blog banner

Innovating to End Urban Poverty Conference – Panel 7: Foundation Panel

>We haven’t formally acknowledged Robert Price, and I think it is important to do that. Robert, thank you for your commitment to these issues and to being willing to help partner in this conference. This is something I hope becomes a lasting and ongoing partnership so we can keep advancing these, these policy issues because it’s very important. So thank you very much, we all appreciate it. Okay, so next is The foundations, I guess we call it the foundations, they’re not actually, they’re not all foundations so we shouldn’t do that. The leaders panel from national organizations, we have three leaders who are really on the front line of these issues, grappling with what should we be… we should we do, how do we talk about issues of primary *inaudible* and how do we engage a broad range of stakeholders. So I want to make sure that we leave plenty of time for that, so I’m not going to say very much other than, we have Robert Greenstein who has just left the building. We have…and he is the President of Senate and Budget and Policy Priorities, and he’s just returned, So, hey, hi Rob. We have Terri Ludwig, who is the presidency of Enterprise Community Partners. And we have Patrick McCarthy who is the presidency of Annie Casey, Annie E. Casey Foundation. You have their bios in the programme, these are three real shining stars and leaders
in the field so, let’s get to it.>Good morning, everybody. Next steps on poverty opportunities and threats, that’s what I want to cover, unfortunately, Sheldon, I can’t see where Sheldon is sitting right now. Sheldon covered important, there he is. Sheldon covered important ground and I’m going to quickly jump over my first few slides as he really covered them. You know, just…as Sheldon talked about the fact that when one, as a context, when one measures poverty properly so you do count things like food-stamps and the urgent concurrent rental vouchers. The poverty rate really has fallen significantly since the 1960s, or if you use this broader measure of poverty, the supplemental poverty measure, we find that through the latest figures 2012 the safety net cuts poverty nearly in half. When we look at some of the areas programmed by program, we see particularly large effects and lifting people out of poverty from refundable tax credits. But this slide is really a partial slide, so, I…presume I can walk away from the mic. These bars show you that the refundable credits have the biggest defect in lifting people above the poverty line. but that’s not the only measure we should care about, we should also care about reducing the depth of poverty. Lifting someone from 25% to 75% of the poverty line, you don’t credit for lifting amount of poverty, you do if if you just go from 95% to 105%. So, when we ask the question, which programme has the largest effect in reducing the depth of poverty? It’s food stamps, they both have bigger firms. I was thinking of this when Robert Price asked his question, to show them, Robert, you mentioned your impression which I think is exactly right, and in many respects, poverty is much less grinder, that it was in the 1960’s. One of the most riveting pieces I have ever read related to poverty was a report that came out in 1979. A foundation in wondering existence of Field Foundation, had sent a team of doctors to the deep South in Apalache in the late 60s looking at hunger and malnutrition and they found really stunning results, it was the basis for the Hunger USA documentaries of that period. The Field Foundations sent another medical team, a lot of the same doctors back to the same areas in the late 70’s. During the intervening decade, food stamps have been expanded and grown nation-wide and other nutrition programmes like the WIC programme and others have been created. And I’m not going to remember the words precisely, but the reports had something like the follower. They said, “10 years ago, visitors could quickly see the doe eyes and slowly healing wounds of child malnutrition whenever we look in these areas. Today, ten years later, such children are rare.” That’s a pretty significant accomplishment. Now, until a few years ago, we tended to think of the safety net, these kind of assistance programmes, as when they were really effective, they would reduce hardship. Critics argued that they became a dependency creating hammock and did more harm than good. What wasn’t part of the debate and what we really didn’t have much evidence on for the last few years, is what we’re now beginning to learn due to the work of a number of researchers including very much, Craig Duncan, who is sitting here. That various aspects of the safety net not only ease hardship but they actually serve an opportunity function. So, Greg talked in his presentation yesterday about a growing body of research that providing significant…we’re talking several thousand dollars or more, I think, amounts of of additional income the families with kids, especially younger kids, is now tied to improve school achievement. And some of the studies improved a point of earning as adults, probably relating to the improved school achievement. Another really important study was one done by Hillary Hoins and her colleagues. They were able to take advantage of something unique. In the late 60’s and early 70’s, the food-stamp programme went nationwide. But it did so, slowly in many areas, county by county. They were able to go track, look back 34 years
later, at children who grew up in counties that had food-stamps and similar children in neighbouring counties that did not have food stamps. What they found was stunning. They found that poor children whose mothers had access to food-stamps in pregnancy and the children then had access when they were growing up. Decades later, had lower rates of metabolic syndrome, stunted growth, heart disease of the city and these are percentage point changes an 18 percentage point higher rate of high school completion. So these are particularly important findings. So, while we’ve made a lot of progress however, as I think has been the theme of this conference, we have a long way to go. Among the most disturbing, if the research I just mentioned is heartening, among the more disturbing recent research is we’re also learning more and more about how many differences emerge just in children’s first two years. Important work being done by Jack Shonkoff at Harvard and his colleagues on the role of toxic stress on very poor families with kids and the effects that this has on children. And when you put the two new emerging pieces of research together, It suggests that having more income and a particular importance, having a stable place to live, for families with children, is again, it’s not just a safety net reduce hardship function, there are significant long-term effects here. And here we have a negative development. The negative development being that the percentage of low income households, who do not have affordable housing due to changes in the housing market and other developments has been increasing, in recent decades. We also have another concern as the economy changes such that the returns to education become more important we have growing depths between tuition, an income growth with particular consequences
for low-income households. Aggravating as it has been, state budget cuts. States have to balance their budgets every year, unlike the Federal government, even in recession. So during the great recession and the aftermath, states face deficits year after year and the…cuts and cuts. One of the areas that has been cut the most to state funding for higher education, which is one of the factors in these rising tuition rates. Now today, state revenues are coming back, warrant some states less than others, but in general are coming back. What the states do when the revenues are higher than the year before? Even when the year before, it was at a depressed
level. Do they ease cuts in higher education in K-12 where the cuts have also been significant. Do they invest in new emerging poverty strategies coming out of conferences like this and other research when people find things that work? In too many states, the policy that’s on the table this year is, revenues are coming back, let’s do more tax cuts and leave the budget cuts in place. There are a number of states today, where governors are proposing to actually eliminate the entire state income tax permanently shrinking revenue base. I’m not going to spend more time on this other than to say, I think Jack Knott was exactly right on this. There is a relationship here. Having enough resources doesn’t mean you have effective policies to address poverty. But if you shrink their resources, we’re going to cut programmes that reduce poverty and the atmosphere in which is often hardest to innovate and try new things, is when the whole of the pie is shrinking and everybody is protecting their existing piece of the pie including service providers, programme administrators and other groups. So I would argue that the battle is now going on in the number of states, over whether to cut taxes, what to do. Should be viewed, in part, as poverty-related bouts. Because a necessary but not sufficient condition is the public sector having sufficient resources. We have another big problem, which is the change in the employment picture. In all of the recessions going back to 1950 before the present one, we never had more than 26% of the unemployed being long-term unemployed, out of work for more than 6 months, and still looking. It got up until the mid 40’s and it still about 35%, 36%, 37% today. This is really unusual, I am sure you all know the resource long-term unemployed had much harder time, going back into the labour market, getting jobs, and this underscores a larger theme which, I wasn’t here yesterday, but from reading it, I’m not sure there was that much emphasis on this, But it is…simply… Another necessary, not sufficient, but necessary ingredient, is the state of the economy in terms of employment and wages. When we look at the late 1990’s, admittedly, not a particularly hot economy but the unemployment rate fell to 4%. When the unemployment rate fell to 40%, a lot of people margins with limited education and skills who are often thought of in conventional poverty discussions as being unemployable, got jobs because the labour market was so tight. And a second factor was that, because the labour market was so tight, real wages rose at the bottom. Now, we’re not going to get back to 4% unemployement most likely, but the larger theme is that one of the most anti-poverty policies is a full employment economy. And macroeconomic policies that take us closer to that, and this includes maybe tolerating a little higher inflation to get lower unemployment, these are important issues from a poverty state of mind. All right, I’m going to move now to some of the programmatic type issues. And I’ve mentioned the importance of things like…S.N.A.P. and other programmes of that sort A number of people have mentioned Medicaid, So, this suggests that one thing we want to do is to raise where possible the percentage of eligible low-income families and individuals who qualify for these programs, and actually get them. Surprisingly large progress could be made here in 2002. 54% of those eligible for food stamps received them. Today, it’s 79% and over 90% of the eligible children received them. There were a lot of changes made in rules, processes procedures to really really simplify this. And the advance of the information technology age is opening up major new possibilities. As some of you may know, a number of foundations, The Urban Institute, our senator, are all involved in something called Work Support Strategies Project. The idea behind this is to get beyond the silos, you know where we, still are in many states. You’re a working poor mother, you have a low-paying job, you don’t easily get time off, you’re on food stamps and your employer doesn’t have coverage…offer help coverage, you’re on Medicaid. Every ‘X’ months, you have to go re-apply. It sometimes takes multiple visits, multiple hours at the office. Could create problems for you with your employer. You’re probably, at a minimum, not paid for those hours. You finally get it done and two months later you might have to do the whole thing all over again for the other programme which also contributes to as it’s well-known in the field high rates of churning where people who remain eligible, fall off the programme for periods of time. So, the idea in the work support strategies project, is to link the application processing, use information technology to share verifications documents so you renew your eligibility for food stamps and it automatically renews you for Medicaid. And as you begin…and we have six states, this is a project with six states, I should’ve mentioned that, the key really is what’s *inaudible* in us. up to six states, they are three bright red states and three blue states. And they are all equally enthusiastic. If you’re a red state, you might tell, gee, why do they want to increase participation in this programme, well among other things, This increased deficiency means they need fewer State staff and they lower administrative costs, and that can be very appealing. So, there is a potential for *inaudible* and progress here. And as learn more how to do these things, it opens up other avenues. So, another example, about 18 months ago, we were looking at the fact that there were 47 million people on the SNAP, food stamp programme. So, millions of these people, would have to be, people who are uninsured today but would be eligible for Medicaid if their states took the Medicaid expansion. When we began to discuss this with agencies in the federal government, we encountered a problem that a number of you discussed yesterday. Siloing. So we were told, “Nice idea guys.” but nothing we can do about this. Because Medicaid and S.N.A.P. have different rules for what counts as income and who’s the member of the household *inaudible*. So we went over both program’s eligibility rules and details, and we were able to design a screen, a series of questions, you simply have your IT contractor convert into an electronic thing. You run through your whole SNAP payload in a typical state, 80% of non-elderly households to meet the screen. If you