American Idea Foundation

Measuring Results, Expanding Opportunity, Improving Lives.

Blog

A Commission-Based Approach to Strengthening the Social Safety Net & Trust Funds

by

By: AIF Staff

As the former Chairman of the House Budget and Ways and Means Committee, American Idea Foundation President Paul Ryan has long been recognized for his efforts to reduce our nation’s $26 trillion debt and to reform critical social safety programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security so the government is able to keep the promises made to current and future generations.

Early in his career, Speaker Ryan introduced the Roadmap for America’s Future and when he became the leading Republican on the Budget Committee, he authored and helped pass the Path to Prosperity budgets four years in a row in the House of Representatives. Speaker Ryan also served as a member on the Obama-era National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, more commonly known as the Simpson-Bowles Fiscal Commission, where he worked on a bipartisan basis with former Congressional Budget Office Director Alice Rivlin on a plan to reform Medicare. He had a similar bipartisan approach with Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon.

Despite Speaker Ryan’s best efforts, making major changes to save and strengthen programs like Social Security and Medicare proved too tall an order for Members of Congress to pass into law and as a result of Congressional inaction, these programs have continued to march closer to insolvency.

Programs like Medicare and Social Security serve as a lifeline for millions of seniors, workers, and families.  Each of these programs have seen their financial standing worsen drastically in the past year, due in part to demographic shifts but more so because of the economic turbulence caused by the Coronavirus. The economic difficulties that 2020 has brought only underscores the need for urgent action by elected officials. As the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget noted recently:

“The ongoing economic contraction is certain to further weaken the finances of both programs, accentuating the urgency of legislating financial corrections soon. In particular, the solvency of the Medicare HI and Social Security DI trust funds may be imperiled much earlier than is recognized…. This crisis will only shorten the time that lawmakers have to stabilize the financial outlooks for these vital programs.”

Without question, this will be a critical issue for the next Administration and the next Congress to tackle. As Speaker Ryan said recently:

“My biggest concern, under whomever becomes president, is fiscal policy and our entitlements, which are unsustainable. They’re on an unsustainable path. It’s not too late to fix them on our own, in a way that fulfills each of their missions, but if we keep kicking the can down the road as both presidents and both parties have done, then I really do worry that our monetary policy and our fiscal policy are on a collision course with one another. The next president is going to have to deal with that.”

As the following chart shows, it’s not just Social Security and Medicare that are on a perilous track to bankruptcy. The failure of elected officials to act has also resulted in financing issues for the Highway Trust Fund and the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. As the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget stated in a recent analysis: “Using the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) latest economic projections, we estimate all major trust funds will be depleted by 2031…

“According to our latest estimates, the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) will be depleted by 2021, the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund by the beginning of 2024, the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) trust fund in the 2020s, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) Multi-Employer fund at some point in the mid-2020s, and the Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund by 2031. We estimate the theoretically combined Social Security OASDI Trust fund will run out of reserves by 2031.”

As Speaker Ryan’s experience reflects, a single legislator pushing for changes to these programs will undoubtedly struggle to get meaningful reforms signed into law. As such, a bipartisan approach to fixing the nation’s safety net for current and future generations will likely be needed. In a recent interview, Ryan shared his view on how lawmakers should approach reforming these programs given the political sensitivities around them.

“I was a person who spent a lot of my time in Congress working on debt issues as Chairman of the Budget and Ways and Means Committees. I was also on the Bowles-Simpson Commission. When House Republicans took the majority in 2011 and through 2018, we brought a budget that paid off the debt, that balanced the budget, and that reformed the entitlement programs every session. It had reforms for Medicare, Medicaid, and an Obamacare replacement. We could never get that beyond just passing it out of the House of Representatives.

“And so, I came to the conclusion that you’ll never get Congress – even with the right majority and the right presidency lined up, to go along with the votes that are needed to pass massive, comprehensive entitlement reforms. So, I’m a believer that it’s going to take a Commission.”

