THE ROOSEVELT REVIEW

Columbia University Spring 2014

Copyright 2014 All Rights Reserved

Letter from the Editor This is the sixth annual Columbia Roosevelt Review published by the Columbia University chapter of the Roosevelt Institute. We are proud to present twenty-two policy proposals written by students from Columbia University undergraduate students. The Roosevelt Institute has a particular niche in the Columbia University intellectual community. As a student-run, non-partisan, progressive think-tank, we offer students a unique opportunity to discuss current events, issues of public policy, and evaluate the effectiveness of proposals in an open environment on a weekly basis. Our membership is innovative and pragmatic, offering creative solutions to perpetual problems and considering all obstacles in the way of progress. The variety of proposals is evidenced by the range from discussions of sustainable energy alternatives to standardization in education. The scope of the ideas and the creativity of the proposals in this journal reflect the best elements of the Roosevelt Institutes commitment to open-minded but rigorous discussion. The proposals are organized within our six centers: Economic Development, Education, Energy and Environment, Equal Justice, Healthcare, and, lastly, Defense and Diplomacy. Serving as the Editor-in-Chief of the Columbia Roosevelt Review in the 2013-2014 academic year as well as the 2012-2013 academic year has been such a wonderful privilege. I am pleased to present this publication that features policy solutions to complex issues that nations face today, challenges that are often daunting to face because they are so multi-faceted. To all of our writers and executive board members, thank you for all your hard work. It has culminated in another successful issue of the Columbia Roosevelt Review. Sincerely, Lauren Tomasulo Editor-in-Chief of the Columbia Roosevelt Review

Lauren Tomasulo, Editor-in-Chief The Executive Board Katherine Haller, President Andrew Judson Stoughton, Vice President Sharin Khander, Treasurer Ruohan Zhang, Outreach Director Ricardo Rodriguez, Secretary Nikita Singareddy, Equal Justice Director Esther Brot, Health Director Swara Salih, Energy and Environment Director Adrian Jaycox, Economic Development Director Kunal Shah, Education Director Edmund Brose, Defense and Diplomacy Director

Table of Contents
Economic Development Economic Determinants of Polarization and Partisanship in Congress Ricardo Rodriguez 7 Americas Regressive Income Tax and How We Should Change It Kendall Tucker 11 The Labor Movement in the United States: Why it is Crucial for Economic Growth and How it can Adapt to the 21st Centurys Global Economy Edmund Brose 13 New Tracks: A Future for American Passenger Rail Ryan Morgan 4 Education 19 Reforming Supplementary Education Services Ruohan Zhang 21 Student Evaluation of Teachers and the Improvement of Classroom Transparency and Common Core Implementation Kunal Shah 23 Computation Change: The Role of Computer Science in Public Education Lesley Cordero 25 PhD Renewal Esther Brot Energy and Environment 29 Space Based Solar Power: An Available Answer to a Long-Term Problem Simon Schwartz 31 Reprocessing into Nuclear Fuel: Recycle Waste and Weapons Adrian Jaycox 34 Investing in a Sustainable Future: Offshore Wind Energy Swara Salih Equal Justice 38 An Alternative to Traditional Incarceration Andrew Stoughton 40 Human Rights Do Not Cease to Matter in Prisons Allison Sawyer 45 Reforming the Nations Juvenile Justice System Nikita Singareddy Healthcare Targeting Education: A Healthier Approach to Drug Policy Lauren Tomasulo 51 Preventing Rape and Sexual Assault on College Campuses Leah Reiss 49 Defense and Diplomacy 54 A New Way of Designating Terrorists Katherine Haller

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS OF POLARIZATION AND PARTISANSHIP IN CONGRESS

Ricardo Rodriguez

Introduction By manyif not allmeasures, the 112th Congress was the most polarized and partisan of all Congresses stretching back to at least 1929. During the two sessions of that Congress, the number of roll call votes in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate that turned into party unity votes (at least 50% of one party versus at least 50% of the other party) was a record 70.2% (the average for the last 84 years is just 51.86%). That Congress also saw the highest degree of polarization (measured as the difference between the means of the two parties on a liberal-conservative dimension), at 1.02when the average since 1929 is merely 0.59. It was also one of the Congresses with the lowest overlap between parties on a liberal conservative-dimension. That number, in fact, has been precisely at an extremely disappointing zero since 2007 (the beginning of the 110th Congress). Thus, since 2007, the most conservative Democrat has still been more liberal than the most liberal Republican. The list, sadly, goes on. The 112th Congress saw the lowest number of both Republican and Democratic moderates of the last 84 yearsstanding at a whooping 2.28% and 12.88%, respectively. The overall number of moderates said Congress was only 7.14% (also the lowest on record since 1929). By comparison, during the early-to-mid 1950s (some of the least polarized and partisan years since 1929), the percentage of roll call votes that were party unity votes was only about 44%, polarization stood at 0.46, the number of moderates in both the Republican and Democratic parties surpassed 52% each, and the percentage of members of Congress from opposing parties whose scores on a liberal-conservative dimension overlapped was about 62% (compare that to the 0% in the last six years). While there are certainly multiple factors to explain the increased perceived polarization, gridlock and inactivity on Capitol Hill, the current economic conditions have led many to wonder: is there at all a causal relationship between economic indices and measures, and partisanship and polarization in Con-

gress? In this proposal, I expect to uncover the effect that economic conditions have on partisanship and gridlock on Capitol Hill, and to propose solutions that will make sure our government remains as partisanfree as possible, particularly during the harsh economic times when we need it to be the most efficient and proactive. Results To test my hypothesis, I used several key and widely-accepted measures of polarization and partisanship: the percentage of party unity votes, the distance between the parties means on a liberalconservative dimension, the percentage of moderates overall, the percentage of Democratic moderates, the percentage of Republican moderates, and the percentage of overlapping members on a liberal-conservative dimension. I also included several control variables, like a dummy variable for whether there is an election that year, the number of laws passed that year, a dummy variable for whether the Democratic party was in control of Congress that year (found as a sum of the number of Democratic members of the Senate and Democratic members of the House of Representatives, over the total number of members of Congress in both those chambers), and, lastly, the number of women in Congress. After inputting the partisanship and polarization data into STATA, several econometric models were created. With these regressions I looked to test my basic assumption: Economic conditions cause polarization and partisanship to worsen in Congress; our government grows more extreme and gridlock prevails. As such, I expected from these regressions that, over time and during economic crises, the degree of polarization would rise, the percent of party unity votes would rise, the percent of moderates would fall, as would the overlap between the parties. In actuality, the results of the regressions led to this conclusion: economic variables generally do not increase partisanship, which was contrary to my hypothesis. Specifically, while lower or negative growth increases the percentage of party unity votes, increases polarization, decreases overlap and decreases the number of Republican moderates, said economic measure is the only one that generally supports my hypothesis and original assumptions. Unemployment increases the percentage of party unity votes, decreases overlap, the percent of Republican moderates, and the number of laws passed, but also

decreases polarization and increases the percent of moderates in the Democratic Party and in Congress overall. Higher inflation has a completely contrary effect to my hypothesis: it lowers unity and polarization, and increases the percent of moderates in Congress and the respective parties, and the overlap. As for the surplus, it only supports my hypothesis in that higher deficits increase the percentage of party unity votes. As for a higher debt and change in debt, however, they both increase unity and polarization, and also decrease moderates in Congress, moderates in the Republican and Democratic Parties, and overlap overall. It is thus in these last two variables that I see the most promise to propose solutions to make our Congress more proactive and less polarized. Lastly, in terms of our results, it is important to mention that the control variables have a very significant effect, both in terms of individual and joint significance and in terms of drastically increasing the 2 of regressions when they are included. Compared to these control variables, our economic variables had a small, generally inconclusive effect (with the exception of the debt and change in debt). For example, an election in a given year is associated with an increase in the percentage of party unity votes in Congress. It is also, however, associated with a higher percentage of moderates, as members of Congress may moderate their positions on issues in order to appeal to the voters who determine their political fate. Elections also decrease the polarization in Congress, which was naturally expected to follow the higher degree of moderates. The Democratic control of Congress also provides some interesting insights. Whenever the Democratic Party has a majority of all the seats in Congress, it is associated with a decrease in the percentage of party unity votes, a decrease in polarization, an increase in the percentage of moderates both in Congress overall and in each respective party, and a higher degree of overlap. Democratic control is also associated with a more productive Congress, leading to an estimated increase in the number of laws passed of about, on average, 100 laws per year.

Some Complications Many of the variables had significant non-linear effects. As such, there is a range of the independent variable where the value of the dependent variable increases and range where the value of the dependent variable decreases. For example, the percent of moderates in the Democratic Party will decline for values of the change in debt below roughly one trillion dollars. However, if the change in the debt is above one trillion dollars, the percent of moderates in the Democratic Party will actually begin to increase once again. For the purposes of this study, we look at the effect on the dependent variables of bad changes in the economic, independent variables: less or negative growth, higher unemployment, smaller surpluses (or larger deficits), higher debt, etc. These non-linear effects must thus be taken into account, though they generally suggest that extreme circumstances (large changes in either direction in unemployment, growth, inflation, etc.) may provide a moderating effect on Congress, and that it is more average years that may decrease this moderation and thus result in higher polarization, party unity votes, etc. Secondly, when drawing conclusions and estimating the effect on the dependent variables of the economic variables, we must certainly consider the interaction between the economic variables themselves. Lower growth is, of course, usually accompanied by higher unemployment and lower inflation. We

6 must thus consider the possible dynamics between the economic variables. The effect of the inflation variable proved particularly difficult to interpret. After all, inflation decreases with recessions, so lower inflation could be considered bad if accompanied with lower or negative growth and higher unemployment. However, higher inflation is also bad when excessive or unaccompanied by particularly high growth or lower unemployment. For the purpose of this piece, the rule for interpreting the inflation variable was that higher inflation was considered the more negative of the possible changes in inflation (and thus there should be a positive relationship between this variable and polarization, party unity votes, etc.). Lastly, we clearly need to assume that polarization, party unity votes, the percent of moderates, overlap, and the number of laws passed are indeed good measures, and that they extend into gridlock and sluggishness in Congress. Solutions and Looking Ahead The effect, then, is somewhat clearer now: some economic measurespredominantly the debt and the change in the debt outstanding from the previous yearhave significant effects on the degree of partisanship and polarization in both the US Senate and the House of Representatives. Now, this may very well be that both parties hold fundamentally opposing views on the types of economic policies to help alleviate an economic or fiscal crisis, and that is a fair and perhaps noble explanation for this phenomenon. But whatever the reason, it speaks to a sad reality and a disappointing truth: our government has a tendency to fail us the most when our need for it is most critical. It sometimes fails to act when a strong, decisive and policy-oriented action is needed the most. While we should certainly address the fact that Congress grows less moderate and more partisan during some good economic times (years closer to average unemployment and growth), I will speak toward solutions that directly target the problem of rising polarization and partisanship during times of higher debt in this last section. In particular, many of these solutions should tie both Congressional compensation and procedures to economic and fiscal results. Tying Congressional salaries to economic and fiscal results is not such a foreign or uncommon an idea. In the private sector, CEOs are usually paid in profit-sharing contracts, stocks and stock options of their own firms that effectively tie their income to the performance of their firms in the stock market and thus tie the CEO and other heads of the firms income to how appropriate a job they do. Moreover, during times of economic or fiscal crisis, there should be a mechanism through which parliamentary procedures and rules are relaxed and weakened. For example, the use of the filibuster should be forbidden or limited during times of crisis. This weakening of parliamentary procedures should be tied to some economic measures like growth, unemployment, and the deficit (allowing, of course, for increases in the deficit to actually reduce unemployment or increase growth, if an expansionary fiscal policy is in place). Thus, if perhaps growth falls under a certain amount, or unemployment or the deficit rise above a certain percent, then this mechanism should be put into effect to streamline the legislative process in Congress and reduce measures to slow down its efficiency. Measures to help reduce polarization both in and out of times of economic crisis should also expand voter and citizen participation through more progressive measures. For example, the use of a limited number of national or regional referendums to improve the democratic process may be effective. Secondly, we can not ignore the role that voters play in partisanship for, after all, were the ones who send members of Congress to Capitol Hill. As such, a potential and often-proposed measure is the top-two primary, also known as a nonpartisan blanket primary or an open primary (which is already used in limited fashion in California, Washington, and Louisiana). In this system, all candidates run in the same primary regardless of their political party, and the top two candidates in that primary (also regardless of their party) go on to run in the general election. In some other variants, while there are still separate primaries for each party, all electors regardless of their own party affiliation may vote in all primaries they desire. This, in theory, forces candidates to moderate their views in an attempt to attract a larger swath of voters. Lastly, and perhaps more extreme, another progressive measure may be allowing recall elections for individual members of Congress or, perhaps even more extreme, Congress as a whole. These recall elections may of course be called upon by the electorate through the usual process, but may also be tied to stringent economic triggers (such as unemployment being higher than a certain number of percentage points above the natural unemployment rate for a certain period of time, or growth being under a certain number of percentage points below the previous 10eral, state and local programs.1 The problem with the year average for a certain period of time, etc.) American income tax system is that it is regressive, All in all, solutions to partisanship that respond meaning that low income taxpayers are taxed on larger to economic measures must target the motivations percentages of their incomes than high income taxpayand incentives that make Congress act more polarized ers.2 There are two main reasons why this is a proband more partisan when growth is negative orparlema regressive tax system is unfair and it is bad for ticularly for our resultsthe debt or the change in our economy. the debt in one year is too high. At the end of the day, The question of whether or not our tax syswe could say that polarization and partisanship is the tem is fair is important because most citizens and result of competing visions. While this is generally policymakers view regressive taxation as unfair and supposed to be a positive phenomenon, what shouldnt unethical and politicians should be responsive to their occur is that those competing visions cause inaction constituents concerns.3 When polled, American citiand gridlock. We thus have to foster negotiation and zens have deemed progressiveness in income tax rates compromise in Congress through a new framework for as fair under the ability to pay principle, implying that economic lawmaking. they think regressiveness in income tax rates is unfair.4 Perhaps one exception to the previous proposal According to a recent Forbes article, the top 1% of of weakening Congressional rules is that, during an earners control 43% of Americas wealth, while the economic crisis, all laws and bills related to the debt, top 5% (including that top 1%) control 72%.5 Despite growth or jobs should be the product of a bipartisan these enormous numbers, the highest-income earners committee that will employ a particular method to are often paying lower taxes than middle and lower write that bill: first set out the goal of the bill. Then, income people. This seems to be the definition of an set out the specific policies that each party wants unfair system. Potentially more important than this, included in the bill and believes will achieve the goals. however, is the fact that a regressive system is bad for Then, the committee should compromise between the American economy. Because wealthy people have those options and present to the Congress as a whole a far more wealth than middle or lower income people, bill that should already have bipartithey are more likely to save their san support from the committee. money in banks, which takes it out The American income tax is Lastly, we must combat the of the economy. Middle or lower regressive and we should uncompromising attitude that has income people, if given more disposfix it by mandating social secucaused members of Congress to able income (i.e. by reducing their rity taxes for all Americans and reject or simply not support a bill by taxing high-income earners at taxes or increasing their government higher rates than middle class that does not include every policy programs), are more likely to spend earners. they favor or that includes one their money and thereby stimulate policy they strongly disagree with. the economy. As Fadhel Kaboub Achieving this, however, is up to the electorate itself: wrote in his article Against Regressive Taxation, reduce the number of Congressional members who are Tax cuts [for the rich] not only fail to create jobs, but unwilling to compromise, be it through a change in the they are also likely to undermine the long-term fundaprimary process (as mentioned above) or a true transmental basis for economic growth. The decline in tax formation in the political attitude of this nation. revenues has meant spending cuts in the most important investment areas of the States economy: education, health, public infrastructure, transportation, etc.6 AMERICAS REGRESSIVE INCOME TAX At a time of world-wide economic recessions, governAND HOW WE SHOULD CHANGE IT ment programs and middle/lower income spenders are the best ways for a country to stimulate economic Kendall Tucker growth. Richards and Linden wrote, A weak middle class holds back economic growth and undermines Policy Problem our democracy.7 This shows the regressiveness of the The American income tax is a near-universal American income tax system is not only unfair but it is tax that the government imposes on financial incomes also bad for the economy and for both of these reasons of businesses and individuals in order to fund fedit needs to be changed.

8 Arguments against a progressive tax system rarely err on the side of supporting a regressive tax system, instead they tend to focus on the desirability of a flat tax system. A flat tax would take the same percentage of income out of every Americans paycheck no matter how much money he/she earns. This presumably would end tax breaks and deductibles, although the details of such a plan are up for debate. The benefits of a flat tax system are that the system would be more fair and it would not be regressive. The California Budget Project (CBP) pointed out the problems with this proposal, though, when it reported that this argument does not account for the fact that lower-income households spend most or all of their incomes on necessities, while higher-income households have more discretionary income and can afford to pay more in taxes without cutting into what they can spend on shelter, food, health care, and other basic needs.8 What the CBP is pointing out is that a flat tax would still not be good for the US economy, nor would it be as fair as a progressive tax system. Without increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans, rich people will continue to save their money and keep it out of the economy and poor people will continue to struggle to make ends meet. What this shows is that a flat tax is not the answer to fix the regressiveness of the American income tax system, whereas a progressive tax would be. There are four major parts of the American income tax system: federal income taxes, Medicare and social security taxes, employees total federal tax liabilities on salaried income and employers federal tax liabilities on salaried incomes. Federal income taxes are structurally progressive (because higher income taxpayers pay higher rates than lower income taxpayers) and Medicare taxes are flat taxes (because everyone pays a single rate of 2.9%).9 Social security taxes are where the federal income tax system becomes regressive, because social security taxes are only imposed on salaried incomes that are less than or equal to $102,000 (as of 2008). This means that lower income taxpayers pay more social security taxes (12.4%) than higher income taxpayers (0%) and contrary to popular belief, the social security tax is not just a retirement plan or a pension system. Taxpayers pay into the social security system, but then their contributions are used for many things beyond their own retirement benefits. The justification for not taxing high-income earners for social security is that they will not need this money for their retirement, but in effect it just means that middle and low income earners pay for services that all Americans use (like national defense, food safety, air travel safety, community development, and others) and then later in life they get some of that money back. This makes for a systematically regressive system.10 Employees total federal tax liabilities on salaried incomes are also regressive, because employees making less than $102,000 a year are taxed for social security in their paychecks (as well as in their personal income taxes), but employees making more than $102,000 a year are not taxed that 6.2%. The last aspect of the income tax system, employers federal tax liabilities on salaried incomes, is also regressive because people making salaried incomes below $102,000 a year pay significantly higher rates than people making between $102,000 to $164,550 and somewhat higher rates than people making salaries above that.* What all these areas of the tax code show, and Figure 1 confirms, is that the American income tax system is structurally regressive particularly because of the social security tax that applies to lower and middle tax brackets, but not high-income tax brackets. Figure 111 The other change that should take place in order to fix the regressiveness of the income tax system is taxing high-income earners at higher rates by getting rid of deductibles, exclusions and tax breaks. Getting rid of these tax loopholes would not only make the American tax code more progressive, it would also made the code simpler and more trustworthy for tax payers.17 The two main types of tax breaks that should be ended are in the business income tax code and in the personal income tax code. In terms of the business income tax, there are numerous tax breaks and deductibles that businesses can get, but the ones which Policy Solutions are most relevant to this proposal are the deductibles In order to fix the regressiveness of the American income tax system, we must mandate social which companies can get in order to fund executive security taxes for the top income earners and we must compensation. In America today, CEOs make 273 times as much as their average employees.18 Beyond eliminate tax expenditures that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy (i.e. capital gains tax breaks). Donald these extraordinary numbers, businesses (and CEOs) Nichols and William Wempe in their paper Regresget tax breaks that inflate these numbers and encoursive Tax Rates and the Unethical Taxation of Salaried age them to maintain a high degree of wealth inequaliIncome, argued that we should tax all citizens 10.4% ty. Phil Gramm in an article for the Wall Street Journal for social security (a reduction from what middle and argued that ending these types of business subsidies low income earners are taxed now) and that this would and credits would improve the efficiency of capital raise approximately $122.5 billion for the government. allocation and it would end the crony capitalism that Not only would this proposal help the social security has taken root within American businesses.19 This plan system survive, but it would also make our income tax should be popular, because as the right leaning Amerisystem more fair and it would benefit our economy by can Enterprise Institute pointed out, ending business infusing more money into the system through govern- subsidies and credits would encourage the US government programs.14 This proposal is not unrealistic in ment to lower tax rates due to the increased amount of our current political system. President Obama present- money they would raise.20 ed a similar plan during his first term that would have The other types of tax break that the US govcontinued the 12.4% social security tax on wage earn- ernment needs to end in order to fix the regressiveness ers who made below $102,000 and would have creof the American income tax system are the personal ated a 2-4% social security tax on wage earners who income tax credits. The 10 largest tax expenditures in 15 made above $250,000. Although this would not have the individual income tax system in 2013 as reported fixed the regressiveness of the system (taxpayers with by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office fell incomes between $78,850 and $102,000 would have into four categories. These were exclusions from taxcontinued to pay taxes that were about 40% larger than able incomes, itemized deductions, preferential tax those imposed on taxpayers with incomes between rates on capital gains and dividends and tax credits.21 16 $102,000 and $164,550 ), it would have used the soEven though three out of the four categories (excludcial security tax to make the system slightly more fair. ing preferential tax rates on capital gains and diviAlthough the plan did not pass, the idea of mandating dends) seem like they would benefit lower and middle social security taxes for top earners or all wage earners class workers, as Figure 2 shows, more than half of continues to seem like a good plan to fix the fairness the benefits of these tax expenditures go to households of the American income tax system and to improve our with incomes in the highest quintile of the populaeconomy at the same time. Unfortunately, as one can tion. When measured relative to after-tax income, see in Figure 6, social security taxes do not make up a these major tax expenditures are largest for the lowhuge portion of GDP. Even though this is an important est and highest income quintiles.22 Figure 3 shows change to make to the system, other changes need to the four major categories of tax expenditures and it be implemented as well in order to make the system shows how large they are in comparison to our nationmore progressive. wide GDP. As one can see, deductions and credits are tion in taxes to buy a new home), they more effectively benefit high-income taxpayers who would pay a higher tax on that amount of money. This is called an upside-down effect.12 As Kitty Richards and Michael Linden pointed out in their article How Lawmakers Should Think About Tax Reform, as of last year, one in four households making more than $1 million per year paid a lower federal tax rate than middle-class families. In 2011 an estimated 7,000 millionaires paid nothing at all in federal income taxes.13

One other area of the American income tax code that makes it regressive is the income that is subject to little or no taxation. Even though the current top marginal tax rate in the US is 39.6%, many wealthy people avoid paying that percentage of their income, because the tax code is riddled with exemptions, deductions and loopholes that disproportionately and sometimes exclusively benefit high-income taxpayers. Beyond those deductions, there are also many exemptions in the American tax code that are meant to benefit the middle class, but because they amount to a flat amount of money (for example a $10,000 deduc-

