How Second Chances Impact Communities

How Second Chances Impact Communities

How Second Chances Impact Communities

 

By Kristin Barker

We must begin to see past our biases and speak life into those who have fallen.

I recently had a mini-awakening. We were interviewing a young man who was a convicted felon. He was given a second chance to move into a job about one year ago with a company full of champions who were able to recognize his immense on-the-job potential early on. They continue to outwardly encourage him, help him as he maps out his future path, and openly show him their appreciation. The support he receives from his managers and the Human Resources team is phenomenal. But I knew this going in.

This was not the awakening. The company is Columbus Water Works in Columbus, GA. As a core company value, they believe in providing great opportunities and giving second chances. This is not because the business itself is looking to gain, although it does gain a lot, but because their corporate culture encourages this as the right thing to do. This company is a Hiring Well, Doing Good partner in part because of this important core value that we share, so this was also no surprise to me. This was not the awakening.

As Kevin spoke about responsibility, he also shared his desire to influence others so they would begin see that opportunity does exist. As he continued, I saw a spark ignite in his eyes.

When he shared how he will encounter someone at a gas station and encourage him or her not to give up, it was clear that his influence on the community that surrounds him is a direct extension of the individuals who have nurtured and encouraged him since his incarceration. The responsibility he feels to share what he knows from his own experience is more valuable than any economic equation can measure. What he now knows without a shadow of a doubt is that there is hope and that he has value!

Our communities need to understand and appreciate Kevin and others like him. We must begin to see past our biases and speak life into those who have fallen. The poverty of community is just as important (if not more important) than economic poverty, and the butterfly effect I am describing is always at play either in a positive or in a negative way.

Every one of us decides daily who we will lift up and who we will allow to continue to fall. We choose every day whether we will contribute to the strength of our community by respecting and showing that respect to the weakest of our neighbors. The alternative is to fail to speak hope and to perpetuate hopelessness. As a result, this weakens our communities. 

If we, collectively, determine to see the value that is inherent in others and begin to express this belief proactively and personally in an open and vulnerable way, the same spark that I saw in Kevin today will begin to catch fire in others who have no hope. Our communities will grow stronger and healing will follow. 

As for me, I am thankful. I am thankful for the opportunity to meet Kevin and to hear his story. I am thankful to learn from his experience. I am also thankful to know the great leaders at Columbus Water Works who live their corporate values on the job every day. Above all, I am thankful to live in a community where potential is abundant, people generally support one another, and opportunities abound for most. My greatest hope is that tomorrow, those opportunities will abound for all!

EMPLOYMENT RESOURCES

SYSTEMIC WELFARE IN GEORGIA: PART 1 THE CASE FOR REFORM

In the first paper of our three-part series presenting a vision for systemic welfare reform in Georgia, we explore the need for a welfare system that starts with the assumption that natural support systems, including individual work and a reliance on family and community assistance, should be the primary sources of help when individuals face financial need. This report demonstrates how the current system does not meet these assumptions and points to the need for reform.

SYSTEMIC WELFARE IN GEORGIA: PART 2 PRINCIPLES AND FRAMEWORK FOR REFORM

In the second paper of our three-part series presenting a vision for systemic welfare reform in Georgia, we explore the new system as we imagine it could be, give guiding principles, provide a general framework for how the reformed system can function, and establish preliminary steps needed to implement the vision.

SYSTEMIC WELFARE IN GEORGIA: PART 3 HOW THE NEW SYSTEM WILL WORK

In the third and final paper of our three-part series presenting a vision for systemic welfare reform in Georgia, we propose the creation of new, consolidated program modules (including their structure, design, and expected outcomes) to replace current, disjointed programs. We go on to present a structure Georgia’s governor and executive agencies could adopt to effectively and in relatively short order implement a reformed system.

A REAL SOLUTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE AND MEDICAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

Medical assistance programs have long needed reforms to address high prices and lack of access. Despite the fact that federal policy tends to dominate medical assistance programs, states do have some flexibility to enact reforms. This study explores how states – and particularly Georgia – have flexibility and can experiment with Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to improve access, lower costs, and streamline the system to better serve those in need of assistance.

