Source: https://www.nap.edu/read/24624/chapter/8
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 23:07:01+00:00

Document:
Suggested Citation:"6 Policies to Support Community Solutions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communities in Action: Pathways to Health Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24624.
Communities operate in the context of federal and state policies that can affect local government decisions relevant to health through laws and regulations, through the allocation of resources, and by shaping political will on issues and approaches. Among the more widely recognized policies are those that fund or regulate health care delivery services. But policies in a variety of areas, ranging from education to land use and housing, the environment, and criminal justice, can be relevant to health disparities. Policies can vary significantly across geographic areas and over time in establishing priorities, providing funding, or encouraging collaboration. They can provide important opportunities or constitute barriers to promoting health equity. The policy context shapes the levers that are available to communities to address change.
It seems reasonable to assume that the better informed communities are about the implications of federal and state policy and policy changes, the greater their ability will be to respond effectively to address health disparities and help achieve change in the determinants of health. And, conversely, the more the needs of communities are considered in decision making at the federal and state levels, the more effective those policies will be. In other words, policy makers have the opportunity to lay the groundwork for community success. This policy context (i.e., socioeconomic and political drivers) is highlighted in the report’s conceptual model in Figure 6-1.
FIGURE 6-1 Report conceptual model for community solutions to promote health equity.
or create opportunities for communities to promote health equity. The committee asserts that to attain health equity in the long term, policies that create structural barriers need to be addressed—addressing the root cause of the problem, not only treating the inequities that result. In this chapter, specific policies in six areas are discussed for their high relevance to community-based solutions that advance health equity: taxation and income inequality, housing and urban planning, education, civil rights, health, and criminal justice policy.
As discussed in Chapter 3, income has been identified as one of many drivers of population health and health inequity over the life course, along with factors that are closely related to income such as education, occupation, and place of residence (Adler and Rehkopf, 2008; Chow et al., 2006; Cutler and Lleras-Muney, 2006).
The distribution of income is shaped by general economic conditions and by federal and state policies: most notably, taxes and government transfer programs such as Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), unemployment insurance, veterans’ benefits, food stamps, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the free and reduced-price school meal program. Thus, an individual’s or a household’s income results from a combination of reinforcing factors, including market conditions, government transfers, and taxes. A longitudinal analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (2016) reviews changes in income inequality over time and notes that there has been increasing inequality along several measures: market income, “before-tax” income, and “after-tax” income. Market income (e.g., wages, salaries, business income, investment income, retirement pensions, and other money income), which excludes government transfers, rose over a 35-year period from 1979 to 2013 but grew 188 percent for households in the top 1 percent and only 18 percent for the bottom four income quintiles.
The CBO also examined before-tax income, which adds government transfers to market income. Government transfers reduce income inequality. Because government transfers largely benefit those at lower income levels, taking into account government transfers attenuates the income gap somewhat. So-called before-tax incomes rose between 32 and 39 percent in the lowest four quintiles, compared to 18 percent when government transfers are excluded. Because the highest quintile does not receive a significant amount of government transfers, its before-tax income grew at a similar rate as market income.
individual income taxes ($1.6 trillion) and payroll taxes ($1.1 trillion), with corporate income taxes ($300 billion) and other taxes playing smaller roles ($309 billion) (CBO, 2016). Over 35 years, households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution experienced an average 3 percent annual growth in inflation-adjusted, after-tax income compared with 1 percent for households in the bottom quintile. Thus, over 35 years, incomes at the top increased by 192 percent compared with an increase of 46 percent at the bottom. Half of tax offsets, including exclusions, deductions, preferential rates, and credits, go to those in the highest fifth of incomes (CBO, 2016). In 2013 average federal tax rates were below the 35-year average for most households, despite recent changes in tax law. Thus, across all three measures examined by the CBO, income inequality has grown substantially. These analyses also demonstrate the important role of government transfers and tax policy, as well as general economic conditions, in shaping income inequality.
The steady upward trend of income inequality in the United States has been documented and examined in a range of scholarship, including political science. Jacobs and Soss (2010) offer a typology of frameworks for analyzing how “economic inequalities result from and influence politics in the United States,” one of which explores power relations, including how the state can create possibilities for agency (p. 345). A recent study underscores the stark relationship between income inequality and health and how this manifests locally. In the largest study of its kind, Chetty et al. (2016) examined more than 1 billion income tax and Social security records to report the association between income level and life expectancy from 1999 through 2014. Consistent with previous findings, they found that higher income is related to higher life expectancy and that lower income is related to lower life expectancy (NASEM, 2015; NRC and IOM, 2013; Waldron, 2007). The relationship found by Chetty et al. (2016) is dramatic: the gap in life expectancy for the richest and poorest 1 percent of the population was 14.6 years for men and 10.1 years for women. The relationship holds through the highest income percentiles, although the magnitude of the effect diminishes higher on the income distribution. Other studies have found that the income gradient also exists across racial and ethnic groups and that the relationship between income and health is stronger than between race and health (Woolf et al., 2015).
Chetty et al. (2016) examined the income-longevity relationship across time and across local areas. In certain local areas, the effect of being at the bottom of the income gradient is more pronounced than in others, with four- to fivefold differences. Trends in life expectancy also varied geographically, with some areas experiencing improvements and others declines.
smoking, have been identified (Chetty et al., 2016; Mathur et al., 2013), as has pollution (Mohai et al., 2009) and access to healthy foods (Kyureghian et al., 2013). Low-income families that are food-insecure have also been found to choose high-calorie, nutrient-poor foods, contributing to worse health outcomes (Burke et al., 2016).
Federal means-tested programs are based on income and, whether through cash or in-kind benefits, can have a significant impact on health outcomes and thereby redress health inequity. The largest of these programs is Medicaid, which is discussed later in the chapter. The second largest program by expenditures is the earned income tax credit (EITC), which provides a tax credit to low-income families and individuals, followed by SSI, which provides benefits to low-income individuals with disabilities. Other programs include subsidized housing of various forms; SNAP, which supports food expenditures for low-income families and individuals; and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a cash benefit program that has contracted in size and is currently less than one-quarter the size of the EITC in aggregate (GAO, 2015). Finally, there are school food programs, Early Education, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, the latter of which provides vouchers for nutritional foods, counseling, health screening, and referrals for low-income infants, young children, and pregnant and postpartum women.
The programs vary significantly in the size of their benefits and in the number of people they reach. Over time, their growth rates have changed with economic conditions and changes in program rules. The recent Great Recession led to increases in most of these programs’ spending between 2007 and 2011 and underscores the important role that these programs play in mitigating poverty (Bitler and Hoynes, 2013; Bitler et al., 2016). Program rules further shape the distribution of benefits among the low-income population: a study by Ben-Shalom et al. found that from 1984 to 2004, benefits to single mother households and non-employed1 families declined by 19 and 21 percent, respectively, while benefits going to employed families, the elderly, and the disabled grew by 61 percent, 12 percent, and 15 percent, respectively (Ben-Shalom et al., 2011).
In many states a federal program is augmented through benefits or eligibility expansions. States have expanded the EITC, SSI, and SNAP beyond federal provisions (Bartilow, 2016), creating less inequity within the state but greater inequity across states. Thus, local community conditions can vary significantly over time and across regions.
1 Defined as families without a member over age 15 who worked in all 4 months prior to the interview.
food insecurity, particularly for children, and has also helped to reduce rates of obesity among its beneficiaries (Executive Office of the President, 2015). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in collaboration with other organizations, released an obesity prevention tool kit, SNAP-Ed,2 for states to promote this goal. Programs and policies such as SNAP have the potential to reduce childhood and adulthood obesity and provide substantial economic returns on investment, and their effects could potentially be amplified by local sugar-sweetened beverage or “soda tax” policies. Soda taxes have shown promise in Philadelphia (CHOICES, 2016) and could significantly benefit other areas, including the Bay Area and Boulder (Goldberg, 2016), as shown by research conducted by the Childhood Obesity Intervention Cost Effectiveness Study3 initiative at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
In 2016 the federal EITC benefit, the largest means-tested federal program after Medicaid, provided cash transfers to 26 million people who work, primarily those with children (IRS, 2016). Studies have found that EITC benefits lead to improvements in a variety of health and mental health conditions for adults and children, as well as to reductions in smoking and other behaviors detrimental to health, improved parenting, and better school outcomes (Dahl and Lochner, 2005; Evans and Garthwaite, 2014; Hamad and Rehkopf, 2015, 2016; Strully et al., 2010). Twelve states play an important role in improving income and health equity by augmenting the EITC through state tax law. New York, for example, extends benefits to noncustodial parents, which has been found to increase employment and child support payments (Nichols and Rothstein, 2016). Because the EITC targets low- and middle-income workers, its expansion reduces income inequality and improves health equity.
2 Tool kit is available at https://snaped.fns.usda.gov/snap/SNAPEdStrategiesAndInterventionsToolkitForStates.pdf (accessed December 19, 2016).
3 For more information, see http://choicesproject.org (accessed December 19, 2016).
better birth outcomes (Wehby et al., 2016). A potential downside of minimum wage policies is their potential to decrease employment; research indicates that minimum wages can cause at least some unemployment, particularly for very low-skilled workers, including teenagers (Neumark et al., 2014).
Housing affordability has become a significant policy concern. From 2000 to 2012 the average rent burden for all renters grew from 26 percent of income to 29 percent of income, but for low-income families the burden has grown considerably more: renters in the bottom fifth of the income distribution spent about 63 percent of their income on rent in 2012, compared with 55 percent in 2000 (Collinson et al., 2015). In 2012, 49 percent of all renters and 89 percent of low-income renters spent more than 30 percent of their income on rent, an approximate 25 percentage point increase since 1960. This increase arose partly from improvements in housing and partly from stagnant incomes.
The federal government supports housing affordability through in-kind, means-tested programs and through the tax code. Roughly $42 billion is put toward numerous forms of means-tested housing assistance, such as vouchers to low-income families, subsidized rent in public housing projects, privately owned subsidized housing, and support for the construction of low-income housing. Two-thirds of federal subsidy recipients are either low-income elderly or people with disabilities. Significantly more support, roughly $228 billion, is given through tax deductions, such as mortgage interest deductions (OMB, 2016), the vast majority of which go to nonpoor households.
