4th in this measure of racial parity.
Indiana boasts good scores in educational proficiency in math (4th). The gap in college at-
tainment between white- and non-white-headed households is small (4th), and the gap of
college attainment between the wealthiest and poorest residents is small (6th).
Conversely, the overall rate of college attainment is not good (47th), nor is the percent-
age of residents who have obtained an associate’s degree; both measures are worrisome,
as education helps determine economic prospects.
Measures of health insurance also vary. Employer-provided health insurance is good (8th),
yet 23% of low-income children (36th) and 29% of low-income parents are uninsured
(19th).
Asset Policy. Falling at the midpoint exactly (25th), Indiana earns a C in Asset Policy. The
state was one of the pioneers in supporting financial asset building through Individual
Development Account policies and encourages homeownership with a housing trust fund
and multiple first-time homebuyer assistance programs. Efforts to spur business and
human capital are also notable, such as the state’s capital access program (which pro-
vides incentives for private banks to make loans to low- and moderate-income communi-
ties). In terms of human capital, Indiana ranks 7th in provision of need-based financial aid
and 10th in K–12 expenditures.
More attention needs to be placed on asset protection in the state. For example, the
state has not been aggressive at expanding health care coverage to parents of Medicaid-
eligible children, nor has it passed anti-predatory mortgage lending laws or anti-insurance
redlining laws to protect the assets of low-income homeowners.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Indiana does a poor job on tax policy accountability.
The state fails to prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues
foregone via tax breaks. It also has no capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or
changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all income levels.
45
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 14 B A S S E T P O L I C Y : 25 CR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$101,622
RANK—30
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—14
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—20
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—22.2%
RANK—27
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—12
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—29
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—13.6%
RANK—21
Indiana
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. Iowa ranks 1st in the nation on Asset Outcomes. Its success is
broad-based, with strong outcomes in most measures of asset accumulation and dis-
tribution. For example, Iowa has not only the 5th-highest average household net worth,
but also the lowest rates of asset poverty and households with zero net worth. Iowa also
ranks high on most measures of human capital accumulation and distribution—landing in
the top 10 nationwide in basic educational proficiency in both math and reading and
ranking 11th in the category of adults with at least an associate’s degree. In addition,
Iowa is among the 10 states with the lowest gaps in college attainment between rich and
poor, whites and non-whites, and males and females.
Iowa’s performance shows more mixed results in homeownership capital accumulation.
The state has the 6th-best homeownership rate and the 5th-lowest gap in homeowner-
ship between rich and poor. Yet, the state ranks 46th in homeownership by race, mean-
ing that non-white-headed households have low homeownership rates relative to white-
headed households. Finally, asset protection in the form of health insurance is also a
bright spot, with Iowa having the 12th lowest percentage of uninsured low-income chil-
dren and the 4th-lowest percentage of low-income uninsured parents.
Asset Policy. Iowa earned an above average B in Asset Policy, ranking 14th among all states.
The state does a good job of helping families to build financial assets, with a state Earned
Income Tax Credit and a fairly high income tax threshold, which allow low-income tax-
payers to pay less in income taxes and have more to save. Iowa has also been at the
forefront of the new movement to provide wealth-building incentives for low-income
households and was the first state to enact Individual Development Accounts legislation.
Iowa also has strong policies to support human capital accumulation, ranking 1st in cus-
tomized job training investments per capita, 8th in need-based financial aid, and among
the top 20 in K–12 expenditures and investments to equalize per-pupil spending among
all the state’s school districts.
Iowa also performs well on asset protection policies. With the 4th-highest unemployment
insurance benefits and the 20th-highest workers’ compensation benefits, Iowa does well
in protecting wages from injury or job loss. Iowa also does a good job of protecting
households from large medical costs that can deplete assets. For example, the state has
been relatively aggressive at expanding health coverage to low-income working parents
using Medicaid. In addition, Iowa is also one of nine states to offer subsidies for small
businesses to offer health insurance to their employees.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Iowa performs well on tax policy accountability. The
state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues foregone
via tax breaks and makes the report available on the web. The state also has some capac-
ity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on all taxpayers,
but this capacity is still limited.
46
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 1 A A S S E T P O L I C Y : 14 BR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
Iowa
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$142,327
RANK—5
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—14
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—14.2%
RANK—1
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—32
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—8.9%
RANK—1
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Asset Outcomes. Kansas earns a C in Asset Outcomes, ranking 24th out of all states.
The majority of its asset outcome measures also fell into this mediocre range (rather
than exhibiting a mix of highs and lows, as with California). Mean net worth in Kansas is
$120,112, ranking 19th and asset poverty is somewhat higher here, receiving a rank of
32nd. Other financial assets of Kansas residents tend toward the low end: the state
ranked 32nd in the proportion of residents who lack sufficient net worth to subsist at
the poverty level for three months. Kansas also came in 35th in terms of the gap in as-
sets between men and women and 20th in the gap in asset poverty between men and
women.
Kansas also falls into the middle range for business capital—about 12% of Kansans ac-
tively holds business capital, landing Kansas 21st among states in the business ownership
rate. Kansas ranks 25th for minority entrepreneurship, showing that the state has a
mediocre share of non-white firms in the state. Kansas does better in terms of business
ownership value by race, ranking 15th.
As with other sectors, Kansas, does middling for health care—almost 20% of the state’s
low-income children lack insurance, and 28% of low-income parents lack insurance.
Asset Policy. Kansas earned a C in Asset Policy, ranking 26th among all states. Kansas
does fairly well on wage protection, offering 45% of the average weekly wage as an
unemployment benefit, earning the state a 2nd-place ranking. (In contrast, the bot-
tom state, California, offers only 22% of the state’s average weekly wage as an unem-
ployment benefit.) Ninety percent of Kansas’ workers are covered by workers’ compensa-
tion, leading to a ranking of 19th. These measures—unemployment insurance and
workers’ compensation—help protect family finances in the event of injury or job loss.
Kansas has a good foundation of housing policies on which to build. The state ranks
10th in funding for mortgage revenue bonds, allocating 70% of its private activity bonds
for affordable housing. Also, Kansas funds a state housing trust fund, reduces property
taxes for some low-income homeowners, and offers several first-time homebuyer assis-
tance programs.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Kansas does a poor job on tax policy accountability.
The state does not prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues
foregone via tax breaks. It has some capacity, though, to determine the impact of state
taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all income levels.
47
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 24 C A S S E T P O L I C Y : 26 CR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$120,112
RANK—19
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—35
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—23.0%
RANK—32
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—20
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—13.9%
RANK—22
Kansas
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. Kentucky ranks 37th in Asset Outcomes, receiving a D. As with most
other southern states, mean net worth of Kentucky’s residents is quite low compared
with other parts of the country (42nd). The state ranks 26th in the proportion of house-
holds lacking financial savings to subsist for three months (a measure of asset poverty).
Kentucky has success in the area of homeownership, ranking 13th in homeownership
rates and 8th in homeownership by income. The state has comprehensive Head Start
coverage (24%), ranking 11th, but as with most other southern states, ranks near the
bottom in percentage of residents with associate’s degrees (46th) and overall college at-
tainment (44th). The gap between female-headed households and male-headed house-
holds with a college degree is relatively large (40th), as is the gap in college attainment
between the wealthiest and poorest residents (49th, with only Mississippi doing worse).
It does, however, outrank all other southern states in having a small gap in college
attainment between white- and non-white-headed households, placing 5th nationally.
Business capital in the state is mixed, with the women’s business ownership rate being
relatively low, leading to a ranking of 45th, but business ownership value by race is rela-
tively high, leading to a ranking of 6th. Bank access is also varied; a relatively high per-
centage of Kentuckians have non-interest-bearing checking accounts (8th), but a low
percentage have savings accounts (43rd).
Asset Policy. As with most other southern states, Kentucky’s policies on asset build-
ing are relatively weak, ranking 38th nationally and earning a D. The state does partic-
ularly well in terms of using a solid set of policies to assist first-time homebuyers. Areas
of concern include the state’s lack of small business investment company financing
(these are companies that target financing to economically and socially disadvantaged
entrepreneurs [42nd]).
Kentucky has a mixed record with regard to education, doing relatively well in K–12 edu-
cation expenditures (18th) and need-based financial aid (15th), but low in the degree to
which the state has equalized spending among its school districts (39th), which raises eq-
uity concerns.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Kentucky has a good record on tax policy accountabil-
ity. Kentucky does prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues
foregone via tax breaks, though this report is not available on the web. Also, it has the
capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers
of all income levels.
48
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 37 D A S S E T P O L I C Y : 38 DR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
Kentucky
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$83,482
RANK—42
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—19
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—22.0%
RANK—26
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—22
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—13.5%
RANK—20
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Asset Outcomes. Louisiana scores the lowest among the 50 states and receives an F in
the Asset Outcomes index. The state ranks among the bottom 10 on a variety of meas-
ures of financial asset accumulation and distribution, including mean household net
worth (41st), asset poverty (43rd), asset inequality by gender (41st), and households
with zero net worth (46th). Louisiana is also very weak on measures of human capital
accumulation, ranking well below the median on every measure, especially higher educa-
tion. For example, Louisiana ranks last in attainment of associate’s degrees, 48th in col-
lege attainment by gender, 40th in college attainment, 40th in college attainment by in-
come, and 39th in college attainment by race.
On measures of business capital accumulation, Louisiana also does poorly, with an overall
small business rate below the median (31st) and dismal ranks on minority entrepreneur-
ship (47th) and women’s business ownership (48th). Homeownership is also well below the
median (37th), and while the gap in homeownership among rich and poor is the nation’s
8th lowest, the state has the largest gender gap in homeownership.
Asset Policy. As with most other southern states, Louisiana’s policies on asset building
are relatively poor, earning the state a D. The state lacks a number of policies that would
help to make work pay and allow low-income families to have more to save, such as a
state minimum wage or a state Earned Income Tax Credit. Besides devoting a large share
of the state’s private activity bonds to mortgage finance, the state does little else for
affordable homeownership, with no housing trust fund, few first-time homebuyer pro-
grams, and no circuit-breaker provisions to lower property taxes for elderly and disabled
homeowners. The state’s investments in human capital accumulation are also lackluster,
ranking 32nd in K–12 expenditures, 34th in investments to equalize per-pupil expendi-
ture, and 45th in need-based financial aid. On the bright side, Louisiana has imple-
mented several innovative policies to directly incentivize asset accumulation among
low-income households, including Individual Development Accounts and offering a
match for low-income families saving in the state’s college savings plan.
Finally, Louisiana has done little to protect the assets of low-income and working-poor
families. In particular, with unemployment insurance benefits ranking 42nd and the 2nd-
worst workers’ compensation benefits, Louisiana does a poor job of protecting wages
from injury or job loss.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Louisiana does a fair job on tax policy accountability.
One the one hand, it does prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of
revenues foregone via tax breaks and makes the report available on the web. On the
other hand, the state has no capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes
in the tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.
49
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 50 F A S S E T P O L I C Y : 42 DR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$88,614
RANK—41
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—21
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—41
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—25.9%
RANK—43
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—24
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—28
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—17.7%
RANK—46
Louisiana
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. Maine is among the highest scoring state in Asset Outcomes, ranking
4th in the nation and receiving an A in the index. The state ranks in the top 10 in 11
measures. Most notably, Maine leads the nation in homeownership measures, enjoying
a 76.5% homeownership rate (2nd). The state has the smallest gap in the nation in
homeownership between high-income earners and low-income earners. It has the 8th-
lowest gap in homeownership between men and women. It is important to note, though,
that Maine has the lowest median home value in the nation ($55,276), which may explain
its high levels of access to homeownership among low-income residents and women.
Financial asset measures are mixed in the state. Maine’s residents have a relatively high
mean net worth (12th) and a somewhat average level of asset poverty (22nd), but the
state is burdened by a high number of overall households with zero net worth (32nd).
This means that residents who have financial assets enjoy relatively high average asset
levels, but a number of residents in Maine have no financial assets at all. With regard to
business capital, Maine has high levels of small business ownership (5th) and minority en-
trepreneurship (6th) but, surprisingly, ranks last in the nation in private loans to small
businesses.
Asset Policy. Maine also receives an A in the Asset Policy Index, ranking 8th in the coun-
try. The state leads the nation in policies that support business assets, including state
funding dedicated to microenterprise development and a state-supported community
development financial institution initiative. State policymakers have also enacted legisla-
tion that encourages employee ownership and allows residents to pursue self-employ-
ment and remain eligible for unemployment benefits. Financial assets are promoted with
Individual Development Accounts (IDAs). Although more could be done, the state has allo-
cated $200,000 in state funds to Maine’s IDA program and includes IDAs in its Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) plan.
Despite its strong performance in policies that build and facilitate asset accumula-
tion, Maine needs improvement with regard to asset protection. The state has no spe-
cific policies to protect a family’s finances during hard times. Workers could benefit from
better protection from job injury with more comprehensive workers’ compensation cov-
erage (39th). Moreover, health care policies also need to be enacted. State policymakers
should consider providing family leave benefits to help families when they must take es-
sential time off, expand Medicaid to low-income adults without children to help provide
all adults with health care, and provide incentives to small businesses to offer health care
coverage for employees.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Maine also does a fairly good job on tax policy ac-
countability. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of rev-
enues foregone via tax breaks, although it does not make this report available on the
web. It also has full capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the
tax code on taxpayers of all income levels.
50
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 4 A A S S E T P O L I C Y : 8 AR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
Maine
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$131,525
RANK—12
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—28
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—21.8%
RANK—22
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—6
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—15.4%
RANK—32
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Asset Outcomes. Maryland has average levels of asset distribution, earning a C and
ranking 28th in the Asset Outcomes Index. Overall, Maryland performs well in financial
assets measures with relatively low levels of asset poverty (12th) and high levels of
mean net worth ($138,422, ranking 9th) among residents. However, Maryland’s per-
formance is mixed when examining measures of homeownership capital and human capi-
tal. Maryland has a high median home value ($150,254, ranking 2nd), yet suffers from
below-average overall homeownership rates (just fewer than 70% and ranking 29th). The
state has a strong showing in college attainment (2nd), yet the gap between college at-
tainment for higher-income earners and lower-income earners is troublesome (44th).
Small business ownership and access to private capital is poor in Maryland, with the state
ranking 44th in both small business ownership and private loans to small businesses and
showing low levels of business wealth among minorities and women (45th and 33rd, re-
spectively). With regard to asset protection, the state has the 2nd-highest level of em-
ployer-provided health insurance, but more must be done. Twenty-eight percent of low-
income children (43rd) and 40% of low-income parents (46th) are uninsured in the state.
Asset Policy. Maryland improves its scores when considering Asset Policy, earning a B
and ranking 15th. State lawmakers have enacted some important policies supporting af-
fordable homeownership including the development of a state housing trust fund and al-
locating a healthy percentage of its private activity bonds towards affordable homeown-
ership (mortgage revenue bonds, 2nd). The state also shows support for business capital
with self-employment policies. For example, the state designates some funds for micro-
enterprise development, enacts legislation to encourage employee ownership, and allows
residents to pursue self-employment and remain eligible for unemployment benefits.
Maryland’s asset protection policies lag behind its asset building policies, particularly
around health coverage and unemployment insurance for its residents. The state pro-
vides no health care benefits to non-disabled low-income adults without children and
ranks 38th in access to publicly provided health insurance for low-income parents (state
Children’s Health Insurance Program and Medicaid expansion). Moreover, the benefit level
of unemployment insurance could be improved (40th).
Tax Policy and Accountability. Maryland does a mediocre job on tax policy accounta-
bility. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues
foregone via tax breaks, though this report is not available on the web. It also has limited
capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers
of all income levels.
51
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 28 C A S S E T P O L I C Y : 15 BR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$138,422
RANK—9
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—13
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—34
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—19.8%
RANK—12
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—19
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—19
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—15.3%
RANK—31
Maryland
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. Massachusetts earned a C in the Asset Outcomes Index, ranking 23rd
when compared with other states. While mean net worth in the state is $132,292, rank-
ing 10th nationwide, asset poverty is relatively high (33rd) and the number of house-
holds with zero net worth is also surprisingly high (41st). This means that many house-
holds do not share the overall wealth of the state. The state has a strong showing in
human capital measures, illustrated by high levels of basic educational proficiency in
reading (3rd) and math (2nd) and strong overall college attainment (3rd).
Areas in need of improvement in Massachusetts include facilitating homeownership and
small business development. The homeownership rate is only 60% (47th) and worsens
when examining the gap in homeownership between whites and non-whites (45th) and
the gap between higher-income earners and low-income earners (47th). Small business
capital could be enhanced with more private loans to small businesses (48th). Asset pro-
tection in the form of health insurance, on the other hand, is relatively strong in
Massachusetts. Only 12% of low-income children and 18% of low-income parents are
uninsured (6th and 3rd, respectively).
Asset Policy. Massachusetts fares much better in Asset Policy, earning an A and ranking
2nd in the country. Although the state does not currently fund Individual Development
Accounts to help build financial assets, it provides a high level of support for building
business assets. It ranks 1st in small business investment company financing to low-in-
come and minority businesses and provides state funding for community development
financial institutions. The state also has a capital access program to encourage private
lenders to make loans to low- and moderate-income customers. With regard to financial
services, Massachusetts’ lawmakers have enacted lifeline banking regulations requiring
banks to offer basic low-cost financial services. Notably, Massachusetts is one of only
two states that have enacted Community Reinvestment Act legislation that encour-
ages state-chartered banks to lend in underserved communities.
Massachusetts also scores better in its asset protection policies than most other states.
It has implemented unemployment insurance reforms that provide increased benefits
and protection to workers who have lost their jobs, and it is one of only a few states
that have enacted policies to protect property owners against insurance redlining. The
state, however, does not offer at least one year of transitional medical assistance to for-
mer welfare recipients and lags behind other states in the provision of family leave bene-
fits, both of which could help improve health insurance coverage in the state.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Massachusetts does an above-average job on tax pol-
icy accountability. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of
revenues foregone via tax breaks and makes this report available on the web. It also has
limited capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on
taxpayers of all income levels.
52
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 23 C A S S E T P O L I C Y : 2 AR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
Massachusetts
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$132,292
RANK—10
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—24
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—16
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—23.0%
RANK—33
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—25
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—34
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—16.3%
RANK—41
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Asset Outcomes. Michigan performs above average in the Asset Outcomes Index, earn-
ing a B and ranking 18th nationwide. Highlights include a mean net worth in the state of
$122,900, which is slightly above average (17th). Residents experience less asset
poverty, as measured by the proportion of households lacking savings to subsist for
three months here (8th), compared with the other states. Michigan also ranks tops in
the nation with a homeownership rate of 77.2%. Finally asset protection in the form of
health insurance is strong with employer-provided health insurance ranking Michigan
12th, and only 14% of low-income children lacking insurance.
On measures of the distribution of assets, Michigan is also strong. For example, financial
assets are more evenly distributed by race in Michigan. The gap in mean net worth be-
tween white- and non-white-headed households in relatively small (15th), and the gap in
asset poverty between white- and non-white and non-white-headed households is mod-
erate (11%). Further, the gap in college attainment between white and non-white house-
holds is relatively small, though college attainment overall is still only ranked 31st.
The state lags behind the rest of the nation in several key measures. The gaps in mean
net worth between female-headed households male-headed households is relatively large
(40th), as is the gap in asset poverty between male-headed and female-headed house-
holds (36th). In terms of small business ownership, the state ranks 48th and 43rd in mi-
nority entrepreneurship.
Asset Policy. Asset policy is average in Michigan. The state ranks 21st, receiving a C.
Michigan offers several key policies to incentivize asset accumulation for low-wealth resi-
dents. Some of these are comprehensive Individual Development Account policies, more
generous asset limits for public assistance, numerous first-time homebuyers assistance
programs, and offering matching grants to low- and moderate-income families with col-
lege savings plans.
Policymakers, however, need to incorporate more initiatives to protect families’ health
and finances in the event of injury or job loss. Health insurance, workers’ compensation,
and measures of property protection are ranked in the lower third relative to other
states.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Michigan does a very good job on tax policy accounta-
bility. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues
foregone via tax breaks and makes this report available on the web. Michigan also has the
capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers
of all income levels.
53
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 18 B A S S E T P O L I C Y : 21 CR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$122,900
RANK—17
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—15
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—40
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—19.0%
RANK—8
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—11
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—36
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—13.2%
RANK—15
Michigan
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. Minnesota is very strong in the Assets Outcomes Index, ranking 6th
overall, earning an A. Minnesotans enjoy a fair distribution of assets among all residents,
compared with the rest of the nation. Most notably, the state performs well in several
measures of financial assets. Minnesota ranks 2nd in having low levels of asset poverty as
measured by the proportion of households lacking savings to subsist for three months is
low and a low proportion of households with zero net worth, ranking 3rd. Mean net worth is
above average ($129,624), ranking 15th. While the overall homeownership rate is high (76%,
ranking 4th), the distribution of homeownership among different people is more trouble-
some. The gap in homeownership between the wealthiest and poorest Minnesotans is large,
ranking 40th, and the gap in homeownership between male- and female-headed households
is also relatively large, ranking 39th.
Minnesota is helping to spearhead the field of health coverage for low-income people.
Employer-provided health insurance is relatively high, with 76% of residents covered,
ranking 3rd. A relatively low 22% of low-income parents lack insurance (9th), while 15% of
low-income children lack insurance (15th).
Asset Policy. Although there is still much work to do in designing comprehensive
asset policy, Minnesota is remarkable compared with its peers. The state earns an A,
ranking 4th overall. Policymakers have made concerted efforts to boost financial assets,
human capital, and small business development. Minnesota boasts support for Individual
Development Account policies and a state Earned Income Tax Credit and has the 2nd-
highest income tax threshold ($25,600) for public assistance. In terms of human capital, the
state spends resources to help its students afford college (ranking 3rd in need-based finan-
cial aid) and offers matching funds to low- and moderate-income families participating in a
college savings plan.
Minnesota boasts a strong set of health care policies. It is one of 10 states that offers
Medicaid expansion for low-income adults without children, it offers family leave bene-
fits, and it is ranked 1st in Medicaid expansion for low-income parents. Moreover, it is one
of eight states that requires property insurers to disclose where and to whom they pro-
vide insurance in order to attempt to prevent insurance redlining.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Minnesota performs well in the transparency and ac-
countability measures. Minnesota prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the
value of revenues foregone via tax breaks and makes this report available on the web.
Also, Minnesota has the capacity to determine the impact of changes in the tax code on
taxpayers of all income levels.
54
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 6 A A S S E T P O L I C Y : 4 AR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
Minnesota
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$129,624
RANK—15
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—2
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—15.7%
RANK—2
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—16
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—10.0%
RANK—3
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Asset Outcomes. Mississippi earns a D on the Asset Outcomes Index, but there are
some signs of hope. On measures of financial asset accumulation and distribution,
Mississippi’s rankings are mixed. Like most southern states, mean net worth is very low
(45th). However, Mississippi has the nation’s 10th-lowest asset poverty rate (19%), its per-
centage of households with zero net worth is the 4th-lowest (11%), and it has the small-
est gap in asset poverty between whites and non-whites (1st). Troubling, though, is the
extent to which Mississippians lack connections to basic mechanisms to accumulate as-
sets—the state ranks 48th in households with a non-interest-bearing checking account
and last in households with a savings account.
Measures of homeownership capital are also decidedly mixed. The homeownership rate is
the nation’s 6th best, but the median values of homes ranks 48th. The benefits of home-
ownership are spread fairly evenly across Mississippi, though, with the 7th-lowest gap in
homeownership both between white and non-white households and between rich and
poor households.
On measures of human capital accumulation, Mississippi is mostly poor. Though the state
ranks high in the percentage of kids covered by Head Start, it is well below the median on
basic math and reading proficiency, ranks 46th in college attainment, and ranks last in the
gap in college attainment between whites and non-whites. There are some positive signs
in measures of business capital accumulation, with the 3rd-highest value of private loans
to small business and an overall ownership rate of small businesses that is above the me-
dian. However, the ownership of small businesses is not widely distributed, with the worst
rate of minority entrepreneurship and the worst women’s business ownership rate.
Asset Policy. Mississippi ranks 48th nationally and earns an F on the Asset Policy Index.
In general, state government support for policies to build or protect assets, particularly
those of lower-income households, is very weak. Mississippi has low rankings in some of
the basics of state policy, such as need-based financial aid (47th), K–12 spending (44th),
and use of private activity bonds for home mortgage finance (35th). The state also
lacks innovative policies, such as a state Earned Income Tax Credit, support for mi-
croenterprise development, aid for asset-poor farmers, or funding for Individual
Development Accounts.
Mississippi also performs poorly on asset-protection policies. With unemployment insur-
ance benefits well below the median and a ranking among the bottom 10 for the per-
centage of workers covered by workers’ compensation, Mississippi does a poor job of
protecting wages from injury or job loss.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Mississippi does a fair job on tax policy accountability.
The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues foregone
via tax breaks, though this report is not available on the web. It also has limited capacity to
determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.
55
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 39 D A S S E T P O L I C Y : 48 FR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$79,552
RANK—45
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—20
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—27
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—19.4%
RANK—10
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—1
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—40
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—10.7%
RANK—4
Mississippi
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. Missouri has done well in Asset Outcomes measures, ranking 16th and
earning a B in the index. Mean net worth in the state is $105,861, ranking 28th. The gap
in assets between whites and non-whites is relatively small here (3rd), but this same
gap between men and women is much larger (39th). Asset poverty in Missouri is 20th,
yet this same measure examined by gender is much more telling. The gap in asset poverty
between men and women is relatively bigger, ranking 39th in the nation. The measures
of homeownership capital are somewhat similar. The overall homeownership rate is 74%
(ranking 10th), yet the gap in homeownership between men and women ranks 38th.
In terms of human capital, Missouri’s rankings are mixed. The state falls near the median
in basic education proficiency (15th in reading and 19th in math) but near the bottom in
adult education, as measured by the number of associate’s degrees (43rd). Overall col-
lege attainment is about average at almost 24% (24th). The gap in college attainment be-
tween men and women is quite small here (3rd), and this same gap is a little larger be-
tween whites and non-whites (11th); the gap grows when high-income earners and
low-income earners are compared (43rd). Health insurance coverage for lower-income
families is commendable here. The percentage of uninsured low-income children is 12
(7th), and 20% of low-income parents are uninsured (6th).
Asset Policy. Missouri is average in Asset Policy, ranking 28th and earning a C in the
index. Financial assets are encouraged here with Individual Development Account pro-
grams and more flexible asset limits for public assistance. Further financial asset build-
ing could be enhanced with a state Earned Income Tax Credit and a state minimum wage
that is higher than the federal minimum wage. These two policies would help boost the
income of low-wage workers in Missouri. Policymakers support homeownership and,
therefore, the valuable asset of home equity through a state housing trust fund, some
property tax circuit breakers, and limited assistance for first-time homebuyers.
Small business capital and bank access could be improved in Missouri. Although the state
provides assistance to asset-poor farmers and some support for microentrepreneurs, poli-
cymakers could also enact employee ownership policies and a state community develop-
ment financial institution to encourage the growth of small business capital. Bank access
could be addressed with the implementation of two key policies. Lifeline banking regulations
would help all residents have basic banking services, and a state Community Reinvestment
Act could encourage banks to lend in underserved communities. In terms of property pro-
tection, Missouri has not implemented legislation against predatory lending, but it is note-
worthy that it is one of the few states to pass initiatives against insurance redlining.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Missouri does a very good job on tax policy accounta-
bility. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues
foregone via tax breaks and puts this report on the web so that it is easily accessible. It
also has full capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code
on taxpayers of all incomes.
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 16 B A S S E T P O L I C Y : 28 CR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$105,861
RANK—28
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—3
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—39
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—21.3%
RANK—20
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—17
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—39
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—13.1%
RANK—14
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Missouri
56
Asset Outcomes. Falling just below average, Montana ranks 29th and earns a C in Asset
Outcomes. The mean net worth of state residents is $97,647, ranking 35th, and the state
ranks 36th in asset poverty, which means it is average in the proportion of the popula-
tion of households without sufficient net worth to subsist at the poverty level for three
months. Most notably, Montana has the highest small business ownership rate, at al-
most 20%, and the 4th-highest women’s business ownership rate. However, the value
of these women-owned firms is relatively low (a mean of $9,139), ranking 47th.
Investments in human capital are also apparent, especially for children. Basic educational
proficiency is good (the state ranks 3rd in reading and 12th in math), and Head Start cov-
erage is 15th in the nation. While overall college attainment is below average (30th),
women and those of lower income have higher college attainment rates (12th and 8th,
respectively) than many other states, indicating that colleges in the state are accessible
to all residents. The percentage of adults with associate’s degrees is relatively low,
though (5%, ranking 45th). One area of particular concern is health insurance. The state
ranks near the bottom in all such measures. The percentage of uninsured low-income
children (27%) is 41st, and 34% of low-income parents are also uninsured (34th).
Meanwhile, employer-provided health insurance ranks 49th.
Asset Policy. Montana is weak in Asset Policy, coming in 41st and receiving a D in the
Index. The state has mediocre financial asset-building strategies, with a decent Individual
Development Account policy leading the pack. Some housing policies are also in force
through property tax circuit breakers and a state housing trust fund. Measures of
human capital are somewhat lacking here. Spending on public schools across the state is
relatively unequal (45th), and need-based financial aid for undergraduates is 42nd.
Moreover policies are absent for supplementary funds for Head Start, state-funded pre-
kindergarten, and college savings plans with matching funds.
Business capital is also failing here. Investments in small businesses are sparse (small busi-
ness investment company investments rank 48th). Key policies to help these entrepre-
neurs are also missing. Neither a state microenterprise policy, a capital access program,
nor a state community development financial institution exists here, although these pro-
grams could possibly help build business assets among Montanans. On a positive note,
state legislators support employee ownership and some initiatives for asset-poor farm-
ers. Asset protection measures are virtually nonexistent here. The only asset-protec-
tion policy is partial support for family leave benefits.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Accountability and transparency in the state are rela-
tively good. The state produces a tax expenditure report, revealing how it spends tax-
payer dollars, and makes this report easily available on the web. It has also developed a
limited capacity to analyze the impact that changes in the tax code will have on all resi-
dents before it passes new tax laws.
57
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 29 C A S S E T P O L I C Y : 41 DR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$97,647
RANK—35
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—22
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—23.8%
RANK—36
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—33
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—14.2%
RANK—24
Montana
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. Nebraska ranks 15th among all states in Asset Outcomes, landing a
solid B in the index. Mean net worth here is $108,831 (27th), and the percentage of
households with zero to negative net worth is 13%. Financial asset measures examined by
gender are more striking. The gap in assets between men and women is relatively small
(9th), and the same gap for asset poverty is even smaller (5th). Nebraska could improve
homeownership capital, with 70% of state residents owning homes (26th). Nebraska
ranks 34th in the gap in homeownership between whites and non-whites and 32nd in the
gap in homeownership between the top income earners and the bottom income earners
in the state. This means that homeownership is not equal among high- and low-income
people or between white- and non-white-headed households.
