Campaign News

Nearly 4,000 immigrants in the Washington region face deportation every year without a lawyer, according to a report that calls on area governments to follow the lead of New York and Los Angeles and provide funding for legal aid to immigrants.

The Center for Popular Democracy, a national nonprofit organization, analyzed thousands of deportation cases at immigration courts in Baltimore and Arlington and found that immigrants were far more likely to prevail if they had a lawyer...

Read full article here.

Al Jazeera America - April 14, 2015, by Amy Dean - Charter schools are everywhere. Not long ago, these publicly funded but privately run institutions were a relative rarity. Those that existed served mostly as experimental academies whose successful lessons could be applied elsewhere in their host school districts. But in the last 15 years, swaths of the U.S. public education system have been turned over to charters. In fact, they are being used as a means to crush teachers’ unions and to pursue high-stakes testing.

Charter advocates justify this ascent by promising an antidote to the disappointing outcomes of traditional public schools in segregated and underfunded urban districts. But the research is in: Charter schools have failed to deliver on their promises.

It is time lawmakers freeze their growth and consider how to provide the best education possible for all students.

Underwhelming performance

There are recent precedents for a moratorium on charter schools. Philadelphia, which issued dozens of charter licenses before 2008, did not allow any new ones from 2008 to 2015. The Chicago School District declared a freeze on charters for the 2015–16 school year. Connecticut and Delaware are considering similar actions. Other school boards and states should follow suit.

As a bevy of recent studies prove, charter schools are not substantially outperforming neighborhood public schools. In Arizona, for example, “on average, charter schools in Arizona do no better, and sometimes worse, than the traditional public schools” according to a study by the Brookings Institution. A similar study in Ohio showed that public schools were producing better results than their charter peers in most parts of the state. In Illinois the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity found that Chicago’s charter schools are “less likely to be racially or ethnically diverse” than and “consistently underperform” their public school peers.

That charter schools are not doing better than traditional public schools is particularly disturbing, since they have a host of advantages. Notably, many charters cherry-pick their students. A 2013 study by Reuters found that charter schools employ complicated screening mechanisms to admit only students who are most likely to succeed. This ensures that students from deeply impoverished families or households where English is not spoken at home are less likely to gain admission. These methods include using English-only documents, demanding proof of citizenship (which is illegal) and narrowing application windows to a few hours.

Charters also regulate the composition of their student bodies through expulsions. In 2014 the Chicago School District reported that public schools expelled 182 students out of 353,000. By contrast, charter schools booted 307 students out of 50,000. The expelled students end up back in the public schools, which become the institution of last resort. Charter schools should in theory register superior test scores, since they are not serving some of the highest-need students. Yet that has not been the case on the whole.

Charters have fallen short in terms of transparency and accountability too. A 2010 review from the Philadelphia controller’s office found that the city’s charter schools had little oversight from the understaffed and underfunded school district. Numerous charter operators have been charged with corruption and misuse of funds.

A national moratorium on charter schools would stop the hemorrhaging of funds from traditional public schools.

A 2014 report by two anti-education-privatization organizations, the Center for Popular Democracy and Integrity in Education, found $136 million in fraud and abuse in 15 states. A follow-up study (PDF) in Pennsylvania revealed “charter school officials have defrauded at least $30 million intended for Pennsylvania schoolchildren since 1997.” Some of the questionable dealings may not be illegal because of the intricacies of state laws, but there is little doubt that public money is being wasted.

A recent review of charter school scandals in Florida and Michigan by The Washington Post listed numerous cases of real estate flipping, in which charter schools were used as vehicles for exorbitant profits. Michigan’s largest charter operator, National Heritage Academies gets a 16 percent return on its investment in rent from the state — nearly twice what most commercial properties receive.

A nationwide moratorium

Chicago and Philadelphia provide good examples for setting moratoriums on charter schools, but the freeze has been limited in both cities. Philadelphia’s School Reform Commission did not approve a new charter school in the last seven years. But the number of students enrolled at the existing charters continued to grow, doubling from 2007 to 2015. This year the commission approved five new charters — a regrettable reversal of the moratorium.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has declared that no new charter schools will be funded during the 2015–16 year. However, there is good reason to believe that he is simply playing politics and that he will not extend the moratorium. He faced a tough re-election battle, and the temporary halt was seen as an attempt to lure supporters of public education back into his camp. His poll numbers plunged in 2013 when he closed 50 neighborhood public schools, mostly in black and Hispanic neighborhoods that turned out for him in the 2011 election. His attempts to use the moratorium to appeal to disaffected voters shows that black and Latino parents, whom advocates of the charter industry insist want more charter schools, are hardly as enamored with charters as previously thought.

Nationwide, the expansion of charter schools continues unabated. Charter advocates report that 500 new charter schools opened during the 2014–15 school year, enrolling 348,000 students. One in 20 American students is enrolled in a charter school.

It is time for this to stop.

Charter advocates claim that they are data-driven technicians who pay attention to evidence of what works. But research does not support their preferred education policies. A national moratorium on charter schools would stop the hemorrhaging of funds from traditional public schools. It would also allow time to address the corruption that has plagued the charter industry. This would create an opportunity for some reflection on what actually works best for educating our children. 

