American Idea Foundation

Measuring Results, Expanding Opportunity, Improving Lives.

Blog

Celebrating the Impactful Life of Urban Specialists’ Founder, Bishop Omar Jahwar

by

By: AIF Staff

On March 11, 2021, the people of Dallas lost a pillar of their community with the passing of Bishop Omar Jahwar. Few make such a big impact in such a short time as Bishop Omar and fewer still embody the awesome power of redemption better than he did.

Bishop Omar was one of the founders and leaders of Urban Specialists, a Texas-based organization dedicated to promoting positive change in inner-city communities and to reducing destructive and violent behavior. Bishop Omar’s life was a personal testament of transformation, as he went from a juvenile criminal offender to one of Texas’ first gang-interventionists to receiving the White House’s Achievement Against the Odds Award. As all those who knew Bishop Omar mourn, they should take comfort in the fact that he is undoubtedly looking down saying: “There is a time for grieving, but then the work must go on.”

Upon his passing, American Idea Foundation President and former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who struck up an unlikely friendship with Bishop Omar — one that spanned almost a decade and one that transcended race, socioeconomic status, and party affiliation, offered the following statement:

“At first glance, it wouldn’t seem that a Congressman from Janesville and a preacher from Dallas would have a lot in common, but I was honored to call Bishop Omar a friend. He taught me a lot about redemption and the power of community. I’ll miss his personality, his passion, and his unwavering belief in every person’s inherent goodness.

“Bishop Omar lived his work. He showed me, and the people of Dallas, that real change happens one person at a time. Bishop Omar’s legacy will live on through the ongoing work of Urban Specialists and through all the people he saved during the course of his ministry. The best way we can honor Bishop Omar’s life is to draw inspiration from his example and be a catalyst for positive change in our communities.”

In a Forbes column entitled The Gangster, the Preacher, & the Speaker of the House, Bishop Omar summarized his work succinctly: “This is my role. I tell these young men, ‘There are landmines in this field, this gang life, but if you allow me to lead you, brother if you take my hand, I can show the path around the mines, and you can cross unscathed.’”

He continued, “What we do in communities is we attempt to bring social change through individuals who are closest to the problem, those who can actually deliver help from a hand-to-hand point of view. I recruit guys who’ve lived that lifestyle in some of the roughest zip codes in the nation, and I’m asking them to become front-line soldiers fighting for one idea: that urban life does not have to be stunted by violence and a sub-culture of abuse.”

In 2016, the impact of Bishop Omar was made abundantly clear in a video entitled: Become a Hero, which was a part of the Comeback video series that focused on transformative efforts underway in our communities. 

Speaker Ryan first met Bishop Omar during his travels with Bob Woodson travels as he was looking for inspiring examples of individuals and organizations tackling pressing issues in our communities. Almost immediately, it became clear that Bishop Omar and the Urban Specialists were making a difference and developing a model that could be exported to other cities around the United States. In 2018, as Speaker of the House, Ryan continued to draw lessons and inspiration from Bishop Omar, visiting Urban Specialists to discuss their efforts to combat multi-generational poverty and reduce gang violence in Texas.

The efforts being undertaken by Bishop Omar and his organization were highlighted in National Review, which summarized their efforts in the following way: 

““Urban specialists” are Pastor Omar’s team of mentors, largely former gang members, who have returned to the neighborhoods they grew up in to try to steer the newest generation onto a better path. Pastor Omar insists that the best people to solve social problems such as gang violence or drug addiction are those who experienced those problems and overcame them….

“Pastor Omar’s urban-specialist model has proven itself in Dallas. The Dallas Independent School District works with Pastor Omar to get urban specialists into schools across the district, and he has an enthusiastic supporter in Dallas police chief David Brown. And he believes that the model can be applied anywhere — from schools to courtrooms to corporate America.”

Bishop Omar’s work was hands-on and sometimes, it was messy. But Bishop Omar lived a purpose-driven life. He created force-multipliers in communities, developing a network of mentors who could meet young people involved in gangs and criminal behavior and speak to them from a position of shared experiences. He saved lives. He prevented violence. He promoted hope and optimism. He made an impact that will reverberate for years to come.