Among the earliest forms of housing assistance, public housing has faced numerous challenges. Historically, public housing developments were placed in disproportionately poor areas, distinct from their surrounding neighborhoods, which led to greater concentrations of poverty and racial segregation (Schill and Wachter, 1995). Today, funding for public housing is on the decline, and there are fewer than 1.1 million public housing units, down from 1.4 million units in the early 1990s, after an active effort to scale back public housing. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) HOPE VI program promoted demolition of public housing and sought to replace distressed public housing developments with lower-density, mixed-income developments (Schwartz, 2014); however, just over half of the demolished units have been replaced. Public housing units continue to be located in poorer neighborhoods than in other HUD programs (HUD, 2016b).
A number of other HUD-subsidized programs have supported privately owned, low-income housing by lowering construction costs or by providing rental subsidies to tenants. The Housing Choice Voucher (formerly Section 8) program awards vouchers to low-income families so that they can rent apartments on the private market. The program supports 2.4 million units for low-income households (HUD, 2016b). The remainder of the 5.3 million HUD-subsidized units is supported by project-based funding and other smaller programs. A significant policy issue is the low participation in housing assistance programs; only one in four eligible households currently receives a housing subsidy, and many areas report long waiting lists that combined are estimated to exceed 6.5 million households (Collinson et al., 2015). Finally, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), begun in 1986, is now the largest federal housing program for the poor and has contributed to 2.78 million housing units becoming available from 1987 to 2014 (HUD, 2016a). The LIHTC program is administered by state entities that determine funding priorities within a federal framework.
exists examining the effect of the LIHTC on recipients’ living situations or health status.
Housing affordability and federal HUD policies are part of a larger dialogue concerning housing that also includes land use, residential and commercial development, natural resource use, transportation, and, even more broadly, changing neighborhoods and concerns over potential residential disruption. Urban planning policies shape the physical environment along with many other social determinants of health. Within federal and state initiatives, community actions can support local policy and implementation so that they benefit vulnerable populations.
Urban planning, while traditionally relying on geographic analytic tools, has the potential to influence health in a variety of ways, including access to health care services; disease outbreaks; physical activity among local residents; injuries related to motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic; air quality; crime; and employment (Kochtitzky et al., 2006). Increasingly, those involved in public health are being encouraged to include an urban planning lens, while those in urban planning are being encouraged to include a public health lens at the national level and in some states (Ricklin and Kushner, 2014).
One dimension of urban planning that can greatly influence health equity relates to so-called greening policies and programs. Two studies conducted in Philadelphia, including a randomized trial, found that programs to “green” and maintain vacant urban land—for example, through cleaning and plantings—led to lower rates of gun crime and vandalism; in addition, residents reported feeling safer, feeling less stress, and getting more exercise (Branas et al., 2011; Garvin et al., 2013; Huynh and Maroko, 2014). Because vacant lots are disproportionately situated in low-income areas, greening programs have the potential to promote health equity.
One of many urban planning challenges is around the larger issues of economic, job, and workforce development (Freeman, 2005; Newman and Wyly, 2006). Local economic development can revitalize blighted neighborhoods and create more jobs, but it can also lead to the displacement of low-income residents. In local areas where the housing supply is tight or where investment is improving the quality and amenities of the local housing stock, development can affect housing affordability, particularly for low-income residents, leading to displacement (Finch et al., 2016; PolicyLink, 2016b).
also by increasing financial hardship (CDC, 2009). The disruption of social ties and networks can affect mental and physical well-being, especially for households that have lived in their original neighborhood for a long period of time (Phillips et al., 2014). A recent study in Philadelphia found that residents in a gentrified area of Philadelphia who stayed in that area experienced improvements in their financial well-being, as measured by credit scores. However, vulnerable residents who moved from that area tended to move to lower-income neighborhoods and experienced a worsening in financial well-being (Ding and Hwang, 2016; Ding et al., 2015). Despite concerns around the negative impacts of potential displacement, research attempting to quantify the scale and nature of residential displacement is limited and existing studies have relatively limited time horizons (Zuk et al., 2015).
The changing landscape of a number of cities in the United States suggests increasing income and racial segregation. Wyly and Hammel mapped the effects of housing market and policy changes in the 1990s in 23 large U.S. cities (Wyly and Hammel, 2004). Along with a resurgence in capital investment in the urban core, the authors found increased racial and class segregation in addition to intensified discrimination and exclusion in gentrified neighborhoods (Wyly and Hammel, 2004). This has implications for health inequity, as evidenced by the body of literature that suggests the negative health impacts of segregation and discrimination on people of color. At the same time, a number of equitable development and housing policy tools have been developed that can assist communities to balance opportunities across local groups so that more can benefit from development efforts (PolicyLink, 2016a; Wilson et al., 2008). Local communities and governments across the country have started to integrate processes and policies to advance health equity within the urban planning and land use context. For example, Multnomah County, Oregon, applies an “equity and empowerment lens” to local policy (Multnomah County, 2014a, b, n.d.), and Seattle–King County implemented an “equity in all policies” approach to all decision making and annually reports on what it terms “the determinants of equity” in the county (Beatty and Foster, 2015).
recommendation below is made with an acknowledgment of the ongoing cross-sectoral work in many jurisdictions around the country and of the previous IOM recommendations.
Add specific requirements to outreach processes to ensure robust and authentic community participation in policy development.
Highlight the co-benefits of—or shared “wins” that could be achieved by—considering health equity in the development of comprehensive plans5 (e.g., improving public transit in transit-poor areas supports physical activity, promotes health equity, and creates more sustainable communities).
Prioritize affordable housing, implement strategies to mitigate and avoid displacement (and its serious health effects), and document outcomes.
Strategies to expand affordable housing could include regulating the private housing market; establishing nonprofit-owned affordable housing; creating affordable home ownership opportunities; offering resident-controlled, limited-equity ownership; leveraging market rate development; and preserving publicly assisted affordable housing. Other policy tools to promote equitable development include the use of land trusts, legal covenants that protect and increase rent stabilization, inclusionary zoning, rent control, the use of Section 8 housing provisions, housing code enforcements, just-cause eviction controls, requirements for sufficient low-income housing to avoid displacement, and policies and tools that assist low-income residents in homeownership (ChangeLab Solutions, 2015). See Box 6-1 for an example of a community-driven neighborhood plan designed to make some of these changes.
4 See Recommendation 7 in For the Public’s Health: Revitalizing Law and Policy to Meet New Challenges (IOM, 2011).
5 See, for example, ChangeLab Solutions’ “Model Comprehensive Plan Language on Complete Streets” (ChangeLab Solutions, 2016).
Collect and organize community concerns and ideas in order to influence city agencies’ planning processes and rezoning efforts.
Create a needs assessment that takes into account East Harlem’s current and future community.
Develop implementable recommendations that reflect community input.
Develop approaches to preserve existing affordable and public housing and generate new, permanently affordable housing.
Develop new tools for the preservation of culture, economy, and neighborhood character.
Provide a model for other communities and neighborhood planning efforts.
Create a human capital development plan that focuses on the advancement of East Harlem residents.
Build a base of engaged residents ready to advocate collectively for community needs.
The East Harlem Neighborhood Plan evolved through 8 large (average of almost 180 individuals per session) public meetings, approximately 40 meetings to develop the objectives and recommendations around the 12 key themes, several informal meetings to gather more feedback and to provide more information on the ideas being discussed, community-based surveys, online comments, and meetings with agencies to test and gather feedback on the objectives and recommendations. Priorities were identified using a combination of online survey responses and voting via tokens at the final community forum on January 27, 2016. The two objectives per subgroup that received the most votes were selected. The resulting priorities and objectives were: arts and culture; open space and recreation; schools and education; pre-K, daycare and afterschool; housing authority developments; housing preservation; small business development; workforce and economic development; affordable housing development, zoning and land use; transportation, environment, and energy; safety; health; and seniors (WXY and Hester Street Collaborative, 2016).
The powerful role that education plays in producing—or reducing—inequitable health outcomes was discussed in Chapter 3. Educational attainment predicts life expectancy and such health status indicators as obesity and morbidity from acute and chronic diseases (see, for example, Woolf et al., 2007). The educational level of adults, particularly maternal educational achievement, is linked to their children’s health and wellbeing. In all regions of the United States (Montez and Berkman, 2014), the gradient in health outcomes by educational attainment has steepened over the last four decades (Goldman and Smith, 2011; Olshansky et al., 2012), producing a larger gap in health status between Americans with high and low education levels. Thus, policies and practices to increase academic achievement and reduce education disparities make a critical contribution to reducing health inequities.
An important insight emerges from looking broadly across the array of education-related policies and practices. Desired improvements in education and health outcomes are unlikely to be achieved by one-dimensional interventions. Both the community examples that the committee has examined and other information the committee has gathered suggest that achieving greater equity in health outcomes will require collaboration and collective action across sectors and new forms of community engagement and partnership. At the community level, there may be unique opportunities to work in a coordinated manner. Part of the committee’s charge was assessing and prioritizing these possibilities for more effective community-based efforts to improve health outcomes. In the context of education, there are a number of possibilities, including, notably, the opportunity to improve education outcomes themselves.
The current policy landscape in health and especially in education warrants serious consideration of policy as a key factor in shaping local action. New federal legislation, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA),6 makes an important contribution to any effort to promote community-based strategies for reducing health inequities by recognizing the need for schools to improve educational achievement and to embrace and support “whole child” strategies. (See the Chapter 7 section on education for more details on ESSA and how communities can leverage it.) The act makes this contribution by specifically acknowledging the importance of promoting physical and mental health and wellness as essential to reducing inequities in academic achievement. Within this broad vision are numerous components of the law that represent opportunities to strengthen the linkages between education and health, thereby creating the local conditions to reduce health inequities through education.
6 S.1177 Every Student Succeeds Act. Public Law 114-95 (December 10, 2015), 114th Cong.
First, ESSA calls for the identification of evidence-based interventions. This is a significant development in education, a field that has been slow to make broad use of research as a basis for improving practice (West, 2016). The law sets forward specific tiers of evidence, ranging from randomized trials to correlational studies. There are current opportunities to expand significantly the evidence available to schools by making connections to the health community and scholars with interest in promoting educational equity.
School improvement plans represent another key feature of the new federal education legislation. Under Title I of ESSA, school districts, in partnership with stakeholders, must develop and implement plans that include evidence-based interventions. Their plans under Title IV, where Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants (SSAEG) are awarded—a key local source of revenue for making more effective connections between education and health—must also be evidence-based. Furthermore, both Title I school improvement plans and Title IV plans must be informed by comprehensive needs assessments. Creating examples of needs assessments that effectively incorporate health and wellness will be of real value over the next 3 to 5 years as school districts work with community stakeholders in crafting these plans.
