Michael Laracy

Internships: Gateway to Opportunity or an Obstacle for Low-Income Students?

2010-11-02T18:46:21-04:00

Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the Economic Policy Institute, along with research assistant Kathryn Edwards, contributed the following commentary to Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity, a nonpartisan initiative to promote dialogue and action to reduce poverty and improve economic opportunity. They argue that unpaid internships often create or perpetuate inequalities for students from low-income families. The authors further discuss the implications of unpaid internships on the labor market, and propose solutions to provide equal opportunity to students based on merit rather than the ability to pay.
- Michael Laracy

Education is one key to economic advancement. On average, the more education a person obtains, the greater his or her income. The implications for poverty have been clear: if low-income individuals increase their educational attainment, poverty will decline. But education isn't the whole story. The school-to-work transition can make a huge difference, and internships have become critical to that transition.

But many internships today create or perpetuate serious inequalities, especially for students from families of modest means. Because so many internships are unpaid, the current system favors students from wealthier families. Unpaid internships require students to forego wages and finance a living without a paycheck, putting them out of reach for many low-income students.

Internships are now a standard component of a college graduate's resume. They provide an opportunity to learn new skills, try out a certain industry or occupation, network, and meet professionals in a field of interest. In short, internships provide the crucial bridge between education and the labor market.

Increasingly, internships are a necessary prerequisite to a permanent job. A Michigan State University survey in 2007 revealed that half of all college graduate hires had previously interned at the firm where they were hired. A National Association of Colleges and Employers survey of employers found that 76 percent of firms reported relevant work experience as the primary factor that influences their hiring decisions.

The idea of an "entry-level" job has become something of a misnomer, as workers are expected to bring experience to the table before they've even started working.

The recession has only made internships more valuable: students who have completed internships have a leg-up over other job applicants in a tough job market for young, educated workers. The unemployment rate for college graduates under age 25 has averaged 9.1 percent over the past 12 months, up from 5.4 percent in 2007.

It is therefore critically important that internships be fairly distributed among students of every demographic group.

We estimate that a typical three-month internship in Washington, D.C. costs about $4,000, excluding roundtrip travel. For a family living at the poverty line, that is roughly a fifth of their annual income. It's hard to imagine how a student from that background could afford an unpaid internship in the nation's capital.

Internships should be awarded to those most capable, but the current system is marred by a competing standard -- ability to pay. The well-off get a boost over better qualified but poorer students who can't afford to build a resume with unpaid work.

There are also broader implications for the labor market. The persistence of unpaid internships, and the willingness of students to accept them, encourages employers to replace paid workers with unpaid interns. Why pay a lab assistant full-time wages with benefits if three unpaid interns could do the same job? Interns, looking for experience and an advantage in an increasingly difficult labor market, are providing free labor for firms.

Current law, as established by the Fair Labor Standards Act and Department of Labor regulatory guidelines, has a six-part test to determine whether employers are legally required to pay interns, including that the intern does not displace regular employees, that the employer derives no immediate advantage, and that the intern is not entitled to a job at the completion of the internship. If all six parts are not met, the intern must be paid for his or her work.

Most internships at for-profit firms would not pass the test. Unfortunately, there has been little enforcement, primarily because the Department of Labor relies on complaints from workers to initiate investigations. Interns themselves must be the ones to complain -- but many are ignorant of the law or too intimidated to speak up.

The result is that unpaid internships, though often illegal, are widespread, and students able to afford them get the experience all job-seekers are desperate to have.

Nonprofits and government agencies may lawfully accept unpaid volunteer work, so unpaid internships are legal. But they still disadvantage students from poor families. This is especially troubling when the employer is a legislator or a government agency, since opportunities to learn how government works and to network in political circles could be crucial for future government employment.

The Labor Department recently announced it will devote increased enforcement attention to internships, but until it does, a system that worsens inequality will become more and more entrenched.

There are two solutions to this problem: either all internships should be paid or means-tested stipends should be funded to support poorer students accepted into unpaid internships at nonprofits or in government.

A democracy should strive to provide equal opportunity to all citizens, based on merit rather than ability to pay. Otherwise, what is given with one hand through education will be taken with the other hand by an unfair labor market.

Ross Eisenbrey is the Vice President of the Economic Policy Institute.

Kathryn Edwards is a Research Assistant at the Economic Policy Institute.

Is Higher Education Living Up to Its Promise of Opportunity for Low-Income Students?

2010-10-29T13:42:03-04:00

Michelle Asha Cooper, president of the Institute for Higher Education Policy, contributed the following commentary on the correlation between postsecondary education and poverty reduction to Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity, a nonpartisan initiative to promote dialogue and action to reduce poverty and improve economic opportunity. She notes that while higher education can improve low-income youths' future economic security and mobility, many young adults with a postsecondary degree are still living in poverty.

- Michael Laracy

Even in the midst of our nation's economic uncertainty and growing rates of unemployment, most Americans have a dogged optimism of the future. According to a recent Pew report, 62 percent think their economic situation is going to improve next year.

This is especially true for young people from low-income backgrounds who want to move beyond the financial constraints within which they have lived to experience economic freedom and rewards. But the transition from hope to reality for social mobility among poor young adults remains daunting.

One pathway, in particular, that can make a difference between a lifetime of poverty and a secure economic future is higher education.

Obtaining a college degree or other advanced credential has proven to be a critical factor in producing both individual and societal benefits. It is often education that breaks generational cycles of poverty. Yet it is troubling to know that 1 in 10 impoverished young adults who have a postsecondary degree still fail to immediately get out of poverty. This is an alarming trend because these students already face greater academic and financial risks than their more well-off peers when attempting to complete college.

Who are these low-income young adults? According to our recent report at the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), A Portrait of Low-Income Young Adults in Education , there are 35.2 million low-income young adults in the United States who are between the ages of 18 and 26, and whose parents' income or their own (if financially independent) is up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level.

These young people are also more likely to be Native Americans, Blacks, and Hispanic (59 percent, 57 percent, and 47 percent, respectively) compared to their White and Asian peers (47 percent and 40 percent, respectively).

Encouragingly, nearly 47 percent of low-income young adults were currently or previously enrolled in higher education in 2008.

For many low-income young adults, pursuing a college degree involves taking bold steps toward bridging education, careers, and employment. And from a national perspective, higher education success among poor young people puts us closer to achieving our national college completion goals or enjoying the anticipated economic boost that a more educated workforce will generate.

Despite the promise that comes with a college degree, how is it that some of our low-income young adults who complete a higher education nonetheless struggle afterwards?

I would point to three considerations:

Degree Value: Clearly, not all degrees are created equal, nor the types of institutions where these credentials have been conferred. Students' programs of study and their majors matter, too, as does post-college choices, such as the type of industry and/or occupation pursued, the fit of the degree and employment, etc.

