Key Points

• A new report reveals Seattle’s murder rate defied national trends with a 13% increase in homicides in 2022.��
• Washington has veered toward the wrong side of the “crime divide” as violent and property crime have worsened in the wake of recent policy decisions.
• Enacting best practices for crime reduction will empower cities like Seattle to reverse the violence.

Homicides were likely down nationwide—about 4% according to—in 2022. But declining national numbers only tell part of the story. Families and individuals don’t live in “the nation.” They live in specific communities that are much smaller. Unfortunately, the homicide declines experienced in the aggregate did not translate evenly across these communities.

Seattle’s Murder Rate Goes Opposite the National Decline��

2022 began what we have referred to as “” in which some cities saw dramatic decreases in homicide—40% in Richmond, VA, and 11% in Austin, TX, for example—while other cities continued to see increases in homicides. One of those cities, Seattle, WA, saw a 13% increase in homicides in 2022 compared to 2021.

A recently released from the Washington Association of Sheriffs further details this increase and shows a 15% rise in homicides statewide in Washington, once again setting a record for murders. Equally troubling, aggravated assaults, robberies, and car thefts were also up statewide. Car thefts are typically a good proxy for property crime because they have such high relative to other property offenses.

Seattle’s Crime Problem Is a Policy Choice

Once again, it’s clear that rising crime is a policy choice. Beginning in, the Seattle City Council voted two years in a row to cut police funding and are now due to resignations and early retirements. Seattle has also become one of the national standard-bearers for “revolving door” justice. The Seattle Times used a to highlight the problem.

Cuong Cao, was, as of Friday, still loose, described now by a federal justice spokesperson as a “fugitive.” There’s no reason for him to be a fugitive though, because he was arrested at 12th and Jackson last month, after police say they watched him selling fentanyl pills on the sidewalk and then crouching over a woman who was overdosing.

When Cao was booked, he was carrying heroin, meth and 88 “blues” — street slang for fentanyl pills — along with $800 in cash and a Canik 9-mm pistol. He’s got a slew of felony convictions for burglary, car theft and drug dealing, and he’s had 39 arrest warrants going back 20 years because of a propensity to not show up in court.

��Yet he was out of jail 45 hours later on just $2,500 bail, down from the $75,000 requested by prosecutors.

State policymakers have also played a role in exacerbating Washington’s crime problem. In 2021 they passed into law two “police reform” bills ( and) that limited pursuits, use of force, and other tactics in a way that likely discouraged proactive policing. But the bad ideas roll on. Legislators have filed, but not yet passed bills that allow for for violent felons and for drive-by shootings. Passage of these measures would only make a bad situation worse, and further push Washington state down the path to more crime and more disorder.��

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.

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.

Reducing Crime is Essential to Building Vibrant Communities

��As I wrote in, there’s a direct link between rising crime and the well-being of our communities: “When communities become less safe, they become less prosperous. Our poorest residents end up shouldering the burden.”

Whether it’s Seattle, Atlanta, or any other city struggling with increasing violence, getting serious about reducing crime is more than a policy decision. It’s an act of compassion, especially toward the most vulnerable in our communities.

While bad decisions have led to increased crime, enacting best practices at the local and state level not only reverse Washington’s current trajectory but can meaningfully reduce violent and serious property crime so that Washingtonians can lead safer, more fulfilled lives.

Related Reading

A Path That Could Reduce Atlanta’s Juvenile Crime

Community Benefits of a Strong Police Force

There’s Hope for Reducing Crime in Ģ����Ƶ

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 Why Seattle’s Murder Rate Has Surged Against National Decline appeared first on For Opportunity.

Key Points

• Our primary education-centric emphasis will be on passing legislation for Education Scholarship Accounts (ESAs).
• Over the course of 2023, we’ll focus on working in more schools statewide.
• Our team is excited to broaden BETTER WORK’s reach so this highly successful program can continue to nurture, jump-start, and inspire those who need it most.

As the new year dawns, we’re excited about everything we were able to accomplish with your support in 2022. But our focus is also forward, and our team is excited to expand our growth and reach into Ģ����Ƶ communities and beyond in 2023. Today, we’re outlining our 2023 agenda, so let’s jump right in!

Policy

Our primary education-centric emphasis will be on passing legislation for Education Scholarship Accounts (ESAs). But we’ll also be advocating for reforms to public school funding formulas to ensure that money follows each child to the school their parents or guardians have chosen. We’ll also support legislation to expand the Tuition Tax Credit Scholarship program.

Here are some of the other important areas where we’ll be focusing:��

• • • • Benefits Cliffs Reform Task Force: We’ll ask the legislature to appoint a joint House/Senate committee to investigate and seek out reform ideas for the welfare system’s disincentives to marriage and work.
      • Welfare/Workforce Integration: This is a critical piece of trigger legislation that would integrate Ģ����Ƶ and federal workforce development services and welfare benefits. Modeled after work done in Utah, integration will take effect when Congress passes legislation that allows it.
      • Prisoner Reentry: We will advocate for legislation that requires licensing boards to offer returning citizens the opportunity to get an occupational license upon release from prison. (These licenses would not be related to the crimes they were convicted for.) Based on our earlier successes changing the law, licensing boards are meant to be doing this already. But we’ve received word that they aren’t following the intended procedures. This new law would give returning citizens the right to appeal denials issued by a licensing board.

“There’s much work to be done in the new year, but we’re ready to rise to the challenges.”

“There’s much work to be done in the new year, but we’re ready to rise to the challenges.”

Family

Strengthening families through better education, job opportunities, and legislation is at the heart of what we do. Many of our initiatives result in the establishment of new families, as well as adding multiple layers of stability to new and existing families. We’ll address those initiatives in other sections of this post, but for our purposes here, we’ll talk about our push to keep kids in school.

Over the course of 2023, we’ll focus on working in more schools statewide. We’ll accomplish this through our Raising Highly Capable Kids curriculum. Raising Highly Capable Kids equips parents with 40 essential developmental assets, which have been shown to improve children’s academic performance dramatically. As our reach expands, we’ll zero in on serving students from Title I schools who are at risk of dropping out.