Nebraska could do better in education, as it ranks in the mid- to low 30s in college attain-
ment measures. On the bright side, Nebraska does well facilitating build-up in business
capital; 15% of Nebraskans actively hold business capital, and Nebraska ranks 11th in pri-
vate loans to small businesses. Nebraska also does well in health care, landing in the top
10, ranking 8th in the percentage of low-income uninsured children, and ranking 9th
for low-income uninsured parents.
Asset Policy. Nebraska needs to revisit its asset policy approach, as the state earned a
C, ranking 31st among all states. Nebraska has a mixed basket of policies to assist people
purchasing homes. For example, it ranks last in allocating state funds for mortgages to
support affordable homeownership, yet Nebraska is one of only three states to offer
the full complement of possible first-time homebuyer assistance programs. The state
also offers a capital source through a state housing trust fund and reduces property
taxes with a circuit breaker program for some low-income homeowners.
Policymakers need to target asset protection as a policy priority in the state. In terms
of health insurance, Nebraska expands Medicaid for low-income parents to 55% of the
poverty level, leaving the state 33rd in the rankings. On the upside, Nebraska is one of
only 14 states to provide transitional medical assistance to families moving from welfare
to work, where they may still be unable to afford health insurance. Property protection
could also be enhanced in Nebraska with policies and legislation restricting insurance
redlining and predatory lending.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Nebraska does a very good job on tax policy account-
ability. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues
foregone via tax breaks and puts this report on the web so that it is easily accessible. It
also has full capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code
on taxpayers of all incomes.
58
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 15 B A S S E T P O L I C Y : 31 CR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
Nebraska
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$108,831
RANK—27
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—9
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—21.4%
RANK—21
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—5
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—13.2%
RANK—16
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Asset Outcomes. Nevada fails in Asset Outcomes, ranking 46th in the index. Low scores
are mostly attributed to a lack of business capital. Small business ownership is the lowest in
the nation (9%), perhaps due to the low levels of private loans to small businesses (38th).
Women’s business ownership is minimal (3%, ranking 40th), yet the value of these busi-
nesses is relatively high (a mean of $17,926, ranking 3rd). Financial assets, on the whole, are
below average here. Asset poverty—the proportion of households that cannot subsist
at the poverty level for three months—ranks 35th. Moreover, the number of house-
holds with zero net worth is 22% (ranking 48th), which is troublesome.
Overall homeownership capital is low; the homeownership rate is 64% (43rd), yet the gap
in homeownership between men and women is the smallest in the nation. The median
value of a home is relatively high and also ranks well (8th). Policymakers need to do more
to improve health insurance coverage for low-income residents here. The percentage of
uninsured low-income children is among the highest in the United States (31%, ranking
49th), while low-income parents are not faring much better (39%, ranking 44th).
Asset Policy. Nevada is also 46th in Asset Policy, receiving an F in this index as well. Bright
spots in the state’s asset policy include some initiatives to support affordable homeowner-
ship (mortgage revenue bonds [5th], a state housing trust fund, property tax circuit break-
ers, and limited assistance for first-time homebuyers). There are, though, many areas in
which Nevada is behind its peers. Much needs to be done to boost financial assets for resi-
dents in the state. Policymakers should consider enacting legislation to support
Individual Development Accounts and a state minimum wage higher than the federal
minimum wage—both of which would bolster earnings for lower-wage workers.
Attention also needs to be focused on policies to promote human capital. Although the
state allocates funds relatively equally across all school districts (2nd), more investments
could be made in early childhood education (a state-funded pre-kindergarten program and
state funds for Head Start initiatives) and higher education (providing college savings plans
with matching funds and better need-based financial aid for college students). It is interest-
ing to note that workers’ compensation coverage in Nevada is the best in the United States;
however, benefits for these workers are relatively slim (the workers’ compensation benefit
index level is the worst in the nation). Other asset protection initiatives barely exist here.
Substantive areas that need improvement include expanding health care policies to low-in-
come people and enacting property protection initiatives, such as policies against predatory
lending and property insurance redlining.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Better accountability measures need to be developed
in Nevada. The state does not prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value
of revenues foregone via tax breaks. It also fails to determine the impact of state taxes
or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.
59
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 46 F A S S E T P O L I C Y : 46 FR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$113,637
RANK—23
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—23.6%
RANK—35
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—N/A
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—22.0%
RANK—48
Nevada
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. New Hampshire leads the nation in asset distribution and protection,
ranking 2nd and earning an A in the Asset Outcomes Index. The state particularly excels
with regard to financial asset measures, illustrated by its high rank (3rd) in mean net
worth ($145,550), combined with lower levels of asset poverty (18% and ranking 6th)
and fewer households with zero net worth (11% and ranking 6th). With the exception
of Head Start coverage (where it ranks 49th), New Hampshire has generally high scores in
human capital measures, ranking 2nd in the nation in basic educational proficiency in read-
ing, 2nd in the number of adults with associate’s degrees, and 10th in college attainment.
Despite its overall high grades, New Hampshire’s homeownership rate is below average
(32nd), and the gap in homeownership between high-income earners and low-income earners
is relatively large (39th), indicating that low-income earners have a hard time securing home-
ownership—an important asset in the form of home equity—in the state. Bank access is also
mixed, with high levels of households with a savings account (2nd) but low levels of house-
holds with a non-interest-bearing checking account (46th). Finally, New Hampshire performs
relatively well with regard to health insurance coverage. Seventy-six percent of employers
provide health insurance, and only 10% of low-income children are uninsured (3rd).
Asset Policy. In contrast to its high scores in the Asset Outcomes Index, New Hampshire
performs below average in Asset Policy measures, ranking 32nd and earning a C. Financial
asset policy could be improved here with support for Individual Development Accounts
and a state minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage. These initiatives
could help boost the earnings of low-income residents. The state has made strides in
promoting affordable homeownership, though, by establishing a state housing trust
fund and investing in some first-time homebuyer assistance programs.
Policymakers here also need to target more investments in human capital assets.
Although it provides supplementary funds for Head Start, New Hampshire spends its dol-
lars for schools relatively unequally across all the state’s school districts (46th), and it has
no state-funded pre-kindergarten program. New Hampshire is also below average in asset
protection. Although it has taken some steps to improve health insurance and wage pro-
tection with policies supporting family leave benefits and some key reforms in its unem-
ployment insurance system, state legislators have not enacted policies to build on these
efforts. The benefits for unemployment insurance are relatively low (36th), and the
state does not extend Medicaid to low-income adults without children.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Transparency and accountability in state spending in
New Hampshire is adequate, although there is room for improvement. The state prepares
a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues lost by tax breaks, but it
does not put this report on the web. It does, however, have some capacity to determine
the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 2 A A S S E T P O L I C Y : 32 CR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$145,550
RANK—3
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—11
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—18.0%
RANK—6
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—18
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—11.4%
RANK—6
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
NewHampshire
60
Asset Outcomes. With mostly average scores overall, New Jersey ranks 30th and earns
a C in Asset Outcomes. Financial assets in the state are relatively good here; mean net
worth is $145,243 (4th), and the number of households with zero net worth ranks 11th.
The state ranks 17th in asset poverty—the proportion of households without sufficient
net worth to subsist at the poverty level for three months. Business capital is fair, with
the business ownership rate coming in at 11% and ranking 34th. The ratio of minority en-
trepreneurship, ranking 12th, is stronger here than in many other states, but the value
of these firms is below average (34th). Women-owned firms, however, serve as a rela-
tively more substantial player in the state’s business capital (business ownership value by
gender is 1st). Human capital measures hover around the average with a few exceptions:
college attainment ranks 6th, and college attainment by race is 10th. The state could do
more, though, to boost the number of adults obtaining associate’s degrees (40th).
New Jersey is in the middle of the range in bank access. Thirty-three percent of house-
holds have a non-interest-bearing checking account (25th), and 68% of households have
a savings account (23rd). Health insurance coverage is also fair. While employer-provided
health insurance is relatively high (10th), the state ranks 17th in percentage of uninsured
low-income children (16%) and 34th for uninsured low-income parents (34%).
Asset Policy. New Jersey surpasses its peers in Asset Policy, ranking 7th and earning an
A in the index. Policymakers have enacted substantial legislation in financial asset build-
ing. The state has an Individual Development Account initiative, a state Earned Income
Tax Credit and a decent income tax threshold ($20,000, ranking 12th). Homeownership
policy is fair but could be boosted with more funds allocated to mortgage revenue bonds
(45th) and perhaps a state housing trust fund.
Early childhood education policies are in force here (K–12 expenditures rank 2nd and
there are supplementary funds for the Head Start program as well as a state-funded
pre-kindergarten initiative), yet spending across school districts needs to be more equal
(41st). Higher education and training are also notable. Need-based financial aid for under-
graduates ranks 6th, and customized job training ranks 7th. Policies supportive of busi-
ness capital are also apparent here, but the needs of the state’s residents need to be
better addressed. A specific area of concern is property protection policy; no legisla-
tion restricts predatory lending or insurance redlining.
Tax Policy and Accountability. New Jersey does a poor job on tax policy accountabil-
ity. The state does not prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of rev-
enues foregone via tax breaks. It does, however, have some capacity to determine the
impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.
61
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 30 C A S S E T P O L I C Y : 7 AR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$145,243
RANK—4
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—19
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—23
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—20.5%
RANK—17
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—26
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—35
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—12.8%
RANK—11
New Jersey
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. New Mexico is falling behind the rest of the nation in Asset
Outcomes, landing a D in the index, with a rank of 37th. Many below-average grades con-
tribute to this score, yet particularly low points are evident in the area of health insur-
ance as a measure of asset protection. The state is 50th in employer-provided health in-
surance, 49th in uninsured low-income parents, and 45th in uninsured low-income
children. Although minority entrepreneurship appears to be good (5th), indicating broad
ownership of small capital (ranking 41st), other business capital measures are trouble-
some. Private loans to small businesses rank 40th, and the relatively large gaps between
men and women (ranking 41st) and whites and non-whites (ranking 49th) in business
ownership value is significant.
The state performs well in a handful of measures. In terms of financial assets, asset
poverty is 3rd, meaning there are fewer households without sufficient net worth to sub-
sist at the poverty level for three months than in all but two states. Also, the number of
households with zero net worth ranks 7th. The mean net worth is $111,102, ranking 26th.
On measures of homeownership, New Mexico also shows some strong scores. The overall
homeownership rate is 12th, while the gap in homeownership between rich and poor is
low (6th), as is the gap in homeownership between whites and non-whites (2nd).
Asset Policy. Landing an average grade, New Mexico ranks 34th in Asset Policy and
earns a C. The state holds the most promising set of policies in the measures of home-
ownership. New Mexico has a number of policies to assist first-time homebuyers, offers
circuit breaker protections, has a housing trust fund, and ranks 11th in the share of pri-
vate activity bonds used for mortgage finance. Other high points include a ranking of
4th in school spending equalization, 5th in customized job training, and 5th in workers’
compensation benefit index levels.
Much more focus needs to be targeted toward quality asset-building and asset-protec-
tion policy. Although the benefits for workers’ compensation are good, New Mexico only
covers 78% of its workforce (47th), meaning the finances of workers who are injured on
the job may be in jeopardy. Most of the gaps are apparent in business capital. The state
lacks many promising policies used in other states, such as capital access programs, mi-
croenterprise support initiatives, support for state level community financial develop-
ment institutions, initiatives to assist asset-poor farmers, and employee ownership.
Tax Policy and Accountability. New Mexico does a poor job on tax policy accountabil-
ity. The state does not prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of rev-
enues foregone via tax breaks. It also has no capacity to determine the impact of state
taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all income levels.
62
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 37 D A S S E T P O L I C Y : 34 CR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
New Mexico
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$111,102
RANK—26
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—33
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—17.4%
RANK—3
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—38
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—11.9%
RANK—7
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Asset Outcomes. The state fails in Asset Outcomes, ranking 48th nationwide. Mean net
worth is $103,177 (29th), but New York has the nation’s worst asset poverty and the
largest percentage of households with zero net worth, indicating that New York must do
much more to help all families build and protect assets. Homeownership is of great con-
cern. The state ranks last in homeownership rate, and there are significant gaps in home-
ownership between men and women, whites and non-whites, and the wealthy and poor.
(The state ranks 49th in homeownership by income, 48th in homeownership by gender,
and 43rd in homeownership by race.)
On measures of human capital, business capital, bank access, and health care, New York
does better, though not outstanding. Some high points are in the measures of business
capital, including private loans to small businesses (13th), women’s business ownership
rate (19th), and the value of women-owned businesses (14th).
Asset Policy. New York exemplifies the asset development challenges faced by all the
states. New York rises to the top of its class, ranking 1st in Asset Policy. The state has a
broad portfolio of asset-based policies and ranks high on many of the basics, ranking
1st in the level of need-based financial aid for undergraduates and 4th in K–12 expen-
ditures. The state also has a large percentage of private activity bonds targeted to af-
fordable housing and a good collection of first-time homebuyer assistance programs.
New York also can take credit for many innovative policies. These include state legislation
to support community development financial institutions and employee ownership
strategies, regulations that require state-chartered banks to offer low-cost lifeline ac-
counts and to abide by state community reinvestment regulations, and prohibitions
against predatory lending.
Yet, together, these policies are not operating to scale and lack the necessary scope
to address the large challenge of asset poverty and inequality. Specific areas needing
more attention fall within the areas of human capital and property protection. Residents
could benefit from more equal spending among the state’s school districts (48th) and
greater investment in customized job training (42nd).
Tax Policy and Accountability. New York does a good job on tax policy accountability.
The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues fore-
gone via tax breaks and makes this report available on the web. It also has some capacity
to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all in-
comes.
63
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 48 F A S S E T P O L I C Y : 1 AR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$103,177
RANK—29
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—22
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—15
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—32.1%
RANK—50
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—27
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—23
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—23.8%
RANK—50
New York
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. North Carolina receives a C on the Asset Outcomes Index, but its over-
all rank (21st) and leading position among the southern states calls for some recognition.
On overall asset accumulation, the state’s performance is weak, with average household
net worth below the median (33rd). However, the state does relatively well on asset distri-
bution, with the 9th-lowest gap in wealth between white and non-white households and
the 9th-lowest gap in asset poverty between white and non-white households. On meas-
ures of homeownership capital, the state’s performance is modest, ranking 21st in home-
ownership rates and 28th in median home value. However, the state deserves credit for
the having the 10th-lowest gap in homeownership rates between the rich and poor and
the 7th-lowest gap in homeownership rates between males and females.
On measures of human capital accumulation, North Carolina is equally modest. The state
ranked roughly in the middle in all higher education measures, except for dismal showing
in the gap in college attainment between rich and poor (45th). On measures of business
capital accumulation, North Carolina ranks 7th in the value of private loans to small busi-
nesses and 7th in the value of women-owned businesses, but it ranks very low (44th) in
minority entrepreneurship.
Asset Policy. Overall, North Carolina performs the best of all the southern states in
the Asset Policy Index, ranking 16th and earning a B. The state’s strength comes from
having implemented some of the most innovative policies for asset building and protec-
tion. For example, the state is one of the nation’s leaders with respect to support for
Individual Development Accounts and has one of the nation’s toughest anti-predatory
mortgage lending laws. The state also supports innovative small business finance in the
form of a capital access program and funding for microenterprise development and
community development financial institutions. Further, with the 10th-best per capita
funding for customized job training, North Carolina is making sound investments in the
human capital of incumbent workers.
On some of the basics, though, North Carolina’s performance is less stellar. In terms of
affordable homeownership, the state has a housing trust fund but has underinvested for
the last several years. The state also is near the bottom with respect to the percentage
of private activity bonds devoted to home mortgages. In education, despite increased
focus in recent years, the state ranks 40th in K–12 expenditures.
Finally, with the 15th-highest unemployment insurance benefits and the 12th highest
share of workers covered by workers’ compensation benefits, North Carolina does an
above-average job of protecting family finances from the dangers of injury or job loss.
Tax Policy and Accountability. North Carolina does a fair job on tax policy accountability.
The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues foregone
via tax breaks, though this report is not available on the web. It also has limited capacity to
determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 21 C A S S E T P O L I C Y : 16 BR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$100,561
RANK—33
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—9
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—32
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—20.0%
RANK—13
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—9
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—24
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—13.4%
RANK—19
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
North Carolina
64
Asset Outcomes. North Dakota ranks 27th out of the 50 states, earning a C in Asset
Outcomes. North Dakota earns its C by a mix of high and low scores in a variety of cate-
gories. Most notably, the state could improve its financial assets measures. North Dakota
ranks 44th in overall asset poverty and 39th in terms of the number of households
with zero net worth, indicating that a number of North Dakotans are asset poor. Mean
net worth is nearly the worst in the nation, ranking 47th, at $79,353.
In terms of human capital, North Dakota is 1st in the nation in the percentage of people
attaining associate’s degrees, but too many adults in the state stop there. College attain-
ment could be higher, as North Dakota ranks 39th in that measure. The state lands in the
top 10 for college attainment by women and the poor, yet 40th in college attainment by
non-whites. North Dakota is similarly mixed on business capital development, ranking 2nd
in private loans to small businesses and 3rd in small business ownership. However, the
state is 32nd in minority entrepreneurship.
Health care is similarly mixed. Twenty-two percent of low-income children (33rd) and 27%
of low-income parents (16th) lack insurance.
Asset Policy. North Dakota needs to put more work into asset building and protection,
as the state ranked 43rd and earned a D. The state has a mixed record in housing pol-
icy; it ranks 3rd in the percentage of state funds allocated to mortgages and offers
some first-time homebuyer assistance programs, yet the state has no state housing
trust fund.
Policymakers could improve support for small business ownership by adopting policies
that offer capital sources to low- and moderate-income entrepreneurs. North Dakota
comes in 41st in dollars made available through its small business investment company,
has no capital access program, and does not support microenterprise or community de-
velopment financial institutions at all. Asset protection in the form of health care could
be bolstered in North Dakota. Although the state ranks a respectable 20th on Medicaid
expansion for low-income parents, it does not expand Medicaid to low-income adults
without children (only 10 states do), nor does it provide transitional welfare-to-work
medical assistance for more than 12 months (offered by 14 states).
Tax Policy and Accountability. North Dakota does a poor job on tax policy accounta-
bility. The state does not prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of
revenues foregone via tax breaks. It also has no capacity to determine the impact of
state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all income levels.
65
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 27 C A S S E T P O L I C Y : 43 DR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$79,353
RANK—47
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—26.9%
RANK—44
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—N/A
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—16.2%
RANK—39
North Dakota
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. Coming in above average, Ohio shows a decent record in Asset
Outcomes. The state ranks 12th and earns a B in the index. Most of the financial asset
measures are relatively high compared with the rest of the states. Asset poverty is 17.6%
(4th), indicating the state has a relatively small proportion of households without suffi-
cient net worth to subsist at the poverty level for three months. Asset inequality be-
tween men and women is low (4th), asset inequality between whites and non-whites is
relatively minimal (11th), and the number of households with zero net worth is also
relatively few, ranking 8th. While the overall small business rate is low (just under 10%,
ranking 46th), and minority entrepreneurship is also lagging (37th), the value of minority-
owned firms is relatively high (9th).
Health insurance coverage in Ohio is better than in most states. Employer-provided
health insurance is 9th, the percentage of uninsured low-income parents ranks 9th
(22%), and the percentage of uninsured low-income children ranks 18th (16%). Bank ac-
cess could be improved here. Only 29% of households have a non-interest-bearing check-
ing account (ranking 44th).
Asset Policy. Ohio ranks 17th in the Asset Policy Index, collecting another good grade by
receiving a B. The state has made attempts to boost financial assets for its lower-wealth
residents through limited Individual Development Account policy and establishing less pe-
nalizing asset limits for public assistance eligibility. Policymakers here have shown a dedica-
tion to early childhood education (providing a state-funded pre-kindergarten program and
supplementary funds for Head Start), yet more emphasis could be placed on adult training
(customized job training ranks 36th).
Efforts to support business capital are apparent. Ohioan entrepreneurs benefit from mi-
croenterprise policy, assistance for asset-poor farmers, one of the most remarkable
employee ownership initiatives, and a relatively high level of small business investment
company investments (14th). Policies to enhance asset protection are needed in Ohio.
The state is missing key policies for property protection (policies restricting predatory
lending and insurance redlining) and for health insurance (transitional medical assistance
for more than 12 months and state subsidies for small business health care coverage). The
state does, however, have good workers’ compensation coverage (6th).
Tax Policy and Accountability. Ohio has good accountability practices in place. The
state issues a Tax Expenditure Report on the web, allowing state residents to easily view
how the state government spends taxpayer dollars. Also, there is some capacity in Ohio
to analyze how changes in the tax law will impact all taxpayers before legislation is
passed. This is a sound practice in understanding the impacts of taxes of different in-
come groups.
66
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 12 B A S S E T P O L I C Y : 17 BR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
Ohio
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$113,481
RANK—25
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—11
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—4
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—17.6%
RANK—4
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—18
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—15
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—12.0%
RANK—8
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Asset Outcomes. Oklahoma earns a C in Asset Outcomes, ranking 35th overall. There is
the much room for improvement in the state’s educational rankings. The youngest
Oklahomans fare well, as the state ranks 7th in Head Start coverage. But Oklahoma ranks
36th in the percentage of adults with associate’s degrees and 41st in college attainment.
The gap in college attainment between high-income earners and low-income earners is
somewhat large here (36th), and this same gap between men and women is even larger
(42nd) when compared with the other states. On the bright side, Oklahoma ranks a re-
spectable 17th in the gap in college attainment between whites and non-whites.
In terms of financial asset building, 21% of households are asset poor, lacking sufficient
net worth to subsist at the poverty level for three months. The state does relatively
well in terms of the number of households with zero net worth, coming in 10th. But
the state ranks last in mean net worth ($74,431). It is more encouraging that the gap in
asset poverty between whites and non-whites is relatively small in Oklahoma (3rd). This
same gap for asset inequality is also small (8th).
Oklahoma needs to pay closer attention to health care for its residents. Twenty-seven
percent of low-income children are uninsured, leading to a ranking of 42nd in this meas-
ure. Low-income parents fare slightly better as 33% are uninsured, landing Oklahoma a
ranking of 27th.
Asset Policy. Oklahoma earned a C in Asset Policy, ranking 24th overall. Oklahoma is at
the forefront of a new asset-building instrument—Individual Development Accounts for
low-income people. Despite being in the forefront of this policy, many of Oklahoma’s
rankings in asset policy measures fall squarely in the middle of the pack, which led to the
C grade. A sample of Oklahoma’s asset policies finds the state ranking 23rd in mortgage
revenue bond provision (which helps promote affordable homeownership), 31st in K–12
expenditures (a policy choice to support education), 27th in need-based financial aid (bol-
stering the number of people earning a higher education), and 36th in workers’ compen-
sation coverage (a policy option to protect family finances in the event of injury).
Oklahoma could improve health care policies, as it ranks 36th on expansion of Medicaid to
low-income parents (studies have found that providing health care for parents increases
the percentage of insured children). Also, Oklahoma does not expand Medicaid to adults
without children, nor does it provide transitional medical assistance to help those who
have recently left the welfare system to go back to work.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Oklahoma does a substandard job on tax policy ac-
countability. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of rev-
enues foregone via tax breaks, though this report is not available on the web. Also, it has
not developed the capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax
code on taxpayers of all incomes.
67
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 35 C A S S E T P O L I C Y : 24 CR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$74,431
RANK—50
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—8
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—26
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—20.8%
RANK—19
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—3
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—N/A
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—12.7%
RANK—10
Oklahoma
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. In a nation that is sub-par, Oregon is on the right track and ranks 3rd
overall, just after Iowa and New Hampshire. Oregon earns its A based on strong rank-
ings in human capital development through education: the state ranks 14th in overall
college attainment and has the smallest gap in college attainment between whites
and non-whites and the 4th-smallest gap in college attainment between high-income
earners and low-income earners. Oregon also has a strong showing in financial assets—
coming in 24th in the number of asset-poor households and 12th in the number of
households with zero net worth, meaning that relative to other states, Oregon’s resi-
dents hold some assets and have a financial safety net. Overall, mean net worth is
$139,706, ranking 7th. The gap in asset poverty between men and women is also small
here, ranking 4th in the United States.
Oregon could improve homeownership, however, as it ranks 42nd and has a relatively
larger gap in the rates of homeownership between upper-income earners and lower-in-
come earners (34th), indicating problems with affordability or access to capital for low-
income homebuyers. The gap in homeownership between whites and non-whites offers
good news, as it is relatively small (12th).
Oregon is only fair in health care measures as a form of asset protection. The state ranks
30th in the percentage of uninsured low-income children and 17th in the percentage of
uninsured low-income parents.
Asset Policy. Oregon earns an A in Asset Policy to accompany its A in Asset Outcomes.
The state is trying to address the problems of affordable homeownership with an array
of policies. The state ranks 15th in terms of allocating private activity bonds for mort-
gage revenue bonds, provides capital through a state housing trust fund, and has multi-
ple first-time homebuyer assistance programs. For financial asset building, the state has
implemented Individual Development Accounts and offers a state Earned Income Tax
Credit to allow low-income workers to keep more of their pay and have more to save.
Oregon supports small business development in a number of ways—through small busi-
ness investment company dollars (21st in funding levels), capital access programs, and
state microenterprise programs.
Oregon is also a strong standout on health care policies, meaning household finances are
better protected against illness. It is one of nine states to offer a subsidy for small business
health care coverage and one of 10 states that extends Medicaid to low-income adults with-
out children. Oregon also ranks 15th in Medicaid expansion for low-income parents.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Oregon has a very good record on tax policy account-
ability. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues
lost through tax breaks, and it makes this report available on the web. It also has sound
capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers
of all incomes.
68
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 3 A A S S E T P O L I C Y : 10 AR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
Oregon
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$139,706
RANK—7
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—10
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—21.8%
RANK—24
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—4
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—13.0%
RANK—12
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Asset Outcomes. Coming in at 13th, Pennsylvania receives a B in Asset Outcomes. Mean
net worth here is $117,385 (21st), while asset poverty is relatively low (5th), meaning a
small proportion of households do not have sufficient net worth to subsist at the poverty
level for three months. In addition, the number of households with zero net worth is also
low (13th). On measures of homeownership, Pennsylvania is also above average. The home-
ownership rate is 75% (9th), the gap between whites and non-whites in homeownership is
relatively low at 16th, as is the divide between the rich and poor in homeownership (16th).
Overall business ownership could use improvement in Pennsylvania—the small business
ownership rate is just over 10% (40th), and the women’s business ownership rate ranks
44th. Interestingly, though, the value of women-owned and minority-owned firms is larger
here than in most states (business ownership value by gender is 9th and by race, 10th).
The state also has above average banking access. Forty-one percent of households have
a non-interest-bearing checking account (9th), and 69% of households have a savings ac-
count (21st). Asset protection in the form of health insurance is particularly strong in
Pennsylvania. The number of uninsured low-income children is 11% (5th), though the
number of uninsured low-income parents is somewhat higher (23%), ranking 13th. The
state also ranks 11th in employer-provided health insurance.
Asset Policy. Pennsylvania fares average in Asset Policy, ranking 22nd and earning a C.
Financial asset-building policy is above average. Notably, the state has an Individual
Development Account policy, more generous asset limits for public assistance, and a rela-
tively high income tax threshold ($21,500, ranking 8th). The measures of affordable
homeownership are mixed, though. While the state has some first-time homebuyer assis-
tance and a property tax circuit breaker, it does not have a state housing trust fund and
could allocate a higher percentage of private activity bonds to mortgage finance.
State policies to support small businesses are a strength in Pennsylvania. There is a
capital access program, assistance for microentrepreneurs, assistance for asset-poor
farmers, an employee ownership policy, a statewide community development financial in-
stitution, and provisions to allow the use of unemployment insurance for self-employ-
ment. The most room for improvement, though, resides in the human capital policies.
State policymakers should consider enacting policies to buttress early childhood educa-
tion, such as supplementary funds for Head Start and a state-funded pre-kindergarten
program. Noteworthy rankings occur in workers’ compensation policies (coverage is 91%,
ranking 14th, and the workers’ compensation benefit index level is the best in the na-
tion). These policies help protect family finances in the event of worker injury.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Pennsylvania does a satisfactory job on tax policy ac-
countability. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of rev-
enues foregone via tax breaks, although it does not make this report available on the
web. It also has some capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the
tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.
69
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 13 B A S S E T P O L I C Y : 22 CR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$117,385
RANK—21
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—27
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—31
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—18.0%
RANK—5
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—22
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—37
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—13.1%
RANK—13
Pennsylvania
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. Due to uneven performance, with a number of high and low scores,
Rhode Island averages out at a C (31st) in Asset Outcomes. The state can be proud of
having the nation’s 2nd-highest mean net worth ($157,476) per household. However, on
measures of asset distribution, the state is not so stellar. For example, 22% of the state’s
households are asset poor (25th), and 15% have zero net worth (26th). On measures of
human capital accumulation, Rhode Island shows good signs in early childhood education
(5th in Head Start coverage and 11th in basic reading proficiency), but it is lopsided with
respect to higher education. For example, while college attainment is above average
(19th), the state has one of the largest gaps in college attainment between white and
non-white households.
Homeownership capital is of particular concern in Rhode Island, as the state ranks in the
bottom 10 in all of these measures. Some examples include a very low homeownership
rate (46th), the 3rd-largest gap in homeownership between white and non-white house-
holds, the 2nd-largest homeownership gap between men and women, and the worst
homeownership gap between rich and poor.
Finally, the state performs well in measures of asset protection in the form of health insur-
ance. It ranks 5th in employer-provided health insurance, 4th in the percentage of unin-
sured low-income children, and 6th in the percentage of uninsured low-income parents.
Asset Policy. Ranking 20th, Rhode Island barely earns a B in Asset Policy. With the 5th-
highest income tax threshold ($24,400), a state Earned Income Tax Credit, and a state
minimum wage, the state does a good job of boosting the incomes of low-income
households both before and after taxes, allowing them to have more to save. However,
with no statewide Individual Development Account program, the state has not invested in
enough comprehensive incentives to encourage the poor to save. The state also performs
well on policies to encourage the accumulation of human capital (2nd in customized job
training per capita and 8th in K–12 expenditures).
However, there is a great need to enact strong policies to support small business devel-
opment in Rhode Island. Aside from some programs to support microentrepreneurs, the
state lacks many other tools that could help small businesses owners start up, succeed,
and accumulate business capital. Possible policy options include a capital access program,
facilitating employee ownership, and state support for community development financial
institutions.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Rhode Island does an average job on tax policy ac-
countability. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of rev-
enues foregone via tax breaks, although it does not make this report available on the
web. It also has some capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the
tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.
70
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 31 C A S S E T P O L I C Y : 20 BR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
Rhode Island
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$157,476
RANK—2
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—22.0%
RANK—25
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—N/A
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—14.8%
RANK—26
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Asset Outcomes. South Carolina turns in a poor performance on the Asset Outcomes
Index, ranking 44th overall and earning a D. On measures of asset accumulation and distri-
bution, South Carolina is generally below the median, ranking 36th in average net worth
($97,521 per household) and 37th in asset poverty. While the state earns a high rank for a
relatively small gap in asset poverty between white and non-white families, this just means
everybody is asset poor at the bottom of the economic ladder. One sign of real hope is on
measures of homeownership capital: South Carolina has the nation’s 2nd-highest home-
ownership rate and the 3rd-lowest gap in homeownership between white and non-white
families. The median value of a home in the state, however, is only $89,286 (31st).
