Women’s participation in the workforce doesn’t just impact them individually – it impacts our entire economy

This is the first in a series focused on women’s economic security. This post frames up the issue. Check back for subsequent posts where we’ll outline possible solutions and proposals, talk to Minnesotans leading in this area, and share how you can get involved.

As anybody whose logged into social media the past week can tell you, women are the topic du jour of late. March is Women’s History Month. This past Monday we observed International Women’s Day. Meghan Markle is our feminist icon of the moment. And women are struggling to find their place in our economy in an extraordinary way since the pandemic hit.

By now, we’ve all seen the stories. Women have been forced out of the workforce at much higher rates than men since the pandemic began, both involuntary with layoffs and “voluntarily” (if you can call it that) to care for children who are out of school or sick family members. Our current economic recession has been branded as the “first female recession in the nation’s history,” and for legitimate reason. At a high level:

• Female unemployment hit double digits for the first time since 1948, with unemployment levels for BIPOC women being significantly higher than those of white women.

• In December 2020 alone, women accounted for all the nation’s job losses, losing 156,000 jobs while men gained 16,000. Furthermore, women of color accounted for nearly all these losses. In January 2021, another 275,000 women left the workforce.

• Women are driving involuntary job loss not only because we dominate industries (such as hospitality) that have been most impacted by the recession, but also because of discrimination when making decisions on layoffs, according to a University of Minnesota study.

• When it comes to voluntarily leaving the workforce throughout the pandemic, women were four times more likely to leave their jobs and three times more likely to sacrifice their careers for their family.

• Single mothers in particular are a sub-set of women facing incredible challenges due to the added stress of not being able to split home and child responsibilities with a partner. Single-parent homes already faced higher rates of poverty than two-parent households, with 30% of single mothers living below the poverty line and single parents spending more than two times their income on childcare.

While the pandemic has exacerbated women’s economic insecurity, it is not a new issue. Yes, women have taken great strides in our economy over the decades, and Women’s History Month is a great time to reflect on that progress and all the trailblazing women who fought for that (hello, Madam C.J. Walker). But the issues that are present now were present before, they just have a much larger spotlight shining down on them. Pre-pandemic, the median wealth of single white men under 35 was 3.5 times greater than that of single white women, and 224.2 times greater than the wealth of single Black women, according to the Brookings Institute.  Not only do women still make only about 80 cents on the dollar to men, but the balancing of work, family, and other caregiving responsibilities, coupled with the lack of a societal safety net in the U.S. to support women taking on these roles has led to these disparities.

A lack of universal paid sick and family leave pre-pandemic, and even more notably, the fact that this country was already facing a childcare crisis, are all underlying factors. As reported in the Washington Post, Princeton Economist So Kubota studied why the workforce participation rates of women have been decreasing over the past 20 years, and concluded that the rising cost of childcare resulted in a 13% decline in the labor force of women with young children, with similar results (12%) being concluded by the Center for American Progress. As we come out of the pandemic, it’s being estimated that between one-third to one-half of childcare centers may not reopen at all, due to added demands and precautions on already razor-thin margins. Fewer options for care are sure to result in higher rates, which further pulls women – especially low- to middle-income women – out of the workforce. And this isn’t just a problem for population centers, as the lack of affordable childcare options has been especially felt in Minnesota’s rural communities, with the industry at a breaking point.

It’s easy to look at the current economic disparities as a problem that is unique to women, but it’s much bigger than that. When women leave the workforce, settle for lower-paying jobs, or cut back on their hours, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, it has a domino effect that impacts future career opportunities, promotions, and equitable pay, which has consequences for not only the women themselves but also any children, spouses, or other family members that they support. But beyond that, and of consequence to everybody, it stymies economic growth. In order for the U.S.’s economic engine to thrive, we need women, especially BIPOC women, to be full participants in the workforce. The less women in the workforce, the less strong our state and nation’s economy. When women’s labor force rates drop, so does that of the country’s GDP.

