2011 | demand equal respect

10

ideas equal justice for

10 Ideas for Equal Justice

July 2011 National Director Hilary Doe Director of Operations Tarsi Dunlop Lead Strategist for Equal Justice Erik Singh Editor Jamie Weil Alumni Review Board Brian Levy Kate OGorman Billy Organek Tim Krueger The Roosevelt Institute Campus Network A division of the Roosevelt Institute 455 Massachusetts Ave NW Suite 650 Washington, DC 20001
Copyright (c) 2011 by the Roosevelt Institute. All rights reserved. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors. They do not express the views or opinions of the Roosevelt Institute, its officers or its directors.

10

IdEas
FOR

Equal Justice

Congratulations to Christina Luo author of Eliminating User Fees For Public defenders

Nominee for Policy of the Year

Inside the Issue

Indiscriminate Need-Based Financial Aid Matt Baron, Abby Gary, Aaron Levine, Krishni Metivier, and Lisa Velkoff Federally Regulated Pricing for Public Universities Athena Salman and Levi Wolf Alternative Imprisonment for Nonviolent Single Parents Lily Roberts Testing Failure: Prompt Analysis of Sexual Assault Evidence James M. A. Hobbs Diversion Programs as an Alternative to Imprisonment Ashley Sara McCollum Eliminating User Fees for Public Defenders Christina Luo Democracy 2.0 Ben Simon Servants for Service via Non-Profit and Volunteer Organizations David Perelman Adequate Protection for Trafficking Victims Kelsey Jost-Creegan, Charlotte Lindemanis and Otilia Enica Reform for Refugees Josette West

P
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

p Letter from Washington

We are pleased and proud to present the third edition of the 10 Ideas Series. Comprised of six journals, these articles represent the best of our student policy work from across the country. Students are told they are too young to participate in the policy process and that they must wait their turn. Roosevelts founders believed, as we do, that the next generation of leaders deserves a voice in current political debates. In the winter of 2009, the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network launched a national initiative called Think 2040, asking young people to design the future they want to inherit. Millennials nationwide contributed their individual visions at campus and regional Think 2040 conversations as well as through Think2040.org, a website designed to capture the values and ideas of a generation. These diverse voices were encapsulated in the recently released Blueprint for Millennial America; this summer were proud to publish this set of policy ideas that will move us forward towards our shared vision for 2040. Young people want to reinvent our social safety net to lift Americans up during tough economic times when support is most important. They want to see community needs drive investments in high-speed rail, build local green job corps, and devise a renewable energy market. Millennials identified preventative care and a culture of wellness as a key priority, with more access to fresh food and community health clinics. As future leaders, they want equity in opportunity for all Americans through access to quality education; they see it as vital for long-term economic growth and competitiveness in the world market. In order to inherit this future, we must start building it today. Roosevelt members research, design and write their policy ideas from a grassroots perspective; in doing so, they exemplify a generation of committed practitioners who strive to understand public policy in the context of effecting long-term change. Yale is working to support the revitalization of city blocks in New Haven through loans to low-income entrepreneurs, while the health care policy center collaborated with Young Invincibles to design information toolkits for their graduating peers. Northwestern University received a grant to conduct a survey to establish a baseline of single-use disposable bag usage on campus and is also working with stakeholders in Evanston IL to forgo the use of plastic bags. Students in the DC area are consulting with Teach for America at a low-income Washington D.C high school, and at ASU, they are working to develop a hydroponic garden to build a more sustainable university community. Some of the ideas you read here will make their way into state and local government offices or become part of a federal discussion while others may become initiatives through partnerships. We are proud to showcase our students ideas and we hope that you feel inspired to join in their efforts. Tarsi Dunlop Director of Operations

strategists Note P
henever I talk to people about what the younger generation thinks concerning social policy and where our country needs to go, I am often told that their ideas - our ideas - are too grand, too costly, too idealistic. Young people are considered too short-sighted, nave, and obtuse. We do not understand how things work. This characterization of young peoples ideas is, of course, nothing new. But these criticisms have never struck me as serious. Without idealism, there is little or no imagination, and without imagination we cannot develop the creative solutions we need for the unprecedented problems we face as a society. To ensure that every individual in our country has a fair chance at achieving the best for their life, we must extend opportunity to all. To achieve a decent and democratic society, we must imagine new ways to reform our institutions and policy procedures. This years Equal Justice journal features highly creative, highly sensible ideas for pursuing these progressive standards. On the grand, idealistic scale, these proposals include utilizing the latest technology to expand government engagement with citizens, while others look to keep education costs at the growth pace of middle class income. In true progressive fashion, other proposals boost public service and fight unemployment, while another suggests ways to retain the talent of educated new immigrants, regardless of their parents status. But in a testament to the pragmatism of Millennial thinking, most of the proposals this year offer simple, prudent adjustments to existing policies and institutions. These adjustments include reasonable reforms in combating housing discrimination as well as shifting incarceration policies to maintain healthy families and communities. Other proposals tackle long-standing problems in human trafficking and filing for asylum status. These ideas demonstrate that, in addition to being creative and idealistic, our generation is also prudent and realistic. It is this capacity for both the courage to dream big with grand plans and the wisdom to recognize important corrections in procedure that distinguishes our generations progressive voice, and what this years Equal Justice selections exemplify. These two qualities of idealism and prudence will be what guide our struggle to preserve a decent and democratic society. Erik Singh Lead Policy Strategist, Equal Justice

Indiscriminate Need-Based Financial Aid

Matt Baron, Abby Gary, Aaron Levine, Krishni Metivier, and Lisa Velkoff Northwestern University To expand the skilled and educated workforce and strengthen economic growth, universities should offer cost parity to students regardless of immigration status. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 established that undocumented immigrants cannot receive federal or state financial aid for postsecondary education.1 In at least ten states, however, legislation allows for in-state tuition to undocumented students who meet certain requirements, such as three years attendance at a public high school.2 Individual states are taking the initiative to ensure that no resident student is denied in-state tuition. The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2010 that in-state tuition cannot be denied to students based upon immigration status.3 Institutions of higher education, both private and public, have incorporated policies that address the granting of need-based aid to undocumented students. These policies are scarce nationwide, however, and that scarcity undermines the United States investment in primary and secondary education as many qualified candidates of all immigration statuses cannot attend university due to the high cost of tuition. Currently, the United States spends $12 billion annually on the primary and secondary education of undocumented immigrants.4 Each year, 65,000 undocumented students graduate from public high schools, yet only 5-10 percent enroll in college afterward.5 Undocumented high school graduates are ineligible for most need-based financial aid that could allow them to capitalize on the taxpayers sunk investment. Because of this, a large pool of potentially high-skilled workers face limited lifetime job opportunities, meaning that they could later face problems that strain public social services and economic resources. Increasing access to higher education provides the opportunities for these students to contribute to our economic future in terms of greater tax revenues and productivity.

