Last week, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan unveiled his proposal for an anti-poverty plan at the American Enterprise Institute. Shifting federal assistance towards a block grant he calls the “Opportunity Grant,” Ryan proposed to give the states responsibility to decide how they would distribute funding for eleven safety net programs. The Opportunity Grant masquerades as a plan to uplift low-class and working Americans, while ultimately pulling more people down into cyclical poverty. Historically, block grants have been ineffective and poverty is still a painful reality for many working families, which this plan fails to acknowledge. With no resources to even effectively implement such a program, the Opportunity Grant is destined to fail.
The main issue with Ryan’s proposal is the move away from adjustable assistance programs towards lumping assistance programs into state-distributed packages. To start, block grants are not responsive to economic shifts because they are distributed in fixed annual appropriations. Moreover, block grants have been historically problematic, which Ryan conveniently overlooks. When funds are administered at the state level they can easily be relocated to fill other state budgetary holes. For example, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that states have used billions of dollars of welfare block grants on unrelated programs – in 2011 only 29% of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds were being used towards their intended purposes.
Additionally, block grant programs tend to be chipped away at on the federal level by legislators who considered the money to be “flexible” or superfluous. A prime example of this is the Social Services Block Grant, which has lost 77% of its funding since its establishment and would be entirely cut under the Ryan plan. Ironically, this is a program that would be necessary to sustain the kind of case management Ryan wants to create under his plan. Ryan already wants to make significant cuts to programs like SNAP and Medicaid, so formatting the programs into a lump sum package will make these funds even more vulnerable to further cuts and misallocation.
Ryan’s plan is overly focused on getting people into jobs and is not concerned enough with fixing bad jobs that don’t pay well. He also overlooks other assistance that working individuals and families need to get by, like paid sick and paid family leave, both of which are not required by federal labor laws. In 2014, a full-time worker making the $7.25 federal minimum wage earns approximately $15,080 annually, only 71% of the poverty level for a family of three. This translates to approximately 8.9 million Americans working full-time minimum wage jobs who live below the poverty line. It’s clear that jobs are simply not the end-all to climbing out of poverty. In falsely considering poverty as an issue primarily for people who choose not to work, Ryan’s plan falls short of encompassing the full spectrum of poverty.
Ryan’s proposal also includes lowering the income limit for assistance cutoffs, increasing the eligibility gap and accentuating the poverty cycle even more. These eligibility “cliffs” cut people off from food and housing programs before they can afford them on their own, keeping individuals and families in limbo between self-sufficiency and assistance programs. As the name suggests, eligibility cliffs will drop recipients from help before they even get out of poverty instead of gradually reducing benefits. In fact, in some states like Colorado, simply earning one more dollar an hour could make a low-income individual lose SNAP benefits or experience drastic cuts to their childcare subsidies. Smoothing out these cliffs ensures that recipients continue to have some stability while they become more economically independent.
Finally, a plan like the Opportunity Grant proposal is financially unfeasible because it calls for cutting funding for some programs while not adding funding for new initiatives, like individualized, paid case managers. More paperwork and bureaucracy will be necessary if Ryan is committed to such case management, paradoxically creating here what he vowed his plan would cut elsewhere. Because Ryan does not propose any increases in program funding, paying for case management staff, training and facilities will only siphon already-limited funds from the block grant. Ryan’s “deficit neutral” plan allots no more money to struggling Americans while simultaneously making it more difficult for those Americans to receive assistance at all.
The Ryan plan is riddled with inconsistencies, contradictory proposals and methods that have proven ineffective since the advent of the welfare safety net. Low-income Americans and the unemployed need assistance that will not disappear at arbitrary cutoff points and that will encompass childcare, food assistance, housing and job training. An anti-poverty plan must go further to address the real issues facing Americans today, not only reinforcing the welfare system but also raising the minimum wage, expanding worker’s protections and extending unemployment insurance. Because it overlooks the facts about poverty and what workers need to get out of it, the Opportunity Grant program will revoke assistance to those who need it most and worsen the problem of poverty in the US.
