Capitolworks LLC

07/18/2022

Sharing that we have been offering "Summer School" to our clients as they prepare for their grassroots advocacy efforts over the coming months. With the mid-terms fast approaching and state and federal policy action heating up, now is the time to prepare your field! Our "Summer School" course offers four classes (virtual, bilingual, and recorded) that provide a review of "Civics 101" (what it means to be a federalist, representative democracy, the importance of the census, gerrymandering, etc.) to a reminder session on the three branches of government and the basic powers and checks and balances for each, to an entire session on how a bill becomes a law and developing and implementing an advocacy strategy. We have even included "homework" that allows participants to use the course to begin and/or refine existing advocacy strategies and many sample tools to use in future efforts.

This course is jargon-free, accessible to all, and easily tailored to the needs of various large and small audiences. Democracy depends on a well-informed and engaged populous. Let us help your group and their voices be heard! More information can be found at www.capitolworksllc.com and our FB page.

We are a team of policy experts championing the causes for those who feel on the outside. We bring you into the legislative process and make your voice heard. We are creative, persistent and affordable to all causes and non-profits both big and small.

01/13/2022

This is a blog that some of my students worked on late last year regarding the current voting rights bill. Some specific information is dated however the blog still offers an interesting perspective on the current Act, its substance, and why the passage/failure of this Act is such a critical bellwether as to the future of other fundamental rights. Note: Congressional action to move the Act forward is anticipated to begin again today.


Just the Facts: Recent Voting Rights Legislative Failures, Perhaps a New Legislative Opportunity, and What We Can Learn from the Civil Rights Movement

Following nationally televised footage of Bloody Sunday- a major turning point in the Civil Rights Movement when hundreds of protesters led by former Congressman John Lewis were assaulted and beaten by Alabama State Troopers- the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed both chambers of Congress and was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson. Now fifty- six years later, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act has been proposed to restore parts of the original Voting Rights Act nullified by the U.S. Supreme Court over time. However, unlike its predecessor which enjoyed bipartisan support, this Act has already been used as a political pawn by a seemingly intractable and uniquely divisive Congress leaving many to doubt both its successful passage as well as the security of some of our most basic civil rights.

Voter fraud allegations in the 2020 general election, which had the highest voter turnout rate of any election in the past century, have led to at least 19 states passing 33 pieces of legislation that restrict a person’s ability to cast a ballot. Some of the most restrictive laws that have been passed came from Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, and Texas. The American Civil Liberties Union has identified this sharp uptick in voter suppression efforts following the 2016 General Election and highlighted the need to fight and advocate for Americans’ right to vote including addressing issues of accessibility to ballots, voter registration restrictions, and availability of early voting opportunities. When an individual’s access to the ballot box is reduced or denied, the solution lies in policymaking that creates or improves a system of checks and balances that ensures that voters are protected both equally and equitably. This is where bills like the John Lewis Voting Rights Act come into play.

Perhaps the most striking components of this legislation are the changes made to the coverage formula, which would apply to all U.S. States, and how the law directs courts to analyze current legislation to find repeated voting rights violations. Additionally, the Act addresses ways to review changes to current laws that determine rules around the use of

Voter IDs and multilingual materials. Both legislative initiatives have historically been the most discriminatory. The Act also looks to increase transparency between Election Offices and voters by requiring reasonable notice when voting laws change, grants power to the Attorney General to require federal observers to be present where serious and credible discriminatory practices are present in voting, and ensures accessibility to polls and improves protections for Native American and Alaskan Native voters.

The original version of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives in August 2021 but has stalled in the evenly divided Senate. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced at the end of October that he would move to hold a vote on starting debate for the Act amid a successful bipartisan negotiation and increasing pressure from groups opposing new restrictive state voting laws. Amendments to the Act drafted by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Joe Manchin (D-WV) more clearly define factors that courts can use to evaluate new voting rights. However, even with these proposed bipartisan amendments, the Senate vote held on Wednesday, November 3rd to begin debate, failed mostly along party lines with the exception of Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski. Republican Senators have now blocked a total of four bills in 2021 related to voting rights which forces Democrats and supporters of voting rights measures to ask, what is next?