South Carolina’s real weakness is in measures of human capital accumulation, especially
at the postsecondary education level. The state ranks near the bottom in college attain-
ment (42nd), college attainment by gender (46th), and college attainment by income
(47th). The state also scores mostly poor on measures of business capital accumulation,
ranking in the bottom 10 in small business ownership rate (41st), minority entrepreneur-
ship (45th), and women’s business ownership rate (46th).
Finally, many households lack even the basic mechanisms to connect to the mainstream fi-
nancial system and begin to save. The state ranks last in households with a non-interest-
bearing checking account and only a bit better (34th) in households with a savings account.
Asset Policy. South Carolina ranks 27th and earns a C on the Asset Policy Index, but this
is among the best performances in the South, 2nd only to North Carolina. The state
helps low-income families build financial wealth through an innovative Individual Develop-
ment Account program, somewhat generous asset limits for public assistance recipients,
and a decent income tax threshold that allows working families to pay less in income taxes
and have more to save. The state also scores above average on policies to support human
capital accumulation, including K–12 expenditures (28th) and need-based financial aid for
undergraduate students (24th), and has the 8th-best ranking for equalizing per-pupil
spending on primary and secondary education among all the state’s school districts.
South Carolina also performs modestly on asset-protection policies. With the unemploy-
ment insurance benefits and workers’ compensation benefits near or just below the me-
dian, South Carolina does an average job of protecting wages from injury or job loss.
However, besides providing more generous transitional medical assistance for families
leaving welfare for work, the state has not been aggressive at expanding health insur-
ance for low-income and working families.
Tax Policy and Accountability. South Carolina does a below-average job on tax policy
accountability. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of
revenues foregone via tax breaks, though this report is not available on the web. It also
has no capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on
taxpayers of all incomes.
71
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 44 D A S S E T P O L I C Y : 27 CR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$97,521
RANK—36
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—26
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—36
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—23.9%
RANK—37
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—6
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—21
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—16.0%
RANK—35
South Carolina
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. South Dakota is below average among its peers, earning a D and a
rank of 36th in the index. Scores are relatively low in the index, but several high marks
shine through. The measures of financial assets are somewhat dismal. Mean net worth in
South Dakota is $79,353 (47th); asset poverty ranks 44th, indicating there are many
more households without sufficient net worth to exist at the poverty level for three
months than in other states; and the number of households with zero net worth ranks
39th. Homeownership is also a little bleak. Although the overall homeownership rate is
71% (20th), the median value of a home is $80,080 (43rd), and the gap in homeowner-
ship between the rich and poor is significant, ranking 45th.
Some highlights appear in the human capital measures. South Dakota has the 2nd-highest
coverage of Head Start and ranks 12th in the number of adults with associate’s degrees.
Small business capital seems to be relatively good overall (the small business ownership rate
ranks 4th, and private loans provided to small businesses also rank 4th). When these meas-
ures are broken out, a slightly different story emerges. Minority entrepreneurship is 46th,
yet the value of these firms is relatively high (5th). The value of women-owned firms is
much lower in the rankings (48th), even though the state ranks 27th in women’s business
ownership rate.
Asset Policy. South Dakota fails in Asset Policy, ranking 47th. Financial asset-building
strategies are very limited here, with only a mediocre incentive for accumulation in
asset limits for public assistance. Affordable homeownership policies are slightly bet-
ter, with most efforts relying on first-time homebuyers assistance and limited circuit
breaker programs. Policies promoting human capital are also weak. The state ties with
Alaska for last place in need-based financial aid to help undergraduates attend college
and offers no state-funded pre-kindergarten program or supplementary funds for Head
Start.
Asset protection is somewhat more promising in the state, even if many key policies re-
main absent here. Workers receive the most policy attention. Workers’ compensation
coverage and benefits are average (both rank 29th), and unemployment insurance bene-
fits rank 19th. These policies help protect family finances in the event of injury or tem-
porary job loss. Most of the policies targeted to increase access to health care are miss-
ing. In addition the state has not enacted property protection measures (no legislation
restricts predatory lending or insurance redlining).
Tax Policy and Accountability. South Dakota also fails on tax policy accountability.
The state does not prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues
foregone via tax breaks. It also does not have the capacity to determine the impact of
state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 36 D A S S E T P O L I C Y : 47 FR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
South Dakota
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$79,353
RANK—47
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—26.9%
RANK—44
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—N/A
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—16.2%
RANK—39
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D72
Asset Outcomes. Like most of the other southern states, Tennessee performs poorly in
the Asset Outcomes Index and earns a D. On measures of asset accumulation and distribu-
tion, Tennessee is at or below the median. The state ranks 39th in mean household net
worth ($92,551), 31st in asset poverty, and 25th for the share of households with zero net
worth. However, the state can be proud that it ranks 1st in the nation for having the
lowest gap in net worth between white and non-white families. Still, white households
control more than twice the assets of non-white households. Tennessee is also mostly
lackluster on measures of homeownership capital accumulation, though the state has the
nation’s 3rd-lowest gap in the homeownership rate between rich and poor families.
The state’s greatest weakness is in measures of human capital accumulation, with a num-
ber of bottom-10 rankings, including 44th in Head Start coverage, 47th in associate’s de-
grees awarded, 48th in college attainment, 48th in college attainment by income, and
last (50th) in college attainment by gender. The state also scores mixed on measures of
business capital accumulation. The state’s overall small business ownership rate is at the
median. The state scores much lower on minority entrepreneurship (42nd) and women’s
business ownership rate (38th).
Asset protection in the form of health insurance is a very bright spot. Tennessee ranks
highest in the nation in its percentage of uninsured low-income children (8.8%) and 4th
for its percentage of uninsured low-income parents (19%).
Asset Policy. Tennessee ranks 44th on the Assets Policy Index and earns a D. The state
has implemented few policies to help low-income families build or protect their assets.
Besides very limited support for Individual Development Accounts, the state has done little
either to directly incentivize asset building or to enhance the income of working families to
make saving possible. With respect to homeownership capital accumulation, the state has
no housing trust fund, though it is above median in the share of private activity bonds de-
voted to home mortgage finance. The pattern continues with below-median rankings on
most policies to support human capital accumulation, including 41st in K–12 expenditures,
31st in customized job training investment, and 29th in need-based financial aid.
Finally, Tennessee’s below-average performance concludes with lackluster marks on
asset-protection policies. With unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation ben-
efits at or below the median, Tennessee does a very average job of protecting family fi-
nances from injury or job loss.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Tennessee also does a below-average job on tax policy
accountability. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of
revenues foregone via tax breaks, but this report is not available on the web. It also has
no capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on tax-
payers of all incomes.
73
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 40 D A S S E T P O L I C Y : 44 DR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$92,551
RANK—39
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—1
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—37
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—22.9%
RANK—31
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—10
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—27
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—14.7%
RANK—25
Tennessee
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. Asset Outcomes in Texas are dire. The state falls to the bottom of the
rankings (47th) and earns and F. Surprisingly, financial assets are a mixed bag in Texas. The
measures of overall performance are poor, yet scores improve when these measures are
counted in terms of race, gender, and income. For example, mean net worth is $81,314
(43rd), and asset poverty is 42nd, indicating that 25% of households lack sufficient net
worth to exist at the poverty level for three months. In addition, the share of households
with zero net worth (17%) is also high, ranking 45th. However, in distribution by race and
gender, Texas scores better relative to its peers. The gap in assets between whites and
non-whites is relatively small (7th), the same gap between men and women ranks 13th,
and the gap in asset poverty between men and women is also low (8th). A similar pattern
emerges with homeownership. The overall homeownership rate is poor, ranking 44th, but
the gap between whites and non-whites in homeownership is small, ranking 10th, and the
divide between men and women is also small in homeownership, ranking 11th.
Access to banking institutions is a serious concern for Texans. The percentages of house-
holds with a checking account (29%) or savings account (55%) are quite low, ranking 43rd
and 41st, respectively. Another alarming outcome lies in the protection measures of
health insurance. Low-income families suffer from a lack of health insurance. Nearly 35%
of low-income children are uninsured (50th), and 47% of their parents are uninsured
(49th). Moreover, employer-provided health insurance is also low (45th).
Asset Policy. Asset Policy in Texas is somewhat better. The state receives a B in the
index and ranks 18th. Efforts to promote human capital are evident in early childhood
and adult education initiatives. There is a state-funded pre-kindergarten program, spend-
ing among the state’s school districts is relatively equal (12th), and customized job train-
ing investment ranks 8th. Policymakers also support business capital. Access to business
capital is enhanced through limited microenterprise policy, a capital access program, a
state community development financial institution, employee ownership initiatives and
some assistance for asset-poor farmers.
Texas policymakers could improve their asset policy by pushing for more financial
asset-building initiatives, such as more comprehensive Individual Development
Accounts, a living wage measure, and more generous asset limits for public assis-
tance. Specific needs for improvement lie within workers’ compensation initiatives.
Workers’ compensation coverage is 50th, and the workers’ compensation benefit index
level is 42nd. These policies could help protect family finances in the event of injury on
the job. It is noteworthy, however, that Texas has some property protection measures in
force, namely a policy restricting insurance redlining.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Texas does a superior job on tax policy accountability.
The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues foregone
via tax breaks and makes this report available on the web. It also has full capacity to deter-
mine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.
74
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 47 F A S S E T P O L I C Y : 18 BR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
Texas
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$81,314
RANK—43
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—7
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—13
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—25.5%
RANK—42
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—5
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—8
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—17.1%
RANK—45
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
Asset Outcomes. Utah ranks 10th in Asset Outcomes, barely reaching the curve to
land an A in the index. Human capital in the state provides the most striking set of
asset outcomes in the state. The state ranks 3rd in associate’s degrees, 8th in col-
lege attainment, 13th in college attainment by race, and 16th in college attainment
by income. The difference in college attainment between men and women is signifi-
cant, though, coming in 43rd. The gender difference is also noted in homeownership
capital. Utah performs well in measures of the median value of homes (4th), homeown-
ership rates (15th), and minimal disparities between whites and non-whites in homeown-
ership (9th). Yet, the homeownership gap between men and women is clear, ranking
42nd. This trend is contradicted by the measure of asset inequality between men and
women, where the gap between the sexes is small and the state soars near the top of
the scale (5th).
Other notable scores include good standings in asset protection. Employer-provided
health insurance ranks 7th, and the rate of uninsured low-income parents is 21% (8th). In
terms of financial assets, asset poverty ranks 14th, meaning that there are fewer house-
holds without sufficient net worth to exist at the poverty level for three months than in
other states, but the mean net worth ranks 32nd at $100,567.
Asset Policy. There is room for improvement in Utah’s asset-building and protection
policy. The state ranks 40th and earns a D in the index. Overall, the state exhibits
mediocre scores across the board. A few bright spots emerge in school spending equal-
ization across all of the state’s school districts (3rd) and in some measures of affordable
homeownership policy (Utah has a housing trust fund, some property tax circuit
breaker coverage, and some elements that support first-time homebuyers). Conversely,
the state sinks to the bottom of the rankings in per-pupil K–12 expenditures (50th) and
is not so supportive of lower-income undergraduate students (need-based financial aid
ranks 39th).
Measures of business capital and bank access policies are almost entirely missing in the
state. Moreover, financial asset building could be improved with a more comprehensive
Individual Development Account policy, a state Earned Income Tax Credit, and a state
minimum wage. Asset protection could be boosted with more focus on health care policy
and property protection policy.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Utah does a mediocre job on tax policy accountability.
The state does not prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues
foregone via tax breaks. However, it does have some capacity to determine the impact
of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all income levels.
75
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 10 A A S S E T P O L I C Y : 40 DR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$100,567
RANK—32
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—5
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—20.0%
RANK—14
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—N/A
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—14.9%
RANK—27
Utah
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. Vermont excels in Asset Outcomes compared with its peers. It earns
an A and ranks 5th in the index. This commendable performance is attributable to strong
marks across the board. Financial assets are relatively sound here, with mean net worth
of $131,525 (12th) per household and a relatively small (6th) gap in asset poverty be-
tween men and women. Human capital is particularly strong in Vermont. In terms of basic
education the state ranks 6th in math proficiency, and higher education outcomes are
even more sound and evenly distributed. For example, the number of associate’s degrees
ranks 7th, college attainment ranks 12th, income differences in college attainment is
minimal at 7th, and the disparity in college attainment between men and women is also
small at 7th. Still, with almost 22% of households classified as asset poor, Vermont
cannot rest on its laurels.
Business capital is also solid. Vermont’s small business ownership rate is 17% (6th), and its
women’s business ownership rate is 2nd. However, the value of women-owned firms is
the lowest in the nation (50th). Bank access is fair here; the state ranks 17th in both
households with a savings account and households with a checking account. The percent-
age of low-income parents (11%, coming in 1st) and children (9%, ranking 2nd) who lack
health insurance is low here compared with the rest of the United States.
Asset Policy. Vermont scores even higher in Asset Policy, coming in 3rd and landing its
second A. Policymakers are putting forth a solid effort to encourage financial asset
building. Vermont has established a state minimum wage higher than the federal mini-
mum, an Earned Income Tax Credit, policy for Individual Development Accounts, and
more generous asset limit levels for public assistance. Housing policy is also targeted in
the state with a state housing trust fund, property tax circuit breaker protections, and
several first-time homebuyer assistance programs. Business capital is also adequately
backed. Policymakers have invested in a capital access program, microenterprise initia-
tives, employee ownership policy, and some assistance to asset-poor farmers.
There is room for improvement in human capital policy in Vermont. Although the state
has a pre-kindergarten program and ranks 5th in need-based financial aid for undergrad-
uates, it fares poorly in the equality of spending across all of the state’s school districts
(50th). This is due to a strong reliance on the property tax for school spending. Asset-
protection policies are fair here. There is a substantially good mix of policy, but some key
ones are still missing. For example, the state’s homeowners could benefit from better
property protection with measures restricting predatory lending and insurance redlining.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Vermont does a mediocre job on tax policy accounta-
bility. The state does not prepare a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of
revenues foregone via tax breaks. It only has some capacity to determine the impact of
state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers of all incomes.
76
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 5 A A S S E T P O L I C Y : 3 AR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
Vermont
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$131,525
RANK—12
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—28
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—21.8%
RANK—22
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—6
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—15.4%
RANK—32
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Asset Outcomes. Virginia ranks 22nd and earns a C on Asset Outcomes. Though only
average on a national basis, Virginia’s grade is one of the best in the South. Mean net
worth per household ($122,320) ranks 18th nationally and is the highest of all south-
ern states. However, with 22% of households considered asset poor, Virginia is below
the median. Moreover, Virginia has the nation’s largest gap in wealth between white and
non-white households. On measures of homeownership capital, Virginia performs well
overall, with a strong homeownership rate (11th), high median home values (7th), and
the 5th-smallest gap in homeownership between men and women.
With the nation’s 4th-highest ranking for college attainment, Virginia scores well on
measures of human capital accumulation. However, the state does not do as well on
measures of business capital accumulation, ranking 47th in small business ownership rate
and 41st in private loans to small businesses. It also ranks near the bottom in asset pro-
tection in the form of health insurance (47th in uninsured low-income children and 41st
in uninsured low-income parents).
Asset Policy. Virginia ranks 33rd in Asset Policy measures, earning a C in the index.
Besides a small statewide Individual Development Account program to encourage di-
rectly the accumulation of assets, Virginia has done little to help working-poor fami-
lies keep more of their earnings so they can build financial assets. In addition, the
state lags behind its peers in state support for affordable homeownership, with no state
housing trust fund and a low ranking (36th) on the share of private activity bonds de-
voted to home mortgages.
On policies to protect family finances from injury or job loss, Virginia scores fairly well,
with the 9th-best workers’ compensation benefits and the 12th best unemployment in-
surance benefits. However, Virginia has not acted aggressively to expand health coverage
as a way to protect the assets of working-poor families from medical emergencies. The
state should consider making it easier for the parents of Medicaid-eligible children to
qualify for Medicaid, providing more than 12 months of transitional medical assistance
for families leaving welfare for work, and encouraging more small businesses to offer
health care coverage.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Virginia does an average job on tax policy accountabil-
ity. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of revenues
foregone via tax breaks, although it does not make this report available on the web. It
also has some capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax
code on taxpayers of all incomes. This increases the likelihood of recognizing regressive
tax policies and makes it easier to analyze the impact of such policies on households of
differing income levels.
77
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 22 C A S S E T P O L I C Y : 33 CR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$122,320
RANK—18
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—28
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—25
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—22.3%
RANK—28
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—14
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—26
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—15.0%
RANK—28
Virginia
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. Washington earned an A in Asset Outcomes, ranking 7th overall. With
a mean net worth of $139,348, households in Washington are the nation’s 8th most
wealthy. However, the distribution of assets in Washington is very uneven. Almost 25%
of Washington’s households are asset poor (lacking a three-month financial safety net),
ranking 39th nationally. In addition, 16% of the state’s households have zero net worth,
ranking 37th. On the plus side, Washington has the smallest gap in assets between men
and women.
Washington scores very well on measures of human capital accumulation, ranking 11th in
overall college attainment. Moreover, access to educational opportunities is widely
shared. The state has the 3rd-lowest gap in college attainment between whites and non-
whites and the 4th-lowest gap in college attainment between men and women.
Asset protection in the form of health insurance is also strong in Washington, with high
ranks in insurance for low-income parents (9th) and insurance for low-income children
(16th).
Asset Policy. Washington also earned an A in Asset Policy, ranking 6th overall.
Washington is at the forefront of a new asset-building tool for low-income people—
Individual Development Accounts (IDAs). Washington has appropriated over $1 million dol-
lars for IDAs, included IDAs in their state Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
plan, and has a state IDA program. The state does well overall on support for homeown-
ership, ranking just below the median in the share of private activity bonds for home
mortgages but supporting a state housing trust fund and offering an array of first-time
homebuyer assistance programs.
Washington leads in affordable health care policies and thus helps to shield family fi-
nances from medical emergencies. Washington is one of only 10 states that has ex-
panded Medicaid for low-income adults without children and one of nine states to offer
a subsidy for small businesses that offer health care coverage for their employees.
Washington has also been the 2nd most aggressive state in expanding Medicaid coverage
to low-income parents, covering parents who earn up to 200% of the poverty level.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Washington has a very good record of tax policy ac-
countability. Washington prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of
revenues foregone via tax breaks and makes this report available on the web. It also has
the capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on tax-
payers of all incomes.
78
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 7 A A S S E T P O L I C Y : 6 AR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
Washington
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$139,348
RANK—8
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—25
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—1
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—24.0%
RANK—39
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—13
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—11
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—16.1%
RANK—37
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Asset Outcomes. West Virginia generally falls near the bottom in Asset Outcome meas-
ures, ranking 41st and earning a D in the index. The state ranks 46th in mean household
net worth ($79,415), reflecting its overall lack of wealth and low incomes. However, it
performs much better in measures of asset poverty (9th), the gap in asset poverty
between men and women (3rd), and the number of households with zero net worth
(2nd). In terms of homeownership capital, the state ranks 5th in homeownership rate
(76%), but these homes are of relatively low value, ranking 44th in median value of home.
Policymakers need to focus more on developing human capital in West Virginia. The state
ranks just above the median in basic educational proficiency (15th in reading and 26th in
math). However, its higher education measures are not good: the number of associate’s de-
grees is low (49th), as is the level of overall college attainment (50th), and the gap in college
attainment between high-income earners and low-income earners is relatively large (42nd).
The state’s business rankings are mainly poor. While ranking 3rd in minority entrepreneurship,
West Virginia ranks 45th in small business ownership rate, 43rd in women’s business owner-
ship rate, and 43rd in business ownership value by gender. Completing the financial picture,
the state ranks 1st in the nation in the percentage of households with non-interest-bearing
checking accounts but 45th in households with savings accounts. An important dimension of
asset protection is lacking as well: the state is 43rd in the percentage of employers who pro-
vide health insurance, which can help families protect their assets in times of medical emer-
gencies.
Asset Policy. West Virginia ranks 36th in Asset Policy measures, earning a D in the index.
Financial assets could be improved here with Individual Development Account programs and
a state Earned Income Tax Credit, both of which help low-income earners build wealth. Some
wealth creation is encouraged, however, with less penalizing restrictions on asset holdings re-
quired to qualify for public assistance programs. Affordable housing is supported by the
state with a state housing trust fund and some assistance for first-times homebuyers. Sadly,
the state appears not to be addressing its entrepreneurial needs. It has no program for pro-
moting microenterprise development, nor does it offer aid to asset-poor farmers.
The state is investing in its skill base for the future: it runs a state-funded pre-kinder-
garten program, it ranks 1st in K–12 education spending ($9.18 per pupil) and 6th in
school spending equalization. Worker protections seem to be uneven: West Virginia is
43rd in workers’ compensation coverage but ranks higher in benefit levels provided
through unemployment insurance (15th).
Tax Policy and Accountability. West Virginia does produce a report showing where it
allocates state expenditures but does not make it available on the web. It also does not
have the capacity to conduct a tax impact analysis of how changes to the tax code will
affect taxpayers before enacting legislation. This makes it difficult to assess the effects
of varied tax reform options on households with differing incomes.
79
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 41 D A S S E T P O L I C Y : 36 DR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$79,415
RANK—46
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—17
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—19.2%
RANK—9
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—3
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—9.5%
RANK—2
West Virginia
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
Asset Outcomes. Wisconsin gets earns an A in Asset Outcomes, ranking 9th overall.
The state’s mean net worth is $129,102 per household (16th). The state has the 10th-
smallest gap in assets between white and non-white households. The state also has the
9th-smallest percentage of households with zero net worth (13%). On measures of busi-
ness capital, Wisconsin scores below the median on the small business ownership rate
(12%), but ranks among the top 10 in providing private loans to small businesses.
Interestingly the women’s business ownership rate is a low 3% (42nd), but the value of
these firms is high ($17,532, ranking 4th). Minority entrepreneurship ranks below average
at 31st, yet business ownership value by race ranks 3rd nationwide ($1,589,015). This re-
flects the larger size of the state’s minority and women-owned firms.
The state deserves special attention for its high rankings in bank access. Wisconsin has
the highest percentage of households with savings accounts (79%), and ranks 10th in
households with non-interest-bearing checking accounts (41%).
The outcomes in health insurance, as a measure of asset protection, are above average,
but they leave room for improvement. Twenty-six percent of low-income parents are
uninsured (ranking 15th), as are 13% of low-income children (9th).
Asset Policy. Still performing well, Wisconsin earns a B in Asset Policy and ranks 13th. To
encourage financial asset building, the state has a comprehensive Earned Income Tax
Credit policy that allows low-income workers to keep more of their wages and have some
to save. The state could do more though by investing in the many Individual Development
Account programs operating in the state. Early childhood education is supported here
through a Head Start program and relatively high K–12 expenditures ($8.52 per pupil,
ranking 3rd). Yet, there is room for improvement in postsecondary education. Wisconsin
ranks 38th in customized job training.
While the state has several good business capital policies (capital access programs, some
assistance for asset-poor farmers and support for employee ownership), it lacks initia-
tives in microenterprise development and state-level community development financial
institutions. Wisconsin also does a good job of protecting assets. The state provides
subsidies for small business health care coverage and has initiated efforts against
property insurance redlining. Although the state’s unemployment insurance still needs
reforms in certain areas, its benefit level is good (7th), meaning family finances are rela-
tively well-protected against job loss.
Tax Policy and Accountability. Wisconsin does an above average job on tax policy ac-
countability. The state prepares a tax expenditure report that itemizes the value of rev-
enues lost from tax breaks and makes this report is available on the web. It also has some
capacity to determine the impact of state taxes or changes in the tax code on taxpayers
of all incomes.
80
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 9 A A S S E T P O L I C Y : 13 BR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
Wisconsin
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$129,102
RANK—16
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—10
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—30
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—20.5%
RANK—18
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—23
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—17
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—12.7%
RANK—9
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Asset Outcomes. Asset Outcomes in Wyoming are only average. The state ranks 33rd
and receives a C in the index. Scores in this index range widely. However, most of the
best performance lies in its business capital measures. Wyoming has the 2nd-highest
small business ownership rate, ranks 7th in women’s business ownership rate, and ranks
8th in minority entrepreneurship. The value of women-owned firms, though, is quite low
(49th). The state also claims high ranks in the individual measures of homeownership by
gender (4th), Head Start coverage (5th), and households with savings accounts (11th).
Wyoming’s indicators for financial assets and human capital lower its performance rela-
tive to its peers. Mean net worth in Wyoming is $79,353 (47th), asset poverty ranks
44th, and households with zero net worth rank 38th. The deficit of intellectual capital
lies mostly in higher education performance. Overall, college attainment in the state is
just under 20% (45th), while college attainment by race is 44th, and college attainment
by gender is 45th. On a more promising note, college attainment by income is 12th, indi-
cating that all income earners have more equal access to colleges than in most other
states.
Asset Policy. Almost in the cellar, Wyoming ranks 49th in Asset Policy and earns a failing
grade in the index. It lacks most of the critical asset-based policies identified in the
Report Card. State policymakers here have much work to do and many policies to choose
from to catch up with their peers. Investments in Individual Development Account policy
and more generous asset limits to qualify for public assistance would be a good place to
start bolstering the financial assets of residents. Policies to support affordable home-
ownership and business capital also demand attention.
Asset protection needs greater attention too. Although the state is 2nd in the workers’
compensation benefit index level, it ranks 41st in the number of workers covered (82%).
However, the state does exhibit solid spending efforts for K–12 expenditures (9th), but
this result is countered by a poor ranking in need-based financial aid for undergraduates
(45th).
Tax Policy and Accountability. Transparency and accountability in state spending and
taxation could be improved in Wyoming. The state fails to produce a tax expenditure re-
port that accounts for revenues lost by tax breaks. In addition, the state also does not
possess a tax incidence model, which would allow policymakers to analyze the impact of
new taxes (or tax cuts) on all of the state’s income earners.
81
O N L I N E R E P O R T : S A D R C . C F E D . O R G C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A S S E T O U T C O M E S : 33 C A S S E T P O L I C Y : 49 FR A N K G R A D E R A N K G R A D E
K E Y M E A S U R E S
MEAN NET WORTH
VALUE—$79,353
RANK—47
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET INEQUALITY
BY GENDER
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
VALUE—26.9%
RANK—44
ASSET POVERTY
BY RACE
RANK—N/A
ASSET POVERTY
BY GENDER
RANK—N/A
HOUSEHOLDS WITH
ZERO NET WORTH
VALUE—16.2%
RANK—38
Wyoming
S E C T I O N 3 : S TAT E B Y S TAT E
4S E C T I O N 4
In this section, all 68 indicators behind the state grades and rankings are
reviewed in detail. For each indicator, a table containing the raw data is
provided, along with the following:
1) rationale—why the indicator is important to track, other factors to
which it might relate
2) measure—exactly what each indicator reflects
3) source—how the data was obtained
83
Measure by Measure: Rationale and raw data
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D84
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Asset outcomes indexFinancial assets
The indicators in the financial assets grouping provide direct state-level
estimates of household wealth accumulation, asset poverty, and the dis-
tribution of assets between various population groups. These are first-
time estimates of wealth indicators available at the state level. To gener-
ate these important estimates, the Corporation for
Enterprise Development (CFED) commissioned researchers
Robert and Jon Haveman. The Havemans produced the esti-
mates used in the Report Card with data collected from the
Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), which is
released periodically by the U.S. Census Bureau. However, as
the weighting scheme in the SIPP has been developed to
provide a sample that is representative of demographics at
the national level and not at the state level, the Havemans
used the data from the March Current Population Surveys
to rescale the weights. Three years of data were used to
create an adequate sample size. The rescaling was designed to make the
sample of observations present in the SIPP data set consistent with the
Current Population Surveys on the basis of race, gender, and broad in-
come status.
The financial assets
used in this report
are first-time estimates
of wealth indicators
available at the state level.
Mean Net Worth
Rationale: Measuring household net worth at the mean provides a basic indica-
tion of the level of wealth for average families in a state. For this measure, the data
is presented at the mean rather than the median. Median measures are very sensitive
to zero values, and a large proportion of the sample reported zero net worth.
Measure: Net worth of households, at the mean (expressed in 1996 dollars). Net worth
equals the sum of assets attributable to any individual age 15 years and above in the house-
hold less any liabilities. Assets included in this measure are interest-earning assets, stocks
and mutual fund shares, real estate (own home, rental property, vacation homes, and land
holdings), own business or profession, mortgages held by sellers, and motor vehicles.
Liabilities covered include debts secured by any asset, credit card or store bills, banks loans,
and other unsecured debts.
Source: Calculations by Robert and Jon Haveman based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. Survey of income program population [Electronic data tape]. (1995 and 1996).
Washington, D.C.: Author.
85
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Measuring
household net
worth at the
mean provides a
basic indication of
the level of
wealth for
average families
in a state.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T O U T C O M E S I N D E X
Alabama $92,858 38
Alaska 101,462 31
Arizona 98,641 34
Arkansas 81,270 44
California 131,913 11
Colorado 113,530 24
Connecticut 140,989 6
Delaware 131,466 14
Florida 117,023 22
Georgia 89,855 40
Hawaii 164,318 1
Idaho 96,358 37
Illinois 118,146 20
Indiana 101,622 30
Iowa 142,327 5
Kansas 120,112 19
Kentucky 83,482 42
Louisiana 88,614 41
Maine 131,525 12
Maryland 138,422 9
Massachusetts 132,292 10
Michigan 122,900 17
Minnesota 129,624 15
Mississippi 79,552 45
Missouri 105,861 28
Montana $97,647 35
Nebraska 108,831 27
Nevada 113,637 23
New Hampshire 145,550 3
New Jersey 145,243 4
New Mexico 111,102 26
New York 103,177 29
North Carolina 100,561 33
North Dakota 79,353 47
Ohio 113,481 25
Oklahoma 74,431 50
Oregon 139,706 7
Pennsylvania 117,385 21
Rhode Island 157,476 2
South Carolina 97,521 36
South Dakota 79,353 47
Tennessee 92,551 39
Texas 81,314 43
Utah 100,567 32
Vermont 131,525 12
Virginia 122,320 18
Washington 139,348 8
West Virginia 79,415 46
Wisconsin 129,102 16
Wyoming 79,353 47
A M O U N T R A N K A M O U N T R A N K
Due to a variety
of factors,
racial minorities
accumulate
—on average—
much less than
white families.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
Asset Inequality by Race
Rationale: Due to a variety of factors, including starting out with
differential wealth endowments and facing outright discrimina-
tion, racial minorities accumulate—on average—much less than
white families. For example, on the basis of data from the Federal
Reserve, the National Council of La Raza reports that, in 1998, the
median net worth of Hispanic households was $9,200, that of African
American households was $15,000, and that of white households was
$95,610.28 The measure used in the Report Card indicates how equally
assets are distributed between white and non-white households.
Measure: Mean net worth of white-headed households divided by the mean net worth of
non-white-headed households (expressed in 1996 dollars).
