Racial Discrimination in Stop-and-Frisk
Judge Scheindlin was clearly speaking of Mayor Michael Bloomberg when she concluded: “The City’s highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner. In their zeal to defend a policy that they believe to be effective, they have willfully ignored overwhelming proof that the policy of singling out “the right people” is racially discriminatory and therefore violates the United States Constitution.”
The judge made clear that she was not striking down the program — which remains an important tool for law enforcement — but requiring the city to use that tool in a way that does not discriminate against African-Americans and Hispanics and that comports with constitutional guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure. Given the city’s refusal to alter its practices significantly, Judge Scheindlin had little choice but to appoint an outside monitor to oversee sweeping changes in how the New York Police Department trains its officers and carries out the stop-and-frisk policy.
Under the Fourth Amendment, police officers can legally stop and detain a person only when they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. Over the years, however, the Police Department has adopted a strategy that encourages cops to stop and question mainly minority citizens first and to come up with reasons for having done so later. This has resulted in people in some neighborhoods being stopped without reason scores of times a year. These unconstitutional stops, Judge Scheindlin wrote, have exacted a “human toll” in demeaning and humiliating law-abiding citizens. She is currently overseeing three lawsuits against this troubled program. The ruling issued on Monday, in Floyd v. The City of New York, was filed by plaintiffs alleging racial profiling in street stops.
At the heart of the Floyd case are statistics showing that the city conducted an astounding 4.4 million stops between January 2004 and June 2012. Of these, only 6 percent resulted in arrests and 6 percent resulted in summonses. In other words, 88 percent of the 4.4 million stops resulted in no further action — meaning a vast majority of those stopped were doing nothing wrong. More than half of all people stopped were frisked, yet only 1.5 percent of frisks found weapons. In about 83 percent of cases, the person stopped was black or Hispanic, even though the two groups accounted for just over half the population.
The city has consistently said that the disparity was justified because minority citizens commit more crimes. But Judge Scheindlin trenchantly rejected this argument. As she pointed out, “this reasoning is flawed because the stopped population is overwhelmingly innocent — not criminal. There is no basis for assuming that an innocent population shares the same characteristics as the criminal suspect population in the same area.”
The evidence clearly showed that the police carried out more stops on black and Hispanic residents even when other relevant factors were controlled for, and officers were more likely to use force against minority residents even though stops of minorities were less likely to result in weapons seizures than stops of whites.
To remedy these ills, Judge Scheindlin laid out the steps that the city would be required to take in the Floyd case and in the related case of Ligon v. The City of New York, which was brought on behalf of people who said they were illegally stopped, given tickets or arrested in private apartment buildings. She chose Peter Zimroth, a respected lawyer and former prosecutor, to serve as the monitor. Mr. Zimroth’s immediate responsibility will be to develop a set of reforms governing Police Department policies, training, supervision and discipline on stop-and-frisk. The ruling also establishes a process that could be used to revamp other police policies and practices.
Mayor Bloomberg, who has steadfastly supported this corrosive and socially damaging program, seemed unchanged on Monday. He arrogantly dismissed the suit and this rulingas the work of “one small group of advocates — and one judge,” repudiating the outrage about stop-and-frisk that has been growing in the city for years.
He has promised to appeal, but, fortunately, he will be leaving City Hall soon. His successor should retract the appeal and begin the process of bringing New York City’s police practices in line with the Constitution.
Source
Echen a los codiciosos buitres residenciales
Para los estadounidenses y, en particular, las personas de color, la propiedad de vivienda es una fuerza económica estabilizadora y esencial desde hace tiempo. Ofrece la oportunidad de que las...
Para los estadounidenses y, en particular, las personas de color, la propiedad de vivienda es una fuerza económica estabilizadora y esencial desde hace tiempo. Ofrece la oportunidad de que las familias aumenten su seguridad económica en el trascurso de las décadas.
