Report: Poverty and crime put 5 Alabama cities on list of 50 worst places to live
A list of the 50 worst cities in America to live in has been compiled by 24/7 Wall Street, and five Alabama cities have made the list. 24/7 is a web based news source which according to their website that has seen articles “republished by many of the largest news sites and portals, including MSN Money, Yahoo! Finance, MarketWatch, Time.com, USAToday, and The Huffington Post”. According to the study’s authors the list was determined metrics that rank “high crime rates, widespread poverty, weak job markets, and little in the way of entertainment options or cultural attractions.” California had the most cities on the list with ten. You can view the entire methodology here. Lowest on the list is Arab, located in Marshall County. With a population of around 8,200, the poverty rate is more than 17 percent. With 549 violent crimes per 100,000 people, it is in the top 25 percent of cities for that measure.That is more than double the national average. 24/7 Wall Street says “Few U.S. cities are shedding jobs faster than the northern Alabama city of Arab. In the last five years, the number of people working in the city declined by 9.8%, even as employment across the U.S. as a whole climbed by 6.1%.” Next is Fairfield, which comes in just one place higher, at 34th. Part of the Birmingham metropolitan area, Fairfield has a population of nearly 11,000 with just over 25 percent living below the poverty line. Their violent crime rate of 1,905 per 100,000 people puts them in the top 10 percent, while the median home value of $96,000 puts that in the bottom 25 percent. Like Arab, unemployment is a major problem. While national unemployment is 4.1 percent, Fairfield comes in at 7 percent. Pritchard ranks 12th on the list. A key factor in this is job loss, losing 17 percent of their jobs in the last five years, one of the highest rates in the country. Over that same period, employment nationally went up 6.1 percent. Perhaps because of this job loss, the median salary in Pritchard is $25,000 (less than half of the U.S. median), and their population dropped by 3.4 percent. Pritchard’s poverty rate (35.1 percent) and violent crime rate (1,826 per 100,000) are in the top 10 percent nationwide and the median home value ($67,400) is in the bottom ten percent. Anniston comes in at ninth place. Anniston has the most violent crimes per 100,000 people (3,434) of any city in the country, 24/7 Wall Street reports. The poverty rate of nearly 30 percent is in the top ten percent nationally, and the city’s population has declined nearly five percent in the last five years. At the same time, the number of people working within that city is just over 10 percent. Coming in as the sixth worst city in America in which to live, and the worst in Alabama, is Bessemer. Just behind Anniston, Bessemer comes in second for violent crimes per 100,000 people (2,986) according to 24/7 Wall Street. “Nearly 30% of residents live in poverty, and more than one in three residents have low access to grocery store or super markets. The typical Bessemer home earns less than $32,000 a year, well below the U.S. median annual household income of $57,652,” the site reads. Changes on the way? Things could be changing. Gov. Kay Ivey has made workforce development a key initiative, and companies and government entities are moving into Alabama or expanding, bringing tens of thousands of jobs with them. Ivey won the Business Council of Alabama‘s (BCA) 2018 Chairman’s Award for pro-business initiatives which had, at that time, already brought an $8 billion investment and 16,000 jobs to the state. “Governor Ivey’s support of a thriving business climate has been key to landing coveted economic projects including the new Toyota-Mazda plant and its 4,000 anticipated jobs to north Alabama,” said BCA chairman Gary Hand. “Governor Ivey supports a business environment which grows tech companies and she continues to be a strong recruiter of companies in the automotive, aviation, and aerospace sectors.”
