������Ƶ

In a time of growing economic uncertainty, what does it take for American families to truly make ends meet? To address this question, in 2024 ������Ƶ Chicago conducted a survey asking residents of Cook County with a yearly household income of less than $60,000 to share their views on what is essential for their economic well-being.

The goal of the survey was to gain a better understanding of how community members prioritize issues related to economic security in order to inform future approaches of CivicSpace, ������Ƶ Chicago’s policy design initiative. The survey asked about CivicSpace’s five key focus areas: (1) access to tax credits, (2) good jobs with benefits, (3) affordable lending products, (4) homeownership and affordable housing, and (5) access to technology. The survey also included open-ended questions inviting respondents to identify other areas of need, but aside from a variety of concerns over the cost of living, including groceries, housing, health care costs, and taxes, those did not surface any major distinct topics.

Centering community feedback is critical to designing and delivering impactful policy. In this way, the survey results offer a rich resource for understanding people’s priorities regarding their ability to provide financially for themselves and their families, providing a fresh lens on the American dream. As a core goal for CivicSpace is finding common ground across cultural divisions, we were particularly interested in understanding community concerns across political views and income levels as well as race and ethnicity, especially given the wealth gap in Chicago .

We divided the survey into five core areas reflecting CivicSpace’s focus points. (The topic area and open-ended questions can be found in the Appendix below.) Each area contained three to five questions (for a total of 21 questions) rated on a five-point scale from “very important” (5) to “not important at all” (1), in addition to a few open-ended questions for more detail. Over 500 participants—recruited from both Chicago and the surrounding suburbs—completed the survey in full.

Before exploring the key findings, we share demographic highlights from the 514 respondents who completed the survey below.

• Of the individuals who responded to our survey outreach, 42 percent were Black, 25 percent Latine, and 27 percent white. Percentages for other ethnic groups were in the single digits. For this reason, we refrained from making specific inferences about those groups from this data. However, their answers are included in most of our analysis, with the exception of areas where data is disaggregated by race.
• The age of respondents varied significantly between the three largest ethnic groups. The highest percentage of Latine respondents belonged to the youngest age bracket (18 to 24), while the most-represented age bracket for white respondents was 65 years or older. The ages of Black respondents were more evenly distributed.
• We also asked participants to select their income out of five subcategories. There was not a gaping divide between incomes according to racial background, though those earning less than $5,000 per year were overrepresented among Black (18 percent) and Latine (16 percent) respondents compared to white participants (5 percent). Latine respondents were the most represented in the highest income bracket (23 percent, versus 12 percent of Black and 18 percent of white). Finally, 53 percent of respondents were in the tax nonfiler range (with incomes up to $29,000 per year), meaning they may earn too little to be required to file taxes.
• The gender of respondents showed an equal representation between women and men, with a small percentage of transgender and nonbinary respondents. (Our analysis did not find significant differences in responses by gender.)
• To capture political orientation, we did not use party designations but instead asked respondents to position their views on a scale from “very conservative” to “very progressive,” and included an “undecided” option. Surprisingly given Chicago’s political reputation as , respondents were fairly evenly spread across the political spectrum, with the largest representation in “centrist” (22 percent). There were some differences across racial groups. White respondents were more likely to be “centrist” (29 percent) or “left-leaning” (22 percent). Latine participants most commonly identified with “centrist” (20 percent) and “undecided” (23 percent) and were evenly split across other groups. Black respondents were represented across the spectrum, with around 20 percent respectively considering themselves “very conservative,” “centrist,” or “very progressive.”

Overall, the top priorities of survey respondents aligned well with CivicSpace’s focus areas of work, which we used to group questions about different activities. For example, to gauge how respondents’ technology access relates to their economic security, we asked them to rank resources like better access to the internet, affordable smartphones, and protection from online fraud on a scale of “very important” to “not important at all.” Respondents were not limited in the number of very important responses they could select. For that reason, we focused our analysis on two parameters: the number of respondents who rate an issue “very important” as a measure of how pressing an issue is perceived to be, and a combined count of “very important” and “important” answers to help us understand the bigger picture of focus areas on people’s radar.