Finally, one of the most important components of ESSA pertains to its state and local accountability provisions. Historically these provisions have been preoccupied with testing and assessment in the hope that such data would ensure that more children were in fact doing well in school. States and localities are being given great latitude (without guidance) about how they should satisfy the ESSA accountability provisions going forward. The new education law provides an opportunity for communities to reframe how they think more broadly about student opportunity and student success in ways that embrace health and wellness. It is an opportunity, in this regard, to use additional types of data and use data in different ways. The law also reinforces the idea of thinking more broadly about who has a stake in student well-being. Because ESSA is clear that educators must work in partnership with their communities on behalf of children and youth, this is a chance for communities to seize these opportunities in ways that help them foster a genuine culture of health, which will improve education outcomes.
inequities by requiring standard approaches for identifying, disciplining, and supporting students with disabilities, particularly students of color with disabilities (ED, 2016c). Other efforts have been established to reduce inequity through early childhood intervention, including the Birth to Three Developmental Center7 in Washington State that serves infants and toddlers who qualify for services under IDEA through various programs to support these children and their families.
Conducting community health needs assessments has long been an activity and role of local and state public health agencies. Public health accreditation, which a growing number of health departments undergo, requires that health departments conduct or participate in a collaborative process of comprehensive health needs assessment in their communities (PHAB, 2011).
7 For more information, see http://www.birthtothree.org/programs (accessed September 21, 2016).
existing infrastructure of policies and programs within the education sector with an eye toward how this infrastructure might be strengthened, modified, or expanded in the interest of improving health outcomes. Schools can take actions to improve the immediate health and well-being of their students. For example, there are a number of policies and practices that exist at the community level pertaining to air quality and environmental standards in educational settings. Policies exist widely that are related to physical activity and wellness. In what education administrators might think of as student services, policies and procedures exist concerning screening for health conditions as well as for counseling and mental health services. In the context of intergovernmental coordination and cooperation, many local education agencies (e.g., school districts) have established advisory councils, established school-based clinics, and employed school health coordinators. In the context of curriculum and instruction, there is a broad array of programs that connect education and health, to include asthma awareness education; emotional, social, and mental health education; nutrition education; and, of course, physical education.
Recommendation 6-2: State departments of education should provide guidance to schools on how to conduct assessments of student health needs and of the school health and wellness environment. This guidance should outline a process by which schools can identify model needs assessments, including those with a focus on student health and wellness.
Assist schools and school districts in identifying and accessing data on key health indicators that should inform school needs assessments and any related school improvement plans.
8 See, for example, the Healthy Students, Promising Futures tool kit from ED and HHS (ED, 2016a).
a requirement may place on schools already facing economic and infrastructure challenges.
Civil rights, health, and environmental justice laws and policies provide a framework to promote equal access to publicly funded resources and prohibit discrimination based on race, color, national origin, income, gender, disability, and other factors. This crosscutting approach can be applied across different areas such as health, park access, education, housing, transportation, and others. Using the approach to support community-driven solutions draws on lessons from the civil rights movement and others such as the women’s movement. The civil rights movement includes community stakeholders; social science experts; attorneys working in and out of court; grassroots organizing; legislation by Congress; executive action by the president; implementation by administrative agencies; popular support through the right to vote; and philanthropic support (Ackerman, 2014; Rodriguez et al., 2014).
Resting upon a number of federal and state laws, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010, related regulations, and executive orders, a civil rights approach can lead to changes in structural inequities, policies, and practices that perpetuate racial, ethnic, and other disparities. In their implementation, these laws and associated regulations require that agencies collect data, measure compliance, assess complaints, and allow for midcourse corrections. Data also need to be available to communities for holding officials accountable and advocating for change. A civil rights approach to alleviating health disparities is not synonymous with litigation. Voluntary compliance with and enforcement of equal justice laws and policies can be preferable to court action as a means to achieve equal justice goals, including health equity. A comprehensive civil rights approach to ensuring health equity relies on planning, data collection and analysis, media, negotiation, policy advocacy, and coalition building—all as part of a larger problem-solving strategy (Rodriguez et al., 2014). Civil rights attorneys may work with community allies, clients, social scientists and academics, experts, and broader coalitions to seek racial and ethnic equity and overcome discrimination and structural barriers to a more equitable society.
health inequity by reducing discriminatory burdens, removing barriers to participation in decision making, and increasing access to health and environmental benefits that help make all communities safe, vibrant, and healthy (USDA, 2012).
9 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.; 28 C.F.R. § 42.101 et seq. (U.S. Department of Justice regulations).
10 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.
11 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
12 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.
13 See Exec. Order No. 12898, 59 Fed. Reg. 32 (Feb. 16, 1994), Section 1-101, https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12898.pdf (accessed June 24, 2016); White House Memo re: Executive Order on Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (February 11, 1994), www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-02/documents/clinton_memo_12898.pdf (accessed June 24, 2016); Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Justice and Executive Order 12898 (2011), www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-02/documents/ejmou-2011-08.pdf (accessed June 24, 2016); and U.S. Department of Justice Guidance Concerning Environmental Justice (December 3, 2014), www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ej/pages/attachments/2014/12/19/doj_guidance_concerning_ej.pdf (accessed June 24, 2016). See generally U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Title VI Legal Manual at pages 58–65 (January 11, 2001). Available at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/06/23/vimanual.pdf (accessed June 24, 2016).
14 For example, California Government Code 11135 et seq. and corresponding regulations promote equal justice and prohibit discrimination by state agencies and state-funded programs and activities for specified classes, parallel to federal civil rights laws such as Title VI. Section 11135 was recently amended to strengthen compliance and enforcement. See, e.g., California Equal Justice Amendments Strengthen Law under 11135, http://www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/43834; and John Auyong et al., Opportunities for Environmental Justice in California Agency by Agency (Public Law Research Institute U.C. Hastings College of Law 2003), http://gov.uchastings.edu/public-law/docs/PLRI_Agency-by-Agency_03.pdf (accessed June 24, 2016).
15 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Environmental Justice: Examining the Environmental Protection Agency’s Compliance and Enforcement of Title VI and Executive Order 12898 (September 2016). Available at http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/Statutory_Enforcement_Report2016.pdf (accessed June 24, 2016).
16 According to the Court in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), the Title VI statute prohibits only intentional discrimination, and private individuals and organizations can enforce the statute in court. Congress did not intend to create a private cause of action to enforce the discriminatory impact regulations in court.
17 See, for example, Rosemere Neighborhood Association v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 581 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2009) (EPA failed to process a single complaint from 2006 or 2007 in accordance with its regulatory deadlines); Lawyer: EPA Has Failed Civil Rights Law: Attorney Marianne Engelman Lado argues that the Environmental Protection Agency should enforce civil rights law in the low-income communities of color that she says carry the burden of pollution, NBC News (August 2, 2015). Available at http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbcnews.com/57693524#58380209 (accessed June 24, 2016). Kristen Lombardi, Talia Buford, Ronnie Greene, Environmental Justice, Denied: Environmental racism persists, and the EPA is one reason why (Center for Public Integrity September 4, 2015) (EPA has not made a formal finding of discrimination in 22 years, despite having received hundreds of complaints, some exhaustively documented). Available at https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/08/03/17668/environmental-racism-persists-and-epa-one-reason-why (accessed June 24, 2016).
mentation remains to be evaluated.18 The recommendations and principles in the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights apply to other federal, state, and local agencies in addition to EPA. These and other examples demonstrate that environmental and civil rights laws can be used together, with the strengths in one body of policy and law shoring up challenges in the other.
Describe what is planned in terms that are understandable to communities (for example, diversifying and broadening access to and support for healthy active living in parks and recreation areas).
Analyze the benefits and burdens on all people.
18 See U.S. EPA, EJ 2020 Action Agenda (2016). Available at https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ej-2020-action-agenda-epas-environmental-justice-strategy; and Robert García and Marianne Engelman Lado, EPA Environmental Justice Action Agenda: Major Steps Forward, and Opportunities for More (NRPA Open Space Blog Nov. 4 2016),http://www.nrpa.org/blog/epa-environmental-justice-action-agenda-major-steps-forward-andopportunities-for-more (accessed June 24, 2016).
19 See, for example, Rodriguez et al., 2014, at pages 13–20 and authorities cited; Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on Climate Change, 2016b; and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, Final Rule, 24 C.F.R. Parts 5, 91, 92, et al., 80 Fed. Reg. 42272 (2015), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf (accessed June 24, 2016).
analyses. Standards need to be defined to measure progress, allow for midcourse corrections, and hold officials accountable.
Analyze alternatives to what is being considered.
Include people of color, low-income people, and other stakeholders in every step in the decision-making process.
Develop an implementation plan to distribute benefits and burdens fairly and avoid discrimination.
An implementation plan through monitoring, compliance, and enforcement helps promote health equity and avoids unjustified discriminatory impacts regardless of intent, as well as intentional discrimination and implicit bias (DOT, 2012a; The City Project, 2016b).
Planning for health equity needs to take place early enough in the process to meaningfully guide the decision-making process and outcomes. The following sections will expand on this process, with each step premised on the participation of diverse stakeholders.
20 On the values at stake, see, for example, NPS, Healthy Parks, Healthy People Community Engagement eGuide at page 15 (2014). Available at www.nps.gov/public_health/hp/hphp/press/HealthyParksHealthyPeople_eGuide.pdf (accessed June 24, 2016).
poor” standards to prioritize the investment of $1.3 billion in local impact funds for park, water, and coastal projects (Garcia et al., 2016).21 Fully 88 percent of the $400 million in funds invested under the AB 31 standards were invested in communities that are disproportionately of color and low-income. In contrast, 69 percent of the remaining $1 billion that were not invested using those standards were disproportionately invested in communities that tend to be park-rich, wealthy, and white. Not taking equity and disparities into account through planning, standards, data, and implementation can result in policy failure. Good intentions and vague commitments to “equity” or “local parks and urban greening” alone can exacerbate rather than alleviate disparities.
21 AB 31 is the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Act of 2008, Pub. Res. Code §§ 5640 et seq. Prop 84 is the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006, Pub. Res. Code §§ 75001 et seq.
22 See, for example, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 579—U.S.—, slip opinion at pages 13–15 (2016); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265 (1977); Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971); U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Title VI Legal Manual at pages 42–58 and cases cited (2001), available at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/06/23/vimanual.pdf (accessed June 24, 2016); and Robert García and Erica Flores Baltodano, Free the Beach! Public Access, Equal Justice, and the California Coast, 2 Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 143, 187–190 and authorities cited (2005), available at goo.gl/RVgbJ.
