Category: Testimony

Family Leave Expansion Is Good for Business, Improving Retention and Reducing Labor Costs

Posted on by Peter Chen

Good morning, Chair and thank you to the committee for allowing me to testify today. Despite lobbyist claims to the contrary, family leave expansion is good for business, improving retention and reducing labor costs.

1) When family leave and job protection expand, businesses show no negative effects and report slightly positive impact on employer ability to deal with employee absences. Two large studies on employers in states with paid leave show that the vast majority of businesses show no negative impact on their business operations. Most employers report positive or “no effect” on business outcomes. Smaller businesses were actually less likely to report negative effects.

New Jersey-specific research from the initial implementation of paid leave showed similar results, showing minimal impact on profitability, productivity, or turnover after paid leave

2) Most businesses support, rather than oppose, expansions in family leave protection. Despite business interest group opposition to paid leave expansion, surveys of actual businesses routinely show majority support for increasing paid family leave. In one poll from 2017, surveyed small business owners (who were disproportionately white, male, and Republican) showed 71% support for expanding job protection to smaller businesses.

3) Family leave use helps, rather than hurts, small businesses. Research from other states shows that small firms experience a reduction in labor costs when workers use paid leave.

As prior testimony and legislator statements made clear, turnover at small firms can be much more damaging than at large firms where employees are more easily replaced. But this actually militates in favor of family leave job protection at small firms, because encouraging paid leave lowers turnover and increases retention of employees. When leave was implemented, wage costs did not go up, while turnover rates went down, with no effect on firm closure.

The doomsday scenarios painted by the business lobby have not come to pass in previous family leave and job protection expansion, nor in states without New Jersey’s onerous job protection restrictions.

Arbitrary Time Limits on Emergency Assistance Prevent New Jerseyans From Receiving Supports They Need

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Good afternoon Chairman Sarlo and members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide my testimony on the proposed extension of Emergency Assistance eligibility. My name is Dr. Brittany Holom-Trundy, and I am a senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). NJPP is a non-partisan, non-profit research institution that focuses on policies that can improve the lives of low- and middle-income people, strengthen our state’s economy, and enhance the quality of life in New Jersey.

NJPP strongly supports the eligibility extension proposed in S3960, which continues an exemption from the 12-month lifetime limit of Emergency Assistance — which, notably, is only ⅕ of the lifetime limit for other Work First New Jersey assistance — for residents who are disproportionately harmed by economic and health crises. This includes WFNJ participants and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries who have disabilities, who are full-time caretakers of dependents with disabilities, who are over 60 years old, who chronically face barriers to employment.

When the original bill passed in 2018, OLS estimated that thousands of families each year would benefit from the relief that this exemption provides. This means that, without this exemption, thousands of New Jerseyans who are most in need and living in the most devastating conditions would face homelessness; only arbitrarily set time limits would prevent them from receiving help, despite regular reviews of their need for the assistance.

The 2018 law was estimated to cost $5 million per year to help these families remain in their homes as they navigate crises. As this exemption from arbitrary cutoffs is limited to particular groups and the average grant amount in Emergency Assistance overall (across all participants, not just those with this exemption) only makes up approximately one month’s worth of rent at a time, the cost remains a relatively small investment for the state — but one with important, life-changing results.

The state should never let itself slip backward in its support for families, and the law’s sunsetting demands urgent action. We have not met the goals laid out when this exemption was first introduced — we continue to see an affordable housing crisis and devastating homelessness — and therefore, it does not make sense to let this exemption sunset and punish the participants who rely on this assistance. We should not force people with disabilities, people with dependents who have disabilities, the elderly, and other families faced with crisis out of their homes and onto the street.

While the Work First New Jersey programs need significant reform to avoid these urgent legislative demands in the future, this bridge remains critical for maintaining progress for families until those larger changes are made.

We hope that the committee will advance the extension of these crucial services today. Thank you for your time.