Where others saw problems, Bishop Omar saw solutions. Where others saw dead-ends, Bishop Omar saw ways to turn around. The American Idea Foundation joins his family, his friends, and all those touched by Bishop Omar in grieving his passing and honoring his decades of service to others by drawing inspiration from his amazing work.  

Coalition recommends Federal Reserve detail eligibility for Opportunity Zone & Community Reinvestment Act credits

by

BY: AIF STAFF

Created as part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Opportunity Zones are a poverty-fighting tool designed to stimulate job creation, investment, and economic development in distressed neighborhoods. These nearly 8,800 census “zones” are found in all 50 states, ranging from very rural to very urban areas, and the law provides tax incentives for long-term investments that will ultimately benefit these communities and those residing there.

The American Idea Foundation has convened panel discussions with legislators, investors, and academics to discuss how Opportunity Zones can spur community development and help fight poverty as these projects begin to get off the ground. The Foundation has also profiled successful initiatives underway in Opportunity Zones like Erie, Pennsylvania, where private-sector investors have teamed with local leaders and businesses to reinvigorate some of the city’s poorest Zip Codes. Similar promise has been seen in communities as diverse from Provo, Utah to Baltimore, Maryland.

While the tax incentives provided through Opportunity Zones have started to bear fruit, former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and the American Idea Foundation believe that additional reforms and changes should be made so the program meets legislators’ original intent.

As Speaker Ryan has said, because of reconciliation rules related to the consideration of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, lawmakers were unable to get all of the desired accountability and transparency tools, among other things, in the 2017 legislation. Thus, for Opportunity Zones to reach their full potential, it is imperative that the federal government continue to make modifications. As the Foundation works with policymakers to make legislative improvements to rules around Opportunity Zones, there are also regulations being promulgated of great importance to these areas and those interested in investing in these communities.

This is why the American Idea Foundation joined a diverse coalition of stakeholders in sending a letter to Ann Misback, the Secretary to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, focused on expanding the access and eligibility of Community Reinvestment Act tax credits for those working in Opportunity Zones. 

The letter offers a series of comments in the hope that regulators will provide additional clarity and transparency about the activities and projects in low-and-moderate income communities that are potentially eligible for tax credits from both Opportunity Zone legislation and the Community Reinvestment Act. With greater clarity and information, more investors and financial institutions will hopefully be comfortable in providing capital to these areas of the country that badly need it.

The entire letter is available here and some of the comments are summarized below.

Natural Overlap between Community Reinvestment Act & Opportunity Zone Goals

As the letter notes, both the Opportunity Zone legislation and the Community Reinvestment Act are designed to benefit low-income communities and their residents. Both are intended to tackle persistent poverty, and as such, the impact of the Community Reinvestment Act and Opportunity Zones would be “maximized by providing eligibility for investments in both programs.”

Because of the similarities in how low-income communities are defined in Opportunity Zone legislation and the Community Reinvestment Act — not to mention that both are aimed at providing long-term, patient capital, the letter requests that regulators consider providing Community Reinvestment Act credits for additional Opportunity Zone investments that benefit low- and moderate-income communities.

Further, the letter calls for the Federal Reserve to explicitly include “examples of activities in low- and moderate-income communities that would qualify for credits under the revitalization and stabilization component of community development.” Given the logical overlap between Community Reinvestment Act and Opportunity Zones, the Federal Reserve should strive to identify activities that would allow investors, institutions, and community organizations to be eligible for both credits.

To Maximize Community Reinvestment Act & Opportunity Zone Activities, Provide Illustrative Examples

To ensure that only deserving investments in Opportunity Zones are eligible for potential Community Reinvestment Act credits, the Opportunity Zone Coalition letter calls on the Federal Reserve to provide an illustrative list of qualifying Opportunity Zone activities that may be eligible for the Community Reinvestment Act credits. Because there is uncertainty over what community development activities may qualify for Community Reinvestment Act credits, financial institutions and investors may be hesitant to engage in Opportunity Zone projects.