23 See Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 579—U.S.—(2016); Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, 576 U.S.–(2015); U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s Discriminatory Effects Standard, 24 C.F.R. Part 100, 78 Fed. Reg. 11460 (February 15, 2013). Available at https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=discriminatoryeffectrule.pdf (accessed June 15, 2016).
the basis of prohibited discrimination; (2) The population eligible to be served by race, color, and national origin; . . . (4) [R]elated information adequate for determining whether the [program] has or will have the effect of unnecessarily denying access to any person on the basis of prohibited discrimination.” 28 C.F.R. at § 42.406(b)(1), (2), (4). Similarly, FTA regulations address racial and ethnic data, demographic mapping, comparing benefits and burdens, public engagement, and planning. Federal Transit Administration, Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients, Circular FTA C 4702.1B, pages IV -7, V-1 (Oct. 1, 2012); FTA, Environmental Justice Policy Guidance for Federal Transit Administration Recipients, Circular (FTA C 4703.1), pages 6, 8, 11 (August 15, 2012). Accord, Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice, Sec. 3-3 (research, data collection, and analysis).
25 See Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, 576 U.S.—2015. While the facts in that case involved the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the discriminatory impact standard is analogous under Title VI regulations and Affordable Care Act section 1557. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s Discriminatory Effects Standard, 24 C.F.R. Part 100, 78 Federal Register. 11460 (2013). Available at https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=discriminatoryeffectrule.pdf (accessed June 15, 2016).
26 There are three prongs to the discriminatory impact inquiry: (1) Whether an action impacts one group more than another—numerical disparities based on race, ethnicity, or national origin shown through statistical studies or anecdotal evidence, for example. (2) If so, the funding recipient bears the burden of proving that an action is justified by business necessity—or by an analogous public policy in the case of a government agency. (3) Even if there is evidence of business necessity, the disparities are prohibited if there are less discriminatory alternatives to achieve similar objectives. See, for example, Inclusive Communities slip opinion at page 10.
Environmental justice and civil rights laws require agencies to promote equity, compliance, and enforcement and alleviate these disparities.
www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/06/23/vimanual.pdf (accessed June 24, 2016).
28Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 579—U.S.—, slip opinion at pages 11, 14–15 (2016). While the facts of the case involved narrowly tailored race conscious admissions to promote the compelling state interest of diversity in a university, the value of diversity and the need for data are analogous in promoting health equity.
29 The Corps has agreed to conduct a similar analysis of the benefits and burdens of, and alternatives to, the Dakota Access Pipeline, in consultation with the Standing Rock Sioux and with full public input before issuing any permits (Darcy, 2016). This is parallel to the Corps’s analysis for revitalization of the Los Angeles River. The decision was made in large part in response to community organizing by the Sioux and its supporters.
30 Community advocates settled a related lawsuit under state law. The state then bought the land and created the park.
31Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Discrimination is not just a black and white issue. Also in 1954, the Supreme Court held the Equal Protection Clause protects against discrimination based on race, color, national origin, ancestry, or descent in Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954).
32Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U.S. 526 (1963).
One analysis of the effectiveness of using legal and policy advocacy using a rights-based framework to promote community-based solutions that result in improved health equity outcomes is by Stanford economic historian Gavin Wright. Wright analyzed improved health outcomes that resulted from desegregated health care services and facilities in the South as a result of the civil rights movement in his study, Sharing the Prize: The Economics of the Civil Rights Revolution in the American South (2013). This analysis is timely as the civil rights movement, civil rights legislation, legal advocacy, and the role of government in providing a social safety net are increasingly challenged.
Health care and services were segregated, and this segregation resulted in health disparities in the pre-Civil Rights South. The health care community and civil rights attorneys worked together to achieve reform that had moral as well as material outcomes that benefited both people of color and non-Hispanic white people. The National Medical Association and NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorneys worked together, with the U.S. Department of Justice, to challenge the “separate but equal” provision under the Hill-Burton Act that funded segregated health care services through the early 1960s. In 1963, a federal court of appeals struck down “separate but equal” under the Act in Simkins v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital. The court ruled in favor of a class that included African American physicians, dentists, and patients who were excluded from private non-Hispanic white hospitals that received federal funding. The following year, Congress passed Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in response to the March on Washington led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. President Lyndon Johnson, a southerner, persuaded southern senators to break the longest filibuster in the history of the nation to pass the legislation. Federal agencies enacted regulations to implement the Title VI statute. Congress passed the Medicare Act in 1965, which provided funding for medical services, as part of the War on Poverty. Medicare funding, coupled with the Title VI prohibition against discrimination by recipients of federal funding, resulted in improved outcomes in health equity and health outcomes for people of color and non-Hispanic white people.
“The campaign to desegregate southern hospitals was a genuine part of the Civil Rights Movement.” Medicare offered “a positive incentive to take patients they would formally have rejected, while at the same time giving the federal government a powerful financial threat to force compliance with Title VI.” Wright asks: “The larger issue is whether hospital desegregation actually improved health outcomes.” An analysis of post-neonatal infant mortality rates by race in the South and North between 1955 and 1975 and county-level data suggests that gains in health outcomes for people of color and non-Hispanic white people “were the direct result of desegregation and the Civil Rights Movement,” concludes Wright on pages 236–240.
Wright’s analysis illustrates the myriad strategies of the Civil Rights Movement in action: civil rights attorneys in and out of court, courageous courts, organizing in the streets, legislation, executive action, administrative enforcement, and the power of the people who defeated the call to repeal civil rights laws.
The Federal Transit Administration addresses the framework in its civil rights and environmental justice guidance documents and has applied the framework to withhold federal funding in the transit context in Northern California (DOT, 2012a,b; The City Project, 2015). Box 6-2 describes an economic analysis of a policy intervention that advanced health equity.
Communities and other stakeholders can work together on compliance and equity plans for programs or activities by recipients of public funding that use the civil rights framework by describing what is to be done, analyzing the impact on all communities, analyzing alternatives, including full and fair participation by diverse communities, and promoting health equity.
Compliance and equity plans can be used to guard against unjustified and unnecessary discriminatory impacts, as well as against intentional discrimination, in health and wellness programs and activities.
Communities, when appropriate, can work with civil rights attorneys to use problem-solving strategies, including coalition building, planning, data collection and analysis, media, negotiation, policy and legal advocacy out of court, and access to justice through the courts.
Communities can work with attorneys and public health experts together to promote a better understanding of the civil rights dimension of the challenge of health disparities and to show how to address these civil rights concerns for their communities to ensure that civil rights laws against discrimination in health and other publicly funded programs and activities are strengthened and not rolled back.
of environmental harms, disproportionately lack environmental benefits, pay a larger cost, and carry a heavier environmental burden than other communities regardless of class. Once these costs are considered the distribution of benefits must necessarily be structured to pay down that debt. Gerald Torres and Robert García, Impact of Pricing Schemes on Environmental Justice Communities (The City Project Policy Report 2016), available at www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/43641 (accessed June 24, 2016).
Conclusion 6-1: In the committee’s judgment, civil rights approaches have helped mitigate the negative impacts of many forms of social and health discrimination. Continuing this work is needed to overcome discrimination and the structural barriers that affect health.
Conclusion 6-2: The committee concludes that using civil rights approaches in devising and implementing community solutions to promote health equity can guard against unjustified and unnecessary discriminatory impacts, as well as against intentional discrimination in programs that affect health. For example, those implementing community solutions can employ methods and data in ways that include full and fair participation by diverse communities.
See Chapter 8 for additional discussion on how civil rights law can support community-based solutions.
The ACA has changed the financing, organization, and delivery of U.S. health care services in a number of important ways. It not only expands private and public health insurance but also reforms how Medicare and Medicaid services are delivered and revises the tax code in important ways that encourage nonprofit hospitals to invest in their local communities in new ways. The following section briefly reviews selected features of the ACA and discusses both how these features affect communities and how federal policy could be changed to affect health equity at the community level.
geographically uninsured whites are more likely to live in areas with high poverty census tracts, whereas minorities are more likely to be uninsured wherever they live (REACH Healthcare Foundation, 2016).
State policy around health insurance, particularly through Medicaid decision making, has serious implications for health and other disparities. On the one hand, the impact of health insurance on health outcomes has been found to be mixed, at least in the short run. For instance, while biometric measures of health were not found to improve in a study of the Oregon Medicaid expansion, self-reported health was found to improve. Other studies have also found improvements in self-reported health (Sommers et al., 2012), but not consistently (Wherry and Miller, 2016). On the other hand, health insurance is seen as a potential mechanism for increasing use of preventive and other medical care services. Although health insurance lowers the cost of care to individuals, other factors may also be important and counter lower costs, such as wait times for appointments, distances to services, and the perceived discomfort of the care itself. The empirical literature has found overwhelmingly that insurance expansions improve access to medical care (Finkelstein et al., 2012; Miller, 2012; Van Der Wees et al., 2013). Additionally, greater health insurance plays an important financial role by shielding individuals from out-of-pocket medical costs and improving their overall financial status (Hu et al., 2016). The annual cost of inpatient care for a person between the ages of 18 and 64 who was hospitalized in 2012 was approximately $15,000, and the annual cost of all types of care for that person in the same year was $25,000 (Hu et al., 2016). Individuals without health insurance often have difficulty paying medical expenses and may need to borrow money or forego other necessities such as food, heat, or rent. They are more likely to be contacted by collection agencies and are more likely to declare bankruptcy (Cunningham, 2008; Dobkin et al., 2016; Doty et al., 2008; Finkelstein et al., 2012). Thus, medical bills play a large role in individuals’ overall financial picture, including their ability to save and make other investments. The expansions of Medicaid, including expansions under the ACA, have been found to substantially reduce the financial burden of medical care on low-income individuals and to increase their financial well-being (Baicker et al., 2013; Gross and Notowidigdo, 2011; Hu et al., 2016).
The health insurance provisions of the ACA have important implications for local communities. Although communities individually may have little influence over state and federal policy change, they can leverage existing policies to their advantage. Thus, communities can actively promote health insurance enrollment activities and help increase the number of individuals with health insurance in their communities, leading to greater financial well-being.