Fines and Fees Disproportionately Harm Low-Income Families

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Good afternoon, Chairman Sarlo, Vice Chair Cunningham, and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Marleina Ubel, and I am a senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank focused on advancing economic, social, and racial justice for New Jersey residents.

I am here to express NJPP’s strong opposition to S3954. While I fully acknowledge the importance of addressing underage drinking and its potential consequences, the provisions outlined in this bill will have unintended and detrimental effects on young individuals and their families.

The proposed increase in penalties, particularly the imposition of a $100 or $50 fine for underage possession or consumption of alcohol, is overly punitive and not grounded in evidence. In fact, fines have been shown to not be effective deterrents, especially for teens. On top of that, rather than addressing the root causes of underage drinking, such as social, familial, or economic factors, the bill seems to focus solely on punitive measures which will not lead to the desired outcome of reducing alcohol-related issues among young people. In fact, this punitive approach could perpetuate a cycle of financial strain for families already facing economic challenges, potentially exacerbating the very issues the bill seeks to address.

Moreover, because these fines disproportionately fall on low-income families who are the least likely to be able to afford to pay, they often cost much more in administrative costs than they produce in revenue, increasing the burden on our already burdened court system.

The proposed fine also raises questions about fairness and equity, as it fails to account for the diverse socio-economic backgrounds of young individuals who may engage in underage drinking. There is no racial impact statement for this bill, but if there were, it would likely show you that Black and brown communities are the most likely to receive these fines. Without a nuanced understanding of the underlying factors contributing to this behavior, imposing a flat fine is a misguided attempt at addressing a complex societal issue – one that could leave poor families spiraling while others barely feel the effect.

I live in a small, relatively wealthy town. Since I moved there years ago, long before the decriminalization of cannabis, if youth were engaging in underage drinking or substance use or otherwise disruptive behavior, police never arrested them. They called their parents. They took them home without handcuffs on. The law this bill is seeking to undermine just affords the privilege that wealthy families already enjoy to everyone.

I implore you to reconsider the punitive nature of the proposed fine and to instead focus on evidence-based approaches to tackling underage drinking. Comprehensive educational programs, community outreach, and support services have been proven to be more effective in addressing the root causes of this issue.

Thank you for your attention to this crucial matter.

Civilian Complaint Review Boards Foster Transparency, Fairness, and Safety in Policing Practices

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Good morning, Chairwoman Sumter, Vice Chair Verrelli, and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Marleina Ubel, and I am a policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank focused on advancing economic, social, and racial justice for New Jersey residents.

I am here to express NJPP’s strong support for A1515, which allows municipalities to establish Civilian Complaint Review Boards (CCRBs). We believe that the establishment of these boards is crucial for fostering transparency, fairness, and safety in policing practices, ultimately promoting positive relations between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

And while I appreciate the positive strides this bill takes in enhancing police accountability and am thrilled to see the inclusion of subpoena power and that disciplinary recommendations carry weight, I would like to urge you to consider the following three points:

Statewide Application: A1515 should be enacted as a statewide bill to ensure that all communities across the state benefit from the establishment of CCRBs.

Concurrent Investigatory Power: The 120 day delay included in the bill undermines the goals of this legislation, namely trust, transparency, and accountability. Concurrent investigatory power is necessary to empower CCRBs to initiate and conduct investigations simultaneously with internal affairs units, preventing delays and ensuring a prompt and impartial inquiry into alleged misconduct. Moreover, members of the public are less likely to report complaints to the board if they do not trust that the board has the power to fully investigate their complaint.

And finally, CCRBs should be reflective of the communities they serve. A community-driven approach ensures diverse perspectives, enhances trust, and promotes transparency. The inclusion of community members on CCRBs is fundamental to building bridges between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

I also just want to address the concerns around police recruitment. End of year state trooper counts are expected to be higher than they have been in almost a decade, and New Jersey has almost double the national average of police officers to population. The national average is about two police officers for every thousand people, and in New Jersey we have roughly four police officers for every thousand people.