But Speaker Ryan’s experience also shows that it will take more than just any commission to address these trillion-dollar problems. Rather, a commission to fix the financing of these critical programs must be setup in the proper way. As Ryan said: 

“I never really liked the idea of commissions in the past, simply because I always thought it was Congress dumping its responsibility, but I’m now convinced more than ever, based on my experience with the Bowles-Simpson Commission, that one is necessary. I was a big fan of Alan (Simpson) and Erskine (Bowles) but I wasn’t a big fan of exactly how they went about the Commission because I think they missed some big opportunities.

“My own belief is that the only way to make a commission work is like the Greenspan Social Security Commission in the 1980’s or a fast-track commission where Congress can’t amend or filibuster the report. They have to have an up or down vote in the House and an up or down vote on the same version in the Senate, and then it goes to the President for his signature. This way, legislators don’t own the process and they can’t avoid the decision to vote on the package.”

As Speaker Ryan mentioned, the National Commission on Social Security Reform, which was created by President Reagan in December of 1981 due to “the inability of the President and the Congress to agree to a solution, and the concern about eroding public confidence in the Social Security system,” and its efforts could prove instructive for lawmakers and individuals looking to fix these programs.

There are some key lessons that can be learned from the National Commission on Social Security Reform, often called the “Greenspan Commission,” which will increase the likelihood of successfully reforming these Trust Fund programs in the future.

  1. A Collaborative Setup & Agreement on the Math

One reason why Speaker Ryan and others who want to fix the solvency of these critical federal programs have coalesced around a commission model is because they have been successful in the past.

In a hyper-polarized political environment, individual pieces of legislation will often collapse among the weight of outside interest groups attacking them or will often stall due to the paralysis that too frequently grips the legislative branch. By contrast, a bipartisan commission, like the Greenspan Commission and Bowles-Simpson, creates a collaborative atmosphere where debate and discussion are possible.

As the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget acknowledged in an analysis: Commissions create “an environment for compromise, where a deal can be struck and where both parties can work together. Troublesome political and technical issues can be worked out more easily under the umbrella of political cover that a commission would provide.”

Further, the Hudson Institute theorized that the National Commission on Social Security Reform succeeded because of two key reasons:

“[Commissioners] successfully involved both parties; they ensured that negotiators would be those willing to reach compromise; they engaged both the White House and a sufficient number of Members of Congress, and they withstood pressure from seniors ‘lobbying groups. Of equal importance, however, was the analytical clarity that attended the negotiations. Both parties appreciated the size and immediacy of Social Security‘s financing shortfall. Both parties understood that contemporary workers paid for the full cost of financing all Social Security benefits.”

It is vital to setup a structure that allows for a discussion on how to solve the problem, but it is equally important that individuals from both parties also agree on the nature of the challenge itself.

As its final report stated: “The National Commission has agreed that there is a financing problem for the OASDI program for both the short run, 1983-89 (as measured using pessimistic economic assumptions) and the long range, 1983-2056 (as measured by an intermediate cost estimate) and that action should be taken to strengthen the financial status of the program.”

Only by first having a shared understanding of the nature of the problems facing trust funds and key safety net programs can both parties begin to address them. Starting from a unified definition of the problem and then having the conversation in a collaborative manner often are pre-conditions for a commission’s success.

2. Leave No Stone Unturned; Agree that Compromise is not a Dirty Word

According to the Brookings Institution, the Greenspan Commission succeeded in part because:

“Both sides agreed to mutual sacrifice…. Democrats accepted a six-month delay in the annual cost-of-living adjustment and the increase in the retirement age, while Republicans accepted a faster-than-planned rise in payroll taxes and a substantial tax increase on the self-employed. The two sides closed the deal by subjecting up to half of Social Security benefits to income taxes for higher-income beneficiaries, a provision that allowed Democrats to say Republicans had passed a tax increase and Republicans to say Democrats had agreed to a benefit cut.”