To fully pull not only women, but our entire economy out of the current recession and achieve sustained economic growth at all levels, we must confront and work to address the underlying issues that are preventing women from being full participants in our workforce and economy at both the state and federal levels. This requires an acceptance and understanding that this isn’t just a pandemic issue. The good news is, there may be more momentum to finally tackle this than there has been in the past. The Walz-Flanagan Administration held a roundtable on this topic last week. Attorney General Ellison has instituted a task force focused on expanding women’s economic security. President Biden’s COVID relief package acknowledged the need, partially championed by Minnesota Senator Tina Smith. And there is no shortage of conversation happening at a state legislative and national congressional level, and within Minnesota’s advocacy and business spaces.

So, what are the possible solutions to finally addressing the need to even the economic playing field, and what needs to be done for them to become a reality? Check back next week to read my second installment where I’ll outline the ideas and proposals currently being discussed, and opportunities to make your voice heard.

Do you have comments about this topic, or ideas of how Tunheim can participate in addressing this issue? Email me at shinde@tunheim.com.

This blog post is the third and final of our legislative session preview series. To catch up on our previous  conversations, click here for housing and here for health care. Today’s focus is on energy.

As we entered the 2021 Minnesota Legislative Session, Tunheim started getting questions from our clients about what policymakers’ priorities would be, and what can be expected to happen, within specific policy areas. With legislative leaders focused on the budget and COVID leading up to Session, we wanted to dig deeper and engage with Committee Chairs and Commissioners in three key policy areas for us and our clients: housing, energy, and health care.

For our energy discussion, we reached out to the Temporary Commissioner of the state Department of Commerce and Senate and House Energy Committee Chairs and asked them to share their priorities for the state’s future energy policy, and possible legislative movement this Legislative Session. We heard back from Minnesota Department of Commerce Temporary Commissioner Grace Arnold and Minnesota House of Representatives Climate and Energy Finance and Policy Chair Jamie Long, whose input is reflected in the conversation below.

What do you see as the biggest needs for Minnesota to tackle as it pertains to energy?

At the Minnesota Department of Commerce, our goal is to ensure all Minnesotans have access to affordable and reliable energy service, while minimizing adverse impacts to the environment.

Over the past 15 years, Minnesota has transformed how we generate electricity. Use of renewable energy increased from 6 percent to 24 percent. By putting standards such as the proposal for 100 percent carbon-free energy by 2040 into law, we provide certainty for utilities as they manage market, economic, and technology changes.

The goal of the Walz Administration is to build on the success that Minnesota has already achieved in reducing dependence on fossil fuels and increasing the use of clean energy resources to power the state while ensuring reliable, affordable electricity.

Minnesota should continue the leadership position it has held on clean energy by moving boldly towards 100% clean energy. As a state that does not produce fossil fuels, we can build our economy and create good paying jobs with wind, solar, energy efficiency and more. We are not on track to meet our state’s climate goals and we must do much more to reduce carbon pollution across all sectors – from transportation, to buildings, to energy production. If we couple clean electricity with electrified transportation and heat for buildings, we can solve a big part of our state’s contribution to the climate crisis.

What are your energy priorities this Session?

In the 2021 legislative session, the Minnesota Department of Commerce is proposing the Clean Energy Package, which has four main provisions:

1) 100% Carbon-Free Energy Standard by 2040: By transitioning to 100% carbon-free energy by 2040, Minnesota utilities will lead the way to healthier air through significant reduction in greenhouse gases.

• The options and timing in this proposal give utilities the planning time and flexibility they need to reach 100%, while maintaining reliable and affordable electricity for all of Minnesota.
• This proposal prioritizes jobs, requiring the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to consider use of prevailing wages as a condition of receiving site permits for large wind projects.

2) Clean Energy First: Planned retirements and closures of many of Minnesota’s aging power plants has led to an opportunity to build a new energy infrastructure across Minnesota that is better for our health, environment and economy. The proposal broadens Minnesota’s current renewable preference statute, so that a utility can look first to clean energy resources for new electric power generation.

