Minnesota has new privacy protections for students using school-issued tech devices

A new Minnesota law, the Student Data Privacy Act, bans schools and their technology providers from tracking students’ activities via school-issued laptops or software, as well as from selling, sharing or disseminating young people’s educational data. HF 2353 was passed unanimously by the House and Senate before being signed by Gov. Tim Walz in late May.

Neither schools nor their technology providers can surveil students via tools such as remote location tracking or web cameras, except for specific exceptions such as instances of a device being stolen or activities “necessary to respond to an imminent threat to life or safety.” Additionally, “student interactions” with a school-issued device — for example, his or her web-browsing activity — cannot be electronically accessed or monitored.

Public schools in Minnesota must now notify students and parents about any contracts with tech providers that grant these companies access to young people’s educational data. These school-provider agreements must include security safeguards, and once the contracts are up, the tech companies must destroy the data or return the information to the educational institutions.

Student data privacy laws are in place in all Midwestern states except Wisconsin, according to Student Privacy Compass, a website that tracks this activity. Another Minnesota bill from this year, HF 3724, would have barred social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram from using algorithms to drive user-generated content to those under age 18. It failed to advance.

Iowa, the nation’s leader in biofuels production, is pairing a first-of-its-kind E15 requirement with infrastructure grants for gas stations

Iowa is the nation’s No. 1 ethanol-producing state, yet it ranks 28th in ethanol consumption, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

“You can’t buy it if it isn’t sold,” says state Rep. Lee Hein, who has long lamented the limited opportunity that Iowans have to support a homegrown product. “Where it is sold, it is the low-cost fuel and people will try it and use it.”

He’s hopeful a new law will help expand ethanol’s use. Under HF 2128, signed by the governor in May, fuel retailers must sell 15 percent ethanol at the pump by 2026.

“It was a long haul,” Hein says about the path to the bill’s passage. “It took two legislative sessions and multiple meetings between legislators and a wide variety of stakeholders. “But by adding exemptions [for certain retailers] and infrastructure support, we got the majority of the industry to support the legislation. It will dramatically increase ethanol consumption while reducing fuel costs for Iowa drivers.”

The change is expected to more than double the number of gas stations in the state carrying E15. Iowa is the first U.S. state to have this blending standard; across the border in Canada, a 15 percent requirement will take effect in Ontario in 2030.

Negotiations, exemptions, grants lead to passage

Originally considered in 2021, Hein says, the measure encountered pushback from convenience stores and petroleum groups, as well as resistance from lawmakers generally opposed to state mandates.

Under the final-negotiated version of HF 2128, certain stations are exempt or can pursue waivers from the E15 requirement. For example, there is a carveout for stations that sold less than 300,000 gallons of gas in 2020 (so long as they have not previously sold E15), a recognition that smaller, single-station operations may not have the capital or resources to make the necessary modifications.

Additionally, a retailer can seek an exemption by: 1) submitting a waiver describing why equipment at the location can’t support the higher ethanol blend, or 2) hiring a qualified expert to inspect the facility and certify that it can’t meet the requirement. For example, stations with decades-old motor fuel storage tanks are eligible for the waiver.

According to Hein, less than 10 percent of the stations in Iowa will qualify for an opt-out.

HF 2128 also provides grants for gas stations to install the necessary E15 infrastructure, via a three-tiered system under Iowa’s Renewable Fuel Infrastructure Program.

Tier I — Gas station has never sold E-15 blends and sells less than 140,000 gallons of gasoline annually. For this tier, state grants cover the lesser amount of 90 percent of the cost or $63,900.
Tier II — Gas station has never sold E-15 blends but sells more than 140,000 gallons of gasoline annually. For this tier, state grants cover the lesser of 75 percent of the infrastructure costs or $53,250.
Tier III — Stations not in tiers one or two fall into this category. For this tier, state grants cover the lesser of 70 percent of the costs or $50,000. Minnesota has a similar grant program for retailers to install the necessary E15 infrastructure.

In Iowa, even with the negotiated changes, some legislators still opposed the bill due to concerns about a state mandate, but the measure ultimately received widespread, bipartisan support. Under the law, stations selling diesel containing more than 20 percent biodiesel also will qualify for the infrastructure grant program.

In addition, Hein says HF 2128 doubles the biodiesel tax credit rate to 4 cents per gallon and extends it through 2027. And Iowa is the first U.S. state to extend the credit to include higher biodiesel blends (B20 and B30).

Permanent repeal of E15 summer ban under discussion

Coincidentally, the legislation was under discussion this year at the same time President Joe Biden visited an Iowa ethanol plant. He was there to announce a national emergency waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designed to reduce consumer fuel costs by allowing E15 to be sold year-round.