meet the screen, you are eligible for Medicaid, you are under the expansion. If you’re in the other 20%, you’re probably still eligible, but you need to go through the normal process and ask more questions, but for the other 80%, you can automatically enrol. So, the government adopted it as a state option, California’s rolling it out right now. The first four states, California is the fifth that put it in place, automatically enrolled over 300,000 people. On January 1st, with California were getting up close to 500,000 now, New Jersey is coming in. These kind of things can be wave of the future, it opens up a possibility to think about…having organizations on the ground do civic engagement work and ask the governor, the legislative leaders in the state, for example, to make a commitment that…to try to reach our goal of trying to reach all or nearly all low income children upside, where children and parents who are eligible for certain basic government programmes to actually enrol them. Once you get the commitment, you can then work on the specific information technology and other mechanisms in the state, but I think there are potentials for major advances here. Of course, part of this relates to, whether a state accepts the Medicare expansion. I think there’s a strong case to be made, that the decision on whether or not to take an expansion under which, everybody below the poverty line except, of course, certain immigrant populations. Are eligible for Medicaid or not, is this really probably the most important state in property decision in policy in a quarter century. In the prior to the affordable care act, in a typical state, a working poor parent has lost eligibility for Medicaid when their income reached 63% of the poverty line, a non-working parent, 37% of the poverty line and childless adults not eligible at all. So these are really important issues, and when you get to the childless adults, here’s another really important area for work, study, academic research, practitioner work, taking the Medicaid expansion, opens up a new round on the possibilities, make progress on criminal justice reform. How is that? The Sheriff of Cook County in Illinois, Is now trying to develop a programme, whereby people who are brought in for various non-violent defences, instead of being tried and put in jail or in prison, will be enrolled in Medicaid and given various kinds of mental health and substance abuse counsellor. There is interesting several states including California, in a concept of we, we release something like 600,000 people from prison every year since we incarcerate somebody. Generally, in the past, these people are released, and among…not only do they not have jobs or uninsured, there’s an inadequate amount of health treatment. The new notion is enrol them a Medicaid before they are released so they walk out the door of the prison and they are eligible for preventive care, basic health, mental health services and substance abuse. There is hope. We don’t have any results yet, nobody’s done it yet, but there is hope that the improvement in health could rate of availability of mental-health counseling and substance abuse counselling could help people in the employment market, could reduce rates of visitors visits, we’ll see. But there are really new exciting possibilities here, but they can’t be seized if the state doesn’t take the Medicaid expansion to begin with, because then, most of these people remain ineligible for Medicaid. I mentioned the issue of jobs and wages, which takes us to a discussion, we’ve been having, there’s the issue of the minimum wage but there’s also wage supplementations through the earned income tax credit. They talked yesterday about expanding the earned income tax credit for families with young kids, I put it on higher priority although one can certainly debate this. On the workers who aren’t raising minor children, as you can see today, they’re eligible for a tiny EITC, the average benefit is $264 and this understates the differences because it’s also the case that the EITC for troubled workers cuts off at about $40,000 a year. It’s really small. So we know that the EITC for families with children brings more mothers into the labour market. You know, we have a big problem with low-labour-forced participation rings among young people, including young minority males. But currently EITC not only as tiny, but if you’re under 25, you’re flatly an illegible for it. The Obama proposal would make people eligible at age 21 and significantly increase. The size of the earned income credit, and as a result, it would result in several million people, additionally, being made less poor and some lifted out off the poverty. Among the group who would benefit are 1 in a half million non-custodial parents, which could be important for paying child support for the children and substantial numbers of formerly incarcerated individuals. So this again fits in with the problem that we’re increasingly beginning to understand, this critical thinking about poverty, the large numbers of formerly incarcerated individuals. The hope is that a significantly larger EITC as a wage supplement here could bring more people into the above-ground economy, improve employment, and possibly, Carl Scholls of the University of Wisconsin has written about this, possibly reduce crime and subsequent incarceration rates. By the way, if we’re talking about the earned income credit, there’s a future issue coming. If we get immigration reform, which I would agree, as one of the most critical issues for poverty reduction. And millions of people are on a path to legalisation but are years away from being legal permanent residents. What are they eligible for? So when the Senate Immigration bill was on the senate floor last year, there was an agreement, without which, the bill would have little bipartisan support. That once you became legalized until years later you got to LPR status before citizenship status, you do not, number of the interim years, you will not be eligible for food stamps, you are not be able to go for Medicaid, there would be hardly any Republican support and a lot of Democrats wouldn’t have voted for it either without that. But you’re working, you’re paying taxes. Are you eligible for the earned income credit? When the debate started on the senate floor, where the senate democratic leaders of the bill, told us and others, it would be great if people could get the EITC during that period, but they couldn’t sustain and pass it on the Senate Floor. It was a lot of work done, and we kept the EITC. So under the senate bill, when you become legal, even though you’re eligible for the other benefits, you’re working, you’re paying taxes, you do get refundable tax credits. if and when the house ever takes up the immigration reform, sooner or later, probably not this year, but it will eventually happen. I think we’re going to have a big battle, a big debate over whether, should legalized immigrants be allowed to get refundable credits? They’re part of the tax code, they’re part of what we’ve done as a country instead of raising the minimum wage bar. It would be a very large problem if we’re going to be denial. I just want to close with a couple of minutes on the Federal budgetary context. My talk was entitled, the first slides, “Of Opportunities and Threats”. There are threats. We’ve done four trillion dollars of deficit reduction in the last few years. Four fifths of it had been programme cuts and 90% of the blue programme cuts, 90% of that, has been reduction in non-defense discretionary programs. That’s the part of the budget, that’s everything that isn’t defences and that entitlement, and is in interest payments. It includes almost all the services we have been talking about here. It includes low income housing, head start, all kinds of other things and it is now on track unless there is another budget deal to ease sequestration. To by, fiscal 16B down 17% below the 2010 real level, and that understates it, because veterans health care is part of this…part of the budget and it’s going up faster than inflection. There are some programme financing problems, i won’t take the time to go into them. The bottom line, is that’s for everything else if there’s not a change, We’re working at a reduction of well over 20% in real terms by Fiscal 16, and continuing to fall after that. In fact, we are now on track, that by 2016 or 2017 total amount of defense discretionary spending is a share of the gross domestic product will fall to it’s lowest level on the record going back in 1962. There’s got to be very difficult to do various things talked about in this conference if this place out. Instead, we will be talking about what’s the 3R’s. Which programmes do we cut the most. Which gets me to my final point., and this is the Jack Mark point. Jack said a few minutes ago on revenues fundamental. Yes, they are. We’re going to have to both reduce the deficit more for the long-term and we need the finance new initiatives in investments. Part of it is gonna have to come from other spending programmes. But in the last…part of it didn’t from the tax side, this is going to be a very daunting task. We have in the tax code, what are called tax expenditures, they are basically subsidies, deductions, tax credits, various kinds of right off exclusion. They’re called tax expenditures because they really are the equivalent of spending through the tax code. Martin Feldstein who is the Chair of President Reagan’s council of economic advisor’s, has written repeatedly in the Wall Street Journal, that conservatives should view these as government spending and recognise that they are, on average, perhaps the most inefficient area of government spending, and they have major distributional and poverty consequences. Two examples. Example one, childcare. You are a low-income family and you need child mother, you need child care to go to work. You might be able to get a federal subsidy through a federal spending program. But the funding for the childcare programs is limited. Only one in six well-income families that meets the income criteria for a childcare subsidy gets it. If you’re a middle and upper income family, you get a child care subsidy from the Federal government, too. You get to exclude the child care tax credit. That is the equivalent of an open-ended entitlement, there is no limit. 100% of those who qualify and take it on their tax return get it, and it goes all the way up the income scale. One’s taxes, one’s spending. As long as we have fiscal debates, where taxes and spending as treated as two totally disparate things, it means that it’s more acceptable to cut childcare without…with some well-income parents can’t work then to reduce a subsidy then in the absence of which people who are in higher income level are going to use childcare anyway. A similar example is student-aid, programs of spending. They are the blue bars. Tax-based student aid 529 other kinds of things, tends to be worth more as you go up the income scale. My two last slides, here’s the distribution of entitlement benefits. Bottom fifth gets about 32%, top fifth about 10%. Tax expenditure benefits, what Alan Greenspan, has called tax entitlements, top fifths gets two thirds of them, 3% to the bottom fifth. So unless we can broaden our discussion, and treat tax expenditures as government spending, just as the waste of spending. And when we talk about redistributing resources as you’ve done yesterday, today, what works? Put the money where we can have the best return. If the tax expenditure side of the budget is not part of that equation, we are more than likely to go backwards than forwards. And I would just close by saying, that to me this underscores the wisdom, the prescience of the individual for whom this scroll is named, Saul Price. As Saul as…Robert could say better than I, but one of his passions was tax policy. He deeply believed that we should raise more revenue in a progressive way. Part of which could then go to making more progress on poverty as we find more and more what works. Thank you.>What a great stage setting. That is terrific. And so critical for us to reflect, I think, I’m going to come full-circle as I introduce myself and the talk at the end of my presentation about the road ahead, a lot of risks out there, but taxes are absolutely front and centre for all of us. So, it’s great to be here, thanks for the opportunity. I’m Terri Ludwig, as Raphael said, and I’m the CEO of Enterprise Community Partners. And many of you might be familiar with enterprise, but for those of you that are not, Our enterprise is a national non-profit, working to make sure that everyone has a safe an affordable home, and is connected to opportunity and we work across the country to achieve this. So, it’s great to be here today. And I think I’m the practitioner here who’s gonna kind of ground us some of the practices Raphael said that of what we see as some bright spots, what are some of the things that are working on the ground, and then you know, getting back to what we just talked about, some of the challenges we see on the road ahead. So, you know, it’s just as, you know, context setting, I would say, we were founded 30 years ago by a private real estate developer, Jim Ralls. And Jim was very confronted in his development of real-estate, you know, across the country. He was just really confronted by the deep poverty that he saw facing our country, figure out what was working, and set up partnership and lift those up, off their public-private partnerships to really try to drive change. So, that is very much our mission, that’s what we bring. We bought for 30 years. So, we’ve been in, Raphael said, yeah we’re one of the players that’s probably achieved some scale. We’ve also been at this for a very long time. So, the things I talk about today are really building of the successes and many failures over the past 30 years and thinking about, you know, what comes next. That, I would say, you know, what’s remained very much at the core of the enterprise during that time. Is a deep commitment to eradicating poverty, number one. Number 2, a deep believe that it wasn’t just the public sector that can do this alone. It has to be public-private sector so working very closely with the public sector, philanthropic sector, the private sector to really achieve some solutions. And I would say…also just that really healthy