BETTER WORK

serves to help unemployed and underemployed individuals find gainful employment that helps them feel fulfilled and successful. BETTER WORK ultimately contributes to better long-term financial stability for individuals and families in Ģ����Ƶ. We’re committed to increasing our efforts in the new year.��

When it comes to the BETTER WORK program, we have two primary goals in 2023:��

1. Growing our community program reach in Columbus and Gwinnett counties. We’re aiming for a combined total of 1,000 job candidates in 2023. Part of this initiative includes optimizing our mentors’ effectiveness through additional training and content. We’ll also be expanding training options for job candidates to help them prepare for the job market.
2. Using the lessons we’ve learned from implementing BETTER WORK and creating a replicable model we can take into other communities.��

Our team is excited to broaden BETTER WORK’s reach so this highly successful program can continue to nurture, jump-start, and inspire those who need it most.

Education��

Throughout 2023, the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity will work toward equipping Ģ����Ƶ parents with essential tools and skills for finding the best learning opportunities and environments for their children. We’ll also assist them with learning how to access funding and scholarships that will help to pay for their children’s education. These combined efforts will provide parents with a more substantial voice as they advocate for better educational options.��

The Ģ����Ƶ General Assembly’s passage of , effectively raising the state Tax Credit Scholarship Program cap from $100 million to $120 million per year. In addition, HB517 removes the automatic program sunset and doubles how much individuals, LLCs, and S Corporations can contribute. While we appreciate the marginal gain of $20 million and the strengthened tax-credit program, we would have liked to see the Senate raise the cap to the House’s proposed $200 million. Hopefully, in the next legislative session, the cap will be increased further.��

Still, thousands of children in Ģ����Ƶ will benefit from this broadened access to high-quality education. Regardless of our organizational stance on the finalized legislation, we celebrate the educational opportunities these children will enjoy.
��

Alliance for Opportunity

In the coming year, we’ll be working alongside our partners in Louisiana and Texas to forward our joint effort to improve our respective states’ employment, welfare systems, and criminal justice policies. We’ll focus on partnering with our Congressional representatives to advocate for and advance legislation that would give states the ability to reform their workforce development and welfare programs. Ultimately, our goal is to help those programs work together seamlessly, without discouraging marriage or gainful employment.��

Wrapping Up

There’s much work to be done in the new year, but we’re ready to rise to the challenges. As 2023 unfolds, we remain dedicated to supporting our Ģ����Ƶ communities and beyond, going above and beyond to help improve policy and strengthen families, careers, and educational opportunities. Once again, we’re grateful for your support!��

The post A Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity agenda for 2023 appeared first on For Opportunity.

Key Points

• As of June, 35 states and D.C. have not recovered the number of lost jobs
• The labor force has shrunk despite population growth.
• Its stated goal of the Federal Reserve remains the same–to reduce inflation to its 2% target, meaning it will take steps to prevent the price level from coming back down. This bad policy goal will burden the working class and the poor and retired persons the most.

It may not matter if federal policy does not change.

We’ve seen some back-to-back encouraging news within the last few weeks. The Employment Situation Report for July showed that the United States finally recovered the number of its lost jobs from the start of the pandemic, and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation rate for July was essentially zero. But digging a little deeper to put the news into perspective reveals real concerns that stagflation will not end anytime soon.

The States Who Are Driving the Job Recovery

On the jobs front, yes, it’s true we’ve recovered the number of lost jobs benchmarked to February 2020 before the drastic impact on the labor market from COVID-19. This indicates we’re on the mend, but the job recovery process has not been the “V” shape hoped for at the beginning of the pandemic, one that would have meant a robust job recovery.��

Two-and-a-half years later, the civilian non-institutionalized population base that feeds the labor force grew by 4.8 million. Our own ARIMA Model job forecast shows we are approximately 5.8 million jobs short of where we would have been had the pandemic not happened.��

But this is not the case for all 50 states. Astoundingly, four states—Montana, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming—have matched or nearly matched their pre-pandemic ARIMA Model forecasts, effectively eliminating any impact from the pandemic on the number of lost jobs.��

In the meantime, the national job recovery to pre-pandemic levels is driven probably by just 15 states who already recovered their number of lost jobs prior to the nation as a whole. These states are Utah, Idaho, Texas, Montana, North Carolina, Ģ����Ƶ, Florida, Tennessee, Arizona, South Dakota, Colorado, Arkansas, Indiana, and Nevada.��

As of June, the remaining 35 states and D.C. have not recovered the number of lost jobs. We have to wait another week before we know whether another state slipped onto the list of leading states that helped tip the balance for the national July data.��

According to our analysis, a common feature of the leading states is that they tend to have more than the other states do. Incidentally, and for explanatory reasons and not for the purpose of getting political, all but three of the 15 leading states have given political control to the governor’s office and both chambers of the state legislature to the Republican Party.

Jobs Versus People Employed��

One problem with job data is that the dataset allows for double counting. If we want to count the number of people employed, it paints a different picture.��

The Current Population Survey shows the U.S. is still more than half a million workers short when compared to February 2020. In fact, we had fewer employed persons in July than March of this year, using seasonally adjusted data.��

The reason is that the labor force has shrunk despite population growth. This can be seen with the 62.1% labor force participation rate that is more than a percentage point below where it stood in February 2020.

This means that the 3.5% unemployment rate—which now matches its pre-pandemic level—is misleading. The shrinkage of the labor force is distorting the meaning of the metric.

Taken together on a national scale, jobs have recovered but the number of employed persons has not. This can mean only one thing. More people are working multiple jobs to make ends meet.��

Inflation versus the Price Level

July’s CPI ever-so-slightly decreased. It ticked down 0.2% at an annualized rate–a welcome change from the past 25 months. Just to keep this in perspective, the price level nonetheless increased 14.1% since the start of the pandemic. But there is no need to tell this to average consumers who have been feeling it in their pocketbooks.��

Disturbingly, the Federal Reserve shows no interest in doing something about the –and who isn’t even discussing it. Its stated goal remains the same–to reduce inflation to its 2% target, meaning it will take steps to prevent the price level from coming back down. This bad policy goal will burden the working class and the poor and retired persons the most.

“Disturbingly, the Federal Reserve shows no interest in doing something about the –and who isn’t even discussing it. Its stated goal remains the same–to reduce inflation to its 2% target, meaning it will take steps to prevent the price level from coming back down. This bad policy goal will burden the working class and the poor and retired persons the most.”

“Disturbingly, the Federal Reserve shows no interest in doing something about the –and who isn’t even discussing it. Its stated goal remains the same–to reduce inflation to its 2% target, meaning it will take steps to prevent the price level from coming back down. This bad policy goal will burden the working class and the poor and retired persons the most.”

Fiscal and Regulatory Policy

The Federal Reserve does not stand alone with its bad policy. Congress and the Administration are just as guilty, if not more so.