The letter suggests that when the Federal Reserve approves an activity for Community Reinvestment Act purposes for one institution, it should make this information public so other institutions and investors can determine (with full information) whether to undertake similar investment activities in other Opportunity Zones. The letter outlines a few examples of activities that could be presumed to benefit low- and moderate-income communities and also comply with Community Reinvestment Act requirements:

  • Qualified opportunity fund investment that finances construction of a grocery store in an LMI Opportunity Zone.
  • Qualified opportunity fund investment that finances construction of a new manufacturing facility that creates jobs for local residents in an Opportunity Zone that is also an LMI census tract.
  • Qualified opportunity fund investment that finances the construction or renovation of facilities oriented toward serving low-income children, such as charter schools, day care centers, and early childhood centers in LMI Opportunity Zones.
  • Qualified opportunity fund investment that finances the construction of affordable residential apartments in an Opportunity Zone that is an LMI census tract in which at least 20 percent of the units will be offered at median rents that do not exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of the area median income.

Providing examples that are eligible for additional credits, like the ones above, would provide investors and financial institutions with the certainty and confidence necessary to lend capital to projects in these low- and moderate-income areas that are hungry for economic growth.

The letter also calls for the Federal Reserve to develop a mechanism by which interested stakeholders can submit examples of potential activities that could qualify for Community Reinvestment Act credits in Opportunity Zones. This is a simple but important suggestion to ensure that those interested in investing in these areas are able to determine their eligibility for credits at the outset.  

Maintain Incentives for Community Development Investments

The final comments in the letter raise a concern with the proposed idea to “combine community development loans and investments under one subtest.” The Opportunity Zone Coalition believes this might decrease, not increase community development levels going forward. The letter notes that by “measuring loans and equity investments together, banks would be disincentivized to engage in equity investments to meet their Community Reinvestment Act requirements.” Because equity investments have higher capital requirements, banks may opt to just make loans.

This letter, which details the natural overlap between the aims of the Community Reinvestment Act and Opportunity Zone legislation, suggests a few common-sense ways that the Federal Reserve can provide clarity, transparency, and additional information to potential investors, community leaders, and financial institutions. These simple steps — of outlining examples of activities that would qualify for Community Reinvestment Act and Opportunity Zone credits, of providing illustrative examples, and of maintaining incentives for banks to pursue community development projects – will hopefully attract additional interest and investment in these areas. This increased interest and investment will then benefit the residents of these areas over the long-term.

This letter is just the latest example of stakeholders raising awareness and working to expand the potential impact of the tax benefits available through Opportunity Zones. At  a June 2020 event in Columbia, South Carolina, Senator Tim Scott and HUD Secretary Ben Carson met with local bankers and community leaders to discuss how some activities in Opportunity Zones may be eligible for credit under the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC) new Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rule.

These types of events and the correspondence from the Opportunity Zone Coalition to the Federal Reserve will hopefully ensure that individuals in Opportunity Zones, particularly those who are low- and moderate- income, realize the benefits of this law and that it expands economic opportunities in areas that need it most.

Social Impact Partnerships: Leveraging Strengths from Communities, the Government, & Private Sector to Improve Outcomes

by

BY: AIF Staff

Former Speaker Paul Ryan created the American Idea Foundation to help promote and scale solutions that are supported by evidence and data and that spring from innovative partnerships between local leaders, community researchers, and policymakers. The Foundation’s mission is to highlight local success stories, reinforce their efforts with research and data, and work with legislators on public policies to replicate these winning strategies in other parts of the country. This approach was the motivation behind many of the accomplishments during Speaker Ryan’s tenure – from Opportunity Zones to rethinking the government’s approach to poverty, and it continues to motivate him to this day.

One new policy that embodies Speaker Ryan’s and the American Idea Foundation’s approach is the Social Impact Partnership to Pay for Results Act (SIPPRA), which was signed into law in February 2018. The premise of the legislation is simple, as Speaker Ryan said at a January 2020 forum on evidence-based policymaking:  

“With the passage of Social Impact Partnership and the Pay for Success Act, we provided funding for states to partner with the federal government, to identify key metrics for social programs and make payments when results are delivered. What a novel concept!”

As the Department of the Treasury details, the purpose of SIPPRA was to “improve the lives of families and individuals in need in the United States by funding social programs that achieve real results.” It is, in short, a “pay for success” model.