In conclusion, I strongly urge you to support A1515 and to consider these recommendations. By enacting this legislation with the aforementioned provisions, we can build a more accountable, transparent, and community-oriented law enforcement system in our state. And most importantly, a safer one.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Civilian Complaint Review Boards (CCRBs) Foster Transparency, Fairness, and Safety in Policing Practices

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Good morning, Chairwoman Sumter, Vice Chair Verrelli, and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Marleina Ubel, and I am a policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank focused on advancing economic, social, and racial justice for New Jersey residents.

I am here to express NJPP’s strong support for A1515, which allows municipalities to establish Civilian Complaint Review Boards (CCRBs). We believe that the establishment of these boards is crucial for fostering transparency, fairness, and safety in policing practices, ultimately promoting positive relations between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

And while I appreciate the positive strides this bill takes in enhancing police accountability and am thrilled to see the inclusion of subpoena power and that disciplinary recommendations carry weight, I would like to urge you to consider the following three points:

Statewide Application: A1515 should be enacted as a statewide bill to ensure that all communities across the state benefit from the establishment of CCRBs.

Concurrent Investigatory Power: The 120 day delay included in the bill undermines the goals of this legislation, namely trust, transparency, and accountability. Concurrent investigatory power is necessary to empower CCRBs to initiate and conduct investigations simultaneously with internal affairs units, preventing delays and ensuring a prompt and impartial inquiry into alleged misconduct. Moreover, members of the public are less likely to report complaints to the board if they do not trust that the board has the power to fully investigate their complaint.

And finally, CCRBs should be reflective of the communities they serve. A community-driven approach ensures diverse perspectives, enhances trust, and promotes transparency. The inclusion of community members on CCRBs is fundamental to building bridges between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

I also just want to address the concerns around police recruitment. End of year state trooper counts are expected to be higher than they have been in almost a decade, and New Jersey has almost double the national average of police officers to population. The national average is about two police officers for every thousand people, and in New Jersey we have roughly four police officers for every thousand people.

In conclusion, I strongly urge you to support A1515 and to consider these recommendations. By enacting this legislation with the aforementioned provisions, we can build a more accountable, transparent, and community-oriented law enforcement system in our state. And most importantly, a safer one.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Family Leave Expansion Would Advance Equity and Eliminate Fear of Retaliation for All of New Jersey’s Workers

Posted on by Peter Chen

Every worker in New Jersey deserves the right to take paid family leave to bond with a new child or care for a loved one. No worker should fear losing their job to care for their ill parent, or spend precious weeks with a newborn. Certainly something as arbitrary as the size of their employer should not dictate whether they can take family leave without fear of discipline or termination.

As NJPP’s June 2023 report More Than One in Five New Jersey Workers Can Still Be Fired for Taking Paid Family Leave noted, over 800,000 workers in New Jersey can be fired for taking family leave. This should never be the case.

A-5611 takes a step towards protecting this right, but the proposed amendment to the bill still leaves businesses with fewer than 5 employees unprotected – nearly 200,000 workers or 5 percent of the total workforce.

Additionally, the Family Leave Act still has gaps for coverage for workers with less than 1,000 hours worked in the last 12 months or workers who have worked for their employer for less than one year. Roughly 400,000 New Jersey workers — or 10 percent of the workforce — worked fewer than 1,000 hours and therefore did not get job protection. Workers with fewer hours nonetheless need job protection to take time to care for their loved ones.

One recent federal proposal, the Job Protection Act, would eliminate the hours requirement and reduce the tenure requirement to 90 days for the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

Job protection alone also does not solve the many remaining gaps in coverage in the paid family leave insurance program (FLI). The comprehensive A-5703 addresses many of these concerns in one package that should move alongside A-5611 to ensure that all workers who have an ill loved one or new child to bond with have access to paid time off of work.

Without adequate job protection for all workers and other program improvements detailed in A-5703, family leave runs the risk of becoming a luxury product for higher-income workers, rather than a benefit that all workers can use. Every worker in New Jersey should be able to take family leave without fear of economic penalties.

