Prison reform debates often focus on reducing prison populations to save taxpayers money. But is that actually possible?

In a for the Manhattan Institute, Joshua Crawford, a Public Safety Fellow at the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity (GCO), argues that marginally decreasing prison populations doesn’t yield the taxpayer savings policymakers have long touted. Crawford also shows that continuing to focus mainly on cost savings instead of on other measures to reduce crime and recidivism may lead to unintended fiscal and social consequences for states, including Ģ����Ƶ.

To understand this argument, it’s essential to first understand the landscape of state prison populations and the associated costs of incarcerating an individual.

Understanding prison populations and associated costs

State prison populations decreased by 24% overall between 2010 and 2023, with 43 out of 50 states experiencing a decline. But despite those significant decreases, Departments of Corrections budgets haven’t followed suit. 

In fact, Crawford’s report shows there is little to no relationship between changes in prison populations and changes in corrections spending. 

Departments of Corrections budgets are actually increasing, but corrections costs still account for no more than about 5% of most states’ total budgets. 

Nevertheless, many policymakers and advocates continue to argue that cutting prison populations will save money. So where is the disconnect between the numbers and the messaging? 

Most often, the total cost per inmate per year is calculated by dividing the total costs of the prison system by the number of incarcerated people, but this is a misleading figure. Many of the more costly parts of a Department of Corrections budget (e.g., staff salaries, utility bills) are long-run or fixed costs that don’t vary with marginal changes in a prison’s population. To get a more accurate estimate of possible savings, it’s more important to consider short-run costs, like food and toiletries, which can vary immediately with a change in a prison’s population.

Interpreting the numbers for Ģ����Ƶ prisons

Ģ����Ƶ is one of the 43 states that, on average, saw a decrease in their prison populations between 2010 and 2023. The state experienced an 11.7% decrease in the number of inmates during that time. 

Ģ����Ƶ falls in line with overall national trends year over year. The figure below illustrates the decrease in both Ģ����Ƶ’s and the nation’s number of incarcerated people. The biggest departure was in 2019, when Ģ����Ƶ seemingly had a sharp increase, but that increase was actually minimal at just 2.2%.

And like most states in recent years, Ģ����Ƶ saw a rebound in the number of inmates after the COVID-19 pandemic, when more people were released to help alleviate stress on prison systems.

Black Line = National Trend, Blue Line = Ģ����Ƶ Trend

The data for Ģ����Ƶ also reinforces the lack of a relationship between the change in the number of inmates and the change in corrections spending. The table below reveals that even though Ģ����Ƶ’s prison population decreased from 2010 to 2023, corrections spending increased 23.6% during that time.

Data from 2019 further reinforces this absence of a relationship. During that year, Ģ����Ƶ saw a very slight increase of 1,169 people in its prison population, but the state spent $21,430 less on corrections that year compared to 2018.

A better focus for Ģ����Ƶ policymakers

Instead of focusing on state prison budgets and costs per inmate, policymakers need to consider the total cost of crime—both monetary and social—that a community pays and how to reduce it. 

Crime itself costs our nation anywhere from $2.6 trillion to $5.76 trillion each year, with violent crime accounting for 85% of those costs. A single homicide can cost upwards of $9 million in government resources and lost potential earnings of victims. This doesn’t account for the financial burdens it can put on families and communities. 

In addition to the monetary cost of crime, communities pay a significant social price—and none more so than high-crime, impoverished areas. Effective public safety measures are foundational to upward mobility. Without them, these communities will continue to see the loss of businesses, local resources, and community connections that help people flourish.

With this in mind, policymakers and advocates should refocus criminal justice efforts toward reforms proven to reduce crime and recidivism. Improvements on both of these fronts generate cost savings of their own, in addition to saving lives and lowering fear of personal harm.

Best practice criminal justice reforms fall into eight solution categories that could spark meaningful change:

• Addressing community disrepair
• Investing in a well-trained police force
• Building trust by protecting victims
• Addressing gang violence
• Addressing the low number of homicide detectives and low clearance rates
• Ensuring appropriate sentencing
• Implementing cognitive behavioral therapy for juvenile offenders
• Evaluating and updating re-entry programs

In Ģ����Ƶ, policymakers and advocates should consider these specific efforts to reduce crime and recidivism:

• Implementing reforms to help law enforcement close non-fatal shooting cases (e.g., the Firearm Assault Shoot Team in Denver, Colorado)
• Broadening cognitive behavioral therapy offerings for juvenile offenders, which has shown promising results in juvenile recidivism rates
• Prioritizing data collection and evaluation to help guide future programs and reforms
• Helping communities through a holistic approach that includes job training and opportunities, affordable housing, and family programs

In addition to the above policy suggestions, GCO has prepared in-depth reports focusing on reducing crime in two major Ģ����Ƶ cities—Atlanta and Columbus.

