On Tuesday, I wrote about the need to connect social mobility policies with the “green movement,” saying that low-income workers need advocates at the table as the federal government moves toward greater energy independence. Well, Mayor Richard Daley and his team in Chicago have done just this. Daley has pledged to turn Chicago into “America’s greenest city” and has tied these efforts to job training for low-income individuals.

For Chicago residents, the term “green collar job” isn’t just new language that has been tossed around during this presidential campaign. In fact, the city has administered a green-collar job training program since 1994. “GreenCorps Chicago” trains city residents in landscaping, environmental and health safety, electronic recycling, professional development and academic enhancement. Program participants consist largely of ex-offenders - those most often disconnected to the labor market.  After completing the six month course, graduates are certified to work in one the city’s green initiatives.  More than 300 Chicagoans have completed this training program.

In addition to the government initiative, leaders from business, labor, education, and other organizations came together in 2007 to form the Chicagoland Green-Collar Jobs Initiative with a mission to:

explore and identify employment and job training opportunities to prepare workers for emerging green jobs related to sustainability, natural resource conservation and environmental related technology. The target audience for a new green collar jobs program includes: unskilled, unemployed or underemployed individuals, and incumbent workers requiring updated training for new technologies….The Chicagoland Green Collar Jobs Initiative supports development of Green Collar Jobs that will focus on low-income, disadvantaged communities and developing career-paths that lift people into a head-of-household job.

The most promising thing about the work in Chicago is the explicit commitment to bringing low-income and underserved residents into this new industry and connecting them with opportunities for social mobility. This certainly is a model worth repeating.

Yesterday, College Board released their annual report on college costs. Given the state of the economy, the news wasn’t surprising. Continuing a decade long trend, college prices at public and private four-year colleges and universities increased faster inflation. And because these prices were collected in June, before the beginning of the economic crisis, they will probably get worse.

The average published costs increased in 2008-09 across all types of institutions of higher learning.

In-state, public, 4-year college or university

• Average tuition cost: $6,585, an increase of 6.4% from last year
• Average total cost (including tuition, fees, room and board): $14,333, an increase of 5.7%

Out-of-state, public 4-year college or university

• Average tuition cost: $17,452, 5.2% higher than last year
• Average total cost: $25,200, 5.2% higher

Public, 2-year college

• Average total cost: $2,402, an increase of 4.7% from last year

Private 4-year college or university

• Average total cost: $25,143, a 5.9% increase

The Washington Post warns that the costs of college will rise much higher:

College students and their parents should brace for sharp tuition increases as the widening economic downturn begins to hit campuses across the country, an organization of higher education officials said yesterday.

The warning came in response to an annual national survey of tuition and fees that showed that college costs rose only modestly for the current academic year. But that report, released yesterday by the College Board, was based on data collected before June and did not reflect many of the economic trials embroiling the country.

The financial landscape has become far more grim, according to the American Council on Education, a coalition of more than 1,600 college and university presidents. “I am afraid this year’s report may prove only to be a snapshot of a time in history that we might soon be referring to as ‘the good old days,’ ” said ACE President Molly Corbett Broad.

As states face budget crunches, they will inevitably have to cut funds for higher education. In fact, 17 states have already done so. This problem will need federal leadership. Obama has outlined a plan that would include a $4,000 tax credit to help families better afford college. McCain’s campaign, as blogger Matt Yglesias noted, articulated his higher education plan for the first time yesterday.

Just something to think about as you head to the polls.

Today’s installment of “What Works Wednesdays” seems like a no brainer: removing state income taxes for families below the poverty line. While many of us advocate for an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to create greater economic mobility, some states are actually taxing low-income families further into poverty.