Many progressive senators and officials in the Biden administration are hoping that this most recent vote failure will help sway moderate Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Krysten Sinema (D-AZ) to support amending the Senate filibuster rules in order to pass important pieces of President Biden’s domestic agenda. But a more insightful question from the failed vote is, why has the formerly bipartisan issue of voting rights become a stalemate between the two parties? The Civil Rights Movement, the Bloody Sunday protest in Selma, and more recent movements for racial justice like the Black Lives Matter movement may provide us with some answers.

The original Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, following years of protests around the country against Jim Crow laws in the South and widespread violence against Black Americans. The events of Bloody Sunday opened many people’s eyes to how horrific conditions in the United States were for Black Americans. This terrifying event galvanized the public and members of Congress to support the Civil Rights Movement and pass legislation like the Voting Rights Act. What is less discussed in tandem is the backlash to the expansion of Civil Rights and the success of other progressive ideals in the 1960s and 1970s that led to the creation of our current political parties. In fact, the modern socially conservative Republican party has its roots in the backlash to the Civil Rights Movement by white Americans who felt that they no longer identified with the Democratic Party-a party that had moved too far to the left and in so doing, left them behind.

Ironically, we have not learned much from history and find ourselves in the midst of another backlash to racial justice policies, this time in response to movements like Black Lives Matter which have worked to educate and spread awareness around systemic racism.

The plethora of restrictive voting laws proposed and passed in states throughout the country are emblematic of our nation’s current divisive and divided state. Politics is once again intervening in one of our fundamental rights as citizens-the right to vote. Voting is a fundamental right that all citizens possess and must therefore be guarded as much as any other constitutional right. With the inability of Congress to provide such protection, like in times before, this particular right will be left to the courts to decide.

Brooke Lehmann
Julian Brock and Hannah Byrum

11/15/2021

Just the Facts… The U.S. Wants Paid Family Leave, So Why Isn’t It Getting It?

As policymakers let out sighs of relief after passing the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal, we start to turn our attention away from what was passed and instead look at what wasn't. Although the Deal promises Americans funding to roads, bridges, and rails, and the expansion of access to clean drinking water and high-speed internet, it lacks tangible social policy investments-- among them, paid family and medical leave.
Although the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has demonstrated the unpredictability of illness and disease, the United States will, for the time being, continue to lack access to a permanent, comprehensive system of paid family and medical leave. While Congress addressed this need during the pandemic by providing temporary emergency paid sick leave and emergency paid child care leave to some workers through the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCA), there fails to be a permanent system in place for those who are sick and/or taking care of a newborn child. For workers without access to paid family and medical leave, they must often choose between recovering their health and caring for a loved one and keeping their job.
According to the Center for American Progress, only 20 percent of private-sector workers had access to paid family leave in 2020. In addition, low-wage workers are less likely to have access to different forms of paid leave. For instance, just 8 percent of workers in the bottom wage quartile-- who earn on average less than $14 an hour-- had access to paid family leave in 2020. Black and Hispanic workers are less likely than white, non-Hispanic workers to have access to paid family and medical leave. Furthermore, men are not guaranteed access to paternity leave upon the birth of a child, which has been demonstrated to promote parent-child bonding and can even increase gender equity at home. The equity implications are clear, and instituting a permanent paid family and medical policy would help to close these significant gaps.
Paid family and medical leave offers wide-ranging benefits for individual and public health outcomes that extend beyond the context of the pandemic. For instance, paid medical leave allows for workers to pursue necessary medical treatment earlier and better manage ongoing treatment. One study suggests that access to emergency paid sick leave may have helped curb COVID-19 transmission in the United States. Other studies indicate that paid family leave is linked to increased women’s workforce participation and decreased gender pay gaps. From these findings, it is important to acknowledge that access to paid sick leave can decrease the spread of infectious diseases, such as the flu, in the workplace, as fewer people will attend work while sick. Consequently, having access to paid medical leave has led workers to experience less stress from financial insecurity during the pandemic.
The case for paid family leave is well supported, so the question becomes: why doesn’t the US have paid family leave? Despite Biden campaigning on paid family leave, the Democrats have failed to rally majority support around the initiative. Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV), along with Republican senators, oppose incorporating paid family leave into the Build Back Better Act. Manchin expressed concerns over the cost of paid leave. The original proposal of 12 weeks of paid leave was slashed to 4 weeks. Paid leave was even cut from the act, only to be added back by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on November 3rd.
Although politicians are divided on paid family leave, the American public is not. According to a recent poll, over two-thirds of Americans support paid family leave. Another poll found that 74 percent of Republicans surveyed were in favor of paid leave programs.
Paid family leave may seem controversial in the US, but other countries see it differently. The US is one of only eight countries that does not guarantee paid maternity leave and the only high-income country without paid family leave.
Other countries’ paid leave policies are not new. In fact, many have been around for decades. In 1998, over 120 countries had some sort of paid maternity leave, if not parental leave. Sweden, the first country to offer parental leave rather than maternity leave, has been providing parents 68 weeks of paid leave since 1974.
Even the U.S. fight for paid leave spans a century. The International Congress of Working Women first demanded paid leave in 1919. This past month, as protestors for paid leave, gathered outside the capitol, their message was clear: paid family leave in the U.S. is long overdue. But if we cannot pass paid family leave now, then when?

