This past month, New Jersey’s public schools reopened for the 2020-21 school year, and not all students are having the same back-to-school experience. As the state continues to limit the spread of COVID-19, some school districts are starting their school year fully remote, some are offering a “hybrid” of in-person and remote instruction, and a few are fully in-person. As a result, the pandemic appears to be surfacing ongoing problems with segregation and school underfunding that translates into unequal access to in-person instruction.[i]
As of September 13, most districts settled with the state on how they would begin the school year, according to data released by NJ Spotlight.[ii] Slightly more than half of New Jersey students are in school districts with fully remote programs; about one-third are in districts offering hybrid programs; eight percent of students are in “combination” districts, which offer different reopening plans within the district; and two percent are in districts with fully in-person instruction (six percent of students are enrolled in districts for which there is no data).
It is important to note that even if a school district offers in-person schooling, that district must offer a fully remote option for students, as required by the Murphy administration.[iii] The figures below, therefore, do not represent how many students are enrolled in each option; instead, they show what options are available to families and students. A student in a “hybrid” district, for example, may still choose to attend school entirely remotely; a student in a “remote” district, however, does not have the option of enrolling in a hybrid program.
The Murphy administration has emphasized the importance of allowing school districts to make re-opening decisions “…that best fits the district’s local needs.”[iv] It is well documented, however, that New Jersey’s school districts are highly segregated.[v] Therefore, it is important to determine if the state’s school reopening plans are equally available to students of different races and ethnicities.
White students, for example, are more likely to be enrolled in a district that offers at least some in-person instruction. Six out of ten New Jersey students enrolled in a hybrid district are white, while only three out of ten students in a remote district are white.
In contrast, six out of ten students in fully remote districts are Black or Hispanic, while only one-quarter of the students enrolled in hybrid districts are Black or Hispanic. This demonstrates a clear difference in the racial and ethnic characteristics of districts that do and do not offer in-person instruction.
There are several possible reasons for these disparities. Polls have shown that Black and Hispanic parents are generally more wary about sending their children back to school buildings during the pandemic.[vi] It may be that school districts offering only remote instruction believe putting their focus on improving that instruction is more aligned with parents’ desires.
However, it may also be that these parents perceive that their children’s schools are less safe than others, due to a lack of adequate resources. Recent national polling has found that Black and Hispanic parents perceive that there are large disparities in school funding across racial lines.[vii] Families of color may, therefore, be responding to systemic inequities that leave their children’s schools less able to offer in-person instruction safely.
New Jersey’s School Funding Reform Act (SFRA) sets an “adequacy target” for school districts; the target is the amount of funding that is needed for students to receive an adequate education, per the state’s funding formula calculations.[viii] Many districts, however, do not spend enough to meet their targets; some districts are below their per pupil target amount by more than $5,000.
Many more of the students enrolled in “remote” districts are also enrolled in districts that are underfunded, according to SFRA targets. About 128,000 of those students are enrolled in districts that are severely underfunded; in fact, the vast majority of New Jersey students in districts underfunded by more than $5,000 per pupil are also in districts that offer no in-person learning option.
Overall, inequities in funding appear to be translating into inequities in access to in-person instruction. It would be a serious mistake, however, to assume that these inequities should be addressed simply by forcing districts to begin offering hybrid programs. School districts that suffer from chronic underfunding are almost certainly not able to provide the same level of safety during the pandemic as well-resourced districts. Differences in building ventilation, square footage per student, student-to-staff ratios, health care services, and many other important factors – which are caused by chronic underfunding – will undoubtedly impact a district’s ability to safely educate its students.
The racial and ethnic disparities in school reopening programs should be a wakeup call to New Jersey policymakers: it is yet another example of how inadequate and inequitable funding is creating different systems of schooling for different students.
End Notes
[i] In this post, I merge the data on school re-openings with student enrollment and fiscal data from the New Jersey Department of Education (https://www.nj.gov/education/data/). By combining these sources, it is possible to determine the enrollment of students in districts employing different learning models, and the demographic characteristics of the students in each type of model.
Last week, the Census Bureau released new data that provide insight into New Jersey residents’ economic security and access to healthcare. The data for 2019 show that, even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, many New Jersey households struggled to afford basic needs. Since the onset of the current health and economic crises, even more New Jerseyans have faced hardships, while the difficulties faced by many households who were already struggling have intensified.
Racial and Gender Disparities Persisted During Economic Expansion
According to newly released data from the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS), New Jersey’s poverty rate (9.2 percent) had still not fully recovered to pre-recession levels (8.7 percent in 2008). Even though 2019 marked the end of a period of economic growth, nearly one in ten (798,262) New Jersey residents lived in poverty last year.
Racial and gender disparities in poverty rates persisted in 2019. The poverty rate among women (10.0 percent) remained higher than that of men (8.3 percent) in New Jersey. Black (15.6 percent) and Latinx (15.8 percent) New Jersey residents were nearly three times more likely to live below the federal poverty line than white (5.8 percent) and Asian (5.6 percent) residents.
Despite improvements in the child poverty rate, children continued to be more likely to live in poverty than New Jersey residents overall. In total, 229,978 children in New Jersey lived in poverty in 2019. Fortunately, the rate of poverty among children in New Jersey finally decreased to pre-Great Recession levels (12.1 percent) in 2019 after rising steadily for years and spiking at 16.4 percent in 2013.
Similarly, median income finally surpassed pre-recession levels in 2019 following a long and slow recovery from the Great Recession. The real median household income in New Jersey in 2019 was $85,751, a slight increase from 2018 ($83,221, adjusted to inflation). While household income increased overall, not all New Jerseyans benefitted from these gains. Median household income among Black ($56,301), Latinx ($61,624), and American Indian ($72,816) households remains lower than median household income among white ($98,092) and Asian ($126,278) households.
COVID-19 Exacerbates Economic Inequality
The American Community Survey 2019 estimates demonstrate that despite overall improvements on many economic indicators, many New Jerseyans were left behind during a long period of economic growth. Further, more recent data collected through the Census Bureau’s new Household Pulse Survey this summer suggest that conditions have changed drastically since the onset of the pandemic, deepening existing inequities.
According to the most recent Household Pulse Survey, which includes data collected between August 19 and August 31, 2020, the majority of New Jersey residents (53 percent) reported loss of employment income since the onset of the pandemic. The survey also finds that over half of respondents (56 percent) reported difficulties paying for usual household expenses during the coronavirus pandemic. These data also suggest that challenges caused by the current public health crisis disproportionately harmed people of color and households with very low incomes who faced challenges prior to the pandemic. White households were less likely to report difficulties paying for household expenses than all other racial and ethnic groups.