Another important provision of the ACA for communities relates to charitable or nonprofit hospitals (in 2014, 78 percent of approximately 5,000 U.S. hospitals were nonprofit, exempt from most federal, state, and local taxes [Berwick et al., 2008; James, 2016]). In particular, the ACA changed the Internal Revenue Code such that all charitable hospitals must conduct community health needs assessments (CHNAs) and adopt an implementation strategy that addresses the needs identified in that assessment. Furthermore, the process must include “persons who represent the broad interests of the community served by the hospital facility, including those with special knowledge of or expertise in public health.” Moreover, regulations issued in 2014 specify that the CHNA should include “the need to address financial and other barriers to accessing care, to prevent illness, to ensure adequate nutrition, or to address social, behavioral, and environmental factors that influence health in the community” (C.F.R. 501(r)3(4)), and it was later clarified in an executive update that this includes some forms of housing improvements. Nonetheless, federal reporting forms and instructions have caused some confusion related to community benefit, investments in improving the social determinants of health, and CHNAs. As health insurance coverage has expanded, the level of uncompensated care provided by hospitals has declined, leaving hospitals to consider other areas and ways to invest community benefit dollars. Some hospitals have shown greater interest in community-wide health investments and the underlying factors that affect population health rather than maintaining the more narrow focus on health care services and funding offsets (Rosenbaum and Choucair, 2016). In the report Can Hospitals Heal America’s Communities? Howard and Norris wrote that by “addressing these social determinants of health through their business and non-clinical practices (for example, through purchasing, hiring, and investments), hospitals and health systems can produce increased measurably beneficial impacts on population and community health” (Howard and Norris, 2015, pp. 1–2). Examples of efforts that have used community benefit investments to build, hire, and invest in the local community include Kaiser Permanente in California and elsewhere and Promedica in Cleveland (NASEM, 2016d).
communities. Hospital and health systems should also advocate for the expansion of efficient and effective services responding to health-related social needs34 for vulnerable populations and people living in poverty.
This work should include meaningful participation by members of low-income and minority populations in the community. In addition to leveraging federal tax provisions around community health benefit in order to improve the social determinants of health and health equity, work by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement has shown that hospitals effectively tackle health equity not only in the community but also within their own institutions (Wyatt et al., 2016). Box 6-3 features an example of policy-driven work to reduce disparities in Maryland.
Another component of the ACA is an emphasis on improving care, improving population health, and reducing the per capita cost of care. This notion of the “Triple Aim” is a term coined by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and incorporated in ACA implementation, becoming part of the U.S. national strategy for tackling health care issues (AHRQ, 2016a; Berwick et al., 2008; Whittington et al., 2015). States, such as Massachusetts, also focus on Triple Aim outcomes: for example, through the Massachusetts Quality and Cost Council (AHRQ, 2016b; Holahan and Blumberg, 2006).
34 Alley et al. describe services addressing health-related social needs, including transportation and housing (Alley et al., 2016). Others define services addressing such needs as “wraparound services,” referring to linkages or services health care providers can offer to ensure, for example, that patients have transportation to routine health care appointments, have adequate food in their homes, and obtain legal (e.g., for tenant-landlord disputes about environmental exposure to asthma triggers) or social service assistance. See, for example, Bell and Cohen (2009).
In 2012 Maryland passed the Maryland Health Improvement and Disparities Reduction Act. One component includes a joint initiative between the Maryland Community Health Resources Commission and the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene initiative around “health enterprise zones” (HEZ). Under this 4-year pilot program, communities identified areas with measurable and documented economic disadvantage and poor health outcomes and proposed collaborative plans to address health outcomes and disparities. The HEZ statute provides financial incentives to recruit and retain health care providers to HEZs, including loan repayment assistance and income tax credits for newly hired practitioners, hiring tax credits for the employers of new HEZ practitioners, grant funding, and technical assistance. The HEZ pilot program is still under way and will be formally evaluated.
The state statute also requires the Maryland Health Care Commission to establish and incorporate a standard set of measures regarding racial and ethnic variations in quality and outcomes and to track health insurance carriers’ and hospitals’ efforts to combat disparities. In addition, state institutions of higher education that train health care professionals will be required to report to the Governor and General Assembly on their actions aimed at reducing health care disparities. The latter is not slated to be formally evaluated. Nonetheless, the increased transparency around disparity-reduction activities can help tracking by agencies and outside researchers and help to shape future policy.
framework (Ehlinger, 2015). At issue is that the pursuit of the Triple Aim could perpetuate and even worsen disparities unless the concept is expanded to incorporate a health equity focus. A continued focus on rewarding health outcomes at the mean, without rewarding a compression in the variations in health, is likely to encourage interventions that target healthier, and socially less disadvantaged, populations in order to demonstrate improvements. Under such a reward system gaps in health between advantaged and disadvantaged populations may grow even wider.
receiving bundled payment to avoid the 1 percent of patients who present the highest costs. This subgroup also is disproportionately socially disadvantaged. Some evidence indicates the existence of potential challenges with respect to disadvantaged groups for programs such as the accountable care organizations that arose from the Triple Aim approach. In particular, a recent study found that commercial and Medicare accountable care organization networks were relatively less likely to include physicians in areas where a higher percentage of the population was African American, living in poverty, uninsured, disabled, or had a rate of high school education less than in other areas (Yasaitis et al., 2016). Even where variation in health outcomes is used as a performance metric, a strategy of encouraging the enrollment of those at low risk and avoiding those at high risk can artificially inflate performance measures. The implication is that high-powered financial incentives, such as capitation and bundled payment, may elicit unintended responses from delivery systems and perpetuate health inequities.
Recommendation 6-5: Government and nongovernment payers and providers should expand policies aiming to improve the quality of care, improve population health, and control health care costs35 to include a specific focus on improving population health for the most vulnerable and underserved. As one strategy to support a focus on health disparities, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services could undertake research on payment reforms that could spur accounting for social risk factors in the value-based payment programs it oversees.
35 Better care, better population health, and lower cost are often described as the Triple Aim (Berwick et al., 2008).
public reporting can help achieve goals to reduce disparities and improve quality and efficiency of care for all patients.
The criminal justice system plays an important role in shaping health equity through multiple mechanisms. The first, which is conceptually straightforward, includes the health care screening and treatment services that the system provides to adult and juvenile prisoners and probationers. The second is more complex and far-ranging and includes the set of policies that determine if an individual becomes involved in the justice system, for how long, whether or not alternative sanctions will be offered, and how individuals will reenter the community after incarceration. These policies have long-term implications for education completion, employment, and income—all of which in turn affect health. Because the justice-involved population is disproportionately people of color and disproportionately comprises other vulnerable populations such as persons with mental illness, criminal justice policies have important implications for health equity.
The United States today has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, with a cost to states and the federal government of $80 billion in 2010 alone (DOJ, 2013). This remarkably high rate of incarceration stems from policies adopted by federal and state governments starting in the early 1980s, particularly around mandatory sentencing, “three strikes and you’re out,” and increasing drug-related incarceration (Blumstein and Beck, 1999; Mauer, 2001).
The current era of mass incarceration can be understood as a powerful policy intervention in the lives of the poor and people of color (Pettit and Western, 2004). Indeed, criminal justice policy and practice disproportionately affect minorities in a number of ways, and there is a large racial disproportionality at most stages of the criminal justice system for both adults and juveniles (Harris et al., 2009).
possession (Palamar et al., 2015). In practice, this meant that 5 grams of crack, for example, mandated the same sentence (5 years in prison) as 500 grams of cocaine. Although the disparity was recently revised to an 18:1 ratio by the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act, scholars and community advocates have long argued that any disparity targets crack and, by extension, poor and minority users (Palamar et al., 2015). As a result, federal drug policies that sanction crack more than powder cocaine have exacerbated a wide-scale racial inequity that characterizes criminal justice sanctions for drug use and possession.
Blumstein highlights several other mechanisms by which racial and socioeconomic disproportionality can compound itself in the criminal justice system (Blumstein, 2009). Because more serious crimes occur in poor neighborhoods, police patrol them more densely. This also leads individuals in these areas to be more likely to be arrested (Blumstein, 2009), and, because punishment is a function of prior police contact, the marginal arrest leads to greater punishment down the line. This disadvantage can build if it is combined with such police practices as racial profiling when deciding whom to stop, question, and search (Ridgeway and MacDonald, 2010). Hispanics and African Americans are disproportionately confined in jails and prisons than would be predicted by their arrest rates, and Hispanic and African American juveniles are more likely to be referred to adult court rather than juvenile court relative to white juveniles (Harris et al., 2009).
Disadvantage can further compound inequities in other ways. Youth who live in stable two-parent, higher-income families are more likely to be released than youth living in single-parent, lower-income families, which has implications also for further sanctions and for educational disruptions. Moreover, minority youth are more likely to face harsh disciplinary action in schools by being suspended or referred to court (Mizel et al., 2016), and schools with stringent disciplinary policies that favor suspension can also contribute to greater arrests among youth (Cuellar and Markowitz, 2015).
reduce disparities for Hispanics and, to some extent, for African Americans (Nicosia et al., 2013). At the juvenile level, states have also sought to promote treatment alternatives to incarceration for selected populations with behavioral health problems (Cuellar and Dave, 2016; Cuellar et al., 2006). Since 2007, the Justice Reinvestment Initiative—a public–private partnership that includes the DOJ Bureau of Justice Assistance—has also supported efforts in 33 states, all of which “aim to improve public safety and control taxpayer costs by prioritizing prison space for serious and repeat offenders and investing some of the savings in alternatives to incarceration for low-level offenders that are effective at reducing recidivism” (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2016).
Recidivism is a large problem for the individuals who have been convicted. Recidivism has been linked in part to barriers faced by those with a criminal record. Federal, state, and local policies can exacerbate these barriers by stipulating legal sanctions and restrictions imposed on individuals with criminal records. The areas in which such challenges are faced include housing, employment, education, public benefits, and permission to travel. Some states “prohibit the employment of convicted felons in occupations ranging from child- and dependent-care service providers to barbers and hairdressers” (Bushway et al., 2007, p. 3). Some states also cut off their access to public employment, which has been an important source of work for inner-city minorities (Bushway et al., 2007). The American Bar Association has compiled the National Inventory of Collateral Consequences of Conviction, which catalogs the wide-ranging collateral consequences of criminal convictions contained in the numerous laws and regulations at the federal and state levels (ABA, 2016). As Bushway and colleagues suggest, policies like these can present formidable barriers to successful reintegration into society after release from prison (Bushway et al., 2007).
reformed their juvenile justice system (see, for example, The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2014).
While incarcerated, those confined to jail, prison, halfway houses, or juvenile facilities are reliant upon the justice system to provide for their health care needs. Many of these services are funded by criminal justice budgets. In addition, individuals may be eligible for Medicaid-funded services if they are not prisoners per se,36 such as when they reside in transitional reentry institutions or if they are not committed (Gupta et al., 2005). State and federal Medicaid policies can affect the available funding for health care services for these groups. With the recent expansion of Medicaid under the ACA, states and the federal government are revisiting Medicaid regulations related to the adult criminal justice population and facilitating access to Medicaid for eligible individuals prior to and after a stay in a correctional institution (CMS, 2016).