10 relatively small. These expenditures benefit either all Americans approximately equally or they benefit the lowest income Americans more so than anybody else. Likewise, even though the exclusions from taxable income are slightly larger as a portion of GDP, these benefits also apply relatively fairly across the board. The least progressive expenditure, preferential tax rates on capital gains and dividends, makes up 1% of GDP and it almost only benefits high-income wage earners. As Michael Linden explained in his article Supporting Broad-Based Economic Growth and Fiscal Responsibility Through Tax Reform, Under the current code, long-term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at a maximum rate of 20 percent, well below the top statutory rate on labor income. The Tax Policy Center has estimated that in 2013, 96 percent of the benefit from low rates on capital gains and dividends went to households in the top quintile, with nearly three-quarters going to the top 1 percent of income earners and nearly half going to the top 0.1 percent. This means that the long-term capital gains tax is a loophole that allows people who invest their fortunes to convert their income into lower-taxed capital gains, which decreases their tax bills and costs the federal government approximately $21 billion every 10 years. Continuing with what Linden wrote, These special rates are a huge giveaway to the very wealthiest Americans, and they are also an enormous driver of complexity: One tax expert has estimated that fully one-third of the Internal Revenue Code and accompanying regulations would be unnecessary if income from labor and capital were taxed at the same rate. This is because the differential creates enormous incentives to classify as much income as possible as tax-preferred capital gains or dividendsthis incentive drives an arms race between tax lawyers and Congress/IRS that necessitates ballooning regulations, ever-more-creative accounting and recordkeeping, and extensive litigation. Numerous other writers have agreed with Lindens description of the capital gains tax as an unfair, inefficient allocation of resources. Not only does this allow wealthier Americans to pay lower tax rates, but it also removes money from the system that would be better used to fund government programs and stimulate economic growth. Also, it creates immense complexity in the tax code which burdens the lower and middle classes. Supporters of the capital gains tax credit say that this credit is necessary so that wealthy Americans will continue to invest their money in order to fund new businesses, but there is no evidence that wealthier Americans would stop investing their money in stock markets. Like any other type of investment, the risk of investing money in the stock market is offset by the substantial chance of a reward. Other countries have taxed capital gains and because they have used this money to fund government programs to stimulate their economies, more often than not, their countries grow and thrive without the ballooning inequality that the United States now faces. Figure 227 As this discussion shows, the best ways to make the income tax code more fair and more conducive to facilitating economic growth are to eliminate tax expenditures that mostly benefit the wealthy (i.e. capital gains tax breaks) and to mandate social security taxes for the top income earners. Further research needs to be done to determine whether or not both these plans could be passed by Congress, but it seems difficult right now because Congress has been unable to pass much far-reaching legislation in the past few years. Despite this Congressional gridlock, there is a huge amount of support among the American people (see Figure 4) for raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, like what President Obama proposed a few years ago, so Congresspeople should respond to this call for action by implementing the plans discussed above. To fail to change the American income tax system is not only immoral but also economically unfeasible. We must take action to end the regressiveness of this system before it is too late. Figure 429 ment has been largely unable to gain new members attain membership rates anywhere close to their record highs in the 1940s and 50s.1 Many critics posit that labor unions are outdated relics from Americas industrial past. Others cite the possibility of unions taking too much power, such as in teachers unions across the United States. With a private sector union density of 6.6%, and the trend not showing any signs of reversing, it seems that unions are going to die the death their critics believe they so rightly deserve.2 However, unions cannot simply be allowed to disappear, as they represent the strongest counterweight to the power of corporations in the modern U.S. The vital role that unions play expands beyond the often-stated ethical argument that a rising economy should benefit those that work to create it; unions matter even in a more pragmatic and economic argument. A strong middle class accompanied the post-World War Two economic boom in the United States, which ushered in a period of high job security and good wages. In order to have a strong economy driven by purchases of disposable income, a large middle class must be present. One might ask, will this middle class return with corporate profits at all time highs? Will the tax breaks given to corporations allow them to create good paying jobs to help keep America strong? Unfortunately, it seems these incentives have failed. In fact, beginning in 2009, during the Great Recession, over 60% of the jobs lost were middle class jobs; since the recession, 59% of the jobs created have been low wage jobs, or jobs with median wages under 200 percent of the federal poverty line for a family of four.3 Now that corporations are again posting profits, more of the U.S. workforce is stranded toiling in low-specialization work than before, not becoming the highly skilled workforce that will help our country into the future to compete with other countries such as China and India. Unions also have other, not explicitly economic influences on the United States that are important. Unions tend to increase participation in electoral democracy, as studies suggest union members vote at higher levels than nonunion members.4 It appears that when a large union force gets more people to vote and support their pro-union candidate, the opposing candidate will respond to union activity through mobilization activities directed towards their own supporters.5 While one could argue that union members would only vote for the union-chosen candidate, and thus lead to a less democratic process, I believe that a more

11

Figure 328

THE LABOR MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES: WHY IT IS CRUCIAL FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH
Edmund Brose

Introduction The precipitous decline of the labor movement in the private sector forecasts grim portents for visions of a more egalitarian America. The decline of unions has helped to spur on increasing wage inequality among American workers; simultaneously, the move-

12 competitive and contested election that increases voter turnout for both sides is the sign of a healthy democracy. In addition, the difference in voter turnout between more and less unionized states was about, with other variables held equal, a difference in turn-out of about 6.5 percent.6 Along with a positive effect on democracy, states where unionization is strong tend to spend more on social programs including education and health care. Correlative studies have found trends such as higher rates of unionization induce greater spending.7 In addition, it appears that the greater unionization, the more progressive the tax code and the more liberal policy in general.8 This has important consequences going forward for the progressive agenda, for as the labor movement decreases in strength, as it has since the 1950s, Americans could see fewer liberal policies as the impact of unionization lessens. Policy Proposals With the important place that unions hold in continuing the progressive agenda, I present some policy solutions that could reenergize the movement. The first is the widespread adoption of the card-check method for union voting, as this would help unionization drives in the U.S. Next I propose considering national bargaining, as well as detailing the challenges associated with that process. Finally, I offer a new perspective on a management program that is perhaps an evolution of the traditional bargaining model. The first and simple step to helping labor unions advance into this century is a new method of creating a unionized shop. The newer, more efficient way of doing this is by the card check method which comes about when pro-union workers get signed cards from a majority of workers (50-60% depending on the region) and then send these to be checked against the payroll by the labor certification board.9 Employers come together and decide the terms for a union, but the union really has become a bargaining unit at this point.10 This much faster and easier procedure escapes one of the largest traps and challenges confronting unions today, the employers anti-union drive, which often uses illegal means to threaten and coerce workers into not accepting the terms of a union. In approximately 30% of union elections, workers were illegally fired.11 Thus, new methods for unionization would result in fewer illegal firings and also help unions become recognized more quickly. Along with this solution, we should look to the idea of national bargaining. Secondly, the great success of Europe in obtaining rights for workers has come through industry-wide and industry-wide bargaining. As political scientist Margaret Levi points out, there are structural reasons that such large structures occur in Europe and abroad. She postulates that these countries governments and parties tend to be structured in ways that make them more open to labor constituencies and more able to offer organized labor favorable policies and treatment in return for support than the more fragmented and decentralized American governance system normally can.12 Essentially this approach, which could create a larger, structural safety net for workers to provide them protections, would never happen in the U.S. As Professor Dorian Warren points out, efforts to pass any significant labor law have been struck down by use of the Senate filibuster in the United States for the last century.13 Thus, this cannot be a viable way forward, as the corporate structure in the United States would never allow a reform of this magnitude to go forward. Thus, a third and more likely to succeed option is that of increased uses voices of labor in the actual operation of a factory. The option presented does something the labor movement in some cases opposes, by creating a board that listens to workers complaints by working with management. This tactic does not address growing the labor movement or density, but instead looks to more adequately respond to workers needs. Take for example one model from Germany. A new VW plant has become a battleground between the UAW (United Auto Works) and VW, as the union attempts to gain a foothold in the plant.14 Whereas the struggle to unionize the plant could be a very difficult and tedious process, a vote and then NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) certification, an alternative strategy could be used to represent the interests of workers in this factory. Based on the German model of a workers council, laborers could have their voices represented in the actual decision making of the factory. The idea, called Mitbestimmung, translates as co-determination, where workers have a very real and vocal impact on the way decisions are made. In Germany, this means that one-third and just under half of companies supervisory board members are representatives of workers the other part made up of representatives elected by the shareholders. Workers are therefore able to make decisions that impact every level of the company, and are able to work alongside, not underneath, management. Some even credit this model with being one of the reasons that the German economy has recovered so much faster from the Global and European Financial Crises. However, this system is foreign to the United States and even more so to the exceptional management psyche that has for so long created a huge rift between workers and managers. If companies did institute the system, how could it even work? In some cases, even labor unions oppose such a workers council, complaining that such means of expressing dissent are like companycontrolled unions, which have no real interest in the workers welfare. However, there are examples where greater say in the decision making process has been beneficial for workers, for example Harley Davidson, where workers were given greater participation in the 1980s and in return there was increased productivity, better product quality, greater job security, and a growing domestic workforce.19 The problem is that even though greater worker clout is better for both unions and management, neither is willing to give up their advantages. Unions do not want a group of workers that are not directly working for them making decisions, and unions oppose these representative workers being put in a position where could become soft against the corporation. In turn, management in the U.S. has in the past and appears to presently oppose any group that tries to pry away any of its authority. However, we should seriously consider this option as it allows labor to actually influence decisions in a meaningful way. Conclusion To conclude unions must once again become social movements. No longer can unions be seen as simply a self-interest group that sits in the factory and waits from orders to come down for on high. Unions must take the streets, and make their struggle for economic viability one that all Americans can stand behind. Unions must adapt to face the coming century, as they are too important to be left behind. They must come together, becoming a force in their communities and helping to bring a sustainable, living wage for the working class once more.

13

NEW TRACKS: A FUTURE OF AMERICAN PASSENGER RAIL

Ryan Morgan

Introduction In the summer of 1956 the American landscape was about to be remade. On June 29th of that year, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act into law. Under the pretext of strengthening national security during the Cold War by allowing rapid mobilization of the United States nuclear arsenal and evacuation of the growing suburbs, an unprecedented network of expressways was to be constructed across the entire nation. Financed primarily by federal fuel taxes with the remainder of the tab to picked up at the state level, the highways would make travel by automobile over long distances feasible. The great American road trip forever ingrained in our national folklore through film and fiction was born. But the Interstate Highway system, at an estimated construction cost of $119 billion, represents one of the single largest subsidies ever granted by the United States government. Who were the recipients of this massive payday? Detroit automakers, oil companies, and bus companies would all benefit from the toll-free network of highways that now crisscrossed the states. Unlike the railroads, streetcar systems, and urban rapid transit networks, companies deriving revenue from service on the highways do not have to directly administer or maintain the infrastructure that they depend upon. There is a federal fuel tax (in addition to those levied by individual states). However, paying what amounts (in 2014) to 18.4 cents per gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel in federal fuel taxes is incomparable to the effort that would go into constructing and maintaining a private road network. With such a generous subsidy, it is no wonder that the American public took to the highways in great numbers after the construction of the interstate system. Cars combined convenience and, increasingly, economy when compared with paying the ticket fair to travel or commute by train. By 1971 the decline in passenger revenue was so profound that Congress created the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, known as Amtrak. This publicly funded corporation took control of passenger rail traffic across the United

14 States to avoid a total cessation of service. In 2012 Amtrak served a record 31.2 million passengers. But in comparison with railroads in other developed countries, this number is quite unimpressive. In the United Kingdom, Network Rail services carried 1.33 billion intercity rail passengers during the same year. In Japan, home of the worlds busiest railroad network, more than 20 billion passengers took to the rails. The United States and its much larger population base should be able to operate an effective, popular railroad network. Why Rail? With its massive system of well-maintained expressways, it makes sense to commute and travel by car in the United States. But this logic is fundamentally flawed. Living in the suburbs and getting to work (and practically anywhere else) by car may actually be unhealthy. Driving encourages people to limit walking to just a few hundred steps per day, far below the basic amount of physical activity required to maintain a healthy weight. Expanding access to more public transportation options may actually be part of the solution to our nations public health crisis with obesity and related ailments. In addition to solving some of our public health woes, traveling alone in a car is fundamentally worse for our environment. According to British government data, travelling by electric train (a common fixture of the American rail network, especially in the Northeast) at just 50% occupancy can be five times less carbon intensive than driving alone in even a small gas-powered car. In an age when climate change is a palpable threat, cutting carbon emissions is a top tier priority. Increasing the use of railroads for both short and long journeys could make achieving meaningful reductions in the national carbon footprint. Idealistic visions aside, passenger rail is a practical alternative to auto or bus travel. Examining the modern American landscape, rail is the best way to provide travellers with an efficient route to work. Fundamentally, the United States is a suburban nation where distances are measured in miles, not feet. Regional and commuter rail, with stations every few miles in the centers of towns, provides a scalable solution. Of course, intermodal connections (either using private cars or local buses) will be required since the typical layout of suburbs necessarily precludes walking to the town center. But the distance between homes and the train station is quite small. Car traffic will be contained within an area measured in blocks, rather than clogging highways for miles approaching cities where people must go for work. Eventually, a revitalized rail network could encourage communities to grow denser around the station as shorter commute times increase the real estates desirability. A Targeted Solution One of the key differences, of course, between the United States and countries like Japan and Britain is population density. The United States is a vast, spread out nation with great distances between population centers in its interior while Japan and Britain are closely populated island nations. However, at the regional level there are great similarities. Regions like the Northeast Corridor feature relatively dense populations with relatively short distances between towns and cities. These are the areas, judging by the ridership of systems in the United Kingdom, where railroads should be successful alternatives to cars. In fact, according to Amtrak profit data, the Northeast corridor routes (such as Acela Express and Northeast Regional) actually generate net revenue under the current scheme. Other regions that may be ripe for passenger rail expansion include the Great Lakes, Texas, Florida, California, and the Pacific Northwest. With targeted expansion of rail infrastructure and service improvements along these key corridors, ridership levels could reach their full potential. However, nostalgia aside, unpopular and impractical routes in the West best served by airlines should be abandoned. It is a model at least superficially similar to the so-called Beeching Axe of the U.K. government in the mid twentieth century. Led by Richard Beeching, the chairman of then-state-owned British Railways, the commission produced a series of reports that eliminated uneconomical and redundant routes in order to cut massive losses. While much derided in Britain for its social costs, such a program would be valuable in the American West, which has a far different geography. On these long distance, low ridership routes, air and bus options will be adequate replacements for seldom used rails. In areas where rail routes are eliminated, a program subsidize bus operators could be implemented if adequate service does not yet exist. Public Private Partnership The exclusively publicly funded model must be re-examined. Increasingly, public agencies are turning to private capital to fund their transportation infrastructure projects. Successful integration countries travel much faster. Frances TGV service of private firms into public works has been achieved exceeds 180 mph,19 for example. High-speed franchise through carefully constructed plans, detailing exactly requirements would stipulate that operators must use what each party is responsible for and will gain in equipment capable of operating at comparable speeds return. Examples of public private partnerships (PPPs) to these foreign trains. The high-speed corridors would in the United States include the JFK Airport Internaneed to be fully grade separated from road or other tional Arrivals Building and the recently green-lighted rail crossings and passenger trains would not share the proposal to use private capital to build the Purple same tracks as freight trains in order to achieve the Line metro in suburban Washington, DC. In this type necessary speeds. These services would only stop at of project, the government agency solicits bids from stations in large city centers to keep travel time to a firms to build a particular infrastructure facility to its minimum and create a viable alternative to air travel. specifications in return for a share of the revenue or a To ensure competition in the bidding process, each fee. individual corridor would be franchised as a separate Rail service in the United Kingdom follows agreement. this model. Private firms compete for regional rail Higher-speed regional intercity service would franchises to serve certain routes operate at speeds comparable to through a similar bidding process. Amtraks Northeast Regional (125 One such company, First Rail earned Rather than pursuing a fully mph).20 These trains would connect privatized railroad system profits of $41.43 million in 2013. smaller city centers at middling dis(which exists in Japan) that will tances (15-25 miles) and act as conFees generated by franchise agreements fund Network Rail, effectively effectively return rail service to necting services for the high-speed its unprofitable pre-Amtrak a public company in charge of maincorridors. In some cases, parallel position, a public private parttaining infrastructure including the higher-speed routes may share a nership structured similarly to right of way, stations, and ticketing designated high-speed corridor to Network Rail could be a viable systems. Rather than pursuing a fully solution for the United States. connect the less populous towns privatized railroad system (which exists and cities along the route. Higher-speed trains may in Japan) that will effectively return rail service to also, at times, share tracks with freight trains. These its unprofitable pre-Amtrak position, a public private routes would be much more numerous than high-speed partnership structured similarly to Network Rail could corridors. Therefore bidding for a single franchise be a viable solution for the United States. would include multiple routes within a designated region. A Practical Franchise Structure At the most local level, commuter routes In a re-imagined American passenger rail would encompass all of the train services surroundsystem, private firms would bid on the right to provide ing designated large cities. These rail lines typically service along a certain corridor or within a certain branch out from the city center and serve stops at region. But how would these franchises be defined? distances of 3-10 miles with local and express trains. After a thorough analysis of ridership and revenue, Each franchise would include all of the commuter certain routes would be eliminated from the national lines in the region surrounding a particular city. Right network and other areas will be targeted for expansion. now, regional or state transportation authorities like In the regions where rail transportation is practical, a the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and NJ three-tiered system would be put in place. These tiers Transit (not Amtrak) operate these trains though they would include high-speed intercity, regional intercity, may share tracks with intercity services. Commuter and commuter service. trains will continue to operate at conventional rail High-speed intercity routes would connect speeds of 80 mph and share tracks with freight trains. major cities (Washington to Philadelphia, New York, As part of the modernized rail network, existing comand Boston or Los Angeles to San Jose and San muter rail services should be expanded while new Francisco) along high volume corridors. Currently, systems are fast-tracked in growing cities like Phoenix Acela Express, the only true high-speed service in the and Houston. The national network cannot be considUnited States operates on the Northeast Corridor at ered complete without providing robust alternatives to speeds of up to 150 mph.18 However, trains in other commuting by car.

15

16 Administrative Structure A program this substantial requires a well thought out administrative model. Again, the United States should borrow some ideas from the United Kingdom. Like Network Rail, the federal government should establish a national infrastructure agency or corporation. This public entity would then be in charge of administering the franchise bid process. It would also maintain the railroad infrastructure used by the private operators including the rail itself, signals, and overhead electrification. To ensure continuity across the entire national network, this body would own and operate all stations and administer a unified ticketing system. A central board would oversee the entire organizations activities, but regional boards established for each separate franchise area would take care of day-to-day operations. In addition to infrastructure maintenance and capital projects, the regional offices would manage finances and establish funding. In order to fund the massive investment needed to restore21 our national railroad network, a fuel surcharge substantially higher than the current federal rate would be levied. However, this would not be a national, but rather, a local tax established only at the county level where a franchises service actually maintains a station. This encourages those with access to the network to abandon their cars for the rails without levying a tax on people who cannot actually take advantage of the benefits. Promoting the use of railroad public transportation must be central to the mission of the infrastructure agency. But it does not end with only people traveling by train. The same body would also permit and manage private freight operations on tracks also carrying passengers. Here the objective is to also encourage the use of freight rail over trucking in order to extend the carbon reductions to the logistics industry. The fuel surcharge, once again, does just that. In a country that consumes 133 billion gallons of fuel per year,22 fuel taxes represent a significant source of revenue that can be used to finance costly projects. This roughly translates to more 400 gallons per person, meaning that in a metropolitan area like Philadelphia with a population of around five million, a $0.50 per gallon surcharge could result in up to $1 billion in annual revenues. Paired with a franchise fee structure, rail could finally see the kind of large-scale investment it needs to be competitive. An improvement program with this sort of funding would likely create a significant number of jobs in affected regions, particularly in STEM occupations needed to design the network as well as the construction trades required to build and maintain it. Implementation Putting such an aggressive plan into action will require a lengthy transition period. But first Congress will need to act to defund Amtrak and establish a new PPP structure. Such a bill would also need to include provisions to grant the regional infrastructure subagencies the authority to levy fuel surcharges and issue requests for proposals (RFPs the first step of the franchise bidding process) from transportation firms. Additionally, legislation would create provisions for a transition scheme likely lasting at least five years. The transition period would allow infrastructure to be overhauled while contracts are issued and franchises are awarded. During this period, current commuter and intercity services would remain uninterrupted. The most critical work to be undertaken during the transition period is the reconstruction of the physical rail infrastructure itself. During the transition period, bonds will be issued by the infrastructure agency against projected fuel tax and franchise revenues. The resulting funding is to be used to improve and expand the network with new lines and repairs to existing ones. For high-speed service, new passenger-only tracks will need to be built. In some cases, it will also be necessary to purchase portions of proposed routes from a private owner usually a freight carrier. Before certain higher speed services can begin, regulations limiting the design of passenger equipment must be modernized. Currently, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) reinforcement requirements exist for rolling stock on passenger trains sharing tracks with slower freight trains. These regulations preclude the lighter designs used abroad to deliver effective higher speed service.23 As part of the initial legislation establishing modernized rail service, such restrictions need to be eased or eliminated. Once the infrastructure improvement program is well under way and regulations are eased, the bidding process can begin. Bids for franchises will need to be considered along very strict, specific criteria to be successful.24 Examples might include the proposed rolling stock technology (motive power and passenger accommodations), the companys experience in transportation, and the ticket-pricing scheme. Additionally, the contract documents would need to include stipulations to ensure that service would be maintained not eliminated by the operators in the case of worse than expected returns. A similar process would occur when companies bid on permits to operate freight service over designated passenger corridors. Once the construction and bidding is complete, the rollout of the new national rail service can commence. On the specified date, all facilities will be taken over be the national infrastructure agency while franchise-holders begin operating services. The national rollout will require significant coordination to ensure a seamless transition for millions of travelers who depend on the national railroad network. New ticketing systems and train operators must be ready for the first day of service. Conclusion Enhanced passenger rail service for the United States should be a domestic policy priority because it offers tangible benefits. Access to public transportation like trains will help the nation reduce its carbon footprint while generating social capital by encouraging healthy, efficient city planning. But to make this vision a reality, major changes in the way rail service is provided will need to be made. One solution is creating one of the largest public private partnerships in history. A public rail infrastructure agency with regional subsidiaries would maintain the vital physical portions of the network including the tracks, signals, stations, and power supplies. The agency would also oversee all stations and maintain a uniform national ticketing system. Private transportation firms would then bid on regional franchises to bring service to the lines. By involving private enterprise in the system, competition is generated to improve service and lower prices to win contracts. The profits made by companies franchising rail routes are then infused into the broader economy. The fees generated by franchise agreements would be used to fund infrastructure maintenance and improvement by the public agency. Paired with a localized fuel surcharge designed to raise revenue and encourage railroad ridership, a massive railroad revitalization program could be undertaken. With the proposed restoration and expansion of passenger rail, Americas network will be able to reach the same heights as those in competing countries. With this plan of action, it should be possible to provide efficient, scalable solutions that will appeal to American travelers and relieve highway congestion.