One of the challenges facing the Bowles-Simpson Commission was the fact that both Democrats and Republicans were unwilling to move from previously held positions and embrace a notion of “shared sacrifice” to address the problem. Bowles-Simpson was further challenged by the fact that President Obama’s signature legislative achievement, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, had been signed into law just years earlier and Democrats would not consider serious changes to the law as a result. By taking major health care changes off the table at the outset, Commissioners struggled to seriously and comprehensively address the debt and deficit. If future Commissions are to have a chance at succeeding, both parties must acknowledge there can be no “sacred cows” and everything must be up for discussion.

The Greenspan Commission considered a wide range of proposals to address the financing issues associated with Social Security before narrowing its solutions around ideas that a majority of the Commissioners could support. As the final report indicated:

“The National Commission considered, but rejected, proposals to make the Social Security program a voluntary ones or to transform it into a program under which benefits are a product exclusively of the contributions paid, or to convert it into a fully-funded program, or to change it to a program under which benefits are conditioned on the showing of financial need….

“The 12 members of the National Commission voting in favor of the “consensus” package agreed to a single set of proposals to meet the short-range deficit (with Commissioner Kirkland dissenting on the proposal to cover newly hired Federal employees). They further agreed that the long-range deficit should be reduced to approximately zero. The single set of recommendations would meet about two-thirds of the long-range financial requirements. Seven of the 12 members agreed that the remaining one-third of the long-range financial requirements should be met by a deferred, gradual increase in the normal retirement age, while the other 5 members agreed to an increase in the contribution rates in 2010 of slightly less than one-half percent (0.46%) of covered earnings on the employer and the same amount on the employee, with the employee’s share of the increase offset by a refundable income-tax credit.”

The Commission did not force all Commissioners to sign on to a final package in order for its recommendations to move forward, but it still was able to find common ground by prioritizing reasonable reforms that could ultimately accomplish the Commission’s purpose of putting Social Security on sound financial footing in the short-term and long-term.

Since the Greenspan Commission, the problems facing programs like Social Security and Medicare and the depleting trust funds associated with highways and pensions have undoubtedly become much larger, which only underscores the need for future commissions to enter conversations with an open mind about a mix of policy solutions that will ensure these programs exist for current and future generations of Americans.

3. Force Congress to Actually Act on Recommendations

A final lesson learned from the Greenspan Commission is the importance of these entities having real teeth and having a mechanism that more or less compels Congress to act on recommendations that are advanced by a bipartisan commission. The contrast between the Bowles-Simpson Commission, where the recommendations were almost immediately dismissed by the President and leaders of both parties, and the Greenspan Commission are stark in this respect.

As the Brookings Institution’s Paul Light explained: “As the 1983 rescue showed, Congress and presidents can take action when they are forced into up-or-down votes on urgent problems. The key is deciding just how urgent a problem is.”

Given that many of these trust funds are facing insolvency in the coming years, and given that their financial standing has worsened significantly in 2020, Congress should understand the clear urgency of taking on this problem. Consequently, a future commission with teeth, one which forces Congress to vote on recommendations advanced, will prevent legislators from continuing to duck the issue.

Time is of the essence, and further delay will have real consequences for tens of millions of Americans. As the Social Security Administration detailed, unless Congress acts, current and future seniors will see a significant decrease in Socials Security benefits, which would have profound impacts on their ability to pay bills, afford housing and medications, and live their lives.

The longer Congress waits, the harder these problems are to solve. The Greenspan Commission provides a template, albeit an antiquated one, of how Congress can stop delaying and start acting in a bipartisan fashion to address these critical programs which are driving our debt and which millions of Americans depend on.

Fortunately, there is a bipartisan group of legislators who have seemingly taken the lessons from the Greenspan Commission and applied them to the challenges facing our trust funds and safety net programs. The Time to Rescue United States’ Trusts (TRUST) Act proposes to create specific committees to develop legislation that would fix every trust fund and put each of them on sound financial footing.