Without such a waiver, the Clean Air Act prohibits sales of E15 in the summer because, when compared to regular blended gasoline, the greater volatility of this higher ethanol blend can lead to more ground-level ozone, or smog. The federal waiver was only for summer 2022; discussions continue over whether to allow for permanent, year-round sales of E15. Proponents of such a federal change say that the emissions produced by E15 are less than E10 or straight gasoline.

E10 has become a key part of the economy across the Midwest, a region that is home to nearly all of the top ethanol-producing state. Ethanol is used for more than one-third of the nation’s corn supply, provides jobs in many rural communities, and increases the farm-level corn price in the area of an ethanol plant by about 45 cents.

With all this supply, though, the Midwestern states use less than 20 percent of the nation’s ethanol.

Examples of how states support biofuels

√  Require certain blends of biofuels to be sold at the pump

√  Provide grants to retailers to install higher-blend infrastructure

√  Offer tax credits and incentives to producers or retailers

√  Provide exemptions to sales or motor fuels tax

√  Establish grants for research and development of advanced biofuels

√  Create and track statewide goals for annual renewable fuels sales

√  Offer tax credits for purchase of vehicles that run on higher blends

√  Reimburse local governments/school for bus retrofits

√  Require state’s vehicle fleet to run on higher blends

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center

 

 

 

Another Midwestern state has a ‘sanctuary city’ law on the books; Illinois, Indiana and Kansas show how varied the approaches can be

Lawmakers in Kansas this year passed a bill preempting local jurisdictions from enacting so-called “sanctuary” protections — policies that, in part, restrict cooperation between law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.

HB 2717 became law only a few months after a sanctuary ordinance was adopted by officials in Wyandotte County, one of Kansas’ most populated counties.

That ordinance included language instructing police not to ask about the immigration status of individuals seeking help.

It also directed local law enforcement not to respond to calls “for assistance for federal immigration enforcement authorities to enforce immigration law” (unless to mitigate a public safety threat).

For example: a “federal immigration detainer,” in which the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) asks for information about the impending release of an undocumented person in custody, and requests that the person be held an extra 48 hours after his or her scheduled release from jail or prison in order to give agents time to collect the individual.

HB 2717 bans local policies preventing law enforcement from fully exchanging information and working with federal immigration authorities.

It also specifies that identification cards issued by municipalities “shall not be used to satisfy any requirement of state law for proof of identity.”

That language is a direct response to another part of the Wyandotte County ordinance authorizing the issuance of municipal ID cards for undocumented individuals to use in order to access local services (for example, attending doctor visits or opening bank accounts).

“We can’t have a patchwork of laws across the state of Kansas, and we can’t have incentives for individuals to risk their lives making the trip to the United States illegally,” says Rep. Patrick Penn, who supported HB 2717.

Following Indiana’s lead

In written legislative testimony, HB 2717 architect Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt wrote, “It seems to me an affront to basic rule-of-law principles for local politics to dictate non-cooperation with federal authorities who are attempting to enforce laws that Congress unquestionably had the constitutional authority (and duty) to enact.”

Opponents of such preemption, however, contend sanctuary policies can prevent undocumented residents from exploitation while promoting greater dialogue between community members and police.

In 2012, University of Illinois-Chicago researchers surveyed more than 2,000 Latinos living in and around four major U.S. cities; about 70 percent of undocumented respondents indicated they were less likely to contact police with information about a crime, even if they were a victim, due to concerns about being asked about their immigration status.

During a committee hearing on HB 2717, a man testified about his mother, who had two children kidnapped by an abusive ex-husband and taken to Mexico. Because the mother was undocumented, she was unwilling to contact law enforcement and didn’t see her children for two decades.

According to Schmidt’s testimony, at least 12 states have enacted statewide bans on local sanctuary policies, including Indiana, whose 2011 bill (SB 590) served as a model for Kansas.

Indiana’s law included provisions that prohibited law enforcement from verifying a person’s citizenship or immigration status if the person had contacted law enforcement to either report a crime or be a witness to one.

Kansas’ law, however, does not include such language.

Illinois’ different path

Illinois, meanwhile, has taken a very different approach. Over the last five years, the General Assembly passed multiple bills changing the relationship between local law enforcement and federal immigration agencies, including:

The TRUST Act (SB 31 of 2017), which instructs law enforcement to not honor federal immigration detainers in the absence of a judicial warrant. Local police also cannot stop, search or arrest individuals based solely on their immigration or citizenship status. The bill received bipartisan support between the legislature and governor, and from law enforcement groups.
The VOICES Act (SB 34 of 2018) established new state certification requirements for federal T and U visas, which provide temporary immigration protections for undocumented individuals who are victims of human trafficking or certain other crimes. Victims who obtain these visas agree to assist with prosecutions and investigations of the case.
SB 667, the Illinois Way Forward Act, passed last year. It bars law enforcement from assisting in federal immigration investigations and from transferring undocumented persons to immigration detention centers (the bill outlawed such facilities statewide beginning in 2022) in cases where the only alleged offense is the civil violation of illegal immigration. The law still permits local authorities to inquire about citizenship status when trying to contact foreign consular offices or when vetting individuals for concealed-carry licenses.