17

18

19

REFORMING SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION SERVICES

Ruohan Zhang

Introduction With large classes, underpaid teachers, and a general lack of resources at home, it may seem improbable for a disadvantaged student living in a city like Washington, D.C. to obtain a quality secondary education. Washington, D.C. has the highest Gini coefficient of income inequality (0.532) and the lowest high school graduation rate (58%) in the United States.1 While efforts are underway, there is no single way to tackle education reform. When policy makers so much as discuss classroom reform, discourse inevitably turns to external factors, such as income level, parents education level, or neighborhood safety. While education may be the silver bullet, there is no comprehensive silver bullet to education reform. Meaningful change and educational equality takes time and a combination of socioeconomic policies to address. In the meantime, providing supplementary education to struggling students in secondary school may improve both high school graduation and secondary education rates. In 2013, the national high school graduation rate reached a forty-year high of 75%.2 While this statistic looks promising, it belies some underlying statistics on young adults ages 16-21. 5.1 million of these graduates did not enroll in secondary education. In the same year, 1.8 million young adults also left school without a diploma, and 66% of them are jobless.3 Supplementary education, better known as tutoring, has provided invaluable benefits to at-risk students in the past. From online tutoring, academic coaching, to peer tutoring, supplementary education allows students to revisit concepts they learn in the classroom, enhance their learning with higher-level practice, and improve their study skills. While free tutoring is provided through the No Child Left Behind law, school districts, and community organizations, most tutoring occurs through private, paid programs. This provides wealthier students with a leg up, particularly in secondary education, where tutoring targets more difficult, specialized subject areas as well as college preparatory exams. By reforming current federal policies concerning supplementary education, we can ensure that all students, especially those at an

EDUCATION

economic disadvantage, can receive the benefits from education beyond the classroom. Current Law Under Title I of the No Child Left Behind Law (NCLB), passed in 2003, schools categorized as in need of improvement are required to provide Supplemental Educational Services (SES) to students that qualify for free or reduced lunch.4 These schools are generally those where at least 40% of the students and their families are low-income as defined by the US Census Bureau.5 Supplemental Educational Services, for the most part, consist of free tutoring. According to this law, Title I schools are required to assess whether students qualify for free tutoring, inform parents or guardians that their student qualifies, and allow the parents or guardians to choose a tutor. Schools must set aside up to twenty percent of their federal funds under Title I, Part A for a combination of tutoring and transportation for school choice. While this policy is well intentioned, its flaws are jarring. In order to even qualify for free tutoring, students must first attend a Title I school categorized as in need of improvement for two years in a row. This stipulation greatly reduces the number of students that can be assisted, and misses the opportunity to help poor students who do not attend Title I schools. According to the Department of Education, even among students who qualify for SES, less than 15% are getting the free tutoring they are entitled to. Moreover, tutoring services are often contracted out to a list of organizations approved by the state, including private and public, non-profit and for-profit organizations, such as businesses, national tutoring companies, and religious institutions. As early as 2005, more than half of all SES providers were private, for-profit groups.6 In addition, thirteen out of the 50 state education agencies surveyed by the CEP did not require SES providers to ever reapply for state approval.7 At best, this policy lacks accountability. Without extensive knowledge of the tutoring organizations, parents have little say as to the quality of tutoring that their student receives. And without a set of standards for SES providers, there is hardly accountability or incentive in providing high quality tutors. John Nunnery, executive director of the Center for Educational Partnerships at Old Dominion University, analyzed multiple studies on SES impact on 140,000 students in 17 states. He concluded the program had negligible effects on math and reading test scores. In urban areas where more students qualify and take

20 part in SES, they may only receive 20 to 40 hours of tutoring per year.9 The source of this ineffectiveness, according to a report by the Center on Education Policy, is an insufficient number of staff and inadequate federal funding. Only $2 billion of annual NCLB funding is dedicated to both school choice and SES, and only 13 states said that their funds were sufficient to oversee effective SES programs. Over the past few years, largely because of these flaws, most states have received waivers from the Department of Education that have eased the SES requirement, effectively making this policy void in most school districts. Notably, President Obama promised waivers to all states that agreed to adopt certain education policies, such as teacher evaluations tied to student test scores. This trade-off effectively nullified the SES requirement as well as other NCLB standards in all states, except Nebraska, California, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, Illinois and Iowa.10 In California, eight major school districts received waivers in August 2013.11 This is not to say, because of NCLBs failures, that state-sponsored tutoring is ineffective. On the contrary, it can provide invaluable benefits beyond classroom instruction. One report analyzing results from several studies on the effects of tutoring showed that the most effective tutoring took place through programs that used a prescribed curriculum, employed degreed tutors, and supplied one-on-one tutoring. According to a 2009 study by the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois, students tutored one-on-one by college students made the greatest gains out of any other tutoring group.12 Colleges and universities are the solution that would allow academically struggling, low-income high school students to receive free tutoring and college preparatory assistance in almost every community. My policy proposal is modeled after America Reads and America Counts, national initiatives started by President Clinton in the 1990s. These initiatives partner college and university students as both paid and volunteer tutors for students from pre-K to eighth grade. Students are paid if they qualify for Federal Work Study in their financial aid award. My policy proposal would draw upon these initiatives successes to instead partner universities with public high schools. Rather than a national initiative, this policy would require a greater portion of funds from FWS to be awarded to student tutors at universities, and allocate federal funds for creating a tutoring office at participating universities. My proposal is based on the idea that a standardized system of regulating free tutoring can still allow for effectiveness and individuality in each university-high school partnership. Policy Recommendations: 1) Changing the selection criteria for SES. Instead of allowing the Department of Education to assess which schools should be considered in need of improvement under Title I, this task should be left to state or regional education departments with the help of schools and school districts. Rather than only targeting disadvantaged students at certain schools, this would allow individual schools to determine the students that qualify for SES. This should be assessed using tax returns (to gauge family income level) and report cards (to judge academic needs), with additional references up to the school districts discretion. Lastly, states should no longer be able to apply for waivers, and current waivers granted should be deemed void. 2) Create a university or college office dedicated to forging tutoring partnerships with schools. Once school districts determine its students that qualify for free tutoring, there needs to be an efficient way to connect them with university students who wish to fulfill their FWS through tutoring. Federal funding should incentivize universities and colleges to establish an office dedicated to engaging schools in the community (more in funding section). Institutionalizing community engagement is crucial to success. It ensures that students have a regular and safe space to meet with their tutors with the necessary resources for productive learning and instruction. While most universities have student clubs that may offer instruction free of charge to middle school or high school students, their subject offerings are not comprehensive. Through these clubs, college students participate mostly on a volunteer basis and are not bound to any contract or standard. Most importantly, there is no way to guarantee accountability or continuity over long periods of time. Therefore, an office committed to supplementary education partnerships with even a few staff members would vastly increase the success of university and secondary school tutoring partnerships. 3) Re-allocate and increasing federal funding. a) Currently, the biggest federal grant through NCLB is allocated to Title I schools ($13.760 billion in fiscal year 2013). Less than $1 billion goes towards SES, which is directed to school districts and mostly spent on private, for-profit tutoring programs. SES funding promoting success in the long run. Tutoring is far should be re-allocated at the beginning of each school from a permanent solution for education reform, but it year to university offices that provide free tutoring for can be a temporary and effective one. administrative costs. b) The federal government should provide an initial STUDENT EVALUATION OF TEACHERS one-time grant incentivizing universities to create a AND THE IMPROVEMENT OF CLASScommunity engagement office or a sub-program under such an existing office. ROOM TRANSPARENCY AND COMMON c) Federal Work Study currently mandates that institu- CORE IMPLEMENTATION tions must use at least 7% of funding to support stuKunal Shah dents working in community service jobs. Instead, this stipulation should be altered to require at least An Outdated System 10% for overall community service jobs, with at least As a university student, I was none too sur5% in SES provided through the university. prised to receive an email in my inbox towards the 4) Set standards for paid and volunteer tutors. last month of the semester asking me to evaluate my School districts and partner institutions should colprofessors for each of the classes I had taken. Inlaborate to create a contract with standards and creased transparency between students and teachers is expectations for paid and volunteer tutors, as well as expected in higher education,. and with each student a training program for all tutors. Each tutor should be paying tens of thousands of dollars, the university was assigned certain subject areas and be provided with obligated to ensure that their employees were meeting the resources to revisit the material if needed. Each the highest standards of teaching. What did intrigue tutor should also have a clear idea of schedules and me was the eagerness of the professors themselves payments, with volunteer tutors working fewer hours, to receive feedback from each of their students. I, but with the same expectations. The office should also amongst many students, did not immediately comadminister its own evaluations to determine students plete the evaluations upon first receiving them; consuccess. Standards increase accountability and prosequently, my professors emailed me multiple times vide a way to track achievements. asking me to truthfully fill out the evaluations so they 5) Include a free college preparatory program. could better prepare for their next semester of classes. Students eligible for free tutoring should be offered a These earnest requests made me feel as though my simple application for free college preparatory guidfeedback was as important to my professors as theirs ance. This could easily be provided was to me; that they were truly pasIf schools can give their in conjunction with a regular tutoring sionate about their fields and opportuathletes $2,000 for purposes session, as college students are already nities to teach undergraduate students. other than sponsoring their equipped to give advice on college The reason that this open education, why can they preparation and admission, from editrelationship between teachers and not give them $3,000? Or ing college essays to help with finanstudents is so intriguing to me is that $10,000? cial aid questions. before I attended a selective private University students, from underuniversity, I attended an underfunded public high graduate to graduate, are ideal for providing suppleschool, where there were many great teachers who mentary education at the middle and high school set a foundation for my future academic success, but level. They are a step above peer tutoring, which inalso teachers who struggled to educate effectively and creases the level of respect between tutor and student, control their students. These teachers commonly saw as well as a sense of mentorship. Tutoring is not only their job as only that, and did not go the extra mile valuable in enhancing academic learning, but also with their students, and were unable to connect with in creating a relationship to the student that encourthem. Students like myself felt de-incentivized from ages their success. University students dedicated to putting effort into these classes because there was community service can either volunteer or use this such a large gap between us and our instructor. Even opportunity to fill their Federal Work Study requirein the classes with better teachers, many of us saw ment. Establishing a staff to manage university-school areas of potential improvement in the class but had no partnerships creates accountability and continuity, way of comfortably telling our teachers about them.

21

22 As Common Core State Standards begin implementation and testing across 45 states this year, we see teachers facing the challenge of realigning their curriculums to a new set of state standards and have more rigorous expectations, and schools having to transition their teachers into the Common Core without sacrificing their State Assessment scores and mandated funding. But while the challenges of Common Core implementation are heard far and wide, the impact on the students themselves has been relatively unaddressed. Students are facing curricula and exams that have higher analytical demands for them, and may suffer from teachers who are having difficulties transitioning into the Common Core or who fail to effectively teach these new standards. Despite this, the failure for students to voice their opinions on classroom instruction will continue, leaving teachers without an entire resource of feedback that can be used to improve the way these new standards are taught. If the manner in which students are learning is changing, the manner in which teachers approach education should change as well. Student Evaluation of Teachers as a Solution A viable solution to discrepancies in national education and effective teaching would be for the Common Core State Standards Initiative to include a teacher evaluation section in their methods of evaluating classroom instruction. Evaluation forms provide teachers with valuable information regarding what is important to students, how students would like to learn, and what can be done in order to help them better cater their teaching styles to student needs. This will smoothen the transition to Common Core Standards, as teachers will understand how effectively they are adapting to these new set of standards based on student receptiveness. They will gain confidence from positive feedback, and understand areas for improvement otherwise, and be able to capitalize on them. Consequently, evaluation forms also allow teachers to track their own progress in meeting student needs as well as students academic progress, which helps them to target what needs to be improved. Students feel more engaged and responsible for their work in a project-based environment, which teachers are able to provide with more innovative teaching styles. Additionally, student evaluations allow teachers to focus on the specific, relevant subject matters that students need more help with. Development of Student Evaluations of Teachers Non-profit organizations like the California Association of Student Councils, and start ups such as New Haven-based Panorama Education, have created models for student feedback based on demand for such evaluations from students, legislators, and teachers.1 These evaluations allow students to voice their insights on the quality of instruction while providing an effective check against abusing the surveys. An example of a previously developed form can be seen in Appendix A. There are three important considerations to keep in mind when selecting items. First, teaching methods vary, and a question that may seem perfectly suited to one course may be inappropriate for another.2 Second, if the form is too long, students could begin to experience evaluation fatigue.2 Finally, results will be most useful if the questions refer to specific teaching behaviors . Individual instructors are likely to feel less threatened by student evaluations if they have a voice in what will be included on the rating forms and how the data will be used.2 In addition, evaluators may add optional questions on the forms so that instructors can choose items that seem to be particularly relevant to their subject matter and teaching methods.3 Overall ratings are the most appropriate for decision making, since they have the highest correlation to student learning.4 Items that ask about specific skills or attitudes can provide useful diagnostic information that may help an instructor improve.2 Finally, faculty should be given time and encouragement to improve before any final decisions are reached.2 In addition, they should have an opportunity to respond in writing to the results of student evaluations.2 A Response to the Question of Validity One objection to student ratings is that they are not valid measures of teaching effectiveness; that students are not able to assess good teaching and therefore evaluations represent nothing more than a popularity contest. However, the results of a number of studies indicate that students and faculty offer very similar responses when asked to rank aspects of teaching in terms of their relative importance . Both groups agree that the most important indicators of good teaching include: teachers preparation, organization, clarity and comprehensibility as well their ability to gauge class level and progress.6 Interestingly enough, students and faculty also agree that the instructors personality is relatively unimportant6. Furthermore, research has shown a significant correlation between instructors self-ratings of their effectiveness and COMPUTATION CHANGE: THE ROLE student evaluations . There are also significant correOF COMPUTER SCIENCE IN lations between student evaluations and the ratings of 5 PUBLIC EDUCATION trained observers. If student evaluations are valid, we would Lesley Cordero expect that students who learned more would rate Introduction their instructor as more effective. An analysis of 41 An incoming college student may arrive at his studies found that there was, in fact, a statistically sigor her university completely undecided about his or nificant, positive correlation between student ratings of teaching and student achievement . Survey items her future. Even after an average public school district concerning overall course quality and overall instruceducation, the college student may remain apathetic as to what he or she should major in. And because of tor effectiveness showed the highest correlation with 7 the plethora of college courses and limited two to four achievement. As one might expect, the correlation with items referring to specific teaching skills varied semesters before he or she officially declares a major, 7 its nearly impossible that said student will be able to considerably. Research also indicates that student evaluations are reliable; they yield consistent results explore all his or her options. After two years of takthat are stable over time. A study in which ratings ing introductory courses, he or she finally decides on a major. But this is largely due to limited time, so he were collected on the same instructors teaching the or she may have lingering desires to pursue a different same course in four consecutive years showed a field of study. consistent pattern: the instructors received similar ratWhile it is nearly impossible to expose every ings year after year (i.e., evaluations from each class American student to the multitude of options availindicated similar strengths and weaknesses).7 Moreable to him or her, one field of over, student evaluations seem to be study that not only remains vastly stable over time: there is a high correlaThe numbers are very clear: in demand, but is also seldom tion between alumni ratings and those we are pushing foreign incorporated into the K-12 lives of of current students, and studies that ask nationals away from the students all around the country is alumni to rerate professors after graduUnited States and feeding Computer Science. ation show a very high level of stability them into our competitors As applications, the internet, as well.7 economies. and algorithms become essential components of everyday life, the need for computer Appendix A scientists continues to grow. And despite this increasing demand, computer science education in grade school is declining. Furthermore, not only is a decline of computer science education unraveling in our nations public education system and workforce, but it also further disadvantages underrepresented minorities, women, and low-income students. With that said, the perpetuation of unequal access to technological fields is an issue that needs to be addressed; and with the implementation of a Computer Science curriculum, this issue will become less relevant to our society as more students are given access to these fields. The Issue Currently, only 14 states have implemented education standards for high school computer science, and of the 42,000 high schools in the United States, only 2,100 are actually certified to teach an Advanced

23

24 Placement Computer Science course, a decline of 25% over the past five years. Furthermore, the number of secondary schools offering introductory computer science courses has dropped 17 percent from 2005 to 2009.2 To exacerbate the problem, the apparent low demand for Computer Science caused College Board to eliminate its AP Computer Science AB test that examined advanced computer science topics such as algorithms and data structures, replacing it with the AP Computer Science A test, which deals mostly with programming.3 While Computer Science is becoming less popular in the context of the general population of students, its popularity among females, underrepresented minorities, and low-income students has decreased even more significantly. In 2013, only 18.6% of AP Computer Science test takers were female, and only 12.3% were students of underrepresented minority backgrounds.4 Furthermore, in 2013, less than 1% of low-income students took an AP exam,5 and that number decreases for the AP Computer Science course because of inaccess to proficient computers. With that said, a large issue with our current relationship to computer science education is that it is not accessible to all students of the United States. And those who do have access, usually only have access to the current AP Computer Science A curriculum, which now focuses on programming rather than the fundamental principles applicable to a multitude of fields. In other words, our students are not being exposed to computer sciences entire spectrum of applicability; instead, the misconception that computer science is merely for those who would enjoy programming often is being perpetuated. Contrary to popular belief, Computer Science requires much more than just programming skills. To be a proficient Computer Scientist is to be someone who can think critically, particularly in the context of algorithms or data analysis.7 With the implementation of the Common Core Standards, the importance of critical thinking skills has become particularly relevant, and an involved Computer Science curriculum requirement is a way of further emphasizing these skills. Moreover, if we step away from the current emphasis on programming skills and move towards a more diverse Computer Science curriculum, other skills in creating and manipulating graphics, security and cryptography, web design, designing and programming robotics, and ethical and social issues in computing,8 can be applied. In other words, implementing a Computer Science curriculum offers the opportunity of developing skills in a variety of ways and different contexts, all of which can be applied to essentially any other field. For example, biology utilizes computer science with human genome sequencing and protein simulations, whereas environmental sciences use computer science to monitor certain properties of oceans, forests, and rivers. In contrast, computer science is applicable to public policy analysis and strategy,9 as well law in the context of the internet and human communication. Evidence of the variety of fields computer science is applicable to lies in the statistic that 70% of computing occupations are outside the informational technology industry. Because of its ability to ultimately impact the career choices of students nationwide, computer sciences role in the classroom needs to be addressed right away. 98% of Computer Science majors are exposed to its content prior to college, whereas only 45% of non-Computer Science majors are exposed to computer science prior to college. Furthermore, students who take the AP Computer Science course are eight more times likely to major in it in college. Considering the low percentage of minority students (12.3%) and women (18.6%) who enroll in AP Computer Science, the low percentage, 10.1% and 18%, of Computer Science majors who are underrepresented minorities and women, respectively, is the inevitable result. Clearly, a relationship between high school background and choice of major exists, so we have to take the impact of exposing students, especially those traditionally underrepresented in computer science, to the field in K-12 education into consideration. If computer science remains a field only accessible to a certain portion of the student population, how can we expect an equal representation of all students in the field? Incorporating Computer Science into the curriculums of public education would benefit both our nations students and our nation. By exposing computer science to all students, they will be encouraged to pursue computer science, which will eventually alleviate not only the high demand for computer scientists, but the demand for underrepresented minorities and women in computer science. Reform Recommendations As a way of transitioning, schools currently with offering a computer science course will begin allowing these courses to satisfy a science or math reinto actually taking the course. Rather than treating Computer Science as an elective or language, schools need to affirm its place in the sciences and maths, which is why making this change is a good initial step. Meanwhile, introductory courses in grades K-8 will be implemented via the creation of four level courses. Each course would focus on a different principle of computer science so that young students are not only able to actually understand the material, but still create a strong basis for later courses. Moving onto secondary education, an overall introductory computer science course requirement will be offered to all students, targeting the underclassmen years. Once again, as a way of transition, this computer science course will first serve as an option of fulfilling a science or math requirement, and if the course is successful, more changes can be made. A note to make here is that because College Board is currently making changes to its AP Computer Science course so that it is more principle based, students will be allowed to substitute the AP course for its requirement when it comes into effect in 2016 or 2017.10 As of now, typical state education standards include three science and three math requirements, but with the incorporation of computer science, changes will need to be made if the course positively impacts students and schools. Rather than only having a total of six science/math requirements, seven should be required, with the extra requirement having the ability to be fulfilled by either a science or math course. This will give both the high schools and students some flexibility when choosing which classes to offer or take. While Computer Science will not be an expected requirement in secondary education, the option of taking the course will be readily available to all students, not only students who happen to go to high schools with more resources. Moreover, much like any other science course, computer science will now be exposed to students at a younger age so that the decision to take, or not take, computer science later on will be more well informed. Overall, these changes to the way in which computer science is treated by the United States education system will result in a more equal system for our students so that issues of underrepresentation and unequal access become less relevant. However, recognizing that these changes to the current computer science curriculum are drastic, they would first be applied to one state so that its effectiveness can be evaluated before implementing them into more states. This is largely due to the fact that implementing this program would call for increased education funding, which Congress would be hesitant to pass. Therefore, so that both political parties will be more open to these changes, a swing state such as Ohio or Florida will be encouraged to be the first state to implement these changes; and upon a successful implementation, the federal government will encourage further implementation of these programs by offering incentives to states that adapt these changes.