As Crawford says of potential criminal justice reforms in Ģ����Ƶ, “lawmakers should focus conversations about criminal justice where they belong: on protecting the public and creating a fair and just system that values the lives, liberty, and property of Ģ����Ƶ families.” In doing so, policymakers can transform entire communities by making them safer for the people who live there.

Image Credit: Canva

The post Decarceration’s Disconnect: Corrections spending rises in Ģ����Ƶ even as prison population declines appeared first on For Opportunity.

As summer break approaches for many teens and young adults, most will be looking forward to leisurely activities like a trip to the beach, camping, or even summer camp. Kids at this developmental age indeed need relaxation and rejuvenation over summer breaks, but it is also a valuable opportunity to reap lifelong benefits.

Parents, guardians, or even mentors may want to encourage their teen to get a summer job—not just to earn a little spending money but because work has many other benefits to the health and resiliency of teens.

It’s true that the brains and bodies of kids need some time to relax and rejuvenate after a long school year—and taking a much-needed break in the summer months can be a good thing. There’s also a lot to be said for getting a summer job that teaches the value of work and offers benefits that reap dividends over the course of their lives.

Work is good for young people

Research shows that seasonal and part-time employment for teenagers and young adults has almost universally positive impacts. The truth is that holding down a summer job is something that previous generations commonly experienced—and enjoyed—but kids today have been comparatively shielded from working until much later in life.

In fact, according to the, the summer labor force participation rate for 16- to 24-year-olds in July 2023 was only 60.2%—slightly down from the previous year’s rate of 60.4%. By comparison, back in July 1989, the rate peaked at 77.5% before trending downward over the next 20-plus years to settle between 60.0% and 60.6% from 2012 to 2018. 

Since then, the rate dropped significantly to 57.3% in 2020 due to the economic dislocation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, though it has since returned to pre-COVID levels at around 60%.

Contrasting by gender, the 2023 gap in summer labor force participation was the smallest on record—at only 0.4%—with only 60.4% of young men working compared to 60.0% for young women. Interestingly—and not surprisingly—the gender gap was its widest at 40.9 percentage points back nearly 75 years ago in July 1950. Also not surprising is that today most summer jobs for teens and young adults are in leisure and hospitality (25%), retail trade (18%), and education and health services (13%). 

Clearly, the current generation of teens and young adults is working less than their predecessors. But what’s the impact on their lives?

They not only miss out on the financial benefits of earning money, but also on learning “soft” skills and attitudes that will positively impact them for the rest of their lives, including time management, respect for supervisors, following instructions, being reliable, demonstrating an upbeat attitude, dressing appropriately, accepting constructive criticism, and even using work-appropriate language.

In July 2023, the summer labor force participation rate for 16- to 24-year-olds was 60.2%. In July 1989, the rate peaked at 77.5%. The drop means more young people are missing out on the benefits of work.

In July 2023, the summer labor force participation rate for 16- to 24-year-olds was 60.2%. In July 1989, the rate peaked at 77.5%. The drop means more young people are missing out on the benefits of work.

For young people, benefits of work span all areas of a healthy life

Beyond this, the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity (GCO) team has thoroughly reviewed the literature and found that there are nine benefits for work that help teens and young men and women develop a strong work ethic that lays the foundation for success in every area of life: 

1. Personal finances: When we think of work, we immediately think of a paycheck. That’s the most obvious benefit. Work enables kids to buy both necessities and luxuries, to pay for education, even to start saving for retirement. Attaching to work early is also important for avoiding the trap of the social safety-net system that can unintentionally keep people mired in poverty.

2. Serving others: Earning money in a free market economy shows the ability to create value by serving others and learning self-reliance.

3. Economic impact: The more people work, the more the economy grows. This creates a more prosperous society and leaves those who work personally better off than those who don’t work. Those who don’t work deny society resources that could have made everyone better off—while simultaneously pulling resources away from other important societal needs.

4. Personal well-being: Work confers dignity and respect. It provides a sense of meaning and purpose in life. In contrast, those who don’t work are, overall, less happy and experience higher levels of personal and familial stress, sadness, despair, hopelessness, apathy, and depression.

5. Mental health: Those who work experience improved mental health outcomes and have higher self-esteem, fewer psychosomatic symptoms, less anxiety, and decreased suicide risk.

6. Alcohol and substance abuse: Those who work generally have reduced drug use and improved treatment outcomes. The impact of substance abuse appears to be greater on those who don’t work.