This policy mechanism establishes a regulatory pathway to not only achieve the 100% carbon free electricity standard, but also address other intersecting energy policy issues.

3) Energy Conservation and Optimization: Minnesota’s Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) has been highly successful, delivering real savings on customer energy bills, providing over $6 billion in net benefits to the state. Energy Conservation and Optimization (ECO) would expand the impact of the CIP program by allowing consumers to further reduce total energy costs by modifying the timing of their energy consumption through load management programs and by switching to more efficient technologies and lower carbon fuels.

4) 50% Carbon Reduction by 2035 in Existing Buildings Goal: This newly proposed goal will be realized through the continuation of the most effective current energy savings programs; and through the development.

The first bill we are likely to take up is the Energy Conservation and Optimization (ECO) Act, a bipartisan bill to improve our state energy efficiency laws that passed the House last session. I am optimistic this can be an early success for the House and Senate collaborating on energy policy. We will also focus on promoting clean energy, electric vehicles, and energy efficient buildings.

Looking at this Session, with it being a budget year and dealing with COVID, what do you think can realistically be done this year in this policy area? How do you predict things will play out?

On January 21, Governor Walz, Lt. Governor Flanagan and the House and Senate DLF Energy Leads rolled out our clean energy package with this press release, which explains why this Clean Energy Package will succeed in the 2021 session.

It’s worth repeating the importance of this Clean Energy Package for our children, our communities and our earth.

Our energy systems are rapidly changing and we can’t afford to stand still at the legislature. I believe the House and Senate can come together on meaningful improvements to our energy laws to keep Minnesota at the forefront of energy innovation. We also have the opportunity through the Renewable Development Account to make smart investments in deploying clean energy in Minnesota.

Tunheim would like to give our sincerest thanks to Temporary Commissioner Arnold and Representative Long and their respective staff for participating in this energy conversation, and for their service to the State of Minnesota and its citizens.

If you have questions on how what was shared here means for your organization or how you can help achieve policy goals in the energy and climate space email me, Tunheim Senior Consultant Sarah Hinde, at shinde@tunheim.com.

This blog post is the second in our legislative session series; to catch up on our housing policy conversation from last week, click here. Today’s focus is on health care, with energy to soon.

As we entered the 2021 Minnesota Legislative Session, Tunheim started getting questions from our clients about what policymakers’ priorities would be, and what can be expected to happen, within specific policy areas. With legislative leaders focused on the budget and COVID leading up to Session, we wanted to dig deeper and engage with Committee Chairs and Commissioners in three key policy areas for us and our clients: housing, energy, and health care.

For our health care discussion, we reached out to Minnesota Department of Human Services Commissioner Jodi Harpstead, Minnesota Senate Health and Human Services Finance and Policy Chair Michelle Benson, and Minnesota House of Representatives Health Finance and Policy Chair Tina Liebling and asked them to share their thoughts on the state’s most urgent health care needs and the possible solutions that may be explored this Legislative Session. Their input is reflected in the conversation below.

What do you see as the biggest needs for Minnesota to tackle as it pertains to health care?

COVID-19 has highlighted the life-and-death consequences of understanding that my health is directly dependent on the health of my neighbor.  It has also brought out in sharp relief our long-standing disparities in social drivers of health and health outcomes. As a state, we have seen and experienced these disparities, we have measured and tracked them, we have noted their profound impacts on individuals and families in our communities, but we have not moved the needle on them in the right direction. Addressing these disparities, especially with respect to social drivers of health, is our most pressing need.

We have also learned about the importance of exploring alternative ways to access care, including through the use of telemedicine. Federal and state waivers gave us a rare opportunity to quickly expand telemedicine services for Medicaid enrollees during the pandemic. Our statewide study of these services indicates support for continued use of telehealth as an option for some services.