25

PHD RENEWAL
Esther Brot

The US is currently suffering from a lack of positions for our scientific PhDs both in industry and in academia. Our scientific community is slowly leaving the US for countries with more available jobs and funding opportunities. This is a crucial problem because it means that the US is experiencing a brain drain, the dispersion of a lot of talent that we have taught in our universities. As a result, the minds the US has cultivated become assets to other countries research programs, negatively affecting the future of American research. Background Many of the people who receive science PhDs in the US are not Americans. 26% of those that were awarded PhDs in 2011 in the life sciences in America were non-citizens.1 This means that our country expends money educating people whom they later force out of the country. People educated in our top insitutions who are not citizens are not as likely to stay and work in the US because of how difficult it is to get a green card in the US. Thus they do not contribute to the American scientific community and its productivity. In the US the process to get a green card takes many years, and requires the backing of an employer, i.e. someone who is willing to sponsor you. Without these things, which cannot happen without job, a green card is almost impossible to obtain. The reason for this brain drain is not only the difficult Visa system, but also the lack of research positions. The number of academic positions for the life sciences has dropped considerably.2 It is important to note that many science PhDs are stuck in postdoctoral positions for sometimes upwards of 7 years because of

26 the lack of academic or even industry positions available in their field of research. Postdoctoral fellowships are positions under professors where the new PhDs are meant to learn how to conduct independent research and gain greater knowledge in their field of employment. An article in the Atlantic demonstrated in a series of graphs that the percent of employment upon receiving a PhD either in academic positions or in industry positions is below 40%. The number of academic positions has dwindled down to less than 14% of the available jobs, and on top of that, in the 2000s the biomedical industry cut 300,000 research positions.3 This sort of environment pushes people to move outside the country, not only non-Americans but also Americans, to find countries with more opportunities for research, advancement and funding. The federal government seems to have taken little note of these issues. While politicians and officials have remarked on the need for the US to increase its scientific productivity, and the Obama administration has made science education for young people a focus, little has been done to help create a sustainable scientific community that will grow and prosper.4 An example of the federal governments attempt to expand research, and the research positions available, is the Brain Initiative. The Brain Initiative is a federal and privately funded project to instigate research on the brain. While this will hopefully create a push for more productivity and create more job opportunities for researchers, it fails to create the possibility for long term research. As in his past research initiatives, Obama has thought in the short term. This is clear in the way the grant mechanism is set up. The federal grant has been made for two years, with renewal afterwards.5 If he had thought in terms of long term research and funding, the initial grant would have been made for more than two years. By setting the grant for two years, after which a renewal must be voted on, he has given everyone an out clause, i.e. if the research does not progress in a way that politicians understand, the program will not continue to receive funding. It is likely that the research will not progress exponentially in two years because research that the Brain Initiative supports takes a long time. This means that in this era of increasing budget cuts, of which the NIH has received the brunt, the Brain Initiative could easily not receive renewal and fail in stimulating research. These are decades long projects that need continued influxes of money. These sorts of projects cannot be completed in industrial environments because industry has profit driven models, which are solely focused on short term projects. Academic environments foster long term research that ends up creating the basis for drug innovation and other discoveries, which is what the Brain Initiative seeks to do, but the program is not using the correct structure to achieve this. Additionally, the donors interests often limit philanthropically funded research. Donors often have no understanding of disease and cellular biology, and so place unrealistic demands on researchers which hurts productivity and limits results. As it is most scientific funding comes from the government and should continue to come from it, just in different forms from the Brain Initiative funding structure.6 Policy Solution There are a series of options for solving the brain drain and lack of sustainable research positions. The first would be to lower Visa requirements for foreigners educated at American institutions at the dime of the American taxpayer. The non-American, but American educated, PhD should have the chance to pay back their free education by contributing to American science. The only way to do this is to firstly allow them to remain in the country. While such an initiative appears to be biased towards the educated class, over ill-educated or illiterate people, it is not. Differently than those people, what I am proposing is for people educated in the American system by American money, not for any educated foreigner who seeks a job in the US. Those educated in our system are taking the money invested in their education away when they leave the country, therefore it only makes sense that we should try to retain our investment, which can only be done by making it easier for those who received American PhDs to remain in this country. This is only one step in a series. The primary step is to find a way to create research positions for our life science PhDs that allow them to pursue long term research goals. One way to do this might be how the UK does this. In order to allow for turnover in their academic positions there is a mandatory retirement age of 65. This would allow for more academic positions to be up for grabs, therefore more employment opportunities for the younger generation of scientists. The negative side of such a policy is that many researchers over the age of 65 are still vibrant and innovative thinkers who are still making enormous scientific breakthroughs. I would propose a modification of the 65 and over policy. Those who hold academic positions over the age of 75 no longer hold the teaching title but rather the title of professor emeritus. A younger person takes on the teaching position, while the older scientist can by their choice either fully retire or continue to maintain their lab and research without the burden of teaching. As long as they are able to continue to get grants they are still employed. The government could also make a federal grant to universities to stimulate the creation of faculty positions. Different from the previous policy, the younger researchers could be employed only as researchers. They would not be professors, or have teaching positions. Labs have more space than one would think. These researchers could be given one bench in another persons lab where they would conduct their own independent research paid for by these government grants. This way the universities would not have to bear the overhead of building more lab space and supporting more faculty members. They instead would have free researchers and if their research is successful it could benefit the university. Any patents or discoveries that these independent contract researchers make will still be linked to the university as they would traditionally be if these researchers were faculty or postdoctoral fellows. In some ways a combination of the two proposals would create a more dynamic and expansive scientific academic community that could serve more researchers and be more productive. In terms of industry, there is little that can be done. As they are for-profit organizations, their number of employees is based on demand. The only option that comes to mind is the government issuing a mandate about the number of researchers that must be employed by each company. Such numbers would be based on the companys size, profits and capabilities.

27

28

29

SPACE BASED SOLAR POWER: AN AVAILABLE ANSWER TO A LONG-TERM PROBLEM

Simon Schwartz

the band of space around the Earth referred to as Low Earth Orbit, or LEO. The LEO offers continual access to direct sunlight at a minimal distance from Earth making maintenance exponentially easier, and the vastness of the vacuum of space provides more than enough room for our energy needs. Policy Summary The idea of a fleet of solar-satellites providing electricity for the population of Earth seems futuristic, but in reality, the necessary technology to construct, deploy, and maintain such a satellite is already well within our grasp, ready to begin to be optimized through the early stages of SBSP implementation. To augment and speed up the process of implementing a Space-Based Solar Power system, I propose that the following two-part policy: First, congress should pass legislation that provides corporate tax incentives to private companies developing, manufacturing, and optimizing, technologies integral to SBSP, secondly, legislation should be passed to morph NASA already looking for identity in lieu of the now-defunct space shuttle program into an organization that focuses on the administration and organization of SBSP and on overseeing the relationship between the public and private sector parties involved in the endeavor. Part 1: Bolstering Technological Initiative in the Private Sector As mentioned, a complete SBSP system would resemble something as follows: a fleet of satellites positioned in geostationary orbit to receive direct sunlight 24 hours a day. Energy from sunlight is collected through either a series of photovoltaic panels or large swaths of photovoltaic plastic film. The materials used for these systems can be maintained and replaced relatively easily, especially the plastic film, and both systems could be deployed and sustained robotically, thus limiting maintenance costs. Just like solar panels on Earth, the solar-satellites in the SBSP system would produce Direct Current, or DC, power. Direct Current, also known as Galvanic Current, simply refers to an electrical current in unidirectional movement. Each satellite would be equipped with a central transmission device to convert the electricity from DC power to radio frequency energy and transmit it to receiving stations on Earth. These receiving stations would take the form of large radio antennas, similar to the kind used for standard radio frequency output currently. Radiation-levels, long a predominant worry

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT

The Problem The issue of finding renewable energy could very well be the largest issue society today will have to deal with. It is an issue which affects an incredibly wide range of areas, from potentially creating jobs in entirely new industries to having a dramatic effect on the amount of the human corruption of our planet, and it could be the key to righting our current relationship with the Earths climate. In the present, coastlines move steadily in and the price of gas increases steadily higher, but even after Earths current generation is gone, future generations will still be paying for, and have to deal with, the irresponsibility with which past generations have handled environmental control. As society is faced with increasing myriads of what are by now very well-known climate and environmental issues, finding a source of clean renewable energy will continue to climb higher and higher on the present generations priority list. But waiting could prove insurmountably costly. It will not due for society to implement a source of clean energy only after they run out or reach a shortage of fossil fuels. Actions must be preemptive, and comprehensive, beginning with smart, yet aggressive, policy decisions. As the ultimate source of energy in our solar system, it is only logical that solar power would be the ultimate answer to the imminent energy crisis. The shortcomings of terrestrial solar power, however, lie in inefficiency inefficiency of land-use and inefficiency of collection ability. Studies show that at todays efficiency levels, 4 million square miles of solar farms will be needed In order to fully power Earths projected 9 billion inhabitants in 2100.1 To put that number in perspective, the entire continental United States is roughly 3 million square miles. Today, the idea of powering our planet with terrestrial solar power is generally seen as unrealistic, but there is an attractive alternative to consider. The Future of Solar Space Based Solar Power (SBSP), refers to the plan to create a fleet of satellites carrying solar panels, which are held together in geostationary positions in

30 for any energy solution involving a transmission process, would match up similarly to the negligible amount of radiation from standard radio frequencies as well. Such high-power long distance wireless power transmission technology, available since the mid-1970s, has already been tested by NASA, which found that transmission efficiency has been found in excess of 82%.2 Once transmitted, the electricity is distributed in the same manner as electricity produced on Earth. The largest hindrance to the SBSP system as the technology for it is currently available is the significantly large startup cost. Building a satellite equipped for solar collection and launching it into space will carry could cost up to 500 million dollars,3 with a realistic average of at least 200 million dollars. Thus, it would behoove the government to join with the private sector in this initiative. By helping to reduce the cost of launching a solar-satellite through tax incentives, the government could help increase the number of SBSP components in orbit exponentially more quickly than if the private sector was left up to the task alone. This is important, because, as data from NASA and Bloomberg New Energy Finance (see below) shoes, Space-Based Solar Power does indeed have the capacity to meet American energy needs, and unlike fossil fuels which require extensive work to discover, and then refine, solar energy is much more readily accessible, especially in space. Simply put, Space Based Solar Power offers the continuity and cleanliness of solar power without the crippling cost to efficiency that the atmosphere imposes on terrestrial solar farms. Without land space as an issue, solar fields in space could be much larger than those on Earth. Thus, without night or an atmosphere to thwart efficiency, conversion rates of 16% - considered the Industry standard for solar panels4 becomes virtually 100% in the void of space. Based on Data from NASAs Scientific Science Data Center, each meter of solar has the capacity to produce 2 gigawatts of power, and with room currently for thousands of them in orbit, SBSP alone can dwarf the 2030 American capacity for renewable energy, projected by Bloomberg New Energy Finance to be 343 gigawatts.5 Part 2: The Revitalization of NASA The first step towards implementation of a SBSP system has to be achieving familiarity with the Low Earth Orbit (LEO). As trips between Earth and the LOE become more commonplace, launch costs will invariably drop as technology becomes more advanced and more readily available. This is one of many instances in which a new and repurposed NASA could be a real asset. By ending their Space-Shuttle program, NASA created flexibility for their purpose as the 21st century progresses. A series of NASAled missions to Low Earth Orbit, with the intent of researching optimal methods of launching and maintaining solar-satellites would place them at the forefront of the alternative energy charge, and allow the actual transmission processes to begin to be heavily tested. Additionally, such missions would also give them an opportunity to begin to tackle what is one of the few potential problems surrounding the implementation of a SBSP system. Having played host now to over five decades of satellites, Low Earth Orbit is filled with all manner of synthetic space debris. This debris, every piece of it in orbit, represents an obvious threat to any sort of geostationary solar-satellite. Thus, NASA missions to begin to collect or reroute some of that debris would be extremely beneficial. Aside from taking an active part in carrying out important initial research into how best to optimize a SBSP system, NASA could find new life as the administrative and organizational leader of the SBSP clean energy movement. As mentioned, a full conversion to an SBSP system would mean the implementation of infrastructure not just in space but in Earth as well. The process by which solar energy was transmitted from space, converted from Radio Frequency Energy back into DC power at a centralized location, and subsequently exported to individual firms and households brings with it its own set of administrative challenges, which would benefit from having a dedicated agency to oversee them; especially one that would be intimately familiar with the rest of the SBSP process. Summation There are certainly more than one solutions to the pressing issue of a lack of a truly viable clean and renewable energy source, but when observing all the options, the choice of Spaced-Based Solar Power makes real sense. Here is a clean energy source of which people have zero doubts about its ability to supply energy to the entire Globe. The numbers dont lie; Outer space solar fields are more than 500 % more efficient than terrestrial solar fields, and given the expanse of space even with space debris present spaced-based solar fields have the capacity to be much larger than their terrestrial counterparts4. Additionally, the technology necessary for SpaceBased Solar Power to begin to get implemented has long been available. As mentioned, the technology for high-power long distance wireless power transmission alone has been tested as far back as the mid1970s at efficiencies of upwards of 82%.6 The SBSP system, when fully implemented, has the capacity to handle long-term energy needs, and offers many areas for continual technological or systematic improvement i.e. lower launch costs that come with continual interaction with the LEO, as well as the potential to transmit directly to private households, thus streamlining the process. The time is ripe for us to be proactive about the energy solution that we seek. With a revitalized NASA leading the way, a joint public and private sector Spaced-Based Solar Power venture is a logical, efficient, and effective option to insure the presence of a stable clean energy of the future. imported energy products, shifting the deficit in the balance of trade and expanding freedom of action in foreign policy. However, widespread implementation has been limited because of serious concerns over radioactive waste products lasting thousands of years, nuclear plant safety concerns, the possibility of weapons proliferation, and the high cost of power plant construction. Yet on the issue of waste products, fuel reprocessing can act as a partial solution by cutting down on the amount of dangerous spent fuel that must go into storage and by transforming nuclear warheads into electricity-producing material. Problems in Waste Storage Since 1977, US policy has been treat all used fuel as high-level waste to be disposed of by the federal government in a geologic repository, and has disallowed the reprocessing of used fuel back that can be put back into reactors.3 This policy lead to the buildup of 72,100 tons of used fuel at reactor sites by the end of 20123. In an attempt to find a permanent solution to the problem, Congress designated Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the repository for the nations nuclear waste in 1987, but the repository has yet to and is unlikely to ever be constructed.3 Without a final repository, some reactor sites storage space is at full capacity and have had to resort to dry cask storage, with utilities suing the federal government for failing to start removing waste by 19883. The Department of Energy is continuing to search for locations to store the waste, both permanently and temporarily, but the process could be a long and difficult battle if there is strong local opposition, as was the case with Yucca Mountain. Basic Science of Reprocessing Reprocessing spent fuel is one option for dealing with this waste. While the US does not reprocess its fuel, other countries like Japan, France, and Russia have benefited from the process. Reprocessed fuel allows 25-30% of the energy from the original uranium to be obtained from spent fuel, thereby requiring less mining of uranium, as well as reducing the most dangerous high-level waste products to one fifth of their original amounts.4 Reprocessing can recover wastes 1% plutonium and its 96% uranium, of which 1% is fissile U-235.4 Reprocessing requires the separation of unusable uranium isotopes and fission products from what can be reused as fuel. Today, reprocessing facilities

31

REPROCESSING INTO NUCLEAR FUEL: RECYCLE WASTE AND WEAPONS

Adrian Jaycox

Nuclear Energy Nuclear energy has a complicated legacy of promise and controversy. The technology promises clean, abundant energy, but problems of long-lived waste and safety have continued to stall its wider adoption. Major disasters like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have added to a general public distrust of nuclear energy. However, in an environment in which global demand for energy is rapidly increasing, and concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change keep nuclear energy as a potential in the US, and a reality in many other countries. Proponents of nuclear energy focus upon its ability to releasing such enormous amounts of energy with few environmental impacts. A mere 100 reactors produces 19% of all electricity in the US1, in contrast to the thousands of renewable energy plants in wind, solar, and hydroelectric generating only 12%.2 In addition, this energy has a low impact upon the environment, as it does little to affect the greenhouse gas balance. The prospect of producing large amounts of clean energy also raises the possibility of achieving energy security and independence, which has long been a goal of US and other policymakers around the world for geopolitical reasons. Energy security

32 use a process called PUREX, dissolving the used fuel in hot, concentrated nitric acid and chemically separating the uranium and plutonium from the fission products and each other through a solvent extraction process, reduction, and evaporation.4 Aside from its use with spent reactor fuel, reprocessing can be used to remake highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium or plutonium into reactorgrade fuel. Blending highly enriched uranium, usually of 90% U-235 down to less than 5% U-235 with depleted, natural, or partially-enriched uranium containing greater amounts of U-238 allows military weapons to become fuel.7 In fact, there is so much military-grade material that world military stockpiles in uranium is equivalent to seven years-worth of mine production, and stockpiles of plutonium used in mixed oxide fuel would be equivalent to over one years uranium production.7 This technique has already been put into action with the 1993 Megatons to Megawatts deal between the US and Russia, where Russia agreed to sell the US 500 tons worth of weapons-grade uranium, which the Russians would blend down to be used in reactors as fuel.7 Basic History of US Policy on Reprocessing For a long time, the US has limited its use of reprocessing. In the 1960s and 1970s, advanced nations focused on the development of fast-neutron breeder reactors.5 Fast breeder reactors create a nuclear reaction, releasing high velocity neutrons that are able to join with common, non-fissile U-238 particles. Then, though beta decay, U-239 decays to Pu-239, a fissile material that can then be used for energy purposes. In addition, breeder reactors are able to produce slightly more plutonium than they consume5. However, these plutonium-producing plants faced some significant technological challenges, the falling price of uranium, and the high cost of reprocessing lightwater reactor fuel.5 In 1974, US policies on worldwide plutonium-fueled reactors and reprocessing had an about-face after India tested a nuclear device, developed with US reprocessing technology to separate plutonium for the bomb.5 Suddenly, reprocessing and plutonium reactors presented a real threat of proliferation. Furthermore, if plutonium reactors became more widespread, so would plutonium fuel making it more likely that enough fuel could fall into the hands of terrorists to make a bomb.5 Thus, the US stopped reprocessing of spent fuel from commercial reactors 1977 because of its goals of preventing proliferation, though it maintained reprocessing capabilities for defense.3 Beginning in 2002, US policy began shifting to open up the possibility to return to the use of reprocessing. A new energy and water-funding bill sought to develop new fuel cycle technologies to both further develop reprocessing and fast neutron reactors to destroy long-lived components of wastes.3 Further initiatives have backed up these plans, but tangible results have yet to emerge. Debate over Reprocessing Historically, the principle resistance to reprocessing has been the connection to proliferation, especially given the case of India. Yet reprocessing brings many benefits with it. In cutting down on the amount of nuclear waste, it has the ability to reduce the amount of spent fuel in storage at reactor sites, removing newer and hotter fuel within three years and eliminating the need for expanding temporary storage at reactor sites.6 Additionally, it delays the need for a long-term geologic repository. If the 83,800t capacity site at Yucca Mountain were constructed, there would be no need for additional repositories until 2070.6 Reprocessing technology is already highly developed, and the practice could act as a hedge against potential uranium price increases by providing a fuel source independent of uranium mine production. Furthermore, despite reprocessing being halted in the US through fears of proliferation, it has the potential to work to dismantle weapons, as it has already worked through the dismantlement of US and Russian warheads. Policy Recommendations Given political realities and the stalling of the Yucca Mountain storage site, it may be easier to recycle much of the nations nuclear waste rather than try to find permanent storage sites. Even though Congress declared Yucca Mountain the national repository in 1987, it hasnt even started construction in almost thirty years. Political wrangling could similarly sabotage a new plan soon after its announcement or decades afterwards, throwing the national nuclear storage system into greater disorder. The current interim solution of storing larger and larger quantities of radioactive waste at reactor sites is simply unsustainable. First, as Fukushima showed, leaving spent fuel ponds above ground at the reactor site leaves the potential for natural disasters and other occurrences causing damage to storage site.8 In addition, the high concentration of spent fuel at US reactor sites means that if the materials were to lose their coolants, they would reach dangerous levels of radioactivity.8 Both of these factors demand a reconsideration of US interim storage policies.8 Reprocessing presents strong, ongoing alternative that can greatly cut down the amount of waste while simultaneously turning it into something that can be used for productive purposes. This would ease the problem of reactor cooling ponds needing to handle greater amounts of spent fuel for longer periods of time than originally planned. In addition, though it was halted by the US out of proliferation fears, it has the ability to fight it. Reprocessing enables nations to repurpose their own or other countries nuclear warheads into civilian nuclear fuel. The US should further develop its reprocessing capabilities in order to take advantage of these benefits. This regeneration will be made easier by the fact that the US already has over 250 plant-years worth of experience in mostly military reprocessing facilities since the 1940s.4 However, there is a critical difference in using reprocessed uranium and plutonium fuels. By reprocessing spent fuels and highly enriched uranium in bombs, one can simply obtain more uranium for reactor fuel. By contrast, substantial obstacles exist in using reprocessed plutonium for reactor fuel. Reprocessed plutonium gets turned into mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel, for which reactors require additional modification in order to use.9 It is unclear whether a current project to produce MOX fuel by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) can even get any customers for its expensive fuel9. The NNSA has named the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) as a preferred destination, but the TVA has said it has no intent to use MOX fuel and that even its consideration is not among its top priorities.9 In addition, before it can even be used, there is the issue of testing MOX fuel before it is fully utilized in commercial reactors.9 MOX fuel is also hotter than spent enriched fuel, meaning it may require new storage systems and procedures. The most problematic aspect of the MOX program is its cost. The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability estimates that the lifetime cost of the MOX program could be as much as $20 billion, while the Congressional Research Service estimates that the value of the MOX fuel that would be obtained from the US weapons-grade plutonium slated for disposal would only be $1.1 to $2 billion.9 Meanwhile, the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability estimates that the same plutonium could be disposed as waste for $5 billion.9 The small scale and large startup cost of the MOX plan makes its financial costs outweigh the benefits. However, MOX fuel does have an important redeeming quality that it can be used as a means of disposing of plutonium warheads. In addition to MOX fuel, plutonium is used to make more nuclear weapons, fuel for fast-breeder reactors, or can be simply disposed of as waste.10 A July 2000 agreement between the US and Russia called for the disposal of 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium by 2014 each, and while the US initially sought to achieve this through both waste disposal and the burning of MOX fuel, it is now cannot rely on waste disposal for any large amount of material.10 Furthermore, we can reasonably expect for future nuclear arms reduction treaties to call for additional reductions in plutonium stockpiles. Therefore, the US will need some way of achieving this goal and for the time being, MOX fuel is the only viable option. Reprocessing has many valuable advantages, especially given current realities and political circumstances. The US can build off of its military reprocessing expertise to revive civilian reprocessing, allowing the reclaiming of usuable fuel, a reduction of dangerous levels of temporarily stored spent fuel, and further repurposing of nuclear arms. Yucca Mountains fate remained in limbo for almost 30 years while waste piled up at potentially unsafe and vulnerable nuclear reactor sites. Both the pressing need to deal with the nuclear waste problem and the unlikelihood of a permanent solution arising anytime soon means that the benefits of reprocessing outweigh the risks and financial costs to reprocessing.