Last week, labor activists in Washington, DC, saw months of hard work pay off as the DC City Council unanimously passed the strongest laws in the country on wage theft and employment discrimination against people with criminal backgrounds. These laws are crucial for individuals and families to achieve economic justice. The wage theft legislation will overwhelmingly affect low-wage workers, while the “ban the box” legislation holds particular value for survivors of domestic violence attempting to reenter the workplace with a criminal background.
Wage theft is all too common in the United States. It occurs when employers fail to pay their workers their promised wages, delay payment on wages or don’t pay them at all. This phenomenon adds up to an estimated $35 billion withheld from millions of workers each year. Over three-fourths of the nation’s population lives paycheck to paycheck, making failure to pay or delayed payment a serious problem for the economic security of millions. DC’s Wage Theft Prevention Act will restructure wage and hour enforcement by increasing penalties for employers who engage in wage theft of all kinds and creating formal hearings for these incidents.
Low-income workers are especially susceptible to paycheck exploitation by employers: in a study by the National Employment Law Project, 26% of low-wage workers were paid less than the minimum wage in the week prior to when they were surveyed. Women hold approximately two-thirds of low-wage jobs across the nation. In the wake of the recession, sixty percent of women’s job gains during the recovery have been in the ten largest low-wage jobs, which pay less than $10.10 per hour. WOW’s BEST indicators suggest that an adult worker with no children in DC needs to earn at least $18.36 an hour to be economically secure, but DC’s $9.50 per hour minimum wage does not even come close to this.
A poignant example of such exploitation lies in the restaurant industry, where 71 percent of servers are female and are nearly three times more likely to be paid under the poverty line. In most states, these workers can legally be paid $2.13 an hour. Workers in tipped positions like servers are especially vulnerable to wage theft because, though employers are supposed to make up the difference between what their tipped workers make in hourly tips and the state’s minimum wage, over 12% of tipped workers faced theft of tips by their employer. DC’s new anti-wage theft law will raise the stakes for restaurant employers attempting to engage in wage theft, hopefully deterring them from paying unjust wages or no wage at all.
The Fair Criminal Records Screening Act, commonly known as a “ban the box” law, will prohibit employers from asking questions about a person’s criminal record on employment applications, including the checkbox that asks if an applicant has been arrested or convicted for a crime. DC joins 65 other jurisdictions across the country that have implemented “ban the box” measures, and expands on the Returning Citizens Public Employment Inclusion Act of 2010 by prohibiting private as well as public employers from discrimination based on criminal or arrest records. Seeing as 10% of DC residents, or 60,000 people, possess a criminal record and that people with a criminal history consistently have high unemployment rates, this law opens doors for millions of potential workers to reenter the workforce and move on with their lives. The law also leverages hefty fines on employers found guilty of employment discrimination and allows for applicants to explain their criminal or arrest backgrounds if they are legally brought up in later hiring rounds.
For survivors of domestic violence, this law can mean getting a much needed job despite a criminal record due to crimes coerced by a abuser or physical retaliation against an abuser out of self-defense. Abusers can manipulate domestic violence scenarios in which dual arrest occurs, especially when they have financial control and can economically intimidate their victims from cooperating with a prosecution. Even after domestic violence has ended, these incidences will remain on survivors’ records unless they are expunged or sealed. The new “ban the box” law will provide survivors with criminal records a better chance at employment and the right to explain past arrest or criminal records that resulted from an abusive partner.
In one of their final weeks of work ahead of the August recess, House lawmakers overwhelmingly approved a deal to continue funding the nation’s transit infrastructure projects by addressing a coming shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund. The House-passed deal is expected to be quickly taken up and cleared by the Senate in coming days.