HIRING WELL, DOING GOOD IN GEORGIA

Georgia has suffered from higher unemployment rates and lower high school graduation rates than the national average for many years. This report takes a look at the trends driving those problems and the potential solutions, including apprenticeships, that could lead to greater economic mobility for young adults.

The Top 5 Recommendations to the Feds on Economic Mobility

The Top 5 Recommendations to the Feds on Economic Mobility

The Top 5 Recommendations to the Feds on Economic Mobility

 

By Erik Randolph

 

 

If you had the opportunity to tell federal agencies what they need to do to help low-income people improve their economic circumstances, what would you tell them?

This is not an arbitrary question. It was formally asked by the current administration in Washington, D.C.

A New Council on Economic Mobility

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is leading the development and establishment of an interagency Council on Economic Mobility. This council will include the heads, or their delegates, of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Education, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, and the Treasury. It will also include the heads of the Social Security Administration and the Council of Economic Advisors.

The purpose of the Council is to find areas where the participating agencies can collaborate for a very important purpose: “to promote family-sustaining careers and economic mobility for low-income Americans … and help individuals sustain their economic success.” Note that all these departments administer important welfare and workforce-development programs. 

Last July, HHS solicited comments to 15 questions to help  develop  this new council. What should be its priorities? What barriers do individuals face? How are welfare cliffs impacting individuals? 

Relying on its experience with providing services, working with other service providers, and research, the Georgia Center for Opportunity (GCO) submitted recommendations to this request on October 2, 2020.

GCO’s Top Recommended Priorities

Below are GCO’s top recommendations for what the council’s priorities ought to be.

Priority #1: Eliminate Marriage Penalties

Marriage penalties make number one on our list. 

The strong correlation between marriage and prosperity is well-researched and undeniable. Research also demonstrates overwhelmingly that a stable home with married parents benefits children in many ways, including emotional stability, educational achievement, and future income. Unfortunately for many, the idea of healthy marriage is something desirable but unattainable for themselves. A strong marriage has It’s becoming a luxury for many, and they are losing out on which denies too many the economic and otherwise fulfilling benefits. 

Recently, the Office of Family Assistance at HHS sponsored the study Marriage Penalties in Means-Tested Tax and Transfer Programs: Issues and Options, authored by Bradford Wilcox, Ph.D., Chris Gersten, and Jerry Regier, Ph.D. This study does an excellent job at detailing current research in the area and discusses potential solutions. By the way, GCO gave input to the authors of the study.

Priority #2: Eliminate Welfare Cliffs

As just indicated, the welfare system has embedded disincentives that can discourage recipients from seeking employment, working additional hours, or accepting pay increases. And our research in this area has been recently corroborated by a National Bureau of Economic Research paper written by five economists, including two who work for the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. 

Many of these disincentives are the direct result of federal government policies and are found within the tax code and various eligibility and benefit determination rules of means-tested welfare programs.

Priority #3: Sponsor Research and Financial Modeling to Solve the Big Problems

In a prior blog , I wrote about how welfare programs and the tax code can be barriers by creating disincentives to advance economically. Also, a prior study illustrated how marriage penalties are further barriers. 

Well, these problems are complex, and the solutions have perplexed policymakers for years. Therefore, it is important for continued research to come up with the best solutions. 

By the way, GCO is well positioned to help examine these issues. We have studied both the problems and offered potential solutions. 

Priority #4: Promote Work-First Policies

Research and experience show that promoting work first for those applying for welfare assistance—as opposed to seeking education and training first—usually works better in helping them secure meaningful employment in the long run. 

A work-first policy does not mean that education and training are forsaken. It simply recognizes the reality that connecting people to real jobs in the economy gives them a foothold in the workforce where further skill development and training can often be accomplished while they are holding down a job and earning earned income. 