For example, we've spent the last few years studying the "Bologna Process"--Europe's process for standardizing and establishing accountability criteria for their higher education systems. This method's goal is to make student learning outcomes transparent to gain a true understanding of the degree's actual value. Unfortunately, only a handful of U.S. higher education systems have begun work to examine the impact of elements from the Bologna Process on American students

Labor Market Issues and Concerns: Another explanation some have offered is that, if there is not sufficient demand in a local labor market for young adults with a college degree, then the economic benefits will not be immediately realized. Or perhaps low-income young adults' earnings may reveal their first involvement with the labor market rather than reflecting their true potential or the impact of their education. One answer could be a lack of geographical mobility.

Economic Recession: The economic recession has exacerbated the financial challenges many low-income families already face. While a college degree continues to be a strong long-term investment, many Americans currently find themselves either unemployed or underemployed. The national unemployment rate currently stands at 9.5 percent (14.6 million Americans), which is actually lower than the rate in areas like Nevada and Michigan. Because future economic conditions are not fully predictable, it's hard to ascertain the length and full impact that this recession will have on the employment prospects of degree holders. Nevertheless, the Bureau of of Labor Statistics occupational projects confirm that the jobs of the future will require at least some postsecondary education.

This is not an exhaustive list, but it's clear that several factors have hindered the economic opportunities that usually come with a post-secondary degree.

Despite these obstacles, ensuring that students graduate from our colleges and universities with a sound college degree or credential remains imperative, not only because it can enhance the labor market and social fabric of society, but because for many individuals it can be a pathway out of poverty.

With President Obama calling for increased college completion rates as a national priority and an economic necessity, our future prosperity seems to rest on the shoulders of low-income young adults. This requires support from both policymakers and the higher education community to focus on innovative and systemic efforts to ensure greater postsecondary educational access and success among low-income young adults.

Pursuing new approaches during a recession will be difficult. But to foster change, we must prioritize our government and institutional resources to address the expected shortage in the share of the college educated populace as well as alleviate the financial distress low-income young people are facing.

Although there is growing income inequality and slower economic growth occurring in the U.S right now, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to help those who have made good educational investments reap the rewards they expect and deserve.

Michelle Asha Cooper, Ph.D., is the president of the Institute for Higher Education Policy, an independent, nonprofit organization that is dedicated to increasing access and success in postsecondary education around the world.

Strengthening Our Schools: A Legislative Framework to Remove Poverty-Related Barriers to Learning

2010-10-27T17:21:58-04:00

Representative Judy Chu (D-Calif.) discusses the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and how it should address the relationship between poverty and education. This piece originally appeared on Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity, a nonpartisan initiative to promote dialogue and action to reduce poverty and improve economic opportunity.
-- Michael Laracy

As Congress prepares to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), it must consider the central relationship between poverty and education.

It's widely accepted that education plays a considerable role in breaking the cycle of poverty. This is one of the reasons reauthorization is so important. As one participant in a "Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity" webcast noted recently, if we get reform right, "We unlock and open doors to a larger swath of young people."

This isn't just empty rhetoric. Countless studies demonstrate the link between early education and later prosperity. A report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation earlier this year summarized its findings: "Children who read at grade level by the end of third grade are more successful in school, work, and in life."

But while education's impact on poverty is quite clear, we too often overlook the ways poverty and other outside-the-classroom obstacles limit the educational attainment of our students.

Imagine you're a young, impoverished middle-schooler living in one of our country's major urban areas. Let's say you come from a single-parent household--a single parent who, after returning home from working two minimum-wage jobs to support you and your siblings, is sometimes too tired to prepare you a nutritious meal. Often, you go to school still hungry from the night before. For a good part of the day, you focus more on the pangs in your stomach than the lessons on the chalkboard.

Now, imagine you're a teacher at one of these urban area schools and your job depends on the ability of a class, full of students like the one above, to take and pass a proficiency test mandated by the federal government. Would you feel secure?

As experts like Diane Ravitch point out, one of No Child Left Behind's greatest failures is that it holds teachers accountable for student performance factors well beyond their control. There is a mountain of data that proves even the best teachers and schools fail students who can't focus on learning because of hunger, abuse or a lack of English proficiency.

In fact, a study conducted in Secretary of Education Arne Duncan's home city of Chicago found that, controlling for demographics, the external factors facing students are the only difference between which schools succeed and which fail. The lead author explained, "When the density of problems walking through the front door is so palpable everyday, it virtually consumes all your time and energy and detracts from efforts to improve teaching and learning."

With that in mind, it's clear that one of the biggest constraints upon education's capacity to overcome poverty is poverty itself. And if we don't address the obstacles our students face outside school walls, we'll never turn around what goes on within them. That's why everyone committed to issues of poverty and lack of opportunity ought to be paying attention to the upcoming debate around ESEA reauthorization.

Recently, I unveiled a legislative framework called Strengthening Our Schools. It focuses on removing barriers to learning like poverty and poor English language skills. Its approach to turning around, transforming, and rebuilding schools follows three principles:

Promote flexibility and collaboration so schools can maximize effective use of their resources

Remove barriers to student success to provide an equal opportunity for students to learn

Foster teachers and school leaders so schools can address their staffing needs, build capacity, and improve instruction

This framework provides a real alternative to the shortcomings of existing education policy. I'll be pushing for it to be included in ESEA reauthorization and hope you will support it, too.

We all know that a quality education is our best tool in the fight against poverty. But it's up to all of us to ensure that tool is as effective it can be.

Congresswoman Judy Chu represents the 32nd district of California. She is a member of the House Committee on Education and Labor.

Criticisms of an Improved Poverty Measure Go from Spin to Soap

2010-06-10T11:26:50-04:00

My colleague Jodie Levin-Epstein, deputy director at the Center for Law and Social Policy, penned the following piece. -- Mike

You don't need to be a "West Wing" fan to recognize the political verite in an episode that included a discussion about the nation's poverty measure. On the show, White House staffers acknowledge that a modernized poverty measure would improve policy decisions but decide to scrap the idea anyway because they consider it too politically risky. The show echoed the real world, where politics has repeatedly trumped good policy and the status quo has remained firmly in place. After all, what president would want to risk an increase in the poverty rate that could result from a new measure?

Fortunately, reality is occasionally more surprising than fiction. As it turns out, the Obama Administration supports the creation of a modern poverty measure, at least as a supplement to the official calculation.