Unfortunately the measure — a 10-month patch shoring up the fund through May 2015 with $11 billion — may have also dealt a fatal blow to lawmakers hoping to reinstate federal unemployment insurance benefits, as the “pay-for” for the extending funding for the highway trust fund came from the same mechanism (so called “pension smoothing”) that lawmakers had suggested could be used a “pay for” for extending jobless aid. The development makes chances increasingly slim that a renewal of emergency unemployment insurance will get a vote in the Senate before the midterm election, as Sens. Jack Reed (D-RI) and Dean Heller (R-NV) must now find a new way to pay for their five-month extension of unemployment insurance — the longest time frame lawmakers could find money to pay for in a manner that centrist Republicans would accept. Senate Republicans rejected unpaid-for extensions earlier this year, eventually passing a $10 billion, five-month bill in April that the House never took up. After that bill’s timeline ran out, Heller and Reed introduced a new five-month extension that — unlike previous efforts — did not include retroactive benefits. But now without a “pay-for”, that bill, if Reed and Heller were somehow able to secure another vote, would likely fall short of needed support. Senator Heller has insisted that, despite the setbacks, he and Sen. Reed will try to determine if there’s a new unemployment insurance proposal that could pass this year.
On Wednesday Senate Democrats fell short in their efforts to pass legislation responding to the recent Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision, a 5-4 ruling which said closely-held companies do not have to comply with the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act if the owners have religious objections. The bill, which would have negated the Supreme Court’s ruling by eliminating the religious exemption, fell three votes short of the 60-vote threshold to end debate. Republicans Susan Collins (ME), Mark Kirk (IL) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) voted with the Democrats in favor of the bill. Senate Majority leader Harry vowed to bring the legislation up again for another vote, and Democrats were quick to note that Sen. Brian Schatz (HI) was not present for the vote, meaning that if a re-vote is taken they will only need to convince two more Republicans to support the measure for it to be considered on a simple majority vote.
With just a handful of days left in session before the August recess and campaign season entering full swing. Still, both parties have emphasized in recent days new economic priorities aimed at wooing support from middle-class voters. The Democratic agenda has been retooled in recent weeks to focus more on middle-class workers and families and less on closing the gap between low-income families and the middle class, with House Democrats’ agenda resembling aspects of the Senate Democrats’ “fair shot” agenda. Among several items on the list, the Democratic agenda includes familiar proposals such as raising the minimum wage, incentives for manufacturing, easier terms for student loan repayment and new pay equity guarantees for women workers.
Both the House and Senate will be in session next week, with the Senate in on Monday and the House resuming legislative work on Tuesday, July 22nd.
On July 1st, the Supreme Court agreed to review a case regarding a former UPS employee who claims she was discriminated against because of her pregnancy. The petitioner in the case, Peggy Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., alleged that her employer refused to make accommodations for her pregnancy after her doctor told her not to lift packages weighing more than seventy pounds. Instead of accommodating her with lighter work, UPS forced her onto unpaid maternity leave, leaving her without healthcare or an income during her pregnancy. The federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) bars employment discrimination against pregnant workers, but does not require employers to accommodate their employees’ requests for changes to their work during their pregnancies. As a result, employers can use troublesome loopholes that allow them to discriminate against pregnant employees, such as an unplanned job evaluation after the pregnancy is announced, and may even fire them on the basis of their pregnancy.
Sixty-two percent of pregnant women and new mothers participate in the labor force nationwide. It is essential to the economic security of women and their families that they are accommodated during their pregnancies so that they can continue to work or be supported by paid maternity leave. Discrimination in hiring and in the workplace against pregnant workers still occurs despite protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Many of these actions stem from employers’ own stereotypes about pregnant women or even what is best for a child. For instance, workers who announce their pregnancy early on are sometimes automatically moved to light work or are given fewer responsibilities even if they can still perform their duties with no issues. Pregnant women are sometimes forced onto sick leave or maternity leave, despite a doctor’s note or the employee’s resistance. In addition, maternity and sick leave are generally unpaid and often not covered by employers’ health insurance, leaving pregnant women in strapped financial and healthcare situations during their pregnancies. The work environment itself can be hostile to pregnant workers as well. Many pregnant women report being denied a water break or a stool to rest on occasionally during long shifts.