Our investment in public education contributes to 65,000 undocumented students graduating high schools annually. National savings in public health costs would exceed $40 billion if every 2011 high school dropout had graduated. average annual public health costs are $2,700 per dropout, $1,000 per high school graduate and $170 for college graduates.6

Key Facts

analysis This pattern can be seen in other areas of the economy. For instance, 59 percent of illegal immigrants lack health insurance and must resort to emergency-room care that cannot be denied based on legal status.7 In some areas with a large undocumented population, spending on uncompensated care for illegal immigrants can reach two-thirds of total hospital operating costs.8 The positive correlation between ones level of education and the likelihood of having health insurance demonstrates the impact that higher education has in reducing emergency healthcare expenditures.9 People with higher levels of education contribute to our economy by paying more taxes, which provide funding
8

for the government services they use. In 2008, the mean earnings of a high-school dropout were $21,023, in comparison to $31,283 for high school graduates and $58,613 for those with a bachelors degree.10 In comparison to the mean earnings of a high-school dropout, a 30-year-old Mexican immigrant woman with a college degree will pay $5300 more in taxes and use $3900 less in government expenses annually.11

Educational attainment is positively correlated with socioeconomic status. A student who increases his or her education level is more likely than a less educated student to become a productive worker and contributor to the economy. In fact, educational advancement was responsible for an 11-20 percent growth in American worker productivity over the past few decades.12 Encouraging undocumented students to refine their skills at American universities may allow them to find new paths to citizenship, allowing them to become active members in our democracy. Next steps Though in-state tuition rates lower costs for undocumented students, in many cases this reduction is not sufficient.13 Thus, the American economy would benefit from allowing undocumented students to receive need-based aid in addtion to in-state tuition rates. In order to do this, both public and private universities should require proof of residency in lieu of a Social Security Number. In-state tuition combined with need-based aid would curb the cost of higher education for undocumented students, enabling more high school graduates access to post-secondary opportunities. Private institutions can implement this policy by granting undocumented immigrants access to existing need-based scholarships and creating new ones from existing endowment funds that do not take legal status into account. Endnotes
1. United States Supreme Court. 8 USC 1623-Section 1623: Limitation on Eligibility for Preferential treatment of aliens not lawfully present on basis of residence for higher education benefits. July 1, 1991. Accessed May 23 2011 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/14/II/1623. 2. FinAid: The Smart Student Guide to Financial Aid. Financial Aid and Scholarships for Undocumented Students. Accessed May 23 2011. http:// www.finaid.org/otheraid/undocumented.phtml 3. Robert Martinez, et al., v. Regents of the University of California. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revpub/C054124.PDF (accessed Feb 19, 2011). 4. FAIR: Federation for American Immigration Reform. Immigration Issues. Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration is Sending Schools into the Red. Accessed May 23 2011. http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=17193&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1901 5. College Board. Advising Undocumented Students: Higher Education Obstacles and Possibilities. Accessed May 23 2011. http://professionals. collegeboard.com/guidance/financial-aid/undocumented-students 6. Poor Education Draining Our Tax Dollars: The correlation between Education and the Economy. http://www.educationvoterspa.org/index.php/ site/news/poor-education-draining-our-tax-dollars/ (accessed Feb 19, 2011). 7. Passel, Jeffery S. and DVera Cohn. A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States. Pew Hispanic Center. April 14, 2009. http:// pewhispanic.org/files/reports/107.pdf 8. American College of Emergency Physicians: Advancing Emergency Care. Illegal Immigrant Care in the Emergency Department. Accessed May 23 2011. http://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=25206 9. Dewar, Diane M. Do Those with More Formal Education Have Better Health Insurance Opportunities? Economics of Education Review. Vol. 17, Issue 3. June 1998. Pages 267-277. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775797000344 10. United States Census. Table 22.7: Educational Attainment by Selected Characteristics: 2009. Accessed May 23 2011. http://www.census.gov/ compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0228.pdf 11. Immigration Policy Center: American Immigration Council. The DREAM Act What are the Economic Benefits of the DREAM Act? Accessed May 23 2011. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/dream-act#economic 12. Poor Education Draining Our Tax Dollars: The correlation between Education and the Economy. 13. Fuller, Andrea. In-State Tuition Fails to Draw Illegal Immigrants to College, Study Finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education. May 5 2011. Accessed May 23 2011. http://chronicle.com/article/In-State-Tuition-Fails-to-Draw/65391/

The U.s. currently invests $12 billion annually on the primary and secondary education of undocumented students. We should add to our initial investment in the education of undocumented students in order to enhance the class of educated, productive, taxpaying workers.

Talking Points

Federally Regulated Pricing for Public Universities

Athena Salman and Levi Wolf, Arizona State University Price regulations should be set at public universities in order to increase access to higher education. This will result in fair and nearly free pricing options for publicuniversity students, and increased transparency about where tuition money goes. University prices, counting both tuition and incidental fees, have increased significantly since the 1980s, especially when compared to income growth.1 The gap between students ability to pay and the actual costs of university studies, as well as dwindling financial aid as a percentage of financial need, means that students are forced into a debt trap where financing education almost always occurs through loans.2 Students are forced to leverage their future worth against that of their education, and often must do so by taking out a loan with private financiers intent on making a profit.3 The university is often unable to easily determine the students source of funding, which skews its statistics on student need and helps the university justify the rising price rates.4 The transparency of student loan financing has improved in the past few years. Regulations changed following the student loan kickback scandal, in which banks compensated universities Key Facts for referring students unable to pay out-of-pocket Tuition and mandatory fees at for their education to lending organizations that public four-year universities charged significantly more interest than subsihave increased 24.77 percent 5 dized federal loans. The ongoing campaign to between 2004-2009. force universities to disclose more information on The median household intheir funding and investments has also boosted come for has increased only the issues visibility.6 However, further investment 11.15 percent during that time. in public higher education is imperative to ensure Two-thirds of all U.s. college students graduate with stuequality of access. Flexible and widely applicable dent loans, which grossly lack regulatory guidelines addressing monopolistic consumer protections such as and/or opaque pricing practices are one imporbankruptcy. tant way to reinvest in higher education reform. analysis Even with expansion, the community college system is unable to satisfy the demand for an affordable four-year degree. Annual tuition increases at public universities are significant and tend to outstrip income growth. As noted above, the longer a student waits to complete a four-year degree, the more the total cost of the degree climbs with each year. The popular model touted by many university presidents as a solution to issues of scale, the High Cost/High Aid model, does not scale upwards well and cannot account for increased enrollment of lower-middle income families.7 This system partitions tuition increases to have a particular amount devoted to financial aid. However, this practice is hardly open to community input and often does not meet actual student need. As increases in student populations dilute aid per student but do not significantly affect cost per each student, larger or expanding universities see diminishing returns to providing financial aid per student added.8
10