Why has this administration decided to take a step so many others have found politically unpalatable? In large measure it's due to a key actor from the world of statistics -- Dr. Rebecca Blank. Blank now oversees the Census Bureau. Before that she ran the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. And, back in the 1990s she served on a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel that offered recommendations on how to modernize our poverty measure, which still relies on its original framework from the 1950s. In her current post Blank has proposed to supplement the old measure with a new method for counting how many of us are poor. This Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) is based on the NAS recommendations calling for changes in the statistical calculus - in both the income and expense columns. This is an important first step toward painting a more accurate picture of poverty in our nation.

The poverty measure used today basically says you are poor if your cash income before taxes is below a certain level pegged to the cost of a 1950s basic food diet (adjusted for inflation). The NAS concluded that a more comprehensive approach is needed. It recommended counting more sources of income including those that were not part of the national fabric when the current measure was constructed, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and food stamps. It also suggested incorporating necessary expenses that are more common today, including child care. By incorporating these suggestions, the Supplemental Poverty Measure should help answer essential policy questions, particularly the effect key government programs have on reducing poverty. And by including a more realistic set of expenses, it offers an improved picture of how the cost of basic needs contributes to poverty.

The SPM will be introduced in the fall of 2011 alongside the current poverty measure. Some states and cities, however, have already taken things into their own hands. Mayor Bloomberg of New York City insisted that a new NAS-like measure be implemented so the city could gauge how well its investments in anti-poverty programs were working. Both Connecticut and Minnesota have contracted with the Urban Institute to calculate NAS-like poverty rates and to project the poverty impact of proposed programs.

Conservative commentators also are not waiting in the wings. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation and Glenn Beck now have the Supplemental Poverty Measure in their sights. And Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post and Newsweek, while agreeing that some re-tooling would be worthwhile, has taken up a number of Heritage's arguments. In a recent column, Samuelson focuses on how the poverty rate has not improved much in the last couple of decades. He suggests this is a 'misleading scenario' that masks the role of immigrants and improved living standards.

It is true that immigrants who are poor contribute to the poverty rate in this country. It is also true that immigrants, both poor and not poor, contribute to our economic engine, and that naturalized immigrants have lower poverty rates than even natural born citizens. In reality, poor immigrants' impact on the poverty rate is only "marginal." Although recent immigrants are "poorer than their predecessors, their fraction of the population is simply too small to effect the overall poverty rate by much" according to a recent analysis from the National Bureau of Economic Research.

There is no question that poor people today have more than those who lived in poverty in previous generations. Our standard of living has improved. But the question is whether central air conditioning in a housing project should render a family as no longer poor. Can you only be poor if you were poor by the standards of an earlier century? We should both celebrate the nation's achievement in improving our standard of living and continue to collect data that helps us understand how many benefit from the increased standards.

Conservatives have also been spinning the notion that the SPM is a "relative" rather than an "absolute" measure of poverty. If only.

The common use of the term "relative poverty" means a measure that reveals where you stand in relation to the typical income of others in your nation. Most other developed nations utilize relative poverty, establishing, for example, that the poor are those who live on incomes that are less than 60 percent of the median. The relative measure is premised on the idea that inequality deserves attention.

The SPM, however, would not be a "relative" poverty measure under the common understanding of the term. Unlike a relative poverty measure, the SPM would not compare a family's income to the typical income level of other families nationwide. Instead, it would compare the family's income to expenditures. And not to everyone's expenditures -- just those at a relatively modest level or those at the so-called 33rd percentile. That is the level at which two-thirds of Americans spend more and one-third spend less on the most basic needs -- food, clothing, and shelter including utilities. These are items that won't go up even if everyone starts spending more on luxuries like vacations and jewelry. In other words, this is a thrifty standard tied to the basic needs of relatively low-spending Americans -- not to lavish lifestyles of the multi-millionaire Glenn Becks of the world.

Samuelson's spin drips with an ironic twist. He assails the administration for failing to achieve "political neutrality" with the proposed SPM, but in the very same column pushes a purely political idea himself. Samuelson argues that the administration wants poverty to increase on its watch so it can lay claim to more resources and redistribute the nation's wealth.

One has to wonder where Samuelson's script is coming from. It sounds more like political soap opera than "West Wing" material. In truth, the Supplemental Poverty measure contains very little drama. It's just good governance.

Robert Samuelson's Misguided Portrayal of the New Poverty Measure

2010-06-07T15:28:34-04:00

Last week Robert J. Samuelson wrote an ill-conceived column in The Washington Post, which among other things said the Obama administration's development of a new poverty measurement was part of a "political agenda" designed to increase the number of people in this country who are counted as poor.

Because Samuelson is syndicated, this column also appeared in newspapers across the country. It cannot be allowed to go unchallenged by those of us who have been working on this issue for some time and have actual facts on our side to support the need for a modernized approach to calculate who is poor in this country. As Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."

First a little background: Earlier this year the Census Bureau announced plans to develop a supplemental poverty measure (SPM) to address the widely acknowledged flaws in the current measure. That measure has not been revised since the early 1960s when non-cash benefits like food stamps and housing subsidies did not exist and expenses like child care and out-of-pocket medical costs were far lower. The supplemental measure, which will be released in fall 2011 alongside the current official measure, includes all of these factors when calculating who is considered poor.

Samuelson takes this simple and much-needed revision in a data calculation and grinds it into an unrecognizable pulp of inaccuracies and misstatements.

He begins his diatribe with a stunningly out-of-touch portrayal of poverty as a "mind-set that fosters self-defeating behavior - bad work habits, family breakdown, out-of-wedlock births and addictions." He never acknowledges that the great majority of low-income people remain mired in poverty because there are simply not enough jobs in this country that pay family-supporting wages. Even before the recession in 2006, more than a quarter of jobs paid less than a poverty-level wage.

Samuelson seems to think that the current measure, with a few minor tweaks, is just fine despite being based on spending patterns typical of the 1950s, when food accounted for one-third of the average family's expenses - compared with one-seventh today. He claims falsely that that the supplemental poverty measure "embraces a relative notion of poverty: People are poor if they're a relative distance from the top, even if their incomes are increasing." In fact, the SPM is not a relative measure of poverty in the sense Samuelson has in mind. It is true that the poverty threshold will adjust when the costs of basic necessities (food, shelter, clothing) rise or fall, but it won't change just because the nation as a whole grows wealthier.

Samuelson suggests that circumstances for the nation's poor have improved even though the poverty rate has barely budged during the past 40 years. He bases this, in part, on the specious argument that more poor people today have microwave ovens, air conditioning and cell phones. In reality, these have all become relatively low cost items that can no longer be viewed as luxuries. Wal-Mart sells microwaves for $19.95; in warm climates air conditioning is a common feature in even subsidized housing; and cell phones are often a far cheaper alternative to land lines for low-income families whose living arrangements change frequently.