Beyond the far-reaching effects of a criminal record, criminal justice policies can play a role in health equity by influencing the odds of victimization (e.g., through gun policies). Clearly, firearm violence remains an important public health concern for many communities across the country (Monuteaux et al., 2015). With more than 10,000 Americans killed by firearms in 2014 (Kochanek et al., 2016), the United States suffers from the highest rate of firearm homicides among industrialized nations (IOM and NRC, 2013), and the burden of gun violence is borne disproportionately by economically disadvantaged communities, particularly communities of color (Altheimer, 2008). Exceptional levels of gun violence coexist alongside deeply polarized views over gun rights and gun policy. On the one hand, repeated episodes of large-scale gun violence in the United States have provoked proponents of gun control to argue for stricter policies to regulate the availability of guns in communities. On the other hand, proponents of gun rights argue that gun availability deters crime and enhances personal defense. Recent research in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine (Monuteaux et al., 2015) finds household gun ownership rates associate positively with various forms of violence across states. Other research concludes that living in a city with high rates of household gun ownership leads to greater odds of gun assault or gun robbery victimization (Altheimer, 2008). This research suggests that policies aimed at curbing firearm availability might help reduce violence in communities. However, the overall state of research on the relationship between gun availability and violence is mixed and offers contrasting views about the importance of gun regulation for violence. Furthermore, research that focuses specifically on how gun control policies influence firearm violence is also inconclusive (IOM and NRC, 2013).
The recommendations of a recent IOM and National Research Council report that calls for more research on the potential efficacy of gun control policies in preventing firearm violence in U.S. communities continue to resonate (IOM and NRC, 2013). Chapter 7 includes a discussion of actions in public safety that could be considered to begin to bring about change from the community level up.
Chapter 4 discussed the importance of communities and the fact that they not only are the locus for change, they also possess agency and can draw on their own power and assets to help effect change. However, as acknowledged in that chapter, it can be difficult for communities to promote health equity on their own. The present chapter describes the effects that policies and laws can have on communities. To sustain change over the long term, the broader context of issues that influence community efforts and success needs to be addressed.
ABA (American Bar Association). 2016. National Inventory of Collateral Consequences of Conviction (NICCC). http://www.abacollateralconsequences.org (accessed May 13, 2016).
Ackerman, B. A. 2014. We the people, volume 3: The civil rights revolution, The civil rights revolution. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Adler, N. E., and D. H. Rehkopf. 2008. US disparities in health: Descriptions, causes, and mechanisms. Annual Review of Public Health 29:235–252.
AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). 2016a. About the National Quality Strategy (NQS). http://www.ahrq.gov/workingforquality/about.htm#priorities (accessed October 14, 2016).
AHRQ. 2016b. Working for quality: National Quality Strategy (NQS). http://www.ahrq.gov/workingforquality (accessed October 17, 2016).
Alley, D. E., C. N. Asomugha, P. H. Conway, and D. M. Sanghavi. 2016. Accountable health communities—addressing social needs through Medicare and Medicaid. The New England Journal of Medicine 374(1):8.
Altheimer, I. 2008. Do guns matter—a multi-level cross-national examination of gun availability on assault and robbery victimization. Western Criminology Review 9:9.
Andrews, N. O., D. J. Erickson, I. Galloway, and E. Seidman. 2012. Investing in what works for America’s communities. San Francisco: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and Low Income Investment Fund.
Autor, D. H., A. Manning, and C. L. Smith. 2016. The contribution of the minimum wage to U.S. wage inequality over three decades: A reassessment. NBER Working Paper No. 16533. http://www.nber.org/papers/w16533 (accessed October 24, 2016).
Baicker, K., S. L. Taubman, H. L. Allen, M. Bernstein, J. H. Gruber, J. P. Newhouse, E. C. Schneider, B. J. Wright, A. M. Zaslavsky, and A. N. Finkelstein. 2013. The Oregon experiment—effects of Medicaid on clinical outcomes. New England Journal of Medicine 368(18):1713–1722.
Bartilow, G. 2016. The safety net in Kentucky lifts 810,000 people out of poverty. Kentucky Center for Economic Policy Policy Blog. http://kypolicy.org/safety-net-kentucky-lifts-810000-people-poverty (accessed October 24, 2016).
Beatty, A., and D. Foster. 2015. The determinants of equity: Identifying indicators to establish a baseline of equity in King County. King County, WA.
Bell, J., and L. Cohen. 2009. The transportation prescription: Bold new ideas for healthy, equitable transportation reform in America, 2009. Commissioned by the convergence partnership. https://www.preventioninstitute.org/sites/default/files/publications/The%20Transportation%20Prescription_0.pdf (accessed December 1, 2016).
Ben-Shalom, Y., R. A. Moffitt, and J. K. Scholz. 2011. An assessment of the effectiveness of antipoverty programs in the United States. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Bitler, M., and H. Hoynes. 2013. The more things change, the more they stay the same? The safety net and poverty in the great recession. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Bitler, M., H. Hoynes, and E. Kuka. 2016. Child poverty, the great recession, and the social safety net in the United States. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Blumstein, A. 2009. Race and the criminal justice system. Race and Social Problems 1(4):183–186.
Blumstein, A., and A. J. Beck. 1999. Population growth in U.S. prisons, 1980–1996. Crime & Justice. 26:17.
Branas, C. C., R. A. Cheney, J. M. MacDonald, V. W. Tam, T. D. Jackson, and T. R. Ten Have. 2011. A difference-in-differences analysis of health, safety, and greening vacant urban space. American Journal of Epidemiology 174(11):1296–1306.
Burke, M. P., E. A. Frongillo, S. J. Jones, B. B. Bell, and H. Harline-Grafton. 2016. Household food insecurity is associated with greater growth in body mass index among female children from kindergarten through eighth grade. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition 11(2):227–241.
Bushway, S., D. F. Weiman, and M. A. Stoll. 2007. Barriers to reentry?: The labor market for released prisoners in post-industrial America. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
CBO (Congressional Budget Office). 2016. The distribution of household income and federal taxes, 2013. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51361-HouseholdIncomeFedTaxes_OneCol.pdf (accessed October 24, 2016).
CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2009. Health effects of gentrification. http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/gentrification.htm (accessed July 7, 2016).
ChangeLab Solutions. 2015. Preserving, protecting, and expanding affordable housing: A policy toolkit for public health. http://www.changelabsolutions.org/sites/default/files/Preserving_Affordable_Housing-POLICY-TOOLKIT_FINAL_20150401.pdf (accessed October 24, 2016).
ChangeLab Solutions. 2016. Model comprehensive plan language on complete streets: A framework to embrace complete streets principle. http://www.changelabsolutions.org/publications/comp-plan-language-cs (accessed October 24, 2016).
Chetty, R., M. Stepner, S. Abraham, S. Lin, B. Scuderi, N. Turner, A. Bergeron, and D. Cutler. 2016. The association between income and life expectancy in the United States, 2001–2014. JAMA 315(16):1750–1766.
CHOICES (Childhood Obesity Intervention Cost-Effectiveness Study). 2016. Brief: Cost-effectiveness of a sugar-sweetened beverage excise tax in Philadelphia, PA. http://choicesproject.org/brief-cost-effectiveness-of-a-sugar-sweetened-beverage-excise-tax-in-philadelphia-pa (accessed November 23, 2016).
Chow, J. C.-C., M. A. Johnson, and M. J. Austin. 2006. The status of low-income neighborhoods in the post-welfare reform environment. Journal of Health & Social Policy 21(1):1–32.
Christensen, J. 2016. Environmental bonds should equitably benefit all communities: Looking forward based on an analysis of Prop 84. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Institute of the Environment and Sustainability.
CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services). 2016. State health official letter re: to facilitate successful re-entry for individuals transitioning from incarceration to their communities. Baltimore, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Cohen, R. A., and M. E. Martinez. 2015. Health insurance coverage: Early release of estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, January–March 2015. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.
Cohen, S., and N. Uberoi. 2013. Differentials in the concentration in the level of health expenditures across population subgroups in the US, 2010. Statistical brief 421.
Collinson, R., I. G. Ellen, and J. Ludwig. 2015. Low income housing policy. In Economics of means-tested transfer programs in the United States, volume 2. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
CSG (Council of State Governments). 2016. States receiving technical assistance from the CSG Justice Center. https://csgjusticecenter.org/jr (accessed October 24, 2016).
Cuellar, A., and D. M. Dave. 2016. Causal effects of mental health treatment on education outcomes for youth in the justice system. Economics of Education Review 54:321–339.
Cuellar, A. E., and S. Markowitz. 2015. School suspension and the school-to-prison pipeline. International Review of Law and Economics 43:98–106.
Cuellar, A. E., L. S. McReynolds, and G. A. Wasserman. 2006. A cure for crime: Can mental health treatment diversion reduce crime among youth? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 25(1):197–214.
Cunningham, P. J. 2008. Track report: Trade-offs getting tougher: Problems paying medical bills increase for U.S. families, 2003-2007. Washington, DC: Center for Studying Health System Change.
Currie, J., and A. Yelowitz. 2000. Are public housing projects good for kids? Journal of Public Economics 75(1):99–124.
Cutler, D. M., and A. Lleras-Muney. 2006. Education and health: Evaluating theories and evidence. Working paper no. 12352. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Dahl, G. B., and L. Lochner. 2005. The impact of family income on child achievement. Working paper no. 11279. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Darcy, J. 2016. Memorandum for commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Proposed Dakota Access Pipeline crossing at Lake Oahe, North Dakota. https://www.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/459011.pdf (accessed December 5, 2016).
Ding, L., and J. Hwang. 2016. The consequences of gentrification: A focus on residents’ financial health in Philadelphia: Working paper 16-22. Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia 40.
Ding, L., J. Hwang, and E. Divringi. 2015. Gentrification and residential mobility in Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
Dobkin, C., A. Finkelstein, R. Kluender, and M. J. Notowidigdo. 2016. The economic consequences of hospital admissions. Working paper no. 22288. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
DOJ (U.S. Department of Justice). 2013. Smart on crime: Reforming the criminal justice system for the 21st century. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2013/08/12/smart-on-crime.pdf (accessed October 20, 2016).
Doleac, J. L., and B. Hansen. 2016. Does “ban the box” help or hurt low-skilled workers? Statistical discrimination and employment outcomes when criminal histories are hidden. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2012a. Environmental justice policy guidance for Federal Transit Administration recipients (FTA c 4703.1). U.S. government.
DOT. 2012b. Title VI requirements and guidelines for Federal Transit Administration recipients (FTA C4702. 1B). U.S. government.