Public institutions hold significant market power and service substantial populations. Due to their subsidized nature, many lower- and middle-income families deem public universities the only affordable option for a four-year degree. Thus, as state subsidies continue to fall because of budget shortfalls, universities will raise tuitions and contract the operations of mandatory student expenses (e.g. residence halls, food servicing) to independent firms. To prevent placing an inequitable burden onto the individual student for services rendered, the Federal Trade Commissions Bureau of Consumer Protection (BCP) should assist students by regulating the prices of these institutions, thus making the process of charging and changing tuition more transparent. Next steps The BCP should regulate anticompetitive tuition-pricing schemes that unfairly or excessively benefit the university, but harm the individual student. The BCP must determine the pricing regulations that are most appropriate for public universities through an investigative task force. With public financial aid programs like the Pell Grant, which provide a larger number of students with relatively less money per student, it is imperative to recognize and treat public universities as public utilities. Federal regulation would ensure that public universities are held both accountable for their pricing and transparent in their use of tuition and fee money. Endnotes
1. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Losing Ground: A National Status Report on the Affordability of Higher Education. 2002. http://www.highereducation.org 2. Ibid. 3. Jacob O. Stampen, Daniel T. Layzell. Tuition and Student Aid in Public Higher Education: Searching for an Organizing Principle in Researching Student Aid: Creating an Action Agenda of New Directions for Institutional Research 95 (1997), 25-46, accessed February 16, 2011. 4. Nate Johnson, What Does a College Degree Cost: Comparing Approaches to Measuring Cost per Degree, (Washington D.C.: Delta Cost Project) 5. Solomon, Nancy. Probe Targets College Financial Aid Kickbacks. April 5, 2007.http://www.wbur.org/npr/9396739/probe-targets-college-financialaid-kickbacks (accessed March 1, 2011). 6. Noorbaloochi, Shahrzad. Bill to Make Mass. Private Universities Investments More Transparent. February 14, 2011.http://www.theepochtimes. com/n2/united-states/bill-to-make-mass-private-universities-investments-more-%20transparent-51288.html (accessed March 1, 2011). 7. D. Bruce Johnstone, Patterns of Finance: Revolution, Evolution, or More of the Same?, Review of Higher Education 21 (1998): 3, accessed February 20, 2011. 8. David W. Brenerman, Smart Leadership for Higher Education in Difficult Times (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011) 13-26

Many students are pushed into a loan trap as the price of universities skyrocket and there is less financial aid available, thereby forcing them to leverage their future worth against that of their education. annual tuition tends to outstrip income growth, thereby increasing student debt, especially if the student waits to attend university. state subsidies will continue to fall because of budgetary shortfalls, and universities will raise tuitions and contract the operations of mandatory student expenses.

Talking Points

11

Alternative Imprisonment For Nonviolent Single Parents

Lily Roberts, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill States should help maintain parent-child relationships by allowing nonviolent singleparent offenders to complete their sentences in alternative venues that provide stable environments for their children and decrease potential recidivism.

The societal consequences of imprisonment extend significantly beyond simply removing a criminal from society. When those imprisoned are parents or caregivers, other members of the community or governmental agencies are required to step in to provide care for children, particularly in the growing proportion of households that are headed by a single parent. Placing a child in foster care costs the state and federal government a combined average of $86,100 per year.1

Since 1970, the proportion of American children raised by a single parent has more than doubled to 26 percent, with 84 percent of these custodial parents being female.2 In the month prior to arrest or immediately before incarceration, 64.2 percent of incarcerated mothers lived with their children compared to 46.5 percent of incarcerated fathers.3 Women comprise an increasing proportion of the expanding prison population: between 1995 and 2005, the number of incarcerated women nationwide jumped by 57 percent.4 As the majority of imprisoned women are mothers, children are more likely to have their custodial parent imprisoned than ever before.5 This shift has a disproportionate impact on families of color. African American children are nine times and Hispanic children are three times more likely than white children to have a parent in prison.6 Therefore, instability stemming from an imprisoned parent falls disproportionately on minority children who are then placed in the care of extended family or the government. analysis States must address the incarceration of primary caregivers in a way that considers long-term effects, rather than simply promoting a cycle of imprisonment. Currently, a child with an imprisoned parent is six times as likely to eventually be imprisoned him or herself.7 Under any circumstances, unstable home environments during childhood contribute to decreased levels of education, higher levels of stress, and increased likelihood of involvement with the criminal-justice system. But while many young children who are raised in an environment of crime and poverty are likely to suffer psychological consequences, this is more pronounced when a childs parent is imprisoned.8 Therefore, keeping a childs home life relatively stable when parents are incarcerated is optimal. One manner of doing so would be to create facilities for caregivers who have committed relatively minor, nonviolent crimes. While doing so would be expensive, it is not prohibitively so. For example, the average prisoner in New York already costs the state
12

75 percent of female prisoners are mothers nationwide.12 1.5 million children have parents currently in prison.13 Children of an imprisoned parent are six times more likely to be imprisoned as adults.14 Only two states currently allow children to stay in prison nurseries past the age of two, while 38 states lack care facilities for children of any age.15

Key Facts

$55,670 annually.9 Additionally, keeping parent and child together would decrease the strain placed on the foster care system. One mother-child program in North Carolina receives annual state funding of $1.1 million to serve 66 children and 32 mothers ($11,307 per resident, per year), which is significantly less than the cost of foster care and traditional imprisonment.10 Promoting a more stable parent-child relationship will decrease the likelihood of incarceration for the children of imprisoned parents and increase the motivation for parents to successfully complete therapy or skill-based programs. Alternative incarceration programs would still place restrictions on mobility, but would not unnecessarily punish the children of nonviolent offenders. Next steps Few states address the complications raised by imprisoning single parents. Thirty-eight states do not provide any prison nursery facilities, and of the 13 states or territories that do, only two allow children to stay past the age of two.11 Creating housing options in which single parents serving short-term sentences for nonviolent crimes could remain with their children would increase family stability and create an opportunity for parents to receive the education, skills training, or substance-abuse therapy that helps prevent recidivism. States should begin to implement small-scale pilot programs for nonviolent offenders with short sentences and non-school-aged children, so that comprehensive research can be conducted on the efficacy of such programs. Endnotes
1. A Comparison of the Governmental Costs of Long-Term Foster Care and Adoption, by R. P. Barth, C. K. Lee, J. Wildfire, and S. Guo, appeared in the March 2006 issue of the Social Service Review. www.journals.uchicago.edu/SSR/ 2. United States. Census Department. Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2007. By Timothy S. Grall. Census, 2009. [http:// www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-237.pdf]. Accessed April 3, 2011. 3. Lauren Glaze and Laura M. Maruschak. Parents in Prison and their Minor Children. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report; August 2008. 4. P.M. Harrison and A.J. Beck, Prisoners in 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.ojp.usdoj. gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p05.pdf Accessed March 1, 2011. 5. C. Beatty, Parents in prison: Children in crisis (Issue Brief). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America Press, 1997. 6. Ibid. 7. Julia Vail, Home Keeps Mothers, Children Together, Philanthropy Journal, October 16, 2008. 8. Sara Wakefield, The Effects of Parental Incarceration on Children: Using Qualitative Interviews to Inform a Survey Analysis (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Boston, July 31, 2008). 9. National Institute of Corrections, Overview of New Yorks Correctional System, 2008. http://nicic.gov/features/statestats/?state=ny. Accessed March 1, 2011. 10. Denna Weston, Fact Sheet: Summit House, http://summithouse.org/customers/106051609082833/filemanager/1_new_design_triangle_fact_12_1_. pdf. Accessed April 11, 2011. 11. The Rebecca Project for Human Rights at the National Womens Law Center, Mothers Behind Bars, October 2010. http://www.rebeccaproject. org/images/stories/files/mothersbehindbarsreport-2010.pdf Accessed March 1, 2011. 12. C. Beatty, Parents in prison: Children in crisis (Issue Brief). 13. C.J. Mumola, Incarcerated parents and their Children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ pdf/iptc.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2011. 14. Julia Vail, Home Keeps Mothers, Children Together, Philanthropy Journal, October 16, 2008. 15. The Rebecca Project for Human Rights at the National Womens Law Center, Mothers Behind Bars.

as women both head more households and are imprisoned in larger numbers, more children will be left in a disrupted environment. allowing parents to remain with their children encourages education, substance abuse therapy, and decreased recidivism. allowing children to remain with their parents decreases the burden on the foster care system and diminishes the likelihood that children will be incarcerated as adults.