In arguing that the poor's material well-being has improved, Samuelson does make one important point. He accurately notes that the current poverty measure counts only pre-tax income and ignores other sources of support that were not in place when the measure was adopted. These include the Earned Income Tax Credit for low income workers, food stamps, Medicaid and housing and energy subsidies. Samuelson is, in fact, supporting a key component of the supplemental poverty measure - and one that if calculated accurately could push families above the poverty line.

Samuelson's contention that the supplemental poverty measure is part of a political agenda designed to increase the poverty rate and "promote income redistribution" could not be further from the truth. The SPM is based on the recommendations of a non-partisan panel and is modeled on the alternative poverty measure adopted in New York City by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. It is not known if the poverty rate will increase under the supplemental measure. And even if the rate rose it would not change eligibility for public benefits, which will still be based on the official poverty measure.

For decades, the poverty measure has been wrangled over, studied and criticized. But no administration until now has had the courage to do something about it, recognizing that a new measure could result in a higher poverty rate under their watch. Contrary to what Samuelson believes, changing the poverty measure may actually be bad politics. But it is unquestionably good policy.

The Role of Race, Poverty and Equal Opportunity in Education Reform

2010-04-30T13:21:53-04:00

Eric J. Cooper, president of the National Urban Alliance for Effective Education, recently contributed this commentary for Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity. Cooper argues that as the nation transitions from a majority-white to a majority-minority nation, the challenges of racism, poverty, and inequality can have dire affects on America's future. And to effectively address these issues, he calls for an education reform effort that goes beyond basic learning skills and instead encourages the type of innovative thinking and skills required for success in the 21st century. -- Mike

In his State of the Union speech, President Obama pointed to a world-class education as one of the best anti-poverty programs. But our system can't live up to this aspiration unless we first recognize the racial inequality in our schools ultimately harms our shared national interest, and then develop a 21st century approach to learning that can address the challenges facing our schools.

The clarion call has already been sounded. The New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce said in 2007 that:

If we continue on our current course, and the number of nations outpacing us in the education race continues to grow at its current rate, the American standard of living will steadily fall relative to those nations, rich and poor, that are doing a better job. The core problem is that our education and training systems were built for another era, an era in which most workers needed only a rudimentary education. It is not possible to get where we have to go by patching that system. We can get where we must go only by changing the system itself.

Businessman and philanthropist Bill Gates is another who has consistently sounded alarms about the state of education in America. In a February 2010 Newsweek piece, he wrote: "If we don't find ways to improve our schools, making them more effective and more accessible, we won't fulfill our commitment to equal opportunity, and we will become less competitive with other countries."

Ignoring this call to action would especially hurt the growing number of black and brown citizens educated in schools that have been called the "drop-out factories of cities." But the damage would not be limited to a minority of Americans. The U.S. Census Bureau has widely reported that America will go from a majority-white to majority-minority nation in 2037.

America must recognize that its self-interest is framed by its ability to address the challenges of racism, poverty and equal opportunity--recognizing the effects that they, separately and together, have on the life trajectories of the nation's youth and thus its future.

Our future must focus more on what connects us and less on what divides us. As Ben Franklin said at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, we must all hang together or we shall hang separately. We must craft and commit to smart policies that bring together unifying aims, distinctive strengths and shared resources for the common good.

But if shared national values are not enough of an incentive, then the growing international focus on transforming education systems should motivate our country to action. Virtually every region in the world faces a similar challenge--how to educate its people to find work and build human capital in a world undergoing change faster than ever. The Hong Kong Education Commission of 2003 is but one example of the zeal shown by others.

In the recently published book The Flat World And Education: How America's Commitment to Equity Will Determine our Future, Linda Darling-Hammond of Stanford University cites the Hong Kong Commission to underscore the challenges presented to modern education by the global economy:

The 21st century is characterized by the availability of abundant information, advanced technology, a rapidly changing society, greater convenience in daily lives, and keener international competition. In response...[our Hong Kong] Education Reform should aim at nurturing in the new generation characteristics and abilities capable of meeting the challenges of the new century...Education Reform must be student-focused...to develop the potential and personalities of students. This student-focused spirit underlines the education and curriculum reforms, improvement to the learning environment, and enhancement of teacher training.

What is often lost in the polemics of education reform in this country is the question of whether we are situating learning in the lives of the students in a manner that deepens the opportunity for innovation, creativity and a resilience of spirit, enabling the learner to, as Ken Robinson has written, "cultivate the real depth and dynamism of human abilities of every sort." Ultimately, the key to systemic reform in education is standards that reinforce diverse backgrounds and aims while releasing individuality, which has been the engine of our nation's progress.

These complimentary values are not best developed through relentless standardization that confines curricula and fosters conformity. Nor are they served by a Hobson's choice between publics versus charters, or among private, parochial or home schooling. Rather than the popular choice of declaring that education policy be data-driven and focused primarily on the development of rudimentary and basic learning skills, policy should be directed by the need to customize and cultivate learning for each student based on the complex thinking required for success in the 21st century. Policy should begin with and be directed by values that become a vision of how the world should be--data keyed to the essence and extension of those values should be used to shape the ways and means of making it so. We must harness the discipline and drive of the data to the determination and direction of the values.

If the United States is to shake this generation loose from educational stagnation, we must focus relentlessly on learning, with active learners who understand that that intelligence is not something consigned by their genes, but is for them to develop by hard work and with adult leadership and effective instruction. When meaningful, engaging and relevant instruction in K-12 classrooms fosters lifelong learning for all Americans, the structural inequities in school and society may very well be swept away so that more citizens might share in the American dream. A strategic focus on investing in teaching and achievement based on discovering the unique talents of every child--and unleashing the passion and creativity in learning for the teacher and the student alike. That's a vision that serves us all.

Social Innovation for Low-Income Communities: Turning Risk Into Reward

2010-03-22T11:02:42-04:00

Stephen Goldsmith, former mayor of Indianapolis, chair of the Corporation for National and Community Service under presidents Bush and Obama, and Daniel Paul Professor of Government at Harvard Kennedy School, contributed the following commentary to Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity. Goldsmith, who just released a new book, The Power of Social Innovation, written with Gigi Georges and Tim Glynn Burke, encourages communities to support civic entrepreneurs who are fighting poverty and offering opportunity for low-income families. He highlights two efforts that have helped people in need gain greater access to employment and to healthy food--two markets that many of us might take for granted but from which the poor are often excluded. -- Mike

We stand at a challenging point, with income disparity continuing to grow and poverty concentrating itself again in our cities. Yet at the same time, somewhere in the country an entrepreneurial leader has solved an apparently intractable problem -- high school graduation, neighborhood stabilization, the transition from welfare to work and the like. Despite the proliferation of these relatively small successes, we continue to spend a massive but finite amount of government money on the same set of underperforming social services each year.

