Tiger GPS: Government and Public Service Blog

IN TRUTH, THERE IS HOPE HERE by Erin Valentine Bussey

When I tell people I’m from Baltimore, the immediate follow-up question is almost always, “Is it really like The Wire?” Well, yes. Some of it is. We’re a majority African-American city where 20% of citizens live in poverty. One in 10 Baltimoreans suffers from addiction. There are few job opportunities, and the booming drug trade is a fast and reliable source of cash. Violence is the leading cause of death for young adults.

We reached a historic milestone this week in Baltimore. We’ve had 100 homicides in the first 107 days of 2022. There have been 201 non-fatal shootings. We’re now on track to record more than 300 homicides for the eighth straight year. We’ve got the second-highest murder rate in the country at 58 per 100,000.

Yes, it’s bad. We know it’s bad. And it’s very easy to normalize that level of violence as just a number and give in to hopelessness, especially when we’re being told over and over that we are hopeless. Donald Trump has called Baltimore a “disgusting, rat, and rodent-infested mess” where “no human being would want to live.”

In February, in a segment on the failure of democracy in the US, Fox News’s Tucker Carlson called the city “one of the worst places in the western hemisphere” and “a little bit of Haiti in the mid-Atlantic” that had gone from a “once beautiful city into a slum.”  He blamed Baltimore’s murder rate on Democrats’ progressive policing policies, saying, “In Baltimore, pretty much everyone in charge is black, yet it’s a matter of religious faith that the main thing holding the city back is white racism.” At the bottom of the screen, a chyron read, “Hellscape 40 Miles from the Nation’s Capital.”

He directed his comments at White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki. “You claim to care so deeply about African Americans…and yet here is one of the biggest black-majority cities in the United States. Tens of thousands of black people who live in Baltimore are in misery because their kids keep getting murdered.”

Reinforcing a narrative of fear about a majority-black city in peril from poverty and violence to push a political agenda is almost as harmful to Baltimore as the poverty and violence itself. The more we hear Baltimore referred to as a “slum,” the less hope we Baltimoreans have that things may ever change. Giving in to that mentality means that we have much less energy to create a dialog on more productive solutions, including Tucker Carlson’s suggestion to resume prosecuting low-level drug crimes.

In truth, there is hope here. Baltimore’s community-based movements are making an impact. The Safe Streets program puts volunteers on the streets to diffuse potentially violent disputes. Safe Streets says that in 2021 it mediated 935 conflicts that had the potential to become violent. Others still hope. City hospitals have united in the “Violence Intervention Program.” When a victim of violent crime is admitted to the hospital, they are paired with a caseworker who develops an action plan to create a strong support system designed to reduce the risk of violent re-offenses. At the University of Maryland Medical Center, at-risk youth spend a day in the Shock Trauma Center, where almost a quarter of all patients treated are victims of violence.

We know it’s bad. We know how it looks. People are fleeing the city in droves; our population has shrunk from nearly 1 million in the 1970s to only 580,000 in 2020. T. Rowe Price, Target, Barnes & Noble, and Holiday Inn have recently packed up and left downtown due to the city’s rising crime. You watched us destroy our own communities during the Freddie Gray riots in 2015.

We undoubtedly have some serious issues to address in Baltimore, including violence, blight, a failing education system, and corrupt police and politicians. We can’t hide it. But the last thing we need is for political outsiders to hold us up as a race-baiting pawn against the opposite party. We know you want us to fail, but we’re not going to be your punching bag. The truth is that we are still here, and we still have hope.

VALUE AS A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE by Mark Mellott

I have been thinking a great deal recently about organizational values. They are not just words… or they should not be. How do they guide what we are? Perhaps more importantly, who do we, as an organization, wish to be?

I just surpassed my first eight months as Chief Operating Officer for a large nonprofit, Global Connections to Employment (GCE). We are a bit different from many nonprofits. We not only provide training for our team members with significant disabilities, we then provide meaningful work, often in the form of large Department of Defense contracts. My company has many different lines of business. We compete with all types of companies. So how do we differentiate ourselves when competing with other for-profit and nonprofit companies? What provides our company a competitive advantage in the market place?