Por eso la crisis de ejecuciones hipotecarias fue tan difícil, en especial para los latinos y las personas de raza negra. Significó que su patrimonio, en ocasiones acumulado por varias generaciones, desapareció casi instantáneamente.
Ambos recordamos claramente las difíciles conversaciones que tuvimos con vecinos que pasaban apuros durante el caos. Aquí en Nueva York, como en todas partes, a pesar de que las personas de color no constituían la mayoría de los propietarios de vivienda, se veían afectadas por las ejecuciones hipotecarias con mayor frecuencia. Eso significó que al perder su patrimonio, más y más de ellos se fueron de la ciudad y nuestros vecindarios cambiaron.
Desafortunadamente, aún estamos viendo los efectos. Una purga lenta que se viene produciendo desde hace años a medida que la ciudad se aburguesa se ha facilitado por las ejecuciones hipotecarias y alquileres cada vez más altos, con los que más familias han dejado de ser propietarias para pasar a ser inquilinas. Muchas familias trabajadoras que han perdido su vivienda ahora además tienen dificultad para alquilar, debido al costo en aumento en el mercado.
Wall Street ha encontrado un socio inverosímil en estos desalojos: el Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano de Estados Unidos (HUD por su sigla en inglés). En todo el país, cientos de miles enfrentan ejecuciones hipotecarias. A pesar de la misión de HUD de “crear comunidades sólidas y sostenibles que incluyan a todos, con viviendas económicas y de calidad”, el departamento ha operado un programa que vende decenas de miles de hogares muy descontados a especuladores de Wall Street.
Cuando los fondos de especulación y firmas inversionistas privadas adquieren estos préstamos, por lo general fuerzan a los propietarios a dejar su vivienda —por medio de ejecuciones hipotecarias o ventas al descubierto (que no cubren las obligaciones hipotecarias) — y luego convierten las residencias en caras propiedades para alquilar, lo que hace que aumenten los precios en todo el vecindario.
En un extraño vuelco del destino, Blackstone Group, una de las más grandes firmas privadas de inversión en el mundo, ahora también es el mayor propietario de casas unifamiliares en alquiler en Estados Unidos. Entonces, Blackstone no solo está desalojando a familias de sus casas; también está sacando a familias trabajadoras de sus vecindarios.
Sin embargo, la práctica continúa. En tan solo los últimos seis meses, HUD ha vendido más de 7,000 préstamos a fondos de especulación y firmas privadas de inversión.
HUD ha programado otra venta masiva de hipotecas afectadas para el 18 de mayo.
HUD, dirigido por el secretario Julián Castro, debe revertir su curso antes de que sea demasiado tarde. Debe poner un alto a esta venta en subasta de viviendas a Wall Street. En vez, debe colaborar con el gobierno de la ciudad de Nueva York y partes interesadas en la comunidad para poner estos préstamos afectados en manos de entidades sin fines de lucro u otros compradores impulsados por una misión, quienes ayudarán a las familias a conservar sus casas.
No se trata simplemente de ilusas propuestas por liberales. Cada vez hay más instituciones financieras dedicadas al desarrollo comunitario que han conseguido capital y están listas y dispuestas a adquirir estos préstamos hipotecarios en mora y colaborar con familias en apuros.
Usan la reducción del monto principal debido para ayudar a modificar los préstamos afectados y hacer que los pagos sean más costeables. Cuando es realmente imposible evitar las ejecuciones hipotecarias, estas entidades sin fines de lucro formulan planes para la disposición de las propiedades que toman en cuenta las necesidades de vivienda económica de la comunidad que las rodea.
Estos préstamos hipotecarios en mora están vinculados con los propietarios y las viviendas en apuros en nuestros vecindarios. Vender nuestro inventario residencial a los propios depredadores que los pusieron en esta situación no solo demuestra poca visión de futuro, sino que daña nuestras comunidades irreparablemente.