Respecting pregnant women’s right to work and to be accommodated should be reflected by both the Supreme Court’s decision and forthcoming legislation. Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. arrives on the heels of House and Senate consideration of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which could resolve the issues brought up by the case. PWFA would fill in the loopholes employers have found in the PDA that have allowed them to continue discriminating against pregnant employees. It would also mandate that employers with 15 or more employees accommodate their pregnant employees during shifts, like allowing breaks or water bottles, in addition to affording them job alterations tailored to their pregnancy. This week, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released the Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues, the first publication on discrimination against pregnant workers since 1983. The Enforcement Guide incorporates Pregnancy Discrimination Act enforcement with practical implementation and employers’ best practices, in addition to addressing how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) might also apply to individuals with pregnancy-related disabilities.
The interests of both employers and their pregnant employees are met by supporting protections and flexibility in the workplace. Giving pregnant workers flexibility in their job is low-cost or free, reduces absenteeism, increases productivity and encourages employee retention. At the recent White House Summit on Working Families, President Obama spoke in support of pregnant workers, arguing that pregnant women should not have to choose between the health of their child and their job, and that employers had a responsibility to accommodate instead of punish them. To this end, he called for the passage of the PWFA in the Senate as a step towards ensuring employment fairness and economic security for all workers. Labor legislation and policies must take a supportive stance towards pregnant workers for the benefit of more inclusive, efficient workplaces and the financial security of their workers.
Congress returned this week to Washington for its final work period before the August recess. While still deadlocked on resolving differences on major appropriations bills, Congress did act to actually reform and reauthorize the nation’s job training programs.
Following passage last month of the bipartisan Senate version of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, on Wednesday the House passed the compromise bill on a 416-6 vote. It will next head to President Obama, who has expressed his support and is expected to sign it into law. The compromise legislation, crafted by leaders of both parties in the House and Senate, repeals the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 and replaces it with new authority that maintains most of WIA’s original programs. The measure authorizes funding through fiscal year 2020 for workforce development systems at the state and local level, and also maintains and modifies Job Corps, national programs, and adult education and literacy initiatives. It repeals 15 separate programs and requires states to submit plans for workforce systems that address all of the core programs under the measure. The language also standardizes performance indicators for all programs, and requires states to develop comprehensive strategies to align workforce activities with labor market demands, business needs and economic development goals. The bill continues the basic structure of state workforce development systems, with state and local boards developing workforce development plans that govern education, job training and other programs through one-stop delivery systems. However, it modifies the roles of the boards and requires that the plans be more comprehensive and tailored to the region’s employment and workforce needs so that the programs can provide training, employment services, adult education and vocational rehabilitation through a coordinated, comprehensive system.
In spite of the its showing strong bipartisan, bicameral support for the job training measure, Congress remains starkly divided on the 12 major spending bills that must be passed to fund major federal programs for fiscal year 2015. While the House continues to pass various spending bills (although its Energy-Water bill drew a veto threat from the Obama administration this week), the appropriations process in the Senate is essentially at a standstill as a result of contentious policy riders being attached to various spending bills. Because of the increasingly slim odds of lawmakers managing to reconcile spending bills passed by each chamber, it appears Congress will need to pass an emergency spending package to cover immediate threats like wildfires and border security.