Urgent Action Needed to Build an Economy for the Many
The new Census data highlight the critical need to swiftly pass a robust federal stimulus package that boosts key safety net programs for struggling households. While the economic relief put in place by the federal CARES Act helped many New Jersey residents, the amount and duration of federal relief has fallen far short of the need. Further, many of the households hardest hit by the pandemic, including immigrants and those working in the cash economy, are most likely to be excluded from existing forms of relief. New Jersey lawmakers should take steps to provide relief where the federal government has fallen short in removing barriers to economic stability, such as providing income replacement and stimulus payments to workers excluded from federal support. In addition, federal lawmakers should provide aid to state and local governments to avert cuts to critical services that are more important than ever in a public health emergency. In order for New Jersey to recover from the current crisis successfully, it’s critical that all households have access to the resources they need to live safely and with dignity.
The following testimony, on A838, was delivered to the Assembly Budget Committee on September 22, 2020.
Good afternoon Chairwoman Pintor Marin and members of the committee. My name is Vineeta Kapahi and I am a policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP), a non-partisan, non-profit research institution that focuses on policies affecting low-to-moderate income people in New Jersey. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on this important issue.
NJPP supports A838, which lowers the minimum age limit for the New Jersey Earned Income Tax Credit (NJ EITC) for workers without qualifying children.
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a refundable tax credit for low- and moderate- income working individuals and families, has long been a successful tool for reducing poverty, promoting economic security, and improving quality of life for working families. By boosting the wages of low paid workers, the EITC helps New Jerseyans better afford their basic needs, improves health and educational outcomes, and strengthens state and local economies.
Due to the EITC’s narrow eligibility requirements, however, far too many New Jersey residents miss out on this important resource. Eligibility for the credit depends on several factors, including income, family type and size, immigration status, and residence. For workers without children at home, eligibility is also tied to age – workers who do not claim children as dependents only qualify for the credit if they are between the ages of 25 and 64.
While EITC eligibility criteria are based on the assumption that workers under 25 are dependent on their parents, the reality is that many young New Jersey workers are financially independent or even support their families. By lowering the minimum EITC eligibility age for workers without qualifying children, the proposed legislation would provide a much-needed boost and stronger foundation for young adults as they begin their careers.
Several other states have recently taken steps to address barriers to the EITC by making targeted changes to eligibility rules. In 2017, for example, Minnesota decreased the minimum age for workers without qualifying children from 25 to 21. In 2018, California expanded its state EITC to childless workers between the ages of 18 and 24, and Maryland eliminated the minimum age requirement for its state EITC altogether.
By passing A838, New Jersey could join states that have expanded the impact of their EITC programs. New Jersey could further strengthen its EITC beyond the present bill through additional measures, including eliminating the upper and lower age caps for workers without qualifying children, increasing the credit amount for childless workers, and extending the credit to ITIN filers. Removing barriers to the EITC would not help households who need support, but would also strengthen the broader New Jersey economy. As recipients of the EITC use the credit to meet short- and medium- term needs, such as transportation, household supplies, and utility bills, expanding eligibility would increase economic activity and support businesses.
In light of the current health and economic crises, it is more important than ever for New Jersey to invest in tools that directly support workers and strengthen the state’s recovery. I urge you to take a step toward eliminating barriers to economic justice by swiftly passing A838.
To read a PDF version of the full report, click here.
Labor Day is a time to pay tribute to the social and economic achievements of workers and the broader labor movement. This year, essential workers are courageously keeping New Jersey’s economy and communities running despite the current health crisis. Nevertheless, these workers, among others, continue to encounter barriers to economic security and threats to their health and safety. Moreover, the challenges faced by many families as they juggle caregiving and work have become increasingly untenable. These conditions have both highlighted and deepened inequities in our workforce, as workers who are Black, immigrant, and low-income are at disproportionately high risk of exposure to the health and economic harms of COVID-19.[1]
This Labor Day, we examine the state of working New Jersey, with particular attention to the impact of COVID-19 on workers and their families. While the state government has taken several steps to improve wages, benefits, and protections for workers in recent years, including increasing the minimum wage, improving paid leave, and boosting enforcement of worker misclassification,[2] workers in New Jersey continue to face challenging conditions. This brief provides an overview of policies that would further strengthen workers’ rights and promote public health and economic security both during and beyond the current crisis.
Hourly Wage Growth Remains Slow and Uneven
While COVID-19 has created new complications for workers, income inequality was a growing problem long before the onset of the pandemic. One factor driving income inequality is the near stagnation of hourly wages for most New Jersey workers.
From World War II through the 1970s, wages and productivity grew in lockstep, building the middle class. Since the late 1970s, however, the gap between productivity and wages has steadily widened. While productivity has increased, hourly wages for most workers have remained stagnant or grown modestly. Between 1979 and 2016, productivity in New Jersey grew 80.4 percent, while median hourly compensation grew just 25.8 percent.[3]
During the same time, wages of the lowest income earners in New Jersey have remained stagnant. The wages of workers at the 10th percentile — $10.60 an hour in 2019 — have only increased 7 percent (68 cents) in total since 1979, adjusted to inflation. Recent minimum wage increases have since contributed to modest wage growth for some low wage workers, but these have yet to rectify decades of stagnation. For example, wages for the lowest paid workers decreased between 2010 and 2013, but increased when the New Jersey minimum wage increased from $7.25 to $8.25 per hour in 2014.[4] The state’s minimum wage, which has since seen additional increases, rose to $11.00 per hour at the start of 2020 and is scheduled to reach $15.00 an hour by 2024.[5] Median-wage workers in New Jersey have fared only slightly better, with a moderate hourly wage increase of 20 percent ($3.72) since 1979. In contrast, the hourly wages of high wage workers in the 90th percentile have risen much more rapidly, increasing 62 percent ($22.92) between 1979 and 2019.