7. Physical health and lifespan: Those who don’t work generally have poorer physical health, including disrupted sleep patterns, higher risk for cardiovascular disease and respiratory infections, and shorter longevity.

8. Family relationships: Working has a particularly positive impact on males when it comes to family formation. Young men who work are much more likely to marry and have a family.

9. Crime: Working typically has a positive effect on teens and young adults by increasing future wages, building human capital, and reducing criminal behavior and recidivism—especially for economic crimes involving property damage, theft, and drugs. 

Taken together, the evidence is strong for teens and young adults to start working on a seasonal or part-time basis. Whether it’s learning to manage a summer job in between camps, family vacation, and other enrichment activities or working during the academic year after school or on the weekends, the benefits of employment go far beyond earning money. 

While it may be fashionable for parents to shelter their children from the working world as long as possible to allow them to enjoy a more carefree and leisurely adolescence, the data—and generational wisdom—show that we do kids more harm than good by unduly delaying their exposure to the workforce.

The post 9 Benefits of Work for Teens and Young Adults appeared first on For Opportunity.

PEACHTREE CORNERS, GA—Yesterday, a bipartisan majority of the U.S. House passed ​, which establishes a crucial demonstration waiver for a handful of states to implement safety-net reforms similar to Utah’s “One Door” policy. As a member of the coalition group the Alliance for Opportunity, the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity has played an important role in educating lawmakers on the perils of the current social safety net that creates barriers to work and upward mobility.

H.R. 6655 revises the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act for the first time since 2014. The bill would give four states leeway to explore a “One Door” safety-net reform strategy similar to Utah’s model enacted in the 1990s. Utah consolidated federal workforce development and social safety-net programs into a single state entity and fully integrated the safety-net system into workforce development programs.

“This is an important first step toward improving the social safety-net in all 50 states and breaking down barriers to work and a flourishing life,” said Randy Hicks, president and CEO of the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity. “The next step is to broaden the scope to allow every state to explore ways to integrate workforce and safety-net programs. These reforms are badly needed. There are 8.9 million open jobs across the U.S., and the workforce participation rate hasn’t fully recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic. We must create a safety-net system that doesn’t trap people in generational poverty but provides a pathway to a better life.”

Under H.R. 6655, the five-year innovation waiver is only available to states with populations of less than six million and a labor force participation rate below 60%. According to the Alliance for Opportunity, currently only nine states fit the bill: Louisiana, West Virginia, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, Alabama, Maine, Kentucky, and New Mexico.

Under the current version of WIOA, states are barred from implementing such reforms. Utah was grandfathered in and is the only exception.

The bill contains another potential pathway toward a One Door model as well. Three years after enactment of the law, any state’s governor can consolidate workforce programs into one entity, but doing so would require the approval of half of the chairpersons of local workforce boards.

“These reforms would advance the end goal for every work-capable individual in a safety-net program to participate in effective employment and training programs,” added Hicks. “Numerous studies show that the benefits of work extend well beyond finances, encompassing overall wellbeing and a host of other benefits. One Door reforms will help ensure we have a system that encourages people to find work and improve their lives.”

###

Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity (GCO) is independent, non-partisan, and solutions-focused. Our team is dedicated to creating opportunities for a quality education, fulfilling work, and a healthy family life for all Ģ����Ƶns. To achieve our mission, we research ways to help remove barriers to opportunity in each of these pathways, promote our solutions to policymakers and the public, and help effective and innovative social enterprises deliver results in their communities.

Schedule An Interview

The post U.S. House Passes a Bill That’s a Step Toward ‘One Door’ Social Safety-Net Reforms appeared first on For Opportunity.

U.S. Rep. Burgess Owens, R-Utah, has previously introduced a “One Door” bill in the House, a version of which passed out of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce in December.

Despite a historically low unemployment rate across the country, states are still facing a workforce crisis with millions of able-bodied Americans on the economic sidelines. Our nation’s workforce participation rate has not fully recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic. By the end of 2023, 41 million Americans relied on food stamps to make ends meet and nearly 90 million Americans were enrolled in Medicaid.

Many of these Americans remain stuck in a safety-net system that simply doesn’t work. , introduced by Sen. Romney on Feb. 28, would allow states the flexibility to implement Utah’s consolidation of federal workforce development and social safety-net programs into a single state entity. The end goal is to help work-capable recipients reintegrate more quickly into the workforce, empowering them to achieve the independence, stability, and purpose that are crucial to human well-being.

“Every state should have the flexibility to design an integrated workforce and safety-net model that enables people to succeed,” said Randy Hicks, president and CEO of the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity. “Every hour a safety-net recipient spends finding their way through the system is an hour they can’t spend working their way into opportunity. The One Door to Work Act allows states to create a system that works for people.”