“It’s not the job of local law enforcement to essentially be ICE,” says Illinois Sen. Omar Aquino, who sponsored each of those bills.

“It’s not in their jurisdiction [or] their role to enforce immigration policy, and especially a policy on the federal level, which is one that is certainly outdated and in need of comprehensive immigration reform.”

According to Fred Tsao of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, federal authorities such as ICE’s division of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) may also be interested in deprioritizing arrests of civil violators.

“There’s actually a common joke among immigration advocates regarding HSI that ICE wants to be out of ICE,” says Tsao, who asserts those authorities would rather put their time and effort toward combatting criminal offenses — including smuggling operations, human trafficking, customs violations and international counterfeiting.

Tsao adds that when a city or state passes sanctuary policies, undocumented individuals do not become immune to federal seizure.

“If ICE were to somehow find out that someone is getting released from a county jail or from a state prison, and they’re waiting outside the jail or prison door, nothing is to stop those ICE agents from immediately apprehending that person,” Tsao says.

In Kansas, both Schmidt and Gov. Laura Kelly, who signed HB 2717 into law, agreed immigration concerns should be the prerogative of the federal government and not states. (Schmidt and Kelly are opponents in this year’s race for governor.)

HB 2717 opponent Rep. Louis Ruiz says local governments should have the authority to deal with immigration and law enforcement issues on the ground level, as they see fit, until federal reform is achieved.

Although Wyandotte County’s ordinance may have differed from other Kansas communities that passed sanctuary policies in that it also distributed municipal IDs, Ruiz says these cards allowed undocumented residents “to move around the city without fear of retribution.”

With the new law in place, Ruiz fears those residents will be forced to move back into the “shadows.”

Two other recent examples of recent laws, proposals in the Midwest

IOWA

Passed in 2018, Iowa’s SF 481 orders local law enforcement to fully comply with federal immigration detainer requests, and it bars municipalities from adopting policies that restrict cooperation with immigration authorities. Violation of the law can result in a loss of state funding. Also under SF 481, the state prohibits local ordinances that discourage police from asking about the immigration status of a person who has been detained or arrested. However, officers cannot inquire about the immigration status of a person who is reporting a crime.

 

MINNESOTA

Bills introduced last year (HF 1919 and SF 2118) sought to make Minnesota a “sanctuary state.” State and local government employees would have been prohibited from honoring immigration detainers, making arrests solely for immigration purposes, sharing government database information with immigration authorities, or assisting in civil immigration enforcement operations. The measures included exceptions to allow communication with federal immigration authorities about a person’s criminal record.

Just in time for football, Sports gambling goes live in Kansas; Ohio to begin betting on Jan. 1

Legalized sports betting spread to an eighth Midwestern state in September, when four casinos in Kansas began accepting online and in-person bets. The state has a unique regulatory structure on gambling due to constitutional language that makes most forms of gambling illegal. One of the exceptions: casino-style wagering owned and regulated by the state.

Four state-owned commercial casinos operate via a partnership with private companies, and this year’s SB 84 authorized each casino (operated by the Kansas Lottery) to engage up to three online platforms or apps in addition to taking in-person bets. The new law also permits sports betting in restaurants and venues operated by nonprofit fraternal or veterans’ organizations, as well as allows new compacts to be negotiated with tribal nations to offer sports betting at tribal casinos.

Another unique aspect of sports gambling in Kansas is where the money will go. Much of the state revenue is earmarked for two funds, one to investigate and prosecute white-collar crimes and a second to attract professional sports teams (for example, to help with the construction of a new stadium).

All Midwestern states except Minnesota have legalized online and/or in-person sports betting. Nebraska and Ohio each legalized it in 2021, with LB 561 and HB 29, respectively, but sportsbooks are not yet operational in those states. The Ohio Casino Control Commission in August announced that in-person sports betting will begin on Jan. 1.

Where does the new state revenue go?

Examples include a fund for school-based sports and extracurricular activities in Ohio, property tax relief in Nebraska, infrastructure projects in Illinois, school aid in Michigan, and state general funds in Indiana and Iowa, the American Gaming Association notes.

According to Legal Sports Report, U.S. states have collected more than $1.6 billion in revenue from sports betting since June 2018, the year a U.S. Supreme Court decision gave states the authority to legalize this activity.

Canada began allowing single-game sports betting in August 2021, but leaves regulation to the provinces. Ontario in April became the first province to announce an “open” or competitive sports book market, while Alberta released a “request for proposals” for two retail sportsbooks.

In June, the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority announced a vendor agreement with the British Columbia Lottery Corporation to develop an online gambling site that will include single-event sports betting. The portal is scheduled to be available to provincial residents before the end of the year, the authority said.

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Funding Opportunities for States

By Blair Lozier

On August 15, the Biden administration posted a document highlighting funding opportunities in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The Council of State Governments has identified the opportunities available to state, territorial and tribal governments. Deadlines for funding applications range from September 2022 to March 2023.

CSG created a timeline of when applications are due. Funding programs are identified by a color that corresponds with their category.

ProgramFederal Agency or DepartmentDeadlinePotential Funding Amount (in millions)Who Qualifies?Transportation ProgramsSafe Streets and Roads for AllDepartment of Transportation9/15/2022$50*Tribal GovernmentsAll Stations Accessibility ProgramFederal Transit Administration9/30/2022$343State Governments [i]Railroad Crossing Elimination ProgramFederal Rail Administration10/4/2022$573State and Tribal Governments [ii]Reconnecting CommunitiesDepartment of Transportation10/13/2022$100*State and Tribal Governments [iii]Power and Clean Energy ProgramsAdvancing Equity through Workforce PartnershipsDepartment of
Energy9/13/2022*$1.5State and Tribal Governments [iv]Preventing Outages and
Enhancing the Resilience of the Electric Grid – FormulaDepartment of
Energy9/30/2022$459State, U.S. Territories and Tribal Governments [v]Resilience and Legacy Pollution ProgramsMarine DebrisNational
Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Administration10/5/2022$56State, U.S. Territories and Tribal Governments [vi]Coastal Resilience and Habitat RestorationNational
Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Administration10/5/2022$10State, U.S. Territories and Tribal Governments [vii]Community Wildfire Defense Grants Northeast-Midwest Region Southern Region Western Region Tribal GovernmentsForest Service10/7/2022$10*State[viii], U.S. Territories and Tribal Governments [ix]Brownfields ProgramEnvironmental
Protection
Agency11/1/2022$300State and Tribal GovernmentsAbandoned Mine LandsDepartment of
the Interior3/31/2023$72State and Tribal GovernmentsBroadband ProgramsMiddle Mile Broadband Infrastructure ProgramNational
Telecommunications and Information
Administration9/30/2022$980State and Tribal GovernmentsDrinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving FundsEnvironmental
Protection
AgencyOngoingState funding may varyState and Tribal Governments*Funding amount listed is the maximum award per applicant.
All applications are due at 11:59 pm Eastern Standard Time.

[i] Eligible applicants under this program must be designated recipients that operate or allocate funds to inaccessible pre-Americans with Disabilities Act—or “legacy”—rail fixed guideway public transportation systems, and states, territories, Washington, D.C. and local governmental entities that operate or financially support legacy rail fixed guideway public transportation systems and corresponding legacy stations/facilities.

[ii] Eligible applicants are: 1. A state, Washington D.C. and U.S. territories and possessions. 2. A political subdivision of a state. 3. A federally recognized Indian Tribe. 4. A unit of local government or a group of local governments. 5. A public port authority. 6. A metropolitan planning organization. 7. A group of entities described in any of paragraphs (1) through (6).

[iii] Nonprofit organizations, metropolitan planning organizations, units of local government and transportation facility owners are eligible for a capital construction grant individually or in partnership with other applicants eligible for a planning grant. See Notice of Funding Opportunity and Frequently Asked Questions on the website for additional details on eligibility.

[iv] The Department of Energy will only accept new applicants for this funding opportunity.

[v] States may deem other entities as eligible.

[vi] All entities should be able to demonstrate the status of an underserved community.

[vii] All entities should be able to demonstrate the status of an underserved community.

[viii] States and U.S. territories applying for Community Wildfire Defense Grants must apply in their assigned region (i.e., Northeast-Midwest, Southern, Western). See the grant webpage for states and territories that qualify under each region.

[ix] Tribal governments that are not federally recognized are eligible for funding.

Legislative Leaders Past and Present Convene to Discuss Civility, Overcoming Differences

Washington Senator, CSG National Chair and former CSG West Chair (2017), Sam Hunt, addresses assembled leaders

As a part of this year’s Annual Meeting in Boise, and in celebration of 75 years, CSG West convened a collection of leaders to engage in dialogue around issues facing legislatures today. In addition to officers, committee co-chairs, and leading private sector partners, CSG was fortunate to welcome a number of past chairs whose service spanned several decades.

With so much experiential wisdom at hand, the questions posed to the attendees all drove towards a common theme: how have you as leaders navigated difference throughout your careers to form relationships, uphold the values of the institutions you serve, and done it all despite increasing polarization at the state level?

States across the West are grappling with redistricting and high member turnover rates as the new biennium approaches. The importance of civility in legislatures has never been more important as the region navigates the intersecting challenges posed by the pandemic, drought, inflation and public distrust in government, among others.

Though the individuals in the room represented a broad range of constituencies and came from all walks of political life, they all agreed on one thing: It is of paramount importance to see and appreciate the humanity in legislative colleagues. As one member put it, “the time for civility isn’t when it’s easy or convenient—the time for civility is when being civil is the last thing you feel like doing.”

Speaking on her career in the Wyoming House, former Representative Rosie Berger (Chair, 2012) recalled feeling at wits’ end with colleagues that categorically voted differently than she did. Then she made a point to visit each of the state’s districts and came to understand the values and communities that shaped the votes of her colleagues. The trip may not have shifted her priorities, but it was an invaluable experience in building empathy, and taught her that bridging gaps always starts with being a listener first.

Former Wyoming Representative and CSG West Chair (2012), Rosie Berger, speaks to the group

In Hawaii, Senate President Ronald Kouchi and Senator Brian Taniguchi (Chair, 2002) spoke about a common convening room at the Capitol, where there would be crock pots of food and guitars available for members after working hours. Having a physical place where people could break bread and make music together helped to re-establish humanity in what is invariably an intense and personal process. The tradition is one that was lost in the wake of the pandemic, and both hope to see its return as a part of building goodwill.

Former Colorado Senator Nancy Todd (Chair, 2015) attested that when lawmakers are unable to connect in person, to have a cup of coffee or share a meal, it limits their ability to see life beyond the walls of the capitol when making decisions. Getting caught up in minutiae and playing into charged topics of the day is an easy trap to fall into, especially when one does not take the time to get to know colleagues on a personal and intentional level.

The key to collaboration, the consensus was, is going beyond seeing red and blue, and going beyond barbs and platitudes. Sharing moments of joy is important. Putting people first– understanding their families, their communities, the values shared on both sides — those are the ways to overcome bitterness and division.

As the region looks forward to the next batch of legislative members, states face fresh challenges and opportunities.

Nevada Assemblywoman Danielle Monroe-Moreno, co-chair of the CSG-West Health Committee, highlighted that generational differences have pushed institutions in different ways. As younger and more diverse members are elected, the challenge for leadership will be to integrate new ideas and approaches while ensuring that decorum and institutional knowledge of the lawmaking process remains intact.  

Former Idaho Senate Majority Leader Bart Davis (Chair, 2003) reflected that legislatures, when at their best, feel like a gathering of trusted friends. He remarked that mentorship was a key component of his own career in the Senate, both as a mentor and a mentee. He would often share his list of “20 things a good leader should know,” one of which was: someone may be your opponent, but they should never be your enemy.

CSG West has been a proud host of regional cooperation for 75 years. Incoming Vice Chair, Wyoming Representative Mike Yin, remarked that CSG is a forum where legislators can show up with no need to know someone else’s policy priorities or political party, and there is a true spirit of collaboration. We thank all the members that participated in this leadership forum and in each of the sessions at this year’s CSG West Annual Meeting in Boise.

CSG current and former Chairs gather in celebration of the 75th Annual Meeting

The post <strong>Legislative Leaders Past and Present Convene to Discuss Civility, Overcoming Differences</strong> appeared first on CSG West.

LCRG Focuses on Water Supply, Investment and Sustainability Along Columbia River Basin

Under the leadership of Oregon Senator Bill Hansell, chair of the Legislative Council on River Governance (LCRG), CSG West hosted the annual meeting of LCRG August 9-11 in Boardman, Oregon. LCRG brings together state legislators from the four Columbia River basin states of Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Idaho to address shared concerns and exchange dialogue.

Congressman Cliff Bentz, who represents Oregon’s 2nd Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives and includes the community of Boardman, joined attending policymakers and other key stakeholders during the forum’s welcome reception. Congressman Bentz, who served as a member of LCRG when he was in the Oregon Senate, highlighted the importance of state and federal cooperation to meet the needs of the Columbia River basin, as well as his efforts in Congress.

The forum’s substantive sessions commenced with keynote remarks from the chair of The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), Kat Brigham, who was recently appointed to the inaugural Secretary’s Tribal Advisory Committee (STAC) for the U.S. Department of the Interior.

Ensuing panel discussion focused on water sustainability efforts in the Mid-Columbia Region. J.R. Cook, Director of the Northeast Oregon Water Association, emphasized the need for interstate collaboration and co-investment, while asserting that federal assistance is needed to secure a target of 150,000 acre-feet of mitigation water. CTUIR representative Chris Marks discussed transboundary water management challenges and opportunities along the Walla Walla River Watershed, and Office of Columbia River (OCR) Director Tom Tebb illustrated water supply development projects for both instream and out-of-stream uses, as well as key highlights  from the Yakima Basin Integrated Water Management Plan. Tebb also discussed opportunities to leverage federal investments in the Yakima Basin following the passage of The John D. Dingell Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, a federal land conservation bill that received bipartisan support and was signed into law in 2019.

Columbia River region leaders gather for a roundtable discussion of issues and opportunities at the Sustainable Agriculture and Energy (SAGE) Center

Other key areas of focus included global and local irrigation projects and trends, with IRZ Engineering President Fred Ziari underscoring the impact of global population growth on irrigation market demands. Participants also learned about Aquatic Gas Optimization in connection with improved sustainability of fish and hydropower during a session led by Merck Animal Health Fisheries Scientist Nick Porter.

This year’s LCRG included a tour and dinner hosted at the Umatilla County Fair, in addition to a dairy and farm policy tour at Threemile Canyon Farms, whose community of over 300 team members employ sustainable farming practices and advanced technologies to meet the needs of a growing population. 

The leadership of LCRG, pursuant to the program’s bylaws, will rotate to Montana. In the coming weeks, CSG West staff will work with the LCRG delegates from Montana to solicit their recommendation of chair, as well as location for the forum’s meeting in 2023. 

CSG West offers a special thanks to current LCRG Chair, Oregon Senator Bill Hansell, whose engagement, collaboration and leadership was integral for a successful meeting.

Oregon Senator and LCRG Chair, Bill Hansell, with wife, Margaret Hansell

PowerPoint presentations (in PDF format) from the 2022 LCRG speakers can be accessed at the links below. For questions about LCRG, please contact Jackie Tinetti, Policy Analyst, at [email protected].

Walla Walla River Watershed Transboundary Water Management: Challenges & Opportunities

Office of Columbia River Overview

Mid-Columbia Region (Northeast Oregon Water Association)

Global Irrigation Trends and Technologies

Threemile Canyon Farms

The post <strong>LCRG Focuses on Water Supply, Investment and Sustainability Along Columbia River Basin</strong> appeared first on CSG West.

Private: Explainer: Creating Housing Opportunities for People with Complex Health Needs Leaving the Justice System

With an affordable housing crisis across the U.S., it is increasingly critical for jurisdictions to expand their housing supply to meet community needs. However, local leaders often grapple with the question of who is prioritized in these expansion efforts as they develop their housing strategies.

This is for a number of reasons. For starters, there is a compelling argument to be made for why many different populations need more housing opportunities, making it difficult to prioritize. Even when leaders are clear on who should be prioritized, however, they can face significant local pushback, whether financial or political, when attempting to develop housing options that prioritize groups that involve people with criminal records and/or complex health needs.

To support jurisdictions seeking solutions to these concerns, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center, and the Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) hosted a series of virtual Communities of Practice in 2021 and a follow up webinar series in 2022. These virtual sessions brought together teams of state and local leaders from across the justice, housing, behavioral health, and other systems, where they received training and assistance to help them implement community and state-level strategies to increase housing with supportive services.

In the first of a series of web articles lifting up themes from these sessions, here are five questions local leaders often face when wanting to create new, equitable housing opportunities for people with complex health needs who are leaving the criminal justice system:

1. Why is it important for leaders to create new, equitable housing units specifically for this population?

The affordable housing crisis makes one thing clear: there are not enough units available to meet the needs of most communities. This is even before factoring in the stigma and additional barriers that many people with criminal records and behavioral health needs face or the effects of redlining and on-going discrimination in the housing market that have limited the amount of housing available to Black and Hispanic Americans.

However, communities that invest in housing paired with supportive services (such as case management, mental health treatment, and supported employment) tend to see increased community stability, increased engagement with community-based providers, and a reduction in returns to incarceration. Indeed, research shows that housing is essential to reentry and public safety. New housing opportunities often provide vital support and stability for people with complex health needs (i.e., mental health needs, substance use disorders, serious physical health conditions), who tend to have higher rates of homelessness compared to the general population.

2. Are new units the only way to create additional housing opportunities for this population?

No; strategies to increase housing opportunities can also include lowering policy barriers and increasing access to existing public and private housing units. However, without additional units, most communities will face problems meeting their housing demand even if they have implemented other housing strategies. New housing units, supported by (1) rental assistance to keep units affordable and (2) community-based interventions to help people stay in their housing, are the most effective ways to ensure greater access to housing for people who have historically been de-prioritized, and in some cases, regulated, out of housing access.

How can local communities lay the groundwork for new supportive housing?

Jurisdictions can start by securing funding and community support to construct, redevelop, or subsidize new housing. From large multifamily buildings to studio apartments in converted garages, this can look like the following:

Cultivating partnerships across different systems to generate mutual understanding, identify common goals, and align funding. Cross-system partnerships are particularly important for local housing development due to the complex nature of development for even a single building (such as securing multiple funding sources, obtaining community approvals, managing competing expectations, or meeting different supportive service needs). Local development partnerships should reflect the communities where they intend to build housing, ideally including:

Representatives from community-based organizations,
Housing developers,
People who may reside in the new housing or otherwise have lived experience of homelessness or involvement in the justice system,
Potential funders (e.g., banks, hospitals, health plans, faith-based groups),
Organizations with experience in housing finance (such as Community Development Corporations),
Housing or criminal justice agency leadership or staff,
And advocacy organizations.

Conducting readiness assessments to help identify strengths and gaps in a proposed development team and process. Getting housing built and prioritized for people with complex health needs leaving the justice system requires technical knowledge of housing development, identification of rental assistance for operating expenses, and supportive services. Some questions to consider during a readiness assessment include:

What mutual goals exist among partner organizations?
What financial capacity does the developer or housing provider have to create new housing opportunities?
How can the jurisdiction ensure racial equity in decisions concerning where housing gets built and who is eligible and referred to it?
What plans are in place to sustain operating expenses and supportive services?

Gaining buy-in from local community members to ensure maximum community support. Ways to gain buy-in can include:

Hosting open houses,
Communicating the benefits of new housing to potential neighbors and people who will live in them, and
Highlighting how housing affordability is a community-wide problem that needs a community-wide solution.

4. How can states support cross-system approaches to increase the supply of supportive housing?

State policymakers can align their processes, funding, and policies to create dedicated pipelines that support new housing prioritized for this population while also working to advance racial equity and reduce systemic barriers. This can look like the following:

Establishing governance structures to help local leaders set up cross-agency, cross-system collaborative bodies. These structures can be used to set concrete expectations about roles and responsibilities across agencies and systems and to determine who is included, where funding comes from, and how decisions are made.
Dedicating funding to enable a sustained, long-term pipeline for prioritizing new housing for people with complex needs leaving the justice system. State policymakers can critically support these efforts by identifying different funding streams, pooling resources together, or issuing joint funding Requests for Proposals that prioritize groups or developers focused on housing this population.
Reducing access barriers to new and existing housing. This includes:

Revising screening policies to minimize criminal record barriers unrelated to suitability as a tenant;
Using data analysis and the expertise of people with lived experience to evaluate racial equity in assessment processes and the physical location of newly constructed housing;
Reviewing sentencing standards and release conditions for disproportionate impacts; and
Implementing landlord recruitment strategies, such as incentive funds or education campaigns, to increase access to existing units.

5. How can states leverage the American Rescue Plan or other federal funding to create more housing?

States can typically use these funding streams to pilot new programs or new housing development efforts that will need to be fully sustained over time. For example, Colorado (a presenter in the Community of Practice) used BJA Second Chance Act funding to launch a systems-wide approach to support housing development in the state. With the grant, Colorado’s state and local partners began their efforts by creating a small supportive housing program. After proving their model successful over several years, the program sustainably scaled up efforts into multiple, state-wide pipelines of new housing and supportive services.

—

For further information, states and local leaders can visit the following resources:

Action Points: Four Steps to Expand Access to Housing for People in the Justice System with Behavioral Health Needs: This brief presents four steps state leaders should take to increase housing opportunities and improve justice and health outcomes for people in the justice system with behavioral health needs.
Thinking Outside the Box Housing Webinar Series: Cross-Sector Strategies to Create Housing Opportunities for People with Behavioral Health Needs Leaving the Justice System
Center for Justice and Mental Health Partnerships: This support center provides free assistance and consultation to improve outcomes for people with mental health conditions and co-occurring substance use disorders in the criminal justice system.
CSH – Dimensions of Quality Supportive Housing: This publication provides strategies to build the capacity of supportive and affordable housing developers and managers to create and operate high-quality, effective, and sustainable units.

 

Photo by PhotoMIX Company via Pexels.com

The post Private: Explainer: Creating Housing Opportunities for People with Complex Health Needs Leaving the Justice System appeared first on CSG Justice Center.