Given this reality, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) has urged that his proposal to extend unemployment insurance benefits be attached to such a measure. Unfortunately, Sen. Reed’s proposed mechanism to pay for the extension is now being considered as a way to ensure continued funding for the Highway Trust Fund, which covers many of the nation’s major infrastructure projects and is expected to run dry this summer. Reed’s proposal to extend jobless aid for five months would cost a little under $10 billion and would be fully offset — a key to Republican support — using a combination of revenue raisers that includes extending “pension smoothing” provisions and extending customs user fees through 2024. House leadership has expressed no appetite for taking up the jobless aid renewal without attaching major Republican priorities. The odds of action on unemployment insurance seem even smaller now that House Ways & Means Chairman David Camp has announced plans to use pension smoothing, which temporarily reduces the amount that companies are required to pay into their pension funds, as a way to continue funding transportation projects for 10 months.
Beyond unemployment insurance benefits, other items on Senate Democrat’s “Fair Shot” economic agenda continue to flounder without bipartisan support in the chamber. Launched with fanfare as a coordinated plan to align senators behind party priorities aimed at addressing inequality in the economy, an agenda that included the minimum wage, pay equity and student loan refinancing has been stalled by shortfalls on votes and procedural impasses. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has little time before August recess to bring up any of these or additional priorities for what will likely be a doomed cloture vote on the Senate floor. Unless a clear path to bipartisan support can be forged—something that seems increasingly unlikely given the breakdown in the chambers’ appropriations process—many of these items appear to be on hold for the foreseeable future, or at least until after the August recess.
Both the House and the Senate will be in session next week.
The Supreme Court finished its 2013-14 term last week with rulings on labor unions, law enforcement searches and healthcare coverage, many of which carry larger, adverse implications for women than meets the eye. Among this term’s major decisions were McCullen v. Coakley, ruling against 35-foot protection zones around abortion clinics in favor of protestor’s freedom of speech, the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision regarding birth control and religious freedoms, and Riley v. California, which ruled that cell phones could not be searched without a warrant.
While taking steps to protect privacy, Riley v. California may be tough on survivors of domestic abuse or stalking in a subtle way. Previously, law enforcement has been able to use communication records between abusers and survivors to issue emergency protection orders, but now it cannot do so until it receives a warrant, which can potentially slow down the protection order process. Harris v. Quinn, the labor union ruling that stripped unions working in the partial public sector of their ability to collectively bargain in “fair share agreements”, disproportionately affects low-income women of color and immigrant women who work in domestic healthcare and other traditionally female jobs.
Two controversial split-court decisions were handed down in SCOTUS’s final week of the term, addressing the birth control mandate included in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and its implications for employers and their female employees. The first, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., dealt specifically with the ACA’s mandate that employers provide contraceptives through their employee healthcare plans. Hobby Lobby asserted that its religious freedoms were being violated by the mandate, specifically objecting to four types of birth control. Hobby Lobby won its case 5-4. Justice Alito’s majority opinion stated that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, “closely held” companies whose owners had strong religious beliefs, such as Hobby Lobby, could legally opt out of the ACA mandate. Hobby Lobby is one of over one hundred similar companies seeking such an exemption and “closely held” corporations employ over 52% of American workers, so this ruling is expected to affect millions of women.
Wheaton College v. Burwell, a similar case decided just after Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, further demonstrated the Court’s willingness to make exceptions to the ACA’s birth control mandate on the grounds of deeply held religious beliefs. The case contested the federal exemption form that allows non-profits to hand the responsibility of covering staff and student contraceptives to insurers. However, the plaintiff argued that by filling out the form, it was still obligated to indirectly provide the contraception. The court ruled in favor of the Christian college in a 6-3 decision. Because of this ruling, women who work for such non-profits are left at the whims of their employer’s religious convictions.
These last two rulings are harmful to women everywhere, specifically working women, low-income women, and female survivors of domestic abuse and sexual assault. Birth control’s steadily increasing diffusion and accessibility since the 1970s has allowed women to avoid both risk and cost, leading to more investment in their careers and older marriage and childbearing ages. It is also correlated with the gradual convergence of the gender wage gap since the 1970s. And not only will women be denied a healthcare right, businesses may lose productivity and see absenteeism increase as secondary results. Research shows that the economy would be 25% smaller today if women had never entered the workforce in such great numbers thanks in part to birth control access.
