by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Feb 12, 2015
The Georgia Council on Criminal Justice Reform (CJRC) released their latest report this past Friday (Feb. 6th) with recommendations aimed to increase public safety, hold offenders accountable, and reduce recidivism in our state. This is the fourth consecutive report that the CJRC has produced since 2011 after being tasked by the Governor and the General Assembly to develop a smarter, evidence-based approach to criminal justice in our state.
As reflected in the report, a major focus of the CJRC and the Governor’s Office of Transition, Support and Reentry (GOTSR) in 2014 was to develop a comprehensive approach to reentry so that every person leaving prison has the tools and support they need to succeed in the community.
To aid in the development of this approach, the Council and GOTSR partnered with the Michigan-based Center for Justice Innovation and reentry expert Dennis Schrantz to produce the Georgia Prisoner Reentry Initiative (GA-PRI). The GA-PRI is a five-year plan based largely on the evidence-based policies practices laid out in the 2005 Council of State Governments’ Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council and the 2008 National Institute of Corrections’ Transition from Prison to the Community (TPC) Reentry Handbook, but tailored specifically to meet Georgia’s reentry needs.
Georgia’s reentry team pursued federal funding to implement the GA-PRI in 2014, highlighting its “one strategy, one plan” philosophy that aims to unify planning and implementation of evidence-based practices among agencies and stakeholders. The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) welcomed the smart plan and awarded Georgia four grants which totaled $6 million. Georgia’s strategy is now being featured by the BJA at training events across the county.
Details and recommendations related to the GA-PRI can be viewed in this report, as well as the complete three-year implementation plan which is located in the addendum.
Other key pieces of the report include recommendations in the following areas:
Adult System
- Restore the intent of the Georgia’s First Offender Act
- Improve pre-trial diversion alternatives for certain offenders
- Extend parole eligibility for certain qualified nonviolent, recidivist drug offenders
- Extend sentences for offenders whose probation has been revoked and who wish to participate in a felony accountability court program
Juvenile Justice System
- Improve the collecting and sharing of electronic data throughout the juvenile justice system
Misdemeanor Probation System
- Address deficiencies and improve transparency and fairness in misdemeanor probation services
At GCO, we are particularly happy to see the following recommendations in the CJRC’s report which aim to increase employment opportunities for returning citizens:
- Establish licensing policies that ensure returning citizens have appropriate opportunities for licensing
- Explore opportunities for a state work opportunity tax credit to incentivize offering employment to returning citizens
- Revamp prison work details to provide experience that meets the requirements of Prior Learning Assessments (PLAs) so technical college credits can be awarded for work experience gained on prison details
- Explore resources available to purchase and deploy a Department of Driver Services (DDS) mobile unit to process state IDs at state correctional facilities
Read the full report here and visit the newly created website for the Governor’s Office of Transition, Support and Reentry.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Feb 11, 2015
Georgia’s public school system is failing many of our children, and it seems everybody has an opinion in regard to what needs to happen. But one truism has become apparent: More money is not the solution.
Nationally, spending on public education in constant dollars has nearly tripled since 1970, and the expenditures per student have doubled from $4,500 per student per year in 1970 to almost $11,000 today.[1] During this same time period, the National Average for Educational Progress (NAEP) scores for 17-year-olds have remained essentially unchanged. Americans spend more money per-student than any other nation in the world while only performing in the middle-to-back of the pack among developed countries.
While an increase in spending has not yielded higher achievement scores among U.S. students, it has been successful in accomplishing one thing: increasing the size of school administration. Since 1950, the overall number of school administrators in the U.S. has risen by a staggering 702 percent, while the number of teachers has only grown by 252 percent, and the number of students has increased by only 96 percent.[2] For all this growth in school administration and faculty, the outcomes in student achievement have been disappointing.
The same can be said for Georgia. Spending on public education increased drastically from $5.6 billion in 1993 to $17.4 billion in 2012, yielding an improved student-teacher ratio during this time period (16.7 in 1993 to 15.6 in 2012). Yet despite all this spending and having more teachers and smaller classroom sizes, NAEP scores for eighth grade students in Georgia remained virtually the same. Similarly, the high school graduation rate did not improve significantly during this time period, going from 67.6 percent in 1996 to 71.5 percent in 2012, while hitting a low of 60.8 percent in 2002.