A competitive advantage can be differences in cost or other differentiators in service delivery and strategy. Because of our Mission of “Helping People Throughout Life’s Journey,” it is difficult to be the absolute least expensive alternative in a contract bid. We are competitive on price, but that is not what makes us special. We focus on accommodations for our differently-abled team members and ensuring living wages. So what separates us and makes us great… the choice for our customers? I would argue that our competitive advantage is adherence to Values.

We talk about this all the time. Our organization’s values are our V.O.I.C.E.S (Values = Ownership, Integrity, Compassion, Excellence, and Service). I see our values at work all the time and at every level of the company. From our daily lineups via Zoom, to the incredible work being accomplished both remotely as well as at multiple customer sites, now in 26 States. This team embodies and lives our values!

As some of you know, I spent over 24 years in the US Army. I was both proud and humbled to serve my Country. The Army, as an institution, is at its core a values-based organization. Many times, we dealt in operations surrounded by ambiguity and with imperfect information. What drove us to be the best military force in the world? Our shared values. That is what made us strong and pulled people from all walks of life, together.

GCE is also a values-based organization. We continue to strive to be the best version of ourselves… to live our values. Our values drive us to strengthen who we are and strive to be. Our values, our V.O.I.C.E.S. are our competitive advantage.

Be well and stay safe!

FROM A FIRE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE TO FEMA by Jennifer Thackston

The first act of Federal disaster relief in American history was through the Congressional Act of 1803 following a devastating fire through a seaport town in New Hampshire in 1802. The assistance was in the form of suspended bond payments for the merchants affected by the fire, as the areas of the seaport that was destroyed threatened commerce throughout the northeast. Devastating fires remained a significant hazard for cities in the 19th century in which more ad hoc legislation addressed incidents on a case-by-case basis; most often in the form of an authorized suspension of financial obligations for disaster survivors.

Public opinion began shifting with the rise of the Progressive Era demanding reform and regulations in the early 1900s. Demands rose for greater government action out of response to the lack of federal assistance provided to the relief efforts related to the Galveston Hurricane in 1900 and the San Francisco Earthquake in 1906. Several significant floods between 1849 and 1936 moved Congress to enact federal flood control measures. Federal resources were sent to integrate into the efforts of the American Red Cross and private sector groups during the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, making it the first time the Federal Government directly assisted in disaster response and recovery efforts.

Hoover later became President in 1929 and was able to push flood control work as a legitimate federal activity and used it as an unemployment relief measure. The Hoover administration provided a bridge between the Republican Era of the 1920s and the New Deal concerning flood control legislation. The New Deal initiatives involved the federal government in areas of American life that previously belonged to local and state governments. In doing so, it constructed a social safety net to support a long period of growth and prosperity. The New Deal was incremental, as well as experimental, as seen by the quick implementation of the National Labor Relations Act as an alternative solution to address the inadequacies and failures of the National Industrial Recovery Act.

Congress enacted to Federal Disaster Assistance Program in 1950, which authorized the federal government to respond to major disasters. The New Deal era lasted until the onset of the Cold War. By the late 1970s, several areas of the federal government were involved in disaster relief resulting in federal agencies shuffling tasks around as responsibilities were shared. Parallel programs and policies at the state and local levels further fragmented emergency and disaster efforts within an already confusing system facing internal and external political power struggles. The implications of a decentralized concept were not immediately apparent since the system seemed to work relatively well for small to moderate disasters.

The desired objective of consolidating agencies to form a singular overall coordinator of federal disaster relief and preparedness efforts was achieved through the establishment of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the lead federal disaster preparedness and relief agency in 1979. The unanticipated consequences because of federal resources remaining dispersed amongst agencies suggest the coordination effort did nothing to overhaul how disasters are handled in the United States. Policymakers expect this in the process and therefore are poised for the next incremental step, which in this case was through several reforms in 1993, where the reduction of Cold War era resource allocation could be shifted over to disaster relief, recovery, and mitigation programs. Through FEMA, the federal government continues to redefine and reconsider the strategy and tactics needed to carry out the mission and vision of the agency as it relates to preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation.