Contributing Authors: Maya Ewart and Farah Schneider

11/08/2021

Just the Facts…. Words Matter: How post-COVID public policy has already begun to leave many behind

Words matter. The words we choose inform the points that we are trying to make, and the feelings we are trying to convey. In public policy, words represent our priorities. They form the legal constructs through which we engage with society. Such words regulate both our public and private lives and may do so for generations to come.

There are those among us, like myself, who spend their days and nights scrutinizing the complex web of policy jargon that forms our laws. We attribute meaning to each “may” and to each “shall,” and we agonize over the string of words that create the definition of an action or population. However, as advocates, our job is not only about analyzing words already transcribed, but also finding opportunities to create new words. To identify those moments when policies are being created and to work to ensure that the words that are chosen represent the priorities we are charged with fighting for. For me, and the thousands of others who strive to attain equity and parity for those with mental illness, that moment is now.

Many advocates have already emphasized the toll that the COVID pandemic has had on our nation’s mental health. This is a tremendous step forward as historically mental health has not been a part of our mainstream dialogue. In fact, only recently have mental health, and the various words ascribed to define it become part of our daily vernacular. And yet, as we emerge from the pandemic, public policy is not inclusive of the mental health emergency COVID leaves in its wake. It may seem a bit audacious of me to say such a thing when quite recently, policymakers have identified certain mental health diagnoses as underlying conditions that can lead to acute COVID responses and have identified “Long COVID” as a potential disability, linking it to federal resources and supports. But that’s just the point.

Our laws are shaped through a partnership between public priorities and the priorities and abilities of our lawmakers. At the moment, one of our collective priorities is “Long-COVID.” Although there remains no clear definition of what “Long-COVID” actually is— how it is diagnosed, treated, and paid for— these two words have already consumed legislators’ attention, secured federal funding, and become a possible disability under Section 504 of the Americans

with Disabilities Act. It is critically important that we gain a greater understanding of the constellation of symptoms that define Long COVID, and how we will provide relief to those who continue to suffer from the virus long after receiving a negative test. But our collective emphasis on this consequence of COVID has left seemingly little public and/or political will to legislate on behalf of those who may not have contracted the virus itself but have no doubt suffered irreparable harm. Words matter.

While fortunately there are those who have been spared the physical impacts of COVID and have remained virus-free, not a single person has been unscarred emotionally by the last 18 months. Trauma, grief, loss, isolation, and insecurity are just some of the circumstances and emotions that we all have in common when we think about COVID’s impact and the words and numbers prove this to be true. If we look at the status of children’s mental health, a population that has not contracted the virus at nearly the same levels as adults of any age, my contention is undeniable.