I am sad to say, that my home state of Alabama is among the worst. According to a report released today by Jason A. Levitis and Andrew C. Nicholas at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 18 states levy income taxes on two-parent families of four that earn less than the federal poverty line:

A two-parent family of four in Alabama with income at the poverty line owes $423 in income tax, while such a family owes $409 in Hawaii, $325 in Oregon, and $258 in West Virginia. Such amounts can make a big difference to a family struggling to escape poverty. Other states levying tax of more than $200 on families with poverty-level incomes include Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Montana.

The authors’ rational arguments highlight the absurdity of these regressive tax policies:

Taxing the incomes of working-poor families runs counter to the efforts of policymakers across the political spectrum to help families work their way out of poverty. The federal government has exempted such families from the income tax since the mid-1980s, and a majority of states now do so as well.

Eliminating state income taxes on working families with poverty-level incomes gives a boost in take-home pay that helps offset higher child care and transportation costs that families incur as they strive to become economically self-sufficient. In other words, relieving state income taxes on poor families can make a meaningful contribution toward “making work pay.”

Thankfully, there are states that sit on the opposite end of the spectrum and offer a state EITC in addition to the federal benefit. And in many of the states with the most regressive policies, there are experts and advocates  who work tirelessly to change their laws. For more information on some of the state-wide efforts to reform the tax codes check out these websites:

• Alabama Arise
• Georgia Budget and Policy Institute
• Hawaii Alliance for Community-Based Economic Development
• Montana’s Working for Equality and Economic Liberation
• Policy Matters Ohio
• State EITC Online Resource (The best site for all things related to state EITCs)

On the campaign trail Barack Obama continues to highlight his progressive and ambitious energy plan. In Colorado he told a group of voters that he will invest:

$15 billion a year in renewable sources of energy. To create 5 million new green jobs. . . . I’ll put 2 million more Americans to work rebuilding roads and bridges, setting up a new electricity grid so renewable energy can get to people. If we can spend $10 billion a month rebuilding Iraq we can spend some money rebuilding America.

While it looks increasingly likely that we will be working from a President Obama energy plan, both sides of the aisle - including the McCain camp - seem to agree that tackling the energy challenge is a top national priority.

As people who care about increasing opportunities for all Americans, we need to begin the discussion about connecting anti-poverty efforts to the energy independence movement. At first it raises a lot of questions:

• Can low-income American’s be plugged into this movement?
• Can these new jobs take the place of lost manufacturing jobs?
• Can we use the community college systems to train low-skilled workers for these new industries?

The answer to these questions is simple.  Yes. According to Barack Obama’s proposal, I have no doubt that he agrees.

In one week we will have a new president, transition teams will meet; campaign pledges will turn into real energy policy proposals. We must ensure that low-income workers have advocates at the table.

Too often we take the successes of social security for granted, when in fact, it has been one of the most successful anti-poverty programs. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that “Social Security benefits lift nearly 13 million seniors age 65 and older above the poverty line.” Furthermore, if we take away social security income, nearly one of every two elderly people would live below the poverty line.

However, our current social insurance programs will not be able to last in their current forms as baby boomers enter retirement in mass quantities. In PPI’s memo’s to the next president series, Bob Pozen, chairman of MFS Investment Management, argues that the next administration should make Social Security reform a priority. Pozen writes:

But why start with Social Security? Doesn’t Medicare present a much bigger financial challenge? It does, and that is exactly the point. Since Social Security is, comparatively speaking, the “easy” fix, it ought to be repaired first. We know how to fix Social Security, whereas there is less agreement on viable options for reining in health care costs. If we can build a sturdy coalition to reform Social Security, that might make it easier to form a similar bipartisan alliance when we tackle Medicare down the line.

 In his memo, Pozen outlines a series of do’s and don’ts for the next administration:

1. Do protect Social Security’s character as a social-insurance program whereby every contributing worker receives retirement benefits related to his or her contributions.
2. Do make Social Security more progressive for low-wage workers.
3. Don’t divert any payroll taxes from Social Security to private “carve out” accounts invested in the securities markets.
4. Don’t reduce benefits for anyone now in retirement or close to retirement.