Priority #5: Look for ways to reduce regulatory barriers

The federal government should review its policies to make sure they do not make it harder for people to get jobs or start job-creating businesses. This recommendation falls under the broad heading of “getting government to help facilitate job growth, not hinder it.”

So what do you think? Should these be the recommended priorities for the new federal council? Are there other priorities you would have included? Post your comments below. 

Erik Randolph is Director of Research at the Georgia Center for Opportunity. This blog reflects his opinion and not necessarily that of the Georgia Center for Opportunity.

DISINCENTIVES FOR WORK AND MARRIAGE IN GEORGIA’S WELFARE SYSTEM

Based on the most recent 2015 data, this report provides an in-depth look at the welfare cliffs across the state of Georgia. A computer model was created to demonstrate how welfare programs, alone or in combination with other programs, create multiple welfare cliffs for recipients that punish work. In addition to covering a dozen programs – more than any previous model – the tool used to produce the following report allows users to see how the welfare cliff affects individuals and families with very specific characteristics, including the age and sex of the parent, number of children, age of children, income, and other variables. Welfare reform conversations often lack a complete understanding of just how means-tested programs actually inflict harm on some of the neediest within our state’s communities.

Equitable Options In Education

Equitable Options In Education

Equitable Options In Education 

By Shana Burres 

Ashley* is a middle-class mom. She is married with three kids and, through a scholarship, has her children enrolled in a local well-respected private school. She was pleased to be able to provide her children with an excellent education and believed they were gaining an advantage in their academic career. 

A few years into elementary school her son, John, was excelling academically but struggling with basic social and life skills. After a series of tests and meetings with doctors and experts, John was placed on the Autism spectrum. He was diagnosed as high-functioning, with a high IQ and all the potential to learn how to navigate a neurotypical world. 

Ashley immediately withdrew John from the private school and enrolled him in the local public school. 

Why? “Because Ashley believed public schools would offer better services for her child with special needs.” This is due, in part, to the Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which provides funding to public schools specifically to meet the needs of students with disabilities and learning barriers. 

Fostering Public Health

Long before the IDEA legislation, public schools were used as a way to foster public health and welfare. The earliest integrations of public education and welfare were introduced during the progressive era, starting in the 1890s and continuing into the 1930s. Progressive leaders advocated for the school curriculum to address matters such as health, recreation, and mental health (at the time called mental hygiene). On the heels of the progressive movement, the Truman administration signed the 1945 National School Lunch Act, which provided free or low-cost nutritionally-balanced meals to school children. Coupled with the work of the Freedman’s Schools established in the Reconstruction Period (1865-1877), the education system in the United States has a deeply established pattern of being a source for public health and welfare. 

While there are certainly many middle-class students like John who have benefitted from the services established and developed in the last 150 years, the vast majority of students who rely on the school as a public health arena are living near the poverty line.  According to The US Census report on poverty, one in six children live in poverty, making them the poorest age group in our nation. Children are also most likely to suffer the long-term effects of poverty such as poor educational outcomes, higher instances of injury and chronic illness, and diminished mental and emotional capacity. Each of these factors feed into a poverty loop that increases the likelihood of the next. For example, when a student has a chronic illness and diminished emotional capacity, they miss more days of school and are less able to make up the work from the time missed. Consequently, they fall further behind and are less likely to earn high enough grades to graduate and move into vocational training or college education. So the cycle begins again, as they are trapped in unstable and low-wage jobs, poor health care, and poor outcomes. 

Georgia’s Educational Challenges

In Georgia, sixty percent of the student population qualifies for free or reduced-cost lunch. While free lunch may be offered at private schools, the marker is used to represent the over one million students who face a statistically higher risk for the long-term effects of poverty. And, as noted at the beginning of the blog post, the public school is a key welfare access point. When the public schools are inaccessible to families already facing significant barriers, the children lose not only academic instruction but a cascade of critical services. Safety, health, learning or development support, and nutrition are among just some of the key services that disappear along with daily instruction. 