Excessive fiscal spending also drives up the price level. Worse, increasing business taxes will pull�� resources from businesses. These resources are needed to produce goods and services that we all use and enjoy. It also enables these very same businesses to pay workers and compensate investors, and it leads to more economic growth and prosperity. Likewise, more excessive regulatory restrictions have similar negative effects on people and the economy.

Increasing business taxes and regulating businesses even more at this time will not help keep prices down. Rather, a good portion of these higher costs will be passed onto consumers.�� And they will be passed on to consumers to the degree that individual businesses are able to do so. If businesses can’t pass all or even some of those costs on to consumers, then they will be forced to make more difficult decisions, such as cutting back on the number of employees or suspending pay raises to employees. Profits will clearly suffer that may cause a few businesses to scale back or exit the industry altogether. These consequential actions all aggravate stagnation. Add in the price increases and we get more stagflation, not less.

Unfortunately, the President just signed into law the erroneously named Inflation Reduction Act that will do nothing about inflation, but it will hike business taxes and increase regulations that will only worsen the economic situation.��

Congress and the Administration need to start following the lead from the states who are doing it right. Only pro- growth policies relying on innovation and production organically sprouted from within the economy will help us out of this mess, and it won’t work if politicians think that means taking money from successful businesses or imposing new mandates on others or picking the winners and losers in the economy.

The post A glimmer of good economic news? Maybe not appeared first on For Opportunity.

Key Points

• Total nonfarm payrolls for the U.S. rose by 372,000
• Unemployment rate remained at 3.6%.

The post the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the unemployment rate remained at 3.6% appeared first on For Opportunity.

The thought of someone turning down a well-paying job to stay on welfare seems absurd. But that’s the exact scenario Frankie Johnson faced. It’s a real world example of the way benefit cliffs hurt people. Thankfully, Frankie found the BETTER WORK program and is on a new path to success.

An unexpected journey in life

Frankie Johnson, a Washington, D.C. native, grew up in a middle-class neighborhood and spent time serving her community. Through her community service work, she connected with many individuals who were victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, job loss, and poverty. By the time she’d reached her teens, Frankie knew she found fulfillment in working alongside others to improve their lives. 

At age 14, Frankie became pregnant with her first child, Evelyn. She gave birth just before her 15th birthday. She went on to get an internship through Job Corps, then earn her high school diploma. After graduation, she attended California College of the Arts in San Francisco, where she planned to study photography and 3D installation. 

But leaving Evelyn in Maryland with her parents while she studied in California proved to be too difficult a separation for Frankie. She moved to New York instead, which allowed her to see her daughter more often. 

At age 18, Frankie married a member of the military who was six years her senior. His deployments and resulting war-related trauma proved to be difficult on the family and the couple’s marriage. For the next six years, they lived in Texas and the Midwest before returning to Maryland. Steadily, the situation with Frankie’s husband deteriorated.

It’s time to stop funding poverty. And start finding solutions.

Learn How To Fix The Cliff

High aspirations, hidden pain

Despite the trouble at home, Frankie was a high achiever, building a career in human resources and working for firms such as Monumental Sports and the Nick Cannon Foundation. She worked as a high-end event planner, where she regularly brushed elbows with celebrities and influencers. 

When the family returned to Maryland, Frankie found herself heading up events for women who were victims of domestic violence. Meanwhile, at home, she was living in an abusive environment herself. 

“At home, I never knew what was going to become of my peace or if he was going to get triggered,” Frankie says. “I was serving in the community as a social worker. I put on events for women, took them on yacht parties, and tried to boost their self-esteem. No one knew I was suffering so much.”

Finally, the situation in Frankie’s home came to a head, and she fled to Atlanta with her children. Her uncle lived in the city, and she planned to make a fresh start there. 

But that fresh start didn’t come quickly or easily. 

Seeking safety in Atlanta

Without a job or a place to live, Frankie was forced to seek out government assistance and transitional housing in Gwinnett County for her family. 

“This was my first time being on the opposite side of transitional housing and understanding what the women who would talk to me [in the past] were going through,” she says. “It was strange to see the scarce resources, and to see women locked out of their hotels because the projects or community partners ran out of funding.” 

Transitional housing in hotels and apartments can cost women $500 or more per week, and according to Frankie, the living conditions are unsafe and unsanitary. Worse, residents got a chilly reception from their case workers when they raised concerns. 

“The water makes your skin itchy, and there are roaches coming up out of the sink and the drains,” Frankie says. “We were told we needed to boil our water to use it. It comes [out of the faucets] brown, and we had brown rashes on our bodies.”

While Frankie’s family was living in transitional housing, she experienced relentless prejudice, racism, and ridicule. 

“I had people come to my hotel, and ask me if I was a prostitute because my daughter said we were living in a hotel at school,” she says. “Someone from [the Department of Family and Children Services] came to my apartment and asked if I left my children [alone] at nighttime. He asked me if I was a stripper.” 

Forced to choose between assistance and higher income

While Frankie was waiting for available childcare and a pathway to affordable housing, she was forced to turn down a job placement that would have paid $70,000 per year. While she needed employment, she also needed the support from the government program. That was her ticket to a home she could afford, but she wouldn’t qualify if she took a new job that raised her income past eligibility requirements. 

“I never thought it would come to this,” she says. “I hadn’t prepared financially; I spent through my savings because I was waiting on childcare.” 

Frankie found herself trapped on what we call the Benefits Cliff — torn between taking steps toward a more secure future, but ultimately forced into making decisions that trapped her into long-term dependence on government benefits. Individuals and families who make over a certain amount of income per year are automatically struck from the list, and are no longer qualified for affordable housing, food support, or other government assistance. 

“They want to see your pay stubs, your bank statements. They want to make sure you’re poor,” Frankie says. “If you have a car, they want to know what kind of car you’re driving and if you have insurance. They want to make sure there’s no possible way you can work a job.”

“If there are no daycare facilities within a 30-mile radius of where you place me in my hotel and I don’t have a car to take my child a city over, I’m not going to be able to get a job,” she added. “Who’s going to watch my child all day?” 

Families in these transitional programs often find themselves stuck paying high bills while they await affordable housing. Frankie was forced to pay more than $2,000 per month for the hotel she and her children stayed in. Financially, staying put made no sense, but Frankie held on in hopes that affordable housing would come through. 