Amy B. Dean is a fellow of the Century Foundation and a principal of ABD Ventures, a consulting firm that works to develop innovative strategies for organizations devoted to social change. She is a co-author, with David Reynolds, of “A New New Deal: How Regional Activism Will Reshape the American Labor Movement.”

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera America's editorial policy.

Source

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nearly a decade after the housing bubble burst, one grim legacy endures.

Far too many homeowners are still struggling to make mortgage payments, or have quit paying altogether. But one of the most robust attempts to address the overhang of delinquent loans is bumping up against an uncomfortable reality.

Since 2010, government entities like the Department for Housing and Urban Development, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have auctioned off thousands of delinquent mortgages. The auctions should be a win-win: they take those problem loans off the government’s books so taxpayer dollars aren’t strained. They also offer homeowners the possibility of a fresh start: investors who pay far less than the loan is worth are able to cut the borrowers a better deal than the government can.

But there’s been some pushback. Groups like the Center for Popular Democracy and progressives like Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren criticized the government for enabling what they called a “land grab” by the same Wall Street investors whom many saw as responsible for faulty lending in the first place.

The government responded by encouraging nonprofit organizations to compete alongside financial institutions. Groups focused on helping homeowners, rather than realizing a bottom line, would do good and do well, the agencies reasoned.

But there’s a catch.

The scale of the auctions is so big — some are measured in the billions of dollars — and the scope of what’s being asked so vast that only two nonprofits have successfully purchased mortgages. What’s more, that doesn’t seem likely to change soon.

There are plenty of nonprofits with ample experience in community development and helping homeowners, said Julia Gordon, executive vice president of the National Community Stabilization Trust, a nonprofit focused on the blight left behind by vacant properties.

What nonprofits lack is access to capital, particularly equity funding, Gordon told MarketWatch. While there are plenty of investors interested in the distressed mortgage space, the yields such investors want may not be compatible with the mission focus of a nonprofit.

“Some nonprofits are realizing that the returns private investors are demanding can’t be achieved if you also want to achieve good neighborhood outcomes,” Gordon said.

Of the two nonprofits that have successfully bid in the government auctions, one, New Jersey Community Capital, dominates. They’ve won about $290 million of loans so far. The sole other nonprofit, Hogar Hispano, has won $16 million. Hogar did not respond to a request for comment.

NJCC is a community development organization whose mission is helping New Jersey cities and towns. But as one of the best-established nonprofits in the country in this space, they’ve been asked to work more broadly than that since the early days of the government auctions.

From the beginning, NJCC understood the tension between returns for investors and results for communities, said Peter Grof, deputy to the president of the organization. But NJCC believed that it was not only possible to strike that balance, but also that it could chart a course that other nonprofits could follow.

NJCC funds its purchases with a ratio of about 50% to 60% debt to equity, Grof said. The equity investors are often private-equity firms, while the debt piece comes from what Grof calls “socially-motivated investors” or major financial institutions like Prudential Financial PRU, +3.94%   and MetLife MET, +3.81%  .

Grof says NJCC is uncomfortable with the “Wall Street vs. Main Street” concept that surrounds discussions about how to handle the delinquency overhang. “We understand and appreciate housing advocates. We couldn’t do a lot of our work if not for them,” he said. “They make it simple, beat up on the banks and Wall Street. That’s fine, there has been some bad behavior. But we don’t see it as us vs. them, ‘property investors are evil.’”

Instead, Grof said, NJCC focuses on achieving appropriate outcomes for troubled homeowners and for their neighborhoods. Sometimes that means fighting the natural urge to want to keep borrowers in their homes, and realizing it’s best to let them walk away.

“We’re about trying to bring back normal real estate market dynamics to these communities,” he said. “We understand communities have a normal ebb and flow. It’s not just about creating opportunities for people to stay, it’s about creating opportunities for people to leave, if that’s appropriate.”

To some extent, some of those advocates would agree. “What’s most important is outcomes not ownership,” Julia Gordon said. “The government agencies have a responsibility to have an idea of what they want to have happen with these notes once they sell them. It’s their responsibility to communities and the housing market. Bad outcomes weaken housing markets.”

Amy Schur, a campaign coordinator for the Center for Popular Democracy, agrees. “We believe that both HUD and FHFA should set much higher standards for all notes sales around the commitment to and quality of modifications, and around affordable housing and meeting community needs,” she said.

Schur and her group believe that if the government set more stringent requirements, it would prompt for-profit investors to partner with local community organizations. She believes such partnerships would produce the yields institutional investors are seeking while enabling the mission-driven groups to do their work. Schur also believes that while many smaller nonprofits would prefer to buy smaller tranches of mortgages, many of the investors who provide equity to more established organizations would like bigger pools.

NJCC is “on course” to achieve more than the government’s “neighborhood stabilization outcome” goals, Grof said. He stresses that it’s still too early to total up the final outcomes for all loans. In New Jersey, where NJCC focuses on principal reduction mortgage modifications and developing affordable rentals out of homes where modifications aren’t possible, the NSO rate should be about 85%. In Florida, he estimates it will be about 65% to 70%.