These rulings affect access to contraceptives, especially for low-income women, because of the extra expense of birth control. Two of the forms of birth control that Hobby Lobby opposed were IUDs, which are upwards of twenty times more effective than other contraceptives but can cost $1,000 per year without healthcare coverage. As Justice Ginsberg noted in her dissenting opinion in Hobby Lobby, this can be the equivalent of a whole month’s worth of wages for a woman earning minimum wage. One dose of emergency contraception that Hobby Lobby also objected to, like Plan B, can cost around $60. Women may now incur extra doctor’s fees to get government-funded prescriptions separate from their employee insurance, and services like Planned Parenthood are harder to come by due to decreased federal and state funding.
Survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault are made particularly more vulnerable by these rulings as well. Many survivors of intimate partner violence report that their abuser tampered with or refused to use contraceptives. Additionally, intimate partner violence and financial abuse go hand in hand – abusers often restrict access to economic resources that would allow a survivor to obtain birth control. The most effective and subtle forms of contraception available, and therefore the most helpful for women experiencing IPV, could potentially be denied to survivors under the Hobby Lobby ruling. In addition, rape survivors need access to emergency contraception, but the facts that it is not covered for crime victims in 34 states and many survivors can’t afford to buy it and wait to be reimbursed make it much less accessible when it is really needed. These Supreme Court decisions stretch further and do more damage than employers like Hobby Lobby seem to realize, and the effects could be major not only for vulnerable women but also for a large part of the American workforce.
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) is one of our most important safety nets, yet it is continually under attack and at threat of funding cuts. Rhetoric around SSDI suggests massive fraud, work disincentives, and undeserved handouts as characteristic – none of which are borne out by data or reality. At a recent event hosted by the Center of American Progress, experts explained how the SSDI program supports workers across the country and keeps millions of Americans out of poverty. They also debunked the most popular myths about the program, which are summarized below.
Myth 1: People who receive SSDI just don’t want to work.
SSDI is a program for workers. A person must work and contribute to the SSDI fund in order to qualify for disability insurance in the result of an injury. A person who is not working when they become disabled does not qualify for SSDI.
Myth 2: People receiving SSDI are just frauding the system.
Certainly, there are a small percentage of people receiving SSDI who are not suffering from a fully debilitating disability. These few are not at all an accurate representation of most SSDI recipients. The United States has some of the most stringent disability insurance standards of any industrialized country. Before ever receiving an SSDI transfer, a disabled worker must go five months without work due to disability. In fact, the majority of applicants are denied SSDI. It has been asserted by media, lawmakers, and critics of the program that the recent increases in the number of people receiving SSDI is due largely to increased fraud or as a way of coping with increased unemployment. However, a much simpler and more accurate explanation is that America’s population is aging. Our baby boomer generation is reaching an age where disabilities are most common. Also, women’s workforce participation increased significantly over the last few decades, which means more workers susceptible to disability and injury, and greater number of SSDI cases.
Myth 3: The SSDI Fund is running out and there is no way to save the program.
It is anticipated that the SSDI Trust Fund will fail to fully serve all SSDI beneficiaries by 2016, at which point only 79% of benefits that are due will be covered. However, this problem is easily fixed and there is historic precedence for resolving Social Security solvency issues. One option is to reallocate a higher portion of the Social Security tax to the disability fund and away from the retirement fund. Reallocation has happened 11 times since 1957 and has traditionally been an easily agreed upon way to weather the ups and downs in demand for retirement versus disability insurance. Another option would be to increase the tax for SSDI by a mere 0.2 percentage points.
SSDI protects 9 out of ten, or 155 million, Americans in the case of disability. Currently, 9 million people and 2 million children are receiving benefits. Without SSDI, 4.4 million people would be in poverty. SSDI is a nationwide safety net that ensures economic security for millions of Americans and the program should be protected and improved to continue providing insurance for all working families.