33

34

35

INVESTING IN A SUSTAINABILE FUTURE: OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY

Swara Salih

Wind Energy Today Wind power is unlikely to have the largest portion of the future energy grid, but alongside other utilities like solar, nuclear, hydro, and geothermal, it should be a crucial part of the mix. Renewable utilities provided 13 percent of US electricity generation in 2013, up from 12 percent in 2012, according to a recent report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance.1 Wind power makes up approximately 4.16% of this capacity.2 Much, if not most of this success can be attributed to the renewable energy Production Tax Credit (PTC), a corporate tax credit that rebates wind facilities, and other renewable utilities, with a 2.3-cent for every kilowatt-hour (kWh) generated. Originally enacted in 1992, the wind PTC has been renewed and expanded numerous times, and has more recently allowed the cost of generating wind power to fall by more that 40 percent in the past three years.3 Today, there are 815 wind farms in the US, generating 60,000 megawatts (MW), enough energy to power 15 million homes.4 Unfortunately, Congress allowed the PTC to expire at the end of 2013, putting the future growth of the industry in doubt. The last four times the PTC expired, production of wind facilities fell by 50 percent each year.5 This is because the planning and permitting process for new wind facilities can take up to two years or longer to complete- without the certainty of the tax credit for at least a year, developers often hesitate to begin new projects. Despite this, the extension of the PTC last year still led to a substantial year of growth for the wind industry, with one wind farm under construction in Wyoming set to generate as much power as three nuclear plants.6 However, several disadvantages remain with terrestrial-based wind energy. The most obvious among these is that wind can strength can rarely be precisely predicted. If the wind is not blowing, the mills cannot generate power. Because of this intermittency, wind generated electricity sometimes requires backup capacity of fossil fuel plants.7 This offsets the zero emissions scheme. This lack of consistency and the necessity of backup plants have made critics skeptical that wind power can be reliable in the long term.

Long-term investment wind facilities on offshore sites, which have consistent wind faster than wind on land sites, could potentially help offset this deficiency. Additionally, offshore wind can deliver electricity more efficiently to coastal residents, who make up 44 percent of the US population.8 Building turbines off the coasts of major cities would eliminate the need for thousands of miles of transmission cables to bring electricity from large wind farms to homes. With these advantages, offshore wind energy can give a major boost to the renewable industry. The Potential Currently, the US has no offshore wind farm installed, though there are several projects in development. In June of 2013, Casting Harbor, Maine installed the first large-scale offshore wind turbine, rising 60 feet in the air and featuring a 20 kilowatt (kW) capacity, enough to generate power for a few homes. Although this is a small step, it could be one that will help pave the way for the development of larger facilities. The Department of Energy estimates that the capacity of offshore wind energy with farms on coasts and the Great Lakes could exceed 4 million MW.9 Modeling studies of wind strength on the east and west coasts of the United States show that wind blows at speeds greater that 7.5 meters per second.10 Additionally, Europe may provide the model for offshore wind that the US could emulate. 11 European countries have a total of 69 wind farms, with 2,080 turbines generating a total of 6,562 MW. There are numerous economic and environmental benefits with offshore wind farms. As with other renewable energy utilities, construction and maintenance of these farms create numerous jobs for highly skilled workers. These jobs include the construction of the wind turbine foundations, installing undersea cables, and routine maintenance.11 Although the infrastructure to support large-scale offshore wind facilities is virtually non-existent in the United States, constructing it will see energy utilities hire thousands of workers to build it and give the US and economic push. With proper tax incentives and investment from state and federal governments, we can accomplish the construction of this infrastructure that will lead to the harnessing of the potential of perpetual wind right on our shores. Several offshore wind farms are currently in development. The first among these was Cape Wind,

which began construction April 2011. Another project in New Jersey called Fishermens Energy, plans to install six turbines that will generate 25 MW 2.8 miles off the Atlantic City coast. Although it received its final state permits in 2011, Fishermens cannot begin building them until New Jerseys Board of Public Utilities (BPU) approves its application to obtain an Offshore Renewable Energy Certificate.12 The DOE and other organizations have identified various potential sites for offshore wind farms. Commercial deepwater ports may provide the best starting ground on which to develop the infrastructure. Clean energy consulting firm Kinetik Partners has identified Baltimore, Maryland, for example, as strongly suitable to commence a project structure for manufacturing and staging the distribution of an offshore wind supply chain industry.13 Other coastal states with wind power facilities have already invested to increase their supply chain capacity for offshore wind. Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and New York signed in 2012 a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to streamline approval for offshore wind projects in the Great Lakes. Under the agreement, the states will jointly create an action plan for efficiently and responsibly evaluating offshore wind energy projects, and to develop a reliable regulatory environment for investors and developers.

would generate around $200 billion in new economic activity and create more than 43,000 permanent and well-paid technical jobs in manufacturing, construction, engineering, operations, and maintenance of turbines.14 It is also important to note that costs of these wind farm projects will eventually come down, and become competitive with other energy utilities. For onshore wind, the price per kW fell 9-17 percent each time the cumulative capacity doubled.15 Clearly before going forward with offshore wind farm development, Congress must reinstate the PTC. The tax credit also incentivized the development of offshore wind farms, and has spurred the investment that we already see. Additionally, government can play a larger role in reducing the cost to developers of offshore wind farms, which are more expensive than terrestrial based wind power. Michael Conathan and Richard W Caperton from the Center of American Progress suggest that government can provide loans or loan guarantees that lower the cost of debt for developers.16 European nations have instituted the necessary infrastructures and economic incentives for the development of large-scale projects. Germany in particular has an investment model the US could follow. In 2008, Germany instituted a revision to its 2000 Renewable Energy Sources Act (RESA) that entitled projects approved by the German Federal Maritime Agency to a basic tariff of 150 per megawatt hour (MWh) for the The Policy first 12 years of the plant and a market-based tariff for The main issue with offshore wind power is its the next eight years. The German government bases large expenses. Cape Wind, if fully constructed, could this latter tariff on its analysis of the overall costs and cost between $2-3 billion. However, it is important to the water depth and coastal distance of offshore wind remember that the costs of electricity projects resemfacilities. Because this model did not fully dismantle ble those of other infrastructure projects- expanding revenue uncertainty, in 2010 Germany adjusted the Washington DCs metro system to Dulles Airport, for RESA by allowing developers to opt for a compresexample, would cost three times as much as developsion model which pays a tariff of 190 per MWh for ing the offshore wind infrastructure. Yet there is the the first eight years of maintenance. After this 2010 readditional problem of the cost of electricity to convision, the German offshore wind sector installed 976 sumers, who usually pay around 16 cents per kW/hour, MW of new capacity in 2011 and 796 MW in 2012, and who would be forced to pay over 20 cents per kW/ up from 200 MW in 2010. States with offshore wind hour with offshore wind utilities. But this price dypotential can emulate this model since it boosts returns namic has been at play with other renewable utilities for developers, allows quicker access to debt finances, as well, which thanks to subsidies and tax breaks, are and substantially reduces electricity costs for consumnow competitive with fossil fuels. ers.17 States with the capacity for offshore facilities Despite the high startup costs, building offshould emulate this model to boost market confidence shore wind farms could bring large economic gains to for developers. Due to the intermittency of the federal the manufacturing sector. The National Renewable En- renewable PTCs, this, along with the state level tax ergy Laboratory (NREL) has estimated that building credits, is imperative. 54 gigawatts (GW) worth of offshore wind facilities The startup costs for developing the

36 infrastructure would be large and require significant investment from both private investors and government. Few states, however, would likely be willing to invest without at least some federal backing. If Congress were to reinstate the renewable PTC then this investing should be more feasible. The US requires an eclectic mix of renewable energy utilities to mitigate climate change and increase energy efficiency. As a more reliable and consistent source of wind generated power, our coasts should take a larger role in helping us achieve this smarter grid.

37

EQUAL JUSTICE

38

39

AN ALTERNATIVE TO TRADITIONAL INCARCERATION

Andrew Stoughton

When looking at incarceration rates in the United States, it is tempting to point mainly at two contributing factors: drug laws and private prisons. It is a much posited thesis that private prisons push governments to imprison people unnecessarily, leading to unfair drug laws, enforcement targeting programs like New Yorks infamous stop and frisk policy, and stringent policies regarding mandatory minimum sentences. Regardless of these claims veracity, the attention paid to this point distracts our public attention away from a more fundamental problemthe nature and methodology of the American prison system at large. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, imprisoning 743 persons per 100,000.1 It costs roughly $30,000 per year on average to incarcerate an inmate in the United States.2 In New York City, that number balloons to about $167,000, which, as many articles have pointed out, is about the cost of an Ivy League education.3 Upon release, ex-offenders often face unemployment rates higher than 50% for up to a year after release,4 preventing them from effectively rejoining society, providing for themselves and their families, and avoiding recidivism. In total, the loss of human capital and employment resulting from time served in prison is estimated to be between fifty-seven and sixty-five billion dollars annually. In short, we imprison a massive amount of people, many of whom are young, throw them into prisons that deprive them of their dignity and expose them to other criminals, withhold from them meaningful opportunities to acquire an education beyond a GED or technical or vocational skills, do little to help them find employment once out of prison, attach a social stigma to them, deprive our own economy of useful workers and citizens, and inadvertently encourage them to become recidivists. A democratic society needs to be participatory; it needs to have citizens who are educated, who can contribute to the economy, and feel a sense of civic and social responsibility, and we are, currently, preventing far too many young men and women from becoming those types of citizens. We are, in short, giving up on them. When in prison, inmates earn next to no

income. In fact, the army recently started producing their uniforms in prison at a wage rate of two dollars an hour.5 In most cases the wage is fifty cents or less, and most dont even get paid for the work that they do.6 As a result, when offenders leave prison, they rarely have any savings to utilize, which makes it difficult to secure new housing, or take out a loan to start a business, or live comfortably if employment is hard to come by (which, as weve already seen, is hard to come by more often than not). The work that offenders do while in prison also rarely provides any meaningful experience that can contribute to a career. Jobs usually involve serving or preparing food, cleaning facilities, or doing some other kind menial labor.7 Offenders also have very few places to turn for guidance while in prison. Many in prison have already been there more than once; over sixty-five percent of offenders are re-arrested within three years of their release from prison.8 As a result we expose many of our convicts to chronic criminality. We put them in a living environment that might not instill societally useful values. To address these problems (though admittedly not in their totality), I propose a residential program for non-violent offenders deemed capable of rehabilitation, with the intent of providing educational resources and professional opportunities, and fostering a sense of civic responsibility and social obligation. At sentencing, non-violent offenders would be able to apply for entry to the program as a substitute for serving time in a traditional penitentiary. The application will require a personal essay explaining why the offender wants to enroll in the program, and what they hope to get out of it, high school records, a completed, brief psychological survey, and can include letters of recommendation from previous employers, educators, or mentors (such as a coach, for instance). Friends and family can also provide character testimony, though the amount of such testimony will need to be small for the sake of expediency in sentencing. The judge will look at the offenders application and criminal record, and consider the guidelines given by the program, and then decide whether the offender will gain admittance. This is in the hopes that the program accepts people who will actively work to improve themselves, and will not pose a risk to the community in which they live as a resident in the program. Once in the program, offenders would live together in apartment style housing. During their time there, those enrolled would be required to pursue

an educational program, be it community college, a a week for cleanliness and substances. They will also GED, or something vocational, full employment, or have to undergo drug testing. While in the program, rehabilitation for substance abuse. Offenders would residents will essentially be on probation, meanspend Saturdays doing community service, and would ing that any crime they commit will incur a harsher receive Sundays off, though the program would offer penalty than it would otherwise. This is meant to deter discussion groups, and activities such as museum inmates from using their freedom to do things that are trips, to those interested. Weeknights would be spent unsafe for themselves, the program, or the commudoing organized activities through the programs, nity. Beyond that, there will also be recourse for the which might consist or reading program to send residents to tradigroups, lectures, and film screentional prison, if they behave in a way The goal of the program is to ings. that seriously challenges the ability of reduce recidivism, give people The goal of the program is the program to function. That should workable skills, and reduce the to reduce recidivism, give people not be a problem, however. I think cost per capita of incarceration. workable skills, and reduce the that anyone in this program would cost per capita of incarceration. consider it a great opportunity. The program would have a much To keep costs down, offenders smaller staff than that of a tradiwill be required to pay the governtional prison. It would also have far less maintenance ment back for the cost of the education they receive, if upkeep. The building would have a small staff of they choose to pursue education rather than employsecurity, but it would be much smaller than that of a ment. The cost will be structured as a loan to offendprison. Firstly, these are low risk inmates who have ers, at an interest rate and payment structure that will not been convicted of violent crimes. Secondly, betry to find a balance between fiscal soundness and percause the program is enmeshed in an urban environsonal manageability. Additionally, program residents ment, it is within the jurisdiction of the police. Metal will be responsible for doing odd jobs around the detectors will be placed in the lobby, and program building, so as to reduce the size of the building staff. residents will need key cards to swipe in and confirm This will also have the added benefit of fostering a their identities. This key card system will allow the sense of responsibility to the program and ones comprogram to keep track of curfew easily and with little munity and living environment at large. The smaller manpower. staff and reduced cost of maintenance will also keep Aside from a security staff, you would need a costs down. building superintendent, and a small staff of program There is, however, more to being a good organizers. These organizers would be split into a few citizen than being a good worker. A good citizen has small groups. One would be responsible for helping to be a party of his or her community. He or she has offenders find employment of educational opportuto give back to that community, and feel a sense of nities. Another would be responsible for organizing unity with and obligation to those around them. The trips, events, talks, community service outings, etc. program tries to institute this in a number of ways. Another would be responsible for keeping the proFirst of all, every Saturday, every person enrolled in gram on budget and watching its finances. There the program will be required to participate in a group would also be a position that would serve as liaison community service program. Doing so will teach between the program and necessary government residents about the importance of serving ones comagents. munity. It will also help build positive ties between Program residents will live in apartment style offenders enrolled in the program, and serve as a posihousing with roommates. They will be responsible tive benefit to the community. Those who must work for buying their own groceries with money they earn on Saturdays are allowed to miss the community serfrom their jobs, or stipends from the program. This is vice projects if they receive express permission from designed to teach residents how to manage a budget. their advisor. However, they must make up the time in It is also meant to maintain a sense of self-sufficiency some other form of community service. If that cannot and dignity. Communal eating spaces will be availbe arranged, a specific agreement will be negotiated able on each floor to avoid social alienation or isolabetween the advisor and the offender. tion. Offenders will have their rooms inspected once

40 Another key element of the program is the workshops it provides on everyday living in the real world. Offenders often enter prison without financial management skills. Many also, would benefit from discussions on how to effectively interact with police, and mediate conflict. These are all skills, in fact, that most Americans do not have regardless of incarcerated status or not. In addition to workshops like these, which take place on weeknights after curfew and weekends, voluntary discussions regarding American history, civics, and literature will be hosted. Being a good citizen requires a knowledge and concern for history and culture, and the policy should help foster those within its residents. A reading list will be provided to each offender. While not required, each offender will be encouraged to read some of it. It will be organized according to difficulty, and will pay special attention to American literature, history, and cultural and social understanding. Major works from other cultures will also be included. A wide variety of ideologies and perspectives will also be accounted for in the reading list, so that this element of the program will avoid becoming propagandistic. That being said, the list will emphasize writing that is deemed to encourage a sense of civic responsibility. There are a number of challenges involved in establishing a program like this. The biggest one of all is the community in which it would be started. Communities will be hesitant to welcome a program like this, in the same way that communities are often hesitant to welcome halfway houses. They will be nervous to welcome people into their neighborhood that would otherwise be in prison. They would probably also fear the annoyance of increased police presence. Some might take issue with the introduction of further competition for jobs, especially if that competition is backed by the government and is composed of individuals convicted of a crime. They might also dislike the disruption caused by construction. Many would also be concerned about the effect of the programs proximity on home prices. There are a number of elements of the program, however, that could work to assuage these fears. The program, at least at first, would be restricted solely to non-violent offenders to help quell security concerns. The community service component of the program, while meant to encourage a sense of civic duty, also benefits the community in which the program exists. Beyond that, a portion of every working residents income goes back to the community. A certain percentage of income goes into a mandatory savings account, another part goes towards discretionary spending, and the final part goes back to the community in the form a charitable donation to a local organization. Furthermore There are a few steps that must be taken to implement the program. Firstly, funding must be secured. The funding should come from the states DOC funding. If, however, the state is not willing to spend its own funds on the project, funding should be pursued through a Federal grant. Once funds have been acquired, a building will need to be purchased, and a staff put together. The staff and the program runners will then need to make inroads with the community to try and establish a strong relationship with the neighborhood. Religious institutions, community centers, and local businesses will be crucial. A town hall style meeting introducing the program to the community might also be a good idea so that people can feel like their voices are being heard, and their questions are being answered. The issue central to this policy is one of obligation. What do we owe to our young people, to those of us who have gone astray, and, more particularly, can find their way back? Certainly, as citizens, we owe it to one another to participate in our democratic institutions, in our public spaces. We owe it to each other to follow the law, to vote, to care for one another, to value equality, and understand the fundamental ties that exist between all people, and unite us on the bedrock of our democratic purpose. How, then, can we argue that we do not owe to one another forgiveness where it is due, and help when it is needed? A criminal act does not make one a criminal, nor does it make one a bad person. To say so is simply, to re-appropriate a phrase of George W. Bushs, the bigotry of soft expectations. If we call someone a criminal, and treat him or her like a criminal, he or she will become a criminal. It is frustrating, certainly, for any law-abiding person to see those who break rules escape with little consequence. It feels like a miscarriage of justice. This, however, would be no such thing. It is time to take stock of our values. Do we want to be a nation that allows its men and women to flourish and grow and contribute, that recognizes the fundamental goodness and ability present in all of us? Or do we want to be a nation that punishes blindly, that does not believe in mistakes and is proud in saying so? I think we are smarter than the latter, and I think our policies should reflect that. Its time As a result of the obscuration of the happenings inside jails and prisons, sexual violence (with either guards or inmates as perpetrators) is rampant and often goes unpunished. In 2011-2012, a BJS report states, 4% of prison and 3.2% of jail inmates reported being subjected to at least one instance of sexual abuse. Based on the results of this self-report study, assault by a prison staff memberthe people who are hired and entrusted HUMAN RIGHTS DO NOT CEASE to protect the basic rights of inmateswas more comTO MATTER IN PRISONS mon for male inmates than assault by another prisAllison Sawyer oner. Female inmates were significantly more likely to suffer sexual abuse overall, particularly by another inmate. Inmates with an anxiety or mood disorder Human rights abuses grip the invisible uniwere more likely to be victimized than those with no verse of the U.S. prison system. Indeed, prisons are mental illness, and inmates undergoing severe psychoeffectively invisible because the majority of Amerilogical distress were even more likely to suffer abuse. cans have never spent time in prison, and many do Gay lesbian, and bisexual inmates, who were twice not even know someone who has. As a result, abuses as likely to suffer abuse on the hands of prison staff. have continued relatively unchecked for decades. For minority arrestees in particular, prison time is not only Even body type plays a role in victimization: both underweight and morbidly obese inmates were nearly more likely but also more likely to be riddled with twice as likely to be victimized. Perhaps most disturbabuse. The U.S. prison system has become a second wave of state-sanctioned slavery. To address this prob- ing, 71.4% of heterosexual victims and 84.2% of gay, lesbian, or bisexual victims reported lem, we must consider which offenses being subjected to more than one truly merit prison time. Then we must While extensive research has instance of abuse.5 It is important to take steps to protect inmates human rights while encouraging their identity proven that solitary confinement note that these figuresalarmingly has devastating psychological high on their ownonly represent development. Humanization is the effects and the practice has been reported incidents. only channel toward successful prison deemed inhumane, it is still Beyond the heightened risk of rehabilitation programs. widely used in Americas prissexual assault for prisoners with ons. mental health problems, the comAbuses mon prison practice of solitary The U.S. prison population was confinement actually causes psychiatric harm or exacapproximately 6,937,600 offenders in 2012 (the most recent year for which figures are available), according erbates existing mental illness. While extensive research has proven that solitary confinement has devasto the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). While 2.2% tating psychological effects6 and the practice has been of the overall population may seem insignificant, it deemed inhumane, it is still widely used in Americas translates to a considerable one in 35 of U.S. adults.1 prisons. A glimmer of progress shone out of New York More significant than the numbers alone is the failure to build facilities to meet the rising prison population. in February 2014, when the state decided to reduce its use of solitary confinement, especially on more vulAs a result, facilities managed by the federal Bureau nerable demographic groups such as juveniles.7 of Prisons (BOP) were on average crowded 37% over There is no excuse for the toleration of explicit their baseline rated capacity in 2013.2 The problem human rights abuses like unpunished sexual assault will not disappear without significant changes; BOP and solitary confinement. Such abuses violate the expects the inmate population to further increase this ban on cruel and unusual punishment in the Eight year. Amendment8 and the nearly identical Article 5 of the According to the BJS, white inmates comUnited Nations Universal Declaration of Human prised 45.8% of the local jail population in 2012. Af9 rican American inmates make up the biggest minority, Rights. Solitary confinement, in particular, exemplifies the denial of the right to participate in the most with 36.9% of inmates.3 This is compared to 63.2% fundamental aspects of humanity. Many U.S. prison and 13.8%, respectively, in the overall population.4 for a kind of justice that works for everyone, that puts people back to work and produces good citizens, that takes criminals off the street in a more meaningful way than a multi-year lockup. This policy is not a cure-all, but it is a start, and hopefully it is one we will be willing to undertake.