Los especuladores de Wall Street se enriquecieron creando la crisis de vivienda que causó estragos en nuestras comunidades. No se debe permitir que vuelvan a enriquecerse aprovechándose de los restos de los vecindarios que ya han destrozado.
By Ana Maria Archila Y Jonathan Westin
Source
Why Recent Stock Volatility Shouldn’t Factor Into Interest-Rate Hikes
As a general principle, the Fed should not react to short-term movements in the financial markets. For one thing, the labor market is much more important to the lives of most Americans, and it is...
As a general principle, the Fed should not react to short-term movements in the financial markets. For one thing, the labor market is much more important to the lives of most Americans, and it is more relevant to the Fed’s mandate of securing maximum employment with inflation stability.
Then consider this: More than 80% of stock wealth in the U.S. is owned by the wealthiest 10% of Americans, and more than half of Americans own no stocks at all (either directly or through retirement or other accounts). In short, movements in the stock markets do not have much effect on the spending power of most U.S. households. That means that movements in the stock markets–especially short-term volatility that is likely to largely dissipate–provides little information about the overall state of economic health.
On the other hand, the labor market provides the vast majority of income to the vast majority of Americans. The middle fifth of households, for example, gets more than 80% of household income directly from the labor market (either cash wages or employer-provided benefits). Further, many additional sources of income such as pensions, Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance, or the Earned Income Tax Credit hinge on participation in the labor market. That’s why trends in the labor market are crucial to assessing the overall state of the economy–which is far from fully recovered from the Great Recession.
The clearest remaining weakness is wages. The current pace of hourly wage growth is roughly 2% to 2.5%. A healthy labor market that met the Fed’s overall price inflation target should be churning out wage increases of at least 3.5%. Further, a period of wage growth well above this is necessary for workers’ pay to reclaim some of the ground lost to corporate profits earlier in this recovery. Until wage growth starts moving durably toward the healthy 3.5% target, it’s too early for the Fed to begin raising rates.
This labor-market-based reasoning for keeping rates low should weigh much more heavily on Fed calculations about interest rates than recent stock activity. The only caveat: if one of the root causes of recent stock market declines–the slowdown in the Chinese economy–provides a new potential headwind to U.S. growth going forward.
But the case for keeping rates unchanged in September was dispositive last week, even before large declines in the stock markets. And any strong stock rally in the coming month shouldn’t make Fed officials feel fine about raising rates.
Source: Wall Street Journal
'Freedom city'? Going beyond 'sanctuary,' Austin, Texas, vows to curtail arrests
'Freedom city'? Going beyond 'sanctuary,' Austin, Texas, vows to curtail arrests
While Austin is among the country’s first so-called freedom cities, it’s part of a wider movement around decriminalizing low-level offenses and decreasing arrests. According to Local Progress, a...
While Austin is among the country’s first so-called freedom cities, it’s part of a wider movement around decriminalizing low-level offenses and decreasing arrests. According to Local Progress, a national network of progressive city officials, some council members in El Paso and Dallas are also considering “freedom city” proposals.
Read the full article here.
Aeropostale, Disney and other retailers pledge to stop on-call shift scheduling
Aeropostale, Disney and other retailers pledge to stop on-call shift scheduling
Imagine waking up and not knowing whether you were scheduled to work. Add on to that the chaotic burden of finding a babysitter last minute.
These six companies — Aeropostale, Carter’s,...
Imagine waking up and not knowing whether you were scheduled to work. Add on to that the chaotic burden of finding a babysitter last minute.
These six companies — Aeropostale, Carter’s, David’s Tea, Disney, PacSun and Zumiez — all required their employees to call an hour or two before a scheduled shift to find out if they would be assigned to work that day.
But no more.
A coalition that included New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced today that on-call shift scheduling has come to an end for those companies.
“Today, we are seeing retailers across America take steps to curb unnecessary and unfair on-call scheduling," said Carrie Gleason, director of the Fair Workweek Initiative at the Center for Popular Democracy. "We are especially glad that employers like Disney and Carter's, whose brands promote putting families first, will stop using on-call shifts that are notorious for wreaking havoc on families' balance and puts undue stress on children."