respect for local solutions and thinking about how to life those up. And so, our mission remains to help ensure that every American has a safe affordable home, connected to a diverse and thriving community. So that’s where I really start the conversations today. And at the core, you know, in terms of our core competencies, Enterprise has been very much a housing organisation, But our visions, I just shared is much broader than the housing. We do see housing as an absolutely critical intervention to ending poverty. As I think there’s a lot, I wasn’t here yesterday, but understand there’s a lot of discussion on that. So, I hope we can all agree on that one, and we certainly see housing as much more than just shelter, but we think that it’s something that really does truly give families a fair shot at success. Doing well in school, landing a good job, staying healthy, we know can easily fall out of reach when you don’t have that kind of stable foundation that a home really provides, and I think that’s true for each of us in our own families. So, that is our basic philosophy. Housing is the first rung on that ladder of opportunity and that a stable home, you know, is just essential, and it’s out of reach for millions of families today. As many of you know, our country is in the middle of a broad housing insecurity crisis. We just…a couple of speakers already today. touched upon this but that, you know, in cities across the United States, with, you know, with rents rising, wages stagnating, working families are having a harder and harder time to find a decent home. There’s a lot of statistics there but one that really placed out for me is that you know, when you’re working family earning minimum wage, you simply cannot afford an apartment at fair market rent anywhere in the country. I don’t know, seems pretty simple, there’s a pretty big crisis there. So, and in any given night, there’s about 600,000 people that are homeless. They’re on the streets. Nearly a quarter of those folks are children and I’m based in New York City, and I have to say it’s really confronting to me when I think about, what does that mean? In practical terms, try to picture that, right? Not only the faces, but what does that mean? And in New York City, imagine Madison Square Garden is filled with children that are homeless. And there’s still 4000 seats that are needed. Folks lining about the door, right. So that’s the scope that we’re talking about, and then there’s, you know, a much larger, you know, if we take all these numbers together, you have about 19 million people who are either homeless or paying over 50% of their income in housing costs. So those are the folks that are homeless, they’re pay cheque away, and next homeless, because they’re living so close to the edge. So, those are the people that were really focused on. Absolutely, if you’re paying more than 30% of your income on housing costs. it’s known to be a huge stressor and…really hard to be affordable over the long-term. Our focus is really taking us to say we have a huge population right here that’s you know 50%. And what I want to shift the night, I think we have seen this in the conversation over last two days, but that this is not just a housing problem, but this is…is a much broader social crisis then we know that where you grow up, and where your home is, has a profound effect on the person you become. The health outcomes, your educational outcomes and just generally your well-being… your well-being as a, as an individual One of the people I’d like to quote is.. you know, I’ve been really looking deeply at this inner section of health and housing and there’s a woman Dr. Megan Sandall who is the head of children’s health watch. And she calls housing a vaccine. And she says,”You know, that is really…it literally keeps kids healthy.” and it provides preventative action against a whole host of other ills. So, there is no doubt that we see in our work that if you have unstable housing, poor quality housing, that you are really…determ… you are really, you know, affected by outsize health risks. And certainly as we look at something like asthma, and I’ll touch on this later. We see very dramatic changes and we have the ability to influence that by the quality of housing that kids have. There’re also more…kids are more likely to suffer from a developmental disability or a mental health issue. They’re less likely to graduate from high school or more likely to abuse substances or land in jail. And we talked a minute ago about toxic stress. We’re finding that toxic stress is so rampant in some of the places that we work and so those stressors, whether they are mild or more extreme, have huge impact over the long term. And certainly, we know that the trade-offs we make, we see it everyday, we talk with the folks. Dealing with food insecurity, housing insecurity. You’re paying more for your house, you know. you’re trading off with basic necessities, terrible trade offs that you should not have to make. If you’re paying more for your house, you can buy as much food. We get that. So, each of this has certainly big…each of these factors has big implications on our society, so the way we view it is that, you know, we can invest now, or pay for these costs later. So a lot of the work that we’re trying to do at enterprise is really to think about what are those interventions that we can make today how we bust down some of those silos and make some of those investments today that can have longer term pay offs. It’s hard, it’s not the way… we’re wired today in terms of our incentives but we do think it’s really important. And I have to say if we’re.. if I’m on the optimistic in the.. of the world today, I would be seeing some, definitely some bright spots. So as we look at private sector participation in some of the investments that enterprises are making, we certainly see folks that are incented to do so through the community reinvestment act, all the banks are coming in to invest in housing and communities, but there’s a lot of people that don’t have a natural or a federal or state incentive to do something but they actually see a business incentive. So we’re seeing people like… you might’ve seen the news with United Healthcare. United Healthcare is investing a 150 million dollars into housing, actually going out and investing to make sure it gets built. Why? Because they realise they’re going pay a higher premiums for kids that their ensuring at the end of the day if they’re not doing an intervention upfront. You know we see people like Berkshire Hathaway, we’ve seen Google come in and do investments and I think that’s because, you know, you are starting to see folks that want to come in, they want to participate in their communities, but they also have, in San Francisco certainly you’re seeing a lot of pressure there, are folks that have a responsibility where their workers really cannot be housed so it’s starting to become a real economic issue, and real business driving issue. Okay, so that’s the problem that we’re facing. In terms of solutions, I guess I would want to say, first of all, just our basic model is, we’re looking very closely at affordability, availability and home set are healthy, well-designed, and sustainable and connected to jobs, healthcare, good schools and transit. So how do we actually do this? We really…we take a…I guess our three legs of a stool if you will, there’s three things that we do at Enterprise that we think are essential for lifting up communities. Not the only three things but bringing the aggravating and capital and bringing that in to communities, innovating solutions on the ground and transforming policy And the way we like to think about it is that, you know, we’re trying to drive public-private public partnerships that bring in resources into communities. We know that the communities we work in our start capital. That we need to build for the housing, primary health care centers, charter schools. We work to aggregate capital and bring that in. And to do that in a way that really requires a lot of business discipline so that we can go to people like United Healthcare and others and ask them to come in, and come in because we can *inaudible* something that is typically double bottom line or even triple bottom line with an environmental bent. Secondly, innovating solutions. You know, we work…we go deep in ten markets across the country. We do this and we look at, including right here in LA, and those when we talk about innovation, that is where innovation is happening. These are our idea labs where we’re trying to say, “What really works on the ground?” because we know it’s the engagement with the various sectors that I mentioned that we have to really go deep in those markets and so that’s what we’re doing, and that’s where we’re partnering up to deal with local issues and then trying to lift those up on a national basis in terms of what works. Transforming policy. It’s really…one of the things that…that I think is just fundamental about enterprise and many of our colleagues in the field is that, how How do we…our systemic lens has to take into account, policy. We can do all the work we want on the ground, for not lifting it up into policy solutions, our scale is never going to achieve the scale of the issues. What I think is…what we have found really helps in our policy conversations, is that we can point back to capital flows, what’s working on the ground, and have real evidence and data to support our work. So, that’s what we’re trying to do and we do this, all of this work I should say is in partnership and collaboration every single day with folks that are.. local and many of you in the room. And really lifting that up into policy solutions, and we’ll talk a little bit about that in a minute. So I’m not going to spend much time on this, but since Raphael said, you know, one of the reasons I’m up here is because, the scale which we operate. I want to give you just a quick snapshot of, you know, over the past three decades we’ve invested about 16 billion dollars into communities. And, you know, if we look at how many homes that’s created, you know, we’ve helped, you know, directly touch about 300,000 homes and touched millions of lives. So, certainly a very good scale yet we certainly are very challenged by what the need and so we’re challenging ourselves to be at the place like this over thinking about innovation and what are some of those next opportunities. Last year, we brought about 2.5 billion into communities and we continue to just try to grow that. So we’re looking at our impact. This is just a snapshot of one piece of our impact. We’re also, obviously, we’re not only doing housing, we’re doing childcare facilities, charter schools. So, there’s a lot of impact delivery that’s not up here and not to mention some of the system may change that we bring through policy work. So, let’s dig a little deeper. I want to show you some…examples. I’m going to go through a couple of examples. That do a couple of things. One is, what are smart purchases that are working in local markets that we think have the opportunity that we, you know, can expand more broadly. One of the interesting programmes that I have seen is a housing first model. So, we have a…a programme in Cleveland. And enterprise has been…leading with some of our other partners. Working with local leaders to end homelessness and this isn’t just about fighting poverty, but we’re also framing this around the cost savings. So really important work that’s happening here. And we know that, for each dollar, that’s invested in permanent supportive housing, this saves $2 elsewhere in government spending. So, whether it’s homeless shelters, emergency rooms. But it takes very strong leaders and partners to get that kind of work done. What’s happening in Cleveland is pretty remarkable, that Cleveland Mayor, Mayor Frank Jackson, and local partners really put a stake in the ground and said, “We’re going to end chronic homelessness by 2020.” And so they’re putting data behind it. There, you know, a collaborative, you know, a kind of collected impact model with stakeholder sitting around the table. And…it’s, you know, there’s 1, 200 folks that are chronically homeless in Cleveland. And what’s really unique about this is I think when we talk about what are some of the barriers to housing. One of them is the self-imposed one. You have to get sober. Or you have to hit a certain clinical goal before you get into housing. Is very hard to achieve some of those goals if you don’t have a safe and affordable home. So, what Housing First does, it say, get into a home and then let’s bring in the mental health and the physical health elements. That’s proving to be quite successful, and the homelessness rates in Cleveland have dropped about 62% since this is…come into play. And I see that we’re going to hit that goal. We’re going to hit that goal, definitely, before 2020. Another area that I have been very inspired by and challenged by, is the deep rooted poverty in public housing. Enterprise had not historically been, oh wow, five minutes. In the process, that has been historically been rooted in public housing, doing our work there, but as we look at where’s concentrated poverty and where’s that happening, and where can we be high impact. There’s a couple of places we really want to, that we’re working in. Number one, HOPE SF. Some of you may be familiar with this. A very distressed public housing sites in San Francisco. Where they’re the highest incidents of child welfare cases, the biggest system cost, and so we’re working with many partners under us here in this room, to try to catalyse solutions there. What this is look like is, you know, crime is rampant, we had two thirds of the population who was in poverty. Kids’ chronic absenteeism rate from school about 58%, compared to an average directly in San Francisco of about 6%. So, we have a collective impact model there. We have the San Francisco unified school district, we have the experts at center for youth wellness who are dealing with aces, the adverse childhood experiences, the toxic stress. Having folks gathered around the table to say what can we do over the long term to really change the situation there, and it’s very different in a couple of regards. One is,converting that housing to mixed income. So that we have a range of incomes. Number 2, it’s a collective impact model