Racial disparities in hourly wages have not only persisted over the last four decades, but expanded, as the wages for white workers have increased more rapidly than for Black and Latinx workers. In 2019, the median hourly wage among white workers in New Jersey was $25.85, approximately 1.5 times the median wage among Black ($17.32) and Latinx workers ($17.01). The hourly median wage among Black workers has only increased 6 percent since 1979, and for Latinx workers, just 17 percent. Wages for white workers rose much faster, with a 37 percent increase in median hourly wage during the same period. In addition, while the overall gender wage gap in New Jersey has narrowed since 1979, women continue to earn lower wages than men,[6] and Black and Latinx women earn less than white women.[7]
Unprecedented Unemployment
The COVID-19 crisis has brought about unprecedented levels of job loss and unemployment insurance (UI) claims. From mid-March to mid-August 2020, 1.5 million New Jerseyans filed for UI and the state paid out $4.4 billion in benefits.[8]
Unemployment claims have reduced in recent weeks, but claim levels remain high compared to levels prior to the pandemic. The total amount of unemployment insurance benefits paid to New Jersey workers has plummeted in recent weeks following the late July expiration of the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC), which provided a $600 weekly supplement.[9]
While unemployment skyrocketed across all racial and ethnic groups, the economic harms of COVID-19 are not felt evenly among New Jersey workers. Both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, people of color continue to experience unemployment at a higher rate than white people.[10]
The Census Bureau’s most recent Household Pulse Survey, which is based on data collected between July 16 and July 21, 2020, suggests an even harsher reality than unemployment rates.[11] According to the survey, over half (55 percent) of households in New Jersey report experiencing loss of employment income since March 13, 2020. In addition, young (ages 18-24) and Latinx New Jersey residents experienced income loss particularly high rates. 72 percent of young respondents (ages 18-24) and 71 percent of Latinx respondents reported losing employment income between March 13 and July 21. Further, 30 percent of all households reported that they expect to lose employment income in the following four weeks.
Threats to Worker Health and Safety
Workers on the frontlines of the pandemic response, including those in industries like health care, public transportation, and cleaning services, are often underpaid and lack protections. The impact of inadequate safeguards for workers is clear. In New Jersey’s long-term care facilities alone, 13,368 staff members have contracted COVID-19 and 121 have died.[12] Moreover, workers in frontline industries are more likely to earn low and moderate incomes (less than 200 percent of the poverty line) than the workforce overall.[13] The COVID-19 pandemic has intensified the already challenging circumstances that these workers must navigate.
Many essential workers also face structural barriers to economic security and rights. In New Jersey, women are much more likely to be essential workers than men. While women make up less than half (47.4 percent) of New Jersey’s workforce, 62.5 percent of workers in frontline industries are women. In addition, Black, Latinx, and immigrant workers are disproportionately represented among essential workers, making up a higher percentage of the workers in frontline industries than in the workforce overall. For example, while Black workers make up only 12.4 percent of the overall workforce, nearly 20 percent of workers in frontline industries are Black. [14]
While New Jersey has recently taken steps to strengthen the rights of workers, these protections can only be effective with proper enforcement. In New Jersey, the Division of Wage and Hour Compliance within the Department of Labor and Workforce Development is the primary agency charged with protecting workers by enforcing labor laws.[15]However, a lack of resources in this division hampers enforcement capacity and threatens workers’ rights. While the state’s workforce has increased by 8 percent since 2009, enforcement staff for worker rights protections has not kept pace. Further, workforce standards appropriations have declined by 24 percent. Overall, enforcement funding per worker has declined by 26 percent since 2009, adjusting for inflation. During a pandemic, it is especially important that the state invest adequate resources into enforcing public health and workplace safety laws.
How New Jersey Can Honor Workers and Improve Economic Security
Amid a global pandemic, it is more important than ever to support our workers and those who have lost income. Several policies and programs that would improve safety and wellbeing of workers across the state have already been proposed. Strengthening and clarifying protections and supports for workers will, by extension, will promote the wellbeing of workers’ families and the general public, improving the state’s response to the COVID-19 crisis overall.
Protect Worker Safety
Workers who face unsafe conditions have little recourse and are often met with the difficult decision of risking their income or jeopardizing their health and safety. In the absence of adequate federal mandates, it is critical that the state government provide clear guidelines and strong enforcement to ensure safety in the workplace. In circumstances where adequate safety precautions are not taken, safeguards should be in place to prevent income loss or retaliation against workers. Lawmakers are currently considering several bills that would clarify and improve worker protections during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.
Emergency Paid Sick Days (S2453/A4209)
Under current rules, New Jersey employers are not required to allow employees to accrue, use, or carry forward more than 40 hours of earned sick leave in a benefit year. [16] Five days of sick leave is often inadequate, particularly during a public health emergency where workers may need additional sick days to recover from an illness, isolate to prevent spread, or care for a loved one. As a result, many workers are at risk of compromising their own health, or the health of their families and coworkers, to ensure their economic security. By strengthening the ability of workers to use earned sick leave when they need it, lawmakers can better support the health and wellbeing of all New Jersey residents.
Right to Refuse Unsafe Work (A4268)
This proposal would establish a set of standards that employers must follow to ensure that worker health and safety concerns are addressed without fear of retaliation or loss of income. A4628 would also direct the New Jersey Department of Labor to develop a mechanism for identifying and addressing complaints quickly and effectively, including the establishment of a 24/7 hotline.
Good Cause/Right to First Refusal (S2454/A4153)
In most cases, workers who leave a job voluntarily are only eligible for unemployment insurance benefits if their reason for leaving is both directly related to the job and so compelling that it is clear that the worker had no choice but to quit, which is known as “good cause connected with work.”[17] S2454/A4153 would reduce barriers to unemployment insurance by clarifying that workers have the right to receive unemployment benefits under “good cause” if they leave a position conditions that jeopardize health or safety. This proposal would also strengthen worker protections by requiring employers who laid off staff during the public health emergency give those employees right of first refusal for subsequent openings for which they are qualified.
Farmworker Epidemic Health and Safety Act (S2602/A4404)
Farmworkers face unique vulnerabilities to COVID-19 given the nature of the agriculture industry. Nevertheless, the health and safety of these workers are often overlooked, putting them at risk of illness. By ensuring that employers cooperate with the recommended pandemic health and safety protections for farmworkers — including mandating COVID-19 testing, inspecting work and living spaces to ensure compliance with health and safety guidance, and creating mechanisms for informing workers and employers about their rights and responsibilities — lawmakers can better protect the workers who make New Jersey the Garden State.
Executive Order for Pandemic Protections for Essential Workers
In addition to the bills outlined above, an executive order proposed by labor and immigrants’ rights advocates would create new mechanisms for addressing violations of public health and worker safety laws. This executive order would 1) direct the New Jersey Department of Labor to establish a 24-hour “worker rights protections” hotline, 2) deputize COVID-19 safety liaisons to resolve COVID-19 disputes, 3) require essential employers to provide all essential workers with notice of their pandemic protections, 4) mandate training for essential workers and essential employers, and 5) strengthen enforcement of pandemic protection violations. This proposal would protect public health, promote safety, and boost workers’ rights.
Strengthen the Social Safety Net
As more workers face economic insecurity, it is critical that New Jersey fully fund, and remove barriers to, safety net programs, including tax credits targeted to low- and moderate- income households that help New Jerseyans pay for basic needs like food, housing, and childcare. Coupled with a strong minimum wage, strengthening tax credits for workers would better support New Jersey’s households dealing with the effects of unequal and slow wage growth, as well as support the state’s overall economy as we recover from the effects of COVID-19. In addition, ensuring that all workers have access to resources when they lose income is critical to worker wellbeing and economic security.