Source: Calculations by Robert and Jon Haveman based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. Survey of income program population [Electronic data tape]. (1995 and 1996).
Washington, D.C.: Author.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D86
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Alabama 3.73 16
Alaska — —
Arizona 3.86 17
Arkansas 3.94 18
California 2.30 2
Colorado 2.38 4
Connecticut 3.47 12
Delaware — —
Florida 2.57 5
Georgia 4.40 23
Hawaii — —
Idaho — —
Illinois 2.93 6
Indiana 3.66 14
Iowa — —
Kansas — —
Kentucky — —
Louisiana 4.11 21
Maine — —
Maryland 3.50 13
Massachusetts 4.54 24
Michigan 3.73 15
Minnesota — —
Mississippi 4.00 20
Missouri 2.37 3
Montana — —
Nebraska — —
Nevada — —
New Hampshire — —
New Jersey 3.97 19
New Mexico — —
New York 4.39 22
North Carolina 3.28 9
North Dakota — —
Ohio 3.46 11
Oklahoma 3.11 8
Oregon — —
Pennsylvania 4.90 27
Rhode Island — —
South Carolina 4.85 26
South Dakota — —
Tennessee 2.03 1
Texas 3.07 7
Utah — —
Vermont — —
Virginia 5.02 28
Washington 4.61 25
West Virginia — —
Wisconsin 3.40 10
Wyoming — —
R AT I O R A N K R AT I O R A N K
Historically,
women have
faced barriers
to or been
prevented from
acquiring assets,
especially
property and
capital.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
Asset Inequality by Gender
Rationale: Historically, women have
faced barriers to or been prevented
from acquiring assets, especially
property and capital. This measure is
an indication of how equally assets are
distributed between men and women.
Measure: Mean net worth of male-headed households divided
by the mean net worth of female-headed households (expressed
in 1996 dollars).
Source: Calculations by Robert and Jon Haveman based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. Survey of income program population [Electronic data tape]. (1995 and 1996).
Washington, D.C.: Author.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T O U T C O M E S I N D E X 87
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Alabama 1.84 38
Alaska — —
Arizona 1.41 18
Arkansas 1.31 8
California 1.26 3
Colorado 1.28 7
Connecticut 1.28 6
Delaware — —
Florida 1.47 24
Georgia 1.43 21
Hawaii — —
Idaho — —
Illinois 1.36 12
Indiana 1.42 20
Iowa 1.37 14
Kansas 1.79 35
Kentucky 1.42 19
Louisiana 2.21 41
Maine 1.55 28
Maryland 1.77 34
Massachusetts 1.40 16
Michigan 1.97 40
Minnesota 1.26 2
Mississippi 1.51 27
Missouri 1.97 39
Montana 1.45 22
Nebraska 1.32 9
Nevada — —
New Hampshire 1.34 11
New Jersey 1.46 23
New Mexico 1.58 33
New York 1.39 15
North Carolina 1.58 32
North Dakota — —
Ohio 1.26 4
Oklahoma 1.49 26
Oregon 1.33 10
Pennsylvania 1.57 31
Rhode Island — —
South Carolina 1.81 36
South Dakota — —
Tennessee 1.82 37
Texas 1.36 13
Utah 1.27 5
Vermont 1.55 28
Virginia 1.48 25
Washington 1.20 1
West Virginia 1.40 17
Wisconsin 1.56 30
Wyoming — —
R AT I O R A N K R AT I O R A N K
Asset Poverty
Rationale: Given the importance of
assets for household economic
self-sufficiency, this measure ex-
pands the notion of poverty to in-
clude a minimum threshold of wealth
needed for both security and mobility.
Research shows that—even using a liberal
definition of asset poverty—the asset poverty rate
(25.5%) is twice that of the income poverty rate (12.7%).29
Measure: Percentage of the population of households without sufficient net worth to
subsist at the poverty level for three months without other support (as of 1996).
Source: Calculations by Robert and Jon Haveman based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. Survey of income program population [Electronic data tape]. (1995 and 1996).
Washington, D.C.: Author.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D88
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Research
shows that—
even using a
liberal definition
of asset poverty—
the asset poverty
rate (25.5%) is
twice that of the
income poverty
rate (12.7%).
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
Alabama 20.0% 16
Alaska 18.9 7
Arizona 28.8 48
Arkansas 31.0 49
California 28.5 47
Colorado 23.9 38
Connecticut 22.5 29
Delaware 22.6 30
Florida 19.6 11
Georgia 25.5 41
Hawaii 25.2 40
Idaho 23.5 34
Illinois 20.0 15
Indiana 22.2 27
Iowa 14.2 1
Kansas 23.0 32
Kentucky 22.0 26
Louisiana 25.9 43
Maine 21.8 22
Maryland 19.8 12
Massachusetts 23.0 33
Michigan 19.0 8
Minnesota 15.7 2
Mississippi 19.4 10
Missouri 21.3 20
Montana 23.8% 36
Nebraska 21.4 21
Nevada 23.6 35
New Hampshire 18.0 6
New Jersey 20.5 17
New Mexico 17.4 3
New York 32.1 50
North Carolina 20.0 13
North Dakota 26.9 44
Ohio 17.6 4
Oklahoma 20.8 19
Oregon 21.8 24
Pennsylvania 18.0 5
Rhode Island 22.0 25
South Carolina 23.9 37
South Dakota 26.9 44
Tennessee 22.9 31
Texas 25.5 42
Utah 20.0 14
Vermont 21.8 22
Virginia 22.3 28
Washington 24.0 39
West Virginia 19.2 9
Wisconsin 20.5 18
Wyoming 26.9 44
P E R C E N TA G E R A N K P E R C E N TA G E R A N K
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
Asset Poverty by Race
Rationale: This measure is an indication of
the difference in asset poverty between
white and non-white households.
Measure: Asset poverty rate of white-
headed households divided by the asset poverty
rate of non-white-headed households (as of 1996).
Source: Calculations by Robert and Jon Haveman based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. (1995 and 1996). Survey of income program population [Electronic data tape].
Washington, D.C.: Author.
89
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Alabama 0.40 15
Alaska — —
Arizona 0.54 4
Arkansas 0.57 2
California 0.49 7
Colorado 0.49 8
Connecticut 0.29 28
Delaware — —
Florida 0.37 20
Georgia 0.39 16
Hawaii — —
Idaho — —
Illinois 0.34 21
Indiana 0.43 12
Iowa — —
Kansas — —
Kentucky — —
Louisiana 0.32 24
Maine — —
Maryland 0.38 19
Massachusetts 0.32 25
Michigan 0.44 11
Minnesota — —
Mississippi 0.57 1
Missouri 0.39 17
Montana — —
Nebraska — —
Nevada — —
New Hampshire — —
New Jersey 0.30 26
New Mexico — —
New York 0.30 27
North Carolina 0.48 9
North Dakota — —
Ohio 0.38 18
Oklahoma 0.54 3
Oregon — —
Pennsylvania 0.33 22
Rhode Island — —
South Carolina 0.53 6
South Dakota — —
Tennessee 0.48 10
Texas 0.54 5
Utah — —
Vermont — —
Virginia 0.42 14
Washington 0.43 13
West Virginia — —
Wisconsin 0.32 23
Wyoming — —
R AT I O R A N K R AT I O R A N K
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T O U T C O M E S I N D E X
Asset Poverty by Gender
Rationale: This measure is an indication
of the difference in asset poverty be-
tween men and women.
Measure: Asset poverty rate of male-
headed households divided by the asset
poverty rate of female-headed households
(as of 1996).
Source: Calculations by Robert and Jon Haveman based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. Survey of income program population [Electronic data tape]. (1995 and 1996).
Washington, D.C.: Author.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D90
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Alabama 0.56 31
Alaska — —
Arizona 0.86 1
Arkansas 0.74 13
California 0.75 10
Colorado 0.85 2
Connecticut 0.71 14
Delaware — —
Florida 0.76 9
Georgia 0.61 25
Hawaii — —
Idaho 0.75 12
Illinois 0.59 30
Indiana 0.60 29
Iowa 0.56 32
Kansas 0.67 20
Kentucky 0.63 22
Louisiana 0.60 28
Maine 0.77 6
Maryland 0.68 19
Massachusetts 0.54 34
Michigan 0.53 36
Minnesota 0.69 16
Mississippi 0.44 40
Missouri 0.48 39
Montana 0.55 33
Nebraska 0.81 5
Nevada — —
New Hampshire 0.68 18
New Jersey 0.54 35
New Mexico 0.52 38
New York 0.62 23
North Carolina 0.62 24
North Dakota — —
Ohio 0.70 15
Oklahoma —
Oregon 0.82 4
Pennsylvania 0.53 37
Rhode Island — —
South Carolina 0.66 21
South Dakota — —
Tennessee 0.60 27
Texas 0.77 8
Utah —
Vermont 0.77 6
Virginia 0.61 26
Washington 0.75 11
West Virginia 0.85 3
Wisconsin 0.69 17
Wyoming — —
R AT I O R A N K R AT I O R A N K
Households with
Zero Net Worth
Rationale: This measure provides
a way to describe the intensity of
asset poverty and highlights the
depth of the challenge of helping
all families to build assets.
Measure: Percentage of households with zero (or
less than zero, i.e., negative) net worth (as of 1996).
Source: Calculations by Robert and Jon Haveman based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. Survey of income program population [Electronic data tape]. (1995 and 1996).
Washington, D.C.: Author.
91
This measure
highlights
the depth of
the challenge of
helping all families
to build assets.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T O U T C O M E S I N D E X
Alabama 13.4% 18
Alaska 11.3 5
Arizona 16.3 42
Arkansas 22.2 49
California 16.7 43
Colorado 15.6 34
Connecticut 16.1 36
Delaware 14.0 23
Florida 13.2 17
Georgia 17.1 44
Hawaii 18.1 47
Idaho 15.3 30
Illinois 15.0 29
Indiana 13.6 21
Iowa 8.9 1
Kansas 13.9 22
Kentucky 13.5 20
Louisiana 17.7 46
Maine 15.4 32
Maryland 15.3 31
Massachusetts 16.3 41
Michigan 13.2 15
Minnesota 10.0 3
Mississippi 10.8 4
Missouri 13.1 14
Montana 14.2% 24
Nebraska 13.2 16
Nevada 22.0 48
New Hampshire 11.4 6
New Jersey 12.8 11
New Mexico 11.9 7
New York 23.8 50
North Carolina 13.4 19
North Dakota 16.2 39
Ohio 12.0 8
Oklahoma 12.7 10
Oregon 13.0 12
Pennsylvania 13.1 13
Rhode Island 14.8 26
South Carolina 16.0 35
South Dakota 16.2 39
Tennessee 14.7 25
Texas 17.1 45
Utah 14.9 27
Vermont 15.4 32
Virginia 15.0 28
Washington 16.1 37
West Virginia 9.5 2
Wisconsin 12.7 9
Wyoming 16.2 38
P E R C E N TA G E R A N K P E R C E N TA G E R A N K
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Homeownership Capital
The homeownership capital measures in the Report Card assess how
many of a state’s residents own their own home, the average level of
wealth accumulated in homes, and the extent to which homeownership
is a source of equity for all of the state’s residents.
Measures of homeownership capital are included in the
Report Card because home equity is the single largest
source of wealth for most Americans. According to the
Census Bureau, home equity accounts for the largest
share of net worth in U.S. households, totaling 44.4% of
measured net worth.30
However, while the primary objective of the Report Card is
to measure the value of homes in the form of home eq-
uity, no direct measures of home equity exist at the state
level. Therefore, the measures included in this grouping
are all proxies for both the overall level of home equity
and the extent to which different population groups have
accumulated home equity. Also, the reader will note that
no measure of housing affordability is included here. While
we recognize that being able to afford a home is a prereq-
uisite for accumulating home equity, we could find no
straightforward measure of homeownership affordability
that did not raise more questions than it answered.
However, one can assume that affordability is accounted
for to some extent by some of the measures included here (especially
the various measures of homeownership rate).
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D92
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Home equity is the single
largest source of wealth
for most Americans.
However, no direct
measures of home equity
exist at the state level.
The measures included here
are thus proxies for both
home equity overall and the
extent to which different
population groups have
accumulated home equity.
Homeownership Rate
Rationale: A home is an asset that al-
lows stability, fosters long-term
thinking, and builds both financial
equity and commitment to a neigh-
borhood. While not directly measur-
ing home equity, this measure pro-
vides an indication of how many families
in a state have the opportunity to build
wealth in the form of home equity.
Measure: Homeownership rates by state (in 2000).
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (February 2001). 2000 Housing
vacancy survey. Washington, D.C.: Author.
93
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
While not
directly measuring
home equity, this
measure provides
an indication of
how many families
in a state have
the opportunity
to build wealth
in the form of
home equity.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might therefore
have different ranks even though
the measures here appear the
same.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T O U T C O M E S I N D E X
Alabama 73.2% 14
Alaska 66.4 40
Arizona 68.0 38
Arkansas 68.9 33
California 57.1 48
Colorado 68.3 36
Connecticut 70.0 28
Delaware 72.0 17
Florida 68.4 35
Georgia 69.8 30
Hawaii 55.2 49
Idaho 70.5 25
Illinois 67.9 39
Indiana 74.9 8
Iowa 75.2 6
Kansas 69.3 31
Kentucky 73.4 13
Louisiana 68.1 37
Maine 76.5 2
Maryland 69.9 29
Massachusetts 59.9 47
Michigan 77.2 1
Minnesota 76.1 4
Mississippi 75.2 6
Missouri 74.2 10
Montana 70.2% 26
Nebraska 70.2 26
Nevada 64.0 43
New Hampshire 69.2 32
New Jersey 66.2 41
New Mexico 73.7 12
New York 53.4 50
North Carolina 71.1 21
North Dakota 70.7 24
Ohio 71.3 19
Oklahoma 72.7 15
Oregon 65.3 42
Pennsylvania 74.7 9
Rhode Island 61.5 46
South Carolina 76.5 2
South Dakota 71.2 20
Tennessee 70.9 23
Texas 63.8 44
Utah 72.7 15
Vermont 68.7 34
Virginia 73.9 11
Washington 63.6 45
West Virginia 75.9 5
Wisconsin 71.8 18
Wyoming 71.0 22
P E R C E N TA G E R A N K P E R C E N TA G E R A N K
Median Value of Home
Rationale: The value of a home indicates the worth of that asset and
its resale value for the homeowner. Together with the homeowner-
ship rate, this measure is an indirect attempt to estimate home equity,
though it should be made clear that homes with higher value do not nec-
essarily correlate with higher home equity. All things equal, though, the
higher the value of a home, the more one can borrow against it to invest
in additional assets, such as college education or a small business.
Measure: Median value of households that own their primary residence, three-year aver-
age (1997–1999), adjusted for cost of living.
Source: Calculations by Robert and Jon Haveman based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. March current population surveys [Electronic data tape]. (1998, 1999, and 2000).
Washington, D.C.: Author. Cost of living data from the Missouri Economic Research and Information
Center [On-line]. Available: ded.state.mo.us/business/researchandplanning/indicators/cost_of_liv-
ing/index.shtml. (May 2002) based on data from the American Chamber of Commerce Researchers
Association [On-line] Available: www.coli.org.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D94
All things equal,
the higher the
value of a home,
the more one can
borrow against it
to invest in
additional assets,
such as college
education or a
small business.
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Alabama $84,364 37
Alaska 75,245 46
Arizona 89,370 30
Arkansas 99,183 21
California 148,305 3
Colorado 117,596 9
Connecticut 112,156 10
Delaware 126,761 6
Florida 97,336 23
Georgia 110,337 11
Hawaii 172,771 1
Idaho 100,432 18
Illinois 103,346 14
Indiana 101,937 17
Iowa 85,533 34
Kansas 68,822 49
Kentucky 91,220 29
Louisiana 84,388 36
Maine 55,276 50
Maryland 150,254 2
Massachusetts 102,960 15
Michigan 82,102 39
Minnesota 92,955 27
Mississippi 69,668 48
Missouri 85,324 35
Montana $72,464 47
Nebraska 88,933 32
Nevada 119,617 8
New Hampshire 105,042 13
New Jersey 96,154 24
New Mexico 99,432 20
New York 76,923 45
North Carolina 92,323 28
North Dakota 82,305 38
Ohio 98,650 22
Oklahoma 81,250 41
Oregon 102,639 16
Pennsylvania 93,320 26
Rhode Island 81,744 40
South Carolina 89,286 31
South Dakota 80,080 43
Tennessee 94,444 25
Texas 88,443 33
Utah 136,502 4
Vermont 99,819 19
Virginia 122,574 7
Washington 131,603 5
West Virginia 79,618 44
Wisconsin 108,588 12
Wyoming 80,890 42
VA L U E R A N K VA L U E R A N K
Homeownership by Race
Rationale: Homeownership is especially important for asset accumulation among
populations that tend to have lower levels of wealth, such as African Americans and
Hispanics. While home equity represents, at the median, 40% of the net worth of white
families, it represents 57% of the net worth of African American homeowners and 71%
of the net worth of Hispanic families.31 Yet, minority populations have lower homeowner-
ship rates than white families. According to the U.S. Census, only 45% of African
Americans and 41% of Hispanics own their own homes, compared with 67% of whites.
Given the importance of homeownership for racial minorities, this measure gives an indi-
cation of how similar or dissimilar the homeownership rate is between white and non-
white households.
Measure: Homeownership among white-headed households divided by homeownership
among non-white-headed households, based on a three-year average (1997-1999).
Source: Calculations by Robert and Jon Haveman based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. March current population surveys [Electronic data tape]. (1998, 1999, and 2000).
Washington, D.C.: Author.
95
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Homeownership is
especially
important for
asset accumulation
among populations
that tend to have
lower levels of
wealth, such as
African Americans
and Hispanics.
Number of decimal places are limited
for presentation purposes. State
ranks are based on full number. Two
states might therefore have
different ranks even though the
measures here appear the same.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T O U T C O M E S I N D E X
Alabama 1.44 20
Alaska 1.42 17
Arizona 1.37 11
Arkansas 1.53 29
California 1.40 14
Colorado 1.37 13
Connecticut 2.33 42
Delaware 1.42 18
Florida 1.50 28
Georgia 1.50 27
Hawaii 0.85 1
Idaho 1.59 32
Illinois 1.72 36
Indiana 1.31 4
Iowa 2.57 46
Kansas 2.04 40
Kentucky 1.54 30
Louisiana 1.49 25
Maine — —
Maryland 1.31 5
Massachusetts 2.54 45
Michigan 1.62 33
Minnesota 1.93 38
Mississippi 1.32 7
Missouri 1.45 22
Montana 1.34 8
Nebraska 1.66 34
Nevada 1.46 23
New Hampshire — —
New Jersey 1.97 39
New Mexico 1.10 2
New York 2.40 43
North Carolina 1.44 19
North Dakota 1.49 26
Ohio 1.56 31
Oklahoma 1.44 21
Oregon 1.37 12
Pennsylvania 1.42 16
Rhode Island 2.42 44
South Carolina 1.20 3
South Dakota 1.75 37
Tennessee 1.72 35
Texas 1.37 10
Utah 1.35 9
Vermont — —
Virginia 1.40 15
Washington 1.31 6
West Virginia — —
Wisconsin 2.18 41
Wyoming 1.48 24
R AT I O R A N K R AT I O R A N K
Homeownership by Income
Rationale: Low-Income families tend to have lower rates of home-
ownership, though studies of asset accumulation among low-in-
come households note the particular importance of home equity.
For low-income families, homeownership represents both an important
source of wealth and direct consumption value.32 This indicator measures
how equal the homeownership rate is among rich and poor families.
Measure: Ratio of homeownership among household heads in the top
income quintile to homeownership among household heads in the bottom income quin-
tile, based on a three-year average (1997-1999).
Source: Calculations by Robert and Jon Haveman based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. March current population surveys [Electronic data tape]. (1998, 1999, and 2000).
Washington, D.C.: Author.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D96
For low-income
families,
homeownership
represents both
an important
source of wealth
and direct
consumption
value.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Alabama 1.68 14
Alaska 1.56 2
Arizona 1.90 28
Arkansas 1.96 33
California 2.36 44
Colorado 1.93 31
Connecticut 2.00 37
Delaware 1.57 4
Florida 1.73 19
Georgia 1.66 11
Hawaii 2.85 48
Idaho 1.72 18
Illinois 1.97 35
Indiana 1.85 24
Iowa 1.57 5
Kansas 2.34 43
Kentucky 1.60 8
Louisiana 1.63 9
Maine 1.50 1
Maryland 1.90 27
Massachusetts 2.43 47
Michigan 1.69 15
Minnesota 2.19 40
Mississippi 1.59 7
Missouri 1.85 23
Montana 1.75 21
Nebraska 1.96 32
Nevada 1.92 29
New Hampshire 2.11 39
New Jersey 2.40 46
New Mexico 1.58 6
New York 3.07 49
North Carolina 1.64 10
North Dakota 1.92 30
Ohio 2.07 38
Oklahoma 1.72 17
Oregon 1.96 34
Pennsylvania 1.70 16
Rhode Island 4.73 50
South Carolina 1.68 13
South Dakota 2.36 45
Tennessee 1.56 3
Texas 1.87 25
Utah 1.89 26
Vermont 1.99 36
Virginia 1.66 12
Washington 2.33 42
West Virginia 1.80 22
Wisconsin 2.19 41
Wyoming 1.73 20
R AT I O R A N K R AT I O R A N K
Homeownership by Gender
Rationale: Given the historic difficulty
women have had owning, acquiring,
and inheriting property, women have
lagged behind in this important asset.
This indicator measures how equal the
homeownership rate is between male-
and female-headed households.
Measure: Ratio of homeownership among male-headed house-
holds to homeownership among female-headed households, based on a three-year aver-
age (1997-1999).
Source: Calculations by Robert and Jon Haveman based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. March current population surveys [Electronic data tape]. (1998, 1999, and 2000).
Washington, D.C.: Author.
97
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Given the
historic difficulty
women have had
owning, acquiring,
and inheriting
property, women
have lagged
behind in this
important asset.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T O U T C O M E S I N D E X
Alabama 1.23 35
Alaska 1.10 6
Arizona 1.18 27
Arkansas 1.25 40
California 1.22 34
Colorado 1.09 2
Connecticut 1.13 10
Delaware 1.27 44
Florida 1.14 14
Georgia 1.14 13
Hawaii 1.19 28
Idaho 1.10 3
Illinois 1.27 45
Indiana 1.18 26
Iowa 1.18 24
Kansas 1.15 17
Kentucky 1.20 30
Louisiana 1.39 50
Maine 1.10 8
Maryland 1.20 29
Massachusetts 1.17 22
Michigan 1.23 36
Minnesota 1.24 39
Mississippi 1.15 19
Missouri 1.24 38
Montana 1.24 37
Nebraska 1.32 47
Nevada 1.06 1
New Hampshire 1.16 20
New Jersey 1.29 46
New Mexico 1.14 12
New York 1.33 48
North Carolina 1.10 7
North Dakota 1.25 43
Ohio 1.18 23
Oklahoma 1.11 9
Oregon 1.14 15
Pennsylvania 1.21 32
Rhode Island 1.38 49
South Carolina 1.20 31
South Dakota 1.15 18
Tennessee 1.25 41
Texas 1.13 11
Utah 1.25 42
Vermont 1.18 25
Virginia 1.10 5
Washington 1.14 16
West Virginia 1.22 33
Wisconsin 1.16 21
Wyoming 1.10 4
R AT I O R A N K R AT I O R A N K
Human Capital
The human capital measures in the Report Card assess the education and
skill levels of a state’s population from early childhood through adult-
hood and the extent to which human capital (in the form
of education and skill levels) has been accumulated among
different population groups. Measures of human capital
accumulation are included in the Report Card because
“human capital theory” argues that people can be viewed
as an economic asset in which increased investment in
health, skills, and knowledge provide future returns for
the economy through increases in labor productivity.
Moreover, for individual workers in a global information-
age economy, education levels now determine economic
prospects. For example, the weekly earnings payoff differ-
ence between a high school graduate and a college gradu-
ate has more than doubled between 1980 and 2000.33
Thus, human capital is not only an asset in itself, but also
(at higher levels) results in higher wages that can be saved
to accumulate wealth.
Measuring actual levels of human capital presents significant method-
ological problems. Therefore, the human capital indicators used in the
Report Card represent a proxy for human capital accumulation and dis-
tribution.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D98
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
“Human capital theory”
argues that people can be
viewed as an economic
asset in which increased
investment in health, skills,
and knowledge provide
future returns for the
economy through increases
in labor productivity.
Head Start Coverage
Rationale: Head Start is an educa-
tional program proven to prepare
low-income children to arrive at
school ready to learn. Head Start
programs are an important compo-
nent in ensuring that all children have a
chance to succeed in school.
Measure: The percentage of children from ages 0 to 5 years
who are in poverty and are served by a Head Start program (as
of 2001).
Source: National Head Start Association. (2001). Head Start yellow pages (8th Ed.). Alexandria VA:
National Head Start Association.
99
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Head Start
programs are
an important
component in
ensuring that
all children
have a chance to
succeed in school.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T O U T C O M E S I N D E X
Alabama 17.1 31
Alaska 46.4 1
Arizona 14.6 43
Arkansas 23.9 12
California 12.0 48
Colorado 23.4 13
Connecticut 15.2 39
Delaware 24.6 10
Florida 12.2 47
Georgia 16.3 36
Hawaii 20.8 24
Idaho 14.7 42
Illinois 16.2 37
Indiana 16.8 34
Iowa 21.4 19
Kansas 20.1 26
Kentucky 24.0 11
Louisiana 15.2 39
Maine 26.6 8
Maryland 16.7 35
Massachusetts 17.1 31
Michigan 18.9 28
Minnesota 21.4 19
Mississippi 34.3 3
Missouri 21.2 22
Montana 22.1 15
Nebraska 17.7 30
Nevada 13.8 45
New Hampshire 11.8 49
New Jersey 17.0 33
New Mexico 15.9 38
New York 11.2 50
North Carolina 15.0 41
North Dakota 30.4 4
Ohio 26.5 9
Oklahoma 26.7 7
Oregon 21.0 23
Pennsylvania 18.7 29
Rhode Island 27.1 5
South Carolina 22.0 16
South Dakota 35.3 2
Tennessee 14.5 44
Texas 13.3 46
Utah 21.5 18
Vermont 21.7 17
Virginia 19.7 27
Washington 20.2 25
West Virginia 21.4 19
Wisconsin 22.9 14
Wyoming 27.1 5
P E R C E N TA G E R A N K P E R C E N TA G E R A N K
Basic Educational Proficiency
Rationale: The National Assessment of Educational Progress test,
given in several subjects at several grade levels, measures stu-
dents’ proficiency levels in vital skills such as reading and math. Like
other standardized tests, some biases may exist. However, this is
the only measure of student performance that is uniform across the
participating states.
Measure: Percentage of fourth-grade students proficient in reading
(using 1998 test results) and math (using 2000 test results).
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1998 reading report card for the states. Washington,
D.C.: Author; and U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2001).
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2001 mathematics report card for the nation
and states. Washington, D.C.: Author.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D100
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Alabama 24% 28 14% 35
Alaska — — — —
Arizona 22 32 17 30
Arkansas 23 30 13 38
California 20 36 15 34
Colorado 34 8 — —
Connecticut 46 1 32 3
Delaware 25 26 — —
Florida 23 30 — —
Georgia 24 28 18 26
Hawaii 17 39 14 35
Idaho — — 21 24
Illinois — — 21 24
Indiana — — 31 4
Iowa 35 7 28 8
Kansas 34 8 30 5
Kentucky 29 15 17 30
Louisiana 19 37 14 35
Maine 36 5 25 12
Maryland 29 15 22 22
Massachusetts 37 3 33 2
Michigan 28 22 29 6
Minnesota 36 5 34 1
Mississippi 18 38 9 40
Missouri 29 15 23 19
Montana 37% 3 25% 12
Nebraska — — 24 17
Nevada 21 35 16 32
New Hampshire 38 2 — —
New Jersey — — — —
New Mexico 22 32 12 39
New York 29 15 22 22
North Carolina 28 22 28 8
North Dakota — — 25 12
Ohio — — 26 11
Oklahoma 30 12 16 32
Oregon 28 22 23 19
Pennsylvania — — — —
Rhode Island 32 11 23 19
South Carolina 22 32 18 26
South Dakota — — — —
Tennessee 25 26 18 26
Texas 29 15 27 10
Utah 28 22 24 17
Vermont — — 29 6
Virginia 30 12 25 12
Washington 29 15 — —
West Virginia 29 15 18 26
Wisconsin 34 8 — —
Wyoming 30 12 25 12
R E A D I N G R A N K M AT H R A N K R E A D I N G R A N K M AT H R A N K
Associate’s Degrees
Rationale: In today’s economy,
more and more new jobs require
that applicants have at least an
associate’s degree. This level of
education represents the entry
point for well-paying jobs of the future.
All things being equal, those who earn more
than enough income to meet current consumption needs
are more likely to save.
Measure: Percentage of population over age 25 who have an associate’s degree (as of
2000).
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. (May 2002). Profile of selected social
characteristics, 2000. Washington, D.C.: Author.
101
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
An associate’s
degree
represents
the entry point
for well-paying
jobs of the
future.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T O U T C O M E S I N D E X
Alabama 6.1% 31
Alaska 7.5 10
Arizona 6.9 22
Arkansas 4.5 48
California 7.2 14
Colorado 6.5 25
Connecticut 6.3 28
Delaware 6.1 32
Florida 7.0 21
Georgia 5.3 42
Hawaii 7.9 8
Idaho 7.9 6
Illinois 6.1 30
Indiana 5.4 41
Iowa 7.5 11
Kansas 5.8 34
Kentucky 4.6 46
Louisiana 3.1 50
Maine 8.0 4
Maryland 5.5 39
Massachusetts 7.0 20
Michigan 7.2 15
Minnesota 7.1 19
Mississippi 6.4 27
Missouri 5.2 43
Montana 5.1% 45
Nebraska 7.9 5
Nevada 5.6 37
New Hampshire 8.7 2
New Jersey 5.4 40
New Mexico 5.5 38
New York 7.1 18
North Carolina 6.6 24
North Dakota 9.2 1
Ohio 5.9 33
Oklahoma 5.6 36
Oregon 6.5 26
Pennsylvania 6.2 29
Rhode Island 7.3 13
South Carolina 6.6 23
South Dakota 7.4 12
Tennessee 4.6 47
Texas 5.1 44
Utah 8.3 3
Vermont 7.9 7
Virginia 5.7 35
Washington 7.8 9
West Virginia 4.2 49
Wisconsin 7.2 16
Wyoming 7.1 17
P E R C E N TA G E R A N K P E R C E N TA G E R A N K
College Attainment
Rationale: In today’s economy, knowledge is itself a traded com-
modity. Those with a college degree earn significantly more than
those with just a high school diploma. Moreover, data from the
Survey of Consumer Finances indicate that, in 1998, families in
which the head of household had a college degree had twice the net
worth—at the median—as families whose head of household had only
some college.34
Measure: Percentage of heads of households with at least four years of college,
based on a three-year average (1997-1999).