with those various sectors at the table. Number three, we have real data to inform our works so that we can watch the trends and how this improves over time. And the most important thing is that the residents stay in place. Many times, as we’re seeing public housing revitalised, you’re seeing residents pushed off into other places. The problems dispersed not solved. This is a place where we’re keeping residents in place and we’re doing very deep intervention. It is very hard, very challenging and will be long-term. But we see some great potential in this, and some great private sector partners coming in. Secondly, I would say, you know, did Asters continue, as we know, to have out-sized impacts on low-income people. So, after.. in New Orleans, basically after the storm, we went down and we committed to do 10,000 homes in New Orleans. So, we’ll well on our way of achieving that, one of the most challenging projects that we took on, ambitious was in historic *inaudible* neighbourhood where we’re revitalising 900 public housing apartments, and adding another apartments to make it mixed income. Recently, whole foods went in and there’s job training. A lot of folks are now employed at the whole foods. So, we’re… having the first time, we have enough fresh food in the neighbourhood, connecting to anchor institutions like Tulane, bringing in, you know, schools, and it’s starting to change the whole vibe of the neighbourhood and the impact and the outcomes for low-income families. So, I raised these up as examples of things that I think are working. There is a lot of hope in these models and I think that they can be expanded. Quickly, something else right here that we’re doing in LA, and we’re doing it in other cities across the country, is to say, we know that, you know, for every dollar that spent on housing, often 77 cents of that is given back in transportation costs, unacceptable. You know, super commuters going 2-3 hours, we can’t push families far out and think we’re doing a great service. So, yeah. This is really to say, you have things happening right in LA where you have huge amounts of dollars coming in, where long-term funding streams are being set today, infrastructure being built around transportation. How we think about housing, and making sure that low-income families participate in the economic, sort of, condition that are being set forward is absolutely critical. So, equitable transit-oriented development making sure that you have homes next to transit, thinking about the environmental impact. What’s happening with the economy, the schools and how are those connected to transit systems. So we started this work in Denver, we brought it to La, and we’re expanding that out into eight different communities. So again, taking something from a pie lid to a scale and we think that this has real significance on…a national footprint. And one quick last example since we’re at the aviation conference, I want to say, you know, Enterprise bringing communities is something that…I think what we suffer from a lot in our industry too, is incredible fragmentation. Not getting, you know, together with the same voice.. Enterprise green communities said, low-income families have the most to gain from living in green homes. It affects asthma. We’ve seen some of our buildings asthma rate decreased by 66%. What’s the number one reason, kids don’t go to show up at school? Asthma. You know, you’re in new, you know, you’re in emergency rooms. And so, if we can bring down asthmas rate by greening affordable housing, just starting there. Pretty amazing. So, that’s what we’re doing through Enterprise green communities, it’s proving out the notion that for low-income families, the energy efficiency, the water efficiency, how do we innovate around that to make sure low income families are participating from the changes here. There’s environmental benefits, economic benefits, and real health benefits. So, we’re…we have, actually a major seven-year study that we’re looking at that data. We’re…we’re going out and greening housing and then we’re saying,”How does that change outcomes over a 7 year period?” You know, Mount Sinai is the lead researcher in it, but it’s looking at three cities. And if we’re successful and looking at that, then we will have real data that will inform our choices and then we can build that into policy mechanisms and set incentives, which is just what we’ve done through Enterprise green communities. And if I had more time to talk, I would talk about the innovation process that’s behind that because that was very much about being open-sourced. Let’s don’t be closed and proprietor, let’s be open source, let’s do some rapid innovation and prototyping. And let’s think about, how do we get this into motion and, you know, we gave away little what do you call those that…thumb drives, right? With all of our information, and said, “Here’s how you brand this your own.” This is not about Enterprise, put your name on this, pass this out and let’s build that into policy mechanism so that we can get much broader scale. So, there’s a lot of great stuff that’s happening that…that we can lift up and get to bigger scale but it is not easy and it’s long-term. The path ahead, we want to end housing insecurity in the United States. Super tough. We got to expand the public programmes that are working, talk about tax reform, low income housing tax credit, you know, Chairman Kemp came out with his opening salvo and tax reform. Low-income housing tax credit was protected but others weren’t. We don’t know how that’s all gonna play out, it’s gonna be very challenging. I would say housing finance reform, we won’t talk about that because I am out of time, or maybe in Q&A. There are major opportunities in front of us right now, as housing finance reform gets…those programs get re-written, and low-income families have been left out of that discussion. So, Enterprises put, you know, has been doing a lot of work with our partners to get multi-family, low-income needs on that agenda, and I’m happy to say that with a recent bill that just came out of senate banking, that most of that language was included. It’s not perfect, but we are starting to make some good end roads. Private investments, that’s one of the things where we’re really trying to push the innovation where it’s paved for success, social impact bonds, new funds to track retail investors. This is a way we’re getting the private sector hooked. Come in, invest with us and then we expand the footprint of things that we can do with them. Build capacity in other parts of the country, you know, the public sector and non-profit sector, we work hard to build that capacity, So, we have a consulting organization where we’re working in partnership, bringing advisory services to 20 other cities currently. But, that’s what we’re trying to say, how can we scale this? We can’t bring, you know, our work everywhere, but can we go in on some elected engagements. And the next generation of public policies, you know, Alice Solis here, you know her yesterday she gave you heads up our external affairs, doing public policy efforts but we absolutely have to work together to think much more boldly and creatively about the public policy arena. And elevate housing in our issues on the national agenda. What’s our master narrative? How are we talking about ourselves in a different way? You know, in terms of some of the outcomes that we’ve talked about, breaking down those silos, to really get traction on the national stage, I think there’s some real opportunity here. And, you know, you all know how to help. Invest, sign up, advocate. Let’s do it together. So, thanks a lot! Yeah.>I’ll make the mandatory comment that I’m between you and lunch after what sounds like, it’s been a terrific day-and-a-half of conversation, I’m sorry that I wasn’t here yesterday, that’s usually the polite thing you say when you have to miss the first day of something but I’ve heard enough just this morning to make me really sorry that I wasn’t here yesterday. I’m going to just talk about three observations that I took from the papers, that I think relate to at least how Casey thinks about how we odd to move forward, and then three lessons learned that I want to share with you from Casey’s, from Casey’s work. These are babies. There are 12,000 babies that are going to be born today, 360.000 babies this month. And we’ve talked a bit about this question of policy that alleviates hardship…ideas that basically will prevent individuals from going through poverty. If we think about these babies…not just as how do we protect them from hardship, But rather the answer to the question of what’s this country’s going to do about is the current economic situation. Then I think we start to flip the narrative just a bit. And here’s the three observations that I wanna share, that I took from the papers and that relate to some of the ways that Casey is now thinking about our work moving forward. One is, this increasing incorporation of an understanding about child development, about brain science, about the impact of toxic stress, adverse childhood experiences trauma, etcetera, as relevant to public policy. Not just relevant in some kind of clinical one off kind of way, but actually relevant to how we think about poverty. It starts to open up a conversation about how our various opportunity structures, and a kind of a power imbalance is that we have in this country, the impact of poverty and concentrated poverty. How that actually plays out in the lives of these 12,000 babies that are going to be born today to either contribute to a deepening of inequality and a widening of a…the spread of that outcomes. Or can we think about it differently in a way that’s going to give them in a better lot of.. better lives. We’ve all known for a long time and certainly, the Casey foundation has focused for a long time on the importance of early childhood development. We’ve known about the impact of brain development, the 0-3 movement, and I think Greg Duncan and his colleagues and Donna Pavetti’s work in this is a good example of taking this research and translating it in the practice. So, we’ve known a lot about that. We’ve known that these 12,000 babies that are going to be born today, if they are growing up in households that are not stable, that don’t provide a predictable kind of environment, don’t provide a safe environment, that their prospects for developing their full potential is gonna be affected. We certainly have known that, we’re learning now in much more specific ways, about the role of stress hormones in brain development, about how cognitive development impacted by toxic stress etcetera. So, we’ve known that for a long time. We are increasingly becoming more sophisticated about brain development later in life. Not later in life like my later in life, but like in the 16 to 24 aged group. Now, I was telling somebody this morning that there was this terrible period of my life, where I have four teenagers at home at the same time. And I think the question was something…Terri like, was that abundant family or are you crazy? Just crazy. But we have 4 kids within the 5 year period, Twins are in there. And so we had these teenagers around us, and it’ll come as no surprise to anybody who’s raised a teenager, that their brains aren’t quite developed. Right. And as you’ve watched as I’ve watched my children move into young adulthood, it has not been a shock either to realise that their brains don’t completely develop until they’re mid-20s, although for males, I’m told it’s 68, So, that’s what I’m… I’m shooting for that, I’m really, you know, Hoping that those synapses are gonna…connect. But we actually now know more than we ever did that the game isn’t over by age 3, 4, or 5. That in fact these executive function skills *inaudible* talks about it in her paper, are very much continuing to be developed in…in adolescence. What’s really interesting to us at Casey is how these things are all linked together. That in fact, if you think of that 16-24, 25 age group, Not just as their own executive functioning are developed, executive functioning is developing and they are becoming even more, or less ready to be effective employees. But they are the parents, or soon to be parents of the most vulnerable and the youngest children. And it turns out, it’s common sense, that what you need to be a good employee, impulse control, multi-tasking, judgement. All those things are also necessary for you to be a good parent. So, we think about it that way then that opens up a whole different way of how we invest, I believe, in human development, thinking about a toofer, we certainly focus on young children as we have for a long time invested in young children, and we invest in that 16 to 24 age group from the perspective of preparing them to be successful employees, contributing to the economy and to be successful parents. Now, again, from the papers, it’s clear that it’s not simply a matter of investing individual folks. As Bob was saying earlier, simply increasing income, can have a huge impact on development. And the more we learn about brain development, the more that makes sense. We actually know, that when folks, if I were in a situation of scarcity, and I had to juggle many, many things at the same time, that would start to eat up my bandwidth, right. and we’re seeing in social experiments, we’re seeing in naturally occurring experiments, where knowing we’re learning more and more from public policy research, that simply adding income, simply adding resources of various types, enables individuals to manage their bandwidth better, their executive functioning increases, which freeze up their energy to invest in their children, which again has a virtuous kind of cycle going on. So that’s…I think a very interesting part of what we heard. Next two observations are much briefer. Don’t despair. Second observation is that, as I read all of these papers and as I heard the debate today, I thought that terrific examples of bringing a rigorous focus to bear on what works. Sort of looking at the data and the research to support the basic idea that in fact policy matters, that it makes a difference. And as importantly, that government is a necessary and critical part of our solutions here in improving the lives for kids and families. It’s an opportunity to change the narrative and move past on the one hand we