The announcement follows an inquiry by Schneiderman and eight other attorneys general to make sure that more than 50,000 workers nationwide will no longer be subject to such a "burdensome scheduling practice." The agreements with these six companies are the latest in a series of groundbreaking national agreements secured by the New York Attorney General’s office to end on-call scheduling at a number of major retailers.
Fifteen large retailers received a joint inquiry letter in April seeking information and documents related to their use of on-call shifts. Other than the six mentioned, the list included American Eagle, Payless, Coach, Forever 21, Vans, Justice Just for Girls, BCBG Maxazria, Tilly’s, Inc. and Uniqlo. The letter stated that unpredictable work schedules "take a toll on employees."
"Without the security of a definite work schedule, workers who must be 'on call' have difficulty making reliable childcare and elder-care arrangements, encounter obstacles in pursuing an education, and in general experience higher incidences of adverse health effects, overall stress, and strain on family life than workers who enjoy the stability of knowing their schedules reasonably in advance," the letter continued.
After discussions with the Schneiderman and his fellow AGs, none of the retailers will be using on-call shifts. Also, Disney and others have agreed to provide employees with their work schedules at least one week in advance of the start of the work week as a way to plan child care and other obligations ahead of time.
“People should not have to keep the day open, arrange for child care, and give up other opportunities without being compensated for their time,” said Schneiderman. “I am pleased that these companies have stepped up to the plate and agreed to stop using this unfair method of scheduling.”
The announcement marks a continuation of Schneiderman's mission, which began last year when Abercrombie & Fitch, Gap, J.Crew, Urban Outfitters, Pier 1 Imports, and L Brands — the parent company of Bath & Body Works and Victoria’s Secret — all agreed to end the practice of assigning on-call shifts.
New York State has a “call-in-pay” regulation that provides, “An employee who by request or permission of the employer reports for work on any day shall be paid for at least four hours, or the number of hours in the regularly scheduled shift, whichever is less, at the basic minimum hourly wage.” (12 NYCRR 142-2.3).
By Anthony Noto
Source
Más hispanos mueren en NY en trabajos de construcción
El Diario – October 25, 2013, by Juan Matossian -
En el 60% de los casos de fallecimientos por caídas, investigados entre 2003 y 2011 en el estado, la víctima era latino y/o...
El Diario – October 25, 2013, by Juan Matossian -
En el 60% de los casos de fallecimientos por caídas, investigados entre 2003 y 2011 en el estado, la víctima era latino y/o inmigrante
Los obreros de construcción hispanos e inmigrantes sufren muchos másaccidentes y muertes por caídas que otros trabajadores del mismo gremio, debido a las pobres condiciones de seguridad en las que trabajan en el estado de Nueva York, según reveló un estudio.
El reporte, comisionado por el Center for Popular Democracy, muestra que en el 60% de las muertes por caídas en los accidentes, investigados entre 2003 y 2011 en el estado, el fallecido era latino y/o inmigrante.
En la ciudad, esta cifra se incrementa hasta casi el 75% – tres de cada cuatro – a pesar de que sólo supone el 40% de la fuerza total de trabajo en ese reglón.
Encuestas realizadas a empleados latinos evidenciaron que muy pocos se atreven a quejarse por las condiciones de seguridad por temor a represalias de sus jefes.
Problemas de seguridad
Ese fue el caso de Pedro Corchado, un obrero que cayó desde una escalera durante la renovación de un edificio hace cinco años, y sufrió graves heridas por no contar con un arnés de seguridad.
“Casi cualquiera que trabaje en construcción te dirá que es muy difícil negarse a las órdenes de escalar un andamio que no es seguro o subir una escalera sin equipamiento de seguridad”, dijo Corchado. “Para la mayoría de trabajadores como yo, decir ‘no’ al jefe simplemente no es una opción”.