Extending Emergency Assistance Would Help New Jersey Residents Avoid Hunger and Homelessness

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Good afternoon Chairwoman Jimenez and members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide my testimony on the proposed extension of Emergency Assistance eligibility. My name is Dr. Brittany Holom-Trundy, and I am a senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). NJPP is a non-partisan, non-profit research institution that focuses on policies that can improve the lives of low- and middle-income people, strengthen our state’s economy, and enhance the quality of life in New Jersey.

NJPP strongly supports the eligibility extension proposed in A5549, which continues an exemption from the 12-month lifetime limit of Emergency Assistance — which, notably, is only ⅕ of the lifetime limit for other Work First New Jersey assistance — for residents who are disproportionately harmed by economic and health crises. This includes those who have disabilities, who are full-time caretakers of dependents with disabilities, who are over 60 years old, and who chronically face barriers to employment.

When the original bill passed in 2018, OLS estimated that thousands of families each year benefit from the relief that this exemption provides. As that was a pre-pandemic evaluation, it can be estimated that even more families need this help today. This means that, without this exemption, thousands of New Jerseyans who are most in need and living in the most devastating conditions would face homelessness and hunger; only arbitrarily set time limits would prevent them from receiving help. Because crises are unpredictable, these time limits back families disproportionately at risk into a corner whenever they face disaster: they end up either pressured to decide whether to use some of their very limited assistance time or they are cut off from aid simply for facing greater hardship than allowed.

The state should never let itself slip backward in its support for families, and the law’s sunsetting demands urgent action. While the Work First New Jersey programs need significant reform to avoid these urgent legislative demands in the future, this bridge remains critical for maintaining progress for families until those larger changes are made. We hope that the committee will advance the extension of these crucial services today. Thank you for your time.

Building on Existing Programs Will Help Support New Jersey’s Families

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Good afternoon, Commissioner and DHS team. Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on the FY 2025 budget for the Department of Human Services. My name is Dr. Brittany Holom-Trundy, and I am a senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). NJPP is a non-partisan, non-profit research institution that focuses on policies that can improve the lives of low- and middle-income people, strengthen our state’s economy, and enhance the quality of life in New Jersey.

The Department of Human Services provides crucial support for individuals and families in the face of rising costs and instability. The past year’s successes, including the expansion of All Kids health coverage, have served as essential bridges for families facing ever-changing economic, health, and political landscapes. Building on the strong foundations that these policies have provided will help to eliminate the continuing daily uncertainty that many working families, immigrants, and low-income residents still face.

In order to do this, here are four priorities for the Department to consider for next fiscal year.

1. All Kids Coverage: Building the Final Bridges
We have seen the success of All Kids in enrolling already-eligible and newly-eligible children with the expansion this past January. The Department’s support of this initiative has been key to its success thus far, and continued prioritization of full implementation remains the only path toward universal coverage.

NJPP urges DHS to continue its commitment to this effort by ensuring that the expansion remains fully funded in FY 2025 and that the final bridges for uninsured children who are not income-eligible for NJ FamilyCare (NJFC) are built. This means making sure that state funds continue to cover the approximately 35,000 newly eligible, enrolled children (approximately $105 million), as well as providing funding to open buy-in options at least for the estimated 2,000 children who are not income-eligible for NJFC and yet do not qualify for GetCovered NJ coverage due to immigration status.

2. Reforming Work First New Jersey (WFNJ) to Work for Families
Low-income residents consistently face daily economic insecurity, and yet the state’s main program helping to lift families out of deep poverty remains outdated and subject to the punitive stereotypes of 1990s welfare reform. NJPP encourages the Department to consider how to improve the WFNJ program and make it truly work for the state’s poorest families.

By investing at least $28 million, the Department can begin the process of gradually increasing the monthly grant amount to at least 50 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) over the next three years. With $95 million, this grant increase to 50 percent FPL could be achieved in the first year, setting participants on better supported paths for the future immediately. Maintaining current Emergency Assistance funding is also crucial. Finally, additional funds can help to improve off-ramps, reduce work hour requirements to better meet families’ realities, eliminate barriers for immigrants, and ensure that children and parents are lifted out of deep poverty.

3. Supporting Child Care as an Essential Building Block for Families’ Futures
NJPP urges the Department to continue or expand successful program changes from the past few years and to increase state support to fill any gaps left by the loss of federal funding. Child care providers need stability in subsidy payments, and a long-term solution to ensure pay-by-enrollment, rather than by attendance, is critical to the health of the system. Low staff salaries and insufficient data systems also require continued attention and creative solutions.

4. Welcoming New Jersey’s Newest Residents
New Jersey’s diverse immigrant communities deserve to be welcomed to the Garden State with the same enthusiasm and empathy for their families’ needs as do all New Jersey residents. To do this, the Department should ensure that funding is available to codify the Office of New Americans and to support the continuation of services like the Deportation Detention Defense Initiative, legal services for unaccompanied minors, and fee waivers and assistance for refugees and asylum seekers.

Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

New Jersey’s Transition to Clean Energy Must Be Equitable

Posted on by Alex Ambrose

My name is Alex Ambrose, and I am a policy analyst with New Jersey Policy Perspective.
Thank you Chairman Smith and members of the committee for your leadership on this issue.

I want to start by emphasizing that clean must mean clean. Ensuring a strong definition will not only make NJ a national leader in the green economy, but it will also safeguard our environmental justice communities. Black and brown families suffer disproportionately due to our state’s over reliance on dirty energy.

There’s a concept called energy privilege. The Univ of California found that communities that oppose clean energy tend to be wealthier and whiter communities, while poor communities and communities of color bear the brunt of fossil fuel-based energy generation.

The transition to clean energy must be equitable—we must ensure that a privileged few do not dictate our energy policy, but that we center the lived experience of our environmental justice community leaders.

We lift up the amendments specified by ICC and NJEJA on the definition of clean electricity production facilities. This is essential to moving our state forward and achieving true equity in our state.

We also want to lift up the importance of having strong workforce development and labor provisions. I understand that there is a balance that needs to be struck in how much energy we purchase from out of state and how much needs to be generated in state. We support a provision that maximizes the in-state benefits of clean energy job creation.

It is essential that the co-benefits of the green economy reach New Jerseyans, especially those in Black and brown communities who have historically been excluded from the benefits of energy generation.

We appreciate your work on this bill and hope you will take these amendments into consideration to ensure the best possible future for all New Jerseyans. Thank you.

All Students Benefit From a Strong and Inclusive Equity Code

Posted on by Nicole Rodriguez

Good Afternoon, Board Members,

I am Nicole Rodriguez, President of the New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan research institution focused on state-level policies that advance economic, social, and racial justice.

Our stated mission at NJPP is to ensure all of New Jersey’s residents enjoy lives of dignity, opportunity, and economic security.[i] This includes our state’s students; over the past several years, we have centered our education policy work on ensuring that all children in our state have equitable access to high-quality, well-resourced schools and a broad, rich, and rigorous curriculum.

It is because we are concerned for all of New Jersey’s students that we come here today to support the Department of Education’s proposed amendments to what is commonly known as the “Equity Code.”[ii]

The proposed amendments define equity as “… all students have the opportunity to master the goals of the curriculum in an educational environment that is fair, just, and impartial to all individuals.”

This is a critical time for New Jersey to focus on educational equity. The pandemic and the return to in-person schooling have increased stress on our students. As we reported in 2022, nearly three-quarters of public schools in the Northeast reported an increase in students seeking mental health services since the start of the pandemic.[iii] Getting all students the support they need in school must be a top priority.

Even before the pandemic, a group of students remained especially vulnerable: transgender students. These students require more than mental health supports; they need teachers who are trained in supporting them; school communities that are welcoming, inclusive, and safe; a curriculum, particularly in sexual health, that addresses their needs; and opportunities to learn and grow similar to those we aspire to provide to all of New Jersey’s students.