41

42 inmates are also denied access to other realizations of humanness, such as movement and exercise, contact with loved ones, and self-expression. In short, the American prison system dehumanizes those who pass through it. The larger issue at hand is that these methods of systematic dehumanization do nothing to reform inmates as people, shape their identities, and grant self-confidencequalities that curb crime. Rather, they ingrain the sense of low self worth and arguably justified anger at being mistreated that often lead to crime in the first place. Exploring solutions The first step is reconsidering what crimes warrant punishment by incarceration. We can learn from the successful programs of countries such as the Netherlands that decriminalizing drug use does not increase drug abusein fact, marijuana use by young adults and opiate abuse has decreased steadily in the Netherlands since 1996. Now that drug abuse has been framed as a public health issue rather than a criminal one, people suffering drug addiction are more likely to come forward and seek treatment. Perhaps most importantly, the decriminalization of drugs in the Netherlands has decreased drug-related violence, disease, and death. Rates of HIV and hepatitis C among hard drug users have declined sharply from their high levels in the 1980s; meanwhile, the practice injecting has decreased. The Netherlands now has one of the worlds lowest rates of drug-related deaths.10 The remarkable results of the Dutch drug policy disprove many Americans concerns about decriminalization. Contrary to popular American belief, decriminalization does not mean tolerating unchecked drug use. Rather, it means changing the conversation surrounding drugs to start treating addiction like the disease it is, rather than a crime. Addiction is one factor driving crime; mental illness is another. The dehumanization that occurs in prison only worsens an inmates psychological state; furthermore, incarceration is unnecessary for the treatment of offenders with mental health issues. An illuminating new study published in September 2013 reveals the proven benefits of outpatient treatment on reducing the rate of arrest among adults with serious mental health problems.11 Their findings show that outpatient treatment can be far more effective than inprison therapy programs, with the added benefit of being more humane and less expensive for the taxpayer. The effectiveness of drug treatment or any sort of rehabilitation program is contingent upon an inmates sense of identity and self-worth. Possession of a sense of self-wortha paradoxical sense of agency despite the physical confinement of prisonis the way inmates escape the cycle of crime and return to society as productive members. As human beings, all inmates should have access to low-cost, basic means of selfexpression: writing, dancing, exercising, reading, and drawing. If the goal of the prison system isas it should beto prevent future crime and protect society, we have an obligation to provide education to all inmates. A recent report published by the Bureau of Justice Assistance reveals that recidivism rates are on average 36% lower for inmates who participate in education programs.12 That number has the potential to grow as prison administrators continue to realize the importance of fostering a sense of self, which will make inmates more likely to genuinely want to learn. The U.S. prison system is having a dangerous identity crisis. The curiously cheery websites of both the federal Bureau of Prisons,13 which oversees government-managed prisons, and the Corrections Corporation of America,14 which manages privately owned prisons, both advertise inmate rehabilitation as the main goal of the U.S. prison system. According to these major players, the proclaimed goal of incarceration is no longer retribution, as many Americans believe. If we have, at least on a surface level, evolved to this more enlightened and progressive way of thinking about corrections, then it is due time to reform the reality of our prison systems to emphasize rehabilitation over retribution. Taking Action Reparation of our broken prison system will come in two parts: first, we must identify what constitutes an offense worthy of incarceration and assure that the same punishments are being meted out regardless of race, gender, or any other factors. In other words, it is necessary to reform the sentencing process because continuing down this road of mass incarceration is, financially and ethically, no longer an option. Secondly, we must reform the living conditions within prisons to insure that they meet the human rights standards upheld by the Constitution and the U.S.-ratified Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1. End the use of incarceration as a punishment for drug possession and small-scale distribution. Given the high number of inmates guilty illness from the prison system. Instead, these individof drug possession alone, this policy change would not uals will go into outpatient treatment. If the individual only provide the long sought-after solution to the War cannot afford the treatment, it will be paid for by the on Drugs, but also resolve the issue of prison overstate, just like prison time would be. crowding. 8. Guarantee access to medical professionals 2. Instead, implement mandatory treatment to violent mentally ill offenders. While restricting and education programs for those convicted of the autonomy of violent mentally ill offenders may drug-related offenses. Incarceration is an inessential be necessary for security, these individuals must live and unnecessarily severe means of punishing those under the supervision of medical professionals at all guilty of drug possession. Treatment programs that times. They must have access to a psychologist and take place outside of prison are a more cost-effective their needed medication, administered by experts. and rehabilitation-effective alternative. Extra staff should be employed to check the risk of 3. Require prisons across the board to ofabuse, sexual or otherwise, which is more widespread fer educational and vocational classes. Giving the among inmates with mental illness. inmates the skills they need to get employed after The problem of mass incarceration is espegetting out of prison is critical to cially frustrating because it is entirely preventing future crime. Many jails solvable. To get a handle on mass and prison already offer educational While restricting the autonomy incarceration only requires comprograms, but they ought to be mon senseand initiative. We must of violent mentally ill offendavailable nationwide. Furthermore, ers may be necessary for secuact now, rather than later, to end the rity, these individuals must live these programs fail in most jails systematic human rights abuses that and prisons because they are imple- under the supervision of medical occur within our nations prisons. professionals at all times. mented alone. Human beings have When posterity studies the second no desire or drive to learn and focus wave of American slavery in their hiswhen they lack contentment and purpose. Without tory books, do we want them to wonder why we let it a secure environment that meets basic human rights continue for so long? standards and allows inmates to develop an identity, education programs are ineffectual. REFORMING THE NATIONS JUVENILE 4. Guarantee inmates access to the humanizing JUSTICE SYSTEM practice of self-expression. Inmateslike all human Nikita Singareddy beingshave the right to develop an identity through self-expression. They deserve access to the basic means for low-cost creative development: the rights to Juvenile justice systems across the United dance, draw, exercise, read, and write. States are in urgent need of reform, and federal lead5. Employ more prison staff, assign staff of the ership is necessary to advance the pace of change. inmates gender, and establish a safe way for Despite a steady drop in juvenile detention and outinmates to report sexual assault to a superior staff of-home placements over the past decade, there are member. All inmates deserve the right to anonymous- still far too many young people securely detained and ly report instances of sexual assault to a trustworthy placed away from home who could be handled more superior. In order to curb this problem, prisons must effectively in their own communities. Although the institute a zero-tolerance policy for sexual abuse. No number of juvenile arrests accounts for a small portion prison employee found guilty of abuse should be alof the nations crime and has been on the decline for lowed to continue to work with some of our societys the past decade, each year, police still arrest approximost vulnerable members. mately 1 million juveniles1; juvenile courts handle 6. Ban solitary confinement in keeping with roughly 1.5 million cases; and more than 250,000 international human rights standards. Given the youth are prosecuted in the adult criminal justice sysproven psychological harm that results from solitary tem.2 On any given night, approximately 70,000 youth confinement, the practice is an unacceptably cruel are placed in secure confinement, and 10,000 children form of punishment. are held in adult jails and prisons.3 7. Remove non-violent offenders with mental Current juvenile justice policies and practices

43

44 too often ignore childrens age and amenability to rehabilitation, cause long-term collateral consequences, waste taxpayer dollars, and violate our deepest held principles about equal justice under the law and the role of the juvenile justice system. Many state systems exhibit racial and ethnic disparities, lack sound mental health and drug treatment services, and apply excessively harsh sanctions for minor and nonviolent adolescent misbehavior. Too often, community safety is jeopardized when states and localities adopt costly and overly punitive approaches that are repeatedly shown to produce the worst outcomes for children, their families, and public safety, including high rates of re-offense and higher severity of offending due to justice system contact.4 These practices and policies continue despite the fact that the United States Supreme Court has held three times in the last three years that children are different from adults. In its 2010 ruling in Graham v. Florida, the Court struck down life-without-parole sentences for youth convicted of non-homicide offenses. Two years later, the Court decided in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory life-without-parole sentences imposed on youth violate the 8th amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.5 These rulings followed in line with the Courts reasoning in Roper v. Simmons, which outlawed the death penalty for children in 2005, and relied on growing bodies of adolescent development research proving the unique characteristics of children - their lessened culpability, their unique vulnerability to peer pressure, their lack of understanding of the consequences of their actions and impulse control, and their particular capacity for rehabilitation - that led the Court to conclude that children are categorically less culpable than adults.6 As a result, the parameters for how we treat children in the U.S. justice system are forever changed. Furthermore, this Administration should accordingly reexamine practices that ignore the fundamental differences between children and adults and provide leadership to states that is consistent with these rulings. With strong federal leadership, the pace of juvenile justice reforms can be accelerated. Research over the past 20 years has increased our understanding of what works and how to best approach juvenile delinquency and system reform. Many jurisdictions across the country are implementing promising reforms, and there is an increasingly clear path for moving toward evidence-based approaches to reducing adolescent crime.7 The Obama Administration has the opportunity and responsibility to restore an effective system of juvenile justice for our youth and should begin by focusing on the following four priority areas: 1) Restore Federal Leadership in Juvenile Justice Policy 2) Support and Prioritize Prevention, Early Intervention, and Diversion Strategies 3) Ensure Safety and Fairness for Court-Involved Youth 4) Remove Youth from the Adult Criminal Justice System I. Restore Federal Leadership in Juvenile Justice Policy Over the past decade, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has suffered a drastic depletion of funding and support, and the agencys commitment to both current and core concerns in juvenile justice has steadily waned.8 Funding levels for OJJDP have declined more than 90 percent since 2002. In addition, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), authorizing legislation for the OJJDP, is more than six years overdue for reauthorization. The National Academy of Sciences recently released a report detailing the important federal role of OJJDP and the value of the JJDPA.9 Henceforth, the Administration must provide the clear direction and resources needed to facilitate true and impactful reforms in all States, territories and the District of Columbia, building on innovative and evidence-based approaches to create and sustain juvenile systems that cost less in terms of both human suffering and financing, enhance public safety, prevent delinquency and court contact in the first place, and give court-involved youth the best possible opportunities to live safe, healthy and fulfilling lives. a) Strengthen Federal/State Partnerships The partnerships between the states and OJJDP should be strengthened by expanding training, technical assistance, research, and evaluation. Further, there should be greater transparency and accountability by making State plans and reports on compliance with the core protections publicly available on the OJJDP website. b) Ensure That Program Policies and Practices Involve Families Consistent with the guiding principle to empower communities and engage youth and families because their strengths, experiences, and aspirations provide an important perspective in developing solutions in the 2011 Program Plan, OJJDP should initiate greater focus on engaging families and held dialogue sessions on ways to enhance family and youth engagement. c) Set and Meet National Benchmarks The Attorney Generals National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violences report, Defending Childhood, released in December 2012, provided a series of recommendations to help prevent and reduce child victimization from all forms of violence.11 The recommendations are designed to help children and youth heal from violence by elevating federal leadership, launching a national initiative, investing in national data collection, and funding trauma-informed services for children and youth. Specific actionable recommendations include launching a national initiative to promote professional education and training on the issue of children exposed to violence, including standards to ensure that all students and professionals working with children and families are aware of the scope of the problem of childrens exposure to violence as well as their responsibility to provide traumainformed services and trauma-specific, evidence-based treatment.12 Furthermore, youth violence and delinquency can be reduced by creating national centers of excellence in response to childrens exposure to violence that will coordinate and fund standards for professional education and practices, and ongoing monitoring of trends and the translation of data; and that will bring together the scientific, clinical, technical, and policy expertise necessary to systematically ensure the success of violence prevention efforts.13 II. Support Prevention, Early Intervention, and Diversion Decades of empirical studies of juvenile delinquency by scholars in the fields of criminology, child psychology, mental health, substance abuse, economics, and public health reveal that public dollars spent on effective prevention and early intervention programs reduce delinquency. Research also shows that broadening prosecutorial powers and stiffening criminal penalties for young people do not work to lower delinquency or prevent reoffending.14 Similarly, public opinion polls find that taxpayers overwhelmingly favor paying for prevention, education, and rehabilitation over prosecution and incarceration of juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent. A. Eliminate the Valid Court Order (VCO) Exception from the JJDPA While the JJDPA currently prohibits detaining youth for status offenses, like truancy and running away from home, there is a valid court order (VCO) exception to the Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO) core requirement. The VCO exception allows judges and other court personnel to detain youth adjudicated as status offenders if they violate a valid court order or a direct order from the court, such as stop running away from home or attend school regularly. Detaining and incarcerating non-delinquent, status offending youth is counter-productive: it is more costly and less effective than home and community-based responses. It interrupts education, pulls children away from family and community, and stigmatizes youth. Research clearly shows that once detained, youth are also more likely to commit unlawful acts, potentially leading to deeper involvement in the system. The Administration has the opportunity to set a bold goal to reduce all youth incarceration and out-of-home placements by half in the next five years. A wide range of states,including New York, Illinois, California, Arkansas, Ohio, Texas, and the District of Columbia, have undertaken initiatives to reduce their over-reliance on wasteful, unnecessary and often dangerous incarceration of children by supporting community-based alternatives.27 The continuation of such efforts would further reduce the use of detention and incarceration of youths. III. Ensure Safety and Fairness for Court-Involved Youth Far too often, incarcerated youth endure abusive conditions. In a recent study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), a shocking one in eight youth in juvenile facilities reported experiencing sexual abuse at their current facility in the past year alone, with more than one in five non-heterosexual youth reporting such abuse. An earlier BJS survey, which focused solely on sexual violence reports filed with prison officials, confirmed that young inmates are also more likely to be victimized when in adult facilities. Youth who commit crimes must be held accountable, but no court disposition, regardless of the offense, should ever include abuse, mental health deterioration, or death in a juvenile facility, adult jail or prison. In

45

46 addition, youth of color are significantly over-represented in the juvenile justice system. Latino youth are incarcerated in local detention and state correctional facilities nearly twice as often as White youth. African-American youth are 16 percent of the adolescents in this country, but are 38 percent of the youth incarcerated in local detention and state correctional facilities. Research also demonstrates that youth of color are treated more harshly than White youth, even when charged with the same category of offense, including being more frequently transferred to adult court. A. Commit to Reduce the Disparate Treatment of Youth of Color One core requirement of the JJDPA requires states to address the disproportionate representation of youth of color in the justice system. For the first time in more than a decade, the Administration is looking more closely at this issue. OJJDPs current effort to require comprehensive DMC assessments from all states that includes community level data has set in motion development of specific measurable interventions aimed at reforming systems and reducing racial/ ethnic disparities. The Department of Justice should continue to take legal action, like the recent suits filed in Tennessee and Mississippi, where it found significant disparities in the treatment of colored youth. B. Fully Implement the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 regulations. The Administration should work on finalizing the regulations to implement the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). The Department of Justice should issue guidance that establishes removal of all youth from adult jails and prisons as a best practice in implementing the PREA regulations. In addition, the Department should conduct more outreach to help local jails, juvenile facilities, community corrections programs, and police lockups to understand their obligations to keep youth safe in their care, regardless of the lack of a federal financial incentive to implement the PREA regulations.25 C. Take a Leadership Role in Reducing Unnecessary Use of Restraint and Isolation Recent reports and hearings have shed a national spotlight on the problems of solitary confinement and the particular harms isolation imposes upon young people. In both juvenile and adult facilities, extended lockdown alone in a cell can traumatize youth, exacerbate existing mental illness, breed anger and aggression, contribute to depression and trigger posttraumatic stress responses.26 The Justice Department can and should lead the way for states to implement effective strategies to reduce their reliance on isolation to keep youth safe and to discipline them when they break institutional rules. The restrictions on isolation in the PREA regulations are an important first step, but facilities need more models and guidance to reduce unnecessary isolation. IV. Remove Youth from the Adult Criminal System The Administration and OJJDP must do more to help and motivate states to roll back broad transfer policies that treat too many youth as adults. Across the United States, an estimated 250,000 youth are tried, sentenced, or incarcerated in the adult criminal justice system every year. Trying youth as adults is bad for public safety and for youth. Youth prosecuted in the adult criminal justice system are more likely to reoffend than similarly situated youth who are retained in the juvenile system, and these offenses tend to be more violent. In December, 2012, after a year-long exhaustive study, the Attorney Generals Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence issued comprehensive recommendations to the Attorney General on reducing childrens exposure to violence, including a recommendation to abandon policies that prosecute, incarcerate or sentence youth under 18 in adult criminal court. According to the report, We should stop treating juvenile offenders as if they were adults, prosecuting them in adult courts, incarcerating them as adults, and sentencing them to harsh punishments that ignore their capacity to grow.29 Studies across the nation have consistently concluded that juvenile transfer laws are ineffective at deterring crime and reducing recidivism. OJJDP and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have sponsored research highlighting the ineffectiveness of juvenile transfer laws at providing a deterrent for juvenile delinquency and decreasing recidivism. Additionally, youth in the adult system are at great risk of sexual abuse and suicide when housed in adult jails and prisons. Youth are also frequently placed in isolation, locked down 23 hours a day in small cells with no natural light. These inhumane conditions cause anxiety, paranoia, and exacerbate existing mental disorders and heighten the risk of suicide. The ACLU and Human Rights Watch recently issued a report, Growing Up Locked Down, that estimated nearly 10,000 youth are in adult jails or prisons on any given day. In fact, youth housed in adult jails are 36 times more likely to commit suicide than are youth housed in juvenile detention facilities. The majority of youth tried in the adult system is charged with non-violent offenses, and yet still suffer the lifelong consequences from their experience with adult court. Youth are often denied employment and educational opportunities, which significantly restricts their life chances. A. Assist States in Removing Youth from Adult Criminal Court Following the Attorney Generals report recommendation, the Administration should provide incentives for states to remove youth from the adult criminal justice system. The Administration should leverage resources and coordinate efforts through the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the National Institute of Corrections, and OJJDP to effectively invest in programs and strategies that reduce the prosecution of youth in adult court.33 B. Help States Remove Youth from Adult Facilities In light of the overwhelming evidence that youth cannot be kept safe in adult facilities and the research demonstrating that keeping youth in adult facilities is harmful to the youth and to public safety, the Administration should make clear and publicize that removing all youth from adult facilities is a best practice for states in implementing the PREA regulations. The DOJs new policy, issued as part of the PREA regulations, states that as a matter of policy, the Department supports strong limitations on the confinement of adults with juveniles. This is consistent with existing laws and policies used by the Federal Bureau of Prisons that prohibit the placement of youth in adult jails and prisons when in federal custody. Approximately 1 in 4 incarcerated youth are held in adult jails or prisons instead of juvenile facilities. Several jurisdictions including Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, Oregon and Texas have recently changed their laws to allow youth tried in the adult system to be housed in juvenile facilities. The Administration should leverage resources and coordinate efforts through the PREA Resource Center, the National Center for Youth In Custody, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the National Institute of Corrections, and OJJDP to invest effectively in programs and strategies that reduce youth incarceration in adult facilities.36

47

C. Increase Federal Coordination and Federal Funding on Youth Reentry Through the federal Inter-Agency Reentry Council, the Attorney General should oversee and coordinate youth reentry issues with the continuum of reentry programming supported by the Department of Justice as well as other federal agencies. The Inter-Agency Reentry Council also should continue to coordinate its work on youth reentry with the Department of Justices Federal Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, which the Attorney General convenes.37 The Administration should prioritize and increase funding for the Second Chance Act and other federal reentry programs that provide reentry supports and services for youth. The Department of Justice also should ensure that it maintains funding for youth reentry programs. Over the past couple of years, the percentage of funding dedicated to youth reentry programming at the Department of Justice has decreased.38 It is critical to maintain and continue these investments as a way to support access to youth reentry services at the local level, as well as help ensure the successful reentry of youth, who otherwise could recidivate into the juvenile justice or adult criminal justice system at great cost to themselves, their families, society and taxpayers. Federal law and the DOJ procedures must be amended to recognize these current realities. Reentry services and aftercare for youth exiting juvenile justice facilities reduce recidivism and support their successful reintegration into families and communities. By fostering improved family relationships and functioning, reintegration into school, and mastery of independent life skills, reentry services help youth build resiliency and positive development to divert them from harm and delinquent behaviors.39

48

49

TARGETING EDUCATION: A HEALTHIER APPROACH TO DRUG POLICY

Lauren Tomasulo

HEALTHCARE

Marijuana education should be approached from a similar approach as alcohol. The United States has long implemented measures that educate people how to engage in behavior related to alcohol that minimizes harm and enhances safety. This is the sort of realistic education that should be used in parallel with marijuana decriminalization laws. Often many people argue for the legalization of marijuana rather than decriminalization. Marijuana legalization would not allow the government to manage the supply of marijuana, yet decriminalization allows for better public education and fewer unnecessary arrests that ruin the lives of many people. The most effective drug policy would be the decriminalization of marijuana. Under decriminalization, the sales of all illicit drugs remain criminal offenses. However, as drug research expert and professor Carl Hart at Columbia University explains, decriminalization still sends the message that society is still concerned about drug use.1 As a result, there will be infractions for engaging in that behavior. The war on drugs is not only costly, but also leads to many arrests that can be considered unwarranted and unnecessary. Drug related arrests allow the government to infringe upon the civil liberties of those convicted. Public housing, voting, are just some of the public privileges that are revoked upon a drug-related arrest and felony label. Furthermore, the United States has 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the its criminals.2 47.5% of all drug-arrests are marijuana-related.3 The billions of dollars poured into the drug war would benefit society if we instead channeled those funds towards education about drugs and better infrastructure, schools, and so forth. Marijuana decriminalization is incredibly financially viable. A 2009 report by the Capitols Office of Fiscal Analysis explained that, decriminalization could save the state [of Connecticut] up to $11 million and generate $320,000 annually in revenue from fines.4 Furthermore, converting possession into an infraction eliminates the requirement for the state to appoint a public

defender for defendants who cannot afford counsel.5 Thus, money is not only saved, but revenue is also generated through the decriminalization of marijuana. This revenue could then be poured back into education and rehabilitation of the community. In New York, marijuana has been decriminalized since 1977. Possession of small amounts of marijuana has been a civil violation (a misdemeanor). It is thus a misdemeanor to smoke or possess marijuana in public. This has led to issues with enforcement, as about 50% of those arrested in New York City for marijuana are African-Americans.6 Furthermore, police intimidation remains an issue, leading to many arrests even though decriminalization occurred over three decades ago. As Alfredo Carrasquillo, a community organizer with VOCAL-NY, told The Daily Chronic, Mayor Bloomberg now recognizes that we cannot afford to criminalize youth of color for carrying small amounts of marijuana.7 As of January 1, 2011, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law that in California there will be no arrest, no court appearance, and no criminal record for those who possess less than an ounce of marijuana.8 Prominent politicians have voiced their opinions on this controversial and complex issue. Rand Paul, who is a self-described Libertarian Conservative, supports decriminalization instead of legalization, since the latter may instead encourage people to do drugs.9 President Barack Obama voiced his opposition to both legalization and decriminalization of drugs, although he has supported the decriminalization of Marijuana in the past at a debate in 2004 at Northwestern University: The war on drugs has been an utter failure. We need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws. We need to rethink how were operating the drug war.10 As even President Obama himself highlighted in 2004, the war on drugs has failed to achieve its aims of producing a drug-free America. It has not effectively reduced drug use in America. There are still 2.5 million people who use drugs for the first time each year and this has been fairly constant throughout. This is demonstrated through the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). In 1980, there were 3 million new marijuana users and in 2011, there were 2.6

50 million new marijuana users.11 The billions of dollars spent per year does not justify this slight decrease that could even be attributed to other factors. Drug use peaked in the 1970s and then started to decrease and has remained relatively stable despite all the money spent. In fact, drug use was already declining once the war on drugs was initiated. We can examine Portugal as a case study, since it has already decriminalized all drugs. There are no criminal penalties associated for use, possession, or acquisition for all illicit drugs for quantities up to a 10 day supply (a somewhat subjective quantity that is determined based on the persons use).12 The accused meet with a board called the Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction consisting of a social worker, physician, and psychologist who then determine if he or she should be recommended treatment and/or fined.13 Since incarceration is more expensive than treatment and the state gets funds from fines, this policy generates money.14 A report funded by the Cato Institute found that illegal drug use by teenagers in Portugal had decreased since the enactment of decriminalization of the possession of drugs.15 It also found that the rates of HIV infections caused by contaminated needles had decreased, while the rates of those seeking treatment for drug dependence increased.16 The result was that druginduced deaths decreased and drug use rates similar, or slightly better, than other European countries.17 America has one of the highest rates of cocaine and marijuana use in the world, which suggests that the stringent policies that accompany the war on drugs is not the most effective method for decreasing drug use and promoting the safety of society.18 Many detractors of decriminalization argue that such policies will actually increase the rate of drug use among the population. However, as evidenced by Portugal, it is clear that the rate of drug use did not increase at all. Although there may be some debate about whether the decline in drug-use can be attributed to the policies or to the natural cyclic pattern of drug use increasing and decreasing, it is certainly untrue that decriminalization in Portugal caused more people to use drugs.19 Instead of labeling drug users as criminals, Portugal has taken a more preemptive approach and labeled them as those afflicted with a disease (similar to the approach Alcohol Anonymous takes towards alcoholism).20 This approach treats drug use as a public health issue rather than a legal issue that is resolved through punishment. Essentially, decriminalization is a far more humane, cheaper, and effective method than a rigid, detrimental philosophy of criminalization. Harm reduction can be enabled through realistic education. Humans have always and will continue to use psychoactive compounds to alter their consciousness. This is precisely why the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E) program enacted in 1993 proved to be completely ineffective.21 The failure of the Just Say No campaign was highlighted by an article published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology which deconstructed many claims of efficacy of the program. Instead, this article, entitled Project DARE: No Effects at 10-Year Follow-Up showed that those who had DARE classes, at age 20, were no less likely to use many drugs (including marijuana) than those who had not taken such classes. Instead of trying to reduce the demand of drugs with the war on drugs propaganda, we should instead teach people to live in a world that necessarily includes these psychoactive compounds.22 It is statistically infrequent to die from a heroin overdose alone, where the only drug ingested is heroin. The cause of death is often heroin in combination with sedatives (usually alcohol), as shown by the 2010 Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) Mortality Data 13,000 out of the 17,000 deaths from all opioids due to drug combinations.23 Thus, it is imperative that we teach people not to consume alcohol while using heroin. This is not currently being taught because of the drug atmosphere. Because of the emphasis on the criminalization and harmful effects of drugs, the prevailing attitude is one that is not consistent with facilitating the public health of our society. Politicians have been adverse to increasing the availability of naloxone, an opioids antagonist that blocks the mu receptor and thus reverses the fatal respiratory depression caused by an opioid (such as heroin). By increasing the availability of naloxone, the prevalent view is that it will convey to society that opioid (or specifically, heroin) use is acceptable behavior.24 It is simply unacceptable that people are unnecessarily dying from overdoses because the antidote is not widely available. The drug war has interfered with our ability to protect our citizens. There are multiple alternatives to ensure societys safety other than legalization. By focusing on decriminalization, drug education, and the way we enforce these policies, we can eliminate the racist effects of such policies while protecting the publics safety. By changing drug policy without legalization, we can ensure that the way we police these issues and implement more practical, beneficial drug education that focuses on reducing harm associated with drugs rather than the unrealistic, erroneous perspective about the pathology of drugs. way am I suggesting that the suggestions I have laid out would end rape. However, what I have done is propose a few concrete steps that attempt to tackle the precursors of sexual assault and improve the university systems for dealing with an alleged assault. A. Transparency One of the most common and standardized policies implemented relating to rape and sexual assault is federally mandated reporting of statistics detailing how many rapes and sexual assaults occur on college campuses. This is important, but it must go further. First of all, not all institutions comply with this mandate. There should be a direct sanction against a college that fails to report the required statistics. Also, schools should be required to report a more comprehensive picture of their rape and sexual assault record, including information about how many crimes were reported, if the alleged was convicted, and what punishment was imposed. Students need to develop confidence in university administrations and the administrations need to be held accountable for their record on rape and sexual assault.5 B. Support for Survivors One dilemma that many survivors face if they have made the decision to disclose their experience is with whom to share their story. Some survivors already have confidantes they feel they can trust, but this is not universally the case. Therefore, all campus residences halls, including fraternity and sorority houses located off campus, should have at least one student for every 50 residents complete training to become a peer advocate. Residential Advisors (RAs) may serve as the peer advocates, except for on campuses such as our communities of Barnard College and Columbia University, which maintain a policy of mandatory reporting for university employees, including RAs. These peer advocates would provide an outlet for victims who wish to share their story in a completely confidential setting, while also sharing resources with victims about more comprehensive counseling services, as well as information about how to go about reporting the assailant, should the victim choose to do so. C. Proceedings Virtually every institute of higher education in the US maintains a different procedure for following up on allegations of sexual assault and rape. The pro-

51

PREVENTING RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES

Leah Reiss

Introduction On January 22nd of this year, President Barack Obama issued a memorandum establishing the creation of a White House Task Force to protect college students from rape and sexual assault. The task force has been allotted 90 days to assess the national situation and propose solutions.1 I applaud this initiative as the issue of sexual assault on college campuses is very real and often misunderstood. Here, I attempt to outline my own recommendations that can be implemented to cope with this problem that affects nearly every institute of higher education in the United States. The prevalence of rape and sexual assault, especially on college campuses, has been well established by a multitude of studies. 20 to 25 percent of women will be the victims2 of attempted or completed rape during their college years. Additionally, people between the ages of 18 and 24, which covers the vast majority of college students, are four times more likely than people in other age groups to be victims of sexual assault.3 One facet of the problem that is ignored by many conventional rape prevention strategies is the fact that nearly 8 in 10 rapes on college campuses are committed by people known to the victim.4 Typical strategies are directed towards the potential victims, encouraging them to take self-defense classes and make certain choices to prevent rape. However, these tactics place the onus for preventing assault squarely on the shoulders of potential victims instead of potential attackers. Proposals The issue of rape and sexual assault on college campuses is very difficult to try to solve. In no

52 cess can be very complicated, and students are generally unaware of the specifics until they are actually involved in an investigation. Universities must ensure that their particular procedure is clearly explained to students and faculty, so that people can be fully informed. This relates back to my recommendations on transparency, and is just a further example of the information that should be readily available and comprehensible. However, in addition to merely spelling out the steps, universities should take measures to try to reach out to students with this information.6 Many criticize the system of university trials for rape and sexual assault and instead advocate that any allegations should be reported to the police and dealt with in a criminal trial. While I fully recognize a persons right to go to the police after a sexual assault, I do not think it would be right, at least at this point in time, to remove the option for students to pursue action through their universities. Some victims experience mistreatment at the hands of police officers and many may feel more comfortable confiding in a school official. Regardless of whether a victim ultimately chooses to pursue a criminal or collegiate trial, proceedings must be clearly elucidated. One procedural aspect that schools should definitely incorporate is a set time limit after an allegation, before which a trial must be convened. This would mitigate problems that have been seen in instances where an alleged offender graduates before the school has a chance to conclude an investigation. D. Education Until this point, my recommendations have focused on steps universities can take to combat campus sexual assault. However, the issue does not just start when students get to college. Many universities incorporate some kind of sex education program, usually during orientation weeks for new students, that cover topics such as healthy relationships, safe sex, and consent. These programs are certainly important, but one of the most important aspects of this problem that must be understood is that people begin to develop their positions on gender roles and power dynamics from a very young age. Therefore, any policy aiming to reduce the instance of rape and sexual assault must address the appalling state of sex education in the United States. The specifics of state-by-state sex-ed policies require a much larger discussion and are beyond the scope of this policy prescription, but one component that must be stressed is the necessity for consent education starting at an early age. This kind of training can begin with very young children because consent as a concept is not solely applicable to sexual relationships. Children need to understand that certain acts require permission. If we can teach children to respect the bodily integrity of others, these children are more likely to carry this behavior through to their teenage and adult years. As students progress through school, other lessons can be added to this education to emphasize the respect and consent necessary for maintaining healthy and mutually respectful relationships. This type of guidance is instrumental because it attacks the potential of rape before it becomes a problem. Universities must play a large role in any potential solution, but they are not the only institutions that must contribute. Conclusion The fight to end sexual assault is no small task. I have outlined very specific policies and procedures that campuses and governments can implement in an attempt to mitigate the problem, but these concrete ideas unfortunately will generally not translate as well to the other side of the problem, that of societal norms and systemic injustices against survivors that have been ingrained in us. Education is definitely the first move in this endeavor, but future steps must be taken in order to create a culture that supports survivors and actively prevents future occurrences of rape and sexual assault.

53

DEFENSE DIPLOMACY

&

54

55

A NEW WAY OF DESIGNATING TERRORISTS

Katherine Haller

organization itself can petition for revocation, or the Secretary of State can revoke the designation if circumstances have changed or if U.S. national security warrants it.4 Specially Designated Nationals List Besides the FTO designation, the State Department can designate a wider range of entities as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs). Entities on this list are designated under Executive Order 13224, and they can include terrorist groups, individuals in terrorist organizations, financiers, front companies, and others.5 Once the Secretary of State or Secretary of the Treasury designates an individual or entity, the Department of the Treasurys Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) blocks the partys assets. OFAC also adds the individual or entity to its list of Specially Designated Nationals (SDN). State Sponsors of Terrorism List The Secretary of State can even designate particular countries that are determined to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.6 These State Sponsors of Terrorism have various categories of sanctions imposed against them. Today, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria comprise the list. Terrorist Exclusion List Yet another list is the Terrorist Exclusion List (TEL). Under Section 411 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Secretary of State can designate terrorist organizations for immigration purposes. Advantages and Disadvantages of Terrorist Lists Advantages Given that the various terrorist lists were conceived, implemented, and continue to be used, there are clearly several advantages to these lists. One such advantage is that lists like the FTO list stigmatize and isolate terrorist organizations internationally. This stigmatization and isolation of terrorist groups is central to the international effort to combat and prevent terrorism. Moreover, these publicly published terrorist lists increase awareness of terrorism threats among civilian populations. In addition to these broad benefits, terrorist lists have practical legal advantages. The laws regulating the lists provide a clear legal framework for the United States in its dealings with terrorists.7 Furthermore, the distinct ramifications faced by

Introduction The threat of terrorism is one of, if not the, most important national security and foreign policy concerns of the United States. In order to address this threat, the U.S. Departments of State and the Treasury maintain terrorist designation lists. These lists serve practical, legal, and diplomatic purposes. However, there are several problems with the terrorist lists, ranging from the slow designation process to their sometimes-questionable validity. Below, the different lists maintained by the U.S. government are described. Then advantages and disadvantages of the lists are explained, followed by a discussion of the current state of the lists. Finally, policy recommendations are detailed. An Overview of the U.S. Governments Terrorist Designation Lists Foreign Terrorist Organizations List The United States Department of State maintains a list of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). These organizations are designated as terrorist in accordance with Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Under Section 219, the organization must be foreign, and it must engage in or intend to engage in terrorist activity that threatens the security of U.S. nationals or the national security of the United States.1 The State Departments Bureau of Counterterrorism (CT) reviews potential targets by examining both the actual terror attacks the group has carried out and plans and capabilities for future acts of terrorism.2 Once a target has been identified, the review process involves CT, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, and Congress. After an organization has been designated a FTO, there are three major legal ramifications. First, it is unlawful for a person in or under the jurisdiction of the United States to provide material support or resources to the FTO. Second, alien representatives and members of the FTO cannot be admitted to the United States. Third, any U.S. financial institution with funds in which a FTO has an interest must report the funds to the Department of the Treasury.3 Once a FTO is on the list its status as a FTO can be revoked through various channels. The

public nature raises awareness of terrorism, the downside to this is that it can increase anti-U.S. sentiment abroad. The U.S. governments designation of a group as terrorist might further estrange its supporters from the United States. Whats more, it might be worth questioning the extent of the impact of the terrorist designations on organizations. Does designating an organization as terrorist serve to construct its identity around the concept of terror? It is also worth asking how valid and meaningful the terrorist lists actually are. In 1988, the State Department designated South Africas African National Congress (ANC) as terrorist, and Nelson Mandela, the partys leader, was listed until 2008. The reason Disadvantages for Mandelas long tenure on the list was said to be a Despite these advantages, there are problems with the current system of designating terrorists. A ma- bureaucratic snafu.10 It is evident that terrorist designations are often made for purely political or strategic jor set of arguments against the lists claims that they are, for the most part, ineffective. The thorough review interest purposes. The Reagan administration viewed process before an organization is officially designated communism as its primary enemy, and the South is slow and time-consuming. The cumbersome, buAfrican apartheid regime had previously cooperated reaucratic process is particularly problematic for the with the United States to limit Soviet influence in the terrorism issue area, since identifying terrorist threats region.11 The terrorism lists can function as political is often time-sensitive. For instance, Boko Haram, a tools for the U.S. government, but such political maNigeria-based militant group, has been responsible for neuvers can compromise the integrity and validity of high-profile attacks since at least 2011, but the United the lists, leading others to question the United States States did not designate it as terrorist until November true motives behind some designations. 2013.9 And terrorist organizations are dynamic, making the list system somewhat ill suited. Moreover, the Discussion convoluted system can be confusing. There are inconTerrorism is a highly fluid issue area. The sistencies between the various lists for example, a landscape is constantly changing, and therefore policy group might be on the SDN list, but not on the FTO dealing with it requires great flexibility. Terrorist organizations are not static. They most often operate outlist. side of the law, and they can thus easily change their A popular argument against the State Sponnames, associations, and characteristics. Moreover, sors of Terrorism list is that it is too static. However, this argument loses support when one notes that, in terrorist groups are not isolated from one another. the past decade, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea have all Membership is fluid and dynamic. A serious probbeen removed from the list. lem is that terrorist activities are often carried out by A broader disadvantage of terrorist lists in gen- volunteers, who may not have a well-defined, longeral is that there are inconsistencies between the lists term relationship with an organization.12 The SDN of different states. Due to varying interests and views list, which includes some individuals, companies, and among states, an organization that the United States other non-traditional entities, only partially addresses designates as terrorist might simply be viewed as a po- this, while the FTO list ignores this problem. litical party or resistance movement by another states Not only do terrorist organizations constantly government. This can result in coordination problems. change, but the national security interests of the UnitOne such organization that is viewed differently by ed States do also. As the example of the ANC illusdifferent states is Hamas, a Palestinian Islamic group trates, a group that at one point in time might threaten the United States, the European Union, and others the United States interests might later become a close classify Hamas as terrorist, while Russia, Turkey, and friend (and vice versa). The cumbersome, bureaucratic others do not. nature of the designation process makes this point While an advantage of the lists is that their particularly salient, since it is difficult to both add and

terrorist-designated entities may serve as deterrents to others considering engaging in illegal behavior.8 The terrorist lists can aid the United States in the diplomatic arena, too. By placing an organization on the FTO list, the State Department signals its position to other governments. By making terrorist designations public, governments of different states can coordinate sanctions, actions, and responses to threats. Further, terrorist designations can be used as diplomatic leverage when dealing with states for instance, the United States can threaten to place a state on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list.

56 remove organizations in a timely fashion. Given this analysis, the SDN list has the most practical uses and is the most flexible and efficient. Meanwhile, the State Sponsors of Terrorism list is the least practical and efficient, though it can be useful for diplomatic leverage. Future work should be aimed at adapting the FTO list to make it more like the SDN list. Policy Recommendations for Adapting the FTO List While the FTO list has some value for international signaling and providing legal ramifications, major changes need to be made to the designation process, the lists structure, and the judicial review process for revocation of FTO status. A move toward tracking finances and individuals will better account for the volunteer or associate problem, wherein individuals loosely associated, but not members of, terrorist organizations carry out activities. Thus, the FTO list should be made to function more like the SDN list. The bureaucratic process for designating FTOs should be streamlined, and the fact that most organizations are fluid needs to be better addressed. Additionally, the transparency and ease of the judicial review process (by which groups can file to be removed from the FTO list) should be increased. Groups on the FTO list have, on several occasions, filed lawsuits to be taken off it. For example, in 1999, both the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, and the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), also known as the Peoples Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI), both filed suits arguing denial of due process, and both lost in court.13 The LTTE remains on the list today. However, in 2012, the MEK won their suit, and the State Department formally removed it from the FTO list.14 It is true that increasing ease of petition and transparency of the review process provides more opportunities for terrorist designations to be revoked. It is also true that increased ease of review would reduce the burden of proof on FTOs that file suits. However, making the judicial review process clearer and easier for FTOs is in keeping with what the FTO lists purpose has evolved to become. This list serves to signal foreign governments and to function as a starting point for initiating international counterterrorism actions. Improving the judicial review process will strengthen the international validity of the list. It will both assuage some suspicions that the United States designates organizations as terrorist for political, self-interested reasons, and it will affirm U.S. commitments to international standards and fairness. Conclusion The United States terrorist designation lists are not completely outdated. Though there are several problems with them, the lists are beneficial for a variety of purposes, including diplomatic leverage, international signaling, and legal clarity. However, given the problems associated with the lists, it is clear that reforms need to be made. In particular, the FTO list should be adapted to function more flexibly, like the SDN list does. Furthermore, the judicial review process for revoking FTO designation should be made easier and more transparent. In order for the State Department and other branches and agencies of the U.S. government to effectively reduce and combat terrorism, greater flexibility in dealing with ever-changing terrorist organizations is necessary. Also necessary is credibility among the international community, since often counterterrorism efforts depend on the combined input of several states at once. The recommendations outlined here aim toward these goals of flexibility and international validity, both of which are essential for security.

57

Endnotes
Economic Development
Ricardo Rodriguez, Economic Determinants of Polarization and Partisanship in Congress

DATA OBTAINED FROM: 1. United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 2. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 3. National Bureau of Economic Research 4. Dr. Keith Poole, VoteView.com 5. Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives 6. The Library of Congress, THOMAS 7. Center for American Women and Politics at the Eagleton Institute of Politics in Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 8. White House Office of Management and Budget

Kendall Tucker, Americas Regressive Income Tax and How We Should Change It
1. Michelmore, Molly C. Tax and Spend: The Welfare State, Tax Politics, and the Limits of American Liberalism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2012. Print. Income Tax. Investopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2013. Greenstone, Michael, and Adam Looney. Just How Progressive Is the U.S. Tax Code? Web log post. BROOKINGS. Brookings Institution, 12 Oct. 2013. Web. 12 Oct. 2013. 2. Nichols, Donald R., and William F. Wempe. Regressive Tax Rates and the Unethical Taxation of Salaried Income. Journal of Business Ethics 91 (2010): 553-66. Web. 553. 3. Nichols and Wempe. 553. 4. Nichols and Wempe. 554. 5. Dunn, Alan. Average America vs the One Percent. Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 21 Mar. 2012. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. 6. Kaboub, Fadhel. Against Regressive Taxation. New Economic Perspectives. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. 7. Richards and Linden. 1. 8. Ross, Jean. 1. 9. Nichols and Wempe. 555. 10. Nichols and Wempe. 563. * The combined total marginal tax rate on relatively modest salaried incomes between $32,550 and $78,850, 40.3%, is higher than the total marginal tax rate for any amount of salaried income over $102,000. Moreover, the 43.3% marginal rate on salaried income levels between $78,850 and $102,000 is 40% higher than the 30.9% marginal rate applicable to salaried income levels from $102,000 to $164,550, and 14% higher than the marginal rate imposed on employees with salaried incomes in excess of $357,700. Clearly, the total combined marginal rates of federal taxes

on salaried income are structurally regressive.Nichols and Wempe. 557. 11. Nichols and Wempe. 12. Richards, Kitty, and Michael Linden. How Lawmakers Should Think About Tax Reform. Center for American Progress (n.d.): n. pag. 10 July 2013. Web. 3-4. 13. Richards and Linden. 3. 14. Nichols and Wempe. 561. Social Security Payout Exceeds Tax Income. Social Security: The Official Website of the U.S. Social Security Administration. Social Security Administration, n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. 15. Nichols and Wempe. 560. 16. Nichols and Wempe. 560. 17. Richards and Linden. 4. 18. DePillis, Lydia. Congrats, CEOs! Youre Making 273 times the Pay of the Average Worker. WONKBLOG. The Washington Post, 26 June 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. 19. Gramm, Phil. A GOP Game Plan for Tax Reform. The Wall Street Journal. AEI, 9 July 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. 2. 20. Gramm. 21. The Distribution of Major Tax Expenditures in the Individual Income Tax System. Rep. Congressional Budget Office, 29 May 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. 22. The Distribution of Major Tax Expenditures in the Individual Income Tax System. 23. Linden, Michael. Supporting Broad-Based Economic Growth and Fiscal Responsibility Through Tax Reform: Testimony Before the U.S. Senate Budget Committee.Center for American Progress. N.p., 29 May 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. 5. 24. Linden. 5. 25. 6. 26. Paturot, Mellbye and Brys. 27. The Distribution of Major Tax Expenditures in the Individual Income Tax System. 28. The Distribution of Major Tax Expenditures in the Individual Income Tax System. 6. 29. Raising Taxes on Rich Seen as Good for Economy, Fairness.

Edmund Brose, The Labor Movement in the United States: Why it is Crucial for Economic Growth and How it can Adapt to the 21st Centurys Global Economy

1. Greenhouse, Steven. Labors Decline and Wage Inequality. Economix. Last modified August 4, 2011. Accessed March 21, 2014. http://economix.blogs.nytimes. com/2011/08/04/labors-decline-and-wage-inequality/?_ php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1. 2. Rolf, David. Labor: Building a New Future. Democracy Journal, Summer 2013, 42 46. Accessed March 21, 2014. http://www.democracyjournal.org/pdf/29/labor_

58
building_a_new_future.pdf. 3. Ibid pg. 44 4. Jan E. Leighley and Jonathan Nagler. 2007. Unions, Voter Turnout, and Class Bias in the U.S. Electorate, 19642004. Journal of Politics.Vol. 69, no. 2, May: 430-441. 5. Ibid pg. 432 6. Benjamin Radcliff & Patricia Davis, 2000, Labor Organization and Electoral Participation in Industrial Democracies. American Journal of Political Science. V. 44, no. 1, January: 132-141. 7. Benjamin Radcliff & Martin Saiz, 1998, Labor Organization and Public Policy in the American States. Journal of Politics. V. 60, no., 1, February, 113-125. 8. Ibid pg. 121 9. Kris Warner, 2013, The Decline of Unionization in the United States: Some Lessons From Canada, Labor Studies Journal, 38(2): 110-138 10. Ibid pg. 117 11. Ibid pg. 117 12. Levi, Margaret. Organizing Power: The Prospects for an American Labor Movement*. Perspectives On Politics 1, no. 1 (March 2003): 45-68. 13. Dorian T. Warren, 2011, The Unsurprising Failure of Labor Law Reform and the Turn to Administrative Action, in Theda Skocpol and Lawrence R. Jacobs, eds., Reaching for a New Deal: Ambitious Governance, Economic Meltdown, and Polarized Politics in Obamas First Two Years, Russell Sage, Chapter 5 14. Ewing, Jack, and Bill Vlasic. VW Plant Opens Door to Union and Dispute. New York Times (New York City), October 10, 2013. Accessed March 21, 2014. http://www. nytimes.com/2013/10/11/business/vw-plant-opens-door-tounion-and-dispute.html. 15. Plessis, Jean Jacques. Its Called Mitbestimmung. Deakin Research. Last modified February 4, 2013. Accessed March 21, 2014. http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/ stories/2013/02/04/its-called-mitbestimmung 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid. 18. OToole, James. Will Volkswagen Bring Mitbestimmung to Chattanooga? Strategy+Business (blog). Entry posted October 28, 2013. Accessed March 21, 2014. http:// www.strategy-business.com/blog/Will-Volkswagen-BringMitbestimmung-to-Chattanooga?gko=7aec3. 19. Ibid. Highway System, accessed February 8, 2014. http://www. fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.htm#question6 4. Frequently Asked Questions, U.S. Energy Information Administration, accessed February 10, 2014. http://www. eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=10&t=10 5. Joseph Vranich. A Brief History of Amtrak. End of the Line: The Failure of Amtrak Reform and the Future of Americas Passenger Trains (Washington: AEI Press, 2004), 9-11. 6. National Fact Sheet FY 12, Amtrak, accessed February 8, 2014. http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/355/968/AmtrakNational-Fact-Sheet-FY2012.pdf 7. UIC Database, International Union of Railways, http:// www.uic.org, accessed February 9, 2014 8. UIC Database, International Union of Railways, http:// www.uic.org, accessed February 9, 2014 9. Charles Montgomery. Mobicities 1 Happy City: Transforming Our Lives Through Urban Design (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2013), 84-95. 10. Emissions By Different Modes of Transport, Clear Zone Partnership, accessed February 13, 2014. https://docs. google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Agol553XfuDZdHlWS mRRckpXZWdSczdoVVBjbHU2dHc&hl=en_GB#gid=0 11. State and County Quick Facts. U.S. Census Bureau, accessed February 14, 2014. http://quickfacts.census.gov/ qfd/download_data.html 12. Andres Felipe Archila, Amtraks Productivity in the Northeast Corridor (PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2013). 13. T.R. Gourvish. The Beeching Revolution: Organization and Reorganization. British Railways 1948-73: A Business History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 307-389. 14. John B. Miller. International Arrivals Building at John F. Kennedy International Airport, Case Studies in Infrastructure Delivery (New York: Springer, 2002), 33-49. 15. Public Private Partnership. Maryland Purple Line, accessed February 12, 2014. http://purplelinemd.com/en/p3 16. Phillip Hammond, MP. Written Statement to Parliament: New Franchising Programme, accessed February 13, 2014. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/newfranchising-programme 17. Profits Rise at UK Transport Firm First Group. Yahoo Finance UK, accessed February 12, 2014. http:// uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/profits-rise-uk-transportfirm-074524996.html 18. National Fact Sheet FY 12, Amtrak, accessed February 8, 2014. http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/355/968/AmtrakNational-Fact-Sheet-FY2012.pdf 19. TGV, France. Railway Technology, accessed February 8, 2014. http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/ frenchtgv/ 20. National Fact Sheet FY 12, Amtrak, accessed February 8, 2014. http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/355/968/AmtrakNational-Fact-Sheet-FY2012.pdf 21. Report Card For Americas Infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers, accessed February 9, 2014. http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/browser-options/ downloads/2013-Report-Card.pdf 22. Frequently Asked Questions, U.S. Energy Information Administration, accessed February 10, 2014. http:// www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=10&t=10 23. Advisory Committee Recommends Passenger Rail Crashworthiness Standards to Accommodate High Speed Rail. Federal Railroad Administration, accessed February 12, 2014. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04638 24. John B. Miller. International Arrivals Building at John F. Kennedy International Airport, Case Studies in Infrastructure Delivery (New York: Springer, 2002), 33-49. 1. Thompson, June (2013) Student Evaluation of Teachers and SB1422. California Association of Student Councils, casc.org 2. Center for Teaching and Learning (1994) Suggestions and Reflections on Teaching and Learning. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. 5. Marsh, H. W. (1984) Students evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and utility. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 no. 5, 707754. 6. Centra, J. A. (1993) Reflective faculty evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 7. Cohen, P. A. (1981) Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: A meta-analysis of multisection validity studies. Review of Educational Research, 51, 281309

59

Education

Ruohan Zhang, Reforming Supplementary Education Services

Ryan Morgan, New Tracks: A Future for Americas Passenger Rail

1. Thomas Carson and Mary Bonk, eds., Interstate Highway Act. Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. Economic History (Detroit: Gale, 1999), 492494. 2. John P. Resch, ed., Cold War Mobilization. Americans at War (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2009), 37-39. 3. Frequently Asked Questions, Eisenhower Interstate

1. Facts and Statistics: District of Columbia Public Schools. http://dc.gov/DCPS/About+DCPS/ Who+We+Are/Facts+and+Statistics 2. Richmond, Emily. High School Graduation Rate Hits 40-Year Peak in the U.S. The Atlantic. June 6, 2013. 3. Ibid. 4. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. http://www2. ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf 5. Ibid. 6. Minnici, Angela and Alice Bartley. State Implementation of Supplementary Education Services under the No Child Left Behind Act. Center on Education Policy. March 2007. 6. 7. Ibid, 10. 8. Chappell, Shannon, et al. Supplementary Education Services (SES) Provision of No Child Left Behind: A Synthesis of Provider Effects. March 15, 2010. 9. Chappell, 8. 10. NCLB Waivers: A State-by-State Breakdown. Education Week. Updated January 30, 2014. http://www.edweek. org/ew/section/infographics/nclbwaivers.html 11. Ibid. 12. Gutierez, Anonio J. Match Tutors: The Research Basis for the Effectiveness of Tutoring in Public Education. Archive Learning. September 1, 2011. 15 13. No Child Left Behind Funding. Federal Education Budget Project. a.net/background-analysis/no-child-leftbehind-funding 14. Federal Work Study Program. US Department of Education. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/fws/index.html

Lesley Cordero, Computation Change: The Role of Computer Science in Public Education

Kunal Shah, Student Evaluation of Teachers and the Improvement of Classroom Transparency and Common Core Implementation

1. CS Education Statistics Exploring Computer Science. Exploring Computer Science CS Education Statistics Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. <http://www. exploringcs.org/resources/cs-statistics>. 2. Carnegie Mellon University. K-12 computer science education declining. ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 7 December 2010. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101206111536.htm>. 3. AP FAQ. AP Central. College Board, n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. <http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/faq/ viewDetail?faqid=1163>. 4. CS Education Statistics Exploring Computer Science. Exploring Computer Science CS Education Statistics Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. <http://www. exploringcs.org/resources/cs-statistics>. 4. *98 5. The Age of the Advanced Placement. Benchprep.com. Bench Prep, n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. <https://benchprep. com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/AP-infographicsfinal-1.pdf>. 6. Computer Science A Course Description. College Board, 2010. Web. 21 Mar. 2014. <http://blog.acthompson. net/2012/10/killing-curiosity.html>. 7. Faggin, Barry. Critical Thinking and Computer Science: Implicit and Explicit Connections. Tech. US Air Force Academy Dept of Computer Science, 2006. Web. <http:// citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.100.82 17&rep=rep1&type=pdf>. 8. What Is Computer Science? Rep. Computinginthecore. org, n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2014. <http://csedweek.org/files/ What_is_CS_and_Careers.pdf>. 9. Master of Science in Computational Analysis & Public Policy. Master of Science in Computational Analysis & Public Policy. Harris School of Public Policy and, n.d. Web.

60
18 Feb. 2014. <http://capp.sites.uchicago.edu/>. 10. New Course and Exam AP Computer Science: Principles to Launch in Academic Year 201617. AP Computer Science Principles. College Board, n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2014. <http://www.collegeboard.com/html/computerscience/>. Cycle/Fuel-Recycling/Processing-of-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/. 5. von Hippel, Frank N. Plutonium and Reprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel. Science. (2001): 2397-8. 6. Wood, Janet. Boston Consulting Group, Fuel and the Fuel Cycle; Should USA Reprocess?. Last modified September 26, 2006. Accessed February 21, 2014. 7. World Nuclear Association, Military Warheads as a Source of Nuclear Fuel. Last modified March 2014. Accessed March 19, 2014. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/ Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Military-Warheads-as-a-Source-of-Nuclear-Fuel/. 8. Macfarlane, Allison M. The Overlooked Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. Science. no. 6047 (2011): 12251226. 9. Markey, Edward J. Edward J. Markey to Steven Chu. Letter. Congress of the United States: House of Representatives, Last modified January 13, 2013. Accessed March 19, 2014. 10. World Nuclear Association, Plutonium. Last modified March 2012. Accessed March 22, 2014. http://www. world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Fuel-Recycling/ Plutonium/. 10. Watson, Greg. Hill, Barbara. Courtney, Fara. Goldman, Peter. Calvert, Stan. Thresher, Robert. Assimakopoulos. Lyons, James. Bell, Benjamin. A Framework for Offshore Wind Energy Development in the United States. Department of Energy. September 2005. http://www.usowc.org/ pdfs/final_09_20.pdf 11. Benefits of Offshore Wind Energy. Deepwater Wind. 2014. http://dwwind.com/resources/benefits-of-offshorewind. 12. George, Andrew. Fishermens Energy tells BPU if fells it has made its case for wind farm. NJBiz. December 20, 2013. http://www.njbiz.com/article/20131220/ NJBIZ01/131229971/Fishermens-Energy-tells-BPU-itfeels-it-has-made-its-case-for-wind-farm. 13. Maryland Opportunities for Offshore Wind Businesses. Clean Energy States Alliance. 2014 http://www.cleanenergystates.org/assets/2013-Files/OSW/DW-OSW-StateProfiles/Marylandfinal.pdf. 14. Musial, Walter. Ram, Bonnie. Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States- Assessment of Opportunities and Barriers. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. September 2010. http://usoffshorewind.org/wp-content/ uploads/2012/06/NREL-large-offshore-wind-us.pdf. 15. Romm, Joe. Offshore Wind Energy: The Benefits and the Barriers. ThinkProgress. June 1, 2011. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/06/01/232901/offshore-windenergy/. 16. Ibid. 17. Sims, Douglass. Fulfilling the Promise of US Offshore Wind: Targeted State Investment Policies to Put an Abundant Renewable Resource within Reach. National Resources Defense Council. February 2013. http://www.nrdc.org/ business/files/offshore-wind-investment.pdf.

61

Esther Brot, PhD Renewal

1. Brian Vastag, US Pushes for more scientists but the jobs arent there, The Washington Post (July 7, 2012). 2. Vastag, US Pushes for more scientists. 3. Jordan Weissmann, The PhD Bust, Pt II: How Bad is the Job Market for Young American-Born Scientists?, The Atlantic (February 22, 2013). 4. Vastag, US Pushes for more scientists. 5. http://www.nih.gov/science/brain/ 6. William J Broad, Billionaires With Big Ideas Are Privatizing American Science The New York Times (March 16, 2014).

Energy and Environment

Simon Schwartz, Space Based Solar Power: An Available Answer to a Long-Term Problem

1. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus12.pdf 2. http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2014justification/pdf/bop-bfjustification.pdf 3. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/jim12st.pdf 4. http://www.census.gov/population/race/data/ppl-bc12. html 5. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svpjri1112.pdf 6. http://law.wustl.edu/journal/22/p325grassian.pdf 7. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/opinion/new-yorkrethinks-solitary-confinement.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0 8. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_ transcript.html 9. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ 10. http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/ files/Coffee%20Shops%20and%20Compromise-final.pdf 11. http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/article. aspx?articleid=1687835 12. https://www.bja.gov/Publications/Rand-HowEffectiveIsCorrectionalEducation.pdf 13. http://www.bop.gov/ 14. http://cca.com/

Matter in Prisons

1. Snead, Michael. Spacefaring Institute LLC. http://spacefaringinstitute.com/. 2. National Space Society. http://www.nss.org/settlement/ ssp/. 3. Globalcom. http://www.globalcomsatphone.com/ hughesnet/satellite/costs.html. 4. Halper, Mark. Breakthrough: Worlds Most Efficient Solar Panel. Smartplanet. http://www.smartplanet.com/ blog/intelligent-energy/breakthrough-worlds-most-efficient-solar-panel/. 5. SelectUSA. http://selectusa.commerce.gov/industrysnapshots/energy-industry-united-states.

Swara Salih, Investing in a Sustainable Future: Offshore Wind Energy

Adrian Jaycox, Reprocessing into Nuclear Fuel: Recycle Waste and Weapons

1. World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Power in the USA. Last modified March 2014. Accessed March 19, 2014. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/ Countries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-Power/. 2. US Energy Information Administration, FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. Last modified August 02, 2013. Accessed March 19, 2014. http://www.eia.gov/tools/ faqs/faq.cfm?id=92&t=4. 3. World Nuclear Association, US Nuclear Fuel Cycle. Last modified March 10, 2014. Accessed March 19, 2014. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/. 4. World Nuclear Association, Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel. Last modified September 2013. Accessed March 19, 2014. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-

1. Bloomberg 2014 2. Electric Power Monthly. Energy Information Administration. January 2014 http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/. 3. Production Tax Credit for Renewable Energy. Union of Concerned Scientists. January 1, 2014 http://www.ucsusa. org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/increase-renewables/production-tax-credit-for.html. 4. American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). What does wind power mean for America? 2014 http://www.awea.org/ Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=3393. 5. Production Tax Credit for Renewable Energy. Union of Concerned Scientists. January 1, 2014 http://www.ucsusa. org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/increase-renewables/production-tax-credit-for.html. 6. Vartabedian, Ralph. Firm seeks to harness Wyomings wind energy for California. Los Angeles Times. February 8, 2014. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-wyoming-wind20140209,0,2323715,full.story#axzz2ttXXUcm5. 7. De Groot, K. le Pair, C. The hidden fuel costs of wind generated electricity. European Platform Against Windfarms. 2010. http://www.epaw.org/documents. php?article=backup7. 8. The Advantages and Challenges of Offshore Wind. Makani Power. February 8, 2013. http://www.makanipower.com/2013/02/the-advantages-and-challenges-of-offshorewind/. 9. Wind Farm Growth Throughout the Years. Department of Energy. August 6, 2013. http://energy.gov/articles/windfarm-growth-through-years.

Nikita Singareddy, Reforming the Nations Juvenile Justice System

Equal Justice

Andrew Stoughton, An Alternative to Traditional Incarceration

1, http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=11 2. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1763 3. New York City by the Numbers, Independent Budget Office, accessed November 18, 2013, http://ibo.nyc.ny.us/ cgi-park2/?p=516. 4. Steven Greenhouse, States Help Ex-Inmates Find Jobs, New York Times, January 25, 2011, B1. 5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/24/militaryprison-uniforms_n_4498867.html 6. http://www.npr.org/2010/12/16/132112124/inmates-jobsfrom-call-centers-to-paint-mixing 7. http://www.npr.org/2010/12/16/132112124/inmates-jobsfrom-call-centers-to-paint-mixing 8. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17

Allison Sawyer, Human Rights Do Not Cease to

1. Knoll, C. and Sickmund, M. (October 2012). Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Court, 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/239081.pdf. 2. Arya, Neelum. (2011). State Trends: Legislative Victories from 2005 to 2010, Removing Youth from the Adult Criminal Justice System. Washington, DC: Campaign for Youth Justice. 3. Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2011). Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement. Available at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ ojstatbb/ezacjrp/. 4. Mendel, R. (2011). No Place for Kids, The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Available at: www.aecf.org/noplaceforkids. 5. Center on Childrens Law and Policy (December 2007). Potential for Change: Public Attitudes and Policy Preferences for Juvenile Justice Systems Reform, Models for Change, Systems Reform in Juvenile Justice. Available at: http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/121. 6. Piquero, A. and Steinberg, L. (December 2007). Models for Change, Systems Reform In Juvenile Justice, Rehabilitation Versus Incarceration of Juvenile Offenders: Public Preferences in Four Models for Change States. Available at: http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/186 . 7. Brown, S. (June 2012). Trends in Juvenile Justice State Legislation: 2001-2011. Washington, DC: National Confer-

62
ence of State Legislatures. Available at: http://www.ncsl. org/documents/cj/trendsinjuvenilejustice.pdf. 8. Bonnie, R., Chemers, B., and Schuck, J. Editors (November 2012). Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach. Washington, DC: Committee on Assessing Juvenile Justice Reform, Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Available at: http://www.nap. edu/catalog.php?record_id=14685. 9. Ibid. 10. Arya, Neelum. (2011). State Trends: Legislative Victories from 2005 to 2010, Removing Youth from the Adult Criminal Justice System. Washington, DC: Campaign for Youth Justice. 11. Investigative Findings Letter. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. Available at: http://www.justice.gov/crt/ about/spl/documents/LeFloreJDC_findlet_03-31-11.pdf. 12. Nelson, D. W. (2008). A Road Map for Juvenile Justice Reform. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation. Holman, B. and Ziedenberg, J. (2006). The Dangers of Detention. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute. 13. Report of the Attorney Generals National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence. (December 2012). Defending Childhood. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Available at: http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/cev-rpt-full.pdf. 14. Griffen, P., Addie S., Adams, B., and Firestine, K. (September 2011). Trying Juveniles As Adults: An Analysis of State Transfer Laws and Reporting. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available at: https://www.ncjrs. gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/232434.pdf. 15. Nelson, D. W. (2008). A Road Map for Juvenile Justice Reform. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation. Holman, B. and Ziedenberg, J. (2006). The Dangers of Detention. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute. 16. Ibid. 17. Watson, L. and Edelman, P. (October 2012). Improving the Juvenile Justice System: Lessons from the States, Washington, DC: The Center on Poverty, Inequality, & Public Policy, Georgetown University Law Center. 18. Beck, A.J., Guerino, P., and Harrison P.M. (January 2010). Sexual Victimization In Juvenile Facilities Reported By Youth, 2008-09. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Available at: http://bjs. ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2113 19. Ibid. 20. Investigative Findings Letter. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. Available at: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/marion_ juve_ind_findlet_8-6-07.pdf 21. Ibid. 22. National Council on Crime and Delinquency. (January 2007). And Justice for Some: Differential Treatment of Youth of Color in the Justice System. Oakland, CA. Available at http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/pubs/2007jan_justice_for_some.pdf. 23. Ibid. 24. Report of the Attorney Generals National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence. (December 2012). Defending Childhood. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Available at: http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/cev-rpt-full.pdf. 25. National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Report (June 2009). Available at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/226680.pdf. 26. Human Rights Watch and American Civil Liberties Union. (October 2012). Growing Up Locked Down: Youth in Solitary Confinement in Jails and Prisons Across the United States. Washington, DC: Author. Available at: http:// www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us1012ForUpload. pdf. 27. Campaign for Youth Justice. (November 2007). Jailing Juveniles. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www. campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/CFYJNR_JailingJuveniles.pdf 28. Arya, N. (2011). State Trends: Legislative Victories from 2005 to 2010, Removing Youth from the Adult Criminal Justice System. Washington, DC: Campaign for Youth Justice. 29. Report of the Attorney Generals National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence. (December 2012). Defending Childhood. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Available at: http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/cev-rpt-full.pdf. 30. Sedlak, Andrea J., and Bruce, C. (December 2010). Youths Characteristics and Backgrounds. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 31. Human Rights Watch and American Civil Liberties Union. (October 2012). Growing Up Locked Down: Youth in Solitary Confinement in Jails and Prisons Across the United States. Washington, DC: Author. Available at: http:// www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us1012ForUpload. pdf. 32. Campaign for Youth Justice. (November 2007). Jailing Juveniles. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/ CFYJNR_JailingJuveniles.pdf 33. Redding, R. (August 2008). Juvenile transfer laws: An effective deterrent to delinquency? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 34. National Standards to Prevent, Detect and Respond to Prison Rape, Docket No. OAG-131, (May 16, 2012). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Available at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ programs/pdfs/prea_final_rule.pdf. 35. Sedlak, Andrea J., and Bruce, C. (December 2010). Youths Characteristics and Backgrounds. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 36. Bonnie, R., Chemers, B., and Schuck, J. Editors (November 2012). Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach. Washington, DC: Committee on Assessing Juvenile Justice Reform, Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Available at: http://www.nap. edu/catalog.php?record_id=14685. 37. Snyder, H. (2004). An Empirical Analysis of the Youth Reentry Population. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 2(1): 39-55. 38. Report of the Attorney Generals National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence. (December 2012). Defending Childhood. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Available at: http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/cev-rpt-full.pdf. 39. Arya, N. (2011). State Trends: Legislative Victories from 2005 to 2010, Removing Youth from the Adult Criminal Justice System. Washington, DC: Campaign for Youth Justice. 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid. 18. Ibid. 19. http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,99564,00.html 20. Ibid. 21. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html 22. Ibid. 23. Ibid. 24. Lecture given by Professor Carl Hart at Columbia University.

63

Leah Reiss, Preventing Rape and Sexual Assault on College Campuses

Healthcare

Lauren Tomasulo, Targeting Education: A Healthier Approach to Drug Policy

1. Lecture given by Professor Carl Hart at Columbia University. 2. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889166,00.html. 3. Ibid. 4. http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2011/02/25/state-considers-marijuana-decriminalization/ 5. Ibid. 6. Data in a lecture given by Professor Carl Hart at Columbia University. 7. http://www.thedailychronic.net/2013/15526/bloombergno-more-jail-stays-for-minor-nyc-marijuana-busts/ 8. Lecture presented by Professor Carl Hart at Columbia University. 9. http://inthecapital.com/2013/03/25/rand-paul-reformson-marijuana-decriminalization/ 10. http://blogs.reuters.com/bernddebusmann/2012/04/16/ obama-and-the-failed-war-on-drugs/ 11. Lecture given by Professor Carl Hart at Columbia University. 12. http://www.newyorker.com/ reporting/2011/10/17/111017fa_fact_specter. 13. Ibid. 14. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html 15. Ibid.

1. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/22/ memorandum-establishing-white-house-task-force-protectstudents-sexual-a 2. A note on terminology: I use victim and survivor interchangeably in this proposal as I believe both usages have merit. I recognize that individuals may choose to identify with one or the other, or neither. 3. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317 4. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317 5. Martin D. Schwartz, Sexual Assault on the College Campus, (Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 1997), p161. 6. Ibid, pp157-158.

Defense and Diplomacy

Katherine Haller, A New Way of Designating Terrorists

1.Bureau of Counterterrorism. Foreign Terrorist Organizations. U.S. Department of State. Web. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. 5. Office of the Spokesman. Fact Sheet: Foreign Terrorist Organization Designation. U.S. Department of State. 1 Sep. 2010. Web. 6. Bureau of Counterterrorism. State Sponsors of Terrorism. U.S. Department of State. Web. 7. Cronin, Audrey K. The FTO List and Congress: Sanctioning Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Rep. no. RL32120. Congressional Research Service, 21 Oct. 2003. Web. 8. Ibid. 9. Office of the Spokesperson. Terrorist Designations of Boko Haram and Ansaru. U.S. Department of State. 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 10. Windrem, Robert. US Government Considered Nelson Mandela a Terrorist until 2008. NBC News. 7 Dec. 2013. Web

64
11. Dewey, Caitlin. Why Nelson Mandela Was on a Terrorism Watch List in 2008. Web log post. The Fix. The Washington Post, 7 Dec. 2013. Web. 12. Cronin, op. cit. 13. Ibid. 14. Peoples Mojahedin Organization of Iran v. United States Department of State. United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. 1 June 2012. FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. Web. Cover photo courtesy of Columbia University Photography Society All other photos courtesy Wikimedia Commons.