The dozens of programs that make up the system have different and, at times, competing goals, inconsistent rules, and overlapping groups of recipients. Often, recipients must resubmit the same information multiple times for multiple programs with the aid of multiple caseworkers. This disconnect fosters despair and keeps recipients in a cycle of poverty—as every hour spent navigating the system is an hour not spent pursuing a path out of it.

What’s more, there is often a disconnect between safety-net programs and welfare-to-work initiatives. The end result is that people stay mired in generational poverty rather than receiving a helping hand to live a better life. The One Door to Work Act would free up state governments to explore ways to create a safety net that works for all citizens and doesn’t cause generational poverty.

“There are 8.7 million open jobs in this country, and the workforce participation rate has not fully recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic. States need the flexibility in the One Door to Work Act to use our workforce dollars to move our people off the sidelines,” said Greg Sindelar, executive director and chief operating officer of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which is a member of the Alliance for Opportunity.

 “A robust workforce is not only integral to a thriving state economy, but also to its social fabric,” added Daniel Erspamer, CEO of the Pelican Institute for Public Policy, also a member of the Alliance. “When a person is unemployed for longer than six months, it is associated with decreased well-being, even measurably affecting mortality. The One Door to Work Act gives workers, employers, and taxpayers the system that they deserve.”

.

###

Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity (GCO) is independent, non-partisan, and solutions-focused. Our team is dedicated to creating opportunities for a quality education, fulfilling work, and a healthy family life for all Ģ����Ƶns. To achieve our mission, we research ways to help remove barriers to opportunity in each of these pathways, promote our solutions to policymakers and the public, and help effective and innovative social enterprises deliver results in their communities.

The post U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney’s ‘One Door’ Bill Would Allow States to Integrate Social Safety Net With Workforce Development appeared first on For Opportunity.

Many Americans rely on SNAP benefits to afford food, but these same individuals and families face a trap that keeps them mired in dependency. It’s called the SNAP benefits cliff. A new report from the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity analyzes some possible solutions for addressing the benefits cliffs still present in safety-net programs like SNAP. 

What are benefits cliffs?

A benefits cliff is when an individual, family, or household loses more in net income and benefits from governmental assistance programs than it gains from additional earnings. This net loss is a perverse incentive that undermines the natural desire to earn more income.

At an individual level—or in the case of SNAP, at a household level—the impact has to do with the ability of the individual or household to overcome the cliff. If the household can increase its earnings (and other income) sufficiently relative to the loss in benefits and taxes, the cliff will have no impact on that specific individual or household.

Who is hurt the most by benefits cliffs?

Our computational analysis shows that it is mathematically possible for some one-member households, where the individual is disabled or elderly, to overcome a benefits cliff with a pay raise of less than 5%. However, almost all other households will require percentage income increases in the double digits or worse.

Larger families, especially those without elderly or disabled members of the household, fare much worse. For example, a family of four (where a single mom is raising three kids, for example) would require a pay raise of between 37% and 121%, assuming the family doesn’t have housing costs. For larger households with disabled or elderly members, that pay raise ranged from 30% to 109%.

Solving the food assistance (SNAP) Benefits Cliffs

Our comprehensive report on the SNAP Benefits Cliffs outlines the pitfalls in the current structure of the program and steps that can be made at a federal, state, and agency level.

Learn More Ģ����Ƶ This Report

Running the numbers: the impact of benefits cliffs

A family of four would begin experiencing SNAP benefits cliffs when their household income exceeds $36,084. This family would lose around $462.42 in SNAP benefits each month. To overcome those lost benefits, that same family would need to earn $58,280 a year, a 61.5 percent increase in income.

What is the marriage penalty? 

Another example of benefits cliffs’ detrimental impacts lies in the marriage penalty. For instance, a couple choosing to marry would leave them worse off financially by getting married than by staying single. Instead, many couples decide to remain unmarried to avoid the financial burden of the marriage penalty. 

SNAP benefits cliffs are at a 20-year high

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the SNAP maximum allotments were raised significantly—between 45% and 51%. The Thrifty Food Plan was recalculated by the USDA, which impacted these increases. However, SNAP’s current benefits cliffs are at a 20-year high and may be the highest they’ve ever been. 

The situation is getting worse

Setting aside COVID-19 and the emergency allotment program, SNAP benefits cliffs are getting worse and, based on twenty years of data, have never been higher. This was not always the trend. The benefits cliffs cycled up to a high in 2009, slowly came down, and then leveled off for a few years. However, since the pandemic, they have all shot up to record highs.