The most pressing need for our state right now is the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines so we can move to return our state to pre-pandemic normalcy. Once vaccines become readily available and we begin recovering from the effects of COVID-19 then we must work quickly to ensure stability in our health care system. Our health care system has been forced to undergo dramatic changes during the pandemic, and we need to restore some stability in our health care infrastructure.  Additionally, we must also work to close health disparities. The inequalities in our health care system have become very clear during the pandemic. We need to implement proven practices to reduce disparate outcomes.

The pandemic has exposed the deep dysfunction, waste, and inequity in our health care system.  The biggest need right now is to ensure that health care is accessible and affordable everywhere in the state, regardless of people’s employment status.

What are your health care priorities this Session?

The state, of course, faces a budget shortfall. Balancing the state’s budget in a manner that mitigates the impacts of spending cuts on our residents who most need our support — many of whom also bore a disproportionate share of the health and economic hardships from COVID-19 — will be both a high priority and a tremendous challenge.

While we have a few proposals in to the Governor’s Office for consideration in the budget he and the Lieutenant Governor will release at the end of January, we can point to the report of the Health and Human Services Blue Ribbon Commission, co-chaired by the commissioners of health and human services, which included more than $100 million in savings strategies and additional strategies for improving administration of services and fostering health equity.

Minnesota’s Blue Ribbon Commission was, of course, disappointed in having its work interrupted by COVID and not being able to fully vet “health transformation strategies.”  Additionally, some healthcare strategies may need to wait for the health care market to settle out after COVID. In the meantime, many of the commission’s strategies are worthy of consideration during the 2021 Legislative session.

The other area that is a priority for us is the list of COVID waivers that was extended during a summer special session through June of 2021. The most interesting, of course, are those we call “tele-everything” that allow for a raft of remote healthcare services. Our Community Supports Administration has released a study of the efficacy of remote behavioral health, for example, for consideration by the Legislature as it considers extending tele-health waivers from 2020 into long-term policy.

Our first goal is working to end this pandemic and reopen our state. We want to evaluate the lessons we have learned from COVID-19 and how we can move forward. During the pandemic, we have seen incredible innovation in our health care system. We are really working on capturing and incentivizing innovation in health care. Next, we need to evaluate the gaps in our health care system and work to address those disparities. These goals will take longer than one legislative session but are a key priority of our caucus agenda.

Another goal we are focused on is reducing the price of prescription drug pricing. COVID-19 has distracted us from many ongoing health care challenges, but we cannot lose sight of the high costs of prescription drugs.

We also are working hard to hold the Department of Health and the Department of Human Services accountable. Strong legislative oversight is critical to ensure executive agencies function in an open and transparent way. Commissioner Malcolm, Commissioner Harpstead, and I have good working relationships, and I hope we can work together to reform and improve our executive agencies.

We will be working to make prescription drugs more affordable and to improve affordable access to healthcare for all, including behavioral health (mental health and substance abuse treatment).  Our new Preventive Health Division will take a closer look at ways to improve the health of Minnesotans outside the health care system.  We will continue our work with the governor and MDH/DHS to protect and improve the health and well-being of all Minnesotans.

Looking at this Session, with it being a budget year and dealing with COVID, what do you think can realistically be done this year in this policy area? How do you predict things will play out?

The Walz/Flanagan Administration and the Legislature have voiced their eagerness to pursue policy changes, many informed directly by our experience addressing COVID-19. However, especially for Health and Human Services, the federal government serves as a critically important partner in our work. Consequently, it is difficult to predict how things will play out at the Legislature until we have more information about how Congress and President Biden’s Administration will address the remaining financial and policy needs faced by residents and states. Those federal decisions will have a significant impact on the tools and resources available to Minnesota.

And, as mentioned above, some healthcare strategies may need to wait for the healthcare market to settle out after COVID.

This session is a complete roller-coaster and it is difficult to predict what will happen. I am hopeful we can work together to get a solid budget for the people of Minnesota. I believe setting realistic goals will be critical to accomplishing shared objectives this year.