Leaving transitional housing puts parents at risk of losing their children to CPS, particularly if they’re perceived as living out of their vehicle. On the other hand, getting a higher-paying job disqualifies them from further government and charitable support. 

“It’s like a loophole to keep you destitute,” Frankie says. 

Dreams for a brighter future��

After three months in transitional housing, Frankie was able to connect with BETTER WORK Gwinnett. Her case worker, Luisa, formed a close connection with her, encouraging her and checking in on her as she prepared for a fresh start. 

“We lost our jobs during the pandemic,” Frankie says, “and that was the time when we needed encouragement and to find our way again — laugh again. Ms. Lusia provided a lot of that. She called me every day just to check on me.”  

After experiencing the frustration, humiliation, and helplessness of transitional housing herself — including witnessing another mother abandon her children when her time at the hotel was up — Frankie wants to help other women in similar circumstances. She hopes to go to law school to provide legal aid to other families who have suffered at the mercy of the system. 

“We need to get them their GEDs and diplomas. Start them off as home health aides, CPAs, LPNs, RNs, physician’s assistants, or doctors,” Frankie says, “But no one’s willing to help. They just want to enable their programs to get money for housing us. After that, you’re out on the street like a dog.”  

As for Frankie, she’s working with Luisa to get back into the human resources field, and considering a move to a more affordable city in south Alabama. 

“I’m not going to sit and wait for anyone to take care of me,” she says. “For the women who don’t have options, I’m going to school to fight for them.”

The post Why One Woman Turned Down a $70K Job Due to the Benefits Cliffs appeared first on For Opportunity.

Alliance for Opportunity announces new policy roadmap to reduce poverty

The Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity launched a resource that provides key policy recommendations for reducing the number of people in poverty as part of their newly formed Alliance for Opportunity project. The recommendations are based on creating generational transformation in Ģ����Ƶ, Louisiana, and Texas, but the policy implications can be applied nationally as well. On the website, policymakers will see an explanation of how the safety net is failing, the path forward, and practical policy options that state leaders can act on now to advance a comprehensive and transformative safety-net reform.

The Alliance for Opportunity is a collaborative initiative between the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), the Pelican Institute for Public Policy (Pelican Institute) in Louisiana, and the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity (GCO). It is designed to promote solutions and build the political will to present and advance a comprehensive and compelling plan for reform to alleviate poverty by allowing people to find work and opportunities that will lead to a flourishing life.

The Alliance for Opportunity is focused on a mission to reduce those in poverty by 1 million over the next 10 years.

According to 2020 federal Supplemental Poverty Measure numbers, Ģ����Ƶ had 1,383,000, Louisiana had 869,000, and Texas had 3,601,000 residents in poverty.

The goal of the Alliance for Opportunity is that over the next 10 years, we reduce the number of people in poverty (defined above) by 20% in each state. That means 1 million people out of poverty: 276,600 people in Ģ����Ƶ, 173,800 people in Louisiana, and 720,200 people in Texas.

“We couldn’t be more thrilled with this new online portal that will be the go-to place for policymakers to find solutions to the most pressing poverty issues in our culture today,” said Randy Hicks, president and CEO of the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity. “Simply put, the U.S. safety net needs a paradigm shift. Our low-income neighbors deserve to move out of dependency, find lasting self-sufficiency, and flourish. The status quo is unacceptable.”

You can read the full press release from the Alliance HERE.

The post GCO launches anti-poverty policy site as part of Alliance for Opportunity project appeared first on For Opportunity.

By Guest Blogger��Jen Johnson��

“We have a unique��opportunity to��introduce��this social skill��this year due to the financial impacts of the pandemic.“

Have you ever shown up to a party or wedding and felt under or over dressed? Have you turned up at a friend’s house for game night and realized your partner forgot to tell you it was potluck and you’re empty-handed? What about when you’ve gone to a restaurant and realized after arriving that there’s a dress code or that you need to tip and you didn’t bring cash? Think about a time where you’ve been embarrassed or frustrated because you didn’t meet an expectation you didn’t know about beforehand?��

What happened?

How did it feel?

What would you have preferred happened?

All of these experiences of discomfort could have been avoided if you had known the expectations in advance, right?

Setting expectations is an integral part of helping children meet expectations and manage their feelings.

This year families will be experiencing holidays in different ways due to the pandemic. Many families will not be seeing grandparents or extended family due to the risk of exposure to Covid-19. Events that have often anchored the holidays in the minds of children may be cancelled (e.g., Santa at the mall, holiday parties, community gatherings, religious services, parades).��

Children have experienced changes in major routines since the beginning of 2020. Many of these changes have happened so quickly that children did not have the chance to emotionally adjust. For example, schools closed quite suddenly in the Spring and decisions about virtual/hybrid/face to face learning have been made by the month and sometimes down to the week in some school districts.��

Fortunately, the holidays don’t have to be experienced that way. We, as caregivers, are in charge of our holiday plans. They don’t depend on the government, the school district, or any organization. We can decide now what the holidays will look like and begin setting expectations with children in advance.

I want to discuss two different aspects of setting expectations:��topics that may need to be considered and discussed,��and language you can use to communicate with children.��

These are some areas��you may need to consider setting expectations:

Family Gatherings

Will you attend? Will you wear masks? Will there be social distancing? Will certain family members not be in attendance due to their decisions about their health? Children need to know in advance what to expect at family gatherings this holiday season. Don’t wait until you’re on the way to the gathering in the car to set expectations. Start talking about it now! Bring it up several times before the actual holiday arrives and allow children to share their thoughts and feelings. It might sound something like this:

“I want to talk to you about Thanksgiving this year. Usually we go to Grandma’s house and all your aunts and uncles and cousins come and we eat and play games. Do you remember��when we did that last year?”��Asking if they remember is important depending on the age.��If they don’t remember, then the change this year may not be a big deal to them. If they do, it may be a bit more challenging. “This year is going to be�� different, kind of like how school is different right now.” (Insert your plans and expectations. I’ll share my family plans.) “This year we are all going to make food at our own houses and then we are going to Zoom with all of our aunts and uncles and cousins. We are still going to play games, except we will be online together instead of in person. I’m feeling sad we won’t see our family, but I’m excited about the new games.” (You’ve just modeled how to share emotions.) “What feelings are you having about this?” (wait)��“What questions do you have?” (Use this instead of��“Do you have questions?”)