Policy goals for improvement

We recommend approaching change from a policy perspective, and engaging Congress and the states to solve the problems with SNAP’s benefits cliffs. 

As a public policy goal, it would make sense to design a safety-net assistance program in such a manner that it minimizes potential cliffs for most cases. We believe that it should be relatively easy for individuals and households to overcome benefits cliffs by earning additional income. 

Our recommendations include:��

• Limiting how long future emergency allotment programs last 
• Requiring the USDA to recalculate the Thrifty Food Plan
• Permanently eliminating benefits cliffs that a typical pay raise can’t mitigate
• Implementing strategies to prevent marriage penalties 
• Amending U.S. code to test potential solutions via demonstration projects
• Opening the floor for the Secretary of Agriculture to work with states to solve benefits cliffs
• Allowing states to conduct §2026 demonstration projects

The post Solving the food stamp benefits cliffs appeared first on For Opportunity.

Violent crime is on the rise in Columbus, Ģ����Ƶ. What are the reasons, and can anything be done to stop it? Those questions are the topic of a new report from the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity (GCO) focused on Columbus’ recent spike in crime and ideas on how to mitigate it.

Titled “Reducing Crime in Columbus: Safer Communities Through Policy,” the report is authored by Josh Crawford, Director of Criminal Justice Initiatives at GCO.

Access the Report:

Reducing Crime in Columbus

Our Columbus Crime Report details six practical solutions that city leaders can use to reduce crime in Columbus and restore safety, hope, and opportunity to the broader community.��

Learn More Ģ����Ƶ This Report

Reducing Crime in Columbus: Safer Communities through Policy

“Since 2017, crime has been on the rise in Columbus. And it’s only gotten worse during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Crawford said. “It’s imperative that city and community leaders come together to solve this problem. Our new report provides the groundwork.”

Quick Facts on Crime in Columbus

• Columbus saw one of its most violent years with 59 murders in 2021.
• The city’s population is on the decline, correlated to the rise in violent crime.
• A decrease in Columbus police has gone hand-in-hand with the crime spike.
• Attempted murder convicts in Columbus who were released in 2022 only served 35% of their time.

“The human cost of this violence is dramatic, cutting lives short and leaving behind grieving families and fractured communities,” Crawford said. “The toll of violent crime goes beyond the physical cost to those directly impacted and includes financial costs to victims and taxpayers, the loss of productive years, and decreased economic mobility and growth in communities afflicted with high rates of crime.”

Six Policy Recommendations to Reduce Crime

Fixing the Columbus crime problem is about focusing on the most violent offenders. By addressing gang-related violence and solving more homicide investigations, Columbus can restore community safety, improve trust with city officials and law enforcement, and expand upward mobility and opportunity for residents.

Crawford suggests:

• Addressing disrepair in Columbus’ communities by expanding cleanup efforts, tearing down or renovating abandoned buildings, and installing adequate street lighting.
  
• Building trust between community residents and law enforcement and social services, particularly through protecting the rights of victims.
  
• Removing egregious offenders from communities by implementing gang-enhancement provisions such as SB44 (2023) that keep these individuals incarcerated.
• Improving and requiring pre-entry cognitive behavioral therapy services for all juvenile offenders, no matter how non-violent their offenses.
• Reevaluating reentry programs through an external third party, examining the impact on revocation, rearrest, and reconviction.

Schedule An Interview

Ģ����Ƶ The Author

Josh Crawford

Director of Criminal Justice Initiatives

Josh Crawford is a native of Massachusetts. He went to Penn State for his undergraduate degree and then finished law school in Boston. After a brief stint in Sacramento, California, working in the county district attorney’s office, Josh moved to Kentucky to help start the Pegasus Institute, a nonpartisan organization designed to promote opportunity. In addition to serving as executive director of the organization, Josh had a special focus on criminal justice policy.

“By focusing on public safety and order, we can restore hope and opportunity to rural communities.”

The post New Report Seeks to Ease Spike in Columbus Crime, Restore Community Safety appeared first on For Opportunity.

Key Points

• There has been a concerning increase in violent crime and homicide rates in California.
• Cities like San Francisco and Oakland have been adversely affected by rising crime, leading to economic challenges, a decline in safety perception, and demands for action from various community groups.
• Over the years policies and decisions at both the state and local levels are believed to have contributed to the rise in crime. These include changes in sentencing laws, budget reallocations, and the election of progressive district attorneys. However, there is still great potential for political repercussions and the need for innovative solutions to address crime.