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
The federal EITC helps low- to moderate-income families make ends meet by boosting their after-tax earnings. New Jersey has its own version of the credit, the NJ EITC, which supplements the federal benefit with a 40 percent match of the federal credit amount.[18] The EITC has been associated with improved health outcomes, educational achievements, and lifetime earning potential.[19] Recipients tend to use the credit to meet short- and medium- terms needs, such as transportation and household supplies, which increases economic activity. The EITC’s narrow eligibility requirements, however, currently exclude many New Jersey workers. The New Jersey Legislature is considering several bills that would address barriers to the state EITC. These bills would:
Expand eligibility to childless workers ages 18 to 24 years old (A838/S835),
Increase the credit amount from 40 percent to 50 percent of the federal credit over two years (in 2021 and 2022) for all recipients (A841/S836),
Increase the credit amount to 100 percent for all childless workers (A839/S765),
Enable qualifying relatives to be treated as qualifying children (A840/S764), and
Expand the EITC to immigrants who file taxes using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (A4229/S2194).
By reducing barriers to the EITC and increasing the credit amount, the program could be a stronger tool for addressing economic insecurity.
Child and Dependent Care Credit
The Child and Dependent Care Credit is a federal tax benefit that helps families cover the costs of caring for qualifying children and adult dependents.[20] In 2018, New Jersey created a state version of the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, which is calculated as a percentage of the taxpayer’s federal credit.[21] This credit reduces the amount of New Jersey Gross Income Tax owed; however, it does not result in a refund if no taxes are owed. By making the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit fully refundable, families could receive a credit regardless of their tax liability, which would enable more children in families with little or no income to benefit from the program.
Address Barriers to Income Replacement and Pandemic Relief
Most New Jersey residents who have been affected by the pandemic have received some relief through federal stimulus checks, unemployment insurance, and other public programs. However, several groups of New Jerseyans have been excluded from many forms of economic relief, including undocumented immigrants and their families, people leaving incarceration, and certain people working in the cash economy. Barriers related to immigration status, for example, have excluded an estimated 686,000 state residents from the CARES Act federal pandemic stimulus checks.[22] New Jersey lawmakers are currently considering a bill that would provide a one-time payment to certain households who were excluded from federal stimulus payments and filed taxes using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (S2480/A4171). By providing emergency relief as well as long-term income replacement support to New Jersey residents whose earnings have been impacted by the pandemic, the state can take a step toward a more robust and even recovery from the current crisis.
[11] U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. Week 12 Household Pulse Survey: July 16 – July 21. “Employment Table 1. Experienced and Expected Loss of Employment Income by Select Characteristics: New Jersey.” https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2020/demo/hhp/hhp12.html
[19] Marr, Chuck, Chye-Ching Huang, Arloc Sherman, and Brandon Debot. 2015. “EITC and Child Tax Credit Promote Work, Reduce Poverty, and Support Children’s Development, Research Finds.” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/eitc-and-child-tax-credit-promote-work-reduce-poverty-and-support-childrens?fa=view&id=3793
To read a PDF version of the full report, click here.
Summary
Safely re-opening schools amidst a global pandemic is an expensive proposition. Re-opening plans require social distancing, which means smaller classes that may require staggered schedules, additional transportation, and rethinking and reorganizing the use of school spaces. School districts will also need to enhance their on-site health services, ensure safe and clean facilities, and upgrade their ability to teach remotely if it becomes necessary to do so again. Unfortunately, this crisis comes on the heels of a decade of disinvestment in New Jersey’s education system. New Jersey schools have not recovered financially since before the last recession; this is especially true for those serving the state’s low-income and Black and Latinx children. This brief illustrates the effects of the decade of disinvestment and provides recommendations for an equitable path forward. Put bluntly: safe and effective schools will cost more, not less, than in the past. The good news is that New Jersey can afford to make the required investments.
The COVID-19 Pandemic Will Drive Up Costs to Reopen Schools
As of this writing, the beginning of New Jersey’s 2020-21 school year is about one month away. Late in June, the state released its reopening plan for schools, which declares: “…absent a shift in the public health data, school buildings will open in some capacity for in-person instruction and operations in the Fall.”[1] While the state has since declared fully remote instruction will remain an options for students, there is still clearly pressure on the state and its school districts to return to some level of normalcy in K-12 education. The social and emotional well-being of children, the careers of working parents, and the future of New Jersey’s economy all depend greatly on how and when students return to school.
The state plan requires local districts to develop their own plans based on a series of “anticipated minimum standards.” What the plan does not do, however, is make any attempt to estimate the fiscal impact on districts to meet those standards, nor lay out any proposals for either districts or the state to raise additional revenues to cover these new costs. Yet stakeholders can be certain that reopening schools will require a substantial influx of resources. As the authors of this brief have noted elsewhere:
Much smaller class sizes will be required to meet social-distancing guidelines and contain the spread of the coronavirus; this, in turn, will require hiring additional personnel, finding new classroom space, and perhaps creating staggered schedules. It will mean more instructional hours for teachers, more staff hours spent cleaning and sanitizing facilities, and more complicated bus routes. Schools will have to budget for additional time and effort from maintenance and operations staff, food service workers, and other support positions. Nursing and other medical services — already inadequate in many schools (Willgerodt, Brock, & Maughan, 2018) — will need to be improved. And, to ensure equitable internet access, districts will have to redouble their investments in broadband and portable computers. Finally, since learning losses due to this spring’s school closures are likely to be most severe for students who live in poverty (Herald, 2020; Rothstein, 2020), schools in low-income neighborhoods will face especially daunting challenges come September. In short, we can expect the costs associated with reopening schools to be significantly greater this fall than in previous years, particularly in high-poverty schools and districts.[2]
In short, if New Jersey is to re-open its schools safely, it must plan to spend much more than it has in the past. This problem, however, is made worse by a difficult fact: even before the pandemic, too many of New Jersey’s school districts didn’t have the resources they needed to provide their students with an adequate education.
School Funding Never Recovered from the Last Recession
Prior to the Great Recession of 2009, New Jersey was a leader in school funding reform. Policies made in the wake of the Abbott series of rulings on school funding cases drove substantial amounts of new funding toward some of the state’s most underfunded school districts. Unfortunately, the state has since retreated in its efforts to fund schools; the percentage of New Jersey’s economy devoted to school funding has declined sharply since 2009, leaving fewer revenues available to the state’s districts.