often hear in research, nothing works, all right. Well, guess what? We’ve got lots of evidence that lots of things don’t work. But, in fact, lots of things do work and that government is the problem. In fact, I think we know from the papers that we saw the conversation we’re having, what we’ve learned over the last 20 years, to look back on the war on poverty that in fact, government has to be part of the solution. Third observation is that, as Terri was mentioning a moment ago, I think we’re becoming more sophisticated, and gradually moving past the rhetoric about this, although the term is not great, collective impact, it sort of sounds like it will all would be some kind of Unitarian festival or something, but it, no offence to any Unitarians out there but the, the point here is that rather than just talk in broad rhetorical terms about all the stakeholders have to be at the table etcetera, we are gradually learning exactly what it takes. Let me give you an example, I was in a…the reason I wasn’t here yesterday is there’s a…an emerging effort in Baltimore to try to bring together a bunch of foundations, the universities, the mayor, the school system, business, etcetera, to focus in on the entire span of development around children and try to do a better job, right? A lot of cities sort of taking up this idea, strike network is just one example. And the Commissioner.. the secretary for health for the state is at the table, and he was bringing 10 indicators that he wanted to track about the health of children. And he said a very important thing, he said we need to stay in our lane in the health department. We need to work on what we know. These ten indicators have the common characteristic, that they’re all relevant to success in school. Terri gave a great example, asthma. you know, kids who have asthma aren’t going to get to school, *inaudible* at the end of yesterday, you know, whole bunch of other examples. The point is that he was bringing to the table from this collective impact standpoint, here’s our contribution, and the university president, the Hopkins president, the president University of Maryland of Baltimore, they were bringing to the table what they could contribute. And it was a much more sophis, in my experience.. It was a much more sophisticated kind of conversation. Then when the folks just get around, and they all talk about the problem, and they leave, and a few months go by, and they comeback. So, I think that these papers provide some lifting up examples and opportunities where we can reinforce efforts across multiple sectors we heard about in common health education and immigration policy and community development etcetera. So, some lessons learned. If I can… Here it is. Sorry babies, you’ll be back later. So this is one bumper sticker, “Bad systems trump good programs.”. Imagine you’re in the DMV, all right? The pride of motor vehicles. And you got a kind of a complicated problem and you’re in line, and you’re in line, and you’re in line. And you’re standing there and if you’re like any other human being on the face of this earth you start to think, I could…I could do this better. I could figure out a better system that will move us through this process. And then you notice, There’s like this. Sort of, angry looking mean lady over here and everybody that goes up to her, they walk away with a frown and she’s just not having a good day. And then there’s this other woman over here, who’s bright and shipper and everybody believes leaves her with a smile, and you’re like, “Oh, please Lord, when it comes my turn, don’t let me go to the mean lady. Let me go to the nice lady.” Right? We’ve had this experience, right? Now imagine that, that lady, is not just working on your car registration or your driver’s licence, but she’s going to decide after a conversation with you whether or not your child is going to sleep with you that night. Then that notion of system, that notion of whether the system works or not, starts to become a lot more important. Or she’s going to decide whether or not you’re going to have the resources you need to feed your kids. So, this bumper sticker of bad systems trump good programs, basically goes to the very fundamental ideas that the way our systems work. Now, I’m not talking about the broad public policy. I’m talking about the way the systems work at the state level, at the local level, the way they work that can either open doors to opportunity or they can close towards the opportunity. So, when I read the papers, one of the things that i was struck by is how many of those papers talked about specific what I think of was gears and systems, had if you changed that gear, in fact the entire system would work better. I thought Harry’s work on the sexual and career of..pathway based on employment training, that’s a good example thinking about that gear, and how that drives the rest of the workforce development system, or the community college re-mediation divest that kind of proposes another kind of gear that we look at. Had these courses work on, you need to stick longer at school improvement. You know, the school improvement programmes, all of it would be for a longer period of time because that’s a gear of that you can pushed, focusing on quality in early learning challenge grants, and not just sort of broad measures of quality like counting the number of teachers in the building, but rather looking at what makes a difference in qualities in the example of…gears. The bottom line is there are lots and lots of programs on the ground that work quite well. And I promise you that if their connected to a system that is dysfunctional, the programme either will not survive or they will have lots of folks coming to the programme who are being referred by the system who don’t belong in that programme, will have so many eligibility barriers, that they’re not going to use the programme well. And I think I could give you lots of examples of that but I instead will move on to the next bumper sticker. So, I have one of my sons who survived adolescence, is a software engineer, and he used to talk about, and still does talks about Kludge. Lots of you know what kludge is but just in case if anybody else who doesn’t know what kludge is, when you’re writing a a software programme, you usually start with something that’s already there, and you wanted to take on a new function, so you add some code. But it never fits quite right, right? So you add kind of complicated code. And over time, as you add code and add code and add code and add code, to something that wasn’t meant to do that in the first place, you build up Kludge. And your programme starts to crash and, I don’t know.. there’s words, Windows. No, I should not say Windows. Some programs crash, you know, and you can’t figure out why they the crash. Well, As you think about… And I owe this to Steven. Steven Gitelis from Hopkins has this great article about kludgeocracy in American National Affairs in Fall 2013, So this is… So, this is kludge right. We have and we know we have is part of out political system, the way we make policy, and there’s lots of good about this, we have this notion of disjointed incremental-ism, We continually add to complicated policy frameworks as we move forward. The problem is that families at the core of this end up with exactly the problem that Bob was talking about, Terri was talking about, talked about the number of the papers, which is the families have to negotiate their way through all this Kludge. So, one of the lessons is that Kludge eats innovation for lunch. You’re not going to be able to sustain innovation if you don’t deal with the kludge. So, you know, its one of the reasons why, there’s a great statistic and I think, Bob, this is right, I think we might have even stolen this from you guys, But only 5% of families get all the benefits that they actually are technically entitled to get. Part of the problem is kludge, this notion of going to multiple places in order to do it. You know at Casey we’ve tried to work on things like centres for working families, sort of one stop shops. You know, together with folks like the centre on budget and policy priorities, we worked on trying to make EITC at CTC application easier to work with others around automatic benefits processes, the work support strategies, all of these are part of this. I think, from the papers, the work that *inaudible* did on, really focused on the project based housing subsidies which carry with a lot of kludge to more tenant-based kinds of strategies. I’m not a housing expert, but that sounds like a smart idea to me, to de-kludge some of that Barbara Wolf’s work on expanding community health centres, and putting them where the priority populations are located, so there’s less Kludge as you try to access those programs, and have a Schwartz’s work on…really providing coaching to parents so they’re making the right educational choices etcetera. All these things, I think, are ways to deal with this Kludge problem. Last lesson learned, stick with it till you get to the scale. So, obviously we’re talking about a huge set of complicated problems. In order for us to get to alleviating poverty. This particular slide, somebody else might do this differently, but this is the slide we used at Casey when we were trying to figure out whether or not we should invest at the next stage. And this makes things look a lot more linear, obviously, than real life is, but it gives us a sense. All right, so where are we on our path to some kind of scale. What I really liked from the papers is that, several of them recommended that, instead of thinking about a programme going to scale, and I think that’s real important to the non-profit sector, We tend to think about programmes in the non-profit sector as if we were in the for-profit sector, and I think that’s a mistake. In the for-profit sector, when you think about scale, you think about how do you market the programme, how do you get more and more market share, how do you get replication, you know, more is better, so if you have 20, if you get to 2000, then you’re scaling up, that’s a good thing, right? In the not-for-profit sector, I think that’s a mistake. I think we have to think about results, another words from a population standpoint, how many people are you reaching and how many of them are better off, and it’s not necessarily the best way to get there is replicating a particular programme. It may be replicating the principles behind programs, maybe replicating some of the techniques, some of the strategies, but it’s a mistake to just think about replicating programme. Not that programme replication isn’t critically important, but it is also incredibly difficult to do, and we’ve got a lot more experience in failure here than we have in success. So from my standpoint and what I’ve sort of pushed the Casey to look at, is it’s a combination of evidence-based programs married to really important implementation signs, so we know how to implement to this kind of broad system reform, so it’s nested in a system that supports it and very importantly policy change, especially around financing, because financing drives everything when it gets down to, to scaling up. I’ll leave you with one example, I’m sorry babies, not yet, One example. You know, that relates this conversation earlier when Sheldon we had this sort of, are we pessimistic, optimistic or whatever. So, I will tell you an optimist story. About 23 years ago, the Casey Foundation got involved in the juvenile justice space, it was around the time of the so-called “super predator debate”, do you remember this? That wasn’t a drill. This was the notion that because the crack epidemic, because of an increase in the adolescent population, because of breakdowns in cities, etc., etc., etc., there’s a whole generation of predator teens. Now they were, I can tell you, four of them, they were probably…there was a whole generation of predator teens that were going to come in and just lay waste to our society and we need, by God, better start building prison cells. You know, we better start detaining more, we got to get tough, and you could not, as a politician, resist this wave. You could not stand up and say anything except, “By god, you’re right, we’re going to lock up more kids.” And our incarceration rate, our detention rates started to go up like…like this. That was the exact moment that the Casey foundation and its full wisdom decided to take on juvenile justice, and suggest we ought not be locking some of the kids up. So I won’t bore you with 22 years of work, other than to say we started in five places, screwed two up pretty well, one and two we did okay. But we kept pushing at it, pushing at it, pushing at it. This is sticking with stuff till you get the scale. 28 year later, the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, which focuses on when you lock kids up before their hearing, like when you first pick ’em up when you do something bad, but you haven’t had a hearing yet, We are now in 256 jurisdictions in 39 states. We track the average daily population in the detention facilities in those jurisdictions and the average reduction is 43% in the places where we worked. So, there’s 43% fewer kids locked up. The entire thinking about juvenile justice is change. Not just because buzz, don’t get me wrong, of course. There’s a lot that’s going into it. But the notion that the best way to respond to juvenile delinquency is to lock the kid up. Seems like an antiquated idea and it’s only been 20 years. Now, 20 years is a long time, but it’s only been 20 years, the narrative can change, in fact, you can make a difference. So, with that, I think I will set you free. Thank you so much.>Thank you all of you, for really thoughtful discussions and reflections on the issues that we’re facing. The compass…structure of conversation, I’ve been saying that repeatedly, So, I wanted to give you guys a chance to have a conversation, so I’ll just start by just asking, what are the things that you heard in each other’s presentations they got you thinking that you would want to speak to and maybe need to kick us on to a road of discussion.