El grupo que elaboró el estudio y otras organizaciones que defienden a estos trabajadores, argumentaron que la mejor manera de detener esta tendencia es aumentar los fondos deOSHA, porque ahora mismo la oficina no cuenta con los suficientes medios ni inspectores.
Calcularon que, para que OSHA inspeccione cada lugar de construcción que hay actualmente en Nueva York, les llevaría 107 años.
Por otro lado, hicieron un llamado para que se proteja la llamada “Ley del Andamio”, que ayuda a asegurar las condiciones de seguridad en los sitios de construcción y que varios promotores inmobiliarios presionan para que se derogue porque incrementa significativamente el coste de nuevos edificios.
“En lugar de invertir en la seguridad en el trabajo, la comunidad de negocios quiere que la responsabilidad por heridas y muertes pase a los que son más vulnerables y no tienen control sobre las condiciones laborales”, denunció Joel Shufro, director ejecutivo delComité para Seguridad y Salud en el Trabajo de Nueva York. “Pondría a todos los obreros de construcción en riesgo, particularmente a los jornaleros y a los no sindicados”.
Una última petición es que se tomen medidas para asegurar que tanto los promotores, dueños y trabajadores de la construcción, reciban entrenamiento de seguridad de acuerdo con los estándares de OSHA.
Source
Starbucks Workers Confront Executives To Demand Scheduling Reform
03.23.2016
SEATTLE –Starbucks workers staged a protest at the company’s annual shareholder meeting today to call for better scheduling practices, a day after...
03.23.2016
SEATTLE –Starbucks workers staged a protest at the company’s annual shareholder meeting today to call for better scheduling practices, a day after the Seattle City Council held a study session on proposals that would require employers like Starbucks to raise standards for work hours. Starbucks baristas at the protest were members of Working Washington, a statewide workers’ organization that has led the fight for secure scheduling at the company and in the City Council. As part of the demonstration, baristas called attention to a national petition signed by more than 20,000 supporters calling on Starbucks to end clopenings and provide 11 hours of rest between shifts.
Scheduling problems at Starbucks were unveiled in a 2014 New York Times feature, which found employees were often given notice about their shift just hours in advance and often forced to both close a store and open just hours later – a practice known as “clopening.” Though the company vowed to introduce reforms in response, a report from the Center for Popular Democracy’s Fair Workweek Initiative a year later found many workers were still struggling with erratic hours. Starbucks workers in Seattle have continued protests across the country from Seattle to Atlanta to Connecticut and have delivered a letter to the company calling for a meeting.
With no meaningful changes in sight, workers have taken their case to the Seattle City Council, which is currently considering legislation that may include provisions to ensure flexibility and advance notice, adequate rest between shifts, on-call pay and access to hours for part-time workers. Recent polling found overwhelming support for such policies. Similar protections are already on the books in San Francisco and Santa Clara County, and are being considered by a growing number of cities and states around the country, including Washington, DC, San Jose, Maryland, Massachusetts and Minnesota.
Darrion Sjoquist, a barista at Starbucks, released the following statement:
“Even after asking for changes again and again, workers at Starbucks still face constant uncertainty about something as simple as when they need to come in to work. Unpredictable schedules are harmful to workers, and make it incredibly hard for people like me to plan our lives. We can’t wait any longer for real change to come.”
Leila Kopcic, a barista at Starbucks, also released a statement:
“It’s really hard to live your life when your priorities are, ‘what’s my schedule? How many hours am I getting?’ Basically you get off at 7:30, go home, get ready for bed, wake up at 4 AM and go to work. It’s not enough time to rest and recharge yourself. I have to skimp on groceries. Sometimes skip meals. Just to be able to live where I want to live and afford that. A lot of people have it worse than me and I just want to make a difference for everyone.”