To fund an initial round of demonstration projects, SIPPRA appropriated $100 million to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, $15 million of which was set aside for evaluation costs, to support state and local governments in building a foundation for outcomes-based decision making. Though the funding goes exclusively to state and local governments, it can be used by an entire umbrella of social service providers – from those tackling issues as diverse as homelessness, childhood health, vocational training, obesity, and family stability. The common thread is that any selected program that receives SIPPRA funds must focus on outcomes and measurable results as government funding is contingent on hitting quantifiable metrics rather than satisfying subjective, partisan whims.

Distilled down to its essence, SIPPRA has two primary benefits:

First, SIPPRA takes an evidence-based approach to lifting Americans out of poverty: Funding flows to programs whose methods have been evaluated using data, supporting real-world efforts that achieve positive results. The legislation moves funds away from ineffective programs and towards those that have demonstrated track records of accomplishment. And the federal government is only on the hook financially if the program achieves its stated aims and outcomes. This ensures that policymakers are not only being good stewards of taxpayer dollars but also are prioritizing funding for programs that actually help Americans in meaningful ways.

The Office of Senator Susan Collins of Maine succinctly described the major steps associated with obtaining SIPPRA funding:

  1. A state or local government explains the desired outcome, the program and services provided, any past evidence of positive results and savings expected
  2. A state or local government provides a feasibility study that shows the providers have the capacity needed to run the project; have experiencing serving the targeted population; and have the ability to raise additional funds from other investment sources
  3. If selected, the federal government designs an independent evaluation to assess a program’s progress in achieving the desired outcomes. This ensures that the results have been achieved before taxpayer dollars are spent.
  4. If the desired outcomes are realized, the federal government then pays the state or local government and its investment partners a pre-negotiated amount for funding the project and taking on the risk of success.

The various steps of the program highlight the second major advantage of this pay-for-success model. As the Department of the Treasury detailed, SIPPRA encourages “public-private partnerships that bundle philanthropic or other private resources with existing public spending to scale up effective social interventions already being implemented by private organizations, nonprofits, charitable organizations, and State and local governments across the country.”

One of the long-time proponents of this approach, Senator Todd Young of Indiana, provided a real-world example of a program that would benefit from SIPPRA funding as the Indianapolis Star reported:

“One program Young’s office pointed to as a good Indiana candidate for funding is a service that connects registered nurses with low-income pregnant women.

“Run by Goodwill Industries of Central Indiana, the Nurse-Family Partnership makes sure expectant mothers get good prenatal care, improve their diets, understand the benefits of breast feeding and other healthy behaviors. Since the program started in Indiana five years ago, 90 percent of the babies were born at a healthy weight, 90 percent of the mothers initiated breastfeeding and two-thirds of the mothers who had smoked quit, according to Goodwill.

“A 2005 independent study of the program, which operates in communities throughout the country, concluded the return for each $1 spent could be more than $5 worth of health and other benefits. The Indiana program serves 1,100 mothers a year, a fraction of the estimated 14,000 who could benefit…”

As the example of Goodwill Industries of Central Indiana shows, by prioritizing evidence and outcomes and by directing federal funds to programs with local support, non-federal resources, and track records of achievement, the federal government can more effectively address issues like early childhood health and development.

SIPPRA funding only represents a small fraction of the overall amount that the federal government spends on fighting poverty, but it represents a marked change in our approach. It ties together the best local initiatives that are making true impacts; the investors who care about the future of their communities; and the federal government, as it incentivizes evidence-based interventions.

SIPPRA is just getting started. The Commission on Social Impact Partnerships has identified 9 deserving organizations, ranging from a New York Clean Energy Project to an Oklahoma Substance Abuse program. The common theme is all of these programs are making amazing impacts in their communities and hopefully, represent the next generation of successful solutions that are grown locally and supported federally.

In building programs based on evidence of what works, SIPPRA has the potential to finance the most effective solutions for fighting poverty, which originate not from Washington D.C., but from leaders on the ground in communities across the country. SIPPRA funding will support individuals and organizations that have been making a difference in their communities for decades, while bringing their ideas to policymakers to expand their reach. This intersection of community-based approaches and government support is what will ultimately most improve the lives of Americans in need.