Alabama editorial roundup: Feb. 10, 2019 edition
Recent editorials from Alabama newspapers: ____ Feb. 9 The Dothan Eagle on the recent execution in Alabama: The State of Alabama put a man to death Thursday. He was the 217th person to die under the state’s death penalty – the 64th execution since a moratorium on executions in Alabama was lifted in 1983. Dominique Ray’s execution is troubling. Not because there was any question about his guilt. Debates about the moral failings of the death penalty aside, there was no reason why Ray should not see the sentence imposed on him for the murder of 15-year-old Tiffany Harville almost 25 years ago carried out at long last. What’s troubling about Ray’s execution is the constitutional question it raises. Ray, who embraced Islam while incarcerated, wanted an imam present with him in the death chamber. Prison officials refused, saying they could provide a Christian prison chaplain. Ray’s attorneys sued, and a stay of execution was issued to sort it all out. Prison officials argue that only corrections system employees are allowed in the execution chamber as a matter of security, which is reasonable. In an earlier editorial, we suggested the prison system work to create a pool of spiritual leaders from other faiths, and vet them accordingly. That seems reasonable as well. However, Ray’s position was that he was receiving unequal treatment because he, a Muslim, did not have the same opportunity in the execution chamber as a Christian prisoner would. And he’s right – the constitutional religious protections suggest that a condemned inmate of any stripe should have the same access to a representative of their chosen faith. Read the rest online: dothaneagle.com ______ Feb. 10 The Gadsden Times on the U.S. cancelling nuclear weapons treaty with Russia: Tangible is defined by “Webster’s New World Dictionary” as 1. corporeal and able to be appraised for value; 2. can be understood; definite; objective. Those are simple definitions for a wonderful word, which is just the opposite of innuendo and gossip. I prefer to deal in tangibles, but sometimes let tradition and “it has always been that way” overcome my thought process. A good example is the Russian/United States Strategic Arms Limitation Talks signed in 1972. The agreement was intended to restrain the arms race in strategic ballistic missiles armed with nuclear weapons. SALT I was followed by SALT II, which basically never took effect. Both sides have indicated nullification of the first accord. At first blush, I thought the consequences of calling a halt to the treaty could be disastrous for the populations of the U.S. and Russia. However, I came to the conclusion that the U.S. cancelling the treaty is essential to maintaining substantial military superiority over not only Russia, but our No. 1 adversary, China. While we have been limited in developing and modernizing the U.S. military by the SALT agreement with Russia, the Chinese government has been modernizing and expanding its military exponentially. The SALT agreement was an excellent deterrent to nuclear war between the then-Soviets and the U.S., but the agreement allowed China to develop a formidable nuclear military, one that has become a threat to U.S. global dominance. Read the rest online: Gadsdentimes.com _____ Feb. 9 Anniston Star on the relationship between journalists and law enforcement: An article in Friday’s Anniston Star drew the ire of the Anniston Police Department and its supporters on social media. The article reported on statistics provided by city officials detailing the frequency of police stops and arrests, breaking those numbers down according to race — black, white and other. Facebook commenters describe the article as a hit piece, fake news and an obvious attempt to attack police and sell newspapers. To the contrary, The Anniston Star works closely with Anniston PD and applauds its efforts to address crime through community policing, including the creation of a community-based committee tasked with following up on complaints from residents. No, we’re not out to get the police. Here’s what actually happened. A week ago, the NAACP held a meeting at the Anniston City Meeting Center where residents accused APD of disproportionately making traffic stops on African-Americans. Their evidence, however, was all anecdotal. Coverage of that story also provided the response from city officials and police denying any notion of racial profiling. As journalists, our aim is always to pursue truth, and collecting and reporting actual numbers is a non biased way to do that. It’s what we did when Councilman Ben Little claimed that his district’s requests for work orders consistently failed to get response from the city. An examination of the work orders, however, showed that Ward 3 actually had almost twice as many completed work orders as any of the other wards. Read the rest online: annistonstar.com ____ Feb. 8 Montgomery Advertiser on poverty It was cruel to force unemployment upon millions of Americans over a political dispute borne of a foolish promise that has nothing to do with them. It is shameful that the president showed little if any empathy for these citizens — many of whom supported him — and acquiesced via his silence to assessments made by his economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, and billionaire Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. Hassett said that furloughed federal workers are “better off” because “they have the vacation but they don’t have to use their vacation days.” Ross said there is no “good excuse why there … should be a liquidity crisis” and that he didn’t “understand why” federal employees with no income were going to food banks and homeless shelters. Ross incredibly advised those employees — already indebted beyond their ability to pay — to get a bank loan to cover expenses. Notwithstanding these contemporary echoes of “let them eat cake,” the previous, (un)presidential shutdown of the federal government — and the one that may reoccur next week — may force us to rethink some common misunderstandings. This third and final edition of my “start-at-the-beginning series” focuses on poverty. Next to race relations, poverty is the longest rhetorical highway along which people begin their expository
250,000 Alabama children live in poverty, state ranked 6th poorest in U.S.