Source: Calculations by Robert and Jon Haveman based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. March current population surveys [Electronic data tape]. (1998, 1999, and 2000).
Washington, D.C.: Author.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D102
in 1998, families
in which the head
of household had
a college degree
had twice the net
worth—at the
median—as
families whose
head of
household had
only some college.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Alabama 20.50% 43
Alaska 26.33 16
Arizona 23.33 25
Arkansas 15.63 49
California 29.23 9
Colorado 35.90 1
Connecticut 31.54 5
Delaware 26.19 17
Florida 22.44 32
Georgia 21.48 37
Hawaii 25.17 20
Idaho 21.81 34
Illinois 26.10 18
Indiana 18.54 47
Iowa 22.87 29
Kansas 27.65 13
Kentucky 20.31 44
Louisiana 21.18 40
Maine 21.72 35
Maryland 33.73 2
Massachusetts 33.29 3
Michigan 22.66 31
Minnesota 29.76 7
Mississippi 18.75 46
Missouri 23.50 24
Montana 22.70% 30
Nebraska 21.37 38
Nevada 21.60 36
New Hampshire 28.08 10
New Jersey 31.01 6
New Mexico 24.30 21
New York 26.88 15
North Carolina 23.66 23
North Dakota 21.33 39
Ohio 23.14 27
Oklahoma 21.08 41
Oregon 27.24 14
Pennsylvania 22.93 28
Rhode Island 25.18 19
South Carolina 20.99 42
South Dakota 22.15 33
Tennessee 18.02 48
Texas 24.01 22
Utah 29.57 8
Vermont 27.99 12
Virginia 31.60 4
Washington 28.00 11
West Virginia 15.51 50
Wisconsin 23.17 26
Wyoming 19.74 45
P E R C E N TA G E R A N K P E R C E N TA G E R A N K
College Attainment by Race
Rationale: This measure gives an indica-
tion of how similar or dissimilar college
attainment is between white and non-
white families.
Measure: Percentage of white heads of house-
holds with a college degree divided by the percentage
of non-white heads of households with a college degree,
based on a three-year average (1997-1999).
Source: Calculations by Robert and Jon Haveman based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. March current population surveys [Electronic data tape]. (1998, 1999, and 2000).
Washington, D.C.: Author.
103
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T O U T C O M E S I N D E X
Alabama 1.66 25
Alaska 1.85 33
Arizona 2.17 38
Arkansas 1.62 24
California 1.66 26
Colorado 1.74 31
Connecticut 2.43 42
Delaware 1.67 28
Florida 1.45 14
Georgia 1.80 32
Hawaii 1.11 2
Idaho 2.58 43
Illinois 1.42 12
Indiana 1.15 4
Iowa 1.20 6
Kansas 1.57 23
Kentucky 1.20 5
Louisiana 2.19 39
Maine — —
Maryland 1.52 19
Massachusetts 1.51 18
Michigan 1.29 9
Minnesota 1.25 7
Mississippi 1.46 16
Missouri 1.35 11
Montana 1.57 21
Nebraska 1.87 34
Nevada 1.53 20
New Hampshire — —
New Jersey 1.30 10
New Mexico 3.46 46
New York 1.67 27
North Carolina 1.69 29
North Dakota 2.34 40
Ohio 1.46 15
Oklahoma 1.51 17
Oregon 1.10 1
Pennsylvania 1.29 8
Rhode Island 2.89 45
South Carolina 2.06 35
South Dakota 2.16 37
Tennessee 1.57 22
Texas 2.34 41
Utah 1.44 13
Vermont — —
Virginia 1.70 30
Washington 1.14 3
West Virginia — —
Wisconsin 2.14 36
Wyoming 2.88 44
R AT I O R A N K R AT I O R A N K
College Attainment
by Income
Rationale: Lower-income families
tend to have lower levels of college
attainment. This measures gives an
indication of how similar or dissimilar
college attainment is between rich and
poor families.
Measure: Ratio of college attainment for the wealthiest
20% of residents to college attainment for the poorest 20% of
residents, based on a three-year average (1997-1999).
Source: Calculations by Robert and Jon Haveman based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. March current population surveys [Electronic data tape]. (1998, 1999, and 2000).
Washington, D.C.: Author.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D104
Lower-income
families tend to
have lower levels
of college
attainment.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Alabama 10.10 46
Alaska 3.76 3
Arizona 4.59 11
Arkansas 7.31 35
California 4.99 15
Colorado 3.19 1
Connecticut 7.25 33
Delaware 6.07 23
Florida 5.42 18
Georgia 6.97 28
Hawaii 8.18 41
Idaho 4.04 5
Illinois 7.24 32
Indiana 4.18 6
Iowa 4.38 9
Kansas 4.50 10
Kentucky 15.81 49
Louisiana 8.16 40
Maine 5.45 19
Maryland 8.66 44
Massachusetts 5.87 22
Michigan 7.19 31
Minnesota 7.05 30
Mississippi 16.17 50
Missouri 8.52 43
Montana 4.31 8
Nebraska 7.26 34
Nevada 5.48 20
New Hampshire 4.96 14
New Jersey 6.47 25
New Mexico 6.53 26
New York 6.21 24
North Carolina 9.91 45
North Dakota 3.36 2
Ohio 7.85 39
Oklahoma 7.77 36
Oregon 3.95 4
Pennsylvania 6.69 27
Rhode Island 7.84 38
South Carolina 10.13 47
South Dakota 5.82 21
Tennessee 11.80 48
Texas 7.79 37
Utah 5.12 16
Vermont 4.26 7
Virginia 5.34 17
Washington 4.88 13
West Virginia 8.42 42
Wisconsin 7.04 29
Wyoming 4.86 12
R AT I O R A N K R AT I O R A N K
College Attainment
by Gender
Rationale: This measure gives an in-
dication of how similar or dissimilar
college attainment is between
men and women.
Measure: Percentage of male heads of
households with a college degree divided by
the percentage of female heads of households with a
college degree, based on a three-year average (1997-1999).
Source: Calculations by Robert and Jon Haveman based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. March current population surveys [Electronic data tape]. (1998, 1999, and 2000).
Washington, D.C.: Author.
105
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T O U T C O M E S I N D E X
Alabama 1.65 49
Alaska 1.07 6
Arizona 1.41 37
Arkansas 1.51 44
California 1.30 24
Colorado 1.11 8
Connecticut 1.60 47
Delaware 1.39 34
Florida 1.46 41
Georgia 1.32 28
Hawaii 1.14 10
Idaho 1.29 23
Illinois 1.33 29
Indiana 1.24 17
Iowa 0.97 2
Kansas 1.13 9
Kentucky 1.44 40
Louisiana 1.60 48
Maine 0.86 1
Maryland 1.30 25
Massachusetts 1.19 13
Michigan 1.29 22
Minnesota 1.30 26
Mississippi 1.42 38
Missouri 0.97 3
Montana 1.17 12
Nebraska 1.35 31
Nevada 1.19 14
New Hampshire 1.15 11
New Jersey 1.40 35
New Mexico 1.39 33
New York 1.30 27
North Carolina 1.29 21
North Dakota 1.04 5
Ohio 1.38 32
Oklahoma 1.46 42
Oregon 1.25 18
Pennsylvania 1.40 36
Rhode Island 1.26 19
South Carolina 1.59 46
South Dakota 1.21 15
Tennessee 1.67 50
Texas 1.34 30
Utah 1.47 43
Vermont 1.09 7
Virginia 1.24 16
Washington 1.01 4
West Virginia 1.44 39
Wisconsin 1.26 20
Wyoming 1.53 45
R AT I O R A N K R AT I O R A N K
Business Capital
The business capital measures in the Report Card gauge
the rate at which a state’s residents own their own busi-
nesses, the extent to which business ownership has been
achieved across various population groups, and the level
of business wealth accumulated by a state’s nontraditional
entrepreneurs (especially women and minorities).
Measures of business capital accumulation are included in
the Report Card because, according to data from the
Survey of Consumer Finances, equity in unincorporated
businesses made up the second largest share (17.7%) of
total household wealth in 1998.35 Moreover, business for-
mation has traditionally been a route into the middle class
for large numbers of U.S. households, including immi-
grants. In the United States, business ownership also con-
fers a certain amount of respect upon the business owner.
Direct measures of business capital accumulation are diffi-
cult to find and are nonexistent at the state level.
Therefore, the measures used in the Report Card are
proxies for business capital formation and its distribution among nontra-
ditional business owners, such as women and minorities.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D106
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Equity in unincorporated
businesses made up the
second largest share
(17.7%) of total
household wealth in 1998.
Business formation has also
traditionally been a route
into the middle class
for large numbers
of U.S. households,
including immigrants.
Small Business Ownership Rate
Rationale: Business ownership is a fundamental en-
gine for wealth creation. While not a direct measure
of business capital, this indicator shows what per-
centage of the state’s labor force own their own
businesses. The higher the business ownership rate, the
higher the percentage of residents who have the opportu-
nity to build wealth through business capital accumulation.
Measure: Percentage of labor force that owns employer and non-employer
firms (as of 2000).
Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, Office and Advocacy. (2002). Small business economic
indicators for 2000; and Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2002). Labor force data for states and selected
areas, 1970-2001 annual average. Washington, DC: Author.
107
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T O U T C O M E S I N D E X
The
higher
the
business
ownership
rate, the higher
the percentage of
residents who
have the
opportunity to
build wealth
through business
capital
accumulation.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
Alabama 10.8% 39
Alaska 14.0 12
Arizona 11.1 35
Arkansas 11.8 23
California 14.3 11
Colorado 13.9 13
Connecticut 12.6 20
Delaware 11.4 30
Florida 11.0 38
Georgia 10.5 42
Hawaii 12.6 18
Idaho 15.8 8
Illinois 9.5 49
Indiana 10.5 43
Iowa 13.4 17
Kansas 12.4 21
Kentucky 11.3 33
Louisiana 11.4 31
Maine 17.2 5
Maryland 10.3 44
Massachusetts 11.6 28
Michigan 9.8 48
Minnesota 12.6 19
Mississippi 12.0 22
Missouri 11.0 37
Montana 19.9% 1
Nebraska 15.3 9
Nevada 9.3 50
New Hampshire 14.7 10
New Jersey 11.1 34
New Mexico 13.8 16
New York 11.3 32
North Carolina 11.7 24
North Dakota 17.9 3
Ohio 10.0 46
Oklahoma 13.9 14
Oregon 16.2 7
Pennsylvania 10.7 40
Rhode Island 11.0 36
South Carolina 10.6 41
South Dakota 17.8 4
Tennessee 11.7 25
Texas 11.7 26
Utah 11.6 29
Vermont 16.9 6
Virginia 9.9 47
Washington 13.8 15
West Virginia 10.3 45
Wisconsin 11.6 27
Wyoming 18.5 2
P E R C E N TA G E R A N K P E R C E N TA G E R A N K
Private Loans to Small Businesses
Rationale: Small businesses make a great contribution to their
state’s economy—employing over half of the workforce (on av-
erage) and leading the way in new job growth, innovation, and
productivity. For these businesses to prosper, they must have
adequate access to credit from financial institutions. This measure is
an attempt to capture the opportunity to build wealth through small
business ownership. All things being equal, the larger the amount of
loans made to small businesses in a state, the better the opportunity
to succeed and build wealth in a business.
Measure: The dollar amount of private business loans under $1 million per worker (in
1999).
Source: Ou, Charles, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, Office of Economic
Research, (Personal communication, June 2001) from Community Reinvestment Act data.
Washington, D.C.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D108
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
All things
being equal, the
larger the amount
of loans made to
small businesses
in a state,
the better
the opportunity
to succeed
and build wealth
in a business.
Alabama $1,891 5
Alaska 2,062 1
Arizona 800 46
Arkansas 1,523 10
California 1,141 26
Colorado 1,245 21
Connecticut 621 49
Delaware 1,333 15
Florida 1,102 31
Georgia 1,450 12
Hawaii 896 43
Idaho 1,241 22
Illinois 1,362 14
Indiana 1,547 9
Iowa 1,095 32
Kansas 1,082 33
Kentucky 1,174 24
Louisiana 1,041 36
Maine 526 50
Maryland 848 44
Massachusetts 669 48
Michigan 1,326 17
Minnesota 1,120 28
Mississippi 1,933 3
Missouri 1,205 23
Montana $1,250 20
Nebraska 1,506 11
Nevada 1,017 38
New Hampshire 735 47
New Jersey 1,006 39
New Mexico 991 40
New York 1,372 13
North Carolina 1,723 7
North Dakota 1,999 2
Ohio 1,270 19
Oklahoma 1,074 34
Oregon 1,121 27
Pennsylvania 1,104 30
Rhode Island 829 45
South Carolina 1,626 8
South Dakota 1,916 4
Tennessee 1,327 16
Texas 947 42
Utah 1,114 29
Vermont 1,145 25
Virginia 973 41
Washington 1,060 35
West Virginia 1,032 37
Wisconsin 1,816 6
Wyoming 1,301 18
A M O U N T R A N K
(in thousands)
A M O U N T R A N K
(in thousands)
Minority Entrepreneurship Rate
Rationale: Social cohesion is improved by
equalizing the opportunity to own a busi-
ness across various population groups.
This indicator measures how prevalent
business ownership is among non-whites in
a state. The higher the prevalence of minor-
ity-owned firms in a state, the greater the likeli-
hood that non-white families will succeed in business and
accumulate business capital.
Measure: Share of minority-owned firms relative to the minority adult population (age 18
years and older) divided by the share of total firms relative to the total adult population.
Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy. (November 2001). Minorities in busi-
ness 2000. Washington, D.C.: Author. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. (2000). Race
for the population 18 years and over. Washington, D.C.: Author.
109
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T O U T C O M E S I N D E X
The higher the
prevalence of
minority-owned
firms in a state,
the greater the
likelihood that
non-white families
will succeed in
business and
accumulate
business capital.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
Alabama 0.06 48
Alaska 0.11 24
Arizona 0.14 13
Arkansas 0.06 49
California 0.16 10
Colorado 0.13 15
Connecticut 0.10 36
Delaware 0.10 34
Florida 0.24 1
Georgia 0.08 40
Hawaii 0.18 7
Idaho 0.13 17
Illinois 0.11 23
Indiana 0.10 33
Iowa 0.13 16
Kansas 0.11 25
Kentucky 0.10 35
Louisiana 0.07 47
Maine 0.20 6
Maryland 0.10 29
Massachusetts 0.10 30
Michigan 0.08 43
Minnesota 0.08 41
Mississippi 0.06 50
Missouri 0.11 27
Montana 0.11 22
Nebraska 0.09 39
Nevada 0.12 19
New Hampshire 0.22 4
New Jersey 0.15 12
New Mexico 0.21 5
New York 0.12 18
North Carolina 0.08 44
North Dakota 0.10 32
Ohio 0.10 37
Oklahoma 0.09 38
Oregon 0.13 14
Pennsylvania 0.11 26
Rhode Island 0.10 28
South Carolina 0.07 45
South Dakota 0.07 46
Tennessee 0.08 42
Texas 0.17 9
Utah 0.12 20
Vermont 0.24 2
Virginia 0.12 21
Washington 0.16 11
West Virginia 0.22 3
Wisconsin 0.10 31
Wyoming 0.18 8
R AT I O R A N K R AT I O R A N K
Women’s Business
Ownership Rate
Rationale: This indicator measures the
rate at which women in a state own
their own businesses. The higher the
rate of women’s business ownership in a
state, the greater the likelihood that
women will succeed in business and accu-
mulate business capital.
Measure: The number of total firms owned by women, divided by adult female popula-
tion (in 1997).
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. (1997). 1997 Economic census, minority
and women-owned business by state. Washington, D.C.: Author; and U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Census, Population Estimates Program. (1997). Population estimates for states by age,
race, sex, and Hispanic origin. Washington, D.C.: Author.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D110
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Alabama 3.0% 49
Alaska 5.5 1
Arizona 3.5 37
Arkansas 3.1 47
California 4.1 17
Colorado 5.4 3
Connecticut 4.1 16
Delaware 3.4 41
Florida 4.1 15
Georgia 3.5 35
Hawaii 4.3 11
Idaho 4.0 20
Illinois 3.8 25
Indiana 3.5 36
Iowa 3.9 22
Kansas 4.0 18
Kentucky 3.2 45
Louisiana 3.1 48
Maine 4.7 5
Maryland 4.2 12
Massachusetts 4.3 10
Michigan 3.6 30
Minnesota 4.4 8
Mississippi 2.6 50
Missouri 3.6 32
Montana 5.0% 4
Nebraska 3.9 23
Nevada 3.4 40
New Hampshire 4.3 9
New Jersey 3.6 33
New Mexico 4.2 13
New York 4.0 19
North Carolina 3.4 39
North Dakota 3.9 21
Ohio 3.5 34
Oklahoma 3.8 24
Oregon 4.7 6
Pennsylvania 3.2 44
Rhode Island 3.7 29
South Carolina 3.1 46
South Dakota 3.7 27
Tennessee 3.4 38
Texas 3.6 31
Utah 3.8 26
Vermont 5.5 2
Virginia 3.7 28
Washington 4.2 14
West Virginia 3.3 43
Wisconsin 3.3 42
Wyoming 4.5 7
P E R C E N TA G E R A N K P E R C E N TA G E R A N K
The higher
the rate of
women’s business
ownership
in a state,
the greater
the likelihood
that women will
succeed in
business and
accumulate
business capital.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
Business Ownership Value
by Race
Rationale: In measuring asset accu-
mulation for minority households,
what matters ultimately is not legal
ownership but whether the business
has value. Though not a direct meas-
ure of business capital, this indicator pro-
vides a gauge of the relative size of minority-owned
firms in a state by showing their share of total revenues.
Measure: Average sales and receipts for minority-owned businesses (calculated for 1997).
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. (1997). 1997 Economic census, minority
and women-owned business by state. Washington, D.C.: Author.
111
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T O U T C O M E S I N D E X
In measuring
asset
accumulation
for minority
households,
what matters
ultimately is not
legal ownership
but whether
the business
has value.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
Alabama $823,642 24
Alaska 281,425 46
Arizona 467,422 42
Arkansas 810,722 25
California 271,173 47
Colorado 570,691 35
Connecticut 1,085,857 11
Delaware 935,077 19
Florida 260,312 48
Georgia 568,581 36
Hawaii 92,700 50
Idaho 825,980 23
Illinois 744,566 27
Indiana 1,260,236 7
Iowa 1,776,247 1
Kansas 1,038,097 15
Kentucky 1,293,867 6
Louisiana 581,868 33
Maine 1,052,542 14
Maryland 301,608 45
Massachusetts 949,751 18
Michigan 1,076,676 12
Minnesota 1,493,606 4
Mississippi 471,829 41
Missouri 1,028,886 16
Montana $634,359 32
Nebraska 1,619,123 2
Nevada 502,140 38
New Hampshire 1,232,190 8
New Jersey 576,284 34
New Mexico 192,252 49
New York 437,171 43
North Carolina 699,515 29
North Dakota 1,064,011 13
Ohio 1,178,891 9
Oklahoma 473,336 40
Oregon 838,866 22
Pennsylvania 1,175,640 10
Rhode Island 710,299 28
South Carolina 568,236 37
South Dakota 1,413,551 5
Tennessee 871,373 21
Texas 353,849 44
Utah 908,193 20
Vermont 803,197 26
Virginia 489,150 39
Washington 635,150 31
West Virginia 1,001,260 17
Wisconsin 1,589,016 3
Wyoming 687,655 30
A M O U N T R A N K
(in thousands)
A M O U N T R A N K
(in thousands)
Business Ownership Value by Gender
Rationale: This indicator provides a gauge of
the relative size (and value) of women-owned
firms in a state by showing their share of
total revenues.
Measure: Average sales and receipts in thousands
of dollars for female-owned businesses for each
state (calculated for 1997).
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. (1997). 1997 Economic census, minority
and women-owned business by state. Washington, D.C.: Author.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D112
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
Alabama $14,717 17
Alaska 11,678 40
Arizona 12,733 30
Arkansas 15,242 13
California 17,300 6
Colorado 11,988 38
Connecticut 12,814 29
Delaware 13,403 25
Florida 14,286 21
Georgia 17,357 5
Hawaii 12,606 34
Idaho 9,337 46
Illinois 18,468 2
Indiana 12,680 32
Iowa 14,069 22
Kansas 12,680 31
Kentucky 14,972 15
Louisiana 16,248 11
Maine 10,498 44
Maryland 12,657 33
Massachusetts 11,743 39
Michigan 14,355 20
Minnesota 12,413 35
Mississippi 15,644 12
Missouri 14,478 19
Montana $9,139 47
Nebraska 13,554 23
Nevada 17,927 3
New Hampshire 11,416 42
New Jersey 19,312 1
New Mexico 11,496 41
New York 15,100 14
North Carolina 17,274 7
North Dakota 9,396 45
Ohio 14,922 16
Oklahoma 13,206 27
Oregon 12,831 28
Pennsylvania 16,771 9
Rhode Island 13,495 24
South Carolina 16,556 10
South Dakota 8,513 48
Tennessee 14,572 18
Texas 17,057 8
Utah 12,136 37
Vermont 7,711 50
Virginia 13,225 26
Washington 12,272 36
West Virginia 10,912 43
Wisconsin 17,533 4
Wyoming 8,475 49
A M O U N T R A N K
(in thousands)
A M O U N T R A N K
(in thousands)
Bank Access
The bank access measures in the Report Card
gauge the level of participation of a state’s resi-
dents in the mainstream financial system. These
measures are included in the Report Card because
research on saving in low-income households36
finds that the ability to accumulate assets de-
pends on a number of factors, including income
and savings incentives, but also access to financial
products. According to the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, 78% of “banked” in-
dividuals have savings, compared with only 30%
of the “unbanked.”37 Moreover, of the unbanked
who saved, only 40% held savings in formal instruments—in most cases,
the bank account of another person. The other 60% of the unbanked
save in informal ways, including holding cash, jewelry, and gold. The two
measures used in the bank access grouping are also first-time estimates
of financial inclusion that have never before been available at the state
level. CFED commissioned researchers Robert and Jon Haveman to create
estimates for these two measures.
113
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Research on saving in
low-income households
finds that the ability to
accumulate assets depends
on a number of factors—
including access to
financial products.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T O U T C O M E S I N D E X
Households with
Checking Accounts
Rationale: Research shows that at
every level of income, “unbanked”
households are worse off financially than
their “banked” counterparts.38 This meas-
ure is an indicator of the share of house-
holds that holds a transaction account.
Measure: The percentage of households with non-interest-bearing checking accounts (as
of 1996).
Source: Calculations by Robert and Jon Haveman based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. Survey of income program population [Electronic data tape]. (1995 and 1996).
Washington, D.C.: Author.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D114
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
At every
level of income,
“unbanked”
households are
worse off
financially than
their “banked”
counterparts.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
Alabama 46.7% 4
Alaska 31.7 37
Arizona 32.4 31
Arkansas 44.0 7
California 39.5 12
Colorado 33.5 24
Connecticut 31.9 35
Delaware 46.3 5
Florida 31.8 36
Georgia 32.5 30
Hawaii 29.9 42
Idaho 49.9 3
Illinois 35.8 20
Indiana 35.2 21
Iowa 38.9 13
Kansas 30.2 38
Kentucky 43.0 8
Louisiana 32.9 28
Maine 36.3 17
Maryland 32.2 32
Massachusetts 18.9 49
Michigan 32.2 33
Minnesota 34.8 22
Mississippi 21.0 48
Missouri 45.9 6
Montana 36.9% 16
Nebraska 36.0 19
Nevada 38.0 14
New Hampshire 25.1 46
New Jersey 33.5 25
New Mexico 37.6 15
New York 32.5 29
North Carolina 22.6 47
North Dakota 30.1 39
Ohio 28.5 44
Oklahoma 33.2 26
Oregon 50.6 2
Pennsylvania 41.8 9
Rhode Island 34.0 23
South Carolina 17.2 50
South Dakota 30.1 39
Tennessee 32.9 27
Texas 28.7 43
Utah 27.9 45
Vermont 36.3 17
Virginia 32.1 34
Washington 40.3 11
West Virginia 51.9 1
Wisconsin 40.7 10
Wyoming 30.1 39
P E R C E N TA G E R A N K P E R C E N TA G E R A N K
Households with
Savings Accounts
Rationale: Savings accounts are one
of the most basic asset-accumulation
tools.
Measure: The percentage of households that
hold interest-bearing checking, savings, or money
market accounts (as of 1996).
Source: Calculations by Robert and Jon Haveman based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. Survey of income program population [Electronic data tape]. (1995 and 1996).
Washington, D.C.: Author.
115
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T O U T C O M E S I N D E X
Savings accounts
are one of the
most basic
asset-accumulation
tools.
Number of decimal places are limited
for presentation purposes. State
ranks are based on full number. Two
states might therefore have
different ranks even though the
measures here appear the same.
Alabama 53.8% 42
Alaska 49.6 46
Arizona 54.6 40
Arkansas 52.3 44
California 57.8 36
Colorado 70.9 15
Connecticut 77.3 3
Delaware 64.1 27
Florida 58.1 35
Georgia 48.6 47
Hawaii 74.2 7
Idaho 45.0 49
Illinois 63.3 28
Indiana 65.3 25
Iowa 74.6 6
Kansas 73.0 10
Kentucky 53.7 43
Louisiana 47.9 48
Maine 70.2 17
Maryland 70.7 16
Massachusetts 70.9 14
Michigan 66.0 24
Minnesota 69.2 20
Mississippi 34.1 50
Missouri 59.7 30
Montana 68.4% 22
Nebraska 74.2 8
Nevada 55.7 38
New Hampshire 78.2 2
New Jersey 68.0 23
New Mexico 56.0 37
New York 59.0 33
North Carolina 59.4 31
North Dakota 72.3 11
Ohio 64.5 26
Oklahoma 55.5 39
Oregon 70.0 19
Pennsylvania 68.7 21
Rhode Island 75.0 4
South Carolina 58.6 34
South Dakota 72.3 11
Tennessee 59.1 32
Texas 54.6 41
Utah 75.0 5
Vermont 70.2 17
Virginia 59.8 29
Washington 73.7 9
West Virginia 49.9 45
Wisconsin 78.8 1
Wyoming 72.3 11
P E R C E N TA G E R A N K P E R C E N TA G E R A N K
Asset Protection
The asset protection measures in this grouping indicate
the extent to which a state’s residents, including low-in-
come parents and children, are covered by either private
or publicly provided health insurance. These measures are
included in the Report Card because health insurance pro-
vides protection against the kind of large medical costs
that can result in the loss or depletion of household as-
sets. Research shows that medical costs are a major cause
of bankruptcy. In a recent study of 1.1 million personal
bankruptcies in 1999, 326,441 were directly caused by ill-
ness or injury to a family member, while substantial med-
ical bills were a contributing factor in 267,575 cases.39
While there are many forms of insurance that protect
families and personal property, including health insurance,
life insurance, and property insurance, the measures in
this grouping include the most readily available insurance
data, which is largely in the field of health insurance.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D116
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Medical costs are a
major cause of bankruptcy.
In a recent study of
1.1 million personal
bankruptcies in 1999,
326,441 were directly
caused by illness or injury
to a family member, while
substantial medical bills
were a contributing factor
in 267,575 cases.
Employer-Provided
Health Insurance
Rationale: In the United States,
most workers receive health care
coverage in the workplace
through their employers. Examining
the share of workers who are covered
by employer-sponsored health insurance is
the best single measure of the extent to which a
state’s households are protected with health insurance.
Measure: Percentage of non-elderly population covered by employer-based health plans
(calculated for 2000).
Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute. (2000). Sources of health insurance and characteris-
tics of the uninsured. Washington, D.C.: Author.
117
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T O U T C O M E S I N D E X
Examining the
share of workers
who are covered
by employer-
sponsored health
insurance is the
best single
measure of the
extent to which
a state’s
households are
protected with
health insurance.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
Alabama 65.0% 29
Alaska 62.1 39
Arizona 57.7 47
Arkansas 62.4 38
California 58.3 46
Colorado 67.7 21
Connecticut 77.4 1
Delaware 69.6 17
Florida 60.1 44
Georgia 63.4 37
Hawaii 72.0 14
Idaho 64.7 30
Illinois 71.3 15
Indiana 73.3 8
Iowa 74.5 6
Kansas 68.2 20
Kentucky 66.5 24
Louisiana 57.2 48
Maine 67.7 21
Maryland 76.2 2
Massachusetts 69.6 17
Michigan 72.5 12
Minnesota 76.0 3
Mississippi 62.1 39
Missouri 72.5 12
Montana 57.0% 49
Nebraska 66.5 24
Nevada 64.1 34
New Hampshire 75.6 4
New Jersey 72.8 10
New Mexico 52.2 50
New York 62.1 39
North Carolina 66.8 23
North Dakota 64.4 32
Ohio 73.2 9
Oklahoma 62.1 39
Oregon 66.1 26
Pennsylvania 72.7 11
Rhode Island 74.6 5
South Carolina 65.1 28
South Dakota 63.7 35
Tennessee 64.5 31
Texas 58.8 45
Utah 73.7 7
Vermont 63.7 35
Virginia 69.3 19
Washington 64.4 32
West Virginia 60.8 43
Wisconsin 71.2 16
Wyoming 65.3 27
P E R C E N TA G E R A N K P E R C E N TA G E R A N K
Uninsured
Low-Income Children
Rationale: For uninsured children,
states can offer health care coverage
through Medicaid or their own chil-
dren’s health coverage programs. The
greater the number of uninsured chil-
dren, the greater the likelihood that a
household’s assets are at risk.
Measure: Percentage of children in families at or below 200% of the poverty line without
health insurance (for 1998–2000).
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (2001). Current population survey:
Health insurance statistics. Washington, D.C.: Author.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D118
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
The greater
the number of
uninsured
children,
the greater the
likelihood that
a household’s
assets are at risk.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
Alabama 16.6% 19
Alaska 25.8 39
Arizona 29.3 48
Arkansas 20.9 27
California 26.0 40
Colorado 27.7 44
Connecticut 19.1 24
Delaware 17.6 22
Florida 24.7 37
Georgia 17.6 23
Hawaii 14.5 11
Idaho 27.8 46
Illinois 21.9 31
Indiana 23.2 36
Iowa 14.7 12
Kansas 19.8 25
Kentucky 20.9 28
Louisiana 25.6 38
Maine 15.4 13
Maryland 27.6 43
Massachusetts 12.0 6
Michigan 13.7 10
Minnesota 15.4 15
Mississippi 22.5 35
Missouri 12.3 7
Montana 26.7% 41
Nebraska 12.8 8
Nevada 30.6 49
New Hampshire 10.0 3
New Jersey 16.0 17
New Mexico 27.7 45
New York 17.4 21
North Carolina 20.0 26
North Dakota 22.2 33
Ohio 16.0 18
Oklahoma 27.5 42
Oregon 21.7 30
Pennsylvania 11.0 5
Rhode Island 10.3 4
South Carolina 22.1 32
South Dakota 21.3 29
Tennessee 8.8 1
Texas 35.0 50
Utah 17.1 20
Vermont 9.4 2
Virginia 28.4 47
Washington 15.7 16
West Virginia 15.4 13
Wisconsin 13.4 9
Wyoming 22.2 33
P E R C E N TA G E R A N K P E R C E N TA G E R A N K
Uninsured Low-Income Parents
Rationale: Health insurance is often out of reach of working, low-income parents, ei-
ther because employer-sponsored coverage is unavailable or because the cost of private
or employer-offered coverage is unaffordable. States have expanded coverage for chil-
dren through Medicaid and other programs since the inception of the State Children’s
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), but adults in low-income families often can qualify for
coverage only if their income falls below the welfare income eligibility limits that their
state used prior to enactment of the 1996 federal welfare law. The greater the number
of uninsured parents in a state, the greater the likelihood that their assets are at risk.