Over the last year, mental health-related emergency room visits rose 24 percent for children aged 5-11, and even higher, 31 percent, for youth ages 12-17.) From February to March of 2021, the mean weekly number of emergency room department visits for suspected su***de attempts was 50.6 percent higher than during the same period in 2020. Additionally, during the pandemic, 25% of young adults reported starting or increasing substance use while the number of those diagnosed with an eating disorder increased at the same rate. Perhaps even more alarming is the data recently released in the Journal of Pediatrics. The CDC estimates that 140,000 children who were orphaned by the pandemic during the period of April 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021. This figure does not even include the rising number of cases from the Delta variant, suggesting the total could now exceed 175,000. The emotional and psychological toll however is incalculable.

So, as an advocate for children and youth in need of mental health services, I’m left wondering: where are the appropriate words to address this crisis? Where is the COVID public policy that would create more access to mental health care? The policy that would help alleviate the workforce shortages and expand insurance coverage given this dramatic increase in need? Why instead have our legislators chosen to codify support for conditions lacking definition when the words and numbers illustrating the dire circumstances that our children and youth face leave no room for interpretation? What does the lack of these words say about our collective priorities? What does this suggest about “post-pandemic” COVID policy?

A pandemic is defined as “an outbreak of a disease that occurs over a wide geographic area and typically affects a significant proportion of the population: a pandemic outbreak of a disease.” Moving forward, we must be diligent in ensuring that the words “affect” and “population” are interpreted to include all of those who have been impacted by the COVID pandemic. Not a small task given that even those who have been spared from the physical disease, have been left to mourn what was, to live with loss, and to move forward carrying the emotional scars that none of us have escaped. Words matter more than ever.

Author: Brooke Lehmann MSW, Esq
Contributing Authors: Molly Hayes, Abigail Hawkins

09/17/2021

Our latest blog...

Just the Facts…. Another Inequity Emerges from the COVID Pandemic—Why the absence of mental health in our current definition of “Long COVID 19” matters to all of us.

The terms "Long COVID 19" or "Long Haulers" are being batted around among various public health communities as scientists and health providers attempt to define the lingering health impacts that some individuals experience after a positive diagnosis of the COVID virus. While still a very new area of scientific study, places like John's Hopkins, the Mayo Clinic, and the Cleveland Clinic use this terminology to encompass various ongoing symptoms. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has stated that "the most common lasting symptoms are fatigue, shortness of breath, cough, joint pain, and chest pain."

This is undoubtedly an area that warrants further investigation and study, particularly as the number of patients continues to rise, as do newer populations such as children and youth. To that end, the National Institute for Health (NIH) recently awarded a $470 billion award for building a national study to understand the longer-term health effects of COVID-19 better.*

While I applaud the public and private sectors for pursuing a greater understanding of what a "post-pandemic" world might look like for those with lingering physical health issues, there is a glaring mistake in all of this research and resource allocation; the apparent omission of behavioral and mental health. While I have come across one article in my research that discussed depression, it did so only within the context of patients who had spent time in the ICU. And while it is about time we begin to study the traumatic effects patients experience accessing and receiving medical care and the impact of managing emotional and physical symptoms of disease, there are so many others for whom the mental health effects of the pandemic will extend for a long period of time.

With 41.8 million cases and 67,822,000 deaths and counting, how can we ignore one of the very core aspects of being human--emotions? And for all of the health science that we conduct, we know that without consideration of a person's mental health status, we are left without a complete understanding of what the science is telling us.

To begin to appreciate the impact of COVID-19 on the emotional health of our nation, all we need to do is multiply the number of deaths with an approximation of the mothers, fathers, siblings, husbands, wives, partners, children, grandchildren, friends, and colleagues, that have been lost to this pandemic. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. What about those who have lost employment, housing, and perhaps access to food for their family? What about the children and youth who have spent a year or more isolated from their peers and without meaningful education opportunities during crucial developmental years?