A recent headline from the satirical The Babylon Bee read “California Achieves World’s First Crime Rate Of Zero After Legalizing All Crime.” That piece reads in part:

“This is a great moment for our state,” Governor Gavin Newsom said. “No other state in the nation’s history has successfully brought the crime rate down to nothing. California is once again leading the way! Now, please, for the safety of your loved ones, don’t venture out of your homes at night. Or at least carry an air horn. Whatever. I don’t care.”

Analysts point to the state’s legalization of all criminal acts as the catalyst for reaching a zero crime rate. “It was a bold but revolutionary move,” said Professor Kyle Ray of the California Crime Institute. “California has effectively eliminated all crime from existence simply by making every unlawful or despicable act completely acceptable. Murder, assault, robbery — these are yesterday’s terms. Californians are now truly free to express themselves however they choose. Zero crime!”

Unfortunately, sometimes life comes a little too close to imitating art. In California’s case, de-carceration, de-prosecution, and de-policing has led to a toxic mix that has eroded public safety in the Golden State.

While crime began to crest in many states in 2022, the 2022 Crime in California shows:

• State-wide violent crime was up 6.1% compared to 2021.
• Property crime was up 6.2% over the same time period.
• The homicide rate increased 23.9% in the five years since 2017.��
• By contrast, the rates for overall arrests and homicide arrests declined in 2022.

��

San Francisco and Oakland: California Beacons of Opportunity Turned Cautionary Tales��

Two Bay-area cities—San Francisco and Oakland—exemplify California’s public safety decline.

In San Francisco, a destination once regarded as the booming tech hub of the world, rising violent crime, homelessness, and open-air drug markets have led to massive exits from businesses large and small. In fact, the number of fleeing businesses is so large that several media and advocacy groups have developed of all the companies leaving.��

This trend has severely damaged the city’s reputation. A recent Gallup found that only 52% of Americans thought San Francisco was safe—down from 70% in 2006. It has also opened San Francisco up to the negative impact that crime has on economic opportunity. As multiple studies have found, violent crime robs communities of job growth and economic mobility—an outcome that tends to hurt disadvantaged communities and low-income residents the most.��

Across the Golden Gate Bridge in Oakland, CA, residents have become so tired of unabated violent crime that the local NAACP chapter joined Black religious leaders in city leadership to declare a “state of emergency” over the impact of surging violence on minority communities. They specifically called out “failed leadership, including the movement to defund the police,” as well as the failure to “prosecute people who murder and commit life threatening serious crimes.”��

Bad ideas in Oakland have contributed to a cycle of violence that has trapped low-income residents in places they feel unsafe. The NAACP chapter there is demanding accountability, both of the offenders and of the politicians who placate them. In the first six months of 2023, crime is up 26% overall in Oakland,�� according to the Oakland Police Department.

How Did California Get Into This Crime Crisis?

How did California get here? A brew of bad policies at the state and local levels over the last decade appears to have finally come to a head.

• , in response to a lawsuit about prison crowding, the California legislature passed AB 109, “Public Safety Realignment,” which made most property and drug offenses ineligible for state prison sentences and eliminated state parole supervision in most instances in favor of less intensive county options.

   

• ��Then, in 2014, voters approved Proposition 47,�� “The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act,” which made all types of theft under $950 and some drug crimes misdemeanors.

   

• In 2016, voters approved Proposition 57, “The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016” which created a system of earned early release that applied to many inmates, including those convicted of rape, gang, and gun crimes.

   

• Finally, in 2020, in an effort to slow the spread of COVID-19 in state prisons, Governor Newsom released more than 10,000 inmates back onto the street, many of whom had violent and serious convictions.

At the local level, both San Francisco and Oakland reduced or repurposed portions of their police department budgets amid calls to “defund” the police. In 2020, San Francisco $120 million from the police department and sheriff’s office budgets over the next two years. In Oakland, the city council $17 million away from the police department in favor of doubling the budget of a civilian crime prevention entity.

And then there are the elected District Attorneys. In San Francisco, progressive defense attorney Chesa Boudin was elected in 2020, along with a wave of other progressive prosecutors around the country with large financial backing. In addition to not prosecuting a host of lower-level crimes, Boudin quickly announced he would not pursue enhanced penalties for gang members. Crime rose dramatically, and Boudin was recalled in 2022.

Shortly after the Boudin recall, Oakland elected district attorney Pamela Price, who to discontinue use of those same enhanced penalties and favor probation over incarceration. She is currently facing the potential of her own.

“MY SON IS DEFINITELY WORTH THAT FIGHT”

The tragic story of Christian Gwynn who was fatally shot as a result of violence is a wake-up call to the need for change in policies that will reduce urban violence.

“MY SON IS DEFINITELY WORTH THAT FIGHT”

Rising Crime Doesn’t Have to be the New Norm in California—or Anywhere Else

Now there is mounting fear of even greater political. But political implications aside, it doesn’t have to be this way.