 More details of  Pozen’s plan can be found here.

Yesterday’s news papers brought more proof that the economic fallout has reached most Americans. (Not that we really needed the extra proof to believe it.)

The USA Today reports that the number of homeowners in foreclosure grew by more than 70% in the third quarter compared to the same quarter in 2007. Just between July and September 766,000 homes received at least one foreclosure-related notice.

The Washington Post writes that there were more layoffs in September than in any month since September 2001. Close to half a million workers have filed for unemployment benefits in the last four weeks alone. With many companies imposing hiring freezes, it doesn’t seem like we will near rock bottom anytime soon:

Anecdotal reports suggest that the hemorrhaging in the job market has only begun. Companies that announced plans this week to cut jobs include Internet company Yahoo (1,500 positions), pharmaceutical company Merck (7,200), National City bank (4,000) and Comcast, the cable company (300).

In speaking to the House Oversight Committee, former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, called the economic situation a “once-in-a-century credit tsunami.” Greenspan apologized for some of his previous positions noting that there “was a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works.  He also gave a dire forecast for the near future:

“Given the financial damage to date, I cannot see how we can avoid a significant rise in layoffs and unemployment,” Greenspan said. “Fearful American households are attempting to adjust, as best they can, to a rapid contraction in credit availability, threats to retirement funds and increased job insecurity.”

Hold onto your seats, folks.

When writing about social mobility and the problems facing low-income families, the news is often bad. With the economy in the pits, it would be easy to throw our hands in the air and accept defeat. But we can’t tire and must not forget that there are good people on the ground and in government who work every day to make life better for all Americans. So today I am going to start a new series of posts called “What Works Wednesdays.” Every Wednesday I will put the bad news aside and focus on proven programs that help families across the country.

Today, let’s take a look at the proven Nurse-Family Partnerships program that pairs registered nurses with low-income, first-time mothers to foster positive health and development behaviors between the mother and her baby. According to their website:

It is during a first pregnancy that the best chance exists to promote and teach positive health and development behaviors between a mother and her baby.

This 30-year model has a proven track of success. One study of mothers and babies who participated in the program found that when the children reached 15 there was a:

• 48% reduction in child abuse and neglect
• 59% reduction in arrests
• 90% reduction in adjudications as PINS (person in need of supervision) for incorrigible behavior

The program also:

• Improves prenatal health;
• Decreases the likelihood of childhood injuries;
• Decreases the number subsequent pregnancies;
• Increases the intervals between births;
• Increases maternal employment; and
• Improves school readiness for children born to mothers with low psychological resources

Many reputable, bi-partisan policy organizations have praised the Nurse-Family Partnership program and called for its expansion, including The Brookings Institution, RAND Corporation and the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy.

Additionally, Barack Obama and Joe Biden have pledged to, “expand the highly-successful Nurse-Family Partnership to all 570,000 low-income, first-time mothers each year.”

There has been speculation that the slow economy and decline in private student loan options would create strain on families paying for college. Now a new study from MeritAid.com proves this theory. Their survey of 2,500 prospective college students found:

• 48 percent of students were more concerned than ever about college affordability
• 57 percent were considering less prestigious and more affordable schools
• 16 percent said they were going to put off college altogether due to financial strain

Take just one example - a Massachusetts high school student, Tom Woodbury, who was featured in this Boston Globe article:

One of Tom Woodbury’s sisters went to Vanderbilt University, the other to Boston College. But they didn’t choose those pricey private colleges during a financial market meltdown that took a sizeable chunk of the family’s college savings.

So the younger Woodbury, a senior at Arlington High School, is leaning toward the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, which costs less than half as much as many of its private counterparts. The more the Dow Jones industrial average declines, the more the state’s flagship university seems to come up in conversation, he said.

Even parents who have dutifully saved for their children’s educations - especially through state sponsored 529 accounts - face affordability worries. Like a 401(k), contributions to a 529 plan are divided into stocks and bonds. Therefore, as the economy takes a downturn, so do the values of the accounts. According to the Washington Post:

Preliminary figures from Financial Research, a Boston consulting firm, found that the value of 529s had declined 7.6 percent as of the second quarter. Total assets in 529s at the end of the second quarter were $110 billion.

At the same time, federal student loans have dropped from 93 percent of all loans in 1996-97 to 76 percent in 2006-07, leaving more students in need of more costly private student loans.  As the next Congress and the Administration consider how to best help students, the PPI proposal for a universal and refundable tax credit is a good start. For more information check out these links:

• Give Them a Break
• American Dream Initiative
• A Springboard to the Ownership Society

As one would expect, the number of people needing food stamps has dramatically increased due to the weakened economy and the coinciding increase in food prices. This summer alone, there were one million new food stamp recipients, bringing the total to 29 million Americans.

In these tough times, we need to ensure that all families in need get the help they deserve.  Thankfully, more individuals and families may be able to qualify for this food benefit because of relaxed income regulations included in the 2008 farm bill that went into effect this month. According to USA Today, families with income from combat pay, retirement accounts or education savings will now face fewer barriers to eligibility requirements.

States also have the authority to further adjust eligibility rules as they deem necessary in the wake of the financial downturn and some have done so.  California, Ohio, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Vermont have further expanded eligibility by allowing individuals to keep some savings and still apply for food stamps.

There seems to be little good news on the economic front these days. Just today, Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve told Congress that the economy is “likely to be weak for several quarters” and there is “risk of a protracted slowdown.”

Without any clear end in site, other states should find ways to loosen food stamp income eligibility requirements so that families don’t have to “sink to ground zero to get help.”

I write often about teenage pregnancy because I am convinced that reducing the number is a key spoke in the wheel of poverty reduction. However, unplanned pregnancies, regardless of the age of the mother, also put a strain on low-income families and society at large. The National Campaign reminds us of this in their newly released memo to elected officials:

While this spotlight has prompted a much-needed national conversation about teen pregnancy, the sobering news about-and fascination with-teen pregnancy masks three key ideas. First, few Americans understand that it’s not just teens that are having difficulty with pregnancy planning and prevention. In fact, at present, half of all pregnancies in the nation are unplanned and the majority are to adults not teens. Second, the decades-long argument over abortion has dominated the political debate at the expense of basic understanding of, and support for, contraception, which plays a critical role in helping those who are sexually active avoid unplanned pregnancy in the first place. Third, we have lost sight of the simple fact that when unplanned pregnancy is reduced so is abortion. Less unplanned pregnancy means fewer abortions-a fact that should help those on both sides of the abortion debate find common ground.

The memo also includes a series of questions for elected officials and other interested parties to consider such as, how do you prevent unplanned pregnancies, will preventing unplanned pregnancies lead to fewer abortions, what is the governments role in reducing unplanned pregnancies, etc.

It seems that at least one candidate is ready to honestly answer these questions. During a heated discussion on abortion during the final presidential debate on Wednesday, Sen. Obama made a point to highlight prevention as a way to reduce the number of abortions:

The last point I want to make on the issue of abortion. This is an issue that — look, it divides us. And in some ways, it may be difficult to — to reconcile the two views.

But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, “We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.”

Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that’s where we can find some common ground, because nobody’s pro-abortion. I think it’s always a tragic situation.

Obama’s efforts to find common ground resonated with some voters.  And an Obama administration has the potential to focus our efforts on reducing unplanned pregnancies, which will not only mean a reduction in the number of abortions but as the National Campaign’s report also notes:

Reducing unplanned pregnancy will also mean less poverty, a better educated and prepared workforce, healthier children and families, and lower health care costs.

Both the political and the societal benefits of this common ground are tremendous.