For our book, "The Power of Social Innovation: How Civic Entrepreneurs Ignite Community Networks for Good," we have spent two years interviewing over 100 creative leaders in the emerging and hopeful "social innovation" movement now catching fire across the country. At the highest level, President Obama created the White House Office of Social Innovation, the Social Innovation Fund, and the competitive Race to the Top Fund for education. On a more local level, Mayor Michael Bloomberg provides the leading city hall example with his $200 million innovation fund, a model that governors and other mayors are studying. But what does 'social innovation' mean, and how does it relate to poverty and opportunity?

Social innovations are catalysts that bring together creativity, expertise and a relentless focus on results to solve problems and dramatically improve performance across the system. These transformative innovations can be a new tool or program model, but can also be a civic realignment of existing actors in a social service delivery system, an infusion of new management acumen, or a new pipeline for volunteer or donor goodwill.

For example, one type of innovative organization combines a deeper understanding of communities and individual talents and absorbs part of the risk in order to help low-income people enter mainstream markets from which they have been excluded.

Greyston Bakery, which supplies restaurants across New York City and ice cream makers Ben & Jerry's and Häagen-Dazs with brownies, is one such organization. It is a $5 million for-profit company with a second bottom line -- social good.

Greyston employs people from the poorest neighborhoods in Yonkers, the fourth-largest city in New York State. Former CEO Julius Walls says that four out of every five Greyston employees have at some time been either arrested or incarcerated, did not graduate from high school, and possess limited literacy -- making mainstream employment markets inaccessible.

Greyston succeeds as a business and in providing life-changing opportunity for its employees through three key ingredients. Anyone can walk in and fill out an application, and when a position opens he or she starts as an apprentice, making about $7 an hour with no benefits. Walls says, "If you perform, you have a job. If you don't perform, we ask you to leave." In this statement lies the second key ingredient: Greyston insists on a strong work ethic and commitment to quality from its employees. And third, Greyston provides supports for its struggling employees, helping them to find housing, child care, health care, after-school programs, GED prep, and tutoring -- solutions to all of the things that could keep them from working.

Greyston sees opportunity where others see liability. Social entrepreneurs can also add multiple levels of value by underwriting financial risks that scare others.

The Reinvestment Fund's Jeremy Nowak knew that low-income communities in Philadelphia and elsewhere have more buying power than most retailers think. He appealed to elected officials and local nonprofits such as the Food Trust, making the case for joining together to address the grocery gap. The coalition secured $10 million from the state for what they called the Fresh Food Financing Initiative (FFFI). Combined with almost $150 million in private capital, they provide capital improvement loans and grants for employee training and development to support 32 new or refurbished stores.

Many low and moderate-income communities have only one-third the access to fresh produce that residents in high-income communities have. As a result, citizens suffer a health penalty, and neighborhoods incur losses of jobs and tax revenues. In addition to improved access to healthy food options, Nowak estimates that these projects have created or preserved more than 2,600 jobs. Importantly, FFFI helps to reduce barriers to entry without losing the market discipline that predicts whether the operation will be able to become self-supporting.

Few would dispute that we need more efforts like Greyston Bakery and Fresh Food Financing Initiative to ignite the social progress we seek -- especially organizations that straddle private markets and public/nonprofit sectors. Seeing opportunity where others see liability, investing financial or political capital to underwrite risk, and sharing the rewards, whether financial, political, or reputational, are the main lessons we took from these social innovators.

But we have found that for true transformation, communities must improve their capacity to identify, incubate, and grow innovations like those above. Transformation requires executing change across entire systems calcified by the momentum of the status quo, by political wrangling, and by a stunning lack of mechanisms for input from, or accountability to, the individuals we're trying to help.

Government officials must also do their part. They can open the space for innovation by reevaluating rules and policies that protect incumbents, supporting capacity building among small yet effective providers, and using capital to create room for social "R&D." Those responsible for spending taxpayer dollars - a city councilor or state legislator as often as the head of a human service agency -- should also make decisions based on measurable results and real impact instead of good intentions or political maneuvering. The same is true for those controlling philanthropic foundations' dollars.

Government should also favor interventions that are sufficiently connected to the low-income people and communities they're trying to help, which allows them a deeper understanding of the risks -- and rewards -- of their entrance into employment, retail, and other markets. Raising our expectations of individual potential and responsibility is the first step in that direction.

Stephen Goldsmith is former mayor of Indianapolis, chair of the Corporation for National and Community Service under presidents Bush and Obama, and Daniel Paul Professor of Government at Harvard Kennedy School. He is author, with Gigi Georges and Tim Glynn Burke, of the book The Power of Social Innovation: How Civic Entrepreneurs Ignite Community Networks for Good (Jossey-Bass/Wiley).

The President's 2011 Budget Priorities: Cut Poverty and Promote Opportunity

2010-02-11T09:52:22-05:00

There are winners and losers in every budget, and President Obama's proposed federal 2011 budget, released this month, is no exception. What's most remarkable, however, about the president's proposal is that low-income kids and families stand out as a clear priority. Wherever you look in his budget document, you see that he has worked hard to put the poor and disadvantaged near the top of his agenda. We've been following federal budgets for some 40 years, and this is one of the strongest attempts we've seen from any president, of either party, to propose spending priorities that would do much to reduce poverty and promote opportunity.

Even more remarkable, he proposes to do this within a very austere spending plan. President Obama has proposed a freeze on domestic non-security discretionary programs. However, within that freeze, he has protected and improved many critical low-income programs. The priorities in the President's budget work to address both his short-term goal of strengthening the economy and creating jobs, while helping those hardest hit by the downturn, as well as his longer-term goal of bringing the deficit down and restoring fiscal responsibility.

We expect a vigorous, engaging debate about what this budget accomplishes for low-income families, and what still needs to be done, but here are major highlights of the proposals that would do the most to cut poverty and promote opportunity:

For Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization, the budget proposes $10 billion over ten years in additional funding. According to the budget, the additional investments will be "aimed at ending childhood hunger, reducing childhood obesity, and improving the diets of children, and raising program performance to better serve our children."

The President also projects spending at nearly $57.2 billion for SNAP/Food Stamps, an increase of nearly $7.6 billion over FY 2010. The requested level would continue American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provisions, which began boosting SNAP/Food Stamp benefits in 2009, as well as anticipated increases in program participation.

For continued state fiscal relief, the President proposes a six-month extension of Medicaid relief - some $25 billon - to states in order to save and create new jobs, to protect health care coverage, and to minimize devastating budget cuts that states will otherwise be forced to impose.