The challenges and hostilities faced by all LGBTQIA+ students have been well documented.[iv] We should remember, however, that transgender students face specific risks. A recent survey found nearly three-fourths of transgender students felt unsafe at school based on their gender.[v] Another survey conducted in 20 states, including New Jersey, found that 64 percent of middle school students and 67 percent of high school students “…felt so sad or hopeless almost every day for two weeks or more that they stopped doing some of their usual activities.”[vi] A review of the research shows “…upward of 40 percent of all trans individuals consider or attempt suicide during adolescence or young adulthood.”[vii]

These disturbing facts should be a wake-up call for all policymakers in the state. Unfortunately, it appears that policies designed to bolster the rights of transgender children have, instead, been used to stoke unjustified fears of an attack on parental rights, furthering transphobia and bias against LGBTQIA+ students.

There is nothing in the proposed amendments that would abrogate the rights of parents; to the contrary, a strong Equity Code focused on fairness and justice for all students —including transgender students—supports the right of all parents, as guaranteed by the New Jersey Constitution, to give our children access to a thorough and efficient system of public schools.

Both federal and state law support the proposed amendments to the Equity Code. New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD) clearly states schools cannot discriminate against transgender students based on their gender or gender expression.[viii] Title IX guidance from the United States Education Department states there cannot be discrimination against transgender students when classes are separated by sex.[ix] The proposed amendments, therefore, do little more than codify what is already in state and federal law.

In sum, the proposed amendments to the Equity Code will help guide policymakers in making New Jersey’s schools more just and fairer. Of course, these amendments are only a first step: action must follow. We believe it is important to follow the recommendations of the New Jersey Task Force on Transgender Equality,[x] particularly regarding the collection and publication of data on transgender and other LGBTQIA+ students, to ensure that districts are taking the steps necessary to implement the amended Equity Code in their schools.

We applaud the Department of Education’s commitment to equity and look forward to seeing the amended code implemented in our schools. Thank you.

End Notes

[i] New Jersey Policy Perspective; Our Work and Impact https://www.njpp.org/about/our-work-impact/

[ii] Proposed Readoption with Amendments at N.J.A.C. 6A:7, Managing for Equality and Equity in Education.

https://www.nj.gov/education/sboe/meetings/agenda/2023/August/public/5e1_Chapter_7_Managing_for_Equality_and_Equity_in_Education.pdf

[iii] Weber, M. (2022). New Jersey’s Black Students Suffer a Decline in Access to School Mental Health Staff. New Jersey Policy Perspective. https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/new-jerseys-black-students-suffer-a-decline-in-access-to-school-mental-health-staff/#_edn2

[iv] Kosciw, J. G., Clark, C. M., & Menard, L. (2022). The 2021 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of LGBTQ+ youth in our nation’s schools. New York: GLSEN. https://www.glsen.org/research/2021-national-school-climate-survey

[v] Ibid., p. 85.

[vi] Youth Truth (2022) Insights From the Student Experience, Part I: Emotional and Mental Health. https://youthtruthsurvey.org/emh/

[vii] Ashley Austin, Shelley L. Craig, Sandra D’Souza, and Lauren B. McInroy (2020) Suicidality Among Transgender Youth: Elucidating the Role of Interpersonal Risk Factors, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2020 37:5-6, NP2696-NP2718.

[viii] New Jersey Law Against Discrimination N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. https://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/downloads/NJ-Law-Against-Discrimination-Most-Updated.pdf

[ix] United State Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights: Questions and Answers on Title IX and Single-Sex Elementary and Secondary Classes and Extracurricular Activities (p. 25).

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/faqs-title-ix-single-sex-201412.pdf

[x] New Jersey Transgender Equality Task Force. (2019) Report and Recommendations

Addressing Discrimination Against Transgender New Jerseyans. https://www.gardenstateequality.org/our-work/resources/

«« Previous Posts∞Older Posts »»