No result found
US Water Alliance;
Access to water and sanitation services should not hinge on background, geography, or how much money someone makes—but it often does. Studies show that between 2012 and 2019, local water bills increased 31 percent nationally, far outpacing inflation and the consumer price index. Historical declines in federal support for water infrastructure have made this trend even worse. Local officials and water utility leaders have had no choice but to raise local water and sewer rates to pay for the needed operation, capital, and maintenance costs. Without federal and state support, local water and wastewater rates have increasingly become unaffordable for millions of Americans, and utilities have operated with outdated billing systems and often struggled to enroll low-income residents into the modest assistance available.Financial stress incurred by the COVID-19 pandemic and economic crisis has brought water affordability into sharp focus, and innovators have been seeking solutions to meet their communities' rising needs. The water and wastewater utilities in Louisville, Kentucky, provide one such case. Louisville shows how new, smarter solutions to bill relief are helping people in need while improving the utility-customer relationship by balancing care, bill assistance, and debt relief with needed revenue stability to maintain essential water systems. This case study explores key facets of the challenge, what Louisville achieved for its residents, and how the city's approach provides a model for other utilities to consider as they move forward. Sections discuss: How traditional customer assistance efforts have failed to meet customer needs, struggled with enrollment, and overlooked their fundamental purpose of guarding against revenue instability.What a modern, user-friendly approach to bill assistance looks like and how, combined with compassionate messaging, it can shift utility-customer payment and service relationship for the better.Why establishing innovative bill assistance options is especially wise given current and future federal funding opportunities to provide debt relief.Longer-term actions the federal government should prioritize to make safe, reliable water and wastewater service affordable for all.
University of Louisville;
This report describes and compares bench and fugitive warrant arrests in Jefferson County, Kentucky (hereinafter Louisville Metro) and the City of St. Louis, Missouri during the period 2006 to 2019. The report is based on two site-specific reports that focus on the individual jurisdictions (see "Warrant Arrests in the City of St. Louis: 2002 –2019" and "Examining Warrant Arrests in Jefferson County, Kentucky: 2006 to 2019" for additional details). The goal is to shed light on the enforcement of warrants, which are a large part of policing practice. This comparative approach provides insight into variability in the levels and nature of warrant arrests in communities with differing legal contexts and government structures. This report is a starting point to understand trends in warrant enforcement across two jurisdictions with similar social and economic landscapes. It is our hope that the findings are useful for stakeholders as they consider ways to make the criminal legal system more efficient and equitable.
In this report, we examine how seven states use state policy levers to advance policy change to improve the quality of school principals. These states are all actively engaging in a collaborative initiative focused on principal preparation program redesign. We consider the following questions, drawing on data about the use of various policy levers in the states:How does a state's context shape its use of policy levers to improve principal quality? What policy levers are states using, how are the levers used, and what policy changes have states made that affect the way levers are used? What supports the effective use of policy levers?What are the barriers to and facilitators of policy change?All seven states in the study were part of The Wallace Foundation's University Principal Preparation Initiative (UPPI). Launched in 2016, UPPI is supporting seven university-based principal preparation programs to work in collaboration with their district and state partners to redesign and improve the programs to better support the development of effective principals. The programs were chosen for the initiative, in part, because they were located in states that had favorable conditions for supporting principal quality. In addition, the programs had expressed interest in and already conducted some initial work toward redesigning their principal preparation programs. The UPPI programs and their respective states are Albany State University (Georgia), Florida Atlantic University (Florida), North Carolina State University (North Carolina), San Diego State University (California), the University of Connecticut (Connecticut), Virginia State University (Virginia), and Western Kentucky University (Kentucky).We drew on three data sources for this analysis: (1) biannual interviews with UPPI participants, (2) interviews with state-level stakeholders across the seven UPPI states, and (3) relevant secondary data, such as state plans, state licensure requirements, state legislation, reports from state departments of education, and research literature on school leadership. In this report, we focus on seven policy levers that states can use to improve school leadership. The first six of these were drawn from research as described by Manna (2015), and the seventh was derived from Grissom, Mitani, and Woo (2019): setting principal standardsrecruiting aspiring principals into the professionlicensing new and veteran principals approving and overseeing principal preparation programssupporting principals' growth with professional development evaluating principalsusing leader tracking systems to support analysis of aspiring and established school leaders' experiences and outcomes.
Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice;
Sentences imposed in Kentucky are for a specific number of years (i.e. "three years"); referred to as a "fixed" sentence in state statute. Kentucky does not have sentencing guide-lines or a sentencing commission. Parole was first authorized in Kentucky in 1888. In 1900, the Board of Prison Commissioners was granted releasing authority. A full-time parole board was established in 1962 and, most recently, was expanded to nine members in 2010. In 2011, HB 463 (the Offender Accountability Act) passed; as a result, parole release now requires risk and needs assessment, parolees can complete some correctional programming in the community, and many other changes have been made. In 2012, some provisions were modified by HB 54, a bill that allowed the Department of Corrections to set special conditions of parole based on risk assessment. Finally, in 2015, SB 192 modified parole release for some serious heroin offenses and now requires cost calculations for reentry services for those with opiate or other drug addictions.
Violence Policy Center;
This study examines the problem of black homicide victimization at the state level by analyzing unpublished Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) data for black homicide victimization submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The information used for this report is for the year 2017. This is the first analysis of the 2017 data on black homicide victims to offer breakdowns of cases in the 10 states with the highest black homicide victimization rates and the first to rank the states by the rate of black homicide victims.It is important to note that the SHR data used in this report comes from law enforcement reporting at the local level. While there are coding guidelines followed by the law enforcement agencies, the amount of information submitted to the SHR system, and the interpretation that results in the information submitted (for example, gang involvement) will vary from agency to agency. This study is limited by the quantity and degree of detail in the information submitted.
Data Collaborative for Justice at John Jay College;
This paper, which is a product of DCJ's Research Network on Misdemeanor Justice ("the Research Network"), examines long-term trends in lower-level enforcement across seven U.S. jurisdictions: Durham, NC; Los Angeles, CA; Louisville, KY; New York City, NY; Prince George's County; MD; Seattle, WA; and St. Louis, MO. It draws both on reports that were produced through partnerships between local researchers and criminal justice agency partners as well as updated data the Research Network has published through an interactive online dashboard. The paper analyzed cross-jurisdictional trends in enforcement, including misdemeanor arrest rates broadly, by demographics (race/age/sex), and by charge.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation;
Little research has been done on adolescent pregnancy programming designed to meet the needs of rural youth. To address this research gap, the Administration for Children and Families funded Mathematica Policy Research to conduct a rigorous evaluation of an adapted version of the comprehensive teen pregnancy prevention curriculum Reducing the Risk in collaboration with the Kentucky Department of Public Health. The study focuses on the implementation of Reducing the Risk by two local health departments that delivered the curriculum in high schools in a relatively low-income, mostly rural region in central and southwestern Kentucky. Programming was funded through the state's Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) grant, which provides federal funding for teen pregnancy prevention services. Reducing the Risk identifies abstinence as the most effective way to avoid STDs and unintended pregnancy, but also provides information on contraceptive methods. The two local health departments that participated in the study successfully delivered the curriculum to hundreds of youth in their service regions during the study period. These results suggest that delivering an abstinence and contraceptive education curriculum in rural high schools is feasible and can fill a pressing need.
Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky;
This slide show accompanied Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky President and CEO Ben Chandler's testimony to the Interim Joint Committee on Health, Welfare, and Family Services. The data includes the state's health rankings, risks and deaths for diabetes, obesity, heart disease, cancer and other diseases.
Working Poor Families Project;
This policy brief reports on the first three years of an initiative to work directly with five WPFP state partners in AR, CO, GA, KY, and NC to enhance their state's commitment and ability to serve and support adults and children collectively as well as drive local programs to do so by reviewing the efforts of the five state partners. After first providing more background on Two-Generation efforts across the U.S. in recent years, this brief discusses: 1) the WPFP concept and approach to the initiative; 2) the work of the five state partners, including the state systems identified for this work and specific items identified for improvement within those systems as well as progress to date; and 3) lessons learned and observations of this work with a clear recognition of the challenges and complexities inherent in undertaking systems change work.
This memo estimates the impact on children and the cost to the State of Kentucky of Senate Bill 68, "The Child Welfare Adoption Act," which would prohibit unmarried cohabiting couples -- including both different-sex couples and same-sex couples -- from fostering or adopting children. We use past data to estimate the number of children in foster care who were placed with unmarried couples as a way to estimate the number of impacted children in the first year the proposed legislation would take effect. Prohibiting unmarried couples from fostering or adopting would reduce the number of foster and adoptive families available to care for the 7,027 children currently in foster care. We estimate that 630 foster children will be removed from their current homes and placements during the first year that the ban is in effect. In addition, 85 children in foster care will either not be adopted or remain in foster care longer because the ban will prohibit their adoption by unmarried couples. As a result, the ban will cost the State of Kentucky over $5.3 million in the first year. As explained below, this estimate is conservative since some likely additional costs are difficult to quantify.