Traditional Holiday Events

What are the events your family attends every year during the holidays? My family loves to go to the Fantasy of Lights in my hometown of Wichita Falls, Texas. We gather at Grandma’s house for dinner so she feels cozy and included since Grandpa passed a few years ago. Christmas Eve services are almost always on the books, and since my son was born we’ve started celebrating Christmas morning at my parents’ house. To kick off the holiday season, we almost always go to the Dallas Symphony Orchestra’s holiday show and have a family cookie baking night.

It is quite likely that none of these events will happen this year.

Grandma is elderly. Mom is a survivor of lung cancer and a lobectomy. My son is considered high risk, so crowding into a church building isn’t a risk we are willing to take. The pandemic has drastically changed how we will engage in holiday events this year.��

Just as you talked about family gatherings and how those will look different, talk about how events surrounding the holiday will look different this year. Think of ways you can substitute those events with safe ones. For example, we plan to stream a musical holiday show instead of going in person. We might even get all dressed up! We will likely have our own cookie baking night at home and gather virtually with Grandma and our parents. If my son was older, the conversation might sound like this:

“I want to talk to you about our��(insert holiday) traditions.��You might have to explain that “traditions are things we do every year around the holidays” and give an example.��What��(insert holiday) traditions can you think of that you’re looking forward to this year?��Allow your child time to talk about what they’re looking forward to.��Focus on the events they are excited about and determine whether those are safe events. If they aren’t you might say something like,��“I really like to go to the music show too. This year instead of going to Dallas for the show, we’re going to watch it at home on TV. I’m feeling disappointed that we won’t get to see Santa come out at the Christmas show, but I’m excited that we can still watch on TV because we can have snacks while we watch!”��You’ve just modeled how to share emotions. “What feelings are you having about this?” (wait) What questions do you have?” (Use this instead of��“Do you have questions?”)��

Gifts

The financial impacts of the pandemic have been significant for many families. Your family may have traditions related to gift-giving that may need to look different this year. And that’s okay! It’s important to prepare children for this difference. I am NOT saying we need to explain financial difficulties to children. Finances are an adult issue, and children should feel as safe and secure as possible. However, it is possible to set expectations around gift-giving without referencing finances.

As caregivers, we have two options: Pretend like everything is going to happen as normal and then manage the disappointment and hurt feelings on that special holiday.

or (and preferably)

Tell children in advance that gift-giving is going to be different this year so we can get all those thoughts and feelings processed before the holiday.��It doesn’t mean there won’t be thoughts and feelings on the holiday, but they will most likely be less intense if there has been regular discussion and processing prior to the holiday. There is no benefit to not telling a child they won’t be getting a��pony or the newest gaming system. The benefit of communicating the truth is that it helps them adjust their expectations so they are better able to enjoy the gift they DO receive. It might sound like this:

“I saw that you wrote your gift wish list. I want to look at it together and talk about what’s on it. Your wish list looks so fun. I see that you put��______ on your list. I am not (or Santa is not) going to be able to get that gift for you this year. But can you think of something fun we could do? Maybe we could have a special chocolate chip pancake breakfast and watch Christmas movies? (*Insert things you could do together.) How are you feeling about that?��What questions do you have?”

*Go hiking or biking. Do a craft with supplies from your local dollar store. Drive around at night with closed mugs of hot chocolate and do a scavenger hunt of different yard decorations.��

A few days later, circle back to the discussion again and��take the opportunity��to teach��your child how to receive a gift that isn’t exactly what they wanted.

We’ve all had the experience of opening up a gift to discover we’ve received something we just don’t care for. As adults, we don’t throw tantrums or point out that we don’t like it because we’ve learned social skills related to this experience. Our children can learn this skill one of three ways.

1) They observe someone else, usually another child, express they don’t like something, observe the negative reactions of the adults, and promise themselves they’ll never do that.

2) They themselves express that they don’t like something, experience the negative shaming reaction of adults, and promise themselves they’ll never do that again.

or (and preferably)

3) They are pre-taught to show appreciation for every gift and the consequences of what happens when you don’t (i.e. people get their feelings hurt and it makes them sad). Discussion and role plays that allow children to practice are helpful when teaching this skill. When they are pre-taught the skill, they are more likely to meet expectations because you’ve set them up in advance.��This doesn’t mean they won’t feel disappointed or sad or even�� that they will master the skill this holiday, but we have a unique��opportunity to��introduce��this social skill��this year due to the financial impacts of the pandemic.

We have a unique��opportunity to��introduce��this social skill��this year due to the financial impacts of the pandemic.

Holidays this year are certainly going to be different. It is 100% okay to grieve the loss of the connections and fun that will be missed, and we should walk with children through those experiences and emotions. As caregivers, we have the opportunity to model how to process the emotions and mold the experience our children have during the holidays this year.

This post can be found in its original form .

Jen Johnson����is the founder of and a PhD Candidate in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of North Texas. Jen worked in public education for almost a decade before moving into the private sector to address child abuse and maltreatment through The Child Safety Collaborative. Her research is focused around accommodating safety curriculums for children with disabilities.

STRONGER FAMILIES CREATE THRIVING COMMUNITIES

During this time of uncertainty, we know the potential for anxiety and stress in homes is high. That’s why we are putting together resources to help families come together during this time of crisis and adapt to the rapidly changing pandemic environment.

��To learn more about the Healthy Families Initiative at GCO��click here.��

The post Helping Children Adjust to Holidays During the Pandemic appeared first on For Opportunity.

At the end of July, the Nevada Supreme Court on the state’s nascent law. In 2015, Sen. Scott Hammond sponsored SB 302, and Gov. Brian Sandoval’s signature made all 450,000 Nevada public school students eligible to apply for an account. The ACLU filed a lawsuit to take children’s educational choices away shortly after the law’s passage. The group charges that the accounts violate the state constitution (a group of parents filed another suit taking away parents’ ability to choose how their children learn, saying that the accounts would be illegally funded from a state source dedicated to public schools).

Nevada’s account law is the first such law to allow all public school students the opportunity to use an account to buy a variety of educational products and services. is no longer rare in the U.S., but many of the laws that give parents options between public and private schools are limited to students that meet select criteria. For example, Tennessee and Mississippi’s education savings accounts, also enacted in 2015, are only available to children with special needs. As many Ģ����Ƶ parents may know, the Peach State has a private school scholarship program exclusively for children with special needs, while Louisiana and Ohio have private school voucher options for children from failing schools. The situation is similar across more than two dozen states.