>Well, I was struck by the pithiness of something *inaudible* that it said that bad systems trump good programmes. and it particularly resignated for me cause, and I were..we were up to our eyeballs now and one problem after another, many of which have not been in the papers and we don’t want them in the newspapers. Well, looking at the affordable care act in terms of actual *inaudible*. And without getting into the details, one of the things that highlights is that when people whether they are the federal or state legislators, particularly it’s federal one, when people are designing big important things, I think often and not enough attention is paid to how does the administrative of apparatus actually work at the state and local level to deliver the goods and achieve the intentions that are being set forth. You know, we have all kinds of issues now on the intersection, between Medicaid and subsidies to get coverage in the exchanges, low-income people’s income go up and down. You have to have a smooth system or a lot of people are either not gonna get in or get caught through the cracks. We just, last week, had a meeting with the White House and HHS, and, you know, I find it kind of amazing this hasn’t been focused on. But, you know, the kind of thing you definitely think of and they do think of and design is you have to have limited open enrolment periods, you can’t let people wait till their sick, to come in. But in designing, who gets a special enrolment period, of outside an open enrolment? What we found is…There isn’t right now. We’re just getting a paper on this. I’m hoping this will change. There isn’t right now a special enrolment period in the case of a divorce. But income often drops a lot in divorce. If you go below the poverty line, you can get Medicaid. But, let’s suppose you have a married family, there’s a…there is a income level that they’re not eligible for subsidies, whatever the set-up, there’s a divorce at the end of the year, the divorced spouse is going to file in as a single or head of household. I look at her income for the year, so very possibly have been eligible for a subsidy. This isn’t like the earned income credit where you look back at the end of the year and you get a cheque, you can’t get coverage retroactively. There has to be a system where your income falls, you get in, it’s part of the larger thing of thinking about, what happens when there’re changes in circumstances, cause the poverty population is so dynamic. It has so many changes and circumstances. This is just one little example, but too often there is this sense of “I’ve got the great policy idea. I finally have the political support. I don’t have worry about the details. The…the administering agencies will figure that out.” But you have to design it with the framework that allows it to be thrown out in a way that actually works. I just think this is, you know, the most important of many ways. Social policy innovation, in a the long time, is the Affordable Care Act to potential recovery for 30 million-plus people. And it’s just an object for us and for all of us that we have to think as much about designing the systems as the policies when we’re creating new policies.>Obviously, you agree with that. I’ll take it to maybe… Next step, there’s the question of learning as its implemented something as complicated as the ACA, And therefore adjusting the policy levers if you will, in terms of what permissible. If one control everything it’s a stroke of a pen kind of change if you will. And then, it’s not but, but it’s in addition to that, there is the, on the ground, how people interpret that and how they work with it. So I’ll give you one quick example, most of our foster care systems in the country, the States, are essentially similar in design. They operate under similar kinds of rules and regulations systems differences. If you’re in one state…oh I mean, if you’re in one state and you’re removed from your home, your odds of being in a foster home or in a home with your relative are about 90 to 95 percent in a particular state, If you’re in another state, your odds are only about 70%. In other words, the rate of kids who are in an institution, in a residential care, in a, sort of a, impersonal group home, are about 30 percent in one state, and about 5 percent in another state. Same rules, same policies. So, it’s really, I think for the both end. And that fix of course all that most work complicated, but most foundations, most of us, don’t tend to focus on either the details of the policy implementation or the nuts and bolts, the blocking and tackling, you know, we’ve gone in to many states and we’ve reduced the cognitive care rate significantly. And it has not been by changing laws. it’s really been by working with them on how to assist them…function. It’s really about them.>And I would just say, you guys are, in some sense, channelling what I’ve been saying here for… for why I chose the *inaudible* center and not the real estate group. And that too often we think a lot about designing programmes *inaudible* and we’re figuring out our incentives and know how to do that. The blocking and tackling, the nuts and bolts stuff, that actually is hard, it’s non-sexy, it’s tedious…but it’s incredibly important. And we don’t have enough people, who are actually trained to be experts in that. So that, when you build your team, and you think about who’s going to be doing this stuff, you know, that’s the person who can do this and who’s going to make sure that we set this up in a way that it actually works. There are just far too few people who would do this. And this is one of the reasons why I think the more we talk about it, the better off it would be.>Or ever. No, I was just going to agree and I think that where we’ve seen that on the ground has been in, you know, you can think of a lot of examples of that, but you know, where it was most evident. To me it was the work around the foreclosure crisis, where you had, you know, a lot of regulations, a lot of programs, without regard for…how does that really work and apply on the ground? and so, there was a, you know, a lot of information…misinformation and you know, continuing need to be channelled for what’s really happening in low income communities to making sure that we could get that back into the system and those, you know, something our neighbourhood globalization programme came out with this…there are massive resources going into low-income communities. But if they weren’t… they weren’t feeling in a right way or in a usable way. I’m looking at my colleague, Jeff Shaffer, right there who headed up the efforts here in Los Angeles, using in some of that money. But real systems changed and process changes had to be adopted, and *inaudible*, and we got sequentially better over the first-round, second-round, third round. But some of that had been thought about upfront. It certainly would have been a much more effective use of resources.>I like a major challenge, and I’m not sure what’s the best way to make progress on this. This is something some *inaudible* should look into, *inaudible* should look into. Again the affordable characters one would only need one example. We have a really serious problem, that we’re increasingly in an information age, things are online, systems work through online. But government’s federal line state, do not have, on our staff, people with the kind of teams of people with the sophisticated IT technology to design these systems themselves. The contract amount. The contracting firms are not experts in the details and the nuts and bolt. What do you do when someone’s income changes? How does this interface with that? And the people in the federal and state agencies who manage and oversee the contracts, they kind of have these broad contract management skills. They’re not experts on the details of the program. Now, we can see this in space in the Affordable Care Act But it’s way beyond the affordable care act. It was an important column. I think it was the New York Times. I forget the paper. By David *inaudible* of Georgetown Law School, about 6 or 8 weeks ago, how logging in a number of states around the country when various IT systems were changed. Glitches that came up, where hundreds of thousands of people suddenly were shut out or couldn’t get renewed for SNAP or Medicaid or whatever. The example that we experienced, that kind of stunned us at the centre when we came across it, but it’s a great example. In the late 90’s, the federal government did something very important, and it put out *inaudible* agency guidance, covering…food-stamps, Medicaid…other programmes in which, citizen, children and immigrant families are eligible, but the parents may be undocumented and the question was, how the…what the guidance says, to states, is you cannot set up your applications, in ways, where the parents do not apply for the children because they would feel they would endanger themselves. And we were in a largely paper application, for programming world, the paper applications were fixed. So they were overwhelmingly in an online application. In about 2 or 3 years ago, our staff at the senator got the idea, we’re going to take every states’ *inaudible* application and every *inaudible* states Medicaid application, We’ll go track online applications. We’re gonna try and apply online as though we were an undocumented parent trying to enroll a citizen child. and we figured we might find a few states where something was wrong. Almost every state in the country, it didn’t work. Nobody had…when the IT contractors and the IT firms.. you know, you go through and you go to hit ‘submit’, and it would say you missed this field, and the field would expose the undocumented parent. into when we took it to agricultural and health and human services, they were stunned. Nobody had looked at it, you know. The contract management people and the policy people were silent. Now, they went back to every state and told them to fix it. It’s largely fixed in SNAP but not quite all the way there yet in Medicaid. But all of this is kind of making me think, we…we have to solve this problem somehow. We have to get better government performance. These are the IT and IT contractors in the major public benefit programs, or we’re just going to keep having these problems. I’m not sure how we get from here to there? But I think this is a pretty serious problem.>So, it definitely is. And I’ll just say, I live this problem for three recent years. Where, you know, it has, we have programs that are still on code *inaudible* Right, so…so, the notion of how you do upgrading, and what you can do, and what kind of expertise you have in-house, plus you have a contract out-floor. And the concerns about corruption and *inaudible* have led to separating these functions explicitly. And all that separation, tremendously reduces the ability to have the coordination, natural issues come up in real-time, actually before real-time. And then we have a piece, which is also important, this is true, not just in IT, but in contracting out generally is that, it’s a political winner to have things on contract, as opposed to hiring people on staff. But that the government looks smaller, even though the functions need to be done. And so a lot of the contracting out happens before it begins, reasons, So, we can say we shrunk the government and this all shows up just in another line item but that has functional applications that I don’t think are fully understood. And for appreciate it in many of these instances, you guys just stumbled upon one of them. I’m actually going to a different issue. Patrick, you were talking about your meeting yesterday, in Baltimore, where all these folks came together. They all in their various piece expertise to the table. Who manages this? And…the massive resources that are now being made available but how does this play out in a way, that we’re confident that something concrete emerges, that actually is trying.. it stays on the point that we’re trying to be on.>So, I don’t have the answer for that. I’ll share..I know about the field here, which is that *inaudible* people who describe themselves as loosely affiliated, or they’re doing strive type initiative. I understand from Jeff Edmundson that some of the 80s cities around the country, you know, 80s some cities are doing this. And I think Jeff would say, if he were here, that maybe 20 of those 80 are actually taking it up in a way that he would consider to be consistent. And I think you would also say we’re still learning the whole lot about how it works. I think it starts with, what we at Casey call result-based leadership. That is, it’s building on a very much of dated-driven, clarity about result should turn to achieve, commitment to measurement, trading of not just the top leaders but the middle leaders and how you actually put that in place, so there’s rapid prototyping, and learning from that and then continuous improvement. Knowing that this is a long-term not a short-term kind of approach. The management part of it, different folks have tried different things, some have sort of turned to existing entity instead, you know, You know, foundations or others have stepped up and say we’re going to pay you to basically manage…the herding of the cats, as Jeff would say, what manage the process itself, others have started new organisations. In Baltimore, we’re in early stages, I think we’re going to end up with some hybrid of that. You know, we’ve got united way at the table. We got close to the table who are used to this kind of broad things. But it’s a…it’s a highly complex, high risk in a sense, we can end up spending a lot of money and time and not get the results. But in today’s world I’m not sure how else we start to turn around a city like Baltimore unless we have the folks who control the resources at the table, agreed to, mutually hold each other, accountable for certain results, I don’t know how else…how else you get there? And in a place like Baltimore, where, if you were to take out Hopkins and the University of Maryland, and *inaudible* price, you know, and Casey, she took out some of these major actors. There’s not a lot to work with there. So if we don’t step up, nobody else will step up. so, I’ll let you know in a few years.>I was hoping you would have silver bullet for us like that I could just say, go do it in all these neighbourhoods that we’re trying to change.