These cuts in state effort have not been borne evenly; the school districts enrolling the highest-poverty students have suffered the greatest cuts. Years of research show that when high-poverty districts spend more money, they can help close the opportunity gap for children in those districts.[3] In 2009, the state, recognizing this reality, passed the School Funding Reform Act (SFRA), which sets minimal adequacy targets for spending, including additional funding for districts with high concentrations of economically disadvantaged students. But the state has never fully funded the law; consequently, more and more students are enrolled in districts that, by the state’s own standards, are underfunded. Last year, over 100,000 students attended schools in districts where this spending gap was greater than $5,000 per pupil. (For context: average budgeted cost per pupil in 2018-19 was $16,599.)[4]
Analysis of these districts reveals a disturbing trend: many are districts enrolling large proportions of students of color, particularly Latinx students. Neither the pandemic nor the ensuing economic collapse should be used as an excuse to allow these districts to continue operating without the funding the state’s own law says they need.
Ensure the Wealthiest Taxpayers Pay Their Fair Share to Help Fund New Jersey’s Schools
Ideally, New Jersey (and all other states) should be receiving a sizeable school aid package from the federal government, which has advantages over states in being able to raise large amounts of tax revenues and/or borrow large sums at historically low rates. But New Jersey’s education policymakers have to be realistic; given the current political climate and federal administration, it is quite possible that federal aid will not be forthcoming in the next several months.
New Jersey, therefore, must raise additional revenues on its own. It is worth noting that while complaints about high taxes are a regular feature of the state’s political debates, New Jersey is not a high-tax outlier: it ranks 31st in the nation on own-source revenues (the revenues the state raises itself, rather than those transferred by another government), and eighth in the nation on state and local taxes as a percentage of income.[5] For school funding, there are two approaches to raising taxes that the state can use concurrently. First, New Jersey should raise income tax rates on its wealthiest residents. New Jersey’s taxes are less regressive than many of its neighbors, but its wealthiest residents still pay effective rates lower than those of middle-class taxpayers.
Second, New Jersey can suspend sending state aid to its most affluent school districts – the districts that have greater property wealth and, therefore, are more able to raise revenues themselves through local property taxes. Some state aid for special education, for example, automatically goes to more affluent districts, regardless of those districts’ ability to raise local revenues for schools. Certainly, spending on special education should not be cut in any district without good reason; however, if fiscal realities require cutting state aid, New Jersey should target the aid flowing to these high-capacity districts, and allow those districts to raise local taxes if needed to replace that aid. This policy should also extend to other types of categorical aid that are allocated outside of the adequacy formula, including transportation, security, and school choice aid.
School Funding After the Pandemic
In the coming months, the authors of this brief will further explain how New Jersey should change its current school funding system to better meet the needs of its students during and after the current health crisis. Reforms should include: recalibrating the state’s funding formula to meet new standards; using valid methods to address within-district funding inequities; basing state aid cuts on district budgets, and not aid allocations, and; maintaining and enhancing the features of SFRA that promote funding progressiveness. Until then, New Jersey lawmakers must act immediately to provide districts with the funding they need to open safely this fall.
[5] Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 1977-2017. Compiled by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Washington, DC: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Centers (2017). Date of Access: (11-Dec-2020).
NJPP is currently researching the true cost of the War on Drugs in New Jersey. If the drug war has directly harmed you, your family, or your community, please consider sharing your story with us. For more information, please email Jenna Mellor at info@njpp.org with the subject line “Drug War Story.” You may also call or text Jenna at (609) 436-9936.
The murders of George Floyd, Tony McDade, Breonna Taylor, and Elijah McClain, who join a long and growing list of Black people murdered by law enforcement officers, have catalyzed a widespread examination not only of the actions of law enforcement but also the role that budgets play in funding racist, ineffective, and deadly practices that target our Black neighbors, colleagues, and loved ones.
The relative media silence around the death of McDade, a Black trans man, along with the murders of Black trans women (four in the month of June alone) like Dominique “Rem’mie” Fells in Philadelphia and 17-year-old Brayla Stone in Arkansas, make even more urgent the need for investments in public safety to actually keep the public safe, especially for those most vulnerable to violence.
For far too long, states across the nation, including New Jersey, have prioritized ongoing investment in a failed War on Drugs at the expense of investments in our communities, from public education to reliable mass transit to a robust social safety net. In 2016 alone, New Jersey invested more than $670 million ($715 million in 2020 dollars) in state and local expenditure for arrests, trials, and incarceration for drug-related crimes.
This is a problem of serious moral and public policy consequence, which Kassandra Frederique of the Drug Policy Alliance powerfully captures (read her full statement here):
George Floyd should be alive today. Instead, he drew his last breath after one police officer knelt on his neck for nine minutes and another taunted ‘don’t do drugs, kids’ to the gathered crowd. With George Floyd most recently, Breonna Taylor earlier this month, and countless others before them, perceived drug possession and drug use served as a justification by law enforcement to dehumanize, strip dignity from, and ultimately kill people of color.
In New Jersey, eight out of ten people arrested for a drug-related crime in the past decade were arrested for having a small amount of drugs. People of all races and ethnicities use illicit substances at similar rates. So, in the absence of racial inequities, we would expect all New Jerseyans who use drugs to be arrested at similar rates as well. Yet, New Jersey State Police arrest data from 2010 through 2019 shows that Black New Jerseyans were 2.6 times more likely than white New Jerseyans to be arrested for their personal substance use.
At the same time, fatal overdose rates among Black New Jerseyans have been increasing faster than those of white New Jerseyans in recent years. Between January and June 2020, New Jersey has lost 20 percent more of our residents to fatal overdose than in the same period last year. New Jersey Policy Perspective is currently seeking fatal overdose data by race and ethnicity for 2019 and 2020. While we do not know how overdose death rates are changing for Black and Latinx New Jerseyans in these years, what we do know is that the war on drugs is failing the people of our state.
It is time for New Jersey to join the global movement to support, not punish, people who use drugs. We have the opportunity and the moral imperative to reimagine what anti-racist public safety measures and a holistic, community-centered, and non-punitive response to drug use looks like in our communities.
What does this look like? This Juneteenth, a group of Black leaders in New Jersey called for an end to the racist war on drugs (watch the full video here), and gave us the following places to start:
Act urgently to lower New Jersey’s prison population, where incarcerated New Jerseyans are dying from COVID-19 at the highest rates in the nation
Demand expansion of community-based violence intervention programs that center community healers and leaders, like those led by the Newark Community Street Team
Follow, support, and join in coalition with Black-led organizations in New Jersey calling for an end to the War on Drugs. Please reach out to Salvation and Social Justice at info@sandsj.org to learn more.