A ruling in favor of parents and children from Nevada’s Supreme Court would boost efforts in other states, such as Ģ����Ƶ, Texas, Delaware, and Missouri, to name a few, where lawmakers have considered the accounts in recent years. In 2011, since its enactment. Arizona children with special needs can apply for an account, along with children from failing schools, adopted children, and children living on Native American reservations, among others. Nevada is the first state to give every public school child this opportunity from day one.

Education savings accounts have also attracted national attention. Republicans included education savings accounts in their (as for Democrats, who the Wall Street Journal says has a built-in “” education savings accounts were noticeably missing from their party positions).

In March, introduced a bill to allow all children attending Bureau of Indian Education schools access to education savings accounts. Politico highlighted these students’ need for quality educational options in November 2015 with a feature headlined “” Former presidential candidate and introduced a bill in January that would make all Washington, D.C. children eligible for accounts.

As a result, federal and state lawmakers across the country are watching what happens in Carson City, Nevada. Arizona’s Supreme Court in 2011 after the state teachers union and other associations brought a lawsuit similar to the ACLU’s charges in Nevada (the Goldwater Institute defended the accounts alongside the Institute for Justice, the group defending Nevada’s accounts). A victory for students in Nevada would mark the second victory for the accounts over challenges that the accounts violate state constitutional provisions that block the use of public funds for private or religious schools.

Five states have passed the accounts so far, but the accounts are turning into a movement offering families flexible opportunities in education. The successes of these programs, and the lifelong knowledge and skills gained—won’t just stay in Vegas.

The post Education Savings Accounts and State and Federal Agendas appeared first on For Opportunity.

Returning citizens often face a mountain of debt upon leaving prison that makes it more difficult to successfully reenter society. Some of this debt may have existed prior to incarceration – such as consumer debt and child support – while much of it arises as a direct result of a criminal conviction, and is made much worse by subsequent incarceration and unemployment. Studies have shown average debt amounts in certain jurisdictions to be as high as $20,000 in child support arrears[i] and between $500 and $2,000 in offense-related debt.[ii] This onerous amount of debt, combined with the lack of opportunity to earn or save money while in prison, cause many offenders to reenter society with little hope of being able to repay what they owe.

Consumer Debt

It is common for people who are incarcerated to carry some level of consumer debt into prison, whether it is from outstanding mortgages, car loans, school loans, or credit cards.[iii] Missed payments on these mortgages, loans, and bills result in back interest, fees, and fines accumulating over the course of a person’s incarceration. The end result can be the offender accumulating an unmanageable amount of debt by the time he or she is released, leading him or her to file for bankruptcy.[iv]

Child Support

Child support typically comprises the largest debt returning citizens owe,[v] as non-custodial parents who are unable to modify their orders during incarceration can owe tens of thousands of dollars in arrears by the time they are released.[vi]

One study examining Massachusetts’ inmates and parolees revealed that non-custodial parents entering prison owed an average of $10,543 in unpaid child support and were likely to generate an additional $10,000 in arrears by the time they were released.[vii] More startlingly, one-fifth of the state inmates were estimated to generate arrears balances in excess of $30,000 while in prison.[viii] Another study of 350 parolees in Colorado demonstrated that they had an average balance of $16,651 in arrears.[ix]

Many returning citizens in Ģ����Ƶ are likely to be impacted by child support debt, as 60 percent of offenders in Ģ����Ƶ self-report having one or more children upon entering prison.[x] Accepting the circumstances of the incarcerated, some states allow offenders to modify their child support while in prison to avoid the accrual of arrears. However, Ģ����Ƶ offenders are prohibited from modifying their arrears while incarcerated, as the state deems incarceration to be a form of “voluntary unemployment.”[xi] As such, there is no mechanism for indigent offenders in Ģ����Ƶ to avoid accruing child support debt.

Once child support arrears have accrued, federal law requires non-custodial parents to pay the full amount owed to custodial parents, even if modification of orders is granted upon release from prison.[xii] However, federal law does permit arrears owed to the state to be forgiven retroactively. Child support arrears become owed to the state when the Department of Human Resources supplies Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to custodial parents who are not receiving requisite child support payments from non-custodial parents. Once funds are distributed, the non-custodial parent becomes obligated to repay the state for supplying the amount of assistance he or she was originally responsible for paying the custodial parent.[xiii]

Restitution

Another source of debt which many returning citizens owe upon reentry is payment of restitution to victims. The amount of restitution owed by offenders usually ranges from several hundreds of dollars to several thousands of dollars, depending on the offense.[xiv] Restitution provides a way for offenders to pay for financial loss and other damages suffered by victims including lost property, medical expenses, costs of counseling, funeral and burial expenses, and lost wages.[xv] It also serves as a way for the offender and the state to demonstrate that they recognize the harm that the victim suffered and the offender’s obligation to make amends.[xvi] One study conducted in Pennsylvania found that paying restitution is related to lower recidivism.[xvii] As such, it is an important obligation for returning citizens to pay.

However, problems occur when a person’s financial status and earning capacity is not considered in forming restitution orders.[xviii] This can result in unrealistic terms of repayment being formed, which, combined with other court-imposed financial obligations, create a financial burden for the returning citizen and may discourage him or her from repaying anything at all.[xix] When this situation happens, it leaves victims without compensation for financial loss or damages and diminishes their confidence in the criminal justice system.

In Ģ����Ƶ, the Crime Victims Restitution Act of 2005 mandates that offenders make restitution payments to victims while under parole supervision.[xx] The court determines the amount of restitution and manner of paying it during sentencing, and parole officers are responsible for facilitating and monitoring payment compliance once the offender is in the community. Parolees must begin paying restitution upon release and are required to pay a minimum of $30 per month. [1]^,[xxi]

Fees, Fines, and Surcharges

A third source of debt that encumbers returning citizens is fees, fines, and surcharges that arise as a direct result of a criminal conviction.