Government agency spokesmen speak carefully about the note sales. “We believe the program is doing what it was designed to do,” said a spokesman for HUD. He answered a question about how the nonprofit portion of the sales were going by ticking off a list of ways the government has tried to improve the program to benefit nonprofits: lengthening the amount of time between a sale announcement and when it takes place, making smaller pools of loans, and concentrating them by geography.

A spokesman for Freddie Mac said it’s “certainly an objective” to encourage more nonprofit participation. Asked about whether the type of investor is as important as making sure good outcomes are achieved, he said only that “the winning bidder is determined on the basis of economics.”

Fannie Mae did not respond to a request for comment.

As of January, in all of HUD’s sales, foreclosure had been avoided in 27.9% of the homes, 34.3% had been foreclosed on, and 35.5% had no resolution. Fannie and Freddie have not yet reported on the outcomes of their sales, although such a report was expected by the end of the first quarter, as previously reported.

Despite the government’s efforts, “the appetite isn’t there,” Grof said. “The risks and the challenges turn off our competitors.”

By Andrea Riquier

Source

NEW YORK—A group of activists lobbying the Federal Reserve to hold off on raising interest rates is pressing its campaign amid signs from the central bank that it is moving closer to lifting borrowing costs.

Members of the Fed Up Coalition, a left-leaning organization affiliated with the Center for Popular Democracy and connected with labor unions and community groups, met with Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen and other central bank governors late last year.

They recently have met with the leaders of the Boston, Kansas City and San Francisco Fed banks, and are scheduled to meet next with Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockharton Aug. 12 and with New York Fed President William Dudley on Aug. 14.

Most Fed officials, including Ms. Yellen, have indicated they expect to start raising short-term interest rates this year if the economy keeps improving. They have held their benchmark rate near zero since December 2008 to bolster the economy.

The activists say they want the Fed to hold off a bit longer to ensure the expansion benefits all Americans, not just the wealthiest.

They also want the Fed to become more open about its actions and how it selects the presidents of the 12 regional reserve banks.

And they want the Fed to engage with banks to promote affordable housing.

“Over the last few weeks we’ve had a lot of success engaging with Fed officials,” said Ady Barkan, who leads the Center for Popular Democracy Fed campaign. His group is “seeing that [Fed officials] are really being responsive” to the case they are making, he said.

Mr. Barkan said a recent meeting with St. Louis Fed President James Bullard was particularly fruitful. Mr. Bullard said in an interview with the Journal Friday the Fed has a balancing act when it comes to setting interest rate policy.

He favors raising interest rates this year and says the central bank’s September meeting is likely a good time to start.

“I think I have the better policy for the type of people they want to help,” Mr. Bullard said. “If you go for too much in monetary policy you can get some sort of financial bubbles and imbalances that fall apart and cause a recession,” and modest rate rises soon will help reduce those risks.

The activist group also is calling for greater representation on regional banks’ boards of directors for noncorporate interests. By law, the regional Fed directors are drawn from a mix of financial industry professionals, community and business leaders. Each board oversees individual reserve bank operations, and the directors from outside the financial sector manage the selection of new reserve bank presidents.

Mr. Barkan said Fed boards are dominated by the perspectives of leaders from large institutions. While he welcomes union and nonprofit representation on the boards, Mr. Barkan said the diversity should extend further and include a more ground-level perspective on how the economy is functioning.

Jean-Andre Sassine, age 48, of New York City, plans to attend the group’s meeting with Mr. Dudley. Mr. Sassine, who said he works on television and advertising productions, became interested in the Fed when his family ran into difficulties during the recession. He said that led him to ask questions about the role the central bank was playing to help everyday people.

When he went with the group to the meeting with Ms. Yellen, Mr. Sassine said he walked away with “the sense they aren’t used to dealing with people. It seems like they just get reports” and work off that data, and little else, to make their decisions, Mr. Sassine said.

“We are supposed to have input and recognition and we don’t have it,” Mr. Sassine said. “It can’t all be corporate heads and bankers…We’ve got to have real people who buy groceries” on the Fed’s various advisory boards, he said.

The Fed has tried to broaden its public outreach in recent years. The central bank this year has been recruiting people to serve on a new Community Advisory Council, which will meet twice a year with Washington-based Fed governors. Ms. Yellen last year visited a job-training program in Chicago and a nonprofit in Chelsea, Mass., that helps unemployed people find work.

Mr. Dudley has conducted a number of public tours of the New York Fed’s district, in which he has met with business leaders, academics, community groups and others. In a Wall Street Journal interview in March 2014 he explained he had been using the tours to make the Fed seem less abstract. And he also said the visits had in particular deepened his understanding of the housing crisis and sharpened his response to those troubles.

Staff at the regional Fed banks who have met with the activists say their meetings are part of regular efforts to engage with their communities, and can offer valuable insight into the state of the economy.

In a statement, the Atlanta Fed said it regularly meets with community based interest groups “through its various outreach programs including community and economic development, economic education, and supervision and regulation.”

Source: The Wall Street Journal