The legislation proposes to have separate commissions of “12 members, three of whom would be selected at the discretion of the “four corners” of Congressional leadership: Senate majority and minority leaders, the House Speaker, and the House minority leader.” Each of these bodies would produce a plan that “prevents the trust fund’s depletion, ensures long-term solvency, simplifies the underlying programs, and makes other general improvements.”

In addition to requiring any reforms to be supported by both Democrats and Republicans, the TRUST Act also has an important mechanism to compel Congress to hold votes on proposed “rescue plans.” As noted in the press release describing the legislation, “If a Rescue Committee reports a qualifying bill for its trust fund program, it would receive expedited consideration in both chambers. While 60 votes would be required to invoke cloture for final passage in the Senate, only a simple majority would be needed for the motion to proceed, which would be privileged.”

The TRUST Act is rooted in an approach that has had success in the past and may very well represent the best chance Congress has of putting partisanship aside and actually solving these problems for the American people.

Congress and leaders who care about addressing our debt and deficits would be wise to use the lessons learned from the Greenspan Commission and the Simpson-Bowles Commission in order to tackle these fiscal challenges in a sensible way.

Skeptical About Opportunity Zones? Look to Erie, PA

by

By: AIF Staff

As the American Idea Foundation has previously detailed, Opportunity Zones are economically distressed census tracts that are eligible for preferential tax treatment. They were created as part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and are designed to incentivize long-term investment in low-income and economically disadvantaged communities by offering a deferral of capital gains taxes for investors.

Last month, a handful of House Democrats attempted to amend an annual appropriations bill to prevent the Internal Revenue Service from using funds to oversee the development of the nearly 8,800 Opportunity Zones around the United States. This stunt, if successful, would have been a mistake – one that would have had real consequences for the people living in these zones.

To be clear, since Opportunity Zones became law, legislators from both parties have attempted to improve the oversight over these areas to ensure they meet their intended purpose of truly helping individuals and communities in need. Debates about how to refine and improve Opportunity Zones are welcomed, as many reforms are well-intentioned. However, attempts to end the Opportunity Zone program outright or to defund them are not only short-sighted, but also would harm the very individuals that legislators claim to want to help.

Rather than attempt to score partisan, political points, legislators should be united in making Opportunity Zones work. Opportunity Zones hold the potential to revitalize economically distressed areas and bring good-paying jobs, additional housing, better educational opportunities, much-needed infrastructure improvements, and critical investments to areas that need it. There are many good ideas – from both Democrats and Republicans – about how to expand economic opportunities and fight poverty, but Opportunity Zones should be given the chance to succeed. This critical tool for revitalization should not be reduced to a political football.

The main reason that policymakers should give Opportunity Zones the chance to germinate? They’re working. Communities are beginning to see real results from public and private partnerships. Investment is flowing into communities and meaningful improvements are beginning to occur. One promising example is found in Erie County, Pennsylvania.

Nestled on a Great Lake near the U.S.-Canada border, Erie, Pennsylvania is the epidemy of a small, Midwestern city. Erie has a rich industrial and manufacturing history and is currently attempting to modernize, transform, and diversify itself to meet the demands of the 21st century economy while also holding tight to the values that make it so unique.

As Forbes noted: “Battling outsourcing, automation, and seismic shifts in global supply chains, the once-thriving industrial city became a parable for the socioeconomic decline of America’s manufacturing heartland. A 2017 report described Erie in stark terms, concluding that nearly half of all Black residents live in poverty, and that the median Black worker in Erie makes a mere 43% of median white worker’s earnings.” Further, in 5 of Erie’s 8 Opportunity Zones, “more than 35 percent of families had income below the federal poverty level. In the other three, the poverty rate for families was above 20 percent.”

But now, thanks to its use of Opportunity Zones, Erie is on the rise. A video produced by the local Chamber of Commerce, “Erie Amazes,” highlights how the city is primed for revitalization.

Erie is turning itself around one building, one block, and one neighborhood at a time. It is a prime example of how innovative, local leadership, when combined with sound, federal policies can make a difference and improve people’s lives.