Despite ever-improving unemployment numbers, Alabama’s economy continues to lag behind the rest of the nation’s. That’s according to a new report by Alabama Possible, a statewide nonprofit organization that removes barriers to prosperity through education, collaboration, and advocacy. The group released their 2018 Alabama Poverty Data Sheet on Tuesday, which revealed the Yellowhammer State is the sixth poorest state in the U.S. According to their findings, Alabama’s median household income is just $46,309, which translates to $11,308 less than the national median household income. Poverty in Alabama isn’t just secluded to one part of the state — over 800,000 Alabamians live below the poverty line, which is $24,257 for a family of four — and according to the report, 15 of Alabama’s 67 counties have a poverty rate higher than 25 percent. Key findings 17.2 percent of Alabamians live below the federal poverty line – a noticeably larger percentage than the national average of 14 percent Alabama’s median household income for African Americans is $21,165 less than white families’ median household income 250,000 Alabama children live in poverty Alabama’s child food insecurity rate is 22.5 percent, which is higher than the national average of 17.5 percent. Alabama has a notably high food insecurity rate at 17.7 percent. Improvement Alabama Possible, did note that there is good news to share. The 2018 poverty rate is at its lowest rate since they started publishing the Alabama Poverty Data Sheet in 2010. “It is encouraging to see that fewer Alabamians live in poverty year-over-year, but we still have 800,000 friends and neighbors who face significant barriers to prosperity,” said Kristina Scott, executive director of Alabama Possible, in a news release “It is also deeply concerning to see that the median household income for people of color in Alabama is roughly $15,000 – $20,000 lower than the median household income for white citizens. We must advocate for equitable systems that will dismantle poverty and promote prosperity for all Alabamians.”
The Women’s Fund invests $215,000 into Greater Birmingham women and children
Nine local nonprofits and programs that focus on women’s economic security and ending the cycle of intergenerational poverty were awarded a record amount of grant money. The Women’s Fund of Greater Birmingham awarded its 2017 grants, totaling $215,000, at a ceremony to honor the grant recipients at Regions on Thursday. This is the largest amount invested in a single grant cycle since The Women’s Fund’s founding in 1996. “Thanks to generous community support, more women and their children will have the tools they need to build better lives,” said Jeanne Jackson, President and CEO. “The 2017 grants fund programs that provide women with supports essential for their long-term success, including job skills training, affordable housing, child care, career coaches. Birmingham invested in these women, and in turn, we will all move forward together.” The following agencies and programs received grants: Childcare Resources, Supplemental Child Care Program (SCCP) ($25,000) – Provides child care subsidies for low-income working mothers. Children’s Aid Society, Project Independence ($25,000) – Provides housing, economic, and educational supports for homeless, pregnant, or parenting teens. First Light, Forever Home ($25,000) – Provides independent housing and wraparound supports for homeless mothers and children. Jefferson State Community College, Women in Manufacturing Initiative ($25,000) – Provides scholarships and supports for single mothers to enter manufacturing associate’s degree program. Jimmie Hale Mission, Jessie’s Place ($20,000) – Provides educational, financial, and economic support, including child care assistance, for homeless mothers. Norwood Resource Center, Family Forward ($25,000) – Provides financial coaching, housing advocacy, and tax preparation assistance for 30 mothers whose children participate in center programming. Oasis Counseling, Mentally Healthy Moms ($25,000) – Provides mental health counseling for women to address employment issues. The Salvation Army, My Home ($25,000) – Provides permanent housing and case management for single mothers St. Vincent’s Foundation, Jeremiah’s Hope Academy ($20,000) – Provides child care assistance for low-income, single mothers receiving training at Jeremiah’s Hope in health-related fields. The Women’s Fund also invested $338,450 in collaborative two-generation programs in Greater Birmingham via their Collaboration Institute and other initiatives in 2016.
Lawrence W. Reed: A poverty program that worked
We’ve become accustomed to think of fighting poverty as a 20th Century undertaking, with the federal government leading the way. For that reason, this quotation from an American president might come as a surprise: “The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America.” Those words came from Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 4, 1935. A moment later, he declared, “The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief.” As we know, it didn’t. Indeed, 30 years later Lyndon Johnson would take “this business of relief” to new and expensive heights in an official “War on Poverty.” Another 30 years and more than $5 trillion in welfare spending later, a Democratic president signed a bill that replaced the federal entitlement to welfare and allowed states to implement work requirements, time limits, and other measures to encourage personal responsibility. As Ronald Reagan observed, “We fought a war on poverty, and poverty won.” We paid an awful price in lives and treasure to learn some things the vast majority of Americans of the 19th century — and the chief executives they elected — could have plainly told us: Government welfare programs encouraged idleness, broke up families, produced intergenerational dependency and hopelessness, cost taxpayers a fortune, and yielded harmful cultural trends that may still take generations to cure. Washington, Adams, and their successors in the 1800s DID fight a war on poverty — the most comprehensive and effective ever mounted by any central government anywhere. It was, in a word, LIBERTY, which meant things like self-reliance, hard work, entrepreneurship, the institutions of civil society, a strong and free economy, and government confined to its constitutional role as protector of liberty by keeping the peace. And what a poverty program liberty proved to be! In spite of a horrendous civil war, half a dozen economic downturns and wave