A lot will depend on the February forecast—which is very uncertain at this point.  There is a lot of interest in using telehealth to expand access to services and possibly even reduce costs, but much work must be done to decide how this tool can best be used and paid for.  Without question there will be a need to find savings, and we hope to do that without reducing health care services to people who need them.

Tunheim would like to give our sincerest thanks to Commissioner Harpstead, Senator Benson, Representative Liebling, and their respective staff for participating in this health care conversation, and for their service to the State of Minnesota and its citizens. Stay tuned later this week for a policy spotlight on energy.

If you have questions on how what was shared here means for your organization or how you can help achieve policy goals in the health care space email me, Tunheim Senior Consultant Sarah Hinde, at shinde@tunheim.com.

As we entered the 2021 Minnesota Legislative Session, Tunheim started getting questions from our clients about what policymakers’ priorities would be, and what can be expected to happen, within specific policy areas. With legislative leaders focused on the budget and COVID leading up to Session, we wanted to dig deeper and engage with Committee Chairs and  Commissioners in three key policy areas for us and our clients: housing, energy, and health care. Today’s focus is on housing, with energy and health care to follow next week.

We reached out to the Housing Commissioner and Senate and House Committee Chairs to learn more about what to expect in the state’s housing policy this year. We heard back from Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Commissioner Jennifer Ho and Minnesota House of Representatives Housing Finance and Policy Committee Chair Alice Hausman, which is reflected in the conversation below.

What do you see as the biggest needs for Minnesota to tackle as it pertains to housing?

Minnesota has significant housing needs throughout the state for renters and homeowners as well as people experiencing homelessness. I think of these needs in terms of short-term and long-term challenges.

Month after month, renters with low or moderate incomes are struggling to make rent due to the pandemic and the economic fallout. The eviction moratorium is still in place but could result in mass evictions for nonpayment of rent when the executive order is eventually lifted. Federal assistance is coming soon that will provide rental assistance through the COVID Emergency Rental Assistance program, now being set up, and we will need to do everything we can to assist those who need the rental help most.

Like renters, many homeowners struggle to make their mortgage due to setbacks in their income during the pandemic. Unfortunately, mortgage assistance is not included in the new federal funding. Many homeowners are going into forbearance to avoid future foreclosure.

The pandemic has also made plain that too many Minnesotans are unsheltered and sleeping outside in the Twin Cities and across the state.

Long-term, we need to increase the housing supply and build more housing of all types and at all price points throughout the state, particularly for households with low and moderate incomes that the private market doesn’t reach. Building more housing of all types – meaning multifamily apartments as well as single-family homes – will help address the needs facing lower-income homeowners as well.

We need to direct more resources to housing every legislative session. While we’ve  made investments in recent years, we aren’t where we need to be. Post-pandemic, these housing challenges will persist. The housing challenges facing Minnesotans who make the least have always been with us and have only been laid bare by the pandemic.

A top priority for this session will be making sure people can stay home safely during the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes providing funding for housing assistance (rent, mortgage, utilities, etc.) and making sure people can remain in their homes without the fear of eviction due to income lost from the pandemic.

What are your priorities this Session for Housing?

I’d say we have three priorities: First, since we’re looking at a budget deficit, we’ll work to prevent cuts to our appropriated programs, and make recommendations to grow them. These programs are what allow us to reach households with the lowest incomes and are always oversubscribed. We achieve strong outcomes but we aren’t at the scale where we can reach enough people.

Second, in light of the pandemic and the effects it has had on renters, we want to create stability for renters and rental property owners before the eviction moratorium winds down. This includes strengthening renter protections and launching a new rental assistance program with funding from the federal relief bill passed at the end of last year.

Third, if we’re fortunate enough to put together a bonding bill, we hope housing will be a significant portion of it. This is our largest source of capital for construction of new housing, particularly supportive housing, and another resource that always has far more applications than available funding.

The House DFL would like to support every level of the housing continuum: helping those who are homeless find stable shelter, preventing homelessness, expanding affordable housing options and decreasing the number of cost-burdened renters across the state.