>The reason why I say I think we need more sophisticated is that we’re paying much more attention to data, to results, to you know, getting beyond better, to learn from others what they’re doing, and to this notion that it really is long-term, it really is about changing systems. You got to have the mayor there, you got to have the school superintendent you got to have all these folks that control the resources. And that’s why I’m optimistic that we’re, we’re learning more but it’s a tough nut.>All right, so… go ahead.>No, I was just.. I would add to that, that one of the things that we see is I think the philanthropic and the resource pieces are really important, that those are such drivers because, I think in our experience, and you know, Andy Casey, thankfully, is a terrific supporter of the whole stuff that I have worked with that I’d framed up there. But one of the world challenges with a lot of these models also is as you move the.. many of them need to be very long-term by nature. And as you move past a political administration, you start to lose some of the will or completely different direction. So I think, one of our big lessons in Hope ourselves I would add is I would build on everything that Patrick said. You know, the having a common goal, having the data informed system, the longer term timeframe, but I do think having that collection of folks that work can help drive resources and create, redundancy’s not the right word, but it’s a…a something that’s stepped, sort of steps aside and surrounds the political environment in a way to ensure a long-term viability of a project. And Hope In hope of *inaudible*, I called *inaudible*, you know that was Mayor Gavin Newsom that kicked it off, but now you have Mayor Lee, and he’s just as strong. But if he hadn’t have been, you know how do you make sure that you’re building that kind of resiliency of an effort over the long term? And I think it’s through that kind of philanthropic leadership, I think it’s by having, actually, being able to hopefully staff, you know, also build up a…a real…not a…not extensive staff but to actually have some people that are very dedicated to this and have the very sectors behind them.>All right, so, at this point we should open it up to the folks. Have you enjoyed the conversation? And we have people available with mics, and please remember to say your name when you speak. So we’ll start with Roy.>This question is for Terri. Terri, it’s actually a two-part question. We really haven’t talked a whole lot about banking policy at this conference and… the CRA credit, community reinvestment act, How important is that in encouraging banks to loan money and to…for low-income development, housing developments specifically. And also are there some legislation, such as the *inaudible*, that maybe have restricted, banks’ ability to partner with local non-profit organizations to lend money for mortgage loans to particularly low income families.>Sure. So I’m assuming this to be, you know, the Community Reinvestment Act, or the CRA’s federal law, you know since banks have basically took deposits that you need to reinvest in your communities, I would say that’s been absolutely essential for a lot of work that’s been down on our communities that’s where the major capital flows that are coming in. I’m talking about the billions that we’ve done in business. You know, we’re out of *inaudible* capital, primarily from the banks that’s expanded from the people that aren’t under that kind of incentive system. It was absolutely essential and we don’t have a lot of work over the last number of years, to work with other regulators. To try to think about, you know, is there a better way do modernise the Community Reinvestment Act to recognise some of the inadequacies it has, for example, it tends to falter, you know, high-class markets quite well. It, you know, tends to incent capital flows out of the coast, but not in the middle of the country. And there’s also the research, which I’d be happy to expand upon, but short version is there’s lots of improvements have to be made on that regulation. But I think absolutely it’s driving force between, you know, to really incent banks to come in. I think the question has been raised in a lot of circles, you know, why only banks? You know, should there be a broader or sort of an incentive system didn’t encourage, you know out of *inaudible* where all those insurance companies or other corporates to come in and participate, in a similar way what would be the viabilities of the challenges with that. That’s been debated, so I would throw that out as well. In terms of that, frame you know, I guess I would say I don’t know. I really don’t know the answer to that question. I will say my experience with that, frame is that, It is you know, just in terms of the people we deal with at banks, are very…there are some restrictions in terms of just their ability to be a little bit more creative, take some risks, certainly where they put, you know, equity investments in terms of the risk capitalization looks different in particular that frame. there are certainly some implications that we have to think about over the long term.>Greg Duncan, UC Irvine. I have a question about how we frame our arguments. You all make connections at very high levels, with not only advocates, but also the business community, with not just liberals, but also independents and conservatives. You know, I think those of us who aren’t very well-informed, it was a very contentious debate that led to a consensus that no one is absolutely delighted with but it did support work in a in a pretty serious way, with time limits, it led to a large increase in the employment of the single women, and I…I guess some of us kind of thought that debates about dependence would have faded into the past. I think arguments like return on investment, you know, in the case of a certainly early childhood programmes gain a lot atttraction in the last maybe, well…over…the last 15 years, but you don’t hear those arguments as much as you use to. Are we just reverting back, you know, with this latest round of arguments about Hammock’s to the way people were thinking back 20 years ago? Is it a fundamentally different way of thinking about things? And how… how can we frame our arguments in light of how people are thinking about things now? That will advance them.>I think Greg is absolutely right. It’s kind of striking to a number of us for our weakness, or in various ways has been involved with, the transformation isn’t too strong a word, of the safety net, over say the past 30 years, into what analysts regularly and accurately now call a work-based safety net. You know, if you go back to the mid-80s, most states had general assistance, cash assistance programmes for single individuals without children. They were not limited to people who were severely disabled. The majority of states and *inaudible* in the country, that’s pretty much gone for them. In 1995, for every 100 families with children below the poverty line, 68 received cash welfare assistance. Through the old days of the DC programme, we’re down to about 28 out of 100 now get any cash assistance at all. We really move to much more of a work *inaudible* safety net. And, so on the one hand, there are echoes, or more than echoes of the old arguments. Well, I don’t think they’re as a factor as they used to be and part because one really can bring to bare. The date and the figures, for example…show the transformation and the degree to which people are working. So, we saw this in the big debate that we had in the second half of 2013 over food stamps. We had a bill that went through the house, that have 40 billion dollars over 10 years in cuts and SNAP benefits. And really owner is work-related for vision that was built as a work requirement but would’ve taken a lot of people off the programme and that left them with nothing if they couldn’t find jobs on their own. And the hammock arguments were widely used. But at the end of the day, all of those provisions disappeared from the bill. And it did get *inaudible* to support us, *inaudible* to pay us at the end. And there were many factors related to that. But the fact that one could very heavily push back, that you could show that there share of people on SNAP who aren’t working and getting welfare assistance is now low. And the percentage of people for whom it supplements low wages is much more substantial. I mean all those arguments really help. I think there’s another factor here. And it gets back to my budgetary discussion. So, the person who probably is most effective, *inaudible* is a very effective communicator. And making these arguments is Paul Ryan. Now, Paul Ryan’s…his new budget will come out on Monday or Tuesday. His last several budgets, have gotten 3/5 to 2/3 of their budget price, from programs targeted at low-income people. In order to help defend that, you need to make the dependency argument. But it’s not really rooted that context isn’t just one of the warfare today. The larger issue is the follower. Paul Ryan is actually…If you talk to him personally, is not some vicious guy who wants more poverty. *inaudible* to pass the budget in the house, it has to balance the budget in 10 years. To balance the budget in 10 years, you need trillions of dollars of deficit reduction. He starts with the following framework, no revenue increase to deficit. No cuts and defence. For political reasons, no changes in social security. And contrary to what many people think about the Ryan budgets, hardly any changes in Medicare for current beneficiary. This controversial Medicare provision start with people who newly retired ten years down the road. If you want to get trillions in deficit reduction, and all those things are off the table, you have two places mainly to go. You go the non-defence discretionary programme, which I’ve talked about. And you got the means-fested, low-entitlement programmes. And then, your budget cut are so big, there you need an area. So part of the push back, I think is explaining in clear simple terms the degree to which the safety not increasingly is the workplace safety net. But it’s also embedded in these larger budgetary discussions. And we have to have more things on not only on the tax expenditure side, but on the spending side on the table. And if we can do that, I think that helps with the debate on resources for poverty *inaudible*.>Hi, I’m Nancy Gannon Hornberger from San Diego and I appreciate all your comments. I would like to ask a little bit about, social impact bonds are paid for success strategies, they’ve been touched on, the last couple of days. You know, novel, novel idea, there’s a lot of atttraction to the novelty, I don’t know that there has been a lot of analysis. So I’d be interested from all of you in all your analysis on those strategies what you’ve seen in terms of pros and cons, in, in particular, with poverty solutions. Thank you.>Sure. So, I don’t know that we’ve seen good examples that are specifically focused on poverty. Some are not in this country, you know, I’m sceptic about social impact bonds in the way that they usually structured, which is not to say that I’m against the notion of let’s do a lot of experimenting, because it could really be… I think some version of pay for success could be a way to open up lots of opportunity. And actually, might even get a little bit of great exit. Next question. because one of the things you have to build over in the sense that when nothing works etcetera, so you have paid for a success model My problem with social impact bonds, as they’ve currently been structured, is they tend to be focused on, A, programme addict solution, So, it doesn’t get to the systems change, so you take a Rikers Island example, we’re locking up a bunch of young cook-ups that don’t need to be locked up, they’re pretty clear on that. So, we’ve got a programmatic intervention that says, after we locked them up, we’re going to provide a program, Oh, but it didn’t really work when they first put it in place because Rikers Island is itself a system. So they had to sort of add it into to Rikers Island, and they haven’t really change the stomach part. That’s not exactly a bad thing to do. They’re actually getting results so that’s a good thing to do. But, in terms of distracting from the fundamental problem that there were alternatives to locking up…folks up in the first place, these are young…young offenders. The second problem that I have that I’m not an expert on but I have questions about. Not a problem. Questions about… It’s the way it structured, the golden sacks ends up making the money bag at a certain cut-off point, and then on top of that a lot more money bag, and yet they’re back stabs. by philanthropic resources, so on a risk-adjusted basis, the actual return is pretty dog-on amazing. having said that, somebody had to step up. And now, I think all the sexes are getting smarter and smarter, and the folks on the other side of the deal is getting smarter and this is probably for the natural process by which these things evolve. And I think that’s fine and important. I don’t know that we’ve figured out how you build in that kind of virtuous cycle we need to get to, where the money that you saved from not doing stupid things for that money, It’s reinvested in a permanent kind of way in prevention and early intervention so you sort of actually change the pipeline. At the same time, that you avoid sort of the bad things. I think there are ways to get there and I think *inaudible* has a role.We’re looking for an opportunity right now. That’s a long about a way of saying really interesting stuff, I think the juries still are out on whether the particular social impact bond approach works, as opposed, there are three or four other approaches to pay for success that I think might be more…interesting…over time. I’ll be interested to see how the Department of Labours work on this and that’s probably more relevant to the property piece but it’s too early, I think, to tell. that’s my take of it.