Those types of cascading losses have been brought into stark relief as the nation responds to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. It appears we have built a system that relies too heavily on a physical building for the delivery of services. And while new programs like Georgia’s P-EBT have begun to respond to the nutrition gap created by school closures, there remains the questions of how students will catch up academically, who will observe and report domestic abuse, and how students will access mental and social services. 

A Better Way Forward

And these questions bring the focus toward a golden opportunity. As Georgia is forced to look at programs and services differently, we can disentangle the various services to improve the delivery and outcomes across the board. For example, under the old framework, any student could access free- or reduced-cost lunches at their local public school. However, some districts and schools provided a greater complement of services for students with individualized education plans (IEPs). The variances in services provided from district to district contributes to the cascade of poorer outcomes for students living in chronic poverty—but we have the opportunity to change this reality. In fact, Georgia already has systems in place that disentangle the range of services while ensuring the optimal outcome for the individual student through their state school, charter, and virtual school programs.  

The public school will likely always be a public health arena but, as we are quickly learning, equitable public education and social services cannot be bound to the physical local school. We can and should continue to improve the academic, health, and social outcomes for the students of Georgia through creative, flexible, and more open methods of delivery. 

Interested in how you can help support flexible and equitable options? Click here.

Name changed to protect the identity of the individual

Shana Burres is an educator, foster parent, and speaker. She holds a Master’s degree in education and, as the former executive director of DASH Kids, is a fierce advocate for equitable outcomes for children of all backgrounds and experiences. Shana currently is an adjunct professor, learning development consultant, and her local Mockingbird HUB home for foster families and their youth.

DISINCENTIVES FOR WORK AND MARRIAGE IN GEORGIA’S WELFARE SYSTEM

Based on the most recent 2015 data, this report provides an in-depth look at the welfare cliffs across the state of Georgia. A computer model was created to demonstrate how welfare programs, alone or in combination with other programs, create multiple welfare cliffs for recipients that punish work. In addition to covering a dozen programs – more than any previous model – the tool used to produce the following report allows users to see how the welfare cliff affects individuals and families with very specific characteristics, including the age and sex of the parent, number of children, age of children, income, and other variables. Welfare reform conversations often lack a complete understanding of just how means-tested programs actually inflict harm on some of the neediest within our state’s communities.

If You Accept this Raise, You Fall Off the Welfare Cliff

If You Accept this Raise, You Fall Off the Welfare Cliff

 

 

If You Accept this Raise, You Fall Off the Welfare Cliff

 

By Howard Baetjer, Jr

 

 

 

 

 

This article was originally posted on August 29, 2016 by the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).

Getting a raise from $15 to $18 could cost you over $20,000 in net income. Would you work hard for that promotion?

Pretend you are a poor, single parent of two in Chicago, earning $12 an hour, working full time, and determined to do what is best for your family. And suppose your employer, impressed with your work, offers you training for and promotion to a new job paying $15. Should you take the offer?

It sounds like a no-brainer, but it’s not.

At your present $12 an hour you are eligible for refundable tax credits, food assistance, housing assistance, child care assistance, and medical assistance worth $41,465 combined. Together with your earned income after taxes of $22,121, you are now bringing home to your kids about $63,586 a year.

If you take your employer’s offer, you’ll earn $5,451 more after taxes, $27,572. You will also become eligible for an Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credit. But at that level of earned income all your other benefits would decrease by $8,336, more than your increase in net pay. That means the income you would bring home would decrease from $63,586 to $60,701.

Now, would you take your employer’s offer? What would be best for you and your family, a move up the job ladder with a loss of $2885 in income? Or staying in your same job and keeping the larger income?

The Low-Wage Trap

This example, which is taken from a fascinating, and appalling study by the Illinois Policy Instituteentitled “Modeling Potential Income and Welfare Assistance Benefits in Illinois,” illustrates with clear charts and tables what is known as “welfare cliffs” or the “low wage trap,” which can trap families in poverty. When earning more means taking home less, the disincentive to work is obvious. The report provides striking visual representations of the “welfare cliffs” that poor people’s total incomes can fall off as they increase their earned incomes. Here is the chart on which the hypothetical above is based (the particular numbers in our example come from tables in the report, which clarify the visual data in the charts.)