Your Stories
As NJPP undertakes a new research endeavor to discover the true cost of New Jersey’s failed War on Drugs, contrasting our current dangerous and deadly dystopia with a policy framework of decriminalization and harm reduction, the organization is conducting interviews with people who have been harmed by the War on Drugs. By adding your story and perspective to our work, you can help give voice to the many aspects of the drug war that cannot be seen in the “numbers.” We know that there are people whose stories, lives, hopes, dreams, histories, and loved ones get hidden in these numbers. We would be honored to hear your story and add it to our work. All interviews can be confidential, and we value compensating people for the time you are contributing to this work.
To share your story, please email Jenna Mellor at info@njpp.org with the subject line “Drug War Story.” You may also call or text Jenna at (609) 436-9936.
Further Reading
The War on Drugs is a complex topic deeply rooted in the legacy of slavery and racial politics, and while we will be sharing resources in the coming months to help you better understand it, here are some of our favorite resources.
In Our Names, a national network of organizations, campaigns, and individuals working to end police violence against Black women, girls, trans and gender-nonconforming people.
Changing the Narrative, a language and content guide for media and policymakers that breaks down common misconceptions about substance use.
As New Jersey lawmakers cautiously reopen the state, unemployment insurance (UI) claims are back on the rise. To make matters worse, the federal relief provided in the Coronavirus Aid Response and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which provides an additional $600 in unemployment benefits for people who had lost their jobs because of the pandemic, expires this coming week on July 31, 2020.
Overall, the CARES Act contains many provisions that address the needs of laid-off workers, preventing families from experiencing severe financial harm. If this relief is not extended, it will be much harder for families to meet their basic needs, exacerbating poverty and worsening racial inequality. This won’t just hurt UI recipients and their families, it will hurt thousands more. The spending generated by that $600 is supporting over 1,000 jobs in New Jersey, meaning that these jobs will remain in the balance.
From mid-March through July 11, 2020 alone, New Jersey saw nearly 1.4 million UI claims and paid out approximately $10.7 million in benefits. In addition, nearly half a million more workers claimed Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), a federal rapid response program for workers who are not eligible for regular UI, like independent contractors and temporary workers. Towards the end of May through mid-June, jobless claims remained stable in the 20,000s; however, these claims have surpassed 30,000 and 40,000 in the past two weeks. This past week, the state received 37,000 new UI claims and 19,000 new PUA claims. The future prosperity of the nation — including New Jersey — relies on consistent federal relief to keep laid-off workers, their families, and the broader economy afloat until the COVID-19 pandemic is under control.
To read a PDF version of the full report, click here.
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a proven tool for addressing racial disparities in pay and supporting the economic security of low- and moderate-income adults and their families.[1] Claimed when people file income tax returns, this refundable credit increases households’ after-tax income. New Jersey, along with 28 other states,[2] offers a state version of the EITC. The New Jersey EITC supplements the federal program and is calculated as a percentage of the federal EITC.[3] By boosting the wages of low paid workers, the state and federal EITC programs help New Jerseyans better afford their basic needs, improve health and educational outcomes,[4] and strengthen state and local economies.[5]
The EITC’s narrow eligibility requirements exclude certain groups, including immigrants who file taxes without a Social Security Number.[6] As a result, many immigrants are ineligible for this important program, even if they pay taxes using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). Extending eligibility for the state’s EITC to include ITIN holders would make the program more inclusive and increase its impact, allowing the credit’s benefits to reach more New Jersey families and communities. This simple change to the program’s eligibility would help more New Jerseyans make ends meet and infuse more money into the economy as the state recovers from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
The Tax Code Can Better Address Racism and Anti-Immigrant Bias
A history of systemic racism in the United States has shaped policymaking and access to economic opportunity, resulting in massive inequities in the distribution of wealth.[7] Consequently, tax policy has disparate impacts across racial lines. The tax code can be a tool for addressing these disparities; however, many tax provisions instead reinforce or exacerbate inequities.[8]Income derived from work, for example, is taxed at a higher rate than income derived from capital gains, which disproportionately benefits wealthy households.[9] The EITC functions in the opposite manner, benefiting low- and moderate-income tax filers, who are disproportionately people of color.
While racial inequity has always been embedded in the U.S. tax code and immigration system, the Trump administration’s policies are exacerbating economic exclusion. The Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017, for example, made changes that widen racial and wealth disparities by giving disproportionate tax breaks to high wealth households,[10] including corporate, individual income, and estate tax rate reductions, as well as a new tax break for pass-through business income.[11] The law failed to provide comparable improvements for low- and moderate-income households and created new barriers for immigrants who do not have a Social Security Number (SSN). For example, the law reduced the Child Tax Credit,[12] which helps working families with children under 17 offset the cost of raising children, for families who file taxes with an ITIN.
To rectify these racial inequities in the tax code, lawmakers could choose to raise revenue in a progressive manner and make strategic investments that support households with the greatest need. New Jersey lawmakers could also improve equity in the state tax code by eliminating or reducing tax expenditures (exclusions, deductions, deferrals, and credits) that benefit wealthy households.[13] Strengthening programs that benefit low- and moderate-income households, such as New Jersey’s EITC, is another step that lawmakers can take to reduce racial and wealth disparities in the state tax code.
Federal EITC Eligibility Requirements Exclude ITIN Filers
In order to qualify for the federal EITC, a taxpayer, their spouse, and any qualifying children claimed as dependents must have a Social Security Number (SSN).[14] This undermines the reach of the EITC in New Jersey, as an estimated 225,000 residents live in households that file taxes using an ITIN,[15]which is a tax processing number used by tax filers who are not eligible for a SSN.[16] Tax filers who use an ITIN include undocumented immigrants, as well as a small number of other immigrants, such as certain students, professors, and researchers with non-immigrant visas; spouses and family members of people with certain employment visas; and some survivors of trafficking, domestic violence, or other serious crimes.[17][18] These immigrants not only pay income taxes, but they also pay sales taxes at the counter like all other New Jersey residents. In addition, ITIN filers pay property taxes, either directly as property owners or by supporting their landlord’s payments of property taxes as renters. In fact, undocumented immigrants in New Jersey contribute nearly $600 million in state and local taxes each year.[19]
Despite their important contributions as workers, business owners, taxpayers, and community members, ITIN holders are systematically excluded from many of the programs available to other New Jersey residents. In addition to the federal EITC, ITIN filers and their families have been excluded from many public benefits as well as stimulus payments under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.[20]
Like most states, New Jersey’s EITC adopts the same eligibility criteria as the federal EITC, and thus excludes ITIN filers.[21] Legislation to address this barrier to the state EITC has been introduced in both the New Jersey Senate and General Assembly.[22] This policy would follow the lead of several other states that have taken steps to eliminate the discriminatory eligibility requirements in the EITC. Expansion of the EITC to include ITIN filers has already been enacted in California (for parents with at least one child under six years old) and in Colorado.[23] Similar eligibility expansions have also been proposed in New Mexico,[24] Oregon,[25] and Washington.[26] New Jersey can join these states in addressing an important barrier to the federal EITC by extending the state version of the credit to include ITIN filers.