Read more about SSDI in the Center for American Progress’ new report, “Social Security Disability Insurance: A Bedrock of Security for American Workers.”
Last Thursday, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee gathered to hear testimony from Department of Education officials as well as from student survivors and advocates regarding the prevention of and response to sexual assaults on America’s college campuses. The hearing was held in light of the recent attention on sexual violence on college campuses by student activists, the media and the Obama Administration. Senators Harkin, Alexander and Whitehouse questioned Catherine Lhamon from the DOE Office of Civil Rights and James Moore of Clery Act enforcement. Sen. Harkin emphasized the necessity of funding penalties on universities out of compliance with Title IX, asking Lhamon to explain why a university has never had its funding revoked and how students could expect accountability from their schools if they were never punished for non-compliance. Lhamon defended the threats to withdraw funding, citing the OCR’s recent investigation of Tufts University and the university’s ability to quickly pull back into compliance after having their funding compromised.
The most important aspect of addressing non-compliant universities is assuring that penalties are not going to hurt survivors instead of helping them. Students should not have to bear the burden of their schools’ decisions not to comply with federal policy. Revoking funding entirely would only further isolate and harm students trying to seek help in the wake of an assault, leaving them with even fewer resources than are currently provided to survivors. A more constructive solution to non-compliance would be to mandate directing funds into victim’s services or victim compensation funds that would provide restitution for all costs incurred by victimization. Another solution is to foster stronger partnerships between campus and local law enforcement, providing students with more resources that connect them to the larger community and give local law enforcement more tools to address and process crime on local campuses.
Sens. Murphy and Whitehouse stressed the need for better training for student conduct committees and college administrations on sexual assault, in addition to calling for stronger, transparent working relationships between college administrations and local law enforcement. Lhamon agreed, noting that the fight against college sexual assault had to be part of a comprehensive, multi-sector approach where different actors working together can rely on each other to carry out responses.
Moore was equally pressed, asked by Sen. Warren why Clery data on sexual violence were readily available, but not analyses, for current and prospective students, in addition to others asking about the application of Clery Act data to campus policies. Clery Act enforcement has recently come under fire for failing to compel universities to report the full picture of campus crime, especially sexual assault. There are currently more than 60 universities under investigation by the Department of Education for alleged negligence of Title IX and inaccurate sexual assault Clery reporting.
Two student sexual assault survivors bravely testified on their experiences and those of their peers with universities failing to prevent and address sexual violence on their campuses. Emily Renda, a University of Virginia student victim advocate, explained the myriad reasons for low reporting rates of sexual assault on campuses, holding that clear procedural guidelines from the OCR were necessary to carry out student conduct hearings so that survivors would not feel dissuaded from reporting and prosecuting their perpetrators. John Kelly, a student survivor from Tufts University, argued that restructuring sexual assault prevention and response must be more inclusive of men and the LGBTQ community, in addition to addressing the full picture of intimate partner violence, including economic abuses. Lastly, University of New Hampshire representative Jane Stapleton stressed more in-depth, mandatory sexual assault prevention orientations for all college freshmen.
Under the Campus Sexual Violence Act (SaVE Act), part of the 2014 VAWA reauthorization, colleges are held to new, stricter standards regarding college sexual assaults, and Congress is currently working to find better means of regulating and enforcing Title IX and the Clery Act. Rethinking penalties for non-compliance with Title IX must be taken especially seriously if congressional leaders want to actualize the change in university campuses they are asking for. Student survivors are at risk of dropping out, losing or quitting a part-time job, or losing a scholarship due to worsening grades, all of which can lead to short- and long-term financial instability and reduced safety. Instead of revoking funding, Congress should creatively consider the ways that Title XI and the Clery Act can compel universities to aid their students instead of disadvantaging them.