Talking Points

13

Testing Failure: Prompt Analysis of Sexual Assault Evidence

James M. A. Hobbs, Colorado College Law enforcement agencies are not using available forensic evidence to prosecute rape. States should mandate the quick and effective testing of forensic evidence in rape kits to ensure equal justice and decreases rapes economic costs to society. Scholars estimate that 14 to 25 percent of adult American women have been raped.1 Key Facts Many of these victims go to a hospital Eliminating the backlog of untested rape kits in New York City increased where physical evidence of the assault, inarrest rates for reported rapes from cluding hair, blood, and other bodily fluids, 40 to 70 percent.13 is collected by a hospital employee. This In Los angeles County alone, 12,000 body of evidence, usually referred to as a rape kits remain untested.14 rape kit, can require four to six invasive The cost of processing a kit can be as hours to complete.2 Forensic data from low as $800, but each rape costs sothese kits, especially DNA, are crucial to ciety roughly $87,000 in tangible and identifying and convicting rapists. Law enintangible costs.15 forcement agencies have good reason to encourage victims to complete rape kits, especially because experts believe 50 to 90 percent of rapes go unreported.3 Since New York City law enforcement finished testing its backlog of rape kits in 2003, the New York Police Department (NYPD) has increased its arrest rate for rape from 40 to 70 percent, increased its number of rape convictions, and exonerated at least one person.4 Shockingly, many states and cities fail to test forensic evidence that is collected in rape kits, allowing statutes of limitations to expire and betraying the victims trust in the system. In Los Angeles County alone, there were more than 12,000 untested rape kits waiting in police storage, roughly 450 of which had been in storage for over 10 years.5 The national data has not been compiled, but law enforcement agencies across the country are failing to test critical evidence promptly. Some progress has been made. In 2010, Illinois passed the Sexual Assault Evidence Submissions Act, which requires local law-enforcement agencies to submit the evidence they collect for testing within 10 business days.6 Unfortunately, other states have not followed Illinois lead. In late 2009, similar bills in both the United States House and the Senate failed to reach the floor for a vote.7 analysis The failure to test every rape kit sends a message to victims and perpetrators that rape is not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Promptly testing rape kits is not only morally just, but also economically expedient. One study in The British Journal of Criminology found that rape has the highest societal costs of any violent crime.8 Rape has tangible costs that include loss of productivity, expensive legal proceedings, and psychological and medical care. Intangible costs, which are more difficult to quantify, include pain and suffering, effects on mental health, and reduced freedom due to fear.

14

A study in The Journal of Interpersonal Violence analyzed the cost of rape in Michigan in 1996, and found that the total annual cost to government agencies, insurance companies, hospitals, and citizens was over $6.5 billion.9 In a cold economic calculation, rape costs around $87,000 per incident.10 At a cost of $800 to $1500 to process and test, rape kits are a relative bargain, would take repeat offenders off the streets, and encourage victims to report rapes.11

Rape affects a disturbing number of people in this country around one in six american women will be raped and costs all of us economically.16 Rape kits are effective tools that prevent repeat offenses and send a message that rape is not tolerated in our society. Untested rape kits are an important resource that is currently underutilized, betraying victims of sexual assault, wasting valuable evidence, and hindering prosecution.

Talking Points

Next steps In 2004 Congress passed the Debbie Smith Act, which established grants to help state and local entities test DNA evidence.12 But in general, the national government has been slow to respond to the problem of untested rape kits. More effective leadership has come from the local level. The NYPD effort to reduce untested rape kits attracted Republican support from then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani. In Illinois, a news article drew attention to the issue, which was then championed by Democratic state Attorney General Lisa Madigan. These examples show that preventing rape is a bipartisan issue. State legislatures should follow Illinoiss innovative leadership and pass laws requiring prompt testing. Activists and the media must publicize the alarming problem. Then some elected officials must spearhead the effort to put this idea into law. Constituent pressure and dedicated policy champions are also especially critical to make this change. Endnotes
1. Mary Koss, Rape: Scope, impact, interventions and public policy responses, American Psychologist 48, issue 10 (1993): 1062. 2. Nicholas Kristof, Is Rape Serious? The New York Times, April 29, 2009. 3. Lori Post, et al., The Rape Tax. 4. Human Rights Watch, Testing Justice: The Rape Kit Backlog in Los Angeles City and County, March 2009, 55. Accessed March 11, 2009, http:// www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/03/31/testing-justice. 5. Ibid. 6. New Laws in Illinois Protect Rights of Rape Victims, GovMonitor, July 7, 2010, accessed March 11, 2011, http://www.thegovmonitor.com/world_ news/united_states/new-laws-in-illinois-protect-rights-of-rape-victims-35039.html. 7. 111th Congress (2009-2010), S.2736 and H.R. 4114, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN02736: 8. Paul Dolan, et al., Estimating the Intangible Victim Costs of Violent Crime, The British Journal of Criminology 45, issue 6 (2011): 958-976. 9. Lori Post, et al., The Rape Tax: Tangible and Intangible Costs of Sexual Violent, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 17 (2002): 773. 10. Ibid. 11. Cost estimates are from Kristof, Is Rape Serious? and Kristen Wyatt, Anonymous Rape Tests are Going Nationwide, Associated Press, May 13, 2008, accessed March 11, 2011, http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4847901. 12. Human Rights Watch, Testing Justice. 13. Ibid. 14. Ibid. 15. Wyatt, Anonymous Rape Tests are Going Nationwide. And Lori Post, et al., The Rape Tax. 16. Human Rights Watch, Testing Justice.

15

Diversion Programs as an Alternative To Imprisonment

Ashley Sara McCollum, Mount Holyoke College Enrolling non-violent criminal offenders in specialized diversion programs can strengthen our criminal justice system, reduce its cost, and increase public safety. The United States has the largest prison population in the world, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of total population.1 Over seven million Americans, or 1 in 31 adults, are currently in or have gone through the corrections system in some capacity.2 A 15-state study found that over two-thirds of prisoners are re-arrested, and 51.8 percent return to prison within three years of release.3 The United States corrections system is not Key Facts simply ineffective, but produces significant Nearly 52 percent of incarcerated unintended consequences. One-fourth of adults return to prison within three incarcerated nonviolent offenders are later years of initial release and one fourth convicted of a violent offense, suggestof nonviolent offenders are later coning that time spent in prison may increase victed of a violent offense.11,12 4 violent behavior. It is clear that our prison In 2009, the state prison population system fails in its two primary aims: rehabilideclined among 26 states, which may tating criminals and improving public safety. be attributed to the effective use of Drastic progressive policy changes must be diversion programs.13 made immediately. Diversion programs are one common alternative to traditional incarceration and are typically implemented at the time of conviction. Diversion programs produce lower rates of recidivism and allow offenders to keep convictions off their records, which is beneficial to society because it helps convicted individuals find jobs and build stable post-conviction lives.5 analysis Americas current corrections systemincluding policing, corrections, and courtscosts taxpayers an astounding $185 billion each year. This budget has increased 418% since 1982 and now consumes 7.2 percent of state and local funds.6 Employing diversion programs as alternatives to imprisonment has shown promising results. In 2009, state prison populations declined in 26 states, which is the largest overall reduction in U.S. prison population in 38 years. Diversion programs are responsible for much of this success. In 2007, Texas was projected to incarcerate an additional 17,000 offenders over the next five years. Instead the state invested $241 million, a small fraction of the $2 billion it was anticipating spending on prison construction, to develop diversion programs. In doing so, Texas not only prevented the projected growth to its prison population, but reduced the number of incarcerated persons by over 1,200 inmates between 2008-2009 alone.7 Diversion programs include a balance between monitoring and treatment. The most effective programs do not focus solely on surveillance, punishment, or restitution, as these factors do not lower recidivism. An effective program would first determine the likelihood that the offender will reoffend and develop suitable levels of monitoring participants. Di16