Notice that welfare cliff we considered above, which occurs between $12 an hour and $15 an hour, is relatively small. A bigger one (and the reason I call the report “appalling”) occurs between $15 an hour and $18 an hour.

An Unaffordable Raise?

To pick up our thought experiment, let’s suppose that you want to get free of welfare eventually, and you know that moving up the job ladder is key to doing so, so you take your employer’s offer of a raise to $15 an hour and the corresponding loss of $2,885 in annual income. You cut back on spending where you can and look to the future. Now suppose further that you do well in your new job, you boost your knowledge and skills, and your employer offers you another promotion, with still more training and a raise to $18 an hour. Should you take it? Can you afford to take it?

At $18 an hour full time you would earn gross income of $37,440, and net income (after taxes) of $33,023. But earned income that high would reduce your refundable tax credit and ACA premium assistance, and eliminate your cash assistance, food assistance, housing assistance, and child care assistance, for a total reduction in government benefits of $26,820. So if you take the promotion and raise, your income would decrease from $60,701 to $39,332! A case could be made that it is irresponsible for you to reduce your family’s income that way.

Just think what that kind of welfare cliff does to the incentive to work (“on the books,” at least) and thereby to get off welfare. And the problem is not restricted to Chicago; the same kind of problem exists all across the country.

One of the tragedies of America today is that so many adults of sound mind and body do not support themselves and their families. It’s a tragedy not because they suffer material want; indeed, relatively few suffer so, because government assistance satisfies many of their material needs. It’s tragic because one of the keys to human happiness is earned self-respect, which requires, as Charles Murray has written, making one’s own way in the world. The vast majority of poor people don’t want welfare; they don’t want handouts; they want a good job with which they can support themselves and their families comfortably. The tragedy of the American welfare system is that it traps so many people in dependency on government, by hindering them from getting on and climbing up the job ladder, and thereby earning self-respect and happiness.

Welfare cliffs are of course not the only reason so many capable Americans languish in partial dependency on government assistance. Dreadful government schools in poor areas and systematic obstacles to getting a job, such as minimum wage laws and occupational licensing laws, are also to blame. But the perverse incentives of America’s welfare system really hurt.

 

Howard Baetjer Jr. is a lecturer in the department of economics at Towson University and a faculty member for seminars of the Institute for Humane Studies. He is the author of Free Our Markets: A Citizens’ Guide to Essential Economics.

DISINCENTIVES FOR WORK AND MARRIAGE IN GEORGIA’S WELFARE SYSTEM

Based on the most recent 2015 data, this report provides an in-depth look at the welfare cliffs across the state of Georgia. A computer model was created to demonstrate how welfare programs, alone or in combination with other programs, create multiple welfare cliffs for recipients that punish work. In addition to covering a dozen programs – more than any previous model – the tool used to produce the following report allows users to see how the welfare cliff affects individuals and families with very specific characteristics, including the age and sex of the parent, number of children, age of children, income, and other variables. Welfare reform conversations often lack a complete understanding of just how means-tested programs actually inflict harm on some of the neediest within our state’s communities.

The Unintended Consequences of Generous Unemployment Benefits

The Unintended Consequences of Generous Unemployment Benefits

 

 The unintended consequences of generous unemployment benefits 

 

By David Bass

 

 

This year has seen some of the most generous unemployment benefit checks since the Great Recession in 2007-2009—and with good reason. As the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic has put 20 million Americans out of work, and over half-a-million right here in Georgia, the need for robust help is pressing. 

Currently, the maximum weekly unemployment benefit available in Georgia is $665, a combination of $365 in state compensation and $300 in federal dollars (due to a recent executive order from President Trump). Earlier this year, the total package was even more generous at $965 due to $600 in federal unemployment checks (a benefit amount that expired on July 31).