Measure: Percentage of parents living in families with income below 200% of poverty
without health insurance (in the late 1990s).
Source: Guyer, J. (2001). Congress has a $28 billion opportunity to expand coverage for low-income
working families with children. Washington D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; and Lazere,
E., Fremstad, S., & Goldberg, H. (May 2001). States and counties are taking steps to help low-income
working families make ends meet and move up the economic ladder. Washington D.C.: Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities.
119
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
The greater
the number of
uninsured parents
in a state,
the greater the
likelihood that
their assets
are at risk.
Alabama 37.0% 41
Alaska 30.0 21
Arizona 46.0 48
Arkansas 33.0 27
California 39.0 44
Colorado 35.0 37
Connecticut 30.0 21
Delaware 29.0 19
Florida 37.0 41
Georgia 34.0 34
Hawaii 11.0 1
Idaho 43.0 47
Illinois 30.0 21
Indiana 29.0 19
Iowa 19.0 4
Kansas 28.0 17
Kentucky 36.0 39
Louisiana 33.0 27
Maine 30.0 21
Maryland 40.0 46
Massachusetts 18.0 3
Michigan 30.0 21
Minnesota 22.0 9
Mississippi 33.0 27
Missouri 20.0 6
Montana 34.0% 34
Nebraska 22.0 9
Nevada 39.0 44
New Hampshire 33.0 27
New Jersey 34.0 34
New Mexico 47.0 49
New York 33.0 27
North Carolina 31.0 26
North Dakota 27.0 16
Ohio 22.0 9
Oklahoma 33.0 27
Oregon 28.0 17
Pennsylvania 23.0 13
Rhode Island 20.0 6
South Carolina 35.0 37
South Dakota 25.0 14
Tennessee 19.0 4
Texas 47.0 49
Utah 21.0 8
Vermont 11.0 1
Virginia 37.0 41
Washington 22.0 9
West Virginia 36.0 39
Wisconsin 26.0 15
Wyoming 33.0 27
P E R C E N TA G E R A N K P E R C E N TA G E R A N K
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T O U T C O M E S I N D E X
Financial Asset Building
The financial asset-building policy measures in the Report
Card gauge state support for policies that lead directly to
the accumulation of financial assets. This includes policies
that help to increase pre- and post-tax income so that
working families can save, policies to directly incentivize
the accumulation of assets, and policies that reduce disin-
centives to saving. These policy measures are included in
the Report Card because research40 shows there are a
number of determinants in asset accumulation in low-
income households. Among these are: 1) limited income
needed to meet current consumption needs and 2) dis-
criminatory government policies, which either fail to in-
centivize or actually create barriers to saving on the part of low-income
households.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D120
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Asset policy index
The financial asset-building
policy measures
in the Report Card gauge
state support for policies
that lead directly to
the accumulation of
financial assets.
IDA Policy
Rationale: IDAs are a relatively new policy innovation designed to give poor and
low-income citizens a direct incentive to save. IDAs are matched savings accounts
whose use is restricted to high-return investments, such as buying a home, starting a
business, or paying for postsecondary education. IDAs encourage families to save by pro-
viding a direct match to participant contributions, most often from public funding
sources. In-depth evaluations of IDA demonstrations have found strong evidence that
IDA holders can and will save.41
Measure: States receive credit for one or more of the following IDA initiatives: 1) appro-
priating $1 million or more for IDAs, 2) including IDAs in the state TANF plan, 3) operating
a state IDA program as of 2002. A state receives 0 points if it does not have any of the
initiatives, 0.33 points if it has one of the initiatives, 0.67 points if it has two, and 1 point
if it has all three.
Source: Edwards, K., Center for Social Development, Washington University & Rist, C., Corporation
for Enterprise Development (Personal communication, 2002). St. Louis, MO.
121
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
Alabama —
Alaska —
Arizona — ✔ ✔
Arkansas 1,506 ✔ ✔
California — ✔
Colorado 20 ✔ ✔
Connecticut 400 ✔ ✔
Delaware —
Florida — ✔ On hold
Georgia — ✔
Hawaii — ✔
Idaho — Developing
Illinois 1,000 ✔ ✔
Indiana 5,000 ✔ ✔
Iowa 1,700 ✔ ✔
Kansas — ✔
Kentucky — ✔
Louisiana 2,000 ✔ Developing
Maine 200 ✔ ✔
Maryland 100 Developing
Massachusetts —
Michigan 5,000 ✔ ✔
Minnesota 2,500 ✔
Mississippi —
Missouri 200 ✔ ✔
Montana 100 ✔ Developing
Nebraska — ✔
Nevada —
New Hampshire —
New Jersey 2,000 ✔ ✔
New Mexico — ✔
New York — ✔
North Carolina 3,000 ✔ ✔
North Dakota —
Ohio 308 ✔
Oklahoma 1,000 ✔ ✔
Oregon 68 ✔ ✔
Pennsylvania 8,000 ✔ ✔
Rhode Island — ✔
South Carolina 650 ✔ ✔
South Dakota —
Tennessee 300 ✔ ✔
Texas — ✔ On hold
Utah — ✔ On hold
Vermont 200 ✔ ✔
Virginia 800 ✔ ✔
Washington 1,800 ✔ ✔
West Virginia —
Wisconsin — ✔
Wyoming —
S U P P O R T I DA I N S TAT E I DA
(in thousands) TA N F P R O G R A M
S U P P O R T I DA I N S TAT E I DA
(in thousands) TA N F P R O G R A M
Income Tax Threshold
Rationale: The income tax threshold
measures the income level at which
residents in a particular state begin
paying income taxes. States with
higher thresholds allow low-income fam-
ilies to keep more of their limited incomes,
thus increasing the potential for saving.
Measure: State income tax thresholds for one-parent families
of three (in 2000).
Source: Zahradnik, B.; Johnson, N.; & Mazerov, M; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (2001).
State income tax burdens on low-income families in 2000: Assessing the burden and opportunities
for relief. Washington, D.C.: Author.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D122
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
States with
higher income tax
thresholds
allow low-income
families to keep
more of their
limited incomes,
thus increasing
the potential
for saving.
Alabama $4,600 41
Alaska — —
Arizona 20,100 11
Arkansas 13,000 26
California 35,000 1
Colorado 24,400 5
Connecticut 19,100 13
Delaware 14,700 22
Florida — —
Georgia 12,100 31
Hawaii 9,200 37
Idaho 14,900 21
Illinois 12,500 29
Indiana 9,000 38
Iowa 17,400 18
Kansas 20,200 10
Kentucky 5,000 40
Louisiana 11,000 32
Maine 20,600 9
Maryland 24,600 4
Massachusetts 19,000 14
Michigan 9,900 35
Minnesota 25,600 2
Mississippi 14,400 23
Missouri 12,500 29
Montana $7,800 39
Nebraska 15,400 19
Nevada — —
New Hampshire — —
New Jersey 20,000 12
New Mexico 18,000 15
New York 22,600 7
North Carolina 13,900 25
North Dakota 15,300 20
Ohio 10,200 33
Oklahoma 9,300 36
Oregon 12,700 28
Pennsylvania 21,500 8
Rhode Island 24,400 5
South Carolina 17,700 16
South Dakota — —
Tennessee — —
Texas — —
Utah 12,800 27
Vermont 25,500 3
Virginia 14,200 24
Washington — —
West Virginia 10,000 34
Wisconsin 17,700 16
Wyoming — —
A M O U N T R A N K A M O U N T R A N K
State Earned Income
Tax Credit
Rationale: The Earned
Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a
tax policy tool to supple-
ment the after-tax earnings
of low- and moderate-in-
come working families. The
federal government adminis-
ters the EITC through the
federal income tax. A grow-
ing number of states have also enacted EITCs as a way to reduce child poverty, reward
families moving from welfare to work, and increase the disposable income of families
struggling to make ends meet. Having greater disposable income increases the poten-
tial for saving.
Measure: State EITCs for tax year 2000. States receive credit for having one or more of
the following:
1. a state EITC,
2. a state EITC that is refundable for all families who have children and receive the fed-
eral EITC,
3. a refundable state EITC with credit set at least at 15% of the federal credit
A state receives 0 points if it does not have any of the initiatives, 0.33 points if it has
one, 0.67 points if it has two, and 1 point if it has all three.
123
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A number of
states use EITCs
to reduce child
poverty, reward
families moving
from welfare to
work, and
increase the
disposable income
of families
struggling to
make ends meet.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
(continued on next page)
State Earned Income Tax Credit
(continued from previous page)
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (November 2000). A hand up: How state Earned Income Tax Credits
help working families escape poverty. Washington, D.C.: Author.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D124
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado ✔ ✔
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois ✔
Indiana ✔
Iowa ✔
Kansas ✔ ✔
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine ✔
Maryland ✔ ✔ ✔
Massachusetts ✔ ✔ ✔
Michigan
Minnesota ✔ ✔ ✔
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey ✔ ✔
New Mexico
New York ✔ ✔ ✔
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma ✔ ✔
Oregon ✔
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island ✔ ✔
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont ✔ ✔ ✔
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin ✔ ✔ ✔
Wyoming
EITC REFUNDABLE >15% EITC REFUNDABLE >15%
State Minimum Wage
Rationale: Establishing a minimum wage
is a policy tool used to increase the pre-
tax earnings of low-wage workers to
help better meet basic consumption
needs. With additional disposable income, all
things being equal, low-wage workers also will
have a greater opportunity to save some money.
The federal government established a national minimum wage,
but a number of states have also established a minimum wage
that exceeds the federal standard.
Measure: States with a minimum wage higher than the federal level
(as of January 1, 2002).
Source: U.S. Department of Labor. Minimum wage laws in the states [On-line]. Available:
http://www.dol.gov/dol/esa/public/minwage/america.htm.
125
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
The federal
government
established
a national
minimum wage,
but a number of
states have also
established a
minimum wage
that exceeds the
federal standard.
Alabama
Alaska ✔
Arizona
Arkansas
California ✔
Colorado
Connecticut ✔
Delaware ✔
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii ✔
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine ✔
Maryland
Massachusetts ✔
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon ✔
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island ✔
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont ✔
Virginia
Washington ✔
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
> F E D E R A L > F E D E R A L
Asset Limits for Public Assistance
Rationale: Ironically, while public policies create a num-
ber of incentives for non-poor families to save, families on
public assistance actually face disincentives to saving. In particu-
lar, low-income families receiving food stamps, Medicaid, Supplemental
Security Income, and TANF face “asset barriers.” First, those on assistance are
not allowed to accumulate assets beyond a federally or state specified level. Second,
those seeking assistance must first spend down or deplete their assets to that level be-
fore qualifying for such assistance. In a review of the literature on asset tests, Orszag
notes, “The evidence that is available generally suggests that the asset tests act as a dis-
incentive to saving among lower-income families.”42 Orszag further concludes that, given
the extremely low levels of assets allowed under most public assistance programs, an in-
crease in the level of allowable assets is good policy.
Measure: States that meet one or more of the following standards: 1) a countable asset limit
for TANF recipients greater than or equal to $10,000 (a level equivalent to the asset limit es-
tablished in the federal Assets for Independence Act); 2) exclusion of the value of at least
one vehicle from the vehicle asset limit under TANF (as 26 states have done); 3) elimination
of the asset test for Medicaid receipts (as 18 states have done); 4) exclusion of the value of
all vehicles in determining the countable asset limit for food stamps (as 17 states have done).
A state receives 0 points if it does not meet any of the standards, 0.25 points if it meets
one, 0.5 if it meets two, 0.75 if it meets three, and 1 point if it meets all four.
126
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Families on public
assistance
actually face
dis incentives
to saving.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Alabama $2,000 1/driver $2,000 Excludes ALL vehicles
Alaska 1,000 1/household 1,000 Excludes 1/household
Arizona 2,000 1/household No asset test Excludes certain vehicles
based on use
Arkansas 3,000 1/household 3,100 Excludes 1/household
California 2,000 $4,650 3,150 Maintains federal rules
Colorado 2,000 1/household 2,000 Excludes 1/household
Connecticut 3,000 9,500 No asset test Maintains federal rules
Delaware 1,000 4,650 No asset test Excludes ALL vehicles
Florida 2,000 8,500 6,000 Excludes certain vehicles
based on use
Georgia 1,000 4,650 1,000 Maintains federal rules
Hawaii 5,000 1/household 3,250 Maintains federal rules
Idaho 2,000 4,650 1,000 Maintains federal rules
Illinois 2,000 1/household No asset test Maintains federal rules
Indiana 1,500 5,000 1,000 Excludes ALL vehicles
Iowa 5,000 3,959 2,000 Maintains federal rules
Kansas 2,000 1/household 2,000 Excludes ALL vehicles
Kentucky 2,000 1/household 2,000 Excludes ALL vehicles
Louisiana 2,000 10,000 3,025 Excludes ALL vehicles
Maine 1,000 1/household 2,000 Excludes certain vehicles
based on use
TA N F A S S E T V E H I C L E M E D I C A I D V E H I C L E A S S E T L I M I T S
L I M I T S E XC L U S I O N A S S E T L I M I T S I N F O O D S TA M P P G M .
Source: TANF asset limits: Welfare Information Network. State Plan Database [on-line]. Available: http//www.welfareinfo.org. TANF vehicle
asset limits: the Urban Institute: Welfare Rules Database [on-line]. Available: http://anfdata.urban.org. Medicaid asset limits: Broaddus, M.,
Blaney, S., Dude, A., Guyer, J., Ku, L., and Peterson, J. (February 13, 2002). Expanding family coverage: States’ Medicaid eligibility policies for
working families in the year 2000 (Table 4). Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Vehicle asset policies in the food stamp
program: Dean, S., & Horng, R. (February 13, 2002). States’ vehicle asset policies in the food stamp program (Table 2). Washington, D.C.:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
127
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
Maryland $2,000 1/household $3,100 Excludes ALL vehicles
Massachusetts 2,500 $10,000 (FMV); No asset test Excludes ALL vehicles
5,000 (equity)
Michigan 3,000 1/household No asset test Excludes ALL vehicles
Minnesota 2,000 7,500 30,000 Maintains federal rules
Mississippi 2,000 4,650 No asset test Maintains federal rules
Missouri 1,000 1/household No asset test Excludes ALL vehicles
Montana 3,000 1/household 3,000 Excludes 1/household
Nebraska 4,000 1/household 6,000 Increased FMV exemption
for first vehicle
Nevada 2,000 1/household 2,000 Excludes 1/household
New Hampshire 1,000 1/driver 1,000 Excludes 1/household
New Jersey 2,000 9,500 No asset test Increased FMV exemption
for first vehicle
New Mexico 3,500 1/household No asset test Excludes ALL vehicles
New York 2,000 4,650 5,300 Excludes 1/household
North Carolina 3,000 1/adult 3,000 Excludes 1/household
North Dakota 8,000 1/household 8,000 Excludes ALL vehicles
Ohio No limit All excluded No asset test Excludes ALL vehicles
Oklahoma 1,000 5,000 No asset test Increased FMV exemption
for first vehicle
Oregon 10,000 10,000 2,000 Excludes ALL vehicles
Pennsylvania 1,000 1/household No asset test Excludes 1/household
Rhode Island 1,000 4,600 (FMV); No asset test Maintains federal rules
1,500 (equity)
South Carolina 2,500 1/driver No asset test Excludes ALL vehicles
South Dakota 2,000 1/household 2,000 Excludes 1/household
Tennessee 2,000 4,600 2,000 Maintains federal rules
Texas 2,000 4,650 2,000 Increased FMV exemption
for first vehicle
Utah 2,000 8,000 3,025 Increased FMV exemption
for first vehicle
Vermont 1,000 1/household No asset test Excludes 1/household
Virginia 1,000 One vehicle, 3,100 Maintains federal rules
if FMV < $7500
Washington 1,000 5,000 No asset test Maintains federal rules
West Virginia 2,000 1/household 3,000 Excludes ALL vehicles
Wisconsin 2,500 10,000 No asset test Excludes ALL vehicles
Wyoming 2,500 12,000 2,500 Increased FMV exemption
for first vehicle
TA N F A S S E T V E H I C L E M E D I C A I D V E H I C L E A S S E T L I M I T S
L I M I T S E XC L U S I O N A S S E T L I M I T S I N F O O D S TA M P P G M .
(continued from previous page)
Affordable Homeownership
Homeownership is the single largest source of equity for
American households. Public policies, such as home mort-
gage interest deduction, have played a pivotal role in in-
centivizing homeownership at the federal level. A number
of state policies have also been implemented to help those
with lower incomes become homeowners.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D128
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Homeownership
is the single largest
source of equity for
American households.
Mortgage Revenue Bonds
Rationale: In 1986 Congress gave
states a maximum amount of power
to issue tax-exempt bonds. A 1986
tax law set the cap at $50 per
capita, with a minimum of $150 mil-
lion for low population states. The rev-
enue from tax-exempt bonds can be used
for industrial development bonds, student loans,
mortgages, and other investments. The percentage of pri-
vate activity bonds that a state allocates for mortgage revenue
bonds is a good indication of how that state prioritizes housing assistance.
Measure: The percentage of state allocations of private-activity bonds for mortgage
revenue bonds (in 2000).
Source: State allocations of private activity bonds in 2000. (July 2001). Bond Buyer, 337 (31176), 34.
129
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
The percentage
of private activity
bonds that a
state allocates
for mortgage
revenue bonds is
a good indication
of how that state
prioritizes housing
assistance.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
Alabama 0.34% 42
Alaska 0.60 14
Arizona 0.59 16
Arkansas 0.36 41
California 0.74 6
Colorado 0.57 20
Connecticut 0.49 26
Delaware 0.47 29
Florida 0.73 8
Georgia 0.41 32
Hawaii 0.67 13
Idaho 1.33 1
Illinois 0.45 30
Indiana 0.37 39
Iowa 0.52 25
Kansas 0.70 10
Kentucky 0.48 27
Louisiana 0.79 4
Maine 0.71 9
Maryland 0.84 2
Massachusetts 0.40 33
Michigan 0.14 49
Minnesota 0.55 22
Mississippi 0.39 35
Missouri 0.21 47
Montana 0.53 24
Nebraska 0.07 50
Nevada 0.78 5
New Hampshire 0.59 18
New Jersey 0.25 45
New Mexico 0.69 11
New York 0.74 7
North Carolina 0.22 46
North Dakota 0.80 3
Ohio 0.68 12
Oklahoma 0.55 23
Oregon 0.59 17
Pennsylvania 0.20 48
Rhode Island 0.38 38
South Carolina 0.39 37
South Dakota 0.37 40
Tennessee 0.56 21
Texas 0.40 34
Utah 0.57 19
Vermont 0.44 31
Virginia 0.39 36
Washington 0.48 28
West Virginia 0.33 43
Wisconsin 0.26 44
Wyoming 0.60 15
P E R C E N TA G E R A N K P E R C E N TA G E R A N K
State Housing Trust Fund
Rationale: Housing trust funds were created in response to the
Reagan administration’s severe cutbacks in federal support for
affordable housing. Housing trust funds provide a dedicated
source of funding for housing activities at the state level, including
constructing, rehabilitation, and financing housing for low- and
moderate-income families. Housing trust funds generate their rev-
enue from a variety of resources, but the majority rely on recording
fees for real estate documents. Trust awards can take many forms,
including grants to nonprofits, developers, community-based organi-
zations, housing authorities, or public agencies.
Measure: States that have a state-operated housing trust fund (in 2000).
Source: National Council of State Housing Agencies. (2000). State HFA fact book: 2000 NCSHA an-
nual survey results. Washington D.C.: Author.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D130
Housing trust
funds provide a
dedicated source
of funding for
housing activities—
construction,
rehabilitation, and
financing housing
for low- and
moderate-income
families—at the
state level.
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona ✔
Arkansas
California ✔
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware ✔
Florida ✔
Georgia ✔
Hawaii ✔
Idaho
Illinois ✔
Indiana ✔
Iowa ✔
Kansas ✔
Kentucky ✔
Louisiana
Maine ✔
Maryland ✔
Massachusetts ✔
Michigan
Minnesota ✔
Mississippi
Missouri ✔
Montana ✔
Nebraska ✔
Nevada ✔
New Hampshire ✔
New Jersey
New Mexico ✔
New York ✔
North Carolina ✔
North Dakota
Ohio ✔
Oklahoma ✔
Oregon ✔
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina ✔
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas ✔
Utah ✔
Vermont ✔
Virginia
Washington ✔
West Virginia ✔
Wisconsin
Wyoming
T R U S T F U N D T R U S T F U N D
Property Tax Circuit Breakers
Rationale: A large portion of state and local tax revenues come from property
taxes. Circuit breakers are property tax relief programs that target low- and mod-
erate-income homeowners, particularly seniors. Circuit breakers kick in when property
taxes exceed a certain percentage of a household’s income and provide a property tax
rebate or tax subsidy for qualifying households. Circuit breakers are particularly helpful
for seniors on fixed incomes who live in older homes where property taxes are increasing
due to gentrification.
Measure: States that have programs for assisting the elderly and disabled in meeting
their property tax burden (in 1998). States receive credit for having programs that tar-
get any of the following populations: 1) elderly homeowners, 2) all homeowners, 3) eld-
erly renters, 4) all renters. A state receives 0 points if it does not have any circuit
breaker programs, 0.25 if it has one, 0.5 if it has two, 0.75 if it has three, and 1 if it has
all four.
Source: Baer, D., AARP Public Policy Institute. (1998). Awareness and popularity of property tax re-
lief programs. Washington D.C.: Author.
131
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Circuit breakers
are particularly
helpful for seniors
on fixed incomes
who live in older
homes where
property taxes
are increasing due
to gentrification.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona ✔ ✔
Arkansas ✔
California ✔ ✔
Colorado ✔ ✔
Connecticut ✔ ✔
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii ✔
Idaho ✔
Illinois ✔ ✔
Indiana
Iowa ✔ ✔
Kansas ✔ ✔
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine ✔ ✔
Maryland ✔ ✔
Massachusetts
Michigan ✔ ✔
Minnesota ✔ ✔
Mississippi
Missouri ✔ ✔
Montana ✔ ✔
Nebraska ✔
Nevada ✔ ✔
New Hampshire
New Jersey ✔ ✔
New Mexico ✔ ✔
New York ✔ ✔
North Carolina
North Dakota ✔ ✔
Ohio ✔
Oklahoma ✔
Oregon ✔
Pennsylvania ✔ ✔
Rhode Island ✔ ✔
South Carolina
South Dakota ✔ ✔
Tennessee
Texas
Utah ✔ ✔
Vermont ✔ ✔
Virginia
Washington ✔
West Virginia ✔ ✔
Wisconsin ✔ ✔
Wyoming
O W N E R S R E N T E R S
Elderly All Elderly All
O W N E R S R E N T E R S
Elderly All Elderly All
First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Programs
Rationale: Often, low-income workers can afford the monthly
mortgage costs associated with homeownership, but they can-
not save enough money for the downpayment and closing costs.
Many states offer programs to help low-income families buy homes
through downpayment assistance.
Measure: States receive credit for one or more of the following pro-
grams: 1) direct lending for homeownership, 2) homeownership coun-
seling, 3) funds for second mortgages, 4) funds for construction as-
sistance, 5) lease purchase arrangement, 6) direct grants for downpayments. A states
receives 0 points if it does not have any of the designated programs, 0.17 points if it has
one program, 0.33 if it has two, 0.5 if it has three, 0.67 if it has four, 0.83 if it has five,
and 1 point if it has all six.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D132
Low-income
workers can often
afford monthly
mortgage costs,
but can’t save
enough for the
downpayment
and closing costs.
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Alabama ✔ ✔
Alaska ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Arizona ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Arkansas ✔ ✔
California ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Colorado ✔ ✔ ✔
Connecticut ✔ ✔
Delaware ✔ ✔
Florida ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Georgia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Hawaii ✔ ✔ ✔
Idaho ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Illinois ✔ ✔ ✔
Indiana ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Iowa ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Kansas ✔ ✔ ✔
Kentucky ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Louisiana ✔ ✔
Maine ✔ ✔
Maryland ✔ ✔ ✔
Massachusetts ✔ ✔ ✔
Michigan ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Minnesota ✔ ✔ ✔
Mississippi ✔ ✔ ✔
Missouri ✔ ✔
Montana
Nebraska ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
DIRECT 2ND CONST. LEASE DIRECT
LENDING COUNSEL MTGE ASS IST. PURCH. GRANTS
Source: National Council of State Housing Agencies. (2000). State HFA fact book: 2000 NCSHA an-
nual survey results. Washington D.C.: Author.
133
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
Nevada ✔
New Hampshire ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
New Jersey ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
New Mexico ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
New York ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
North Carolina ✔ ✔
North Dakota ✔ ✔
Ohio
Oklahoma ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Oregon ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Pennsylvania ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Rhode Island ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
South Carolina ✔ ✔
South Dakota ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Tennessee ✔ ✔
Texas ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Utah ✔ ✔
Vermont ✔ ✔
Virginia ✔ ✔ ✔
Washington ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
West Virginia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Wisconsin ✔
Wyoming ✔ ✔
DIRECT 2ND CONST. LEASE DIRECT
LENDING COUNSEL MTGE ASS IST. PURCH. GRANTS
(continued from previous page)
Human Capital Development
The measures of human capital development policy assess
state policies that assist in the development of education
and learning, including policies that focus on low-income
families and families living in low-wealth communities.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D134
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
For workers in a global
information-age economy,
education levels
now determine
economic prospects.
Supplementary Funds for Head Start
Rationale: The first years in a child’s life are critical to healthy intellectual develop-
ment and future academic success. They provide a short window of opportunity with
enormous implications for the rest of a child’s life. Research shows that early childhood
education significantly improves the scholastic success and educational achievements of
poor children even into early adulthood. Moreover, high-quality, targeted interventions,
such as preschool, save money by preventing future expenses for remedial education, in-
carceration, and cash assistance. Public and private investment in early childhood is in-
creasing, with particular focus on early learning and literacy, public awareness, and qual-
ity of care.
Measure: States that provide supplementary funds for the Head Start Education pro-
gram to support early childhood development (as of 1995).
Source: National Center for Children in Poverty. (1996). Map and track: State initiatives for young
children and families. New York, NY: Columbia University.
135
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Research shows
that early
childhood
education
significantly
improves the
scholastic success
and educational
achievements of
poor children
even into early
adulthood.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
Alabama
Alaska ✔
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut ✔
Delaware ✔
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii ✔
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana ✔
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine ✔
Maryland
Massachusetts ✔
Michigan
Minnesota ✔
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire ✔
New Jersey ✔
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio ✔
Oklahoma ✔
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island ✔
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington ✔
West Virginia
Wisconsin ✔
Wyoming
F U N D S F U N D S
State-Funded Pre-Kindergarten Program
Rationale: At present the current pre-kindergarten system is
haphazard, piecemeal, and underfunded. Studies have shown
that children who enter kindergarten with limited reading and
other cognitive skills are the most likely to develop difficulties later
on and end up in remedial education. Those who are the least skilled
by third grade are the most likely to drop out before finishing high
school. Investing in a quality preschool program is a key element to
long-term educational success and workforce development.
Measure: States that have state-funded pre-kindergarten education programs (in 1996).
Source: National Center for Children in Poverty. (1996). Map and track: State initiatives for young
children and families. New York, NY: Columbia University.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D136
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Children who
enter kindergarten
with limited
reading and other
cognitive skills are
the most likely to
develop difficulties
later on and
end up in remedial
education.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona ✔
Arkansas ✔
California ✔
Colorado ✔
Connecticut ✔
Delaware
Florida ✔
Georgia ✔
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois ✔
Indiana ✔
Iowa ✔
Kansas
Kentucky ✔
Louisiana ✔
Maine ✔
Maryland ✔
Massachusetts ✔
Michigan ✔
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey ✔
New Mexico
New York ✔
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio ✔
Oklahoma ✔
Oregon ✔
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina ✔
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas ✔
Utah
Vermont ✔
Virginia ✔
Washington ✔
West Virginia ✔
Wisconsin
Wyoming
P R E - K P R O G R A M P R E - K P R O G R A M
K–12 Education Expenditures
Rationale: While the relationship between education spending and achievement is
not a simple one, it is clear that investments in education can have a significant impact
on the long-term economic health of households and communities. Scholarly research
has demonstrated a significant relationship between education spending and future
earnings. Moreover, in an information-age economy that increasingly places a premium
on skilled workers, gross underfunding of education in certain districts has serious con-
sequences for the life chances of disadvantaged students.
Measure: Per-pupil expenditures for K–12 students from federal, state, and local sources,
adjusted for cost-of-living differences among states (in 1999–2000).
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Current ex-
penditures for public, elementary, and secondary education by state: 1969-70 to 1998-99.
Washington, D.C.: Author; and Technical documentation for the American Federation of Teachers
cost-of-living index from Nelson, F. H. (2000) An interstate cost-of-living index. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 13 (1) pp. 103-111. Index values for Alaska and Hawaii from the
American Chamber of Commerce Researchers Association. (2002). Intercity cost-of-living index.
Louisville, KY: Author.
137
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Research has
demonstrated a
significant
relationship
between
education
spending and
future earnings.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
Alabama $5.54 43
Alaska 7.11 19
Arizona 5.07 47
Arkansas 5.27 46
California 4.76 48
Colorado 5.93 39
Connecticut 8.22 6
Delaware 7.50 14
Florida 6.08 37
Georgia 6.27 33
Hawaii 4.60 49
Idaho 5.34 45
Illinois 6.22 35
Indiana 7.82 10
Iowa 7.32 16
Kansas 6.85 23
Kentucky 7.27 18
Louisiana 6.32 32
Maine 7.61 12
Maryland 6.92 22
Massachusetts 7.29 17
Michigan 7.80 11
Minnesota 7.99 7
Mississippi 5.50 44
Missouri 6.02 38
Montana $6.68 25
Nebraska 6.71 24
Nevada 5.70 42
New Hampshire 6.62 26
New Jersey 8.67 2
New Mexico 6.23 34
New York 8.37 4
North Carolina 5.84 40
North Dakota 6.48 29
Ohio 6.95 21
Oklahoma 6.38 31
Oregon 7.47 15
Pennsylvania 8.24 5
Rhode Island 7.90 8
South Carolina 6.51 28
South Dakota 6.18 36
Tennessee 5.82 41
Texas 6.58 27
Utah 4.24 50
Vermont 7.58 13
Virginia 7.07 20
Washington 6.44 30
West Virginia 9.18 1
Wisconsin 8.52 3
Wyoming 7.86 9
A M O U N T R A N K
(in thousands)
A M O U N T R A N K
(in thousands)
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
School Spending Equalization
Rationale: State courts across the
United States have ruled that the
method of funding public education,
which relies primarily on local property
tax revenues and often leads to spending
disparities between rich and poor school
districts, violates fundamental constitu-
tional guarantees of equal opportunity to
education. Many states have acted to address these inequities. This measure is an indica-
tor of how equal school spending is across all of a state’s school districts.
