Reflection on "A New Safety Net for Low-Income Families"

The most recent report, “A New Safety Net for Low-Income Families”, was launched yesterday by the Urban Institute. The recommended safety-net calls for increasing work-supports and parallels many programs explained in the Bread for the World Institute 2008 Hunger Report, “Working Harder for Working Families.” This study continued to show that families are working more and in jobs that are paying less.

 

Sick leave was one of the main focuses in the report. Worker-paid sick leave was one solution discussed. The first program of its kind started in 2007 in San Francisco, CA. The results of this program are mixed. On one hand,  the “Paid Sick Days Ordinance provides up to nine days of paid sick leave annually (five days maximum for employers with fewer than 10 employees) for full-time workers; part-time workers earn one hour of leave for every 30 hours worked.” On the other hand, the sick leave does not act as a job guarantor; it simply provides an option for parents to use for child care.  Providing workers with benefits is a win-win scenario in a tough economy; when workers can take care of themselves and their loved ones, job retention rates increase. One example provided by the panel was that for every employee earning approximately $8.00 an hour, business owners would lose $5,500 in turnover costs.

On the housing proposals, Jared Bernstein in his commentary response to the chapter, Making Work Pay, states a main concern:

I am not sure what is gained by separating the policy discussions of housing from other work supports, and I fear this approach may fail to bring some needed unity and simplicity to the policy structure... The overall suggestions by Acs and Turner suggest extensions to various subsidies, including the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit, their primary focus, as well as their largest substantive and most expensive idea, is for a new, $27 billion refundable tax credit for low-income owners or renters.

As I sat in the packed audience, I couldn’t help remembering the recent Brookings Institute launch of “MetroPolicy for a MetroNation” where I walked away feeling compelled by the challenge to join in a movement from “think tanks to DO tanks.” This event contrasted sharply, and not for the better.  One of my main concerns with the new Urban Institute report is its audience. For whom is this intended?

Throughout the panel discussion the need to leave a society better for our children was routinely referenced. The panel continually stated that the character of a nation is measured by the health of its children, and that the current national budget deficit was intrinsically tied to the wellness of our nation. To kick off the panel, G. William Hoagland, vice president of public policy, CIGNA Corporation; former policy adviser to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist commended the authors on their commitment to making American families stronger. And then, he summarily denounced the report as a “nonstarter” with its recommendations of increasing the federal expenditures to a total of $35b.

The introduction acknowledges that the report-writing was, more or less, in a vacuum:

The most obvious challenge to the Family Security approach is the price tag. These policies require a substantial federal investment in children. Yet recent research suggests federal spending on children is shrinking, and this trend is likely to continue: ‘without a significant realignment of national priorities or changes in fiscal circumstances, spending on children’s programs will continue to lose ground relative to other national priorities’ (Carasso et al. forthcoming). Family Security provides a framework for realigning national priorities to greater emphasize investing in families. And according to a growing literature on the value of investing in children, the return on this investment would almost certainly justify it.

The report makes a clear case for investing in children, but fails to delegate an implementation strategy. Another panelist, David Wessel, economics editor for the Wall Street Journal put today’s economy in a new context. He believes the state of our economy is worse than what it was during the Great Depression. The times are tough, and we are going to need new policies—and quick!

Knowing we are in an economic recession with multiple compounding issues (aging population, oil and food prices rising, the income gap increasing) time and energy are of the utmost importance. Why produce a paper, which from the get is a no-starter? I am not purposely being dismissive of the report, nor of its authors. However, I am suggesting that these times, brimming with seemingly intractable social and political dilemmas, demand the best and brightest the U.S. has to offer. My only request is that the work produced within the beltway be done within the context of reality. Building a new strategy? Provide a scenario for a feasible implementation. Asking for money? Be explicit from which account.

If we are really concerned about the need to protect future generations from a national budget crisis, I think the youth need to be included in the discussions. A fundamental pillar in international development and nation building is to include the people of whom policies will effect. As part of its anti-poverty strategy, the U.S. needs to incorporate youth as capable agents in the national discussion. Perhaps the youth will be more candid and demand a clear, succinct explanation of the current budget. If not, I fear we will continue to have round-about discussions about papers which are short sighted in policy impact.

Comments

[kabonfootprint]

good job..
nice blog
kabonfootprinta

[Busby SEO Challenge]

great move
nice site

Busby SEO Challenge

[Katy]

This event, and Emily's excellent post, touch on the lag between a changing economy, family structure, and societal expectations, and the regulations that govern behavior in these spheres. The underlying issues of poverty in the United States are extremely complicated and interwoven, touching on components ranging from health care and tax policy to immigration and welfare. Through all this, the one thing experts can consistently point to as a way upwards is investment in children. The primary nexus between child development and work productivity is childcare. Yet today’s social standards in raising children can no longer be met by working families lacking the means to compete with those who have ample resources. Though the Urban Institute report acknowledged the disconnect between policy and reality, it seemed to perpetuate rather than remedy this problem in its own actions and policy prescriptions.
There is a lot of excitement looking ahead to the next year, with a new administration and new congress. Many groups and individuals are looking at “big picture” initiatives, large overhauls of policies and programs that have long needed reform. The US needs that kind of boldness, that creativity to solve the problems of this generation and the next. I hope we can harness this enthusiasm and use it as a support for solving today’s unglamorous social policies, not as a means to push aside difficult work for the sake of quick fixes and empty rhetoric. But we cannot let this optimism lead to unreality, to move us away from acknowledging the difficulties in reform. These issues are problems now, and they must be faced with the tools we have at our disposal. The enthusiasm has changed, but the system hasn’t. In recognizing this, we can move ahead with a clarity of vision that is truly helpful. As Emily has pointed out, if investment in America’s youth is what will help this, we need their input and perspectives to make real change.