Extending EITC Eligibility is a Step Toward a More Inclusive Tax Code
Because undocumented immigrants are disproportionately people of color,[27] removing the SSN requirement of the New Jersey EITC would improve racial equity in the tax code and promote the economic security and well-being of thousands of New Jersey’s immigrant households. Rather than further straining low- and moderate-income immigrants and their families, New Jersey can harness the existing ITIN and EITC systems to help those who need it.
An estimated 77,650 ITIN returns filed in New Jersey meet all eligibility criteria for the EITC except for the SSN requirement. Assuming that participation rates are comparable to the EITC for New Jersey residents, eliminating the SSN requirement would result in an estimated 54,100 of these newly eligible ITIN holders receiving the EITC.[28]
Expanding the EITC program eligibility to include ITIN filers would add, on average, approximately $1,000 to these households’ earnings.[30] Beyond support for hardworking New Jerseyans and their families, making the state EITC more inclusive toward immigrants would provide a $55 million[31] boost to state and local economies, as newly eligible EITC claimants spend the credit at local business and increase economic activity. Some of these funds will even come back to the state in the form of sales tax and other government revenues[32].
In the absence of a federal EITC for ITIN filers, lawmakers should consider providing a credit comparable to what other low wage New Jerseyans receive. Going beyond the state EITC, if New Jersey matched the EITC amount that ITIN filers would receive if they were eligible for the federal credit, the state could add $151 million to state and local economies and allow families to cover more of their basic needs.[33] Providing ITIN filers with both the full federal and state credit amount that other New Jersey workers receive would provide more meaningful support for these households and add $206 million to state and local economies.[34]
Strengthening New Jersey Families and Economies
Excluding immigrants who file taxes using an ITIN from the EITC pushes households who are struggling to make ends meet further behind and hurts New Jersey’s state and local economies. There are approximately 140,000 households in New Jersey who file taxes using an ITIN, with over 225,000 people in these households, of which 85,560 (38 percent) are children.[35] Boosting the after-tax incomes of these low- and moderate- income households would have both short- and long-term benefits for the children in families and communities that receive the credit, as the EITC has been associated with improved health outcomes, educational achievements, and lifetime earning potential.[36]
As recipients of the EITC use the credit to meet short- and medium- term needs, such as utility bills, household supplies, and vehicle repairs, removing discriminatory barriers to the credit would increase economic activity and support businesses as they recover from the current crisis. Including ITIN holders in the EITC would not only promote equity by directly supporting households who need it – it would also strengthen the broader New Jersey economy.
[5] Avalos, Antonio and Sean Alley. 2010. The economic impact of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in California. California Journal of Politics and Policy, 2(1): 1-25. https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-4370.1096
[15] Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy. 2020. “Estimated Number of Adults & Children in ITIN Households based on IRS 2015 ITIN Market Segment SPEC Returns Database.” This analysis is unpublished, but can be made available upon request.
[27] Center for Migration Studies. “State-Level Unauthorized Population and Eligible-to-Naturalize Estimates” http://data.cmsny.org/
[28] Gee, Lisa. (2020). “Impact of Including Eligible ITIN Filers in the Federal and State Earned Income Tax Credits.” Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
[29] Estimates of EITC eligible returns adjusted based on participation rates for the federal EITC, with a further 10% reduction to account for attrition between the state and federal EITC. The total number of ITIN tax returns that would be EITC eligible but for the SSN requirement is estimated to be 77,560.
[30] The EITC amount that households are eligible is calculated based on income and family size. The maximum NJ state credit amount for households without children is $206. The maximum NJ EITC amount for households with children ranges from $1,375 for families with one qualifying children, to $2557 for families with three or more qualifying children. More details about NJ EITC credit limits can be found here: https://www.state.nj.us/humanservices/dfd/programs/eitc/
[31] Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy. (2020). Estimated Number of Adults & Children in ITIN Households based on IRS 2015 ITIN Market Segment SPEC Returns Database.
[32] Avalos, A., and Alley, S. (2010). The economic impact of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in California. California Journal of Politics and Policy, 2(1): 1-25. https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-4370.1096
[33] Gee, Lisa. (2020). “Impact of Including Eligible ITIN Filers in the Federal and State Earned Income Tax Credits.” Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
[35] Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy. 2020. Estimated Number of Adults & Children in ITIN Households based on IRS 2015 ITIN Market Segment SPEC Returns Database.
Immigrants who are undocumented pay a share of sales, property, payroll, and income taxes that help support public services for all New Jersey residents. Nevertheless, undocumented workers and their families have been systematically excluded from many of the state and federal programs that they help fund, including unemployment insurance benefits.[1] In the midst of a global pandemic, this exclusionary practice will only push immigrants who are undocumented further behind. Undocumented immigrants are not only disproportionately at risk of health impacts due to the coronavirus,[2] but they are also overrepresented in the service sector industries at risk of the most job loss.[3] In order for all New Jerseyans to recover from the current crisis, it is critical that lawmakers address barriers to relief and assistance for immigrants. Anything short of that will only deepen existing structural inequities and slow the state’s recovery.