Looking at this Session, with it being a budget year and dealing with COVID, what do you think can realistically be done this year in this policy area? How do you predict things will play out?

We think we can prevent cuts to our programs since they’re small in comparison to the overall appropriated budget and cutting them wouldn’t yield significant savings. Our programs help us maximize investments in other areas of the state budget, particularly in education, health care, corrections and economic development. This helps make the case for growing our programs.

The role of government is to make rental and homeownership more accessible to people with low and moderate incomes by leveraging our resources where the private market can’t or won’t invest on its own. The upcoming Session is an opportunity to find common ground and continue to make progress.

If COVID has taught us anything, it’s the meaning of home.

We have a lot of new members, so it’s hard to anticipate how things will play out. I look forward to working with Chair Hausman and Chair Draheim in the upcoming session, as well as with the committees. Major issues we are watching for include tenant protections, the total size of the budget and whether or not there is a bonding bill.

It is important that we pass a budget which fully funds the programs to help Minnesotans find stable housing, including the Homework Starts with Home program, the Bridges rental assistance program helping people with mental illness, and the Challenge program aiding workforce housing. We have an obligation to provide as many people as possible with one of the most basic needs and ensuring everyone has access to a safe and stable home.

Tunheim would like to give our sincerest thanks to Commissioner Ho, Representative Hausman, and their staff for participating in this housing conversation, and for their service to the State of Minnesota and its citizens. Stay tuned next week for policy spotlights on energy and health care.

If you have questions on how what was shared here means for your organization or how you can help achieve policy goals in the housing space, email me, Tunheim Senior Consultant Sarah Hinde,  at shinde@tunheim.com.

The day we all thought would never come is here: the election is over, and the dust has finally begun to settle. While some things are still uncertain, if your organization is directly impacted by decisions of lawmakers at the state or federal level, you need to start planning your 2021 strategies now in order to be prepared and increase your chance for success when our new Legislature and Congress convene in January. In a climate that has become increasingly uncertain, and even volatile, it can be overwhelming and at times intimidating to know where to start. While each of Tunheim’s clients have their own unique considerations that we center when undergoing this process, there are some general guidelines every organization can follow to help drive them in the right direction.

Create a landscape assessment that lays out a roadmap of election results and their respective impacts on the upcoming legislative sessions from your organization’s point of view. This includes:

After completing your landscape assessment, your strategic direction should become clearer and you can begin to consider and develop what tasks, tactics, and tools you will need to carry out your 2021 legislative priorities. Examples include:

Once you have decided what tactics your organization wants to pursue, create a detailed timing and action plan for building out each piece, and how each piece will work together.

While you don’t want to let all the post-election and pre-legislative session noise cause you to lose focus in your planning, you should by now have an idea of the major developments that could impact your organization’s goals, and should pull together frameworks of how these different scenarios could impact your overall strategy. Create a grid of “If {insert scenario}, then {insert basic strategic approach)” to map out your plan.

Things can change very quickly during legislative sessions, so it’s critical you plan ahead and know the general direction your organization will take in response to things that have a realistic likelihood of happening.

It can be really tempting to get distracted by all the post-election daily news developments, think pieces, and prognosticating – but don’t let that impact your planning process or cause you to lose focus. For the most part, we know who will be assuming office on a state and federal level in January, and we know what their priorities are. Beyond that, we really don’t know anything for certain and it’s all speculation. Don’t get too caught up in the rumors on your Twitter feed or in what the talking heads (who never agree with each other anyway) say on Sunday morning political news shows, and don’t let it delay or drastically sway your approach. Stick with what you know and build flexibility and off-ramps into your plan to allow for you to change course if needed.

*If you are a news junkie like me this can be really difficult! There is definitely a time and a place for the debates and the think pieces, but fixating on them in this scenario won’t help you efficiently plan.

Need help navigating through this process, creating a landscape assessment or developing strategies and tactics, or building an integrated public affairs campaign? Tunheim can help navigate this process! Contact us here, or email me at shinde@tuheim.com.