Both in Georgia and nationally we continue to operate under the assumption that more money and more staff will solve the problem of a failing educational system. However, statistic after statistic indicates that pouring more money into Georgia’s failing public school system will not provide any substantial improvement, especially for Georgia’s most vulnerable children. There have, and continue to be, serious and well-intentioned efforts to reform the system. But because these reforms only provide minor changes to the system without seeking to change the way the system is organized, they limit themselves to minor improvements in standardized test scores.
In order to improve the educational opportunities we give Georgia’s children and ensure that the money spent on public education is not wasted on poor results, Georgia needs a new and innovative approach to education – an approach that gives parents the power to see their children succeed in education and in life. We need quality instruction that meets the needs of an enormously diverse group of students in a broad range of circumstances.
This just might be the power that newly proposed Education Savings Accounts offer.
Notes
[1] McShane, Michael. How America’s Education System Fails to Live Up to Its Promises (Washington, DC: AEI Press, 2015).
[2] Ibid.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Feb 7, 2015
In a blog post, the AJC’s Jay Bookman tried to use a case in Kentucky to raise the spectre of what might happen in Georgia if the legislature passed the “Preventing Government Overreach on Religious Expression Act,” its version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), passed by an overwhelming bipartisan Congressional majority in the 1990s.
Heavens to Betsy, Bookman argued, in Kentucky, a religious group is appealing to that state’s RFRA to insist that it has the same right to tourist development dollars as does any secular enterprise. At issue is the effort of the group Answers in Genesis to build a theme park centered on Noah’s Ark. The park will likely attract visitors to the region, and they will spend money at motels and restaurants near the park, as would tourists visiting Six Flags. Answers in Genesis argues that it is entitled to state assistance in the same way as is any secular organization. Their project should be considered for its economic development impact, just like any other project. The state disagrees, as does Mr. Bookman. His principal objection is that the organization is likely to require its theme park employees to sign a statement of faith, which means that the state would be providing funds to support an employer that engaged in discrimination on the basis of religion.
Answers in Genesis has filed a lawsuit in federal court, according to Bookman. Right there he has a problem with the burden of his blog post. If the organization is suing in federal court, the Kentucky law will be entirely irrelevant to that court’s decision. Whatever happens in this case will have absolutely no value for predicting the effect of the Georgia law, as interpreted by Georgia courts.
But let’s take a step back and look at Bookman’s argument a little more closely. Here’s his central contention, the premise that lies at the foundation of his position:
Let’s start the debate by pointing out that tax money and tax incentives shouldn’t be used to promote or advance a particular religious faith. I’d like to think that’s a bedrock principle that most Americans still support, although these days even that might be considered controversial in some quarters.
On one level, it’s hard to disagree with him. If the First Amendment Establishment Clause and its state counterparts mean anything, it’s that no state should establish—provide public support for—a church. But the Supreme Court has, in numerous cases, held that when religious organizations are seeking public funding, they need to be treated in the same way as secular organizations. If they satisfy neutral criteria, established without reference to religion, then they are just as eligible for support as any other entity. To deny religious groups this opportunity to compete for public funding on a level playing field is to engage in “viewpoint discrimination.” Thus in Rosenberger v. Rector, the Court held that a student religious magazine at the University of Virginia was eligible for funding from the student activities fee, just as was any other student organization. That public dollars flowed to a religious group did not imply an establishment of religion, as the Court understood it. The religious group was just one among many receiving support. The state’s thumb was not on the scale favoring religion over against secular alternatives. Rather, to deny the group access to this funding would actually be hostile to religion. If anything, the state’s thumb would be on the scale opposing religion.
The attorneys for Answers in Genesis know what they are doing. They’re on quite solid federal constitutional ground in challenging the state’s decision to deny tax incentives available on the basis of neutral economic development criteria to all but religious groups.
And, as I have argued, if they win, it will have nothing to do with Kentucky’s RFRA, and will predict nothing about what will happen in Georgia.
But let me make one last point regarding an implication of Bookman’s argument. If, as he contends, state and federal money should never go to an organization that uses religious criteria in hiring, then many of the cooperative relationships between government and charitable institutions would have to be torn asunder. Colleges and universities that require statements of faith from faculty shouldn’t have access to federal money in the form of student loans and grants. The Salvation Army wouldn’t be able to be one of the government’s largest partners in anti-poverty and workforce preparedness programs. These organizations receive public funding not because they’re religious, but because they provide a valuable public service. That service is evaluated, not by religious criteria, but by neutral public criteria. To demand that they abandon their religious missions in order to be eligible for public funding is not neutral toward religion, but hostile.