The budget proposal would make the improvements enacted in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, and the American Opportunity Tax Credit permanent. In addition, the President proposes to make the savers' credit for low-income families refundable. Together, these credits will account for $1.7 billion in new spending for 2011 and $13 billion in new spending for 2012.

Child care for low-income working families would also get a boost with an increase of $1.6 billion per year for the Child Care Development Block Grant.

The budget would extend the current Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Emergency Fund authorized under ARRA for one year - through September 2011 - and would increase the federal share for states to create subsidized jobs from 80 percent to 100 percent. Under this proposal, states would get another $2.5 billion targeted to very low-income families and kids.

The President's proposal would increase Head Start by nearly $1 billion, continuing the Head Start funding appropriated in ARRA.

It provides an additional $3.3 billion resources and a new funding trigger for Energy Assistance to Low-Income Families (LIHEAP), so that any time there is a spike in energy costs or a significant increase in economic hardship, the LIHEAP budget will automatically increase to meet rising demands. The Administration notes that they expect the trigger to provide roughly $2 billion in additional assistance in 2011 and $6.5 billion over 10 years.
He has requested a total of $321 million through the Departments of Education and Labor to establish a new "Partnership for Workforce Innovation." The initiative would permit the agencies to coordinate competitive grants to states and localities to improve services, particularly for disadvantaged workers, and to support innovative workforce activities such as sector partnerships.

The budget also proposes $85 million for the Green Jobs Innovation Fund, which supports training to prepare workers for careers in the energy efficiency and clean energy sectors, as described in the Green Jobs Act of 2007. This represents a $45 million increase over FY 2010 funding levels. Department of Labor anticipates that these funds would build on the "green jobs" grants included in the recovery act. Also in the DOL budget, there's $46.6 million for Pilots, Demonstrations, and Research, with $40 million reserved for transitional jobs.

Highlights of the HUD budget include $250 million for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative; $150 million for Sustainable Communities;$150 million for a new Catalytic Investment Competition program; a major new initiative to preserve public and assisted housing; a new demonstration that will combine 10,000 new vouchers with supportive services for individuals and families who are homeless or at risk of homelessness; an increase of $1.3 billion for housing vouchers (to ensure full renewal of assistance for the 2.1 million low-income families now using vouchers); and $1 billion for the Housing Trust Fund.

The President proposes to move his highly anticipated Promise Neighborhoods initiative into operation, increasing funding from $10 million in planning grants during 2010 to a whopping $210 million for next year.

The Social Innovation Fund, appropriated at $50 million in 2010, would be increased to $60 million for 2011, allowing the Corporation for National and Community Service to conduct another round of awards for poverty-reduction initiatives.

There's $50 million in the budget to help states adopt paid sick leave and $500 million to support for fatherhood and healthy marriage through a Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund.

For low-income post-secondary education the budget requests a total of $34.8 billion to provide Pell Grants to nearly 9 million students in the 2011‐12 award year, with a projected maximum award of $5,710. This represents an increase of more than $14 billion over current FY 2010 appropriations.

Last, but hardly least, the President requests money for overhauling the federal poverty measure! In the Department of Commerce budget, there's a $5 million initiative to allow the Census Bureau to work with the Bureau of Labor Statistics to supplement the official poverty measure with annual alternative poverty measures. At long last, it looks like there is real movement toward revamping the measure!

Overall, kids do particularly well in this budget. According to First Focus, total discretionary spending on programs that are focused on children will see a $6.12 billion boost over last year's levels, an increase of 7.2 percent. President Obama's budget proposes a cap of $447 billion for non-security discretionary spending, equal to last year's funding level. Despite this freeze, the percentage of federal discretionary money spent on children's programs would increase under the President's request, rising from 18.97 percent in fiscal year 2010 to 20.34 percent in fiscal year 2011. Total discretionary spending on children in fiscal year 2010 totaled $84.8 billion. The President's budget request increases that spending to approximately $90.9 billion.

No matter how you cut it, the President's proposed budget would be good for jobs, good for kids and families, and good for poverty reduction and shared prosperity. Now, of course, it goes to Congress... and the hard work starts!

Ending Poverty through Education

2010-02-08T16:05:27-05:00

Washington, DC Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee just penned the following commentary, which originally appeared at Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity. Rhee argues that education can be the solution to poverty, and that recent successes show - that if we're committed enough - we can create real opportunities for low-income kids. -- Michael Laracy

"I remember in elementary school - did you guys do this? - switching clothes every other morning with my best friends. That way nobody could tell we each only had one pair of jeans and a t-shirt." Heads nodded in recognition at this meeting of DC public school seniors reflecting on their early years.

Students in our public schools are my best sources on what it is like to strive in a school system that has not given them an equal shot in life. With 70 percent of them receiving a free or reduced-price lunch and with DC's child poverty rate well above the national average, poverty is a mountain that children in our nation's capital climb daily.

This particular group of students had beaten the odds, and they were advancing to college. But they worried that they were unprepared. With only 9 percent of our entering high school freshmen graduating from college within 5 years of high school, and an unemployment rate that has more than doubled with the recession, they were right to be concerned.

I believe we can solve the problems of urban education in our lifetimes and actualize education's power to reverse generational poverty. But I am learning that it is a radical concept to even suggest this. Warren Buffett framed the problem for me once in a way that clarified how basic our most stubborn obstacles are. He said it would be easy to solve today's problems in urban education.

"Make private schools illegal," he said, "and assign every child to a public school by random lottery." Think about what this would mean. CEOs' children, diplomats' children, many would be going to schools in Anacostia and east of the river, where most of our schools are. I guarantee we would never see a faster moving of resources from one end of the city to the other. I also guarantee we would soon have a system of high-quality schools.

As the leader of a school system in a privileged country, I know we cannot have the same conversation about poverty in developing nations as we can about urban and rural poverty in the United States. But when we ask what it will take to ensure that no child anywhere has to "beat the odds" to have viable future choices, the answer is the same whether we are in Washington, DC or in a brave Haiti enduring disaster from a poverty-stricken stance. The obstacle is not one of knowledge but of social and political will, with education as the lynchpin.

On global poverty, economist and author Jeffrey Sachs created a splash with his argument that we can solve the problem of poverty in our lifetimes. In The End of Poverty, he cites examples of success in communities all over the developing world, showing what works in empowering communities and building foundations for prosperity.

Examples of extraordinary success also exist here in Washington, DC, a district that is improving to become more competitive every year. For example, under a new principal at one school, student reading proficiency went from 24 percent to 85 percent in just four years, and from 10 percent to 64 percent in math. In another, only 9 percent of the students were on grade level, when just down the street in a successful charter school, over 90 percent of students were. Same kids, same neighborhoods and exposure to violence, same poverty, hunger, and parent education levels. At the successful schools, the primary difference was the team of adults who decided it was possible for lives and outcomes to move in other directions.