Carrie Gleason, Director of the Fair Workweek Initiative, also released a statement:
“Starbucks baristas have put the national spotlight on the crisis hourly workers face in their workweeks. Starbucks would not let its customers wait endlessly for a latte, and it should not let its employees wait a day longer to meet with them to find a long-term solution for better hours.”
Sejal Parikh, Executive Director of Working Washington, also released a statement: “This is a venti-sized problem that deserves immediate attention from corporate executives. For more than a year, Starbucks workers have been demanding schedules that let them actually plan their lives. We will continue to push for change in local laws and corporate policy until every Starbucks barista has a schedule that respects that their time counts.”
###
www.populardemocracy.org
The Center for Popular Democracy promotes equity, opportunity, and a dynamic democracy in partnership with innovative base-building organizations, organizing networks and alliances, and progressive unions across the country. CPD builds the strength and capacity of democratic organizations to envision and advance a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial justice agenda www.fairworkweek.org The Fair Workweek Initiative, anchored by the Center for Popular Democracy and CPD Action, is driving the growing momentum to restore a workweek that enables working families to thrive.
www.workingwa.org
Working Washington is a statewide workers’ organization that fights to raise wages, improve labor standards, and change the conversation about wealth, inequality, and the value of work.
Contact: Asya Pikovsky, apikovsky@populardemocracy.org, 207-522-2442 Anita Jain, ajain@populardemocracy.org, 347-636-9761
Zara exposed for chronic racial profiling
If you’re a huge fan of shopping at Zara, the Spanish fast-fashion franchise, you may want to start spending your money elsewhere.
The fashion...
If you’re a huge fan of shopping at Zara, the Spanish fast-fashion franchise, you may want to start spending your money elsewhere.
The fashion brand has been outed for its deeply engrained racist hiring and customer service practices in arecent survey conducted by the Center for Popular Democracy, a racial, economic and labor justice group. A random sample of two hundred-fifty one out of Zara’s 1,500 Manhattan employees participated in the survey and confided that Black customers are profiled as potential thieves seven times more frequently than white shoppers.
The study, entitled “Stitched with Prejudice: Zara USA’s Corporate Culture of Favoritism” and written by Chaya Crowder, also revealed that Black customers were also more frequently denied exchanges and returns than Whites. Customers weren’t the only people that were racially discriminated in Zara’s stores. Black employees claimed that they were given dissatisfactory hour assignments and stricter surveillance from managers.
“It’s kind of weird to me how they can make millions of dollars but are not able to pay people properly for their time, let alone give people the amount of time that they need in order to support their family, in order to keep a roof over their head, in order to, you know, just feed themselves.” One employee said:
The study had also found that darker-skinned employees were also less likely to promoted to managing roles and were often given less-prestigious roles. Sixty-eight percent of employees that were assigned roles in the back of the store and away from the public had darker complexions. Managers were generally White, and generally gave preferential treatment or were less lenient to subordinates of the same races and ethnic groups. The extent to which Black employees were profiled in their own work environment were sometimes highly disturbing, as portrayed in this incident:
“[O]ne Black employee even detailed an instance in which he had come in a hooded jacket to pick up his check. A sales associate not only identified him as a special order, but he was physically stopped as he was walking into the back office, where checks are kept.”
The study’s findings are not particularly surprising, given Zara’s history of being infamous for racial bias in the brand’s various operations. Just earlier this month, the franchised was served with a $40 million lawsuit from a former worker citing discrimination, unlawful discharge, retaliation and a hostile work environment. The brand also received bad press last year for racist images on its merchandise: pajamas featuring swastikas, a necklace with blackface designs, shirts with gold stars resembling those worn by the Jewish people once held in concentration camps in the Holocaust and a shirt with the words printed saying, “White is the New Black.”
According to Forbes, Zara featured the following statement:
“Zara USA vehemently refutes the findings of the Center for Popular Democracy report which was published without any attempt to contact the company. The baseless report was prepared with ulterior motives and not because of any actual discrimination or mistreatment. It makes assertions that cannot be supported and do not reflect Zara’s diverse workforce.