Fees are amounts charged to offenders in exchange for the services provided by courts, probation departments, parole supervision, and other agencies.[xxii] For example, the Ģ����Ƶ State Board of Pardons and Paroles collects a monthly supervision fee of $30 from every parolee with a supervision period of three months or longer. [2]^,[xxiii]

Fines imposed by the court are intended to punish offenders and deter others from committing such crimes.[xxiv] The amount of the fine varies based on the person’s charge and can be mandatory or discretionary.[xxv] A fine for a third DUI offense in Ģ����Ƶ, for instance, can be as high as $5,000.[xxvi]

Finally, surcharges are add-on amounts often unrelated to the crime but used to generate revenue for criminal justice agencies.[xxvii] Revenue is designated toward such things as retirement funds for sheriffs and peace officers, law enforcement facilities and training, indigent defense programs, and education and treatment programs.[xxviii] While small in isolation, surcharges can total hundreds and even thousands of dollars.[xxix]

Ģ����Ƶ began collecting surcharges in 1950 when the legislature passed a statute requiring a deduction to be taken from every criminal fine to support the Peace Officers’ Annuity and Benefit Fund. By 2001, the number of court-imposed surcharges had risen to 21 to support nine state programs, five local programs, and the State General Fund.[xxx] Surcharges range from $0.50 per case to 50 percent of the total fine amount.[xxxi]

Inability to Earn or Save Money in Prison

A fourth reason returning citizens in Ģ����Ƶ have difficulty repaying debts upon release is that they do not have the ability to earn money for their work performed while incarcerated.[xxxii] As one of only three states that do not pay inmates for work,[3][xxxiii] Ģ����Ƶ bars those who are indigent from being able to meet current obligations, pay-down debt, or save for their inevitable reentry while in prison. This policy removes a strong incentive for them to work and develop skills and experience that will be helpful in obtaining a job upon release.

Conclusion

Without having a realistic plan and payment options to pay-off all of this debt, people returning from prison are less likely to pay anything at all, more likely to engage in the underground economy to avoid wage garnishment, and more likely to make bad decisions that may result in re-incarceration. The consequences of debt can be detrimental for returning citizens.

Footnotes

[1] Payment is required upon release for parolees serving 90 days or more under parole supervision.

[2] Parolees serving for violent offenses pay a monthly victim compensation fee of $30 in lieu of the supervision fee.

[3] Ģ����Ƶ inmates who participate in the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP) and inmates who are placed in a transitional center are the exception, as they do have a chance to earn money while incarcerated. However, PIECP is limited to two prisons – though the state has plans to expand it to three to five more prisons – and there are only across the state serving 2,674 of 53,558 inmates . The other two states who do not pay inmates for work are Arkansas and Texas.

Endnotes

Some of the citations listed below are abbreviated. To view the full citation, see the “Notes” section in our report, A High Price to Pay.

[i] Nancy Thoennes, Child Support Profile: Massachusetts Incarcerated and Paroled Parents, Center for Policy Research, May 2002, 26, .

[ii] Carl Reynolds et al., A Framework to Improve How Fines, Fees, Restitution, and Child Support are Assessed and Collected from People Convicted of Crimes, Council of State Governments Justice Center and the Texas Office of Court Administration, Interim Report, March 2, 2009, 8, .

[iii] Erica Sandberg, “Ex-offenders face big debt challenges after prison,” CreditCards.com, August 30, 2010, accessed May 8, 2014, para. 7, .

[iv] Connie Prater, “How to prepare financially for time in prison,” CreditCards.com, October 15, 2010, accessed March 26, 2014, para. 7, .

[v] Carl Reynolds et al., A Framework to Improve, 10.

[vi] Nancy Thoennes, Child Support Profile, 18.

[vii] Ibid., 26.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Jessica Pearson, “Building Debt While Doing Time: Child Support and Incarceration,” Judge’s Journal 43 (2004): 7; Jessica Pearson and Lanae Davis, Serving Parents Who Leave Prison: Final Report on the Work and Family Center, Center for Policy Research, 2001, ii, .

[x] Ģ����Ƶ Department of Corrections, Inmate Statistical Profile, 8.

[xi] Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Project to Avoid Increasing Delinquencies: ’Voluntary Unemployment,’ Imputed Income, and Modification Laws and Policies for Incarcerated Noncustodial Parents,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, July 2012, 4, ; See O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15(j).

[xii] Jessica Pearson, “Building Debt,” 5.

[xiii] Rachel L. McLean and Michael D. Thompson, Repaying Debts, Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2007, 26, .

[xiv] Judge Brian Amero, Henry County Superior Court, telephone conversation with author, May 29, 2014.

[xv] National Center for Victims of Crime, “Restitution Procedures,” in Promising Practices and Strategies for Victim Services in Corrections, 1997, ; National Center for Victims of Crime, Making Restitution Real: Five Case Studies on Improving Restitution Collection, 2011, 3, 4, .

[xvi] National Center for Victims of Crime, Making Restitution Real, 4.

[xvii] R. Barry Ruback, Restitution in Pennsylvania: A Multimethod Investigation, Submitted to Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, Final Grant Report, August 2002, 9, 98, .

[xviii] National Institute of Justice, “Restitution,” Archived material that is the product of five regional symposia held on restorative justice between June 1997 and January 1998, accessed April 9, 2014, para. 5, .

[xix] Carl Reynolds et al., A Framework to Improve, 1.

[xx] Ģ����Ƶ State Board of Pardons and Paroles, “Restitution,” accessed April 10, 2014, .

[xxi] Ibid.

[xxii] Rachel L. McLean and Michael D. Thompson, Repaying Debts, 2; Ģ����Ƶ State Board of Pardons and Paroles, “Supervision & Victim Fees,” accessed April 10, 2014, .

[xxiii] Ģ����Ƶ State Board of Pardons and Paroles, “Supervision & Victim Fees,” accessed May 12, 2014, .

[xxiv] Paul Peterson, “Supervision Fees: State Policies and Practices,” Federal Probation 76 (2012): para. 2, .

[xxv] Rachel L. McLean and Michael D. Thompson, Repaying Debts, 2.

[xxvi] .

[xxvii] Rachel L. McLean and Michael D. Thompson, Repaying Debts, 2.

[xxviii] Administrative Office of the Courts, Court Fees in Ģ����Ƶ – Laws and Information, Court Business and Process Improvement Program, October 2004, 5, .

[xxix] Alicia Bannon, Mitali Nagrecha, and Rebekah Diller, Criminal Justice Debt: A Barrier to Reentry, Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law, 2010, 1, .

[xxx] Russell W. Hinton, “Court Fees,” Department of Audits and Accounts, Performance Audit Operations Division, October 2001, 1. This executive summary can be found in the following report: Administrative Office of the Courts of Ģ����Ƶ, Municipal Court Fee Study, November 2003, Appendix A-1, .

[xxxi] Ibid.

[xxxii] Adam Crisp, “Ģ����Ƶ inmates strike in fight for pay,” timesfreepress.com, December 14, 2010, accessed May 20, 2014, .