This means that an unemployed individual could qualify for the equivalent of a $16.63 per-hour job right now. Not every worker will qualify for this maximum amount because unemployment insurance payments are based on recent earnings over a 52-week period. According to U.S. Department of Labor data, Georgia’s average unemployment is closer to $225 a week, for a combined value of $525 per week when mixed with federal dollars.

What’s more, the federal $300 per-week payments are only guaranteed for three weeks, although it is likely unemployed individuals will receive them for a longer period of time. Also, workers who are receiving less than $100 per week in state unemployment payments are ineligible for the $300 federal payments, meaning that many low-income, part-time, or seasonal workers will likely not qualify.

 

Do higher unemployment payments have unintended impacts?

These more generous unemployment payments raise an important question: Are there unintended consequences? The answer is clearly yes.

As scholars with the American Enterprise Institute have documented, generous unemployment checks contribute to both delays in workers re-entering the economy and ultimately the economic rebound itself. Workers are not to blame—if your only job options pay less than unemployment compensation, it makes sense to delay joining the workforce again. In many situations, this is the case: One analysis from the University of Chicago concluded that two-thirds of workers eligible for unemployment benefits would receive a benefit amount that exceeds their previous pay.

These unintended impacts are another example of a welfare cliff, the idea that welfare programs often punish efforts to work—due to dramatic drops or “cliffs” in benefits as a recipient’s income increases, even by just cents per hour. For more information on welfare cliffs, visit WelfareCliff.org.

 

Georgia employers are feeling the crunch

If our goal with unemployment insurance is to serve as a bridge for workers during hard times to propel them back into employment, then our current response is not working properly.

Buffalo Rock Pepsi in Columbus, Georgia, shared with the Georgia Center for Opportunity team that it has had a challenging time this year filling positions for warehouse workers and warehouse coordinators. The resulting shortage of workers has put a strain on existing staff.

Ankerpak—a third-party packaging, fulfillment, and storage facility also based in Columbus—is experiencing similar roadblocks. The company has struggled to fill assembly line positions, and it identifies the high value of unemployment benefits as a primary reason. “Due to challenges presented by lack of staffing, we are nearly 20 people short on a regular basis. We are unable to meet our customers’ demands and/or deadlines, putting us at risk of losing business during these trying times,” the Ankerpak team shared with us.

 

A way forward

We are not advocating against unemployment insurance or proposing cuts, but it’s clear the existing system has unintended negative impacts. Ultimately, the right question to ask is this: What is the purpose of a public service like unemployment insurance? If it is to truly be a safety net, we must address the problem of when a safety net becomes a snare to keep hard-hit populations trapped in cycles of poverty.

Any true solution to this problem must be local and homegrown. This is where Hiring Well, Doing Good (HWDG) comes in. HWDG connects local job seekers with the training and support needed to not just find a job, but a job that leads to a sustainable wage and a meaningful career. Cooperating on a local level, HWDG brings together individuals, companies, nonprofits, and other service providers to solve unemployment and help people achieve a flourishing life.

Ultimately, the goal of unemployment insurance should be as a bridge to return to the workforce. Local initiatives like HWDG are a catalyst for that return reentry into the labor force in a better job with an upward trajectory.

 

DISINCENTIVES FOR WORK AND MARRIAGE IN GEORGIA’S WELFARE SYSTEM

Based on the most recent 2015 data, this report provides an in-depth look at the welfare cliffs across the state of Georgia. A computer model was created to demonstrate how welfare programs, alone or in combination with other programs, create multiple welfare cliffs for recipients that punish work. In addition to covering a dozen programs – more than any previous model – the tool used to produce the following report allows users to see how the welfare cliff affects individuals and families with very specific characteristics, including the age and sex of the parent, number of children, age of children, income, and other variables. Welfare reform conversations often lack a complete understanding of just how means-tested programs actually inflict harm on some of the neediest within our state’s communities.