No result found
Immigration Defence Project's Surveillance, Tech and Immigration Policing Project;
On January 20, 2021, his first day in office, President Biden issued an executive order pausing the remaining construction of the southern border wall initiated during the Trump administration. Soon after, the White House sent a bill to Congress, the US Citizenship Act of 2021, calling for the deployment of "smart technology" to "manage and secure the southern border."This report delves into the rhetoric of "smart borders" to explore their ties to a broad regime of border policing and exclusion that greatly harms migrants and refugees who either seek or already make their home in the United States. Investment in an approach centered on border and immigrant policing, it argues, is incompatible with the realization of a just and humane world.The report concludes by arguing that we must move beyond a narrow debate limited to "hard" versus "smart" borders toward a discussion of how we can move toward a world where all people have the support needed to lead healthy, secure, and vibrant lives. A just border policy would ask questions such as: How do we help create conditions that allow people to stay in the places they call home, and to thrive wherever they reside? When people do have to move, how can we ensure they are able to do so safely? When we take these questions as our starting point, we realize that it is not enough to fix a "broken" system. Rather, we need to reimagine the system entirely.
The Alliance: State Advocates for Women's Rights & Gender Equality;
This report sheds light on the activities and funding sources of crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) -- centerpieces of an extreme anti-abortion strategy that has been quietly unfolding for decades, behind higher-profile legislative and legal battles.The report shows that, rather than offer legitimate healthcare and resources, CPCs target pregnant people of color and pregnant people with lower incomes with deceptive marketing; provide few or no real medical services; and systematically mislead clients about services they do provide, potentially resulting in delayed care and unnecessary risks to their clients' health.
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF);
Despite an unprecedented series of challenges—a global pandemic, extreme weather, rampant misinformation, voter intimidation, and coordinated efforts to disenfranchise millions of voters of color—Black voters turned out in record numbers in 2020 to have their voices heard in one of our nation's most important election years.But let's be clear. The election did not go smoothly. Record turnout nationally and in many states was only possible thanks to a Herculean effort on the part of many non-profit organizations and many thousands of individuals and volunteers, as well as the enormous sums of money spent on election security and countering misinformation.
Southern Poverty Law Center;
This report describes the 2020 elections in five Southern states—Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi—with a particular emphasis on election administration problems; voter suppression; the efforts of voting rights organizations to mobilize voters and protect their votes; and the actions of extremists who sought to intimidate voters and spread disinformation.As this report shows, it is abundantly clear that our electoral system needs repair. Numerous states have erected new barriers to voting since the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 gutted a critical component of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Many also cling to Jim Crow-era laws, such as felony disenfranchisement, that were specifically designed to suppress the Black vote—or they refuse to enact commonsense changes that would make voting easier and accessible to all citizens. At the same time, some states maintain archaic administrative systems that are woefully inadequate to meet the needs of voters today and ensure fair elections.This report provides a blueprint for reforming the electoral system. The Biden administration and Congress must act quickly to shore up the stability of the electoral process and put our democracy on a firmer footing. Passage of federal laws, including those that strengthen the Voting Rights Act, are necessary steps forward on the path to reform—toward ensuring that all Americans have easy and equal access to the ballot box.
This survey polled Americans in five western states to find out how they feel about the state of democracy in America, perceptions on common ground, the state of media and misinformation, and views on the 2020 election and January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. This poll was conducted between September 24 - October 26 2021 among a sample of 1899 Adults in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. The interviews were conducted online and the data were weighted to approximate a target sample of Adults in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming based on gender by age, educational attainment, race and ethnicity and 2020 presidential vote choice (including not voting).
Brennan Center for Justice;
Every 10 years, political districts at all levels of government are redrawn to make sure they are equal in population as required by the U.S. Constitution.1 Currently every state apportions representatives and draws congressional and state legislative districts on the basis of a state's total population.2 That is, when districts are drawn, all people living in the state, including children and noncitizens, are counted for the purposes of representation.However, some Republican political operatives and elected officials aim to unsettle this long-standing practice by excluding children and noncitizens from the population figures used to draw state legislative districts.3 Rather than count everyone, states would draw districts based only on the adult citizen population.Making such a break with current practice and precedent would be of dubious legality and would leave states vulnerable to a host of legal challenges. It also would have major practical implications for redistricting. This study looks at what such a change would mean for representation and the allocation of political power in the United States by focusing on its impact three demographically distinct states: Texas, Georgia, and Missouri.
Environmental and Energy Study Institute;
A revolving loan fund (RLF) is a self-replenishing financing mechanism that can be used to fund a variety of programs, ranging from small business development to clean water infrastructure. For example, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revolving loans have for years helped states fund clean-water and drinking-water infrastructure projects. Though RLFs can vary greatly depending on their mission and scope, they all share the same basic structure. RLFs start with a base level of capital, often consisting of private investment or grants from the federal government or state. This capital is then loaned out to several borrowers. Over time, as these borrowers make repayments and pay interest on their loans, the capital is replenished. When enough repayments are made, the fund uses its reaccumulated capital to issue new loans.RLFs are often employed by states, municipalities, and nonprofits as a means for property owners to overcome financial barriers to undertaking environmental improvements. The self-sustaining nature of RLFs allows them to operate for decades with little to no additional investment if designed correctly. By providing low-interest loans with long repayment periods, RLFs can help those who may not have funds available to pay for improvements up front. In this way, RLFs can be used as a tool for building community resilience to environmental hazards.