“Zara USA believes that the report is completely inconsistent with the company’s true culture and the experiences of the over 1,500 Zara employees in New York City. We are an equal opportunity employer, and if there are individuals who are not satisfied with any aspect of their employment, we have multiple avenues for them to raise issues that we would immediately investigate and address.
“Approximately half of all Zara USA employees are Hispanic or African American. In the most recent round of internal promotions at Zara USA, approximately half were Hispanic or African American employees. In addition, approximately half of all hours are regularly allocated to Hispanic or African American employees. These facts clearly demonstrate that diversity and equal opportunity are two of the company’s core values. We are a global multicultural company serving valued customers across 88 countries, and do not tolerate discrimination of any form.”
Welp. I know Zara won’t be seeing my money again anytime soon. It’s a shame, their pencil skirts fit me in all the right places…
Source: New Pittsburgh Courier
New York Fed taps Williams for top post, ignoring Democrats on diversity
New York Fed taps Williams for top post, ignoring Democrats on diversity
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) had called for the co-chairs and Williams to appear before the Senate Banking Committee if Williams ended up as the choice. Fed Up co-director Shawn Sebastian said...
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) had called for the co-chairs and Williams to appear before the Senate Banking Committee if Williams ended up as the choice. Fed Up co-director Shawn Sebastian said the coalition supports that call. “Today, the Fed concluded another opaque and controversial Reserve Bank presidential selection process by ignoring the demands of the public and choosing another white man whose record on Wall St regulation and full employment raises serious questions,” he said in a tweet.
Read the full article here.
Federal Government Continues To Feed Charter School Beast Despite Auditor's Warning
Federal Government Continues To Feed Charter School Beast Despite Auditor's Warning
Politicians always promise they will rid government of "waste, fraud, and abuse," so let's hope at least one political leader or policy maker will denounce our federal government's new gift of...
Politicians always promise they will rid government of "waste, fraud, and abuse," so let's hope at least one political leader or policy maker will denounce our federal government's new gift of nearly a quarter-billion dollars to charter schools.
The cash dump to charters, courtesy of taxpayers, is from the U.S. Department of Education. As Education Week reports, the money is going to eight states and 15 charter school networks from the Charter Schools Program, a federal government operation that doles out millions every year to start new charter schools.
This money is the latest installment of an over $3 billion gravy train the federal government has funded to help launch over 2,500 charter schools across the nation.
Regardless of how you feel about these schools, you should be concerned about how this new government outlay to charters will be used, based on the extensive track record of financial malfeasance in these schools.
Indeed, shortly after the USDE announcement, the Department's own auditor warned that the money is very much at risk of ending up in the pockets of fraudsters and con artists rather than in the classrooms of diligent students and dedicated teachers.
Again Education Week reports, the audit by the agency's inspector general's office examined 33 schools in six states and concluded that because of a general lack of oversight of charters there was a "risk that federal programs are not being implemented correctly and are wasting public money."
The risk stems from the "cozy relationships," the EdWeek reporter's words, between charter schools and companies that operate them, called Charter Management Organizations (CMOs).
Of the 33 charter schools the audit examined, 22 had examples, sometimes multiple examples, of how CMOs take advantage of the unusual business relationship they have with their client charters to exploit federal education funds and redirect precious taxpayer dollars to private interests that have nothing to do with education.
In one of the more egregious examples the audit round, "the CEO of one CMO in Pennsylvania had the authority to write and issue checks without charter school board approval and wrote checks to himself from the charter school's accounts totaling about $11 million."
At another Pennsylvania charter, a vendor that supplied services to the school was owned by the charter school's CMO and received $485,000 in payments from the school without charter school board approval.
In Florida, a charter and a CMO that shared the same board entered into an expensive lease agreement for the school building, then expanded the facility, extended the lease, and increased the rental payments to the CMO.