version programs are most effective for offenders who have medium to high chances of committing a future crime.8

Surveillance without appropriate treatment is ineffective. The first stage of treatment must uncover the factors contributing to criminal behavior such as addictions, economic status, values, and education levels. Next, an effective diversion program would seek to discover some of the barriers to change which the offender will face, including antisocial behavior, poor verbal skills, or lack of adaptability. Effective programs are specialized, and personnel should be trained to rehabilitate specific types of offenders. A chronic drug offender will require very different treatment from an offender convicted of larceny. Keeping these factors and barriers in mind, treatment should promote the offenders ability to overcome challenges and reenter society.9 Inmates, their families, taxpayers, and all communities would benefit from this policy. It would increase economic mobility, help convicted offenders become productive citizens, and reduce recidivism. Reductions to the number of offenders incarcerated would benefit taxpayers who shoulder the massive cost of our current prison system. Next steps Lawmakers must establish standards and funding opportunities for the development of effective diversion programs. These standards should outline a process for selecting offenders who would benefit most from diversion programs, promoting the most effective types of treatment, and developing methods to combat barriers to successful rehabilitation.10 Legislators, district attorneys, and local judges should work together to connect high-risk nonviolent offenders with diversion programs. Endnotes
1. Roy Walmsley, World Prison Population (Seventh Edition), Kings College: London, England: International Center for Prison Studies, 2007, p. 1, http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads/wppl-8th_41.pdf. 2. 1in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections, Pew Internet & American Life Project, March 2009, http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/ uploadedFiles/wwwpewcenteronthestatesorg/Fact_Sheets/PSPP_1in31_factsheets_FINAL_WEB.pdf. 3. Reentry Trends In The U.S., Bureau of Justice Statistics, December 2010, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm. 4. Craig Haney, Philip Zimbardo, The Past and Future of U.S. Prison Policy: Twenty-five Years After the Stanford Prison Experiment, American Psychologist, Volume 53, July 1998, p. 721, http://www.csdp.org/research/haney_apa.pdf. 5. Diversion Programs, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/publications/cjad/Diversion_Programs_%28PDF%29.pdf. 6. Kristen Hughes, Justice Expenditure and Employment in the United States, 2003, U.S. Department of Justice, May 2004, NCJ212260, p. 1, http:// bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/jeeus03.pdf. 7. Prison Count 2010, Pew Internet & American Life Project, April 2010, http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Prison_Count_2010. pdf?n=880. 8. Diversion Programs, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. Reentry Trends In The U.S., Bureau of Justice Statistics. 12. Haney, Zimbardo, The Past and Future of U.S. Prison Policy. 13. Prison Count 2010.

The United states prison system is highly ineffective because it is incredibly expensive and does not effectively deter offenders from committing future crimes. diversion programs are less expensive than the current corrections system and effectively reduce the rate of recidivism in nonviolent offenders.

Talking Points

17

Eliminating User Fees for Public Defenders

Christina Luo, Tufts University Public defenders should abolish user fees for indigent criminal defendants because such fees compound to create a cycle of debt for the defendants. Fees and costs imposed upon criminal defendants by the court systems undermine a defendants right to counsel, a right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Excessive fees, recoupment statutes, and garnishment all discourage indigent defendants from exercising their right to counsel.1 Indigent defendants who pay these fees are then coerced into a cycle of debt and loans, and sometimes even relapse into criminal behavior to afford these charges. These user fees, which are any financial obligations owed by the defendant to state, county, or municipal courts, can include late fees, interest, collection fees, payment plans, and surcharges. Additionally, criminal defendants must also pay for recovery plans like rehabilitation or anger-management classes.2 Many criminal defendants who are poor enough to qualify for public defense services cannot afford to pay the fees, and the debt that accumulates results in a downward financial spiral. Though many states have waivers for extreme cases of indigence, they can easily circumvent the waiver process by making the threshold, which is determined by income level, too low for most people to qualify. In the landmark case Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution requires state courts to provide counsel for criminal defendants unable to afford private attorneys.3 Since then, the imposition of extraneous user fees has hindered indigent defendants abilities to exercise their rights to counsel through recoupment statutes, which ask defendants to reimburse some of the court costs. These costs deter defendants from accessing counsel and also add a financial burden on the defendant after the trial and regardless of the trials outcome. In the case of Fitch v. Belshaw (1984), the district court found Oregons recoupment statute unconstitutional because it deterred indigent defendants from exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel, based on the grounds that the statute forced defendants to repay attorney costs without regard to a defendants ability to pay. Other courts, however, have generally found recoupment statutes to be constitutional on the basis that there is no definitive evidence that recoupment statutes financially deter deKey Facts fendants access to counsel. Additionally, Criminal defendants can incur multia defendants inability to pay fines cannot ple fees at once, and though each fee lead to imprisonment, as determined by is small, the total sum owed can reach the Supreme Court in Tate v. Short (1971).4 11 analysis The best solution to end the criminalization of poverty that results from public defender fees is to eliminate the fees entirely. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, abolishing fees can reduce violations of the Sixth Amendment by reducing the likelihood that a court will wrongfully con18

as much as $2,500. Late fees can be as much as a $300 flat charge, as it is in California.12 For defendants who choose to have a payment plan, states can charge an extra surcharge fee for simply instituting a payment plan. For example, New Orleans payment plan fee costs users $100, and in Florida, debtors pay an extra five dollars every month.