after wave of impoverished immigrants, America progressed from near-universal poverty at the start of the century to within reach of the world’s highest per-capita income at the end of the century. The poverty that remained stood out like the proverbial sore thumb because it was now the exception, no longer the rule. Our free and self-reliant citizenry spawned so many private, distress-relieving initiatives that American generosity became one of the marvels of the world. U.S. population in 1900, at 76 million, was 14 times its 1800 level, yet per capita GDP had quadrupled. That explosion in production and creativity translated into a gigantic leap for average personal income and a steep plunge in the portion of Americans living in abject poverty. In a speech in the U.S. House of Representatives years before he became our fourth president, James Madison declared, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” Like the three presidents before him and the next 20 or so after him, Madison knew that if liberty were not preserved, poverty would be the least of our troubles. Meanwhile, the poor of virtually every other nation on the planet were poor because of what governments were doing TO them, often in the name of doing something FOR them: taxing and regulating them into penury; seizing their property and businesses; persecuting them for their faith; torturing and killing them because they held views different from those in power; and squandering their resources on official luxury, mindless warfare, and wasteful boondoggles. Americans of all colors pulled themselves out of poverty in the 19th century by ending slavery and creating wealth through invention and enterprise. Then they generously gave much of their income — along with their time and personal attention — to the aid of their neighbors and communities. Government assistance often displaces what private people and groups would do better and more cost-effectively if government stayed home. Politicians are not more compassionate than the population that elects them. And politicians rarely spend other people’s money more effectively than those people to whom it belongs in the first place. Based on time-honored values and Constitutional limits, Americans got the poverty issue right for more than a hundred years. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that in the last century, as we increasingly abandoned what worked and put government in the poverty business, the problem has become as chronic and intractable as the expensive bureaucracy erected to eradicate it. ••• Lawrence W. Reed is president of the Foundation for Economic Education in Atlanta, Georgia and author of the new book, Real Heroes: Inspiring True Stories of Courage, Character and Conviction. This essay is adapted from his chapter in the 2015 anthology, For the Least of These: A Biblical Answer to Poverty.
Bradley Byrne: Local groups leading the fight against poverty
Nineteen-point-two percent. That number represents the percentage of people in Alabama who live in poverty and represents over 900,000 people. I recently set out to learn more about poverty in our area by visiting local organizations committed to helping the poor. I spoke not only with the people helping those in need, but also with many of those trapped in poverty themselves. I started off in Washington County at the Haven of Hope in Fruitdale. They provide a shelter and a wide variety of services for women, many of them struggling with drug addiction. It was powerful to meet a young woman who had been through the Haven of Hope program and now works as a program manager for the organization. She serves as a true success story, demonstrating how successful these organizations can be. I also paid a visit to the Washington County Baptist Association in Chatom to learn more about their poverty-fighting programs. They operate a thrift store, help low-income families pay their bills, and run a food bank providing assistance to over 4,000 people a year. From Chatom, I headed down to Mobile to visit Victory Health Partners. Health care is a major issue for those trapped in poverty, and Victory Health Partners does a great job of providing services and medical care to our area’s poor. They also put a real emphasis on overall wellness and healthy living in an effort to prevent future health issues. Next, I visited the Mobile Rescue Mission, a faith-based organization that provides a range of services to the poor in Mobile County. They serve everyone from the single mother of four who recently lost her job, to the veteran struggling to cope after returning from war. Their staff and volunteers are making a real difference. Finally, I convened a roundtable of many different organizations and groups who work with our area’s poor. From education to health care to family services, our conversation focused on a variety of ways to help people overcome poverty. These are just a few examples of visits I have made to poverty-fighting organizations in our area. I look forward to continuing to visit these organizations to hear directly from those on the front lines. One thing has quickly become clear: some of the best work with the poor is being done by private, nonprofit organizations. These organizations have a real concern for the people they help. They treat those in need as human beings with real worth and openly prove to people they are loved. That is something the federal government simply cannot do, but we can learn from these organizations. We can learn what actually works and make sure our government programs are supporting their efforts. And learn we must, because we simply cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the issue of poverty and expect things to change. We cannot keep doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. Ultimately, there is a better way to fight poverty. It starts with listening to these nonprofit organizations and empowering them. We must also encourage work and help people obtain the skills they need to find a good-paying job. Then, we should tailor benefits to meet individual people’s needs. It is time we make this better way a reality for the struggling single mom, for the man battling addiction, for the veteran who can’t find work, and for every single American trapped in poverty. This isn’t a Republican versus Democrat issue. This is something we can all agree on, and I stand committed to making these reforms a reality. • • • Bradley Byrne is a member of U.S. Congress representing Alabama’s 1st Congressional District.