One CMO the audit examined, which operated three charters in Michigan and one in New York, required the charter schools to remit all federal, state, and local funds to the CMO and gave the CMO total responsibility, with no oversight by the charter board, for paying school expenditures.
The auditor's report doesn't provide the names of these schools, so we don't know if they have received federal grant money in the past or are some of the ones getting the new money.
However, three of the six states the audit looked at – California, Texas, and Florida – are the same states the Department of Education just decided to send more money to. The other three – Michigan Pennsylvania, and New York – have received federal money for charters in the past, either sent to the state or to charter organizations operating in the state.
These states, and presumably many others the feds send charter money to, often don't sufficiently track how the money is used, according to the audit. Of the six states examined, half could not provide consistent funding data on charter schools with CMOs, a third could not identify which charter schools used CMOs, and a third that tracked whether charter schools used CMOs had unreliable information because charter schools self-reported their operations.
Donate to CMD!
The federal auditor's revelations on charter school waste, fraud, and abuse is yet another dose of reality in a long line of factual reporting about these schools.
A study released last year by the Center for Media and Democracy found "charter spending is largely a black hole." That's because the "flexibility" charters have been granted by the government is often being used not to create education innovations but to "allow an epidemic of fraud, waste, and mismanagement that would not be tolerated in public schools," the CMD report found.
Based on its extensive research on charters, CMD examined the list of new award grantees and noted Florida, that's getting a grant of $58,454,516, has closed over 120 charter schools in a little over a decade. Texas, which is getting $30,498,392, has "an unknown number" of charter schools "housed in churches" and "closely tied to, religious groups."
Tennessee, which is getting $15,172,732, is famous for having a statewide online charter school that is so bad, the state education chief tried to get rid of it but couldn't because of political maneuvering by the charter lobby and lack of regulatory accountability.
California, which is getting $27,329,904, has some of the worst charter school scandals in the nation, according to a report from the Center for Popular Democracy, which uncovered over $81,400,000 in fraud, waste, and abuse in the state. CPD call the alarming figure "likely just the tip of the iceberg."
Louisiana, another grantee getting $4,836,766 from the feds, has been ripped off by "tens of millions of dollars in undiscovered losses" from charter schools in the 2013-14 school year, according to another CPD analysis. "The state has insufficiently resourced financial oversight," CPD contends, and has yet to put into place adequate reporting, staffing, and auditing.
Three other states – Georgia, Massachusetts, and Washington – are getting the money just when they are deeply embroiled in heated controversies over charter schools.
Georgia has a ballot initiative in November on whether to allow the state to operate an Opportunity School District that would summarily take over local schools and hand them over to charter operators. Massachusetts also has a November ballot initiative, called Question 2, that would allow the state to lift the cap on the number of charters allowed to operate in the state. And in Washington, a charter school battleground for over 20 years, court rulings, legislative shenanigans, lawsuits, and counter lawsuits related to charter schools continue to rage across the state.
No doubt, this new money – over $41 million altogether for these three states – may now sweeten the pot if pro charter forces get their way.
Regarding the individual CMOs the Department is sending money to, one of them, Uncommon Schools, is a charter chain which used to be led in part by the current head of USDE, Secretary John King. Uncommon is getting $8,004,576. No conflict of interest there.
Another recipient – the Denver School of Science and Technology charter chain in Colorado, with a grant of $4,043,361 – has paid out between $20 to $50 million to a for-profit corporation owned by two of the charter chain's director, according to another CPD analysis.
A charter school chain in Indiana getting $1,923,866 is plagued with financial problems, low enrollment, and controversy over how the CEO spends money. No doubt the infusion of federal cash will help.
The federal auditor's report recommends the convening of a formal oversight group to look into charter school financial malfeasance, more rigorous review of charter school operations by federal agencies, and legislative changes in Congress to firm up government oversight.
Here's another recommendation: Stop federal funding to expand these schools.
By Jeff Bryant
Source
2 days ago
9 days ago