[xxxiii] Cindy Upton and Sarah Harp, Cost of Incarcerating Adult Felons, Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, Program Review and Investigations Committee, Research Report No. 373, 45, ; A.J. Sabree, Strategic Planning and Implementation Consultant for the Ģ����Ƶ Department of Juvenile Justice, email message to author, June 5, 2014; Peter Wagner, “Section III: The Prison Economy,” in The Prison Index: Taking the Pulse of the Crime Control Industry, Western Prison Project and the Prison Policy Initiative, April 2003, 130-131, ; Adam Crisp, “Ģ����Ƶ inmates strike in fight for pay,” timesfreepress.com, December 14, 2010, .

The post Why Do People Leave Prison with So Much Debt? appeared first on For Opportunity.

This past week, Indiana a religious freedom law much like the one that remains under consideration here in Ģ����Ƶ. Despite Governor Mike Pence’s assurances that the bill has nothing to do with discrimination, there was a swift—and very — on the part of some in the business community.

Leading the charge was SalesForce.com CEO , whose Twitter feed, according to the “has been an all-out campaign against the new law, with threats to ‘’ the company’s investment in the state,����for other tech CEOs and tech industry leaders to vocally oppose the measure, applause for��those����who have come out against it, and ultimately, a��decision to����all��Salesforce programs that would require the company’s employees or customers to travel to Indiana.”

have followed suit: , , and , among others, have also issued statements of concern, punctuated by varying levels of passion or, some might say, hysteria.

I get that—apart from those closely-held companies, like Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby, whose owners are deeply religious and treat their work as a calling—business as business has no great immediate concern with or interest in religious liberty. Indeed, religion often presents itself in the business world as somewhat of an inconvenience. Employees don’t want to work on their Sabbath or on a religious holiday. They sometimes believe they have a religious duty to dress in a particular way, which may or may not square with the dress code. Or perhaps they have religiously-inspired scruples about performing certain sorts of services, as when a pharmacist doesn’t want to fill a prescription for an abortifacient. To be sure, I would argue that if business owners took a wider view, they might have a greater appreciation for employees who were conscientious and worked hard because, for example, they themselves regarded their work as a calling, or because they belonged to a religious community that held them accountable for their character. But that’s not the point of this essay.

My question here is why so many business leaders reacted so negatively to a law that that won overwhelming bipartisan support and that already was on the books (either by a or by ) in twenty-nine other states.

Some business leaders are, I think, simply averse to conflict. When a sympathetic, well-funded, and vocal constituency when a piece of legislation is “controversial,” they shy away from it as being “bad for business.” They may not be particularly well-informed about the details of the issue, but they do know that there is controversy and conflict, and that’s unlikely to boost their bottom line (unless, I suppose, they’re in the news business).

That certainly explains some of the business opposition to the Indiana bill and its counterparts around the country. Gay rights groups have been vociferous in mischaracterizing the religious liberty legislation as offering a license to discriminate, and their efforts have been aided and abetted by a press that too readily puts “religious liberty” in scare quotes and It’s not my purpose here to speculate about the motives of either gay rights groups or reporters in taking this tack. Suffice it to say that they have, and that too many people—among them CEOs who are paid to know better about a good many things—have simply fallen for this ploy.

Other business leaders—I put Marc Benioff and Tim Cook in this category because they have chosen virtual megaphones to trumpet their opposition to this legislation—act less on the basis of reasons connected to their bottom line and more because they are committed to the cause of gay rights and same-sex marriage. I’m the last person to say that they’re not entitled to their opinions and entitled to use any legal means to promote them.

But I’m also entitled to call them out. Let me begin with Tim Cook, who authored (or at least put his name to) in the Washington Post. I’ll leave aside the fact that he repeats the entirely predictable mischaracterization of the Indiana bill. He then ties it to what he says are “nearly 100 bills designed to enshrine discrimination in state law.” But the only example he offers is a that would, as he puts it, “strip the salaries and pensions of clerks who issue licenses to same-sex couples.” It is indeed a striking piece of legislation that would be unlikely, I think, to survive a legal challenge. But I would be surprised if the bill proposed by a Republican backbencher even came to a vote in the state legislature. So, yes, there are people out there who are seeking legislative means to oppose same-sex marriage, though I think it is illiberal to describe such efforts as “dangerous,” as Cook does. He wants to make it easier for us to get to that adjective by assimilating this brand of religious freedom to racial discrimination:

I remember what it was like to grow up in the South in the 1960s and 1970s. Discrimination isn’t something that’s easy to oppose. It doesn’t always stare you in the face. It moves in the shadows. And sometimes it shrouds itself within the very laws meant to protect us.

So there you have it: according to Cook, people who support religious liberty are kinda sorta like the people who supported Jim Crow. Some of them may be; I don’t know. But when you actually read the legislation, which tracks the 1993 federal legislation supported by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, it’s hard to believe that language endorsed by Senate minority leader-in-waiting Charles Shumer () and () is the functional equivalent of Jim Crow.

Then there’s Marc Benioff, who has gone one giant leap beyond editorializing. He has proposed to pull his company’s business from Indiana because of the “anti-gay” (the scare quotes are quite appropriate here) legislation. Interestingly, however, he has not said the same thing about his , whose anti-gay (note there are no scare quotes, since the animus is very real) policies are notably harsh. According to the :

Both civil law and sharia criminalize consensual same-sex sexual activity. Under sharia individuals who engage in consensual same-sex sexual conduct are subject to the death penalty. Article 177 of Dubai’s penal code allows for up to a 10-year prison sentence for consensual sex. There were prosecutions for consensual same-sex activity during the year. At times the government subjected persons against their will to psychological treatment and counseling for consensual same-sex activity.

At the very least, then, he looks like a hypocrite, since his treatment of jurisdiction in regard to this issue is inconsistent. Perhaps he can explain what good reason there is for treating his fellow Americans more harshly than the citizens of Dubai. He might answer that he has more clout in Indiana than he does in Dubai. Some might call that picking one’s fights wisely. Others might regard it as being a bully.

In the end, businesses will do what they will do. Mostly that means following their bottom lines. If there is business to be done and money to be made, they will do it. At least that’s what they keep telling us. If it’s true, then I have confidence—if only our political leaders displayed some backbone—that threats of boycotts and so on, won’t be long-lasting, and that any vacuum left by a business leader who acts against his company’s interest will be filled by someone else who sees an opportunity. As for the ideologues in the corporate corner offices, I assume that if they act against their company’s economic interests, their shareholders will eventually punish them.

Ain’t capitalism grand?

The post Religious Liberty and “Big Business” appeared first on For Opportunity.