In February 2020, the Erie Regional Chamber and Growth Partnership presented their  “Reinvestment Roadmap” at the White House. The presentation makes clear that by effectively utilizing Opportunity Zones and partnering with relevant federal government agencies, Erie is massively accelerating its revitalization.

The White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council succinctly defined the mission of Opportunity Zones, saying: “Private capital and public investment will stimulate economic opportunity, encourage entrepreneurship, expand educational opportunities, develop and rehabilitate quality housing stock, promote workforce development, and promote safety and prevent crime in economically distressed communities.”

And as the presentation by Erie’s Chamber makes clear, the city has big plans to leverage the benefits provided to investors via the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to improve their infrastructure, transportation systems, educational offerings, business development pipelines, and make the community cleaner and safer. All of these will enhance resident’s quality of life.  

To be sure, Erie’s plans are ambitious, but they are already beginning to come to fruition thanks to the city’s belief in its people and its citizens. As the Washington Examiner’s Salena Zito recently wrote: “To anyone who has said it would be impossible to transform one of the poorest ZIP codes in the country into a role model for achieving economic prosperity…. They have definitely underestimated the determination of Erie’s local civic, foundation, and business leaders to not give up the ship.”

In 2019, according to the Economic Innovation Group:

“Fortune 500 company Erie Insurance, the city’s largest employer, announced its new $50 million Opportunity Fund. The first investment will support the creation of a food hall for nine local vendors…The food hall will anchor a broader $30 million transformation of the city’s North Park Row into a culinary arts district, which project sponsors Erie Downtown Development Corporation anticipate will create approximately 240 jobs.”

And because of this local commitment to rejuvenation, at the end of June 2020, Boston-based Actaris Impact Investors announced a $40 million investment in Erie’s Opportunity Zone. The hope is other capital will soon follow as investors see the potential of Erie’s workforce and the comradery of the community to improve itself. As Forbes explained:

“Erie is currently home to some $750 million in ongoing investment. The EDDC and Erie Regional Chamber and Growth Partnership are working to get even more capital into the areas where it will have the biggest impact. The first phase of EDDC’s plan will add more than $100 million in investment into downtown Erie through 2022. In that time EDDC hopes to triple the number of businesses within the development, raise job numbers from 90 to over 425, and multiply the number of residential units by more than ten.”

To be clear, the goal of Opportunity Zones is not to gentrify Erie or displace the very people that are so connected to the city’s history. The hope is to build Erie up from within, with a rising tide lifting all boats. As John Persinger, the head of the Erie Downtown Development Corporation, told the Wall Street Wall Street Journal: “When people raise fears of gentrification, I say we can’t afford to lose one more person. We don’t want to push anyone out. We want to bring more people in and raise the quality of life for everyone.”

The story of Erie makes clear that Opportunity Zones will take time to develop. They will require significant buy-in from local leaders, community organizations, and federal officials. But the promise and the potential to rejuvenate these 8,700 areas in our country is too important to be derailed by partisan fighting in Washington, DC.

Thanks to Opportunity Zones, Erie has the ability to amaze and become a model for the rest of the nation. Policymakers just need to focus on supporting these local efforts, not undercutting them.

Policy Discussion on 2nd Chances: Developing New Solutions for Returning Citizens

by

By: AIF Staff

On July 16th, the American Idea Foundation held a virtual panel discussion with policymakers, private-sector leaders, and on-the-ground practitioners about how to create pathways for success as individuals exit the criminal justice system and work to become contributing members of their communities.

The conversation, led by former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, highlighted a central premise of the American Idea Foundation: The belief that the best public policies are not made in a vacuum in Washington, DC, but rather are developed, informed, and shaped in a collaborative fashion between policymakers, individuals who are leading on the front-lines and helping vulnerable populations, and their partners in universities, community groups, non-profits, and corporations. Good public policy is not only a natural byproduct of this ongoing collaboration and dialogue, but it is also informed by the experience of individuals and experts, and the data and evidence that has been developed over years of practice. The fact that the First Step Act, which became law in 2018 and which modernized important parts of our criminal justice system, resulted from this type of policy-making process is precisely why it has the potential to be so impactful in the lives of so many.