We recently published our first analysis of a city and state’s public safety infrastructure. While this initial report looks at Atlanta, GA, the implications extend to cities and states across the country. Blue and red cities in blue and red states have been innovating and implementing best practices to reduce crime and violence, and these steps are helping several communities restore safety, hope, and opportunity.��

For more on how cities and states can get back on the right track, check out the report and recommendations here.

Schedule An Interview

Ģ����Ƶ The Author

Josh Crawford

Director of Criminal Justice Initiatives

Josh Crawford is a native of Massachusetts. He went to Penn State for his undergraduate degree and then finished law school in Boston. After a brief stint in Sacramento, California, working in the county district attorney’s office, Josh moved to Kentucky to help start the Pegasus Institute, a nonpartisan organization designed to promote opportunity. In addition to serving as executive director of the organization, Josh had a special focus on criminal justice policy.

“By focusing on public safety and order, we can restore hope and opportunity to rural communities.”

The post California’s Skyrocketing Crime: How It Happened and What to Do Ģ����Ƶ It appeared first on For Opportunity.

Key Points

• Mainor’s party switch shows her dedication to expanding educational options.
• There is a growing national movement in favor of educational opportunity, with several states enacting universal access to education.
• Parents show public support for school choice, especially within minority communities, and Mainor’s recognition of the urgent need for better educational options in her district says she’s listening to her constituents.

Our state and nation would be far better off if there were more principled lawmakers like Rep. Mesha Mainor around.

Mainor recently made national headlines from Democrat to Republican. A prominent Ģ����Ƶ Democrat and sitting state senator to ensure she is defeated in next year’s primary election. Partisanship aside, one of Mainor’s primary reasons for switching was due to her support for expanding educational options to all students.

Mainor was the only Democrat to vote in favor of Ģ����Ƶ’s Promise Scholarships Act earlier this year. The measure would have put $6,500 per student back into parents’ pockets so they could fund the best educational approaches for their children, including private school tuition. The bill was targeted so that students in some of the poorest performing public school districts across the state would have access.

The measure passed the Senate with unanimous Republican support but fell short in the House with a number of Republicans breaking with their party to oppose the measure. Thankfully, the bill is alive for the upcoming 2024 session.

Mainor is a prime example of a lawmaker putting the best interests of her constituents first — especially her constituents who are impoverished and reside in zip codes with limited educational options. This type of integrity is rare in politics and policy making these days.

But her decision doesn’t stand in a silo. It is reflective of a growing national movement in favor of educational opportunity. Half a dozen states have already enacted universal — or near universal — access to educational opportunity in 2023 alone. Lawmakers across the U.S. are recognizing the growing national consensus around this issue.��

The most recent evidence is showing that 71% of Americans support the concept of “school choice,” which is defined as giving taxpayer dollars back to parents to empower them to choose the right school for their child. The COVID-19 pandemic was a catalyst for even stronger public support, with backing for school choice growing seven percentage points between now and the beginning of the pandemic.

Crucially, 73% of African Americans and 71% of Hispanics support school choice. This is a reality Mainor has recognized in her own district, which is predominantly minority — she sees the desperate need these families have for an educational lifeline.

“In my district in particular, we have schools with 3% reading proficiency, 3% have obtained math proficiency by the eighth grade,” . “And so to say that this is just how it is and that the kid needs to just suffer these consequences, I don’t agree with that. And I don’t think that all parents agree with that either.”

Perhaps more revealing is the fact that the poll found widespread support for school choice even among Democrats — to the tune of 66%.

It’s a shame that Mainor was forced from her political party in large part because she refused to toe the line on what should be a bipartisan issue — and an issue that clearly is viewed as bipartisan among the electorate in general.

A poll found widespread support for school choice even among Democrats — to the tune of 66%.

A poll found widespread support for school choice even among Democrats — to the tune of 66%.

It’s an issue that helps students like Aiden, a young man with special needs who wasn’t getting the specialized education he needed in local public schools in Cobb County. The answer came through a specialized private school in Atlanta. Or the story of Hudson, another student with special needs whose life was transformed by access to an alternative education option.

We commend Mainor for her bravery and integrity as we build a future where every child has access to an excellent education.

Talk To An Expert

Ģ����Ƶ The Author

David Bass

Press Manager

David Bass is��a journalist and communications professional with nearly two decades of experience in the world of PR, marketing, and publications.

The post We need more lawmakers like Ģ����Ƶ Rep. Mesha Mainor appeared first on For Opportunity.

n a recent announcement, Ģ����Ƶ revealed that the state will distribute over $83.5 million in federal COVID-19 relief funds as grants for 118 public safety projects across Ģ����Ƶ.