New study reveals Alabama among the most educationally segregated states in America
A new national study reveals Alabama is among the most educationally segregated states in America, with many of its schoolchildren enrolled in high-poverty school districts, bordered by much more affluent neighbors. Birmingham has more than twice as many neighbors as the average school district, and of the 13 borders it shares with adjoining districts, six are included among the 50 most segregating in the country — more than any other district in America. The worst of these borders separate Birmingham from Vestavia Hills and Mountain Brook. Vestavia Hills and Mountain Brook, like most of Birmingham’s well-off neighbors, were formerly a part of the Jefferson County School District — the county school district near Birmingham — but Alabama law permits municipalities with 5,000 or more residents to form their own school districts, independent from larger county districts, and thus these cities seceded to form their own independent districts. These secessions established wealthy enclave districts that present a stark contrast to the rest of Birmingham. While the suburban neighbors have grown more populous and have prospered in recent decades, enrollment in Birmingham’s schools has plummeted, and its poverty rates have risen as better-off families have fled the district. In the 1999-2000 school year, Birmingham enrolled 38,120 students and had a 27 percent child poverty rate. Today it enrolls 24,858 students and has a 49 percent child poverty rate — seven times higher than Vestavia Hills and Mountain Brook, which both have poverty rates of just over six percent. Which is why a new report entitled “Fault Lines” from the nonprofit EdBuild ranks the Birmingham as the second and third most segregating school district borders in the country. “What we did is built an algorithm that identified all 33,500 school district borders in the country … and compared their school-aged child poverty rates,” said Rebecca Sibilia, the founder and CEO of EdBuild. Sibilia’s team compiled a list of the 50 most segregating school boundaries in the nation — the district borders with the largest difference in child poverty rates from one side to the other. In their report, “segregating” refers to social economic class rather than race, but the two often coincide in urban school districts. The study said 26 million children across the country live in high-poverty districts. “There is no doubt that low-income students are harmed by a system of borders that effectively quarantine them into underserved districts,” the study said. “America has permitted our schools to become a system anathema to our ideals, funding education in a manner that prevents a vast number of students from accessing an equal start in life.” It’s worth noting, Alabama is the only Southern state on the list, which Sibilia explains is because in much of the South, county borders do double-duty as school district borders, “and so there is less opportunity for intentional segregation.” Nevertheless, Birmingham is a prime example where students district border segregation results in greater educational opportunities for those who manage to live on the “right” side of these borders. The study revealed the borders separating these districts are effectively impenetrable to the neediest children from families with limited means, compounding the inequalities public education should be conquering. In effect, school district boundaries have become the new status quo for separate but unequal. Here’s a look at the top 10 most segregating school district boundaries — these neighboring school districts have some of the largest poverty differences in the country.
Bradley Byrne: A better way forward
From health care to national security, people are worried about the direction our country is headed. That is certainly what I hear at my town hall meetings in Southwest Alabama, but the same is true all around the United States. According to Real Clear Politics, 65 percent of Americans believe our country is headed in the wrong direction. When you are frustrated, it is simple to spend all your time complaining about what is wrong. In other words, it is easy to be against something. But we can’t just spend all our time complaining and talking about why we are frustrated. We must rise above that temptation. Instead, we need to counter the current policies with ideas of our own. The American people are better off when there is a battle of ideas. With this in mind, House Republicans recently released what we are calling a “Better Way” agenda. This agenda offers an alternative to the “Washington-knows-best,” big government policies that have wrecked our country over the last eight years. Our platform focuses on six main areas, so I want to take a minute to discuss our plan and explain why I believe it offers a “Better Way.” Poverty: Our nation’s welfare system needs to put a real focus on work instead of just throwing more money toward government programs. We must do more to help Americans gain the skills they need to get a job instead of encouraging government dependency. National Security: We have to get serious about defeating radical Islamic terrorism, and that means having a strategy to defeat our enemies overseas. We must also protect the homeland by securing our borders and closing loopholes in our broken immigration system. It is also important that we don’t lose sight of new, evolving threats like cyberattacks. The safety and security of the American people must always be the top priority. The Economy: It is time we roll back costly regulations that are only driving up costs for American families. We must also focus on making energy more affordable by pursuing an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy. Innovation needs to be encouraged instead of punished. Finally, we need to put an end to Wall Street bailouts once and for all. The Constitution: We have to make sure the Constitution is being followed, and that means restoring the powers of Congress. We must hold government agencies accountable and do everything we can to encourage efficiency and effectiveness across the federal government. Most importantly, Congress must get back to using our “power of the purse.” Health Care: First, Obamacare must go, but we need to replace it with patient-centered reforms based on free-market principles. We need to give patients more choices by allowing for health insurance to be sold across state lines. We must also strengthen Medicare for our nation’s seniors while also preserving the program for the next generation. Tax Reform: We need to completely rewrite the tax code so it is simpler and fairer for every family. Under our plan, everyone’s taxes would come down, and most people could fill out their taxes with a simple post card form. These reforms will also boost the economy and make it easier for small businesses to create jobs. This is just a quick look at our “Better Way” agenda. You can learn more online at Better.gop. I also realize that our agenda won’t be put in place overnight. Some of the reforms will take longer than others, but at least now we have put forward a bold agenda for the path forward. There is a “Better Way,” and I am committed to making it a reality. • • • Bradley Byrne is a member of U.S. Congress representing Alabama’s 1st Congressional District.