vict the innocent, over-incarcerated, or those too poor to afford counsel, who are often imprisoned for debt-related reasons despite its illegality.5 Waivers have failed to ease convicted defendants financial burdens, because states can easily make the threshold too low for most defendants to qualify for a waiver. The average waiver threshold for many states hovers around $30,000 for a family of four, which is only about 25-30 percent higher than the U.S. Census estimate of the poverty threshold of $22,000.6,7,8 Payment plans also fail to adequately alleviate indigent defendants ability to pay, because surcharges of up to 84 percent of the base fees are often levied on top of payment plans.9 Other states have tried implementing plans to reroute debt responsibilities from courts to debt collectors, so that defendants pay debt collectors instead of courts through withdrawals from employment checks. However, this garnishment method penalizes indigent defendants as well.10 Employers often do not want to process recoupment orders, and debt-collector involvement further raises the costs of repaying attorney fees. Eliminating the fees entirely will avoid these failed methods and provide instead the exact right to counsel highlighted in the Gideon case. There will be no entry barriers and no surplus fees to deter poor defendants from exercising their Constitutional rights to counsel. States would then resort to other methods of fundraising to cover court costs, such as taxes or funds set up for this purpose. Next steps Eliminating user fees from public defender services can be implemented on the national or state level. Nationally, Congress can enact legislation prohibiting states from imposing user fees. Additionally, each state has its own court system that can be regulated to end the institution of user fees. States should get rid of any fee that would undermine an indigent criminal defendants guaranteed Sixth Amendment right to counsel, including any late fees, interest, collection fees, payment plans, or surcharges. Instead, courts should set up a fund or divert some budget money for the purpose of covering the court costs. Endnotes
1. Alicia Bannon, Mitali Nagrecha, and Rebekah Diller, Criminal Justice Debt: A Barrier to Reentry, Brennan Center for Justice (New York: 4 Oct, 2010). 2. Bannon, Nagrecha, and Diller, Criminal Justice Debt. 3. Michael Grahn and Helen O. Kim, The Right to an Attorney: When it does not apply and how indigent defendants are coerced into paying for court-appointed counsel, Imhoff & Associates, PC, Criminal Defense Attorney (Los Angeles: 18 Nov 2005). 4. Tate v. Short, Justia.com: US Supreme Court Center, accessed April 2, 2011, http://supreme.justia.com/us/401/395/. 5. Bannon, Nagrecha, and Diller. Criminal Justice Debt. 6. Poverty Data Poverty Thresholds. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, accessed April 5, 2011, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/ index.html. 7. Eligibility Requirements for OPD Services, Office of the Public Defender, King County, Washington, accessed April 5, 2011, http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/OPD/WhoWeServe.aspx. 8. Instructions for Users of Affidavit of Indigency and its Supplement. Massachusetts Government, accessed April 5, 2011, http://www.mass.gov/ courts/formsandguidelines/instructions_for_users.pdf. 9. Bannon, Nagrecha, and Diller. Criminal Justice Debt. 10. Garnishment, United States Department of Labor, accessed April 1, 2011, http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/garnishments.htm. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid.

User fees imposed by public defenders add up to a substantial sum that many indigent criminal defendants cannot afford to pay. The debt accumulated from failing to pay these fees compounds and may compel people to resort to illegal behavior for financial income or support. Recoupment statutes have been used to coerce indigent criminal defendants into reimbursing costs of the court and have generally been accepted as constitutional.

Talking Points

19

Democracy 2.0
Ben Simon, University of Maryland - College Park MyAmerica.gov is a proposed government website that would connect citizens to one another and to their elected representatives in order to facilitate participation and create a more responsive government. Currently, there are a few ways for constituents Key Facts to reach out to their representatives, but there Only 10% of americans contacthas been no attempt to launch a user-driven ed a single elected representagovernment website that would connect contive once in 2008 and 2009.1 stituents to their representatives. Members of Only 3% of americans attended Congress have websites that accept constitua march, rally or protest in 2008 ent input through comment boxes. Additionally, and 2009.2 Thomas.gov provides federal legislative infor In december 2010, Congress mation. In 2010, a variety of civic networking only had a 13% approval rating, the lowest in history.3 websites such as visiblevote.us, voteiq.com, and votizen.com cropped up and allowed citizens to create accounts and write comments that were then forwarded to members of Congress. These sites garnered only meager audiences, perhaps due to limited features, unintuitive user interfaces and most important, a lack of an ID-verification system that links user accounts to real people with enough certitude for members of Congress to be able to trust they are indeed interacting with constituents. Since 2009, the Open Government movement has also earned broad support for making the executive branch more open, accountable, and participatory. Seen within that narrative, MyAmerica.gov would represent an expansion of the Open Government movement into the legislative branch. MyAmerica.gov would combine the features of the current websites to make a more multifaceted experience that has all of the information and capabilities a constituent would need to increase their participation in the legislative process. analysis Unlike previous political outreach websites, My.America.gov would combine popular social media features like friends and news feeds with discussion forums, blogs, voting records, polls, surveys, and petitions. Combining all these features in one user-driven site, along with concrete legislative data, would facilitate quantitative and qualitative constituent input. The websites design would be fundamentally different from that of for-profit sites like voteiq.com because it would utilize an ID authentication system similar to voter registration. This would allow representatives to know with confidence that all input on their district page is exclusively from their constituents, allowing them to better serve their direct needs. The end product would be a public service operated by the government which offers people a way of contacting ones representatives that is more convenient, open, and social than letters, phone, or email. The site would interface with Facebook, Google, and other popular sites, which would make it easier for average constituents to advertise their feelings about legislation on multiple fronts. They would have the opportunity to read summaries of the most up-to-date congressional action, sign petitions, and view their representatives positions. In addition, the data-mining capabilities of this site would immense, especially since the ID authentication system ensures
20

only one account per person and allows the separation of data by fields like district, sex, race, and party affiliation (when users choose to give them).

Understanding the attitudes and interests of the citizenry is essential to effective, representative decision-making, and the wellspring of quantitative data created by everyday interaction on the site would sharpen our and our elected leaders understanding of public opinion. To protect privacy, users would have options on what data can be mined and seen by others, and a terms agreement would explicitly state what can and cannot be done with the user data. The site would be non-partisan and not for profit. Before attempting to implement this site for a national audience, a pilot program should be run for residents of Maryland. Major stakeholders include nonprofits working to creating a more engaged citizenry, the University of Maryland as a land-grant university, the Maryland Democratic and Republican parties and interest groups, as well as state legislators. Organizations like Mobilize.org have indicated interest in promoting the website, as it coincides with their mission. Next steps A team of three is already working out of Silver Spring, Maryland to create this website. It has begun building the site prototype (see MyAmericaDemocracy.org) and is in the process of garnering support in the Maryland General Assembly for a Maryland-wide pilot. The designers plan to go live in Beta this September and will then push for a publicprivate partnership to launch the statewide pilot of MyAmerica.gov as a government-run website. Over the course of 2011 and 2012, the GSA Office of Constituent Services and Innovative Technologies, the Maryland General Assembly, and progressive organizations like Maryland PIRG, Progressive Maryland, and the Roosevelt Institute would need to provide support in order to widen the scope of this project. The budget projections for the Maryland pilot of MyAmerica.gov stand at $450,000 per year for five developers to manage the site, office space rental, server space rental, and marketing. While legislators stand to benefit from a site like this, the website would benefit from a public-private partnership, with a significant proportion of the financial burden being borne by foundations like the National Science Foundation or the Case Foundation. Another potential source of funding is polling organizations like Gallup that might be interested in buying exclusive rights to the sites trending data. Endnotes
1. 2010 Civic Health Assessment: Executive Summary. Rep. National Conference on Civics, 16 Sept. 2010. Web. 20 Jan. 2011. 2. Ibid 3. Jones, Jeffrey M. Congress Job Approval Rating Worst in Gallup History. Gallup.Com. 15 Dec. 2010. Web. 25 Feb. 2011. <http://www.gallup.com/ poll/145238/Congress-Job-Approval-Rating-Worst-Gallup-History.aspx>.