>Yeah, I’ll *inaudible* to that. And of course, we’re doing a lot of work for pay, and pay for success, and have had some very interesting mandates and really excited about the field. i’d say one issort of the theoretical *inaudible* sighted is because I think it captures the imagination of people that otherwise would not be interested. And I was starting to see some folks’ private investors come in. And it is this notion, in terms of framing, it’s pay for performance and return on investments, and really wanting to see something that is data, analytical and performance based. And I would say we’ve, you know, we’re…we’re applying our expertise in a couple of areas. Where, you know, the mandate, I think Patrick and I were talking about this recently. You know, on a programme to put out homelessness in New York City, so by a relatively small investment, you can prevent folks that are right at the cusp of falling into homelessness you know, not following the homelessness. And there’s programs, like, you know, you can see, over a long period of time, you can verify, you can look at the results. So it’s crime for pay for poor performance type of investment, and we’ve seen that come into play. We think those are the types of things. It’s interesting because we have that mandate, and actually… it’s not gonna be a social-impact bond as it turns out, but we convinced New York City that they should be doing this, and we’re actually spending they’re money to do it, so we count that as a win. but as *inaudible* talked about, the wind is then also making sure that those savings that do come through the system, get channelled back in. So we do have to think about the whole system’s interplay. We’re also doing social impact bonds, thinking about…talked up a little bit about the Green Agenda, that’s where…there’s some really readily available data on some of those outcomes, and we can look at doing pretty broad scale green by doing paper-performance type of instruments, so we’re working hard in that area. But there’s a lot of different areas we’re touching upon. And I’d love to have more fulsome conversation because I think it’s a ripe area for financial innovation. I would also say that, I wrote an article in the Federal Reserve in…paper on social impact bonds, and my primary point on that is, let’s don’t also just go from scratch. We have things we can learn from. So something like a low-income has in fact, by the reason that it’s enjoyed by partisan support it’s because it is largely a pay-for-performance type of instrument, So, let’s learn from something that’s…has been, you know, a multi-billion dollar industry and how did it get there. And the reason I said low-income has in-tax credit is like a social impact bond is because what happens is we have government sets a tax incentive, private investors come in, and essentially build housing, right? And then once that housing is built, then those tax credits start to…our private investor actually helps, you know, pay for that, and then the…those private investors get those tax credits, and those tax credits don’t flow until that housing is built, it’s occupied by who is supposed to be occupied and then those tax credits starts to flow and that’s all based off of data. And then also it has a confined expatriate. So, if you do not perform related to the agreement on welcome housing tax credit, there’s a clawback. So, you don’t get your return, just like a social impact bond right? And there’s different actors in different positions. As fast as we can learn from that and do some short cuts. So I think there’s a lot of valuable lessons to build on.>I would describe myself as an intrigued sceptic, probably similar to where Patrick is. I worry a little bit about the potential for social impact bonds to become a buzz word before we have enough evidence on how much we can use them and what we can use them for. I worry about them charging into fields where it’s very hard to measure results and…or very hard to actually show the positive results, so in the case of low-income housing tax credit, you can build the housing, you can rent it, you can put people in it. but when we’re talking about things involving social behaviours and other kinds of things, it could turn out to be significantly more difficult, so I’m very much where Patrick is. We should pursue some demonstration projects and test this carefully with some caution. The one *inaudible* is we…unless and until we find that this can be used successfully on a significant scale, we need to be careful. Not to have it sort of become a partial justification for having the government invest less in certain basic functions we need like, “Oh, the private sector will just take care of it through social impact bond.” So, again, I think it’s really an intriguing thing to look at and to test and pilot. But it’s not yet ready for us to jump on and say this is the answer.>I completely agree on that, and I think even the language we use, that social impact bond, those who are not familiar with the bond, it’s.. most of them is not a bond, right? And so, I thought it’d be called an equity or something, so that it implies the risk because I think that the, you know, some of these things happen and they don’t work. I think there’s a lot room for some of the *inaudible* consequences that we’ve just talked about.>So there’s time for one more. Bobby, you have a… quest…
>I do have a question. What I listened today, I think all of the speakers are convinced that we have to use evidence. So whether it’s Vicky talking about the green initiative or Patrick talking about being evidence-driven, Bob’s always evidence-driven. And *inaudible* we all had this flavour. And yet yesterday, there were a lot of people who are involved in doing really innovative things. And part of the whole focus here is being innovative. How do we evaluate or get people to agree to those evaluations? So, that we can in fact, use them. I know Harry says, well you’ll have to wait 10 years. Well young children really don’t have 10 years to wait, so if I don’t buy that, we have to wait 10 years. It doesn’t mean that we have to do it instantaneous. But I guess I’d really appreciate some discussion about how we really take some of these innovative ideas, get people to be willing and open to having those evaluated. They don’t have to work for everyone. If we look at the one that we had focused a good deal about, the…Cabrillo talked about, She suggested it. She thought from these small numbers that it was working for people to 25 and over and not for younger…individuals. Programmes, you know, maybe effective for a particular group. But how do we learn this? And if we’re going to use these resources and be successful, and in fact, try to change the dialogue, we have to have programs that work. Spending dollars on things that are ineffective, doesn’t improve anything for the poor. So just throw out the question to all of you.>That is a great question. I do think sometimes this is an…since you need…you may need public resources both for the initiative itself and for part of the evaluation cost. I think, and others can speak to this, that there are places where an evaluation and a whole demonstration project probably would not have happened had it not been for the presence of some major foundation partners, helping to cover part of the cost of the evaluation. We’ve talked about the worst sport strategies project. all the United Nation money is foundation money there. The one that, I mean, there are many, it’s just based on what I know, I mean, when I and Sheldon were talking about this last night over the glass of wine, I would love to see a demonstration project, cause we already have some important data. Was it a fact that in the Recovery Act, in the 2009 Recovery Act, Donna may have talked about this yesterday, there was this temporary assistance for needy families emergency funds. One of the possible uses was subsidized employment primarily in the private sector. Within 15 months, there were 250,00 subsidized jobs, low-income parents and youth, people who, otherwise, often wouldn’t have been hired even in a good economy, got 6, 9, 12 month jobs lost. it worked from an implementation and administration standpoint. It wasn’t set up with a longitudinal evaluation. Mark Elliot’s group, I’m blackening on the name in Philadelphia.>Mobility.>Mobility.> Economic mobility for corporations.>Economic Mobility Corporation did, you wouldn’t quite call it an evaluation. They did the best they could with the data we have. And in Florida and a few places, there were more data. And they showed some people staying in jobs. What we really want to know, what are the longer term effects of this and it has implications for you know, if we could have something, where we have, on an ongoing modest-sized basis, public sector job creation, subsidized jobs, public-funded, primarily in the private sector, for all people whoever lies on trying to get higher, and then when the economy goes down, you wrap up the programme, and you have a larger number of subsidized drop slots and *inaudible* economy recovery. It *inaudible*, but you always have some. You know, what are the impacts on formerly incarcerated people who can’t get jobs? Of what does it do to minority youth who don’t have that first job in the job market and may otherwise experience scarring, employment-scarring of years of… Their potential of really important things to learn here, and I’m hopeful by the fact that a lot of the states that ran this and one of the programme were Republican states, there were 40 states that did it in 2009 and 2010. So, you know, maybe, with the combination of, if one could get some bipartisan interest on the hill, maybe coming out of the governors, and some foundation partners, maybe at some point on the next few years. There are a lot of conservative analyst, People at the American Enterprise Institute are big fans of this. Analysts that cross the political spectrum find this idea intriguing. It’s work, it’s employment. Though, but I think that’s another part of it, is where one can get *inaudible* an agreement, this would be an important thing to test. and might have useful policy results that also makes it more likely. So that’s also a factor, foundation involvement is a factor. But I think it’s a very important question cause we need to identify several really important things in this area. And have major high-profile demonstration projects that hopefully could have big impacts on future policies.>Please join me in thanking Terri, Bob and Patrick. Thank you. I wanted to say thank you to all of you. To all of the paper writers, you guys did a great job in helping create a framework for a conversation around these issues. I want to thank all the presenters of…because you brought some real world grounding to make sure that this wasn’t just another bunch of academics talking to each other but and we wanted to really try to make it real and bring it to the ground. So, I want to thank the folks, I’ve seen the leadership, here, the Dean, Robert Price, the Provost, Just so that you all understand and appreciate this, the community was not just the people in this room. We had a significant on-line presence. The live stream had over 350 people who are watching it through the course of the day. If you’re on Twitter, there’s been an active dialogue and discussion there. We have some really 500 people, sort of, 150 today. So the community is large. And I want to thank all of you for joining and participating. So just to sum up the three things I wanted to do. One is just say, we heard a lot of issues through this course’s a day and a half issues about how do we get broad and continuous, and deeply engaged multi-sectoral participation, the important role of the private sector, important role of the general economy and income support to make this change real. We heard a lot about institution and systems. Today we heard about bank systems, programme structures, incentives, IT, and I didn’t even think we’re going to go to IT. plays a huge role in terms of what we can accomplish. So thinking hard about that is important. There was a lot of discussion about the tension between practitioners and researchers. And can we find a sweet spot where we can communicate, work together, and advance each other’s interest so we can be mutually reinforcing. And there was also a lot of discussion about perseverance and the long-term nature of what we’re talking about. and how the reality that change takes time, um…it *inaudible* up against political realities, personal impatience, and a lot and just what you can show, in terms of evidence. We have to figure that out. We have to figure out how to make sure that our efforts can span the fluctuations that happen in other spaces in important ways. So I was asked, I’ve been asked many times through the course of the day and a half, “So what’s next? What are we gonna do with all this?” And I would say a couple things. First, we have a lot of great ideas to work with. Through the course of the papers, the discussions, the conversation that happened off-line There are a lot of things that we can lift up and part of what our challenge is, moving forward, is to distil the stone into something that is clear, transparent, and actionable. And so, over the next couple of weeks and months, we’re going to work to do that. And develop some action plans and communication approaches and ultimately, we’ve got to disseminate and communicate. Get the word out and be as precise and specific as possible. Because one thing I will say, lots of folks want to do things, but they don’t know what to do. So, you have to say more than just we need to do something. We need to do these things. And hopefully, we will be able to get that coming out of this conference. And I’m going to ask fairly forcefully for your help in partnership in that effort because our institution…we’re large. We have resources. But we’re not the nation. And a network allows us to reach far more people, so, I’m going to count on you for that support, and I’m thanking you in advance for it. And finally, I want to end the way we started. Look around. Look at these pictures, and just reflect on who these people are. And what their hopes are and what their dreams and aspirations are. Because these are the people we’re talking about. These are the people we have been talking about this last day and a half, and these are the people who need to do better by. I’m going to need to make sure that our country does better by them. So, it’s time to go forth. But, what I’m hoping is that, you know, the conversation that we’ve had for the last 36 hours continues. Here, out there, over dinner, online, through e-mails. We need to keep talking about these things. We need to keep working together to figure out about what to do. And I know we need to start doing things as well. So, let’s go do it. Thank you and have a great weekend.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *