Category: Testimony

It’s Time for New Jersey to Eliminate Public Defender Fees

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Good morning, Chairman Sarlo 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.

Thank you for posting this bill and allowing me the opportunity to testify in support of eliminating public defender fees. As a social worker and policy analyst with extensive knowledge of this issue, I am compelled to highlight the importance of this legislation for our legal system and the urgent need for its implementation.

New Jersey has long been a trailblazer in criminal legal system reform, recognizing the importance of equitable access to justice for all individuals, regardless of their socioeconomic status. However, the imposition of public defender fees creates an insurmountable burden for low-income individuals, exacerbating existing inequities and undermining the principles of fairness and equality upon which our justice system is built. Most Americans cannot afford a $400 emergency and based on the federal poverty level, over 800,000 New Jerseyans live in poverty, whereas estimates based on the “True Poverty Level” suggest that closer to 3 million residents—a third of the state’s population—live in poverty.[i] These individuals often struggle to afford to meet their basic needs, let alone bear the financial burden of legal representation.

Eliminating public defender fees is not only a matter of justice but also a fiscally responsible decision. The administrative costs associated with collecting and enforcing these fees often surpass the revenue generated. Additionally, by removing this financial burden, we can redirect resources towards the Office of the Public Defender, ultimately leading to better outcomes for defendants, the public defenders who represent them, and the justice system as a whole.

Moreover, the general public is largely under the assumption that public defenders are free. Many people were shocked to learn that in New Jersey, of all places, this is not the case. This is because everyone has a constitutional right to representation and has heard time and time again in popular media that if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you. I know that being a lawmaker involves balancing what one believes to be good policy, grounded in facts, and the wants and needs of the public that one is chosen to represent. This is one of those bills that does both.

Several states across the country, including our neighbors New York and Pennsylvania, do not charge for public defenders. By joining them, New Jersey can continue to lead by example and demonstrate its commitment to upholding the principles enshrined in our Constitution.

In conclusion, I urge you to support S3771 and work towards the elimination of public defender fees in New Jersey. By doing so, we can ensure that our justice system remains accessible to all, regardless of their socioeconomic status. Let us strive towards a more equitable future, where constitutional rights are not behind a paywall.

Thank you for your attention. I am available for any questions.

End Note

[i] New Jersey State Policy Lab, Rutgers University. October 21, 2022. https://policylab.rutgers.edu/perspectives-on-poverty-in-new-jersey-2008-2020/#:~:text=Based%20on%20the%20federal%20poverty,in%20poverty%20the%20same%20 year.

New Jersey Should Invest Opioid Settlement Funds to Effectively Tackle the Opioid Crisis and Prevent Future Harm

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Good afternoon to all the members of this critical advisory council. Thank you for your thoughtfulness and attention as we provide testimony today.

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.

New Jersey has been significantly impacted by overdose death, with devastating consequences for individuals, families, and communities across the state. The recent opioid settlements present a unique opportunity to channel substantial resources towards initiatives that can effectively tackle this crisis and prevent future harm.

As a representative of an organization that focuses on equitable, evidence-based policies, and in order to maximize the impact of these funds, I recommend the three following investment strategies:

Prioritize Harm Reduction Based Approaches: Decades of research and the experiences of people on the ground have consistently shown that harm reduction strategies are effective in reducing the harms associated with opioid use. It is crucial that a significant portion of the settlement funds be allocated towards expanding access to evidence-based harm reduction interventions that follow a comprehensive approach to drug user health and overdose risk reduction, such as: syringe access programs,  community-based naloxone distribution, and medication-assisted treatment (MAT). These initiatives have proven to save lives, prevent the spread of infections, and provide critical support to individuals who use drugs.

Support Drug Decriminalization Efforts: The criminalization of drug use has failed to recognize it as a public health issue and has perpetuated systemic inequities, disproportionately impacting communities of color. A portion of the settlement funds should be directed towards supporting initiatives that aim to decriminalize drug possession, promote alternative non punitive responses, and invest in diversion programs that prioritize treatment and rehabilitation. I want to emphasize, here, that none of these funds should go to law enforcement. By shifting from a punitive approach to a public health-focused strategy, New Jersey can break the cycle of overdose death and reduce the negative consequences associated with criminalization.

Invest in Data Collection, Analysis, and Education: In order to effectively address the overdose crisis, it is imperative that we have accurate and timely data on its prevalence, trends, and impact. Allocating a portion of the settlement funds towards enhancing data collection systems, conducting comprehensive research, and promoting data sharing among relevant stakeholders will enable evidence-based decision-making and popular education. Misinformation around drug use perpetuates stigma and hinders progress.

This investment will also support ongoing monitoring and evaluation of initiatives, ensuring that resources are directed where they can have the greatest impact. New Jersey is unique among states in that the harsh drug laws passed in 1987 are still in effect today, as well as being the last state in the nation with a legal pathway to syringe access.[1] In qualitative research, people seeking support from state-funded initiatives report that they are not able to receive support if they return to chaotic drug use — despite return to use being an expected symptom of a substance use disorder, and unconditional support being an evidence-based public health practice. All state initiatives should be thoroughly evaluated to ensure that they are guided by best practices and not replicating stigma and punishment for people who use drugs.

In conclusion, the allocation of opioid settlement funds presents New Jersey with an unprecedented opportunity to make a substantial difference in the lives and loved ones of people who use drugs. By prioritizing harm reduction approaches, supporting drug decriminalization efforts, and investing in data collection and analysis, the state can implement evidence-based policies that address the root causes and promote equitable outcomes.

Thank you for your time and attention to this critical matter.

End Note

[1] Bruce D. Stout and Bennett A. Barlyn, “The Human and Fiscal Toll of America’s Drug War: One State’s Experience,” Albany Law Review, 2015, 525-526. Jenna Mellor, “A War on Us: How Much New Jersey Spends Enforcing the War on Drugs,” New Jersey Policy Perspective.

Alternative Crisis Response Builds Trust and Enhances Public Safety

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Good afternoon, Chairman Spearman and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

I’m Marleina Ubel, 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.

NJPP is in full support of community-based alternatives to policing in New Jersey. We want to thank the Chairman for his sponsorship of this bill and for having it heard before the committee today.

The current model of policing has demonstrated numerous shortcomings, particularly in communities hit hardest by over-policing. People of color, individuals experiencing mental health crises, and socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods bear the brunt of the harms and negative outcomes associated with current one-size-fits all approach to public safety. It is clear that our communities deserve better.

By investing in initiatives such as community mediation programs, violence interruption programs, restorative justice practices, and community-led crisis response teams, we can build trust, enhance public safety, and foster stronger connections between public systems and the communities they serve. These alternative approaches prioritize de-escalation, community engagement, and a holistic understanding of public safety that encompasses the social determinants of crime.

Moreover, these alternatives have proven to be effective in other jurisdictions across the country. Evidence shows that community-based initiatives can reduce violence and enhance public trust. By directing resources towards these programs, New Jersey has an opportunity to lead the way in establishing a model that centers the needs and voices of our communities.

In addition to promoting safety and community well-being, investing in community-based alternatives to policing can also yield substantial cost savings. Traditional law enforcement consumes a significant portion of local budgets, often at the expense of essential social services such as extracurricular programming, mental health, and housing. By allocating funds towards community-based programs, we can address the root causes of crime, reduce recidivism, and create a more balanced and equitable allocation of resources that benefits everyone in our state. For example, an evaluation of the CAHOOTS program in Oregon estimated that they have saved the taxpayers in their city an average of $8.5 million every year.

I urge the committee to vote yes in support of the exploration, development, and implementation of these alternatives, working collaboratively with community leaders, advocates, and experts to ensure that the voices and experiences of those most impacted are central to the process.

Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. I am available to provide further information or answer any questions you may have.

Corporate Tax Reform Bill Opens Loopholes, Makes it Easier to Hide Profits Overseas

Posted on by Peter Chen

The Corporation Business Tax changes being proposed in A-5323/S-3737 are extremely complicated. Many of them are positive, but the removal of key anti-abuse provisions leaves gaping holes in preventing corporate tax avoidance through offshore subsidiaries, specifically the decoupling of GILTI conformity from federal rules, and the reopening of the related-entity royalty/interest payment loophole.

Although NJPP supports many provisions in this bill, including the important switch to the Finnigan method of counting corporate profits, the organization cannot support the bill in its current form.

The bill opens and re-opens far too many tax loopholes, which allow corporations to supercharge their tax avoidance schemes and reward them for foreign offshoring of profits and phantom transactions to artificially reduce their corporate incomes.[i] With more than one trillion dollars in corporate profits now flowing offshore to tax havens, New Jersey must do all that it can to ensure that the corporations who earn profits off of in-state consumers and workers cannot shirk their duty to pay taxes through elaborate financial trickery.

Because this is a highly complex bill with many moving parts, I have attempted to organize the sections the legislature should remove, amend, or protect, as well as a few suggestions for provisions to add.

As an aside, I urge the legislature and Treasury Department to add section numbers and descriptive headings to help the public understand what is contained in the bill.

The Problem: Foreign Tax Avoidance 

  • Companies want to shift their profits overseas to avoid taxation
  • Mobile capital makes it easy for corporations to avoid paying their fair share of tax liability by artificially lowering their profits here
  • New Jersey tax law can’t “see” these corporate entities, because our CBT only looks at US-based subsidiaries
  • Foreign tax avoidance cost New Jersey roughly $714 million in lost tax revenue in 2018, with corporate profits (and tax avoidance in foreign subsidiaries) rising substantially since then.[ii] In 2018 that would have amounted to nearly 25 percent of all CBT revenue.
  • As a result, any tax code change that creates incentives to move profits abroad runs the risk of eroding profits stateside and eroding the revenues that should accompany them.

 

Two Key Loopholes for Abuse That Must Be Removed

Removing interest/royalty anti-abuse provisions (S-3737, p. 6, lines 6-48, p. 7, lines 1-5).

  • What it does: Currently the law only allows corporations to claim a deduction for royalty or interest payments to a related member if they can demonstrate that the purpose of the payments was not to avoid taxes.
  • The abuse potential: Corporations can create third-party foreign shell corporations, transfer intellectual property and license it back to their US subsidiaries and/or borrow money from these shells, then claim the interest or royalty payments as a loss, artificially lowering their US profits.
  • Why it must be removed: Because New Jersey can’t see foreign subsidiaries, the profits shifted abroad would avoid taxation, leaving Treasury to chase after the money after-the-fact through auditing, rather than preventing the offshoring abuse from happening in the first place.
  • Note: This provision is NOT included in the Treasury score sheet, but could have serious long-term potential for exploitation and revenue reduction.

 

Eliminating GILTI deduction and treating GILTI as dividend (S-3737, p.10, lines 18-22).

  • What it does: Currently the law treats foreign global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) in conformity with the federal internal revenue code, roughly taxing it at 50 percent of the CBT rate. This provision would instead treat GILTI as dividend income, effectively taxing it at 5 percent.
  • The abuse potential: Despite the name, GILTI includes a wide range of profits earned by overseas corporations and slashing the amount of GILTI in state corporate taxation will further induce corporations to shift profit-generating assets to foreign subsidiaries.
  • Why it must be removed: Given that corporate taxpayers already need to report this income at the federal level, treating it in conformity with the federal government ensures that New Jersey revenue collection is protected against additional erosion through offshoring. Companies declared nearly $350 billion in GILTI in 2018. Conforming with federal law will ensure that New Jersey can keep its revenues robust in the face of additional profit offshoring.
  • Note: NJPP believes an estimate of ~$50M in revenue loss to be overly optimistic. Recent research has shown that foreign profit shifting behavior by corporations remained unchanged after the Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2017), with a stable 50 percent of US multinational profits claimed abroad.

 

Provisions to Protect

Reorganization discretion by the Director to force worldwide combined reporting (S-3737, pp.41-42, lines 20-48, 1-31).

  • What it does: Expands the power of the Director of the Division of Taxation to explicitly require a corporate filer to file a world-wide combined filing.
  • How it reduces abuse: Without the “stick” to force corporations to disclose their global holdings in order to unveil any tax avoidance schemes, there is nothing to stop corporations from testing the limits of tax law and hope to tie up disputes in litigation. Any weakening of the anti-abuse provisions as detailed above will require a backstop to ensure that companies cannot abuse tax law and the discretion in the Director is critical to deter companies from tax avoidance schemes. Note that worldwide combined reporting (see below) would help solve many of these problems of foreign offshoring by forcing companies to report all their profits and losses from all foreign subsidiaries as one combined return.
  • Note: The section uses “taxpayers” instead of “affiliates” or other terms. Yet this may limit the scope of this section only to organizations that have enough connection to New Jersey to trigger taxation, rather than affiliates who would not ordinarily be subject to New Jersey tax.

 

Close the captive Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) loophole (S-3737, pp.25-27).

  • What it does: Includes REIT and Regulated Investment Companies (RICs) in the combined group and does not give them the deduction on dividends-paid. This (mostly) closes the loophole on the captive REIT tax avoidance strategy, which worked as follows:
    • Corporation owns lots of branches/locations, then transfers ownership to the REIT that it controls 90% of.
    • The REIT charges rent to the corporation, which the corporation can take as a deduction.
    • The REIT then pays out dividends to its shareholders (90% of whom are the corporation). The REIT then takes a deduction for dividends paid.
    • The corporation ALSO takes a dividends received deduction for the dividend payments from the REIT.
  • How it reduces abuse: By treating REITs and RICs as part of the corporate group, these payments cancel out, and the dividends-paid deduction is eliminated. In doing so, the tax code reduces the opportunity to abuse these schemes by eliminating much of the financial incentive for setting up these in the first place.
  • Caveat: The REITs and RICs can still be hidden through ownership by other types of corporate entities, such as life insurance company segregated asset accounts or Australian Property Trusts. The exclusion of these types of avoidance schemes (detailed on lines 40-42 on p. 25) suggests that this may simply move these schemes to more exotic foreign-controlled corporate entities. This loophole should be closed quickly and simply, so all REITs no matter how owned are included in the taxable group.

 

Formalize switch to Finnigan rule for taxable groups.

  • What it does: The Finnigan rule, named for a California court case, treats a corporation as taxable as long as any member of its unitary group is taxable. That means that corporate subsidiaries and related groups that do not claim nexus in New Jersey are taxable as part of one taxable group.
  • How it reduces abuse: Various tax schemes rely on related corporations that are outside the scope of New Jersey’s corporate tax system. New Jersey has moved towards combined reporting and has recognized that including all subsidiaries and related corporations is necessary to collapse some of these avoidance schemes.

 

Broader Solutions: Provisions to Add

Tax haven list (not currently included in the bill).

  • What it does: Requires that corporations report subsidiary and associated corporations as part of their combined reporting if they are incorporated in specific tax haven jurisdictions. For example, Montana requires that corporations in a unitary relationship with the taxpayer incorporated in countries like the British Virgin Islands, the Isle of Man, and Luxembourg must be included in a combined return. See Code 15-31-322(f).[iii]
  • How it reduces abuse: Nearly $1 trillion in global profits was collected in tax havens in 2019. Requiring corporations to report the profits generated by the worst-offender tax havens allows New Jersey to recoup some the income being lost to this tax avoidance, as well as protect legitimate offshore income generated by businesses abroad that do not have a connection with New Jersey.

 

Mandatory worldwide combined reporting (not currently included in the bill).

  • What it does: Requires that corporations report income on all their worldwide subsidiaries and controlled corporations as one unit. Subsequently, New Jersey can apply its apportionment formula to ensure only the profits attributable to the state are counted.
  • How it reduces abuse: Allowing corporations to simply elect whether to report their foreign subsidiaries allows corporations to hide their profits abroad and fail to report their income stateside. It also makes the tax avoidance schemes described above much easier to undertake (such as the royalty/interest deduction loophole or the REIT “rent” deduction) because the profit half of the ledger can be hidden in another country. Inevitably, the only way to stave off foreign profit offshoring to avoid taxation is to require true world-wide unitary combination. Although this will have additional administrative challenges, such as the fair allocation of foreign profits to New Jersey, shifting to mandatory world-wide reporting largely ends the game of whack-a-mole to chase down foreign profit-shifting tax avoidance schemes.

 

Final Note: More Auditors Needed

Treasury needs a ramp-up in the number of auditors to combat corporate tax flight.

  • What it does: Annual US corporate profits have more than tripled since 2003 (from $811 billion to $2.9 trillion), but the number of auditors projected for FY2023 is actually lower than the state had in 2003 (a decrease from 428 to 365). The increasing complexity of corporate tax structures and the sophistication of tax avoidance schemes requires sufficient staffing.
  • How it reduces abuse: With much of the enforcement power of the tax agency dependent on the audit power (and the reorganization discretion of the Director), the need for a strong auditor workforce is critical to ensure that the state can enforce its tax laws against the world’s largest and wealthiest corporations, who have substantial interest in lowering their tax liability. The federal IRS recently saw an increase in its workforce as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.

 

NJPP cannot support the bill in its current form, though with amendments, it could be a robust force against tax avoidance schemes.

End Notes

[i] Ludvig Wier and Gabriel Zucman, Global Profit Shifting, 1975-2019, United Nations University-WIDER Working Paper 2022:121, https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/Publications/Working-paper/PDF/wp2022-121-global-profit-shifting-1975-2019.pdf

[ii] Ricahrd Philips, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, A Simple Fix for a $17 Billion Loophole: How States Can Reclaim Revenue Lost to Tax Havens (Jan. 17, 2019), https://itep.org/a-simple-fix-for-a-17-billion-loophole/.

[iii] See also Jane G. Gravelle, Congressional Research Service, Report R40623, Tax Havens: International Tax Avoidance and Evasion (Jan.  6, 2022) p. 4, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R40623.pdf.

New Jersey’s FY 2024 Budget Should Prioritize Working Families Over Corporate Interests

Posted on by Alex Ambrose

Good morning, Chairman Sarlo and members of the committee. My name is Alex Ambrose and I am a policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective, a nonpartisan think tank focused on advancing economic, social, and racial justice. Our organization is also a member of the For The Many budget coalition.

Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony.

New Jersey’s state budget should prioritize the needs of working-class families who are struggling to make ends meet over corporate special interests – people over profits. That’s why we urge you: do not give corporations a one billion dollar tax cut by removing the corporate business tax surcharge. Not only would a tax cut be a gift to some of the biggest and most profitable corporations in the world like Amazon and Walmart, it will cost the state revenue sorely needed to continue funding education, infrastructure, health care, and so much more.

These funds are essential to balancing the state’s budget, building a healthy surplus, and reducing the racial and economic disparities that were not just exposed but worsened over the last few years. The pandemic taught us that government support helps ease the harm of economic downturns, while cutbacks and austerity only deepen the pain for hard-working families.

This budget needs to advance changes to make the tax code more equitable and make the state more affordable for low- and moderate-income households. A tax cut for wealthy corporations will do the exact opposite.

Revenue collections were strong in the last few budgets, but economists are forecasting an imminent drop in revenue collections, if not a recession. Last year, the Office of Legislative Services testified that the record-high revenues are only temporary and collections will begin dropping, as we have already seen in the latest revenue snapshot.

What we need is reliable growth and predictability through a fair tax code that prioritizes public services and programs that directly benefit everyday New Jerseyans.

Some of those programs are included in our recommendations for this year’s budget, including the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Clean Energy Fund, NJ Transit, and Public Defender Fees.

First, we urge you to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit for ITIN holders. Despite being taxpayers themselves, ITIN holders are often excluded from accessing government programs. Expansion would help ensure all people in New Jersey have access to financial security.

Second, we urge you to expand the Child Tax Credit, a policy proven to reduce child poverty. This credit is critical for low-income families, and expanding it will give families additional necessary assistance. Specifically, we recommend doubling the existing credit, as the governor proposed in his budget, as well as expanding eligibility to children up to 11-years-old, as proposed by Assemblywoman Verlina Reynolds-Jackson.

Third, we ask for increased monthly grants for families participating in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. TANF provides critical support to families experiencing economic hardship, and increasing grants to at least 50% of the federal poverty level and adjusting for inflation would better provide our state’s families with the means to get back on their feet.

Fourth, we urge you to end the diversions of the Clean Energy Fund, a fund that makes new, safer technologies more affordable for the state and for working class families. Should the diversions continue, New Jersey will have diverted over $2 billion dollars away from clean energy, and every dollar diverted undermines the clean energy laws we already have in place.

Fifth, we ask that you prioritize funding NJ Transit’s capital needs. NJ Transit has a backlog of projects necessary to keep service reliable and to improve infrastructure to avoid another year of record-high service breakdowns. The agency has many required capital improvements with no identified funding source.

Finally, we urge you to end public defender fees, which are a regressive tax on low-income defendants. The right to an attorney is a fundamental right in our justice system and should not be predicated on the ability to afford adequate legal representation. Eliminating these fees is a critical step in ensuring all residents have access to justice regardless of their financial circumstances.

The state has a robust set of achievements over the last few years including a full pension payment, pre-school expansion, working family tax credits, affordable housing, and more. To think the same economic benefits will come to our state if we give wealthy corporations a tax cut is trickle-down economics at its worst.

New Jersey Policy Perspective asks that while you are evaluating the budget, you keep everyday working New Jersey families in the front of your mind, not corporate CEOs.

The New Jersey state budget must help the grocery worker with no car trying to get to work on unreliable public transportation. It must help the parent working three jobs to pay for child care. It must help the front line worker who has to leave their job to attend to their child having an asthma attack.

Cutting corporate taxes will weaken our state’s fiscal health while doing nothing to strengthen our communities. State lawmakers should prioritize making New Jersey affordable for those who need the most help — not the wealthy and well-connected.

Thank you for your time.

Language Access Makes Public Services More Effective and Makes Economic Sense

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Good morning, Chair Sarlo and 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. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Everyone should be able to access basic government services. Yet lack of translation on websites and documents, especially when dealing with vital services like unemployment, health care, or even registering children for school, creates a barrier for the 2.6 million New Jerseyans who speak a language other than English at home, including over 350,000 seniors. In one of the most linguistically diverse states in the country, New Jersey needs to ensure that its residents can interact with their government.

I also want to lift up two points:

Language access makes public services more effective. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated in real time how important it is for governments to produce timely, accurate translations of critical information (such as public health guidance and vaccination data) and government documents (such as unemployment applications, health insurance documents, and state websites). Google Translate, which is used for most state websites, often garbles technical definitions, creating the possibility of misunderstanding and inaccuracy. In fact, there were many accounts of text message alerts received during the COVID-19 crisis response that were unintelligible.

Language access makes economic sense. Given the fact that New Jersey still has $1.4 billion in ARP funds and that those funds are explicitly intended to create the kind of infrastructure that would avoid unintelligible communications from our government during a pandemic and create more accessibility within government, the up front cost to translate websites and documents seems like a no brainer. Additionally, the kinds of issues that folks would report if they had the ability to do so have the potential to make government operate more efficiently and thus, generate more revenue. Just one example: I spent a great deal of time as a social worker translating for folks that were trying to report wage theft. Employers who are not paying their employees, are also not paying taxes on those employees, not mention all the downstream effects of not receiving income you were expecting.

As a state whose strength has come from its diverse population, New Jersey deserves to be a place where all people have equal access to government services.

“Tough-on-Crime” Bills Do Not Address the Root Causes of Crime

Posted on by NJPP Staff

Good morning, Chairman Stack and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

I’m Marleina Ubel from New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a nonpartisan think tank focused on advancing economic, social, and racial justice for New Jersey residents.

First, I want to acknowledge that the work you do is challenging. You are pulled in different directions by people who feel passionately about these issues, and I believe that you are all trying to do what you feel is right. When I was in college, I had a professor tell me once, “doing the right thing is easy. It is knowing what the right thing is that is the hard part.” So, today I will share some information to help you determine what the right thing is.

As written, S3346 will essentially turn trespassing into 2nd degree burglary subject to NERA. What that means is, this legislature is asking that someone who enters any place with an accommodation for sleeping without permission, whether or not the place is empty, be sent to prison for 5 to 10 years, have to serve at least 85% of their sentence before they are even eligible for parole, and have an additional mandatory period of supervision tacked on. Make no mistake, this will create a new mandatory minimum, even if those words do not appear in the bill. It will also make that person essentially ineligible for other programming, such as diversion programs for juveniles or recovery court for individuals who use drugs.

Given that research has shown that property crime like burglary is tied to economic circumstances, this bill will target some of the most vulnerable New Jerseyans and make them ineligible for services that might actually reduce the chances for reoffense. Thus, this bill will have unintended consequences and increase the chances that people reoffend by making support services — the kind that actually address root causes of crime — out of reach. This bill will also adversely affect juveniles, because a 2nd degree NERA offense makes it more likely that they are tried in an adult court even if their record is clean.

Lengthy sentences do not serve as deterrents or address root causes, and they do not reduce crime. In fact, research has shown that increased and continuous exposure to the penal system increases recidivism and exacerbates the circumstances that lead to criminal activity in the first place, things like, employment and educational opportunities, economic stability, relationships with community members and family – all of these things are ripped away from people when they are sent to prison. In this case, ripped away from someone who is likely vulnerable and nonviolent for what could be a decade.

Bills like this are how we got to where we are today, known across the world as the incarceration nation. Please do the right thing and vote no on this bill.

Thank you and happy to take any questions.

 

Social Equity Excise Fee Revenue Distribution Must Center Racial Justice

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Good evening, Chairwoman Houenou, Vice-Chairman Delgado, and Commissioners of the Cannabis Regulatory Commission. Thank you for this opportunity to share my testimony.

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 want to start by thanking you for your recommendations from last year. It is clear that you heard the call to make sure that the money from the Social Equity Excise Fee be distributed back not just into municipalities, but into communities harmed by the War on Drugs and not spent on law enforcement.

The language surrounding the use of this revenue is vague, allowing the state to exercise tremendous discretion in how it’s spent. Therefore, there must be clear parameters on what is acceptable and what is not, along with the expectation that a participatory budgeting process must be followed. This is of utmost importance because the communities and the individuals who have been directly impacted by the drug war must have meaningful input on how the money is used.

Meaningful input also requires transparency. The public should have access to how much revenue is raised and where that revenue is going. This should not be a slush fund, nor should it be spent on coercive treatment, school resource officers, or otherwise invested in punitive measures connected to the criminal legal system, which is the very entity that caused the most harm enforcing cannabis prohibition.

As you outlined in your prior recommendations, revenue from the Social Equity Excise Fee should go directly toward promoting stronger, safer, and more resilient communities, as well as services that recognize substance use as a matter of public health. Examples of such investments include: recreation and community programming, harm reduction services, neighborhood restoration, after-school programming, and vouchers or direct payments for individual needs, such as utilities, rent, or medical costs.

New Jersey has an obligation to equitably invest this revenue, meaning they must center racial justice and reparations for people harmed by the War on Drugs. Anything less would fail the very communities and residents that the Social Equity Excise Fee is intended to support.

Thank you.

Language Access Removes Barriers and Makes Public Services More Effective

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Good morning, Chair Beach and 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. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Everyone should be able to access basic government services. Yet lack of translation on websites and documents, especially when dealing with vital services like unemployment, health care, or even registering children for school, creates a barrier for the 2.6 million New Jerseyans who speak a language other than English at home, including over 350,000 seniors. In one of the most linguistically diverse states in the country, New Jersey needs to ensure that its residents can interact with their government.

I also want to lift up two points:

Language access makes public services more effective. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated in real time how important it is for governments to produce timely, accurate translations of critical information (such as public health guidance and vaccination data) and government documents (such as unemployment applications, health insurance documents, and state websites). Google Translate, which is used for most state websites, often garbles technical definitions, creating the possibility of misunderstanding and inaccuracy. In fact, there were many accounts of text message alerts received during the COVID-19 crisis response that were unintelligible.

Language access helps most those who have the least. People who speak a language other than English at home are more likely to live in poverty and are less likely to have completed college or high school, exactly the population most in need of assistance. Yet barriers to entry keep government services from reaching the people who need them. This population is also especially vulnerable to exploitation, such as wage theft. And when dealing with high stress situations such as medical or public safety emergencies, exploitation, or sudden loss of housing or employment, people with limited English proficiency should not face yet another hurdle to getting the help they need.

As a state whose strength has come from its diverse population, New Jersey deserves to be a place where all people have equal access to government services.

Data Disaggregation Gives Lawmakers a Full Picture of Communities and Advances Equity

Posted on by Marleina Ubel

Good morning, Chair Beach and 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. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

One of New Jersey’s great strengths is its diversity, which, as recent Census data show, continues to grow with increasing Asian American and Pacific Islander populations. To advance equity and effectively allocate resources, policymakers need a full picture of the needs of their residents. But without complete data, especially about New Jersey’s Asian American, Pacific Islander, Middle Eastern, and North African populations, policymakers are in the dark.

Unfortunately, when it comes to health, social services, the criminal legal system, housing, or education, many of the data collected for these populations lumps all of these communities into a single category as “Asian”, “AAPI”, or sometimes simply “Other” or “Unknown.”

These vague categories mask socioeconomic differences between and within national-origin and ethnic groups. The continent of Asia comprises more than half of all people on earth. One catch-all category of “Asian American” fails to capture the diverse backgrounds, let alone the separate experience of Pacific Islanders.

Perhaps the clearest example of the hazards of this one-size-fits-all approach has been the COVID-19 pandemic response. Although Asian Americans overall had lower mortality rates, specific populations, especially Filipino and South Asian national-origin groups, were overrepresented in COVID-19 deaths.

A-3092 would take an important step towards ensuring that when New Jersey policymakers, leaders, and community members look at state-collected data, they are seeing a complete picture, not one that erases entire communities.

Thank you.

«« Previous Posts∞Older Posts »»