The First Step Act, as the name implies, was simply the beginning on an ongoing effort to help individuals who made mistakes and atoned for them get on with their lives in a meaningful way. The law created conditions by which individuals could start down a path of redemption and hopefully, with the right support systems, change their ways. The authors of the First Step Act knew that the government, on its own, would not be able to solve a multi-faceted issue like recidivism, and for the law to achieve its stated aims, it would require partners in communities and in industries to assist in expanding opportunities for those trying to rehabilitate themselves following their interactions with the criminal justice system.

The American Idea Foundation wanted to highlight some of these partners who are helping policymakers realize the noble goals of the First Step Act and who are making a difference in reducing recidivism. It did so in a policy discussion entitled, Second Chances: Developing New Solutions for Returning Citizens, which featured leaders from READI Chicago, JPMorgan Chase, and United Health Care.

As Speaker Ryan said when introducing the panel: “Today, we will be talking with some of the organizations that are giving concrete second chances to those who make mistakes. We’re talking to the experts in the field who are actually breathing life into [the First Step Act] and showing how it can work. These organizations are not just providing practical on the ground assistance to the least among us, but they are also developing the practical insights that will lead to the next round of criminal justice reforms, whether they be at the state, local or at the federal level.”

A few excerpts from the policy discussion follow:

Speaker Ryan on Why Criminal Justice Reform Matters & His Evolution on the Subject:

To kick off the panel, Speaker Ryan shared what motivated him to tackle the issue of criminal justice reform. He discussed how his thinking about the issue changed as evidence and research was developed and showed the benefits of giving individuals who paid their debt to society a second chance to lead fulfilling lives.

“As a practicing Catholic, one of the precepts of my faith is that we work to protect the least among us. And for too long as the society, we have ignored those who have made mistakes and paid for those mistakes and we ended up turning what is the legitimate punishment for wrongs committed into a lifelong brand, eliminating the ability for individuals to turn their lives around, permanently separating parents from children and driving millions into despair.

“America at its best is an America that provides for second chances. If a small business owner fails, they pick themselves up and they try again, but for too long, we’ve decided that individuals who break the law don’t get a second chance. Of all the things that our country has demonstrated, it is the power of redemption and so we need to make sure that we realize the power of redemption in our criminal justice system, and with the First Step Act, we have changed that paradigm and formerly incarcerated individuals are now getting a second chance to lead better and more productive lives.”

***

Ryan continued, “[The passage of the First Step Act] was one of the least covered events of 2018, and yet it might be one of the most consequential from a public policy perspective. So, how did Republicans and Democrats come to agree on controversial hot button issues that they hadn’t been able to come together on and that was so difficult for so many years?

“One reason that policymakers were willing to take a political risk was because of both practical and intellectual research in the field of criminal justice. My experience was instructive: In 2007, I was one of several conservatives who voted against the Second Chance Act, but around that time, a sea change was starting to occur. If you recall, back when the 1994 Clinton Crime Bill [was being considered], you had Republicans and Democrats trying to outmaneuver each other to be “tough on crime,” with “three strikes you’re out” and things like that, which was the political movement of the time. But starting in 2007, states like Texas and a whole swath of generally conservative-leaning states began reforming their laws in ways that better protected their citizens and ensured victim’s rights while ensuring a fairer criminal justice system. These states focused on how they could reduce the need to imprison non-violent offenders and reattach these people to the workforce. And where these laws have been passed, we generally saw reduced recidivism, we saw reduced crime, and we saw reduced costs associated with jailing offenders.”

JPMorgan Chase: A ‘Bell Cow’ Reducing Barriers to Employment for Released & Reformed Individuals

In an exchange with Heather Higginbottom, President of JPMorgan Chase’s Policy Center, Speaker Ryan praised the company for leading the way in reforming its hiring practices and leading the charge in its sector to hire individuals with criminal records. Higginbottom went on to explain exactly what JPMorgan is doing to reduce recidivism and how it is working: 

“Several years ago, JPMorgan banned the box on its initial hiring application, which is now something that the federal government has done and is another piece of bipartisan legislation that passed recently for federal government contracting jobs, and that was an important step because we want to hire the best people, and that checkbox was denying us access to a diverse pool of the best talent.