CANNABIS EQUALITY IN ILLINOIS by Ante Puljic

On January 1, 2020, the use of recreational marijuana became legal in the state of Illinois (410 ILCS 705/ Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act). I am not a big fan of the legalization of marijuana, and no, it’s not for any moral reasons, or the fact I was on the loosing side on the war on drugs. The sole reason being is that I feel as if this law is just a money grab. Rather than figure out how to bring good paying industries back to Illinois, many jobs have left over the years. Illinois law makers figured they’d rather legalize marijuana to collect the tax revenue to fix Illinois financial crisis caused by the law makers and their poor fiscal habits. Regardless of how I feel, recreational marijuana use is legal in Illinois and if the tax revenue keeps flowing, then it will remain a law.

The state of Illinois is unique from other states with legalized recreational cannabis use in that there are provisions in the IL law for equality in the Cannabis Industry, meaning areas of high crime and poverty will get assistance from the state with regards to obtaining distribution licenses, as well as provide low interest loans to qualified applicants who want to get into the industry. The law also provides relief for individuals who have been arrested in the past for minor drug offenses by expunging their records. The legislation covers who is legally allowed to use cannabis and the amounts they can possess. Employers’ rights are covered under the law as well, for example an employer may opt to have a “no drug use policy” and is protected by the law and an employer has the right to terminate employment if an employee violates a work place drug policy. Cultivation centers are regulated form how they are constructed, as well as the product needing to be tested based on state regulations. The law covers how the product is to be taxed and how the money is to be distributed throughout the state.

Over the last 80 years attitudes towards the legalization of marijuana have changed. In 2014, medical use of marijuana became legal followed by the legalization of recreational marijuana in 2020. Given the revenue stream as well as a new industry being created, this law is here to stay although I feel as if more should be done to bring other sources of revenue to the state and not just rely on this source on income.

SANCTUARY CITIES? by Ed Pearce

As we recognize throughout our policy study, there are usually clear separations in political views with policy agendas. Views on immigration are no different. A June 2015 PEW Research Center trends study found that 71% of Republicans say immigrants in the U.S. are making crime worse, compared to just 34% of Democrats. The same view is reflected in how Republicans see immigrants’ contribution to the economy: 71% of Republicans say immigrants make the economy worse, compared to 34% of Democrats. There has always been a focus on the risk that immigrants bring to the U.S. and its citizens from a Republican standpoint, contrasted with one of the benefits or the need to help the immigrants in the Democrats’ view. I believe both parties want to help immigrants, but I also recognize a need to ensure the overall safety of our country and its citizens. One belief that both parties tend to have in common is that U.S. immigration policies are weak and need attention.

Even more differences are evident between states, cities, and municipalities. There are major differences in the way that three states are handling “sanctuary cities.” California has laws in place to support the legal concerns of immigrants and plans to increase the size of detention centers to support the immigration population increase. Texas is implementing laws to charge city officials if they do not comply with state laws and other enforcement measures.   Florida falls somewhere between both extremes, with cities throughout Florida having the ability to set their own immigration measures (as reported by NBC News in October 2017).

The policy of policing undocumented immigrants is quite controversial. No one wants to rip families apart and separate those who love each other the most; however, the safety of all citizens is the priority. As a country, we have so many people incarcerated for minor crimes. If we are looking closely at how to help as many undocumented immigrants as possible stay with their families, perhaps the same concept should be true for all citizens. For sanctuary cities to claim that police relationships are so important as one of their proclaimed reasons for resisting offering assistance, many of those very cities struggle with racial divides among police and the citizens. This area of policy is one that will need to be addressed at all levels of government to be successful. I do not feel that the federal government can make progress without the buy-in at the state levels, and the states getting support from their cities and municipalities. It’s one of those wonderful areas of policy where true collaboration between all actors is going to make it successful for everyone.