For some, the grief, anxiety and, depression will dissipate over time as life begins to resume a new sense of normalcy. However, for others, the intensity of their experience will leave lasting, chronic scars that will require care, support, and appropriate treatment. Why then does the definition of "Long COVID-19" not include mental health as part of the list of lingering symptoms? Won't one's mental health, similarly to their physical health, impact their ability to work, care for their family, and return to school? Where are the resources for researching this constellation of post-COVID symptoms?

Sometimes data can better illustrate a point of view so let's turn to some numbers for a moment. The information below reflects children and youth ages 5-21. Why this population, when statistically speaking, they have not contracted COVID-19 nearly to the degree of adults (though the Delta variant is quickly changing that landscape)? Because the stark contrast between the number of children who have tested positive for the virus and the scope and depth of their mental health status should make us terrified of what adult populations are experiencing and what we are overlooking.

• 5.3 million children tested positive for COVID 19 as of September 7, 2021
• 43,000 children have lost a parent to COVID-19 (Just a parent. Not other family or friends)
• Emergency department visits for mental health crises rose 24% over the last year for children ages 5-11 and 31% for youth ages 12-17 as compared to the same time period in 2019.
• The cost of this ED increase is estimated to be $1.2 billion.
• Ninety-six thousand youth ages 12-17 reported having a substance use disorder over the past year, and 25% of the same age range reported starting or increasing substance use.
• From February of 2021-March of 2021, the mean weekly number of ED visits for suspected su***de attempts was 50.6% higher than during the same period in 2020.

And, I could go on. The COVID pandemic has lifted the veil on the gross inequities that remain within our public health system and, frankly, society at large. The fact that an individual's mental health remains in the shadows of their physical health is yet another example of this truth. And, as with the others, it's time for that to change.


Author: Brooke Lehmann
Co-Author-Cara Coleman




*

NIH launched the RECOVER Initiative to learn why some people have prolonged symptoms or develop new or returning symptoms after the acute phase of infection from SARS-CoV-2.

06/16/2021

Just the Facts…. The U.S. versus Britain in the race to reduce child poverty. They are winning, we are losing. Here’s what could change the balance.

This is a post written a few months ago, just after the passage of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARP). At the time, I was delighted by the legislation's mandates regarding the reduction of child poverty. Something frankly that I’ve been waiting to see for years! However, like all other advocates, my mind quickly moved on to the next policy, the next bill, the next legislative promise. And admittedly, I became rather myopic about what came next, fixating on the growing child and adolescent mental health epidemic and becoming rather disappointed in the lack of policy activity attempting to mitigate this life-or-death situation. However, I listened to a webinar yesterday on the impact that the ARP could have on reducing child poverty-which, by the way, costs this country 1 trillion dollars a year-and was reminded of the many groundbreaking provisions in this bill https://firstfocus.org/news/childrensweek-2021. So, to the extent that I can, I would like to draw attention to those provisions and help explain how the U.S. could achieve what Britain has already accomplished.

Let's begin with what has been happening across the pond for the last twenty years. In March of 1999, then Prime Minister Tony Blair committed the British government to a 20-year program to reduce child poverty by half of its current level. The plan focused on tackling societal dilemmas that contribute to child poverty, such as lack of health care, lack of adequate education, un/underemployment, as well as broader issues such as the need to restore a sense of mutual responsibility like that of the post-war era. Now -- twenty years later -- Britain's child poverty rate is half of what it was when Blair announced the initiative, and children across all income levels are faring better when measured for social and educational achievements. Back here in the U.S., advocates looked on with envy wondering why our government couldn't/wouldn't do the same thing. After all, our childhood poverty rates are embarrassing at best and tragic at worst. Finally, however, it appears as though our government has recognized not only the need for intervention but a comprehensive policy plan that could have a tremendous positive impact in this critical area. But can we really reduce poverty in this country? Haven't social welfare policies and programs been working towards this for centuries? The answer to these questions is, cautiously, a "yes" and a "yes." Let me explain.