Beyond the Ballot with Paul Lux

“The sun never sets on voting in Okaloosa County,” shared Paul Lux as he showcased the pins representing his overseas voters that dot the world map in his office. In 1999, Lux was working as an information technology (IT) specialist for a local real estate office in Okaloosa County when he was approached by the company’s secretary regarding an open position with the Supervisor of Elections. Influenced by his educational background in government and his voting experience during his military service, Lux soon applied for the position. Shortly thereafter, he was brought on staff as an Information Systems Coordinator, a role in which he served for five years before rising through the ranks to become Supervisor of Elections in 2009.

While in office, Lux has witnessed numerous advancements in the technologies used to administer elections. During the early 2000’s, lever machines and punch card voting were still commonly used to cast and count voters’ ballots. Following the Bush v. Gore Presidential Election, punch card voting was largely abandoned due to counting issues stemming from incompletely punched chads. Direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machines were then adopted due to their utility for voters with disabilities, provision of immediate feedback to voters, and prevention of overvotes. Some machines, however, do not produce voter-verified paper audit trails (VVPAT), and thus many jurisdictions have since transitioned back to the use of paper ballots and optical scanners.

Despite rapid advancements within the technology sector at-large, innovation within the realm of voting equipment has been slow moving. According to Lux, this can be attributed in part to the uncertainty surrounding how frequently new iterations of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) – the standards and requirements to which all voting systems in the U.S. must adhere – would be adopted. “This (uncertainty) disincentivized technology vendors from investing in research and development given the lack of clarity surrounding the length of time for which new systems would be considered compliant with the VVSG,” Lux explained.

By 2015, Lux had become a well-known figure in the wider elections community with a demonstrated interest in tackling barriers to the development of voting technologies. As such, Lux was selected to become a member of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Standards Board. While on the board, Supervisor Lux represented the perspective of local election officials while working closely with members of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) to review 15 high level assertions for the VVSG*. Impressed with Lux’s work on the Standards Board, EAC Commissioner Don Palmer appointed Lux to the TGDC in 2019, a role in which he remains today.

Although advancements in voting technology have been slow moving, this has not deterred Supervisor Lux from securing his County’s participation in technology-centered pilot projects for uniformed and overseas citizen voters (UOCAVA). In Okaloosa County, approximately one-fifth of registered voters are uniformed services voters posted at military installations within the County, such as Eglin Air Force Base, Hurlburt Field, and Duke Field, among others.

The prevalence of this protected group in his jurisdiction, in combination with his previous military service, prompted Lux to put voting access for these citizens at the forefront of his tenure in office. While serving as the county’s IT specialist, Lux helped oversee the Voting Over the Internet (VOI) project. Through this pilot program, UOCAVA voters were permitted to return their ballots to the Supervisor of Elections via the Internet. Although the pilot was successful, events surrounding the 2000 election largely overshadowed its impact within the wider elections community.

In 2004, Lux and his colleagues at the Supervisor of Elections office secured Okaloosa’s participation in the Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment (SERVE). This program once again allowed UCOAVA voters to cast their ballot via the Internet while also allowing them to register to vote online. After security concerns prompted the cancellation of the program, Okaloosa County partnered with Scytl, a Spanish provider of electronic voting systems and election technology, to initiate the 2008 Distance Ballot Pilot project. This project allowed UOCAVA voters to utilize a kiosk to cast their ballots while abroad rather than mark and return a ballot via mail or the Internet. Four years later, Okaloosa County secured its participation in both Electronic Absentee System for Elections (EASE) grant programs administered by the Federal Voting Assistance Project.

Despite the relative success of these pilots, concerns regarding the security of electronic ballot return methods have stifled Supervisor Lux’s ability to provide his UOCAVA voters with a long-term solution for electronic ballot return. Although voters in Florida are authorized to utilize fax technology to return their ballots, Lux does not see this as a viable alternative to mailed ballots. “I’m still struggling with looking for means of electronic ballot return that are beneficial for soldiers in the field. What guys in forward deployed areas in Afghanistan don’t have access to is a fax machine” explained Lux.

Despite the barriers Lux has faced as Supervisor, he remains committed to pursuing a viable and secure means of electronic ballot return for his uniformed and overseas citizen voters. In addition to his membership on the TGDC, Lux plays an active role in The Council of State Governments Overseas Voting Initiative (OVI) where he collaborates with fellow election officials and OVI team members to assess feasible and secure methods of electronic ballot return for UOCAVA voters. According to Lux, this pursuit is what continues to drive him as an election official. “That’s the legacy I want to leave behind – that through my office, I was able to make sure that military voters got to vote,” said Lux.

*VVSG high level assertions break down agreed upon voting system requirements into clear guidelines for how voting systems should be designed and developed and how they should operate.

The post Beyond the Ballot with Paul Lux appeared first on CSG OVI.