Feeding America (formerly America's Second Harvest);
This report presents information on the clients and agencies served by America's Second Harvest of Kentucky's Heartland. The information is drawn from a national study, Hunger in America 2010, conducted in 2009 for Feeding America (FA) (formerly America's Second Harvest), the nation's largest organization of emergency food providers. The national study is based on completed in-person interviews with more than 62,000 clients served by the FA national network, as well as on completed questionnaires from more than 37,000 FA agencies. The study summarized below focuses on emergency food providers and their clients who are supplied with food by food banks in the FA network. Key Findings: The FA system served by America's Second Harvest of Kentucky's Heartland provides emergency food for an estimated 125,500 different people annually.30% of the members of households served by America's Second Harvest of Kentucky's Heartland are children under 18 years old (Table 5.3.2).21% of households include at least one employed adult (Table 5.7.1).Among households with children, 73% are food insecure and 25% are food insecure with very low food security (Table 22.214.171.124).41% of clients served by America's Second Harvest of Kentucky's Heartland report having to choose between paying for food and paying for utilities or heating fuel (Table 6.5.1).34% had to choose between paying for food and paying for medicine or medical care (Table 6.5.1).41% of households served by America's Second Harvest of Kentucky's Heartland report having at least one household member in poor health (Table 8.1.1)America's Second Harvest of Kentucky's Heartland included approximately 182 agencies at the administration of this survey, of which 161 have responded to the agency survey. Of the responding agencies, 128 had at least one food pantry, soup kitchen, or shelter.69% of pantries, 64% of kitchens, and 38% of shelters are run by faith-based agencies affiliated with churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations (Table 10.6.1).Among programs that existed in 2006, 86% of pantries, 100% of kitchens, and 88% of shelters of America's Second Harvest of Kentucky's Heartland reported that there had been an increase since 2006 in the number of clients who come to their emergency food program sites (Table 10.8.1).Food banks are by far the single most important source of food for agencies with emergency food providers, accounting for 79% of the food distributed by pantries, 47% of the food distributed by kitchens, and 31% of the food distributed by shelters (Table 13.1.1).As many as 97% of pantries, 66% of kitchens, and 62% of shelters in America's Second Harvest of Kentucky's Heartland use volunteers (Table 13.2.1).
Feeding America (formerly America's Second Harvest);
This report presents information on the clients and agencies served by God's Pantry Food Bank, Inc. The information is drawn from a national study, Hunger in America 2010, conducted in 2009 for Feeding America (FA) (formerly America's Second Harvest), the nation's largest organization of emergency food providers. The national study is based on completed in-person interviews with more than 62,000 clients served by the FA national network, as well as on completed questionnaires from more than 37,000 FA agencies. The study summarized below focuses on emergency food providers and their clients who are supplied with food by food banks in the FA network.Key Findings: The FA system served by God's Pantry Food Bank, Inc provides emergency food for an estimated 186,500 different people annually.39% of the members of households served by God's Pantry Food Bank, Inc are children under 18 years old (Table 5.3.2).26% of households include at least one employed adult (Table 5.7.1).Among households with children, 78% are food insecure and 36% are food insecure with very low food security (Table 126.96.36.199).38% of clients served by God's Pantry Food Bank, Inc report having to choose between paying for food and paying for utilities or heating fuel (Table 6.5.1).27% had to choose between paying for food and paying for medicine or medical care (Table 6.5.1).47% of households served by God's Pantry Food Bank, Inc report having at least one household member in poor health (Table 8.1.1)God's Pantry Food Bank, Inc included approximately 209 agencies at the administration of this survey, of which 208 have responded to the agency survey. Of the responding agencies, 152 had at least one food pantry, soup kitchen, or shelter.67% of pantries, 67% of kitchens, and 42% of shelters are run by faith-based agencies affiliated with churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations (Table 10.6.1).Among programs that existed in 2006, 77% of pantries, 67% of kitchens, and 72% of shelters of God's Pantry Food Bank, Inc reported that there had been an increase since 2006 in the number of clients who come to their emergency food program sites (Table 10.8.1).Food banks are by far the single most important source of food for agencies with emergency food providers, accounting for 76% of the food distributed by pantries, 31% of the food distributed by kitchens, and 21% of the food distributed by shelters (Table 13.1.1).As many as 98% of pantries, 83% of kitchens, and 73% of shelters in God's Pantry Food Bank, Inc use volunteers (Table 13.2.1).