Measure: The ratio of the amount spent on pupils below the median in a state to the
amount needed to be spent to achieve “equity” (as of 1997).
Source: The McLoone Index. Education Week. XX (17), pp.104-105. (January 2001) Bethesda, MD:
Editorial Projects in Education Inc.
Public school
funding currently
relies heavily
on local property
tax revenues
and often leads
to spending
disparities
between rich
and poor
school districts.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
Alabama 0.93 23
Alaska 0.87 48
Arizona 0.93 31
Arkansas 0.94 15
California 0.93 26
Colorado 0.97 5
Connecticut 0.95 13
Delaware 0.94 21
Florida 0.95 11
Georgia 0.94 18
Hawaii 1.00 1
Idaho 0.94 19
Illinois 0.87 47
Indiana 0.92 37
Iowa 0.95 14
Kansas 0.94 21
Kentucky 0.91 39
Louisiana 0.92 34
Maine 0.91 42
Maryland 0.91 43
Massachusetts 0.91 44
Michigan 0.92 33
Minnesota 0.93 30
Mississippi 0.94 20
Missouri 0.92 36
Montana 0.91 45
Nebraska 0.91 40
Nevada 0.99 2
New Hampshire 0.88 46
New Jersey 0.91 41
New Mexico 0.97 4
New York 0.87 48
North Carolina 0.95 10
North Dakota 0.96 7
Ohio 0.92 35
Oklahoma 0.96 9
Oregon 0.93 28
Pennsylvania 0.92 38
Rhode Island 0.93 25
South Carolina 0.96 8
South Dakota 0.94 16
Tennessee 0.92 32
Texas 0.95 12
Utah 0.99 3
Vermont 0.86 50
Virginia 0.93 29
Washington 0.94 17
West Virginia 0.96 6
Wisconsin 0.93 24
Wyoming 0.93 27
R AT I O R A N K R AT I O R A N K
138
Funding for
Customized Job Training
Rationale: The American workplace
is undergoing profound changes
that require all workers to acquire
advanced skills to stay competitive in
a global economy. A skilled workforce
is key to maintaining the nation’s produc-
tivity and economic competitiveness.43 In addition, all
things being equal, those with higher skills and higher pay
will have a greater ability to save.
Measure: State rank with respect to funding for customized job training per capita
(as of 1997).
Source: Regional Technology Strategies, Inc. (1999). A comprehensive look at state-funded, em-
ployer-focused job training programs. Washington, DC: National Governor’s Association, Center for
Best Practices.
139
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
All things being
equal, those with
higher skills and
higher pay will
have a greater
ability to save.
Alabama 15
Alaska 3
Arizona 33
Arkansas 40
California 6
Colorado 26
Connecticut 32
Delaware 35
Florida 44
Georgia 27
Hawaii 20
Idaho 13
Illinois 23
Indiana 12
Iowa 1
Kansas 11
Kentucky 37
Louisiana 22
Maine 17
Maryland 30
Massachusetts 46
Michigan 9
Minnesota 24
Mississippi 18
Missouri 4
Montana —
Nebraska 41
Nevada 43
New Hampshire —
New Jersey 7
New Mexico 5
New York 42
North Carolina 10
North Dakota 28
Ohio 36
Oklahoma 14
Oregon 45
Pennsylvania 16
Rhode Island 2
South Carolina 19
South Dakota 34
Tennessee 31
Texas 8
Utah 25
Vermont 39
Virginia 21
Washington 47
West Virginia 29
Wisconsin 38
Wyoming —
R A N K R A N K
Need-Based Financial Aid
Rationale: Access to college is signif-
icantly affected by households’ abil-
ity to pay for college. Low-income
families have great difficulty being
able to save enough to afford col-
lege. Need-based assistance is a critical
measure of a state’s commitment to equal
access to higher education.
Measure: Estimated need-based aid to undergraduates per
resident population (in 1998–1999).
Source: National Association of States Student Grant Aid Programs. (July 2002) 30th Annual
National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs survey report [On-line]. Available:
http://www.nassgap.org/researchsurveys/default.htm.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D140
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Need-based
assistance is a
critical measure
of a state’s
commitment to
equal access to
higher education.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
Alabama $0.47 43
Alaska 0.00 49
Arizona 0.60 41
Arkansas 6.31 22
California 10.28 13
Colorado 10.76 11
Connecticut 10.13 14
Delaware 1.92 37
Florida 2.50 36
Georgia 0.06 48
Hawaii 0.42 44
Idaho 0.62 40
Illinois 26.53 2
Indiana 16.97 7
Iowa 16.92 8
Kansas 3.23 32
Kentucky 9.84 15
Louisiana 0.32 45
Maine 6.20 23
Maryland 7.56 20
Massachusetts 15.06 9
Michigan 9.44 16
Minnesota 24.20 3
Mississippi 0.31 47
Missouri 3.70 30
Montana $0.54 42
Nebraska 2.83 35
Nevada 3.52 31
New Hampshire 1.49 38
New Jersey 19.98 6
New Mexico 9.38 17
New York 34.13 1
North Carolina 5.60 26
North Dakota 3.14 34
Ohio 8.32 19
Oklahoma 5.24 27
Oregon 4.94 28
Pennsylvania 22.52 4
Rhode Island 5.79 25
South Carolina 6.08 24
South Dakota 0.00 49
Tennessee 3.85 29
Texas 3.18 33
Utah 0.95 39
Vermont 21.66 5
Virginia 9.35 18
Washington 13.22 10
West Virginia 7.22 21
Wisconsin 10.39 12
Wyoming 0.32 45
A M O U N T R A N K A M O U N T R A N K
College Savings Plan
with Matching Funds
Rationale: Having a college education is strongly correlated with higher income and
higher levels of net worth. Unfortunately, the cost of a college education is still beyond
the financial means of many families. State college savings (or 529) plans allow families to
begin saving early for a child’s education, thus ensuring that they will have enough
money when college begins. Thanks to recent tax law changes, which make withdrawals
from the plan for qualified expenses tax exempt, investors, financial institutions, and
states have all been showing greater interest in these college savings vehicles. For the
most part, college savings plans appear to be a new wave in tax-sheltered asset accumu-
lation for moderate- and higher-income households. Recognizing this, a few leading
states provide some level of matching funds to low- and moderate-income families to
encourage participation in their state’s college savings plan.
Measure: States that provide matching grants to the college savings plans of low- to
moderate-income families (in 2002).
Source: M. Clancy. (Personal communication, March 2002). St. Louis MO: Center for Social
Development, Washington University at St Louis.
141
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
A few leading
states provide
some level of
matching funds
to low- and
moderate-income
families to
encourage
participation in
the state’s college
savings plan.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana ✔
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan ✔
Minnesota ✔
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
S AV I N G S P L A N S AV I N G S P L A N
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
Small Business Development Policy
The small business development policy measures look at
state policies that facilitate business ownership through
access to capital for low- and moderate-income entrepre-
neurs.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D142
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
There is wide support
throughout the country
for supporting
low-income individuals by
helping them set up
their own businesses, thus
getting off welfare and
climbing out of poverty.
Small Business Investment Company
Investments
Rationale: Small business investment company (SBIC) fi-
nancing is important because it helps small companies in
their critical start-up phase obtain much-needed, vital seed
capital. Most states boast a number of public or nonprofit
business investment or loan funds. SBICs are federally licensed in-
vestment companies that target financing to economically and socially disad-
vantaged entrepreneurs. SBICs offer hard-to-find, patient, growth-oriented capital
in the form of long-term loans, equity, or convertible debt. In exchange for a pledge to
invest exclusively in small business, SBICs qualify for federal Small Business Administration
guarantees.
Measure: SBIC Financing to businesses by state (in dollars) per worker (in 2000).
Source: U.S. Small Business Administration. (2001). SBIC financing statistics. Washington D.C.:
Author.
143
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
SBICs
are federally
licensed
investment
companies that
target financing
to economically
and socially
disadvantaged
entrepreneurs.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
Alabama $12.4 35
Alaska 0.0 48
Arizona 39.7 10
Arkansas 4.3 43
California 79.2 4
Colorado 94.4 2
Connecticut 84.6 3
Delaware 16.2 33
Florida 22.0 28
Georgia 33.6 15
Hawaii 37.0 12
Idaho 2.3 45
Illinois 26.1 24
Indiana 7.2 40
Iowa 14.1 34
Kansas 28.7 20
Kentucky 6.6 42
Louisiana 26.9 22
Maine 16.6 32
Maryland 25.1 25
Massachusetts 100.0 1
Michigan 11.2 36
Minnesota 24.1 27
Mississippi 9.1 38
Missouri 32.4 16
Montana $0.0 48
Nebraska 0.6 46
Nevada 8.2 39
New Hampshire 42.3 9
New Jersey 62.7 6
New Mexico 10.6 37
New York 66.2 5
North Carolina 26.4 23
North Dakota 6.6 41
Ohio 34.6 14
Oklahoma 3.2 44
Oregon 27.0 21
Pennsylvania 38.1 11
Rhode Island 44.6 7
South Carolina 20.9 29
South Dakota 0.5 47
Tennessee 44.6 8
Texas 35.4 13
Utah 29.9 19
Vermont 31.9 17
Virginia 30.1 18
Washington 24.5 26
West Virginia 17.4 30
Wisconsin 16.8 31
Wyoming 0.0 48
A M O U N T R A N K A M O U N T R A N K
Capital Access Programs
Rationale: Capital access programs (CAPs) aim to encourage banks to make slightly
more risky loans to typically more low- to moderate-income communities. With
CAPs, borrowers and the lending institution pay an upfront insurance premium
(3–7% of the amount of the loan). This amount is matched by the state and placed in a
reserve fund at the originating bank. This pool of money protects the entire collection of
CAP loans, therefore providing banks with more security for making loans to less conven-
tional borrowers and, as a result, increasing investments in underserved populations.
Measuring CAP lending in a state helps identify which states are actively seeking ways to
promote asset building in underserved communities. Presently, 20 states are involved
with CAP lending. States perform differently in the following aspects of CAPs:
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Measuring CAP
lending in a state
helps identify
which states are
actively seeking
ways to promote
asset building in
underserved
communities.
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Measure: States that have capital access programs.
Source: U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Community Development Policy. (2001). Capital ac-
cess programs: A summary of nationwide performance. Washington D.C.: Author.
■ Volume of CAP lending
■ Number of banks involved
■ Targeted lending (7 states)
■ Low- to moderate-income
areas (geographic targeting)
■ Minority ownership
■ Female ownership
■ Disabled person ownership
■ Industry targeting
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas ✔
California ✔
Colorado ✔
Connecticut ✔
Delaware ✔
Florida ✔
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois ✔
Indiana ✔
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts ✔
Michigan ✔
Minnesota ✔
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire ✔
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina ✔
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma ✔
Oregon ✔
Pennsylvania ✔
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas ✔
Utah
Vermont ✔
Virginia ✔
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin ✔
Wyoming
C A P C A P
144
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
State Microenterprise Policy
Rationale: There is wide support throughout the country for encouraging microenterprise
as a strategy to support low-income individuals by helping them set up their own busi-
nesses, thus getting off welfare and climbing out of poverty. Multistate demonstrations of
microenterprise have proven that welfare recipients and other disadvantaged populations
can use self-employment as a route to economic independence and wealth creation.44
Measure: States receive credit for having one or more of the following sources of fund-
ing for microenterprise: 1) state general funds, 2) TANF funds, 3) Community
Development Block Grant funds, 4) welfare-to-work funds, 5) other funds. A state re-
ceives 0 points if it does not have any of the sources of funding, 0.2 if it has one source,
0.4 if it has two, 0.6 if it has three, 0.8 if it has four, and 1 if it has all five.
Sources: Brown, P., Corporation for Enterprise Development. (Interviews and electronic correspon-
dence, February 2002). Washington, D.C.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Colorado ✔
Connecticut
Delaware Possibly*
Florida
Georgia ✔
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa ✔
Kansas ✔
Kentucky ✔
Louisiana ✔
Maine ✔ ✔ ✔
Maryland ✔ ✔
Massachusetts ✔
Michigan
Minnesota ✔ ✔ ✔
Mississippi
Missouri ✔
Montana
Nebraska ✔ ✔
Nevada
New Hampshire ✔
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York ✔
North Carolina ✔
North Dakota
Ohio ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Oklahoma
Oregon ✔
Pennsylvania ✔ ✔
Rhode Island ✔ ✔
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee ✔ ✔
Texas ✔ **
Utah
Vermont ✔ ✔ ✔
Virginia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
GENERAL TANF CDBG W-TO-W OTHER GEN TANF CDBG W-TO-W OTHER
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
* The state grants the First State Community Loan Fund a very small amount for Grant-in-Aid which may go to microenterprise. The state also grants the YWCA
money for Grant–in-Aid but we could not confirm whether the money goes towards microenterprise. Email: Caroline E.W. Glackin; First State Community Loan Fund.
** The Texas Association of Community Development Corporations was able to get the Texas CDFI Fund established (funded) this last legislative session. The fund is set up
to be open to all CDFI business models and is not exclusive to micro at all. It is possible that none of the money will go towards microenterprise. Email correspondence.
145
CDFIs make
loans and
investments
that may be
considered
unbankable by
conventional
industry
standards and
serve borrowers,
investees, and
customers not
serviced by
mainstream
financial
institutions.
State CDFI Program
Rationale: CDFIs are private financial institutions
that have community development as a primary
mission and develop a range of programs and meth-
ods to meet the needs of low-income communities.
CDFIs make loans and investments that may be consid-
ered unbankable by conventional industry standards
and serve borrowers, investees, and customers not
serviced by mainstream financial institutions. State support for CDFIs indi-
cates the level of commitment by state-level policymakers to foster lending to under-
served businesses and communities within the state. State programs tend to support
CDFIs either through state tax credits or direct funding.
Measure: States that have initiatives or programs in support of a state CDFI industry (as
of 2001).
Source: The Illinois Facilities Fund. (October 2001). State programs: A directory of programs that
support the CDFI industry. Chicago, IL: Author.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D146
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California ✔
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida ✔
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois ✔
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine ✔
Maryland
Massachusetts ✔
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey ✔
New Mexico
New York ✔
North Carolina ✔
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania ✔
Rhode Island
South Carolina ✔
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas ✔
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington ✔
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
C D F I P R O G R A M C D F I P R O G R A M
Policies to Assist Asset-Poor Farmers
Rationale: The family farm and ranch system is at a critical juncture. The disappearance
of family farms is contributing to the dissolution of rural towns, as agribusiness does not
employ enough people to support a town. Agriculture is an important source of employ-
ment in rural America. To maintain family farms, it is important to increase new farmer
recruitment, reverse the bias toward large-scale farming and corporate concentration,
and assist asset-poor future farmers to obtain capital to get into farming.
Measure: States receive credit for having one or more of the following policies to assist
asset-poor farmers: 1), agricultural bonds, 2) finance programs for farmers, 3) targeted
programs for asset-poor farmers. A state receives 0 points if it does not have any of
these policies; 0.33 points if it has one, 0.67 if it has two, and 1 point if it has all three.
Sources: Information compiled by Wyatt Fraas of Rural Opportunities and Stewardship Program
Center for Rural Affairs in Hartington, NE (Personal communication, 2002). Additional information
from Communicating for Agriculture and Self Employed. List of State Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Aggie Bond Finance Programs and Contacts. [On-line] Available: www.selfemployedcountry.org/be-
ginfarm/two.html. (August 2002).
Alabama ✔
Alaska ✔
Arizona
Arkansas ✔ ✔
California ✔
Colorado ✔ ✔
Connecticut ✔
Delaware
Florida ✔
Georgia ✔
Hawaii ✔
Idaho ✔ ✔
Illinois ✔ ✔
Indiana ✔ ✔
Iowa ✔ ✔
Kansas ✔ ✔
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland ✔
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota ✔ ✔
Mississippi
Missouri ✔ ✔
Montana ✔
Nebraska ✔
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina ✔
North Dakota ✔ ✔
Ohio ✔ ✔
Oklahoma ✔
Oregon
Pennsylvania ✔
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota ✔ ✔
Tennessee
Texas ✔
Utah
Vermont ✔
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin ✔
Wyoming
FINANCE TARGETED
BONDS PROGRAMS PROGRAMS
FINANCE TARGETED
BONDS PROGRAMS PROGRAMS
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
147S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D148
Self-employment
options using
unemployment
insurance funds
can provide
time-specific
self-employment
allowances to
previously
unemployed
persons who start
a new business.
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Unemployment Insurance—
Self-Employment Option
Rationale: Self-employment options
using unemployment insurance funds
have been used successfully in a few
states for time-specific self-employment
allowances to previously unemployed per-
sons who start a new business.
Measure: States allowing unemployment insurance for self-employment (as of 1997).
Source: O’Leary, C, & Wander, S. (Eds.). (1997). Unemployment insurance in the United States:
Analysis of policy issues. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. pp. 535.
Note: Though not included in the data reported in O'Leary and Wander, Pennsylvania also passed
the Self-Employment Assistance Program Act in 1997 to allow the use of unemployment insurance.
See PA House Bill #1475, Session of 1997.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California ✔
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware ✔
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine ✔
Maryland ✔
Massachusetts ✔
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey ✔
New Mexico
New York ✔
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon ✔
Pennsylvania ✔
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington ✔
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
A M O U N T A M O U N T
Employee Ownership Policy
Rationale: Employee ownership promotes more widely shared asset accumulation in a
state, therefore countering the growing disparity between high-wealth and low-wealth in-
dividuals. It broadens the scope of business capital ownership by placing shares in the
hands of many employees, rather than the hands of a few owners. It can also help prevent
plant shutdowns and decrease the risk of capital flight from the state.
Currently, 28 states have passed employee ownership legislation over the past 28 years.
Legislation ranges from simple statements encouraging the practice to the allocation of
state funds for employee ownership programs. State-sponsored employee ownership initia-
tives include the following: tax credits, exemption of employee stock ownership plans from
state securities regulations, legal recognition of workers’ cooperatives, earmarked loan
funds and loan guarantees, interest rate subsidies, technical assistance, state employee
ownership centers, and using employee ownership as a means to privatize state services.
Measure: States that have passed employee ownership legislation (as of 2001).
Source: Grummell, J., & Logue, J. (2001). Employees and ownership: Trends, characteristics, and pol-
icy implications of state employee ownership legislation. Kent, OH: Ohio Employee Ownership Center,
Kent State University.
149
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Employee
ownership
legislation ranges
from simple
statements
encouraging
the practice to
the allocation of
state funds
for employee
ownership
programs.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California ✔
Colorado
Connecticut ✔
Delaware ✔
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii ✔
Idaho ✔
Illinois ✔
Indiana
Iowa ✔
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine ✔
Maryland ✔
Massachusetts ✔
Michigan ✔
Minnesota
Mississippi ✔
Missouri
Montana ✔
Nebraska ✔
Nevada
New Hampshire ✔
New Jersey ✔
New Mexico
New York ✔
North Carolina ✔
North Dakota
Ohio ✔
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania ✔
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas ✔
Utah
Vermont ✔
Virginia ✔
Washington ✔
West Virginia ✔
Wisconsin ✔
Wyoming
PA S S E D PA S S E D
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D150
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Bank Access
The bank access policy measures in the Report Card assess
state policies to ensure equal access to basic financial
services, such as making deposits and receiving loans. One
of the basic factors that determines the ability of low-in-
come households to accumulate assets is access to main-
stream financial products and services.
One of the basic factors
that determines the ability
of low-income households
to accumulate assets
is access to
mainstream financial
products and services.
Lifeline Banking Regulations
Rationale: Holding a basic bank account provides households with access to finan-
cial services and the mainstream economy. Moreover, families with access to main-
stream financial services are much more likely to accumulate savings. Gale and Carney
find that ownership of a transaction account “is associated with very large increases in
the likelihood of owning other forms of wealth, and, controlling for other factors, house-
holds that do not have transaction accounts are 43 percentage points less likely to have
positive holdings of net financial assets, 13 percentage points less likely to have a home,
and 8 percentage points less likely to own a vehicle.”45 Unfortunately, low-income and mi-
nority households are more than twice as likely as others to be among the 10–20% of
the population that is “unbanked.” Research on the unbanked shows that bank fees and
minimum balance requirements are among the main reasons that some households
choose not to establish relationships with banks. Indeed, recent reports both the Public
Interest Research Group and the Federal Reserve Board have documented that bank fees
are rising and are higher at bigger banks.46 In response, several states require banks to
offer customers low-cost, so-called lifeline accounts to permit a small number of
monthly transactions (checks or debits) for a small monthly fee, often just $3/month.
Measure: States that have enacted legislation creating lifeline banking accounts (as of
1998).
Source: Doyle, J., Lopez, J., & Saidenberg, M. (1998). How effective is lifeline banking in assisting the
“unbanked?” Current Issues in Economics and Finance, 4 (6), pp. 1-6.
151
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Research on the
unbanked shows
that fees and
minimum balance
requirements are
among the main
reasons that
some households
choose not to
establish
relationships
with banks.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois ✔
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts ✔
Michigan
Minnesota ✔
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey ✔
New Mexico
New York ✔
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont ✔
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
ENACTED ENACTED ENACTED
State Community Reinvestment
Act Regulations
Rationale: The Community Reinvestment Act
(CRA) of 1977 states that financial institutions
have an obligation to lend funds in locations
where deposits are made, therefore requiring
banks to lend back to all the communities that
make deposits. This act encouraged lending to
underserved communities and, as a result, enhanced credit
provision to low- and moderate-income earners. Although this is federal legislation, simi-
lar legislation exists at the state level and applies to state-chartered banks.
Measure: States that have enacted CRA legislation covering state-chartered banks (as of
2002).
Source: Goldberg, D., Center for Community Change (Personal communication, March 2002).
Washington D.C.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
CRA
regulations
encourage
lending to
underserved
communities and,
as a result,
enhanced credit
provision to low-
and moderate-
income earners.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts ✔
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York ✔
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
E N A C T E D E N A C T E D
152
Wage Protection
The wage protection policy measures look at
policies that supplement or replace a portion
of wages when a worker leaves employment
due to job loss, injury, or childbirth. These are
crucial supports that allow households to man-
age work changes or sudden events without
depleting assets or increasing debt.
153
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Wage protection measures
are crucial supports
that allow households
to manage work changes
or sudden events
without depleting assets
or increasing debt.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
Workers’ Compensation—Coverage
Rationale: Workers’ compensation is the oldest social in-
surance institution in the United States. The first was cre-
ated in New York in 1910, at a time when American industrial
injury rates reached their all-time high. The workers’ com-
pensation program represents a no-fault insurance approach
to industrial or work-related accidents. Workers give up some
rights—the right to sue employers for full damages resulting
from a work-related accident—in exchange for (supposedly) swift
and sure payment of medical costs and partial income replacement during re-
habilitation or, in the case of permanent injury, partial damages.
Measure: Percentage of employees in a state covered by workers’ compensation (in
1997–1999).
Source: National Academy of Social Insurance. (2002). Workers’ compensation: Benefits, coverage,
and costs. Washington D.C.: Author.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D154
Workers’
compensation is
the oldest social
insurance
institution in the
United States.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Alabama 79.6% 45
Alaska 80.4 44
Arizona 92.5 9
Arkansas 85.6 33
California 85.4 35
Colorado 93.7 7
Connecticut 94.6 4
Delaware 97.3 3
Florida 89.8 21
Georgia 87.5 25
Hawaii 87.9 24
Idaho 83.6 40
Illinois 90.4 17
Indiana 92.5 10
Iowa 90.7 16
Kansas 90.0 19
Kentucky 86.2 32
Louisiana 90.2 18
Maine 83.7 39
Maryland 81.2 42
Massachusetts 98.6 2
Michigan 84.9 37
Minnesota 93.9 5
Mississippi 78.0 46
Missouri 84.0 38
Montana 76.4% 48
Nebraska 92.3 11
Nevada 100.6* 1
New Hampshire 87.2 28
New Jersey 91.0 15
New Mexico 77.8 47
New York 93.0 8
North Carolina 92.2 12
North Dakota 87.3 27
Ohio 93.8 6
Oklahoma 85.2 36
Oregon 86.5 31
Pennsylvania 91.2 14
Rhode Island 75.6 49
South Carolina 85.5 34
South Dakota 87.0 29
Tennessee 88.6 22
Texas 72.3 50
Utah 91.6 13
Vermont 87.3 26
Virginia 88.4 23
Washington 86.6 30
West Virginia 80.5 43
Wisconsin 89.9 20
Wyoming 82.4 41
P E R C E N TA G E R A N K P E R C E N TA G E R A N K
* Due to the approximations of estimates in this measure, this figure caculates to over 100%.
Workers’ Compensation—
Benefit Index
Rationale: Coverage is not the only way to
examine workers’ compensation. The
amount of the benefit offered relative to
proposed guidelines is an indication of the true
level of support the program provides to workers
who are injured while at work and are unable to con-
tinue working.
Measure: Ratio of benefits under current law to benefits under model act of the
Advisory Committee on Worker’s Compensation on the Council of State Governments (as
of 1998).
Source: Thomason, T., & Burton, J.F. Jr. (November/December, 2001). The adequacy of cash bene-
fits prescribed by workers’ compensation statutes. Workers’ Compensation Policy Review. Volume 1,
Issue 6, 23.
155
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
The amount
of workers’
compensation
benefits offered
relative to
proposed
guidelines is an
indication of the
true level of
support the
program provides
to workers.
Number of decimal places are
limited for presentation purposes.
State ranks are based on full
number. Two states might
therefore have different ranks
even though the measures here
appear the same.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
Alabama 36.1 41
Alaska 42.1 34
Arizona 64.9 10
Arkansas 45.3 27
California 24.7 48
Colorado 35.2 43
Connecticut 43.2 30
Delaware 57.6 15
Florida 32.0 46
Georgia 45.3 27
Hawaii 68.7 7
Idaho 53.8 19
Illinois 46.5 26
Indiana 37.0 40
Iowa 52.4 20
Kansas 63.7 11
Kentucky 73.5 3
Louisiana 22.3 49
Maine 67.2 8
Maryland 39.6 38
Massachusetts 56.2 16
Michigan 41.1 37
Minnesota 34.1 45
Mississippi 55.4 18
Missouri 41.7 36
Montana 30.7 47
Nebraska 58.4 13
Nevada 20.3 50
New Hampshire 59.6 12
New Jersey 48.6 24
New Mexico 70.6 5
New York 58.2 14
North Carolina 34.9 44
North Dakota 69.8 6
Ohio 52.3 21
Oklahoma 38.7 39
Oregon 41.8 35
Pennsylvania 110.2 1
Rhode Island 48.7 23
South Carolina 46.7 25
South Dakota 43.7 29
Tennessee 42.5 32
Texas 35.9 42
Utah 42.5 32
Vermont 73.4 4
Virginia 65.4 9
Washington 56.1 17
West Virginia 43.0 31
Wisconsin 49.6 22
Wyoming 83.0 2
R AT I O R A N K R AT I O R A N K
Unemployment Insurance—Benefit Level
Rationale: The nation’s system of unemployment insurance is a unique national
and state partnership. It is based on federal law but executed through state law
and administration. Unemployment insurance was created to provide adequate ben-
efits to protect workers during temporary periods of joblessness. Unemployment in-
surance benefits support workers and their families who are experiencing job (and there-
fore, income) loss, and this support can preserve existing assets and prevent the
accumulation of increased debt as a result of loss of weekly income. There is broad con-
sensus that unemployment insurance wage replacement benefits should replace 50% of
lost weekly earnings over a six-month period. Presently, benefit levels are miserably low
in many states, resulting in financial strain for claimants and their families. The best
measure of a state’s support for unemployment insurance is to compare benefit levels
to the average wages in a state.
Measure: Average weekly benefit as a percentage of the state’s average wage (in 2001).
Source: U.S. Department of Labor. (2002). Unemployment insurance data summary (first quarter
2001), based on calculations by the Economic Policy Institute. Washington D.C.: Author.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
There is
broad consensus
that unemployment
insurance benefits
should replace
50% of lost
weekly earnings
over a six-month
period. Benefit
levels are miserably
low in many states,
resulting in financial
strain for claimants
and their families.
Alabama 29% 45
Alaska 28 47
Arizona 27 48
Arkansas 41 7
California 22 50
Colorado 37 24
Connecticut 27 48
Delaware 30 44
Florida 38 19
Georgia 32 40
Hawaii 50 1
Idaho 41 7
Illinois 35 32
Indiana 37 24
Iowa 44 4
Kansas 45 2
Kentucky 38 19
Louisiana 31 42
Maine 38 19
Maryland 32 40
Massachusetts 36 27
Michigan 35 32
Minnesota 44 4
Mississippi 33 37
Missouri 31 42
Montana 41% 7
Nebraska 35 32
Nevada 36 27
New Hampshire 34 36
New Jersey 35 32
New Mexico 36 27
New York 29 45
North Carolina 39 15
North Dakota 45 2
Ohio 37 24
Oklahoma 43 6
Oregon 38 19
Pennsylvania 40 12
Rhode Island 41 7
South Carolina 36 27
South Dakota 38 19
Tennessee 33 37
Texas 36 27
Utah 39 15
Vermont 39 15
Virginia 40 12
Washington 40 12
West Virginia 39 15
Wisconsin 41 7
Wyoming 33 37
P E R C E N TA G E R A N K P E R C E N TA G E R A N K
156
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Unemployment Insurance Reforms
Rationale: Unemployment insurance
benefits are payable as a matter of
right to workers who have enough
qualifying wages and yearly work ex-
perience to meet their state’s mini-
mum conditions; who are free from
disqualification on the basis of their
separation from their last place of
employment; and who are ready, will-
ing, and able to work. If unemployment in-
surance is going to remain the first line of
defense against hardship and the erosion of assets, certain
state reforms are necessary to bring the system more into
sync with the “new economy:”47
■ Adopting an “alternative base period” for determining eligibility. States often consider
the earnings of workers during the first four of the five most recently completed
yearly quarters when considering unemployment insurance benefits. This policy harms
low-wage workers who may not have the work history to qualify for unemployment in-
surance benefits. By allowing an alternate base period, such as counting the four most
recently completed quarters, states require fewer weeks worked and will reach more
low-income workers through unemployment insurance.
■ Changing eligibility rules to require a minimum number of hours worked rather than an
earning threshold. Eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits is often too strin-
gent for the lowest-income workers, many of whom fail to qualify for benefits at all.
States with unemployment insurance eligibility based on earnings, as opposed to hours
worked, are unfairly treating low-income workers.
Measure: States receive credit for one of more of the following:
1. adopting alternative base periods for determining unemployment insurance eligibility,
2. covering workers who only earn the minimum wage,
3. eliminating restrictions on seeking part-time work.