On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act (ARP) of 2021 (H.R. 1319) into law. The $1.9 trillion package, based on President Biden's American Rescue Plan (his proposal versus what became the modified bill), is intended to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, including the public health and economic impacts. Buried in the 600-page bill and obscured by the debate over the removal of the $15 minimum wage provision, the recent $1.9 trillion stimulus bill contains an "extraordinary increase in safety net spending in the largest anti-poverty effort in a generation." In fact, the Center for Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University estimated that the package could reduce child poverty by 57% in just one year. So, just how would this happen?

The plan's most obvious anti-poverty measure is the "stimulus checks" or "direct" payments to families. Families who qualify and have children under the age of five will receive a total of $3,600.00 for one year through monthly payments. Families with children over the age of five will receive $3,000 per year and distributed in the same manner. While over the course of the pandemic the federal government has issued stimulus checks at other points in time, one of the critical distinctions between these checks versus others is the structure of the payment. By spreading the funding out over the course of the year, the hope is that families will plan their monthly income and expenses knowing that a fixed amount of funding will be available each month. This stability will enable those families to both purchase and save for basic needs and unexpected expenses.

However, the bill's benefits are much more comprehensive than just these payments. The American Rescue Plan also includes expanded funding for rental assistance and food stamp programs, a broadening of eligibility under the Affordable Care Act, and an increase in subsidies for unemployment benefits and childcare, and a significant commitment to early childhood education programs. To advocates working with this population, this bill holds tremendous promise. However, once enacted a bill goes through many processes that can alter its effect once implemented. So how do we know if this bill will succeed? We don’t. Much depends on the politics and the willingness of our government to continue to commit to these critical provisions. The success of Britain's commitment to ending child poverty was directly tied to support across the aisle. In 2010, the Child Poverty Bill, which re-emphasized Tony Blair's plan and established a non-governmental Child Poverty Commission to monitor progress, passed with the full and vocal support of both liberals and conservatives. On the other hand, the American Rescue Plan required congress to use a budget process known as reconciliation to increase the potential for its passage in a very narrowly divided Senate. In fact, the bill passed in that chamber by a vote of 49-50, meaning that no Republicans voted in support of the bill.

However, to be fair, the bill contained many controversial policy changes for both parties, so we cannot say with certainty that congressional members were voting against child poverty policies if they opposed the bill. And as far as voter and constituent support for the bill goes, as I mentioned earlier, the anti-child poverty provisions were not necessarily as visible as other aspects, nor frankly understandable to those who weren't looking for them and familiar with the issues. Still, the bill represents a sharp reversal of Trump's 2017 tax-cut package that mainly benefitted corporations and wealthy Americans. The ARP’s supporters hope that the American Rescue Plan represents Biden's commitment to stoking economic recovery through investing in low and middle-income Americans. "The American Rescue Plan is the most ambitious proposal to reduce child poverty ever proposed by an American president," Jason Furman, a Harvard economist, told Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times.

Columbia University researchers are hopeful that this could turn out to be one of the most effective anti-poverty laws in a generation, able to cut poverty overall by a third and child poverty by half in 2021. Tax credits for struggling parents, expanded medical care, and putting food in children's mouths could truly transform the country. Taken together, Biden's economic team is hoping that the benefits will power a rapid increase in economic growth made possible by directing money to people in need of immediate help versus those with the ability to save the funds for later use. "Focusing on marginalized workers," said Janelle Jones, the chief economist at the Labor Department, "is really the way to make sure we are lifting all boats."

Before the pandemic, the United States had one of the highest rates of child poverty in the world, and the economic devastation felt over the last year -- primarily by low and middle-income earners -- has only exacerbated this already dire situation. By enacting policies that impact a family's financial stability and therefore enabling the opportunities that follow, the U.S. may do what our allies have already done-- recognize that child poverty is the barometer of a nation's well-being, and at present, we are not a "well" nation.

*Contributing author: Lauren O’Neil

Every Issue is a kids issue