What is keeping us from bringing such examples to scale is not a lack of solutions but a frailty of belief. We can absolutely replicate and expand success, and poverty does not have to mean low achievement and expectations.

I love the way Sachs described what it will take to end global poverty. Citing an experience in Western Kenya, he concluded a lecture on his book with a focus not on operational shifts but with a shift in our mindset.

We can end poverty, he said, "if we understand that we are dealing with people fighting for their lives...with people whose first objective is not to take our money but to see their children survive...with people that work harder than we can imagine to make something out of nothing...who in the midst of an AIDS pandemic, malaria endemic, and chronic hunger can put 37 out of 37 eighth graders through success on the 8th grade exam because they have that much social capital."

It will still take courage to change the beliefs that are keeping children and families in poverty. Many leaders are starting to show that courage, putting children before political interest in their decisions and policies, and preserving funding for education even when longstanding results will not come until years after the next election.

For example, we have a Democratic president who is backing ideas (such as choice and competition) for their impact instead of the political party that claims them. President Obama is a huge supporter of charter schools and is letting competition drive the allocation of $4 billion in Race to the Top dollars he added to education. His administration is pledging to use it for districts introducing commonsense practices such as teacher assessment that includes student achievement─another idea he has not been afraid to embrace just because Republicans support it.

Nowhere is it more important than education to put politics last, and this is no easy feat. But I am encouraged by the ways it is happening nationally and in cities with courageous mayors who are prioritizing education. DC, New York, and Atlanta are showing results of this kind of leadership already, and I believe it is just the beginning.

For many individuals who work with children, courage will mean changing a long-standing mindset that has excused us from holding high expectations for all children. In the DC Public Schools in 2007, performance evaluations had not been conducted for years in our central office, and teachers did not have clear guidelines about what we believed good teaching even looks like. Yet to educate all children well in any system, staff need the courage to participate in conversations about their performance that are tied to job security.

There is no doubt that poverty drags multiple obstacles into schools with children, and these obstacles are extremely challenging to overcome. It can feel like climbing a mountain every day, both for children and the adults who are teaching them. But there are successful mountain climbers. As we follow their examples in larger numbers, we will create well-worn paths of success. Mountains will be reduced to hills, and hills to level ground as all children become poised for life choices that can compete with their imaginations.

Michelle Rhee is Chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools.

Most States Have Yet to Claim Emergency TANF Funds

2009-11-05T15:30:49-05:00

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has released new data showing that a majority of states have yet to tap into the Emergency Fund set up through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Emergency Fund is intended to provide additional support to states so that they can meet the costs of increasing TANF rolls as well as use TANF to help provide services to others who are struggling to make ends meet. The Emergency Fund provides states with $5 billion in federal TANF block grant funding during FY 2009 and FY 2010, but so far less than $1 billion has been awarded to 21 states.

The TANF Emergency Fund (TEF) is potentially an important resource for states, which get four federal dollars from the fund for each dollar they put up. To get those funds, however, states need to have increased the amount they are spending through TANF for basic assistance (cash aid), subsidized employment, and short-term emergencies, such as non-recurrent, short-term benefits. In the current economic climate, however, many states are hard pressed to find that dollar.

Fortunately, there is a solution that can help states come up with the money they need: Third-party payments from foundations, not-for-profit service providers, employers or merchants. For example, if a merchant provides discounted gift cards the state could work with that merchant to have the the value of the discount applied towards the match.

As more third parties and states become aware of how flexible the source of the match can be, more states are likely to apply for Emergency Funds. The TEF is legislated to end before FY 2011 and the last date for an application is September 1, 2010.

To see where your own state stands on TANF Emergency Funds, click here. You'll also find anything you ever wanted to know about TEF on the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) website, which links you to federal resources and materials from a range of organizations. On November 16, CLASP is hosting a national audio conference call on TEF. To register and see details, click here.

We hope that foundations, employers, and others come together to help states meet the TEF requirements and receive more federal funds. We hope this happens in so many places that in the not too distant future, we will be writing an OOTS about the funds running out. That would be a problem, but not as big a problem as leaving the money in the till.

Originally posted at Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity.

New Poll Shows Americans Hurting from Recession and Want More Government Action

2009-09-18T11:30:41-04:00

Despite increasing signs that the economic downturn is ending, a new poll from the Northwest Area Foundation (NWAF) finds that 27 percent of Americans have had trouble making ends meet and paying for basic necessities, such as their mortgage, rent and heating bills. The poll underscores the far-reaching effects of the recession by looking beyond Wall Street and examining the impact of the economic crisis on American families. Among the results, the poll finds 53 percent of Americans have reduced their spending for food, while 44 percent have cut back on saving for retirement.

The findings also show that most Americans have a different perception from the federal government of what it takes to make a sufficient living. For example, more than 68 percent of Americans said a family of four needs $40,000 a year to stay above water--nearly double the official poverty threshold of $22,050.

And with times being tough, Americans want to see a difference in government policy and are looking to their elected officials for more action. The poll finds most Americans (51 percent) think the government isn't doing enough to help. As lawmakers continue to debate health care reform legislation, almost a third (32 percent) said they have had trouble paying for medical treatment.

Although Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently said that the recession is "very likely over," these results indicate that many Americans will remain anxious about their financial security and will continue to call for action from federal and state policymakers.

Counting What Counts: Accurate Data Leads to Effective Policy

2009-08-07T14:30:05-04:00

It's hard to get the best results from any kind of work without the right tools. So why are policymakers and administrators in a world of diminishing resources using antiquated tools to decide which programs will do the most to help children and families survive the poverty of these hard times?

"They do have the latest tools," people may say, knowing that their taxes have funded state and local IT budgets. And yes, in some pockets of government, public servants are using new technology to analyze program and performance data to make sensible cuts and overhaul programs to better educate, protect, treat, train, employ and counsel vulnerable children and families.

But as the old truism states, "what gets measured gets done," and more often than not the quality and quantity of data that drive these human decisions fall way short. We must empower decision-makers by counting what counts in the lives of children and families.

Last week, the Annie E. Casey Foundation released the 2009 KIDS COUNT Data Book. The Data Book responds to the need for quality data by providing a consistent, reliable source of information about children's well-being. Data on 10 key measures are now available at the state, county and city level, providing policymakers with the most comprehensive source of information.

Improving the quality of data -- counting what counts -- will help make sure our programs are working and give us the ability to evaluate them, adjust them or eliminate them if they are not. Good data will make us more accountable to our commitment to meet the needs and boost outcomes for vulnerable children.

Today in Washington, officials are working their way through two critically important "data" decisions. The outcomes matter to children nationwide.