The team was surprised to find that the issue that people felt most strongly about is protection from online fraud, which typically receives less attention from nonprofits, policy advocates, and policymakers than other topics in our survey. Of our respondents, 357 ranked this technology access problem as “very important.” This was followed by affordable health insurance (marked “very important” by 337 respondents) and access to good jobs (by 336 respondents), both in the focus area of good jobs with benefits. A simplified way of filing taxes and getting refunds (275 respondents) and help paying for rent or a security deposit (275 respondents) tied for fourth place.

Respondents show clear preferences for some focus areas over others: Access to tech and good jobs with benefits scored, respectively, three and four items in the top 10, while tax credits scored only one and lending products zero. Questions on access to loans, whether they be for personal, business, or educational purposes, scored consistently low, as did questions on child tax credits. The housing and homeownership theme fell somewhere in the middle, with one item in the top four, another in the top 10 (help paying for rent or security deposit and low-cost starter home), and several items just shy of the top 10. Affordable housing also featured prominently in the open-ended questions, with many respondents sharing that they feel it is impossible to achieve their dream of owning a house.

When “important” and “very important” answers are combined, issues related to good jobs with benefits dominate the top four and a few technology-access issues move up on the list. Protection from online fraud loses first place to affordable health insurance, while access to good jobs maintains its third-place spot. A simplified way to file taxes loses its position in the top four by a very slight margin to the question about having a retirement plan. Two issues from the access to technology theme (“access to a computer or tablet” and “access to broadband internet”) climb up the ladder. Housing issues slip lower, while lending products and tax credits issues still lag behind.

Policymakers, especially those serving the Chicago region, should consider these results when determining their priorities—particularly people’s concerns regarding access to technology, which our respondents ranked very highly but is too rarely addressed in new public policy.

When it comes to the top four topics, respondents often showed similar patterns regardless of political orientation, race, and age. Even when there are differences in how pressing issues are perceived to be (based on the count of “very important” responses), divides across demographics are usually mitigated or erased if we account for both “very important” and “important” answers. Further, for each of the top four priorities, the percentage of “very important” answers for any demographic was rarely lower than 55 percent, suggesting that these issues were highly important to respondents across demographics.

When it comes to economic security and well-being, our survey respondents reinforced the established finding that people are concerned about paying medical bills and securing a good job with benefits. A more novel finding is that nearly all our respondents felt particularly vulnerable to digital fraud. For the open-ended questions, some respondents commented that they were concerned about having their privacy violated or their information stolen. Others expressed concerns about losing their hard-earned money to online scammers or identity fraud. For people earning low to moderate incomes, online scams involving financial theft could take years to recover from.

In the low-ranking tax credit theme, the only item to make it to the top 10 of respondents’ concerns was simplified filing. Although over half of our respondents are in the nonfiler income range, many may still be able to claim a tax credit and receive a refund. Given the income levels of these community members, this money could go a long way towards helping them make ends meet. Indeed, simpler filing was “important” or “very important” to eight in 10 (or 81 percent) of the people who fall into the top of the nonfiler income range ($10,000 to $29,900), and even more important to people in the next income bracket (88 percent of those earning $30,000 to $49,900). Clear guidelines and a simplified system to file taxes would help them get the money they are due.

1. Protection from Online Fraud

Protection from online fraud was almost universally perceived as a threat to the respondents’ economic well-being. Ninety percent of all participants considered it “very important” or “important,” with 69 percent considering it “very important.”

The issue was popular across demographic groups. Nine out of 10 respondents across the three largest racial groups held that having adequate protection from online fraud was “important” or “very important.” (Small, statistically insignificant differences across races appear when considering only “very important” answers.) The data also looked similar for very conservative and left-leaning participants (67 percent and 66 percent rated online fraud “very important,” respectively). Very progressive and undecided were the most likely to deem the issue “very important” (77 percent and 73 percent, respectively), but there was no clear pattern of differences across political orientations.