“When you think about the fact that one in three Americans has a criminal record, it’s unbelievable, and you think about what the impact is, [what are] the collateral consequences of that, and what that means to the economy and to a business. But our HR leaders and our CEO wanted to go further and say: If we’re going to be really intentional about this, it’s not just “ban the box,” but we need to go further. We need to learn. We don’t have all the answers yet, but what we have is a commitment, so we started in Chicago, a pilot program and an initial effort to partner with community organizations to find a diverse pipeline and help [people] understand [how to get a job].

“You know, banks are highly regulated and appropriately so. A lot of people think that “I can’t get a job. I don’t know how to get a job since I have a criminal record. What is the process? How do I go about doing this?” And so, we’re partnering with community organizations to help people navigate that process. They’re going through the same door as anyone else to get a job, but they’re prepared. They understand what they qualify for and what they wouldn’t and it’s been a good success. It’s one that we’re going to replicate in other places.

“I’ll say two things: One, JPMorgan can’t solve this problem on its own and that’s why we really are making a call for all businesses to stand with us and to learn together about how to do this and how to tap into this incredible source of talent and how to understand that a criminal record should not stay with someone forever, and that you are missing out on a whole suite of professionals when that’s a limiting factor.

“10% of our new hires last year, in 2019, are people with criminal records and in 2019, we hired 1,000 people more than the year before with criminal records. We are learning. We are intentional. We are focused and we are finding this to be a very successful effort for our firm. We know that it’s possible for others and that we need to kind of band together and do this….

“This impacts everybody, and you start to say this system just doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make sense for employers, it doesn’t make sense for families, and this system is designed in such a way that we’ve got to make changes and adjustments and I think, in addition to the research and folks really understanding that means that change needs to happen, we also see how directly this impacts so many people across the country.”

Following Higginbottom’s explanation of JPMorgan’s efforts, Speaker Ryan noted: “JPMorgan Chase is a bell cow…. You need bell cows to lead the herd to the right place and…. having a place like JPMorgan Chase do this is really important. It’s a trendsetter, and it’s exactly the kind of follow through you need after passing a law like this.”

Discussing READI Chicago’s Work to Reduce Violence and Transform Lives in Chicago:

Bringing another practitioner’s voice to the panel was Eddie Bocanegra, who is a senior director of the Heartland Alliance and a leader at READI Chicago, where he works to decrease gun violence in the Chicago area and to help give individuals a second chance at life. You can read more about Eddie’s transformative story here. Bocanegra shared his powerful, personal experience with the criminal justice system and how it motivates him to assist others. He also detailed READI Chicago’s randomized controlled trial (RCT) which is helping to evaluate the best way to reduce recidivism.  

Bocanegra said: “There is plenty of research out there that really has looked at both the issue of violence but also useful re-entry work examples. There is a lot of good, promising information out there on what’s working and what’s not working, but for whatever reason or another, it seems that sometimes that information is not communicated effectively to the people who are in a position to write the policy or the lawmakers might interpret in a very different way. Sometimes, I will even make the argument that people are not willing to put their political capital to really make these changes so to hear about the steps that you have taken to move forward in that direction, I think it’s extremely important for us to continue to build on that….

“[A Randomized Controlled Trial] is really the gold standard of research. It’s what we do in medicine to see what’s working and what’s not working. In fact, right now with COVID, we are using that [approach]…. so, imagine that we did the same thing with people. Imagine if we did the same thing in areas where [violence] was extremely concentrated, and that violence typically is driven by 70-80 people who are driving that violence. So, imagine if you were able to test one supportive population and, in our case, what we’re doing is testing whether or not jobs and this kind of behavior therapy really helped us.”