First, it's time to update the poverty measure. The current U.S. poverty measure is a 1960s creation -- needless to say a lot has changed since then. The Casey Foundation recommends moving forward with a model developed by the National Academy of Sciences which would account for costs related to work, child care, taxes and out-of-pocket medical expenses, and adjust for regional differences in the cost of living. It also would adjust to reflect actual spending on food and housing. The new measure would recognize non-cash benefits, such as earned-income tax credits, food stamps and housing vouchers provided through federal and state anti-poverty programs -- making it possible to gauge the impact of our major anti-poverty programs on reducing poverty.

Second, Congress should pass legislation creating a state-level child well-being survey. As the federal government has shifted greater responsibility to states for programs that benefit children and families over the past decade, the need for accurate and timely state-level data has become increasingly dire. Further, the data that is available is frequently so outdated and incomplete that it cannot effectively guide policy-making. For these reasons, the Annie E. Casey Foundation supports the State Child Well-Being Research Act of 2009, a bipartisan bill that would provide timely state-specific data on child well-being. The importance of this legislation to state policymakers is underscored by its recent unanimous endorsement from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

With quick action on the poverty measure and a state-level child well-being survey, our leaders in Washington will move us closer to counting what counts (PDF) in the lives of children and families.

Kids and Families and the First 100 Days

2009-04-30T10:13:09-04:00

During his first 100 days in office, President Barack Obama and Congress have taken critically important steps to improve the lives of America's disadvantaged children and families who are too often overlooked. Through tax policy, healthcare expansions, stimulus spending, improvements to unemployment insurance, and new funding for pre-school, child care and education, we have witnessed a wave of family-strengthening actions.

Among them, the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program will mean millions more children in low-income families will receive timely healthcare, the Homeownership Affordability and Stability Plan will help homeowners avoid foreclosure, and the administration's commitment to tackling concentrated poverty, including investments in rural America and the Promise Neighborhood Initiative, will provide much-needed services and supports to families in struggling communities.
We are also seeing a renewed commitment to use performance measures and data to guide federal policy; this is an extremely welcome development that will pay dividends by ensuring that taxpayers funds are spent effectively and that those most in need are receiving assistance.

The Casey Foundation and many others involved in developing smart responses to poverty are pleased with the steps underway by federal policy makers. Many of these steps reflect some of the lessons, hard data, and experiences we and other nonprofit institutions have gleaned working with families, communities, and public systems.

The new focus in Washington reflects an understanding that we must embrace a two-generational approach to reducing poverty by both improving the economic situation of low-income parents and preparing their children for success as adults.

While the progress is real, much work remains to implement successful strategies that we believe can level the playing field for children and families living on the economic margin.

Looking forward, we hope Congress can work in a bipartisan fashion to create more jobs with better wages and benefits that meet the needs of families; support increases in wages, tax credits, and programs that build assets and savings; and incorporate programs and policies that provide children and teens with the opportunities and incentives to stay in school, and ultimately become successful adults.

Additionally, too many children spend time in foster care each year; far too many are left without the permanent, supportive family connections that every child needs to grow into a healthy and productive adult. The federal government should look to rebuild the nation's child welfare system and begin offering children the lifelong families they deserve by changing policy to promote permanence and child well-being.

Change is also needed in the nation's juvenile justice system, which is littered with ill-conceived strategies that unnecessarily confine young people, exposing them to danger, diminishing their future prospects, increasing crime, and wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. We need to end the counterproductive over-reliance on expensive incarceration and detention and redirect resources into proven strategies that cost less, enhance public safety, and increase the odds of success of young people involved in the juvenile courts. Congress has the chance to address these and other issues this year when it reauthorizes the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.

Finally, Congress must continue to base decisions on good information, just as we and other foundations use sound data to evaluate policies and advocate for change. Ensuring that the nation has the best information to inform policy decisions affecting children and families means updating the U.S. poverty measure; improving the availability, timeliness, and quality of state and local data on child well-being; supporting efforts to collect reliable data from birth and death certificates; and fully funding and properly managing the 2010 Census.

We can celebrate that our nation is making progress on behalf of vulnerable children and families across the United States. But this work is only just beginning.

Michael Laracy is the Public Policy Coordinator of the Annie. E. Casey Foundation

First Lady Hammers Home Support for Struggling Youth

2009-03-17T13:46:47-04:00

Michelle Obama arrived today at the National Mall ready to assist more than 100 low-income youth from across the country and several members of Congress in constructing a "green" house for a struggling Texas family.

The event marked the 30th anniversary of YouthBuild U.S.A., a national organization that helps at-risk youth work toward their GEDs or high school diplomas while building affordable housing for poor or homeless people.

"Participating in national and community service is not just an escape for the wealthy," said the First Lady, who in her remarks today emphasized the importance of national service in helping low-income, vulnerable youth transform their lives. "And service must become a part of each of our lives...Barack Obama gets it. He gets it because he's lived it."

President Obama has proposed expanding YouthBuild from 8,000 to 50,000 young people annually as part of his national service platform, and $50 million for the federal YouthBuild program was included in the economic recovery bill.

On the Mall today, YouthBuild students demonstrated their "green job" skills as they framed the walls and side an exterior wall of a house using techniques that protect the environment. The house will be completed in Brownsville, Texas, and given to Merary Rios, a single mother who works two jobs and whose mobile house was damaged last year by Hurricane Dolly.

The First Lady praised YouthBuild for providing its students with valuable skills - giving them "a second, third and fourth chance."

Michelle Obama's appearance today is another important indication of the President's commitment to national service and building a sustainable economy that invests in vulnerable youth and families. To be sure, the First Lady has her own public policy issues to highlight and her own platform to stand on. But her remarks offered another glimpse at the direction the new Administration expects to take on this critical issue.

Originally posted at Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity.

Stimulus Highlights Include Provisions for Poor

2009-01-28T12:03:51-05:00

The federal government is about to commit almost a trillion dollars to a stimulus package, and antipoverty advocates have wondered whether the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan will include aid to those who are poor.

While the legislation is far from final, highlights of the bill released from the Senate and House Appropriations Committees, respectively, offer some encouraging signs.

In a section of the Senate release called "Protecting the Vulnerable," new funding is outlined for early childhood services, food stamps, homeowners' assistance, and other antipoverty programs. The release pledges "to lessen the blow of the current recession" and provide "immediate relief for children, the poor, and others who may find themselves struggling to put food on the table or a roof over their head."

For its part, the House release specifies new funding for weatherizing low-income houses, increasing food stamp benefits, building public housing, and much more. It's hard to estimate, but somewhere between $70 billion and $100 billion of the package is targeted to low-income people.

While there are likely going to be tough times ahead, there may be help on the way for those who need it most.

Originally at Spotlight on Poverty.