Younger participants appear somewhat less concerned with protection from online fraud than older respondents: The age group of 18 to 24-year-olds was least likely to find the issue “very important” (58 percent), while people aged 55 to 64 were the most likely (87 percent). This gap suggests a generational divide in which younger users feel more at ease in the digital world. It should not, however, be taken to mean that younger respondents are unconcerned with potential digital fraud, as more than half of them found the issue pressing.

2. Affordable Health Insurance

In our survey, affordable health insurance was also near universally recognized as crucial for economic stability. Ninety percent of respondents considered it “very important” or “important” to their financial security, and 66 percent considered it “very important.”

Notably, affordable health insurance was most important to those making $30,000 to $49,900 a year, with 71 percent of these respondents considering it “very important.” This finding suggests a benefits cliff that may make it uniquely difficult for people at that income range to meet their health care costs.

Between 63 and 70 percent of respondents in each of the largest racial groups considered this issue “very important,” with the oldest demographics among white respondents most likely to give that response. However, these small differences between racial groups nearly disappear when answers are combined: 89 to 92 percent of all three groups rated affordable health insurance as “very important” or “important.”

Across groups, the percentages of “very important” answers rose with the age of the participants—but over half of the youngest age groups (18–24 and 25–34) still considered this issue “very important.” As for political orientation, although people on the left were more likely to answer “very important” than those on the right, the differences are mitigated if both “very important” and “important” answers are counted. Across all political groups, more than eight in 10 respondents thought that having affordable health insurance was “important” or “very important.”

3. Access to Good Jobs

Access to good jobs nearly tied affordable health insurance in the survey ratings; 85 percent of respondents considered it “very important” or “important,” with 65 percent rating it as the former.

This issue received lower importance ratings among older respondents, which may have contributed to it ranking third overall. Only 30 percent of respondents aged 65 and over said that finding a good job is “very important” for their economic well-being, and 29 percent said that this was “not important at all.” The reason for this—65 being a traditional retirement age—is intuitive, but it is important to keep in mind age as a factor because it also impacts data results by race. White respondents were on average much older than the Black and Latine groups, and this shows in their preferences: While overall white respondents seemed less interested in the availability of good jobs, with only 53 percent rating them “very important” compared to 72 percent of Black and 68 percent of Latine respondents, these differences disappear when age is taken into account.

Few differences appeared across political orientations. Very conservative respondents were again on par with left-leaning individuals (with 63 percent rating jobs access as “very important” versus 59 percent), while right-leaning and very progressive were on the same page (with 72 percent and 76 percent respective “very important” ratings).

4. Simplified Tax Filing and Help Paying for Rent

Simplified tax filing, an issue that ������Ƶ Chicago has worked on directly for the past five years, also rose to the top four. Over half (53 percent) of all respondents considered this “very important,” and 83 percent total considered it “very important” or “important.”

Similar to good job access, this is another sphere where answers seem to be more impacted by the age profile of our respondents than by racial or political divides. The oldest bracket—the age group least likely to be eligible for refunds from income-based tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit or Child Tax Credit—were least likely to rate simplified tax filing as “very important,” with just 20 percent of respondents aged 65 and older giving this response.

For tax filing, age differences, again, shape the results by race. While on the aggregate level, older white respondents lag a bit behind in “very important” votes (42 percent compared to 58 percent for the Black and Latine groups), the gap is much reduced when comparing different age groups, and it disappears when “very important” and “important” answers are combined.

Finally, a simple way to file taxes was “very important” or “important” to 77 to 86 percent of all political orientations, though left-leaning respondents were notably less likely to answer “very important” (39 percent) than other political groups, where the percentage hovered around 50 to 60 percent. The reason for this is not immediately apparent, and if we account for both “important” and “very important” answers, we find no statistically significant differences based on political views for any tax credit-related questions.