American Enterprise Institute;
The emergence of the urban-rural divide in American politics over the past few decades is a critical development in America's voting patterns. Today, rural areas vote predominantly for Republicans, while urban areas vote for Democrats. As a result, America's suburbs have increasingly become a swing region. I discussed this development in broad terms in the previous report. In this report, I look at the political development of two states—Ohio and Texas—which illustrate how "urbanicity" has transformed the United States' political makeup.While Ohio has historically been considered the nation's premier swing state, its votes have become more concentrated in rural areas, thereby strengthening the GOP's performance statewide. Rural areas began moving toward the Republican Party in the 1970s, a movement that accelerated in 2016 with Donald Trump on the ballot. On the other hand, the rapid growth of Texas' cities has pushed the state into more competitive territory for the Democrats. Despite the rural and small-town vote shifting toward Republicans, the leftward bolt in Texas' large cities and megacities has contributed to better performance for the Democrats. If these trends continue in future elections, Ohio will become solidly red, while Texas may go blue in the next few cycles.
Measures for Justice;
Despite accounting for a substantial portion of local, state, and federal budgets, our criminal justice institutions are among the least measured systems in our country. In an effort to bring transparency to this sector, MFJ has collected, standardized, and made public 20 states' worth of criminal justice data.The purpose of this report is to share what we have learned through this effort, including: (a) what we cannot see when data are missing, and (b) the value that data can provide when they are available and comparable. In particular, we identify patterns around the following:There is a substantial lack of data around pretrial detention and release decision-making, as well as individual demographics (particularly indigence).New data privacy laws are also making it needlessly difficult to obtain certain data. This poses challenges to understanding how individuals experience the system in cases that do not result in conviction.There is great variation in how counties dispose of and sentence nonviolent cases; how financial obligations are imposed on individuals; and the collateral consequences that individuals face when convicted.Across many of these findings, where demographics are available, we have an opportunity to identify and respond to significant disparities in group outcomes.This report challenges stakeholders and policymakers to dig deeper into these patterns and missing data. It also implores policymakers and legislators to improve criminal justice data infrastructure to ensure a more transparent, fair, and equitable implementation of justice.
US Immigration Policy Center at UC San Diego;
Over forty years ago, the people and government of the United States chose to provide refuge and dignity to those who need it through the bipartisan U.S. Refugee Act of 1980. In recent years, our refugee resettlement system has suffered increased restrictions and the lowest refugee acceptance numbers in the history of the program, particularly under the Trump administration.In the first months of his presidency, President Biden proposed increasing the refugee resettlement ceiling and signed Executive Order 14013 to review, rehabilitate, and enhance the U.S. refugee resettlement system. Additionally, as a result of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program was expanded for thousands of Afghan nationals employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government. Similarly, the Biden administration expanded the Priority 2 (P-2) refugee resettlement program for other at-risk Afghans. Building and capitalizing upon local support will be key to successfully rebuilding refugee resettlement and supporting refugees and SIV holders once they have arrived.This local support is hard won, however, as some perceive refugees to be an economic or fiscal burden on local communities. In a recent survey of local officials in receiving communities, 40 percent mentioned the economic impacts of refugees, compared to only 25 percent who mentioned refugees' cultural fit. This policy brief examines the fiscal impacts of refugee resettlement on states and local communities, using Virginia as a case study to provide more insight into resettlement's implications for state and local fiscal health.
Council of Michigan Foundations;
The Council of Michigan Foundations (CMF) commissioned four studies between 2000 and 2016 to evaluate the required private foundation payout rate as well as hypothetical model portfolios and actual investment returns.In December 2020, the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy (Johnson Center) at Grand Valley State University, in collaboration with Plante Moran Financial Advisors (PMFA), updated and expanded this research by using a comprehensive database of IRS Form 990-PF (private foundation) returns, adding international investments to the model portfolios, presenting actual payout rates of all private foundations in the dataset, and showing projections of how changes to the payout rate may affect future foundation assets. In March 2021, staff from the Johnson Center turned their focus to community foundations and completed a similar analysis — the first of its kind in the CMF foundation study series.Similar to its earlier private and community foundation report counterparts, this report provides new information to the field. To study donor advised funds (DAFs), the project team leveraged the Johnson Center's comprehensive database of IRS Form 990 filings for summary statistics. The team supplemented that dataset by partnering with CMF to obtain account-level information about the more than 2,600 DAFs housed at Michigan's community foundations. That account-level detail was used to calculate individual DAF investment returns, contribution and distribution flows, and payout rates for the years 2017–2020.
This report is the culmination of a two-year long project centering the voices of young people(YP) and the staff who work directly with young people to better understand the experiences ofhousing (in)stability that young people face after they have transitioned out of the child welfaresystem (DCFS) and the juvenile justice system (DJJ). Specifically, we wanted to explorethe transition planning processes from the DCFS Countdown to 21 program and theDJJ Aftercare program and the ways in which these programs succeed or struggle toprovide young people with the necessary skills, knowledge, and supports as they emergeinto adulthood. This report accompanies a website, Day2Day, which provides linkages andresources to a myriad of information and tools that young people might need as they emerge intoadulthood. All of the interviews, surveys and the journey mapping we facilitated informed both theDay2Day website as well as this report.