In order to represent their constituents, representatives need to have a way of discerning their attitudes and interests while being able to trust that the people they interact with are in fact from their district. Citizens need a platform that is social, open, and convenient enough to draw them back to participate meaningfully and consistently. For the first time in history, we can bring the representatives and the represented together in a rich and dynamic way, through the facilitation of two-way access.

Talking Points

21

Servants for Service Via Nonprofit and Volunteer Organizations

David Perelman, Wheaton College By providing stipends and scholarship awards through an expansion of its service corps programs, the federal government could increase the number of high-school graduates in impoverished areas. The recession of the past few years has disproportionately affected minorities and members of low-income communities, who are more likely to lose their jobs in an economic downtown and less likely to complete high school. However, in times of poor economic performance there is a history of using governmental power to create temporary career and educational opportunities for people who might not otherwise have them. Such a program enacted at the present time could unite the efforts of service-oriented programs such as City Year and Youth Group, federal legislators looking to improve the economy and create jobs, and public school districts in underserved and low-income communities.
There are currently 53.8 million people seeking assistance from the nations nonprofits and relevant government agencies.6 High school dropouts are three times more likely to be unemployed than college graduates, and eight times more likely to be incarcerated than high school graduates.7 The Bureau of Labor statistics reports that between april and July of 2010, youth unemployment rose by 571,000.8

Key Facts

As part of his New Deal, President Franklin D. Roosevelt started the Civilian Conservation Corps, which created temporary service positions for unemployed individuals from 1933 to 1941. The CCCs work included tasks like road repair and natural resource conservation.1 In 2009, President Barack Obama passed the Edward Kennedy Serve America Act, which similarly increased funding for several established government service programs like AmeriCorps.2 analysis The government should fund higher education opportunities and create service programs for young adults from all backgrounds, but should work especially to attract the talents of students who are themselves from low-income communities. Such programs will require government spending, which will require either the implementation of a progressive tax or redirected funding from other government programs.3 However, this would only affect those making a certain level of annual income, and as an estimated 12 million high school dropouts over the next decade are expected to cost the nation about $3 trillion in lost productivity, the cost of funding service programs pales in comparison.4 The program would require students who receive stipends to provide a minimum of one year of service in low-income communities. They would work to inspire struggling youth and simultaneously apply the skills they have developed to train a new generation of civil servants, expanding upon the Kennedy Service Act by showing low-income youth that entering the public-service community is a viable career opportunity. Additionally, no new programs need to be created, as the continued funding of programs like City
22

Year, Youth Group, and AmeriCorps will allow students to enter these communities through pre-existing structures. Next steps The federal government should fund more stipends for established public service programs, including City Year, AmeriCorps, and Youth Group. These stipends would target college-level students interested in pursuing a career in public service, and would especially target students on financial aid who assume that lowerpaying careers in public service are not financially feasible options.5

Furthermore, a scholarship program should be created to provide promising middle and high school students with money toward college tuition and college preparation courses. Funds would be granted through a need-based application process, and preference would be given to individuals in struggling and low-budget school districts. Scholarships would require recipients to invest one year in public or community service following graduation. The program should stay in contact with grant recipients during their higher education and service experiences, as well as during the five-year period following their university graduation. To ensure efficacy and provide funds where they are most needed, the government should also annually monitor the high-school graduation rate and percentage of students going on to university studies in communities receiving scholarship funding. Endnotes
1. U.S. History.com (Accessed March 2011) 2. Kennedy, Edward M. H.R. 1388: The Edward Kennedy Serve America Act, March 26, 2009. Senate: Washington, DC, http://www.opencongress. org/bill/111-h1388/show(accessed March, 2011). 3. Boteach, M., J. Moses, and S. Sagawa. Strategies for Job Creation and Economic Recovery. Center For American Progress: National Service and Youth Unemployment. (2010): 1-7. Print. 4. City Year, In School on Track. 2010. http://www.cityyear.org/inschool_ontrack.aspx. Accessed February 2011. 5. Ibid. 6. Boteach, M., J. Moses, and S. Sagawa. Strategies for Job Creation and Economic Recovery. 7. City Year, In School on Track. 8. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economics News Release: Employment and Unemployment Among Youth Summary, August 27, 2010. http://www. bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm. Accessed April 2010.

as a result of the recession, the number of jobs that require a higher education degree is increasing, making it more difficult for those without a college degree, let alone a high school diploma, to find employment. This shift makes graduating high school and progressing to tertiary education imperative for millions of youth. Providing an individual with the chance to earn a college degree gives him or her more incentive to graduate high school. In addition, requiring a student to devote a year to public service in return for a stipend, allows him or her to give back to the community, thus instilling a sense of civic duty.

Talking Points

23

Adequate Protection for Trafficking Victims

Kelsey Jost-Creegan, Charlotte Lindemanis and Otilia Enica The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) provisions of protection for testifying victims in federal custody should be clarified to account for implicit risks to victims who cooperate with law enforcement against organized crime networks. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) was designed to aid victims of human trafficking and facilitate the prosecution of traffickers. An important aspect of the TVPA guarantees victims in federal custody certain protection and assistance.4 Unfortunately, in some cases, evidence of overt intimidation is a prerequisite for this protection, and such a rule disregards the inherent and implicit risks that accompany organized crime.2 The TVPA established the T visa, which grants temporary U.S. residency and a pathway to permanent residence for trafficking victims who assist in federal prosecutions.5 Before the T visa was established, U.S. immigration laws often resulted in the deportation of trafficking victims as illegal aliens. The TVPA also allows law enforcement officials to grant victims the status of Continued Presence if they are not yet eligible for the T visa but are considered a victim of a severe form of trafficking and a potential witness.6 Continued Presence is a temporary immigration status normally granted for one year with the possibility of renewal, allowing victims to remain in the U.S. while the crimes against them are investigated but before formal charges have been brought.7 Victims who receive the T visa are eligible for the Witness Protection Program. Victims offered Continued Presence, however, qualify for alternative protection provisions:
Officials shall protect the safety of trafficking victims, including taking measures to protect trafficked persons and their family members from intimidation, threats of reprisals, and reprisals from traffickers and their associates.8

These requirements fail to account for the fact that threats against trafficking victims may exist even when not directly or explicitly stated, particularly in cases where organized crime is involved. The National Gang Center classifies this type of intimidation as implicit intimidation, which occurs when witnesses face a real but unexpressed threat and may have the same effect on witnesses, even when the gang takes no direct intimidation action.9 Even though no explicit threat exists, thus rendering the victim unable to present hard evidence, a victim may be aware of the danger and threats against his or her life.