Tied in importance ratings with simplified tax credits was rent assistance. Overall, 53 percent of respondents considered it “very important,” and across all income groups, at least three-quarters of respondents considered help paying for rent and/or a security deposit “very important” or “important.” These were considerably higher ratings than we saw for our housing questions about help covering a down payment or getting a mortgage, suggesting that while home ownership has traditionally been part of the American dream, many of our respondents are not yet in a position to think about it and need to focus on paying rent or security deposits instead.

The question about the importance of assistance paying for rent or a security deposit surfaced surprisingly similar responses across political orientations but differences by age and race. ������Ƶ 60 percent of very conservative and very progressive respondents found the issue “very important” and other similarities are seen with right-leaning and left-leaning respondents. Looking to age-related differences, importance increased to late middle age, but was considerably lower for respondents 65 and older, who also were more likely to be white.

While a higher income corresponded with a reduction in rent-related stress for white respondents, this was not the case for Latine participants and especially not for Black participants. Sixty-two percent of Black respondents rated rent assistance “very important,” compared to 55 percent of Latine participants and only 39 percent of white participants. These differences do not disappear if we count both “important” and “very important” answers together, and are mitigated only to an extent by adjusting the age factor.

Income levels also revealed different patterns across racial groups on the rent question. Among white respondents, the least wealthy as well as the most wealthy brackets were less likely to rate help with rent as “very important” compared to the central bucket. By contrast, Black Americans from all income brackets found the issue “very important” with only very slight variations (61 percent maximum and 58 percent minimum). The patterns displayed by Latine participants were more consistent with the trends displayed by Black respondents, but overall their responses showed more variations across income brackets; their “very important” ratings ranged from a minimum of 40 percent in the $10,000–29,999 bracket to a maximum of 67 percent in the $30,000–49,999 income bracket. In this case, adjusting for age mitigates differences, but does not erase them: Black respondents were consistently more concerned with paying rent or security deposit than Latine and white participants across age brackets and income brackets.

We see similar trends when we look at answers related to help with a down payment and low-cost starter homes. In the highest two income brackets, white respondents are less likely to find both of these items “important” or “very important” compared to Latine respondents, and particularly Black respondents. The path to homeownership, which is already steep for many, is steeper yet for Latine and, especially, Black respondents.

The data points toward clear priorities among our respondents. For many, knowing their financial data is secure is comparable to having affordable health insurance and a good job. For most, keeping a roof over their head is more pressing than taking steps toward homeownership. A simplified way of filing taxes comes before changes to child tax credits. Having access to smartphones and tablets is comparable in importance to having a job with paid days off and a good retirement plan. By contrast, loans are less of a priority.

To put these findings into action, policymakers should sharpen their attention toward:

1. Online fraud and equitable technology in general. People feel unprotected from the proliferation of scams, and they have the right to know that their data and money are safe. As our respondents rated this issue as important across the board, it is especially concerning that policymakers are dismantling consumer protections rather than bolstering them at the federal level.
2. Jobs and benefits. Our survey results add to robust findings that people are willing to work and need benefits like good health insurance and paid days off to be tied to their paycheck.
3. Paying for basic housing expenses like rent. Given that many people are locked into renting and view buying a house as an impossible dream, we must prioritize solutions that increase affordable housing stock and reduce rent costs, or get creative about programs that would allow renters to use payments to build towards ownership.

While our survey found some differences in groups based on political orientation, race, and income, a number of key issues rose to the top across all groups, demonstrating shared struggles for low- to moderate-–income households in the Chicago area. Online fraud, which could take years to recover from financially, and good jobs with benefits are essential to people’s financial stability. Homeownership, the core asset for wealth-building in the United States, feels out of reach for many. To ensure the stability of our region, targeted attention from policymakers and civic leaders is needed to ensure these community members can provide for their families and reach their own version of the American dream.

For us at ������Ƶ Chicago, the survey confirmed that our work is tackling issues the community finds important, and directed us toward deepening efforts in areas like online consumer protections. Going forward, the survey will serve as a compass for us to refresh our priorities and efforts.