Speaker Ryan discussed why having randomized controlled trials, like the one being conducted by READI Chicago, makes a difference to policymakers as he recounted an episode during the consideration of the First Step Act: “I remember when we were pushing this bill in the House, a senior person in my party showed me some campaign commercials that were going to be run against us if we passed this legislation. [The commercials were] showing that we were soft on crime, showing that we were going to be harming our constituents and this and that. There was a lot of political intimidation against doing things like this and that’s how typical issues work. It was because we had all of this evidence, frankly, from states like Texas which showed we can actually make a difference on all fronts by reducing violence, by creating redemption, by getting people back to work and because we add unassailable evidence from randomized controlled trials that proved if you do it this way, it will work and make a difference.

“This helps take the politics out of it and it helps get over the criticisms that you’re getting something done. So, personally, this is why at the American Idea Foundation, we are basically focusing on RCTs and building a big bank of evidence so that communities and charities and local governments can replicate successful models that have been proven to work and they can overcome the partisan gridlock that usually engulfs issues. Having something like an RCT in Chicago, which is a place that everyone is paying attention to and showing your proven results, I really think that is exactly what is needed to get to the next wave of reforms of redemption and criminal justice policies.”

Examining United HealthCare Community Plan of Washington’s Model:

The policy discussion also featured Cindy Spain, the Chief Clinical Officer from United Healthcare Community Plan of Washington, who shared her company’s experience taking a circumspect view towards caring for individuals and in the process, helping those exiting the criminal justice system land on their feet.

As Speaker Ryan noted: “Eight years ago, I went up to UnitedHealthcare, which is headquartered in Minneapolis, and met with Steve Helmsley and his team to talk about treating the whole person in healthcare. If you just only deal with the momentary problem of a health issue that is affecting a person, you’re not going to solve the underlying problem which is the whole person…. I think so many criminal justice issues can be resolved through access to high quality health care and by dealing with the whole person, you really created a really interesting model out there in Washington State…. that really needs to be replicated throughout the country.”

As Spain explained, the local partnerships that United HealthCare created in Washington has led to tangible results and improved outcomes for individuals and families. In describing their model, Spain said: “We actually work with the Health Care Authority and part of our contract is to do some jail transition services work. Previously, it was focused on the behavioral health aspects of mostly incarcerated folks. However, we decided to go into the jails and meet with our former members because they’re in a suspended state of Medicaid at that time, and talk to them about the issues that they’re [battling] to have a successful release to the community and as part of that, our community health workers identify social determinants of health (SDOH) issues that are ongoing, such as homelessness, an inability to connect with their primary care physicians, an inability to get into treatment that they might need, and we help facilitate that as they get released back into the community.

“Many of our members end up getting released directly into substance use disorder treatment [programs]. Some of them get released directly into mental health settings. We facilitate that as well as keep engaged with them after they are released into the community to make sure that they can get their medications, that they have someplace to live….

“We have partners within our health plan on the behavioral health side, and we work very collaboratively with them on mental health as well. We make sure that everything that’s been identified while they’re incarcerated, such as their substance use but also schizophrenia or bipolar, if they need to be connected to those services as they are released back into the community, we work with our partners to make sure that they get those systems set up for them before they are released. We make sure that we have identified providers of those services and that they have agreed to take the returning citizen into those services immediately so that there isn’t any delay and so as they step out that door, they step into a taxi and they get delivered to the door of those behavioral health organizations or primary care physicians or a substance use treatment facility.”

As Spain elaborated, United Healthcare believes that continuity of care and providing individual assistance to returning individuals is key to long-term success for those reentering society. When discussing the duration and nature of the care model, she said: “We stay connected via community health workers who are actually meeting face-to-face with these citizens before they are released. We’ll follow them as they go back [into society] …. and give them all of our contact information, meet with them in the community as they are released and continue to evolve with them if they need to have ongoing care management. We will follow them as long as they need to be followed and as long as they’re agreeable to doing so and gain benefit from it.”