Doty, M. M., S. R. Collins, S. D. Rustgi, and J. L. Kriss. 2008. Seeing red: The growing burden of medical bills and debt faced by U.S. families: Issue brief. The Commonwealth Fund 42(August).
ED (U.S. Department of Education). 2016a. Healthy students, promising futures: State and local action steps and practices to improve school-based health toolkit. http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/healthy-students/index.html (accessed October 24, 2016).
ED. 2016b. Racial and ethnic disparities in special education: A multi-year disproportionality analysis by state, analysis category, and race/ethnicity. Washingon, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
ED. 2016c. U.S. Department of Education takes action to deliver equity for students with disabilities. http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-takes-action-deliver-equity-students-disabilities (accessed November 23, 2016).
Ehlinger, E. P. 2015. We need a triple aim for health equity. Minnesota Medicine: 28–29.
Ellen, I. G., K. M. Horn, and A. E. Schwartz. 2016. Why don’t housing choice voucher recipients live near better schools? Insights from big data. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 35(4):884–905.
Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on Climate Change. 2016a. Clean power plan tool kit. http://www.ejleadershipforum.org/clean-power-plan-tool-kit (accessed October 24, 2016).
Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on Climate Change. 2016b. Environmental justice state guidance: How to incorporate equity and justice into your state clean power planning approach.http://www.eesi.org/files/EJ-State-Guidance-Final-v5-jan-15-2016.pdf (accessed October 24, 2016).
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2016. EJScreen: Environmental justice screening and mapping tool (version 2016). https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper (accessed October 24, 2016).
Evans, W. N., and C. L. Garthwaite. 2014. Giving mom a break: The impact of higher EITC payments on maternal health. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 6(2):258–290.
Executive Office of the President. 2015. Long-term benefits of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/SNAP_report_final_nonembargo.pdf (accessed November 23, 2016).
Finch, B. K., A. N. Beck, and H. Amaro. 2016. Does gentrification contribute to segregation? A study of urban displacement. Population Association of America Annual Meeting, Washington, DC. Poster presentation, March 18, 2016.
Finkelstein, A., S. Taubman, B. Wright, M. Bernstein, J. Gruber, J. P. Newhouse, H. Allen, K. Baicker, and Oregon Health Study Group. 2012. The Oregon health insurance experiment: Evidence from the first year. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 127(3):1057–1106.
Freeman, L. 2005. Displacement or succession? Residential mobility in gentrifying neighborhoods. Urban Affairs Review 40(4):463–491.
GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 2015. Federal low-income programs: Multiple programs target diverse populations and needs. U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Garcia, R. 2013. The George Butler lecture, social justice and leisure: The usefulness and uselessness of research. Journal of Leisure Research 46:7–22.
Garcia, R., A. Collins, and C. De La Vega. 2016. Park funding for all! Parks & Recreation 32–33. http://www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/43709 (accessed October 24, 2016).
Garvin, E. C., C. C. Cannuscio, and C. C. Branas. 2013. Greening vacant lots to reduce violent crime: A randomised controlled trial. Injury Prevention 19(3):198–203.
Goldberg, D. 2016. Bay area and Boulder soda taxes would extend lives, avert millions in health care costs over 10 years, Harvard model projects. Healthy Food America. http://www.healthyfoodamerica.org/bay_area_and_boulder_soda_taxes_would_extend_lives_avert_millions_in_health_costs_over_10_years_harvard_model_projects (accessed November 23, 2016).
Goldman, D., and J. P. Smith. 2011. The increasing value of education to health. Social Science & Medicine 72(10):1728–1737.
Gross, T., and M. J. Notowidigdo. 2011. Health insurance and the consumer bankruptcy decision: Evidence from expansions of Medicaid. Journal of Public Economics 95(7-8):767–778.
Gupta, R. A., K. J. Kelleher, K. Pajer, J. Stevens, and A. Cuellar. 2005. Delinquent youth in corrections: Medicaid and reentry into the community. Pediatrics 115(4):1077–1083.
Hamad, R., and D. H. Rehkopf. 2015. Poverty, pregnancy, and birth outcomes: A study of the earned income tax credit. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 29(5):444–452.
Hamad, R., and D. H. Rehkopf. 2016. Poverty and child development: A longitudinal study of the impact of the earned income tax credit. American Journal of Epidemiology 183(9):775-784.
Harris, C. T., D. Steffensmeier, J. T. Ulmer, and N. Painter-Davis. 2009. Are blacks and Hispanics disproportionately incarcerated relative to their arrests? Racial and ethnic disproportionality between arrest and incarceration. Race and Social Problems 1(4):187–199.
Healthy Schools Campaign. 2016. A new national initiative highlights the link between health and education. Healthy Schools Campaign. https://healthyschoolscampaign.org/policy/a-new-national-initiative-highlights-the-link-between-health-and-education (accessed July 16, 2016).
HHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 2016. Summary: Final rule implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act.
Holahan, J., and L. Blumberg. 2006. Massachusetts health care reform: A look at the issues. Health Affairs 25(6):w432–w443.
Howard, T., and T. Norris. 2015. Can hospitals heal America’s communities?: “All in for mission” is the emerging model for impact. Washington, DC: The Democracy Collaborative.
Hu, L., R. Kaestner, B. Mazumder, S. Miller, and A. Wong. 2016. The effect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansions on financial wellbeing. Working paper no. 22170. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development). 2016a. Low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) data sets (May 15, 2016). https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/lihtc.html (accessed December 16, 2016).
HUD. 2016b. Picture of subsidized households datasets. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/picture/yearlydata.html (accessed December 19, 2016).
Huynh, M., and A. R. Maroko. 2014. Gentrification and preterm birth in New York City, 2008-2010. Journal of Urban Health 91(1):211–220.
International Energy Agency. 2015. Capturing the multiple benefits of energy efficiency.http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/capturing-the-multiple-benefits-of-energy-efficiency.html (accessed October 20, 2016).
IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2011. For the public’s health: Revitalizing law and policy to meet new challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
IOM and NRC (National Research Council). 2013. Priorities for research to reduce the threat of firearm-related violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
IRS (Internal Revenue Service). 2016. Statistics for tax returns with EITC. https://www.eitc.irs.gov/EITC-Central/eitcstats?_ga=1.80629535.982617637.1477348670 (accessed December 19, 2016).
Jacob, B. A., M. Kapustin, and J. Ludwig. 2015. The impact of housing assistance on child outcomes: Evidence from a randomized housing lottery. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 130(1):465–506.
Jacobs, L. R., and T. Callaghan. 2013. Why states expand Medicaid: Party, resources, and history. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 38(5):1023–1050.
James, J. 2016. Health policy brief: Nonprofit hospitals’ community benefit requirements. Health Affairshttp://healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief_pdfs/healthpolicybrief_153.pdf (accessed August 8, 2016).
Kaiser Family Foundation. 2015. Health insurance coverage of nonelderly 0-64. http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/nonelderly-0-64/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D (accessed September 10, 2016).
Kaiser Family Foundation. 2016. Current status of state action on the Medicaid expansion decision, KFF state health facts. http://kff.org/health-reform/slide/current-status-of-the-medicaid-expansion-decision (accessed September 10, 2016).
Kessler, R. C., G. J. Duncan, L. A. Gennetian, L. F. Katz, J. R. Kling, N. A. Sampson, L. Sanbonmatsu, A. M. Zaslavsky, and J. Ludwig. 2014. Associations of housing mobility interventions for children in high-poverty neighborhoods with subsequent mental disorders during adolescence. JAMA 311(9):937–948.
Kochanek, K. D., S. L. Murphy, J. Q. Xu, and B. Tejada-Vera. 2016. Deaths: Final data for 2014. National Vital Statistics Reports 65(4).
Kochtitzky, C. S., H. Frumkin, R. Rodriguez, A. Dannenberg, J. Rayman, K. Rose, R. Gillig, and T. Kanter. 2006. Urban planning and public health at CDC. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Supplements 55(2):34–38.
Kyureghian, G., R. M. Nayga, and S. Bhattacharya. 2013. The effect of food store access and income on household purchases of fruits and vegetables: A mixed effects analysis. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 35(1):69–88.
Mathur, C., D. J. Erickson, M. H. Stigler, J. L. Forster, and J. R. Finnegan. 2013. Individual and neighborhood socioeconomic status effects on adolescent smoking: A multilevel cohort-sequential latent growth analysis. American Journal of Public Health 103(3):543–548.
Mauer, M. 2001. The causes and consequences of prison growth in the United States. Punishment & Society 3(1):9–20.
Meltzer, D. O., and Z. Chen. 2011. The impact of minimum wage rates on body weight in the United States. In Economic aspects of obesity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Pp. 17–34.
Miller, S. 2012. The impact of the Massachusetts health care reform on health care use among children. American Economic Review 102(3):502–507.
Mizel, M. L., J. N. Miles, E. R. Pedersen, J. S. Tucker, B. A. Ewing, and E. J. D’Amico. 2016. To educate or to incarcerate: Factors in disproportionality in school discipline. Children and Youth Services Review 70:102–111.
Mohai, P., P. M. Lantz, J. Morenoff, J. S. House, and R. P. Mero. 2009. Racial and socioeconomic disparities in residential proximity to polluting industrial facilities: Evidence from the Americans’ changing lives study. American Journal of Public Health 99(Suppl 3):S649–S656.
Montez, J. K., and L. F. Berkman. 2014. Trends in the educational gradient of mortality among US adults aged 45 to 84 years: Bringing regional context into the explanation. American Journal of Public Health 104(1):e82–e90.
Monuteaux, M. C., L. K. Lee, D. Hemenway, R. Mannix, and E. W. Fleegler. 2015. Firearm ownership and violent crime in the US: An ecologic study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 49(2):207–214.
Multnomah County. 2014a. Foundational assumptions of the equity and empowerment lens logic model. https://multco.us/file/31824/download (accessed October 28, 2016).
Multnomah County. 2014b. Multnomah County Office of Diversity and Equity: Equity and empowerment lens. https://multco.us/diversity-equity/equity-and-empowerment-lens (accessed October 24, 2016).
Multnomah County. n.d. What is the equity and empowerment lens?https://multco.us/diversity-equity/equity-and-empowerment-lens (accessed October 28, 2016).
NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2015. The growing gap in life expectancy by income: Implications for federal programs and policy responses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NASEM. 2016a. Accounting for social risk factors in Medicare payment: Identifying social risk factors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NASEM. 2016b. Accounting for social risk factors in Medicare payment: Criteria, factors, and methods. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NASEM. 2016c. Accounting for social risk factors in Medicare payment: Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NASEM. 2016d. The role of business in multisector obesity solutions: Working together for positive change: Workshop in brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NASEM. 2016e. Systems practices for the care of socially at-risk populations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Neumark, D., J. I. Salas, and W. Wascher. 2014. More on recent evidence on the effects of minimum wages in the United States. IZA Journal of Labor Policy 3(1):26.
Newman, K., and E. K. Wyly. 2006. The right to stay put, revisited: Gentrification and resistance to displacement in New York City. Urban Studies 43(1):23–57.
Nichols, A., and J. Rothstein. 2016. The earned income tax credit from the economics of means-tested transfer programs in the United States, volume one. Edited by R. A. Moffitt. Vol. 1, Economics of means-tested transfer programs in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Nicosia, N., J. M. MacDonald, and J. Arkes. 2013. Disparities in criminal court referrals to drug treatment and prison for minority men. American Journal of Public Health 103(6):e77–e84.
NPS (National Park Service). 2013. San Gabriel watershed and mountains special resource study. https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?documentID=43639 (accessed September 16, 2016).
NPS. 2014. Healthy parks healthy people community engagement e-guide: Edition 1.
NPS. 2015. Rim of the valley corridor special resource study and environmental assessment. https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?documentID=65351 (accessed October 24, 2016).
NRC and IOM (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine). 2013. U.S. health in international perspective: Shorter lives, poorer health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Olshansky, S. J., T. Antonucci, L. Berkman, R. H. Binstock, A. Boersch-Supan, J. T. Cacioppo, B. A. Carnes, L. L. Carstensen, L. P. Fried, D. P. Goldman, J. Jackson, M. Kohli, J. Rother, Y. Zheng, and J. Rowe. 2012. Differences in life expectancy due to race and educational differences are widening, and many may not catch up. Health Affairs 31(8):1803–1813.
OMB (Office of Management and Budget). 2016. Analytical perspectives, budget of the United States government, fiscal year 2017. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives (accessed October 24, 2016).
Palamar, J. J., S. Davies, D. C. Ompad, C. M. Cleland, and M. Weitzman. 2015. Powder cocaine and crack use in the United States: An examination of risk for arrest and socioeconomic disparities in use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 149:108–116.
Pettit, B., and B. Western. 2004. Mass imprisonment and the life course: Race and class inequality in US incarceration. American Sociological Review 69(2):151–169.
PHAB (Public Health Accreditation Board). 2011. Public Health Accreditation Board standards & measures, version 1.0. http://www.phaboard.org/wp-content/uploads/PHAB-Standards-and-Measures-Version-1.01.pdf (accessed December 2, 2016).
Phillips, D., L. Flores Jr., and J. Henderson. 2014. Development without displacement. Oakland, CA: Causa Justa.
PolicyLink. 2016a. Equity tools: Affordable housing. http://www.policylink.org/equity-tools/equitable-development-toolkit/affordable-housing (accessed October 21, 2016).
PolicyLink. 2016b. Equity tools: Economic opportunity. http://www.policylink.org/equitytools/equitable-development-toolkit/economic-opportunity (accessed October 21, 2016).
REACH Healthcare Foundation. 2016. Mid-America Regional Council Community Services Corporation. https://reachhealth.org/awarded-grants/mid-america-regional-council-community-services-corporation-9 (accessed October 14, 2016).
Ricklin, A., and N. Kushner. 2014. Healthy plan making—integrating health into the comprehensive planning process: An analysis of seven case studies and recommendations for change. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.
Ridgeway, G., and J. MacDonald. 2010. Methods for assessing racially biased policing. Race, ethnicity, and policing: New and essential readings. Pp. 180–204.
Rodriguez, M. N., and B. Avery. 2016. Ban the box: U.S. Cities, counties, and states adopt fair-chance policies to advance employment opportunities for people with past convictions. National Employment Law Project. http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/Ban-the-Box-FairChance-State-and-Local-Guide.pdf (accessed December 17, 2016).
Rodriguez, M., M. Brenman, M. E. Lado, and R. Garcia. 2014. Using civil rights tools to address health disparities. Los Angeles, CA: The City Project.
Rosenbaum, S., and B. Choucair. 2016. Expanding the meaning of community health improvement under tax-exempt hospital policy. In Health Affairs Blog. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/01/08/expanding-the-meaning-of-community-health-improvement-under-tax-exempt-hospital-policy (accessed September 28, 2016).
Sanbonmatsu, L., J. Ludwig, L. F. Katz, L. A. Gennetian, G. J. Duncan, R. C. Kessler, E. Adam, T. W. McDade, and S. T. Lindau. 2011. Moving to opportunity for fair housing demonstration program--final impacts evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research.
Schill, M. H., and S. M. Wachter. 1995. The spatial bias of federal housing law and policy: Concentrated poverty in urban America. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 143(5):1285–1342.
Schwartz, A. F. 2014. Housing policy in the United States. New York: Routledge.
Sommers, B. D., K. Baicker, and A. Epstein. 2012. Mortality and access to care among adults after state Medicaid expansions. New England Journal of Medicine 367:1025–1034.
Strully, K. W., D. H. Rehkopf, and Z. Xuan. 2010. Effects of prenatal poverty on infant health: State earned income tax credits and birth weight. American Sociological Review 75(4):534–562.
Tax Policy Center. 2014. State minimum wage rates, 1983–2014. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/taxfacts/content/PDF/state_min_wage.pdf (accessed November 2, 2016).
The City Project. 2014a. Best practice HUD Los Angeles state historic park healthy green land use for all. In The City Project Blog. Los Angeles, CA: The City Project. http://www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/32984 (accessed June 3, 2016).
The City Project. 2014b. San Gabriel mountains best practice environmental justice framework for parks, health, and conservation values. In The City Project Blog. Los Angeles, CA: The City Project. http://www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/32899 (accessed June 3, 2016).
The City Project. 2015. Environmental justice and civil rights frequently asked questions FTA best practices. In The City Project Blog. Los Angeles, CA: The City Project. http://www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/38688 (accessed June 3, 2016).
The City Project. 2016a. National Park Service rim of the valley final study best practice environmental justice. In The City Project Blog. Los Angeles, CA: The City Project. http://www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/41777 (accessed June 3, 2016).
The City Project. 2016b. U.S. Civil rights commission civil rights and environmental justice and enforcement by EPA. In The City Project Blog. Los Angeles, CA: The City Project. http://www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/43798 (accessed June 3, 2016).
The City Project. 2016c. US Army Corps of Engineers best practice for revitalizing L.A. River for all. In The City Project Blog. Los Angeles, CA: The City Project. http://www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/41580 (accessed June 3, 2016).
The City Project. 2016d. US EPA EJSCREEN park access and health disparities civil rights and environmental justice best practice. In The City Project Blog. Los Angeles, CA: The City Project. http://www.cityprojectca.org/blog/archives/43843 (accessed June 3, 2016).
The Pew Charitable Trusts. 2014. Judging for juvenile justice: 3 judges share lessons of juvenile justice reform: The Pew Charitable Trusts. http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2014/11/pspp_juvenilejudges_qa_brief_web.pdf (accessed October 24, 2016).
The Pew Charitable Trusts. 2016. 31 states reform criminal justice policies through justice reinvestment: Fact sheet. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2016/01/31-states-reform-criminal-justice-policies-through-justice-reinvestment (accessed October 24, 2016).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, LA District, and Tetra Tech Inc. 2015. Los Angeles River ecosystem restoration integrated feasibility report: Final feasibility report and environmental impact statement/environment impact report: Volume 1: Integrated feasibility report: Los Angeles County, California. Los Angeles, California.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. Latest local health insurance statistics available through Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. Suitland, MD: U.S. Census Bureau.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2012. Environmental justice strategic plan: 2012–2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Van Der Wees, P., A. Zaslavsky, and J. Ayanian. 2013. Improvements in health status after Massachusetts health care reform. The Millbank Quarterly 91(4):663–689.
Waldron, H. 2007. Trends in mortality differentials and life expectancy for male social security-covered workers, by socieoeconomic status. Social Security Bulletin 67(3):1–28.
Wehby, G., D. Dave, and R. Kaestner. 2016. Effects of the minimum wage on infant health: Working paper no. 22373. Cambridge, MA: The National Bureau of Economic Research.
West, M. R. 2016. From evidence-based programs to an evidence-based system: Opportunities under the Every Student Succeeds Act. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Wherry, L. R., and S. Miller. 2016. Early coverage, access, utilization, and health effects associated with the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansions: A quasi-experimental study. Annals of Internal Medicine 164(12):795–803.
Whittington, J. W., K. Nolan, N. Lewis, and T. Torres. 2015. Pursuing the triple aim: The first 7 years. Milbank Quarterly 93(2):263–300.
Wilson, S., M. Hutson, and M. Mujahid. 2008. How planning and zoning contribute to inequitable development, neighborhood health, and environmental injustice. Environmental Justice 1(4):211–216.
Woolf, S. H., R. E. Johnson, R. L. Phillips, and M. Philipsen. 2007. Giving everyone the health of the educated: An examination of whether social change would save more lives than medicine. American Journal of Public Health 2007(97):4.
Woolf, S. H., L. Aron, L. Dubay, S. M. Simon, E. Zimmerman, and K. X. Luk. 2015. How are income and wealth linked to health and longevity? Washington, DC: Urban Institute and Virginia Commonwealth University.
Wright, G. 2013. Sharing the prize: The economics of the civil rights revolution in the American south. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
WXY and Hester Street Collaborative. 2016. East Harlem neighborhood plan. http://www.eastharlemplan.nyc/EHNP_FINAL_FINAL_LORES.pdf (accessed December 4, 2016).
Wyatt, R., M. Laderman, L. Botwinick, K. Mate, and J. Whittington. 2016. Achieving health equity: A guide for health care organizations. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement.
Wyly, E. K., and D. J. Hammel. 2004. Gentrification, segregation, and discrimination in the American urban system. Environment and Planning 36:1215–1241.
Yasaitis, L. C., W. Pajerowski, D. Polsky, and R. M. Werner. 2016. Physicians’ participation in ACOs is lower in places with vulnerable populations than in more affluent communities. Health Affairs 35(8):1382–1390.
Zuk, M., A. H. Bierbaum, K. Chapple, K. Gorska, A. Loukaitou-Sideris, P. Ong, and T. Thomas. 2015 (unpublished). Gentrification, displacement, and role of public investment: A literature review. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

References: § 2000
 § 42
 § 3601
 § 12101
 § 4321
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 42
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V.