New Jersey is facing unprecedented job loss as a result of COVID-19,[4] with 1.2 million claims for unemployment benefits since the onset of the pandemic.[5] Unemployment insurance, which provides financial support to people who lose their jobs through no fault of their own, has been essential to helping New Jersey residents meet their financial obligations during this challenging time.[6] Unemployment insurance systems, which are funded by unemployment insurance trust funds, are financed by a payroll tax that employers pay to state and federal governments on behalf of all workers.[7] While considerable contributions to unemployment insurance funds are made based on the work of undocumented immigrants, these workers are ineligible[8] to collect unemployment benefits.[9]
Over the past ten years, unemployment insurance taxes paid based on undocumented immigrants’ work in New Jersey added more than $1.36 billion to state and federal unemployment insurance trust funds, according to a recent analysis[10] conducted by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and the Fiscal Policy Institute.[11]In addition to contributions to unemployment insurance taxes, undocumented immigrants pay sales taxes, income taxes, and other taxes. Overall, New Jersey residents who are undocumented contribute approximately $587 million in state and local taxes each year.[12]
While many undocumented immigrants experience the same health and employment challenges resulting from COVID-19 as other workers, the vast majority of undocumented immigrants also face barriers to other forms of relief. For example, while federal lawmakers made stimulus payments available to most residents earning under $99,000 through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, taxpayers who filed using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) were intentionally excluded from this form of relief. As a result, an estimated 686,000 New Jersey residents, including immigrant workers and their family members, many of whom are U.S. citizens, were ineligible for these stimulus payments.[13] Undocumented immigrants are also generally ineligible for safety net programs, such as food assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), cash assistance through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), General Assistance, and most forms of public health insurance such as Medicaid.[14]
Philanthropic and grassroots organizations have taken emergency steps to address critical gaps in federal and state government responses by creating or contributing to pandemic relief funds.[15] Although these funds are helpful, these efforts are limited and are far from the scale of resources needed to address the current crisis. Rather than shifting the responsibility of responding to structural inequities onto individuals, lawmakers should take action to address gaps they helped create. One example of such action is proposed state legislation, S2480, which would provide a one-time payment to certain New Jersey residents who pay taxes using an ITIN.[16] While this is an important step and would benefit up to 35,000 residents — or one quarter of ITIN holders — this bill alone will not meet the needs of New Jersey’s immigrant families, many of whom are now in their third month without relief.[17] In addition, the maximum amount that would be provided per taxpayer in this proposal is still less than the amount afforded to most New Jersey residents through other forms of relief, including the stimulus payments and unemployment insurance.[18]
While the federal government has intentionally excluded immigrants who are undocumented from many forms of relief, New Jersey lawmakers have the opportunity to take responsibility for the health and safety of all of the state’s residents, regardless of immigration status. One concrete way to address gaps in response to the pandemic is to create a program for undocumented immigrants excluded from unemployment insurance, by way of providing weekly benefits similar to those afforded to other unemployed New Jerseyans. The cost of a program parallel to unemployment insurance would depend on the unemployment and participation rates. While the unemployment rate in New Jersey is 15.3 percent[19], many unemployed immigrants who are undocumented may be hesitant to access this type of program due to the chilling effect of anti-immigrant policies.[20] If, for example, 10 percent of the state’s 344,000 undocumented workers in the labor force in New Jersey[21] accessed a benefit comparable to what other unemployed New Jerseyans receive on average each week — the average weekly unemployment benefit in New Jersey in 2019 was $461.53[22] — the cost would be approximately $69 million per month.
New Jersey could further address gaps in the federal government’s pandemic response by establishing a state program that mirrors the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC), but is available to all workers, regardless of their documentation status. Under the CARES Act, FPUC, which went into effect in April and is set to expire at the end of July, provides an additional $600 weekly benefit to workers who are collecting unemployment insurance.[23] If 10 percent of undocumented immigrants in the workforce accessed the program weekly, the cost would be $89 million per month, and $358 million for a four month period.
While low-wage workers face disproportionate health and economic consequences from the coronavirus pandemic without benefiting from the systems they help fund, many of the wealthiest corporations and individuals are profiting from the current crisis.[24] Not only have the fortunes of many of the wealthiest increased during the pandemic, but those who are the most well-off also pay a disproportionately small amount in taxes.[25] Rather than compounding wealth inequality by giving state resources to those who do not need them, New Jersey has the opportunity to create programs and policies that reflect the state’s values.
Investing in the health and well-being of New Jersey’s families and workers — who have been paying into and yet are excluded from systems that provide relief and support — would not only promote the safety and well-being of these workers and their families, but also strengthen the state’s recovery from the current pandemic. By addressing gaps and inequities in responses to the current crisis, lawmakers can better protect the health and wellbeing of all New Jerseyans.
[8] To qualify for unemployment insurance, workers generally must have been authorized to work during the base period (the period during which the worker performed the work), at the time that they apply for benefits, and throughout the period during which they are receiving benefits.
[10] Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. (May 2020) “Undocumented Immigrant Estimated UI Contributions 2010-2019.”
[11] This estimate, which was generated by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and the Fiscal Policy Institutes, assumes that half of undocumented immigrants employed in New Jersey are paid on the book, following the approach of the National Academy of Sciences study on fiscal impacts of immigrants. Further details on this methodology are available in the Fiscal Policy Institute’s brief: Unemployment Insurance Taxes Paid for Undocumented Workers in NYS, available here http://fiscalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/UI-taxes-and-undocumented-workers.pdf
[24] Chris Collins, Omar Ocampo, and Sophia Paslaski. “Billionaire Bonanza 2020: Wealth Windfalls, Tumbling Taxes, and Pandemic Profiteers.” (2020). Institute for Policy Studies. Accessed on May 29, 2020. https://ips-dc.org/billionaire-bonanza-2020/
One of the most basic steps to protect public health during a pandemic is for people who are sick, or who have been exposed to the virus, to quarantine themselves, and the CDC recommends staying home for 14 days after possible exposure.[1] But that’s not always possible for essential workers unless they have access to enough paid sick days. New Jersey’s current earned sick day law provides only five days a year and employers can require that workers wait 120 days after the first day of work, and that they earn their time before they can use it. Employers can also ask for a doctor’s note for three or more consecutive days of absence. These burdensome measures make it harder for workers to access their paid sick days so that they can take care of their own health, stay home and protect others from exposure. We need to do more to protect essential and frontline workers and stop the spread of contagion, now or in the future, by strengthening and expanding our earned sick day law.
The need for paid sick days, especially during a pandemic, was so evident that the U.S. Congress took action for the first time ever, passing the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) which provides workers with 10 paid sick days for reasons related to COVID-19.[2] However, the new federal law exempted employers with over 500 employees and virtually all health care workers. And while health care workers are included in the NJ Earned Sick Leave law, per diem health care employees are not. That means an estimated 58 percent of New Jersey workers do not have access to any of the federal protections including emergency paid sick days.[3] Many of these workers are low paid, working at grocery store chains, big box stores and warehouses, and some have reported working in unsafe conditions, potentially exposed to sick coworkers and members of the public. By making changes to improve the state Earned Sick Leave law, we can ensure all essential and frontline workers have access to both basic and emergency paid sick days.
What does bill S2453 do?
Senate Majority Leader, Loretta Weinberg, the champion of the original Earned Sick Leave bill, has sponsored bill S2453 which improves the New Jersey Earned Sick Leave law by:
Providing essential workers with 15 emergency paid sick days available immediately during a declared state of emergency. This would be for future possible pandemics or other emergencies and for the current COVID-19 emergency it is retroactive to March 1, 2020.
Increasing the number of base earned paid sick days from 5 to 7 days.
Removing the burdensome 120 waiting period from a worker’s first day and when the employer must allow them to use the paid sick time that they have earned. As workers accrue their leave they should be able to take it.
Including per diem health care employees (removes their previous carve-out from coverage).
Changing employers’ ability to require a doctor’s note on the third consecutive day of absence to the fifth consecutive day and allows for telehealth documentation.
Adding 2 days bereavement time as an allowable use under the law.