Perhaps Jay Bookman means to be hostile toward religion. I hope not.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Feb 6, 2015
According to the most recent data released by the National Center for Education Statistics this January, Georgia’s high school graduation rate is still one of the lowest in the nation at 72 percent, despite good improvement over the last two years. Only three states and the District of Columbia have a lower graduation rate than Georgia. Compare this to such states as Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin, which all have a graduation rate of 88, and Iowa which leads the pack at 90.
Georgia’s struggles don’t end with its graduation rate. Education Week released the latest report cards for each state this January in the categories of Chance-for-Success, School Finance, and K-12 Achievement in its 19th annual Quality Counts – Preparing to Launch: Early Childhood’s Academic Countdown. Georgia earned a grade of C-Minus and a ranking of 31st overall amongst the 50 states, based on its rankings of 37th, 31st, and 17th in each respective category. Georgia is below the nation as a whole, which earned a grade of C.
It would be one thing if Georgia ranked near the middle of the pack in a country whose educational outcomes far exceeded those of other developing countries around the world. However, when comparing how the U.S. education system stacks up on the international playing field, the results are not promising.
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) assessed the competencies of 15-year-olds in reading, mathematics, and science in 65 countries and economies in 2012. Among the 34 countries who are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the U.S. performed below average in mathematics, ranking 27th, and close to the OECD average in reading and science, ranking 17th and 20th respectively. According to PISA, U.S. students’ performance has not changed significantly over time despite the U.S. spending more per student than most countries.
So, what do these statistics teach us?
If Georgia stands in the middle of the pack when compared to other states in educating our children, in a country that is in the middle-to-the-back of the pack among developed countries, it’s safe to conclude that as a state we are failing to produce the level of excellence we desire for our children in an increasingly globalized economy.
Far too many students are stuck in failing schools that stifle them from reaching their full potential simply because their zip code affords them no other options. As a state, we cannot afford to let students spend another day in a failing school. The cost is too high individually and collectively.
Mediocre results call for a change in the status quo. Instead of keeping the same old system that is failing to produce the outcomes we hope to see, why not try a different strategy?
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Feb 3, 2015
There is buzz under the gold dome about the potential for a bill proposing Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) for Georgia’s students and parents. ESAs have earned the praise of many as the “next generation of school choice.”
Here is a run down of how they work and their potential advantages: Parents who choose not to enroll their children into public schools full time can receive 100% of what the state would have spent on their children at a public school – a change that is revenue neutral for the State and gives freedom to parents. The Department of Education deposits funds directly into a privately managed bank account, which parents or guardians can access through a restricted-use debit card. Child-specific factors – such as disabilities – may determine the amount of money distributed into a family’s ESA. Parents or guardians can then spend the money on private school tuition, online learning curriculum, special education services and therapies, textbooks, and a number of other qualifying education-related services and providers. Furthermore, parents can save unused funds from year to year and roll the funds into a college savings account.
Parents and students can use ESAs to tailor education to their unique learning needs and interests.
This unbundling of educational services can allow for greater innovation and diversity, since it encourages a supply-side response that puts pressure on all facets of the traditional education system to be far more responsive to student needs, which amounts to a true student-centered education agenda. ESAs promote a more market-based education system, creating incentives for producers and providers to try different ways of meeting the needs of students and parents.
Though Education Savings Accounts are still taxpayer funded, the way they are structured makes for a dynamic closer to the one involved in spending your own money on your own children: Parents still insist on the best quality education but have more incentive to find a bargain. ESAs constitute an improvement on traditional school choice programs for several reasons. Perhaps most importantly, parents have a strong incentive to maximize the educational value that their children receive in an ESA, because they are not required to spend it all at one place and in one lump sum.
The best way to enhance accountability and performance is to empower parents to choose the education that works best for their kids.
Two states have already adopted ESA laws – Arizona and Florida – and more are likely to follow in the coming years. These laws hold great potential to expand educational opportunity and improve the entire education system in ways that better and more efficiently meet the needs of children.