A state receives 0 points if it does not have any of the initiatives, 0.33 points if it has
one, 0.67 points if it has two, and 1 point if it has all three.
157
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
If unemployment
insurance is going
to remain the
first line of
defense against
hardship and the
erosion of assets,
certain state
reforms are
necessary to
bring the system
more into sync
with the “new
economy.”
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
(continued on next page)
Source: Economic Policy Institute, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, & National Employment Law Project. (2001). Failing the unem-
ployed: A state by state examination of unemployment insurance systems. Washington D.C.: Author.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D158
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Alabama ✔
Alaska ✔
Arizona ✔
Arkansas ✔ ✔
California ✔ ✔
Colorado ✔ ✔
Connecticut ✔
Delaware ✔ ✔
Florida ✔
Georgia ✔
Hawaii ✔ ✔
Idaho ✔
Illinois ✔
Indiana ✔
Iowa ✔ ✔
Kansas ✔ ✔
Kentucky ✔
Louisiana ✔ ✔
Maine ✔ ✔
Maryland ✔
Massachusetts ✔ ✔
Michigan ✔
Minnesota ✔ ✔
Mississippi ✔
Missouri ✔
Montana ✔
Nebraska ✔ ✔
Nevada ✔
New Hampshire ✔
New Jersey ✔ ✔
New Mexico
New York ✔ ✔
North Carolina ✔ ✔
North Dakota
Ohio ✔
Oklahoma ✔ ✔
Oregon ✔
Pennsylvania ✔ ✔
Rhode Island ✔ ✔ ✔
South Carolina ✔
South Dakota ✔ ✔
Tennessee ✔
Texas ✔
Utah
Vermont ✔ ✔ ✔
Virginia ✔
Washington ✔ ✔
West Virginia ✔ ✔
Wisconsin ✔ ✔
Wyoming ✔ ✔
ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM PART-TIME
BASE WAGE COV. WORK COV.
ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM PART-TIME
BASE WAGE COV. WORK COV.
(continued from previous page)
Family Leave Benefits
Rationale: The federal Family and
Medical Leave Act of 1993 guarantees
leave from work without pay for the
birth or adoption of a baby, the care of
a close relative who is seriously ill, or the
care of the workers’ own serious illness.
However, too many women and men who qualify
for leave under the act do not take leave because
they cannot afford to go without pay. Moreover, for workers
who must take essential time off for family leave, the result can
be financial hardship. According to the Commission on Family Leave, nearly one in 10
workers who take unpaid family leave are actually forced onto public assistance to make
ends meet.48 To give all workers a meaningful right to leave, a number of states now pro-
vide limited forms of family leave benefits. Doing so also helps ensure that families will
not be forced to deplete their assets in the face of financial hardship caused by taking
essential time off.
Measure: States receive credit for offering one of more of the following:
1. temporary disability insurance,
2. subsidies for infant care for low-income families,
3. allowing public employees to use sick leave to care for sick family,
4. requiring private employers to allow employees to use sick leave to care for sick family.
A state receives 0 points if it does not have any of these policies, 0.25 if it has one, 0.5 if
it has two, 0.75 if it has three, and 1 point if it has all four.
159
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
According to
the Commission
on Family Leave,
nearly one in ten
workers who
take unpaid
family leave are
actually forced
onto public
assistance to
make ends meet.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
(continued on next page)
Source: National Partnership for Women and Families. (2002). State family leave benefit initiatives in the 2001–2002 state legislatures:
Making family leave more affordable [On-line]. Available: www.nationalpartnership.org.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D160
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona ✔
Arkansas
California ✔ ✔ ✔
Colorado ✔
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida ✔
Georgia
Hawaii ✔
Idaho ✔
Illinois
Indiana ✔
Iowa ✔
Kansas ✔
Kentucky ✔
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland ✔
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota ✔ ✔ ✔
Mississippi
Missouri ✔
Montana ✔ ✔
Nebraska ✔
Nevada ✔
New Hampshire ✔
New Jersey ✔
New Mexico
New York ✔
North Carolina ✔
North Dakota ✔
Ohio
Oklahoma ✔
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island ✔
South Carolina ✔
South Dakota ✔
Tennessee ✔
Texas ✔
Utah ✔
Vermont
Virginia
Washington ✔ ✔
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
S ICK S ICK
INFANT LEAVE— LEAVE—
DISABIL ITY CARE PUBL IC PR IVATE
S ICK S ICK
INFANT LEAVE— LEAVE—
DISABIL ITY CARE PUBL IC PR IVATE
(continued from previous page)
Health Insurance
The health insurance policy measures examine policies that expand or in-
crease health coverage. Health care costs can be some of the largest ex-
penses faced by a household and often occur without warning. In fact, a
study found that medical bills and other financial effects of illness con-
tributed to nearly half of the more than one million per-
sonal bankruptcy filings in the United States last year.49
Despite the huge risk to family finances from medical emer-
gencies, nearly 44 million Americans are without health in-
surance, and a large proportion of these are the working
poor. According to the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, more than one third of working families with in-
comes below 200% of the poverty level have no insurance
coverage, and almost half of working families below 100%
of poverty are uninsured.50
Health insurance is a significant issue for our entire health
care system, but its importance to asset protection cannot
be overstated. Often, public policies to increase health cov-
erage have been targeted to children without recognition
of the impact on children when their parents are not cov-
ered—both in terms of health and household income. No
matter what the household composition, though, health
care costs can completely wipe out whatever assets an individual may
have accrued as well as create staggering debt that can lead directly to
bankruptcy.
161
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
No matter what the
household composition,
though, health care costs
can completely wipe out
whatever assets an
individual may have accrued
as well as create staggering
debt that can lead directly
to bankruptcy.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
SCHIP and Medicaid Expansion for Parents
Rationale: Because of a lack of access to employer-provided health coverage or prohibi-
tive costs when such coverage is available, a large number of low-wage, working
Americans are uninsured. Yet, the main source of public support for health coverage of the
needy—Medicaid—is directed primarily at women and children, the disabled, and the elderly.
Beginning in 1997, as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, all states began to expand
health coverage for children as part of SCHIP. Under SCHIP, states can either use their fed-
eral allotment of funds to expand existing Medicaid programs or create new programs that
fit specified criteria but offer more flexibility. SCHIP, however, often leaves behind the par-
ents of these children. Recognizing that covering parents: 1) increases the likelihood that
children will use health care and 2) is essential for the success of welfare reform, many
states have acted to expand the eligibility of working parents under Medicaid and SCHIP.
Measure: Eligibility level for publicly provided health insurance by percentage of poverty
for parents (in 2001).
Source: Families USA. (2002). Disparities in eligibility for public health insurance: Children and adults
in 2001. Washington D.C.: Author.
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Alabama 21% 50
Alaska 79 21
Arizona 107 11
Arkansas 30 48
California 107 11
Colorado 42 39
Connecticut 157 7
Delaware 107 11
Florida 66 27
Georgia 42 39
Hawaii 100 15
Idaho 33 44
Illinois 72 24
Indiana 31 46
Iowa 87 18
Kansas 40 41
Kentucky 75 23
Louisiana 26 49
Maine 157 7
Maryland 43 38
Massachusetts 133 10
Michigan 63 30
Minnesota 275 1
Mississippi 38 42
Missouri 107 11
Montana 69% 25
Nebraska 55 33
Nevada 87 18
New Hampshire 67 26
New Jersey 200 2
New Mexico 58 32
New York 150 9
North Carolina 62 31
North Dakota 81 20
Ohio 100 15
Oklahoma 48 36
Oregon 100 15
Pennsylvania 46 37
Rhode Island 192 4
South Carolina 55 33
South Dakota 65 28
Tennessee 76 22
Texas 32 45
Utah 55 33
Vermont 192 4
Virginia 37 43
Washington 200 2
West Virginia 31 46
Wisconsin 192 4
Wyoming 65 28
P E R C E N TA G E R A N K P E R C E N TA G E R A N K
Recognizing that
covering parents
increases the
likelihood that
children will use
health care, and is
essential for the
success of welfare
reform, many
states have acted
to expand the
health coverage
eligibility of
working parents
162 S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
Medicaid Expansion for Low-Income
Adults Without Children
Rationale: All individuals need health care if they
are to be successful workers and contributors to
our society. This population is typically not consid-
ered when confronting Medicaid expansion. The
ability to stay healthy and avoid debt is critical if indi-
viduals are to be productive members of the work-
force and achieve financial self-sufficiency.
Measure: States that provide coverage to non-disabled adults regardless of whether they
are parents and that coverage enables enrollees to see a range of providers and obtain
benefits similar to those available in the Medicaid program (in 2001).
Source: Families USA. (2002). Disparities in eligibility for public health insurance: Children and adults
in 2001. Washington D.C.: Author.
163
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
The ability to
stay healthy
and avoid debt is
critical if
individuals are to
be productive
members of the
workforce and
achieve financial
self-sufficiency.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona ✔
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware ✔
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii ✔
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts ✔
Michigan
Minnesota ✔
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey ✔
New Mexico
New York ✔
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon ✔
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont ✔
Virginia
Washington ✔
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
C O V E R A G E C O V E R A G E
Transitional Medical Assistance
Rationale: Recognizing that one of the barriers to sustaining the
transition from welfare to work is the fear of losing publicly provided
health insurance benefits, Congress established guidelines for transi-
tional medical assistance in 1988. Under these guidelines, states must
continue to offer coverage to families with children for at least six
months when the family’s income rises above the state’s Medicaid in-
come-eligibility thresholds because of higher earnings. Through a number
of mechanisms, several states have extended the duration of assistance
beyond 12 months. With this additional protection, families leaving welfare for work are
less likely to deplete their assets in the event of a medical emergency.
Measure: Numbers of months of transitional medical assistance provided by the state
(as of 2000). States get credit for providing assistance for more than 12 months.
Source: Broaddus, M., Blaney, S., Dude, A., Guyer, J., Ku, L., and Peterson, J. (February 13, 2002).
Expanding family coverage: States’ Medicaid eligibility policies for working families in the year 2000
(Table 4). Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D164
Recognizing
that one barrier in
moving from
welfare to work is
the fear of losing
publicly provided
health coverage,
some states have
extended medical
benefits beyond
the 12 months
mandated by
Congress.
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Alabama 12
Alaska 12
Arizona 24
Arkansas 12
California 24
Colorado 12
Connecticut 24
Delaware 24
Florida 12
Georgia 24
Hawaii 12
Idaho 12
Illinois 12
Indiana 12
Iowa 12
Kansas 12
Kentucky 12
Louisiana 12
Maine 12
Maryland 12
Massachusetts 12
Michigan 12
Minnesota 12
Mississippi 12
Missouri 36
Montana 12
Nebraska 24
Nevada 12
New Hampshire 12
New Jersey 24
New Mexico 12
New York 12
North Carolina 24
North Dakota 12
Ohio 12
Oklahoma 12
Oregon 12
Pennsylvania 12
Rhode Island 18
South Carolina 24
South Dakota 12
Tennessee 18
Texas 12
Utah 24
Vermont 36
Virginia 12
Washington 12
West Virginia 12
Wisconsin 12
Wyoming 12
M O N T H S M O N T H S
State Subsidy for Small Business Health Care Coverage
Rationale: The majority of uninsured people in the United States are workers and
their families.51 For these families, despite fulfilling the social contract by going to work,
the lack of affordable, employer-based health coverage means that one serious illness or
disease could result in financial hardship and put any accumulated wealth in jeopardy. A
majority of these uninsured workers and their families are low-income earners, and many
work for smaller firms. Yet, only 55% of firms with three to 10 employees offered health
care coverage in 1999 (compared with 90% of firms with 50 or more employees).52
Because of their size, small firms face a number of particular barriers to providing health
insurance for their employees, such as higher premiums than those paid by large firms
and narrow profit margins. In order to decrease the number of uninsured working fami-
lies, a number of states have experimented with new policies designed to encourage
small businesses to offer health insurance to their employees. These include direct subsi-
dies using state or Health Insurance Premium Payment funds to reduce the cost of em-
ployer-provided coverage, tax credits for employers newly offering coverage, and strate-
gies to maintain the affordability of coverage (e.g., reinsuring participating plans against
high losses or loosening certain state-mandated benefits).
Measure: States get credit for using state or federal funds other than Medicaid and
SCHIP to encourage employers to provide health insurance for low-income workers.
Source: Silow-Carroll, S., Anthony, S.E., & Meyer, J.A. (November 2000). State and local initiatives to
enhance health coverage for the working uninsured. New York, NY: The Commonwealth Fund.
165
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
In order to
decrease the
number of
uninsured working
families, some
states have tried
policies designed
to encourage
small businesses
to offer health
insurance to their
employees.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona ✔
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa ✔
Kansas ✔
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts ✔
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico ✔
New York ✔
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon ✔
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington ✔
West Virginia
Wisconsin ✔
Wyoming
S U B S I DY S U B S I DY S U B S I DY
Property Protection
The property protection policy measures
assess state policies that directly protect
homeowners against the loss of home eq-
uity due to unscrupulous lenders or an in-
ability to acquire homeowners’ insurance.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D166
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Under the guise of
providing credit to borrowers
with poor credit histories,
predatory lenders often
target the elderly, minorities,
and poor families with
lending products that can lead
to a loss of home equity.
Anti-Predatory Lending Legislation
Rationale: “Predatory lending” refers to a number of lending abuses that take
place within the so-called “subprime” mortgage industry. Under the guise of pro-
viding credit to borrowers with poor credit histories, predatory lenders often target
the elderly, minorities, and poor families with lending products that can lead to a loss of
home equity. These predatory lending practices include excessive fees that are collected
up front, written into a loan, or charged at the back end (such as prepayment penalties).
Practices also include risk-rate disparities, in which borrowers are charged a higher inter-
est rate than risk can justify for a loan, and excess foreclosures. According to the
Coalition for Responsible Lending, these predatory lending practices cost consumers an
estimated $9.1 billion annually. Recognizing the need to protect homebuyers, homeown-
ers, and other consumers from these deceptive, manipulative, and ultimately costly
practices, a number of states have passed legislation to curb predatory lending.
Measure: States that have enacted policies to curb predatory mortgage lending abuses
(as of 2002). States get credit for the following policies: 1) state legislation or regulations
that exceed federal law in defining and limiting points and fees and 2) state legislation
that comprehensively defines points and fees charged in home loans and limits that
amounts lenders can charge. A state receives 0 points if it does not have either of the
policies, 0.5 points if it has one, and 1 point if it has both.
Source: Calculations by David Beck, Coalition for Responsible Lending, sponsored by Self-Help Credit
Union (Personal communication, April 2002). Durham, NC.
167
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California ✔
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia ✔ ✔
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois ✔
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York ✔
North Carolina ✔ ✔
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
>FED COMP >FED COMP >FED COMP
Anti-Insurance
Redlining Policies
Rationale: The lack of substantial in-
formation about insurance provi-
sion—or the lack of insurance itself—
hinders our current understanding
about why some neighborhoods and
populations do not have adequate prop-
erty insurance. Better disclosure and trans-
parency will allow policymakers, community groups,
and insurance companies to better understand the trends
and practices of insurance lending and redlining. In turn, better protection of property
assets can result for all property owners, regardless of income, race, or geographical lo-
cation.
The answer to the problem of insurance discrimination and redlining is disclosure—requir-
ing property insurers to share information about to whom and where they provide serv-
ices. Experts in the field argue that legislation similar to the Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act (HMDA) needs to be passed. HMDA was crafted to address discrimination and redlin-
ing in the mortgage lending market by requiring lenders to reveal the geographic areas
(by census tract) where they make loans. The National Community Reinvestment
Coalition credits HMDA with generating over $1 trillion in new lending commitments to
older urban areas and underserved neighborhoods across the United States.
Ideally, academics, community groups, and policy analysts would be able to obtain data
such as geographic location, housing structure, loss costs, information on individual poli-
cyholders, underwriting guidelines, and agent locations. At a minimum, states should be
required to 1) make data available to the public and 2) provide geocoded data.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D168
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
The National
Community
Reinvestment
Coalition credits the
Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act
with generating
over $1 trillion in
new lending
commitments to
older urban areas
and underserved
neighborhoods
across the
United States.
Measure: States that have some disclosure requirements for property insurers.
Source: Squires, G.D., O’Connor, S., & Silver, J. (2001). The unavailability of information on insurance
unavailability: Insurance redlining and the absence of geocoded data. Housing Policy Debate, 12(2),
pp. 347-372.
169
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — A S S E T P O L I C Y I N D E X
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California ✔
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois ✔
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland ✔
Massachusetts ✔
Michigan
Minnesota ✔
Mississippi
Missouri ✔
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas ✔
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin ✔
Wyoming
D I S C LO S U R E R E Q . D I S C LO S U R E R E Q .
The tax policy and accountability index evaluates the level
of transparency of each state’s tax-based subsidies for
asset accumulation. Without accessible public information,
it is difficult to determine precisely how much a state’s
tax code provides incentives for wealth accumulation and
who benefits from these incentives. Two measures of ac-
countability were evaluated using the same point system
as other measures, and a summary assessment based on
the evaluation is included for each state; however, states
were not ranked or graded because of the low number of
measures in this index.
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D170
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Tax policy and accountability indexWithout accessible
public information,
it is difficult to determine
precisely how much
a state’s tax code
provides incentives
for wealth accumulation
and who benefits from
these incentives.
State Tax Expenditure Report
Rationale: Many states erode their tax base and harm horizontal equity (treating
taxpayers with the same income equally) by providing a variety of tax incentives
and breaks to both businesses and households. An effective way of increasing ac-
countability and tracking the costs to the state in lost revenues due to these incentives
is to require that tax expenditure reports be compiled annually or biannually.
Measure: States get credit for having one of more of the following: 1) having a tax ex-
penditure report, 2) having the report available on the web. A state receives 0 points if it
has no tax expenditure report, 0.8 points if it has such a report, and 1 point if it has a
report and publishes it on the web.
Source: Mazerov, M, Center for Budget Policy Priorities. (Personal communication, March 2002).
Washington D.C.
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
An effective way
of increasing
accountability
and tracking
tax-break costs
to the state is
to require annual
or biannual
tax expenditure
reports.
S E C T I O N 4 : M E A S U R E B Y M E A S U R E — TA X P O L I C Y A N D A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y I N D E X
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona ✔
Arkansas
California ✔ ✔
Colorado
Connecticut ✔ ✔
Delaware ✔ ✔
Florida ✔
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho ✔ ✔
Illinois ✔
Indiana
Iowa ✔ ✔
Kansas
Kentucky ✔
Louisiana ✔ ✔
Maine ✔
Maryland ✔
Massachusetts ✔ ✔
Michigan ✔ ✔
Minnesota ✔ ✔
Mississippi ✔
Missouri ✔ ✔
Montana ✔ ✔
Nebraska ✔ ✔
Nevada
New Hampshire ✔
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York ✔ ✔
North Carolina ✔
North Dakota
Ohio ✔ ✔
Oklahoma ✔
Oregon ✔ ✔
Pennsylvania ✔
Rhode Island ✔
South Carolina ✔
South Dakota
Tennessee ✔
Texas ✔ ✔
Utah
Vermont
Virginia ✔
Washington ✔ ✔
West Virginia ✔
Wisconsin ✔ ✔
Wyoming
R E P O R T O N W E B R E P O R T O N W E B
171
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
State Tax Incidence Report
Rationale: As many states have increased taxes over the past year to counter impend-
ing fiscal shortfalls, states have developed mathematical models for determining the
fiscal impact of changes to the tax code. However, states are much less sophisticated
in analyzing who will pay more or less in taxes as a result of the change. Only a few
states have developed the capacity to determine how proposed changes in their tax laws
would affect the amount of taxes owed by different income groups in their populations or
how total tax obligations are distributed across income groups at a particular point in time.
Only two states mandate that a distributional analysis of their tax laws, called a tax inci-
dence study, be conducted. A multi-tax economic incidence model allows states to see the
distributional effects of tax code changes across different income levels.
Measure: States get credit for one of more of the following: 1) either developing capacity
or having limited capacity for analyzing income tax impact, 2) having a multi-tax economic
incidence model. A state receives 0 points if it has no capacity for such analysis, 0.5 points
if it has some capacity or is developing capacity, and 1 point if it has full capacity.
Source: Mazerov, M. (2002). Developing the capacity to analyze the distributional impact of state
and local taxes. [On-line] Available: www.cbpp.org.
Only a few states
have developed
the capacity to
determine how
proposed changes
in their tax laws
would affect
the amount of
taxes owed by
different income
groups in their
populations.
Alabama ✔
Alaska
Arizona ✔
Arkansas
California ✔
Colorado ✔
Connecticut
Delaware ✔
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois ✔
Indiana
Iowa ✔
Kansas ✔
Kentucky ✔
Louisiana
Maine ✔
Maryland ✔
Massachusetts ✔
Michigan ✔
Minnesota ✔
Mississippi ✔
Missouri ✔
Montana ✔
Nebraska ✔
Nevada
New Hampshire ✔
New Jersey ✔
New Mexico ✔
New York ✔
North Carolina ✔
North Dakota
Ohio ✔
Oklahoma
Oregon ✔
Pennsylvania ✔
Rhode Island ✔
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas ✔
Utah ✔
Vermont ✔
Virginia ✔
Washington ✔
West Virginia
Wisconsin ✔
Wyoming
S O M E F U L L S O M E F U L L
172 S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
1Haveman, R., & Wolff, E. (April 2001). Who are the asset poor?: Levels, trends, and compositions, 1983–1998.
Discussion paper no. 1227-01. Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
2Tobin James. (1970) Raising the incomes of the poor. In Haveman and Wolff, Who are the asset poor?: Levels, trends,
and composition, 1983-1998. Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
3Haveman & Wolff. (2001). Similar research by the Consumer Federation of America, The National Credit Union
Foundation, and the Credit Union National Association, using the same data but a different definition of asset
poverty yielded similar results. Using a definition of net assets less than $10,000, this study also found that 25% of
all U.S. households are wealth poor. See Montalto, Catherine P. (May 2002). Wealth poor households in the U.S.
Columbus, OH: College of Human Ecology, Ohio State University.
4Haveman & Wolff, 2001.
5Oliver, M., & Shapiro, T. (1997). Black wealth/white wealth: A new perspective on racial inequality (p. 69). New York:
Routledge.
6See, for example, Sherraden, M. (1991). Assets and the poor: A new American welfare policy. Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe, Inc.; Oliver & Shapiro. (1997); Conley, D. (1999). Being Black, living in the red: Race, wealth and social policy in
America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; and Stegman, M. (1999). Savings for the poor: The hidden
benefits of electronic banking. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution Press.
7U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (2001). Poverty in the United States: 2000. Washington, D.C.:
Author.
8Measured as the proportion of the population of households without sufficient net worth to subsist at the poverty
level for three months without other sources of support.
9Oliver & Shapiro, 1997.
10Net financial assets is a measure of liquid financial assets and refers to the value of assets such as cash, checking and
savings accounts, and stocks and bonds, minus credit card and other unsecured debts. It does not include the value
of home equity or the amount of a home mortgage.
11Because of small sample sizes in the data used for the state-level estimates of asset inequality, values were not
available for some smaller states.
12Haveman & Wolff, 2001.
13See the section “Measure-by-Measure Rationale and Raw Data” for a more detailed explanation of what these
measures of wealth include.
14Phillips, K. (2002). Wealth and democracy. New York, NY: Broadway Books.
15For the purpose of the Report Card, assets are defined in a strictly financial sense—either financial assets or assets
that can be quickly converted into financial assets and that typically appreciate in value. This is similar to economist
Edward Wolff’s concept of “fungible wealth,” meaning that which is saleable and therefore has current market value.
This definition includes a range of specific kinds of assets, including home equity, stocks and mutual fund shares,
vehicles, business capital, checking accounts, and other interest-bearing accounts.
16For an excellent compilation of the most recent research and thinking on the importance of assets for low-income
families, see Shapiro, T.M., & Wolff, E.N. (Eds.). (2001). Assets for the poor: The benefits of spreading asset ownership.
New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
17Schreiner, M., Sherraden, M., Clancy, M., Johnson, L., Curley, J., Grinstein-Weiss, M., et al. (2001) Savings and asset
accumulation in IDAs: Downpayments on the American Dream Demonstration, a national demonstration of Individual
Development Accounts. St. Louis, MO: Center for Social Development, Washington University in St. Louis.
18Sherraden, 1991.
19For a thorough review of the research findings on asset-building initiatives, see Boshara, R., (Ed). (2001). Building
assets: A report on the asset-development and IDA field. Washington, D.C.: Corporation for Enterprise Development.
173
Endnotes
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
S TAT E A S S E T D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T C A R D
20Wolff, Edward, N. (2002). “Racial wealth disparities: Is the gap closing?” Levy Economics Institute Public Policy Brief,
No. 66.
21For a more detailed description of each of these measures, please consult Measure-by-Measure Rational and Raw
Data.
22See the description of individual measures for the exact year of the data used.
23See Wolff, 2001.
24Employee Benefits Research Institute. (March 2002). Pension plan participation continued to rise in 2000—what next?
Notes, [On-line] Available: www.ebri.org.
25Shaw, L., & Hill, C. (2002). The gender gap in pension coverage: What does the future hold? Washington, D.C.: Institute
for Women’s Policy Research.
26See Carney & Gale, 2000.
27Asian business owners gaining. (February 27, 2002). USA Today.
28National Council of La Raza. (November 2000). Hispanic savings and Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) fact
sheet. Washington, DC: Author.
29Haveman & Wolff, 2001.
30Eller, T.J., & Fraser, W. (1995). Asset ownership of households, 1993. U.S. Bureau of the Census: Current Population
Reports, P70-47 (p. 4). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
31Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard Design School. (2000). The state of the nation’s housing: 2000. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University.
32Carney, S., & Gale, W.G. (December 1998) Asset accumulation among low-income households. Paper presented at a
Ford Foundation conference, “Benefits and Mechanisms for Spreading Asset Ownership in the United States,” New
York, NY: December 10-12, 1998.
33Bradbury, K. (2002) Education and wages in the 1980s and 1990s: Are all groups moving up together? New England
Economic Review, First Quarter 2002, pp. 19-46.
34Kennickell, A.B., Starr-McCluer, M., & Surette, B.J. (January 2000). Recent changes in U.S. family finances: Results from
the 1998 Survey of Consumer Finances. Washington, D.C.: Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System.
35Wolff, E.N. (2001). Recent trends in wealth ownership, from 1983 to 1998. In: Shapiro, T.M., & Wolff, E.N. (Eds.).
Assets for the poor: The benefits of spreading asset ownership. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
36Carney & Gale, 2000. See also Beverly, S. (1997). How can the poor save? Theory and evidence on saving in low-
income households. Working Paper No. 97-3. St. Louis, MO: Center for Social Development, Washington University in
St. Louis.
37Dunham, C. (March 2001). The role of banks and nonbanks in serving low- and moderate income communities.
Presented at a Federal Reserve System conference, “Changing Financial Markets and Community Development.”
Washington, DC: April 5-6, 2001.
38Carney & Gale, 2000
39Warren, E., Sullivan, T., & Jacoby, M. (May 2000). Medical problems and bankruptcy filings. Norton Bankruptcy Law
Advisor.
40Carney & Gale, 2000; Beverly, 1997.
41Sherraden, M., Johnson, L., Clancy, M., Beverly, S., Schreiner, M., Zhan, M., and Curley, J. (2000). Savings patterns in IDA
programs. St. Louis, MO: Center for Social Development, Washington University.
42Orszag, P.R. (April 2001). Asset tests and low savings rates among lower-income families. Washington, D.C.: Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities.
43Regional Technology Strategies, Inc. (1999). A comprehensive look at state-funded, employer-focused job training
programs. Washington, DC: National Governor’s Association, Center for Best Practices.
44Friedman, R., Grossman, B., and Sahay, P. (1995). Building assets: Self-employment for welfare recipients: Overview of
the findings from the self-employment investment demonstration. Washington, D.C.: Corporation for Enterprise
Development.
174
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
45Carney & Gale, 2000.
46See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. (July 2001). Annual report to the Congress on retail fees and
services of depository institutions. Washington, DC: Author; and Mierzwinski, E., Butler, R., Harkin, A., & Keran, K.
(November 2001). Big banks, bigger fees 2001: PIRG national bank fee survey. Washington, D.C.: Public Interest
Research Group.
47Atkinson, R.D. Unemployment insurance: An industrial-era program, unemployment insurance needs urgent reform
to work for the new economy. Blueprint. Issue 14 [On-line]. Available: www.ndol.org/blueprint/2002_jan-
feb/default.html.
48Commission on Family Leave. (1996). A workable balance: Report to Congress on family and medical leave policies (pp.
98–100). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
49Warren, Sullivan, & Melissa Jacoby, 2000.
50Guyer, J., & Mann, C. (February 1999). Employed but not insured. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities.
51Silow-Carroll, S., Anthony, S.E., & Meyer, J.A. (November 2000). State and local initiatives to enhance health coverage
for the working uninsured. New York, NY: The Commonwealth Fund.
52Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research and Educational Trust. (October 1999). 1999 Annual employer health
benefits survey. Washington, D.C.: Author.
E N D N O T E S 175
C O R P O R AT I O N F O R E N T E R P R I S E D E V E L O P M E N T
Acknowledgments
CFED would like to thank a number of people whose support,
guidance, advice, knowledge, and patience helped to make this
document possible.
First, we would like to express our gratitude to a number of
researchers who guided us in our search for good data, including
Andrew Reamer, Tim Bates, and Roberto Quercia. An advisory group
helped to get us and keep us on track.
Special thanks go to the father-and-son economist team of Bob and
Jon Haveman. It was their work that generated the first-ever state
level data on wealth accumulation and distribution.
Kudos, of course, to the CFED team that put this report together:
Sara Lawrence, Matt Hull, Bill Schweke, Paige Brown, Fiona Adams,
Cecilia Cuthbert, Heather Tyler, Jennifer Malkin, Sean Stickle, Liesl
Heeter, and Bruce Ruffin.
Finally, a great deal of thanks goes to the generous funders whose
patience and wise investments helped to make this project a
reality: the Ford Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and
the Center for the Study of Social Policy.
—Carl Rist, State Asset Development Report Card Project Manager
An interactive version of this report is
online at sadrc.cfed.org. Use this resource
to search the 68 measures and to cross-
reference any combination of the
measures with any combination of states.
The Corporation for Enterprise
Development (CFED) fosters widely shared
and sustainable economic well-being by
promoting asset-building and economic
opportunity strategies—primarily in low-
income communities—that bring together
practice, public policy, and private markets
in new and effective ways.
CFED supports the public, private, and
nonprofit sectors through research and
demonstration; field services; policy design,
analysis, and advocacy; and
communications. Founded in 1979, CFED is
an independent, national nonprofit
organization headquartered in Washington,
DC, with additional offices in San Francisco,
CA, and Durham, NC.
(202) 408-9788
www.cfed.org
national office southern office western office
777 N Capitol St NE 123 W Main St 353 Folsom St
Suite 800 Third Floor San Francisco, CA 27701
Washington, DC 20002 Durham, NC 94105 415.495.2333
202.408.9788 919.688.6444 415.495.7025
202.408.9793 919.688.6580
www.cfed.org
Corporation
For Enterprise
Development