The aim of these grants is to bolster law enforcement staffing, support initiatives to reduce violent crime, invest in technology and equipment, and address personnel shortages stemming from the pandemic.

Kemp emphasized the significance of the grants in a statement following the decision. “Public safety has always been a top priority of my administration and will continue to be,” he said.

He further highlighted the need to provide resources for law enforcement agencies to combat surging crime.

The post Ģ����Ƶ allocates $83.5 million in grants to enhance public safety appeared first on For Opportunity.

Key Points

• Ģ����Ƶ received a waiver from reporting its College and Career Ready Performance Index (CCRPI) metrics, including the A-F grading system for schools.
• The CCRPI metrics assess student performance, including comprehension of class content and preparedness for college and the workforce.
• GADOE announced its intention to request a permanent waiver from CCRPI grading, raising concerns about transparency and public input.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many state school systems across the country were waived from receiving a grade from the US Department of Education (DOE) under (ESEA).

The unprecedented circumstances brought on by the pandemic created unforeseen educational�� challenges. Naturally, children who spent time in lockdown, away from school, and relegated to unfamiliar online classes could be expected to fall behind educationally. Like many other states, Ģ����Ƶ received a waiver from reporting its College and Career Ready Performance Index (CCRPI) metrics, specifically the A-F grading system for schools that gauge their performance.

But now the state of Ģ����Ƶ has asked to be permanently excused from reporting the A-F grading CCRPI evaluations. The state allowed less than a week for public comment on the proposal, opting not to announce the request via press release. In the past, similar issues have allowed a 30-day window for public comment, at the very least.

With students back in school and educational institutions back to their regular operations, why make this request now? And why the lack of transparency in the process? The exemption from the A-F reporting requirement takes away the public’s ability to easily assess how schools are performing. It’s a knock against real transparency that serves no one but the educational bureaucracy.

The bottom line is that wise school choice depends on parents’ ability to access information about school performance. Without that information, they’re risking their children’s educational opportunities—and maybe even their future.

“The bottom line is that wise school choice depends on parents’ ability to access information about school performance.”

“The bottom line is that wise school choice depends on parents’ ability to access information about school performance.”

Ģ����Ƶ the CCRPI and temporary COVID waivers

In 2012, the. Its purpose was to encourage more transparency in terms of school performance. Parents and the public needed to know more about how their local school systems were performing, and the CCRPI not only provides this information—it also allows parents to compare their child’s current school with others in the area.

In terms of measuring performance, the CCRPI to each school. The scoring system reveals how well students are performing in each school, including how well they comprehend their class content and whether they’re keeping up with their grade level. This score also reveals how well-prepared older students are for college and the workforce.

CCRPI scoring was waived beginning in March of 2020, and schools weren’t required to report data as usual. This waiver continued throughout 2021. However, in 2022, as the nation largely resumed business as usual, the Ģ����Ƶ Department of Education (GADOE) was.

Seeking a permanent exemption

GADOE published an announcement on its website on January 25, 2023, informing the public that it intended to ask the DOE for a permanent waiver from CCRPI grading. Although the state collects and aggregates all the required metrics, GADOE now seeks to stop submitting the data completely.

As the ESEA requires each state to create its own school accountability system and report its findings to the DOE, it seems questionable that Ģ����Ƶ would completely extract itself from transparency not only at the state level, but at the federal level, too.

Most alarming was the lack of transparency involved in the process. There was to announce the potential change. As previously mentioned, what’s even worse is that GADOE allowed for fewer than five business days for members of the public to submit their feedback, rather than the standard 30 days.

Reducing transparency hurts Ģ����Ƶ families��

While GADOE attempts to evade school grading, numbers don’t lie. Ģ����Ƶ’s most recent indicate that over 780 schools in Ģ����Ƶ received Ds and Fs. That’s about one-third of the state’s students. GADOE might argue that the proof of school performance lies in the state’s graduation rates, but graduation rates can be manipulated and aren’t a reliable indicator of how well a school performs academically.

Schools that receive Ds and Fs from CCRPI are, by default, not serving their students well. No matter how high their graduation numbers may be, the real proof is in how well (or poorly) they score according to CCRPI academic standards.

There is no compelling case that can be made as to why Ģ����Ƶ’s exemption from CCRPI reporting is an improvement, or how it helps families in our state.

GADOE appears to be skirting the standard process for notifying the public and seeking appropriate input. It’s up to Ģ����Ƶ voters to make their voices heard and demand continued school transparency from its elected officials.

The post Ģ����Ƶ parents deserve full transparency from state school systems appeared first on For Opportunity.