Bradley Byrne: There is a better way to fight poverty
Last week, I sat in the basement of an apartment complex in the poverty-ridden Anacostia community of Washington, D.C., listening to Bishop Shirley Holloway tell a story that I wish every American could hear. Bishop Holloway runs a program known as House of Help City of Hope, which helps people stuck in poverty with a special focus on those who struggle with addiction. The success stories are amazing. I heard from former drug addicts and alcoholics who had reached such low points that they didn’t want to live any longer. Once they got into Bishop Holloway’s faith-based program, they turned their lives completely around. I think the federal government can learn a lot from Bishop Holloway’s program. She doesn’t rely on large government programs, but instead she depends on faith, hard work, and love. You see, poverty is a serious issue all across the country, including right here in Southwest Alabama. We have both rural and urban poverty throughout our area. The poverty rate in Monroe County is almost 30%, while the poverty rate in Mobile County sits right around 20%. Nationally, Alabama’s poverty rate is sixth worst in the country. It is clear that our nation’s current poverty programs are not working. Just look at the numbers. We have spent around $22 trillion dollars since the “war on poverty” started in the 1960s, yet the poverty rate has hardly changed at all. The problem is that we treat poverty like a chronic disease that cannot be cured. We spend all our time trying to help people cope with poverty instead of guiding them out of poverty and toward a better life. The programs are failing the very people they were supposed to help, and we can do better. After meeting with Bishop Holloway, I joined some of my House colleagues in announcing a “Better Way” agenda to fight poverty. Our agenda attempts to get at the heart of what causes poverty and offers policy solutions to help lift people out of poverty. Our plan builds off of programs like that of Bishop Holloway by ensuring that we are tailoring benefits to meet the needs of people. A top-down, one-size-fits-all system of poverty-fighting programs clearly does not work. We need to encourage innovation and flexibility. Most importantly, the agenda puts a real focus on work. If you are capable, we should expect you to work or prepare for work. There must be some sort of accountability system for those who simply refuse to look for work. Now, I understand that a big issue is people may lack the skills needed to find a job, so our agenda emphasizes improving our job training programs. From my time as chancellor of Alabama’s two-year college system, I have seen the miracles that can be worked through our community colleges and technical schools. I have seen people who are poor receive the job skills they needed to take advantage of the jobs that exist in 21st Century America. They literally get these jobs, and they leave poverty and government dependency behind them. That is what our “Better Way” agenda is all about: giving people the tools they need to live the lives they want to live instead of just giving them another government program. By doing this, we can bring people out of poverty while saving taxpayers money and growing the U.S. economy. This is an issue that every American – regardless of your political beliefs – should rally behind. It is an issue that can make a real difference in communities all across the United States. • • • Bradley Byrne is a member of U.S. Congress representing Alabama’s 1st Congressional District.