Between 14,500 and 17,500 noncitizens are trafficked into the U.s. each year.1 Between 2001 and June of 2007, the Civil Rights division/Criminal section and U.s. attorneys Offices prosecuted 139 cases under the TVPa.2 In the same period, between 2001 and June of 2007, 302 defendents were convicted under the TVPa.3

Key Facts

analysis While the provision of protection is essential to the TVPA, the law fails to address the spectrum of dangers victims may face. By explicitly enumerating intimidation, threats of reprisals, and reprisals as circumstances that necessitate protection and neglecting to include others, the TVPA allows authorities to infer that only evidence of concrete
24

intimidation justifies protection. This strict interpretation overlooks inherent risks to victims of organized crime cooperating with the authorities. To avoid these shortcomings, the TVPA should explicitly state that trafficking stemming from organized crime involves inherent risks that may not be forecasted by direct intimidation.10 Altering the TVPA to account for inherent, implicit risks to victims of organized crime will initiate more efficient protection. Leaving victims unprotected until they substantiate threats with concrete evidence undermines the purpose of the act and could have fatal consequences. Additionally, if a victim whose testimony is vital to the case is harmed due to lack of protection, federal authorities may not be able to fully prosecute perpetrators, resulting in impunity for the transgressors. To be truly effective, the TVPA must directly state that victims of trafficking linked to organized crime have a right to full protection under Continued Presence because of the implicit risk associated with Talking Points their cooperation. Effectively protecting Next steps The TVPA should clearly outline adequate protection provisions for victims granted Continued Presence status, and acknowledge the inherent risks of testifying against organized-crime networks. These provisions should be stated directly to eliminate misinterpretations or requirements of evidence of direct threats, which overlook the complex nature of trafficking crimes. Evidence of an organized-crime networks involvement in the original trafficking crime should be sufficient to merit protection. Amend section of the TVPA addressing Continued Presence to explicitly acknowledge:
victims cooperating with federal authorities is essential not only for their safety but also to prevent impunity. The current protection provisions for victims granted Continued Presence imply prerequisites of direct evidence of intimidation and thus fail to account for implicit intimidation, leaving victims vulnerable.

The inherent threats presented to victims of trafficking connected to organized crime. That the involvement of organized crime justifies the provision of protection, without necessitating concrete evidence of threats.

Endnotes
1. Polaris Project, Human Trafficking Statistics . http://www.dreamcenter.org/new/images/outreach/RescueProject/stats.pdf (accessed May 10, 2011). 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. 4. Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, HR 3244, 106th Cong., 1st sess., Congressional Record 146 (October 28, 2000): H 3244. 5. Anderson, John. Gang-Related Witness Intimidation National Gang Center Bulletin. 1. 1 (2007), 2, http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Content/ Documents/Gang-Related-Witness-Intimidation.pdf (accessed November 30, 2010). 6. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Questions and Answers: Victims of Human Trafficking, T Nonimmigrant Status. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=9a52923ee5dd3210Vg nVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=829c3e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD (accessed June 2011). 7. Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, HR 3244, 106th Cong., 1st sess., Congressional Record 146 (October 28, 2000): H 3244. (22 U.S.C. 7105(c)(3)). 8.U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Continued Presence: Temporary Immigration Status for Victims of Human Trafficking. 07/2010. http://www.doj.state.wi.us/cvs/documents/ICEContinuedPresenceBrochure.pdf (accessed May 10, 2011). 9. Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, HR 3244, 106th Cong., 1st sess., Congressional Record 146 (October 28, 2000): H 3244.(22 U.S.C. 7105(c)(3)). 10. Anderson, John. Gang-Related Witness Intimidation National Gang Center Bulletin. 11. Ibid.

25

Reform for Refugees

Josette West, Tufts University Removing the arbitrary one-year deadline for filing for asylum will ensure that all legitimate asylum seekers receive adequate protection. Asylum is a form of legal protection offered to victims of persecution by a foreign government. Individuals who receive asylum can stay in the United States indefinitely, and may apply for permanent residence after one year. To apply for asylum in the United States, an applicant must qualify as a refugee under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which states that a refugee is a person who is unwilling or unable to return to their home country due to past persecution or a wellfounded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.1 Key Facts

The United states is the top destination for the worlds refugees, receiving 13 percent, or 49,000, of all refugees in 2009.4 Of the 49,000 refugees who applied for asylum in the U.s. in 2009, 22,119, or 45 percent, were accepted.5 Between 1998 and 2009, 53,400 asylum seekers had their applications denied, rejected, or delayed based solely on the fact that they were filed too late.6 The filing deadline adversely affects at least one in five asylum applications.7

In 1996, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, requiring refugees to file for asylum within one year of their arrival in the United States, provide clear and convincing evidence of a fear of persecution, and prove that they filed within one year of their arrival.2 Prior to 1996, aliens without proper documentation were allowed to claim asylum at their point of entry and obtain legal residency with work authorization until their case was determined. Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) sponsored the Restoring Protection to Victims of Persecution Act in 2009, which would abolish the one-year filing deadline. In March 2010, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced the Refugee Protection Act of 2010 into the Senate. This bill would both eliminate the one-year filing deadline and authorize the Attorney General to appoint legal counsel for refugees in removal proceedings. analysis Abolishing the one-year filing deadline for asylum seekers in the U.S. will allow the United States to fulfill its international commitment to the protection of refugees, and will provide greater efficiency and effectiveness within immigration and asylum court without making the system vulnerable to fraudulent claims. Since the implementation of the deadline, thousands of victims of persecution have been denied asylum in the United States solely because of late filing, and thousands of others have had to appeal their cases. This ties up the system and prevents it from carrying out its designated functions and serving those that require its services on a timely basis.

26

Removing the deadline would require no funding or alteration of the current system, as the U.S. asylum process has only operated with a deadline for 14 years and functioned for decades prior to that with no deadline whatsoever. This policy would affect the tens of thousands of victims of persecution who seek asylum status within the United States each year, and the approximately 200,000 whose cases are currently awaiting resolution within immigration court by providing them with a fair opportunity to plead their case.3 In addition, eliminating the deadline would save taxpayer money by reducing the number of appeals and decreasing the time spent on each case, which would save the time and resources for government agencies and lawyers as well. Above all else, abolishing the one-year filing deadline will allow victims of persecution the security they deserve.

Measures to combat fraudulent claims, such as forensic testing and background checks were very successful in reducing the number of asylum claims from 1994 to 1995 by half. Refugees face challenges like physical and mental duress, a language barrier, and a misunderstanding of the U.s. asylum process, making the one-year deadline a nearly insurmountable obstacle. a filing deadline ties up the immigration process, wastes resources, and prevents legitimate refugees from receiving protection.8

Talking Points

Endnotes
1. Definition of Refugee from the Immigration and Nationality Act. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. N.p., 14 Oct. 2008. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.<http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=091a96981298d010VgnVCM10 000048f3d6a1RCRD>. 2. Refugee Protection Program. Human Rights First. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.<http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/1YD-report-FULL.pdf >. 3. Theofilopoulou, Anna. Reforming Asylum Policy. Foreign Policy in Focus. Institute for Policy Studies, 22 June 2010. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http:// www.fpif.org/articles/reforming_asylum_policy>. 4. Upsurge in asylum seekers in industrialized world a myth, says UNHCR Chief. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. United Nations, 23 Mar. 2010. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.<http://www.unhcr.org/4ba880059.html>. 5. Theofilopoulou, Anna. Reforming Asylum Policy. Foreign Policy in Focus. Institute for Policy Studies, 22 June 2010. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http:// www.fpif.org/articles/reforming_asylum_policy>. 6. Refugee Protection Program. Human Rights First. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.<http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/1YD-report-FULL.pdf >. 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid.

27

Get in the spotlight.

New York DC Boston Detroit San Francisco

Where young + professional = ready for more. Take your leadership to the next level:
rooseveltcampusnetwork.org/young-professionals-network

rooseveltcampusnetwork.org