Jason Williams: Ending the cycle of poverty through mutually transforming relationships
It’s another hot Saturday on one of Birmingham’s most sizzling days. Temperatures with the heat index reach in excess of 100 degrees, and it marks out a typical summer day in Alabama. What is not so typical is the exchange taking place between a young man and his mentor. The student, a 13 year old fatherless boy, was orphaned by both his parents and adopted by a single mother when he was just 18 months old. The mentor is a senior executive holding a prominent position at one of the largest companies in Alabama. The two have been involved in a mutually transforming relationship for over four years where each has grown to value and appreciate the other, and together through a journey of friendship are writing a new story. Fatherlessness and poverty nearly go hand in hand. A recent study from the Department of Health and Human Services reveals that children in father-absent homes are almost four times more likely to be poor. In 2011, 12 percent of children in married-couple families were living in poverty, compared to 44 percent of children in mother-only families. While there are many complex factors that contribute to poverty, one disadvantage to growing up in poverty is lack of access to valuable skills. A child growing up in a stable, two-parent home will typically have greater exposure to financial wisdom, planning, opportunities and a network of successful people around them than a child growing up in a one-parent home. So what can be done to help fatherless children in impoverished communities break the chains of generational, systemic poverty and create hope for their future? While there are a myriad of programs, it is apparent that any solution apart from the building of relationships where an exchange takes place and dignity is affirmed are futile in the long run. There are a growing number of studies that highlight the benefits of mentoring including resiliency, higher academic achievement, and better social skills. At the Aspire Movement, a ministry dedicated to developing and deploying the next generation of urban leaders through mentoring, we go even a step further. We humbly engage in the lives of at-risk youth, making a long-term commitment to walk with them beginning in 4th grade through high school graduation. Simply looking at poverty as merely a lack of possessions is a view that fails to take into consideration the relational aspect of poverty. Youth living in impoverished urban environments experience stressors related to poverty, community violence, drugs, and poor education that can result in poor behavior choices such as carrying a weapon and being in a physical fight. Social support, as provided through mentoring, has been shown to buffer against poor behavioral choices and create hope for the future. Many well-meaning programs that focus solely on giving hand-outs, or as we like to refer to it in urban ministry-“throwing turkeys over the wall”, only offer temporary relief for long-term, systemic issues and ultimately destroy dignity and work ethic while further perpetuating the poverty cycle. Being with an individual in poverty while offering hope and opportunity is far more important than doing something for them. Doing for creates dependency, cripples initiative and sets up a giver-recipient relationship, while being with fosters exchange and accommodation. Aspire is just one of many non-governmental approaches to fostering social change to address one of the biggest crisis of our day. While millions of dollars are funneled into unproven programs each year, Aspire uses the most valuable resource we have available, people and time. Mentors in the Aspire Movement have logged a combined 24,000 volunteer hours with over 100 children in the past four years creating relational stability and providing hope to the fatherless. Jason Williams is the Executive Director of the Aspire Movement which seeks to transform urban youth to reflect Christ & restore their communities through mutually transforming relationships between youth and mentor.
Katherine Robertson: Conservative solutions to poverty in Alabama
There is no shortage of ideological differences between conservatives and liberals or Republicans and Democrats, but perhaps the most divisive issue on the political spectrum is how to care for the poor. Admittedly, conservatives have done a fairly subpar job of connecting the dots between our principles and combatting poverty. While it is true that government’s bloated anti-poverty programs have not achieved the desired ends and levy a heavy cost on current and future taxpayers, the conversation should not end there. This week, the Alabama Policy Institute is drawing awareness to conservative solutions to poverty in hopes of better communicating our perspectives and initiating more conversations around the dinner table on how we, as a state, should respond to poverty. As Alabama’s population is one of the ten poorest in the nation, poverty is an issue that–directly or indirectly–comes into play during every election, every budget hearing, and the meetings of every study committee or task force. Still, more of what goes on in Montgomery should be responsive to the drivers of poverty and proven solutions to it. Since API’s founding in 1989, the organization has been dedicated to promoting the principles of free markets, limited government, and strong families. When we offer this tagline, we often fail to explain the “why”: that the cumulative effect of putting these principles into practice will yield the best results for our state and nation, including those living in poverty. A free market economy allows for businesses to profit and hire, creating opportunities for individuals. A less invasive, limited government gets out of the way of growth and job creation by rolling back regulations and limits on competition and by reducing the tax burdens of individuals and businesses. And a strong family provides children with the best chance of receiving a good education, staying out of prison, and finding employment. API’s prioritization of educational choice is driven by our desire to see Alabama’s most vulnerable school children escape the poverty trap. Studies from liberal and conservative academics across the country conclude that poverty hinders a child’s development and educational outcomes. For two and a half decades, API has pushed for expanded school choice in the state because of the inherent disparities that come when families cannot afford to choose a school that best fits their child’s needs. We have also worked alongside state leaders to better understand and address the challenges in Alabama’s prison system. While in prison, an offender’s spouses and children suffer and are often left with even fewer resources and less stability in the home. When prisoners are released, they frequently lack employable skills and may be deemed ineligible for many jobs because of their criminal records. This is not meant to imply that individuals should be spared punishment for crimes to avoid such consequences, but the trends in these outcomes should be a consideration as we examine the cost-effectiveness of our system. Our elected officials frequently tout the merits of expanding government entitlement programs-both in duration and eligibility. API opposes this when it is clear, as in most cases, that politicians and bureaucrats are ignoring the abysmal results of the programs, opting instead for feel-good talking points. Further, at times, addressing poverty is not even the sincere aim of maintaining or expanding these programs. Special interests and industries have become dependent upon money flowing through government grants and programs, and exert significant political influence to ensure that this continues. We hope that the information generated this week will cause you to think more about how Alabama can use proven conservative policies to combat poverty; but, we also want to challenge you to participate directly in serving Alabama’s poor and vulnerable. We have provided links to model organizations on our website to give you some ideas for getting involved. If we agree that government is not the answer to poverty, we cannot then sit back and let the government serve the poor on our behalf. Katherine Robertson is vice president for the Alabama Policy Institute (API), an independent non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families.
President proposes to expand overtime for almost 5 million workers
They’re called managers, and they sometimes work grueling schedules at fast food chains and retail stores. But with no overtime eligibility, their pay may be lower per hour than many workers they supervise. With those employees in mind, the Obama administration is proposing making up to 5 million more people eligible for overtime, its latest effort to boost pay for lower-income workers. These workers would benefit from rules requiring businesses to pay eligible employees 1 1/2 times their regular pay for any work beyond 40 hours a week. “We’ve got to keep making sure hard work is rewarded,” President Barack Obama wrote in an op-ed published Monday in The Huffington Post. “That’s how America should do business. In this country, a hard day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay.” Employers can now often get around the rules: Any salaried employee who’s paid more than $455 a week — or $23,660 a year — can be called a “manager,” given limited supervisory duties and made ineligible for overtime. Yet that would put a family of four in poverty territory. Obama says that the level is too low and undercuts the intent of the overtime law. The threshold was last updated in 2004 and has been eroded by inflation. The long-awaited overtime rule from the Labor Department would more than double the threshold at which employers can avoid paying overtime, to $970 a week by next year. That would mean salaried employees earning less than $50,440 a year would be assured overtime if they work more than 40 hours per week. To keep up with future inflation and wage growth, the proposal will peg the salary threshold at the 40th percentile of income. The White House said 56 percent of those who would benefit in the first year are women, and 53 percent have a college degree. With the higher threshold, many more Americans — from fast food and retail supervisors to bank branch managers and insurance claims adjusters — would become eligible for overtime. A threshold of $984 a week would cover 15 million people, according to the liberal Economic Policy Institute. In 1975, overtime rules covered 65 percent of salaried workers. Today, it’s just 8 percent, the White House says. The beneficiaries would be people like Brittany Swa, 30, a former manager of a Chipotle restaurant in Denver. As a management trainee, she started as an entry-level crew member in March 2010. After several months she began working as an “apprentice,” which required a minimum 50-hour work week. Yet her duties changed little. She had a key to the shop and could make bank deposits, but otherwise spent nearly all her time preparing orders and working the cash register. She frequently worked 60 hours a week but didn’t get overtime because she earned $36,000. The grueling hours continued after she was promoted to store manager in October 2010. She left two years later, and now processes workers’ compensation claims at Travelers. She makes $60,000 a year, “which is surprising, since I only work 40 hours a week,” she says. Swa has joined a class-action lawsuit against Chipotle, which charges that apprentices shouldn’t be classified as managers exempt from overtime. A spokesman for Chipotle declined to comment on the case. Dawn Hughey, a former store manager for Dollar General in Flint, Mich., would have also benefited from a higher overtime threshold. Hughey worked 60 to 80 hours a week for about two years before being fired in 2011. She was paid $34,700. “I missed a lot of family functions working like that,” Hughey said. “It was just expected if you were a store manager.” She made about $45,000 a year as an hourly worker in a previous job at a Rite Aid in California, where she typically worked 48 hours a week and received overtime. The White House’s proposed changes will be open for public comment and finalized sometime next year. They can be enacted through regulation without approval by the Republican-led Congress. They set up a populist economic argument that Democrats have already been embracing in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is challenging Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination, said the proposal means businesses would no longer be able to shirk their responsibility to pay fair wages. “This long overdue change in overtime rules is a step in the right direction and good news for workers,” Sanders said. Yet the proposals won’t necessarily produce a big raise for people like Swa and Hughey. The National Retail Federation, a business group, says its members would probably respond by converting many salaried workers to hourly status, which could cost them benefits such as paid vacation. Other salaried workers would have their hours cut and wouldn’t receive higher pay. Businesses might hire additional workers to avoid paying overtime or extend the hours they give part-timers. Yet supporters of extending overtime coverage say they would welcome those changes. “It’s a job creation measure,” said Daniel Hamermesh, an economist at the University of Texas, Austin. “Employers will substitute workers for hours, when the hours get more expensive.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
