When is Enough Enough for Corporate Tax Subsidies?

Good morning. I am Sheila Reynertson and am a Senior Policy Analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) is a nonpartisan think tank that drives policy change to advance economic, social, and racial justice through evidence-based, independent research, and analysis.

NJPP opposes A6070 and encourages the committee to vote against its passage.

It’s shocking that the film and digital media tax credit program is back again for another round of corporate tax subsidies. When exactly is enough enough?

Here is a recap of how this program has ballooned in the past year:

Right out of the gate, the film and digital media tax subsidy program was given special privileges in the first draft of the Economic Recovery Act passed a year ago. While all other programs in the ERA were to expire in four years, the film and digital program was first revised to a 10-year program to expire in 2028. At the last minute, the program became a 16-year program, expiring in 2034 – 4 times as long as originally proposed.

Tax subsidies in this program were originally proposed to equal at most 25 percent of production costs. This clean up bill increases that to 35 percent. It also increases the annual tax credit limit for digital productions from $10 million to $30 million. Payments above $500,000 to a “highly compensated individual” screenwriter, director, music director or actor currently cannot count toward a tax credit. That reasonable threshold would now be increased to $15 million.

The annual program cap is currently set at $100 million. But that turns out to be negotiable, too. If there are unused tax credits at the end of the year, this legislation allows the Economic Development Authority to wave them around and say, “Anyone want the leftovers?” These aren’t drink tickets. These are tax dollars that New Jersey will have to forgo for decades.

Now, we learn there is an even more egregious amendment. Beginning in 2025, when all this will be in the distant past, the annual program cap may be lifted to $200 million for digital productions and $450 for film productions, at the discretion of the EDA. What’s going on here? Why have a $100 million annual cap at all if it’s going to be tinkered with until it’s meaningless?

This is just another example of New Jersey’s unhealthy relationship with corporate tax subsidies. And it’s the responsibility of this committee to be skeptical stewards of taxpayers money. It’s the responsibility of this committee to ask “When is enough enough?”

We respectfully ask the committee to vote no on A6070. Thank you.

Expanding the Child and Dependent Care is a Great First Step in Addressing New Jersey’s Child Care Crisis

Earlier today, the New Jersey Senate and Assembly passed S4065/A6071, expanding the state Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it fully refundable so that low-income residents can receive a cash refund even if the credit amount is higher than their annual income. In response to the Legislature passing the bill, New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) releases the following statement.

Peter Chen, Senior Policy Analyst, NJPP:

“This legislation will help working families meet the high price of child care in New Jersey and balance work-family obligations that often seem insurmountable. Expanding the child and dependent care tax credit will put money back in the pockets of parents and caretakers who face staggering annual childcare costs, which are often as high as in-state college tuition.

“Although this is only a one-year change and a small part of addressing New Jersey’s child care crisis, the expanded credit is a critical lifeline for families struggling to care for the state’s youngest children — and a step toward making this a more just and equitable state that treats working people with dignity.”

###

Consensus Revenue Forecasting Would De-Politicize the Budget Process

Earlier today, the New Jersey Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee voted to pass S1350, a bill that would create a Revenue Advisory Board to provide consensus revenue forecasting, a budgeting best practice long-recommended by good-governance advocates and budget policy experts. The bill, amended in committee, would also require the Governor to report multi-year forecasting of expected spending, more detailed monthly reporting, and an annual financial stress test. In response to this vote, New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) releases the following statement.

Sheila Reynertson, Senior Policy Analyst, NJPP:

“Consensus revenue forecasting would de-politicize the budget-making process, help boost public trust in state government, and improve the state’s standing with credit rating agencies. While this policy change may sound technical and benign, having the legislative and executive branches base their budget proposals on an agreed-upon revenue estimate will help limit budget gimmicks and redirect attention to more important debates about which programs to prioritize.

“This legislation also incorporates other budget planning tools to help lawmakers fund vital public services over the long-term, accounting for inflation and changes in the economy. Taken together, these reforms would break the cycle of politically easy maneuvers that have plagued New Jersey’s finances and allow everyone — lawmakers and the public alike — to better understand the consequences of tax and budget policy decisions.”

Read more about consensus revenue forecasting and other budgeting best practices in NJPP’s April 2021 report, Tools for Building a Healthy Budget.

# # #

New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) is a nonpartisan think tank that drives policy change to advance economic, social, and racial justice through evidence-based, independent research, analysis, and advocacy.

To Protect and Serve: Investing in Public Safety Beyond Policing

Introduction

After the murder of George Floyd, millions of people across all 50 states protested against police brutality and racial injustice.[i] Floyd’s death followed a long history of police violence against Black people and was heavily covered in the national media along with the police murders of Breonna Taylor, Elijah McClain, and Tony McDade.

Models of public safety that center police are premised on punishment and have far-reaching consequences, especially for young Black men.[ii] Beyond police brutality, which is the most life-threatening and visible failure of the current criminal justice system, frequent police interactions are linked to adverse mental health outcomes, including anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.[iii] These outcomes are exacerbated in communities of color. Due in part to a history of racial profiling, Black men in particular experience high levels of depression and anxiety over the very possibility of encounters with police.[iv] Taken together, these harms have prompted a widespread examination of the actions of law enforcement and a close evaluation of the role that budgets, which are a measure of municipalities’ values and priorities, play in funding ineffective and deadly practices that disproportionately target Black residents.

This report examines how New Jersey can create a safer, healthier, and more equitable state for all by reimagining public safety and exploring crisis response models that are not led by police. The first sections of this report provide important historical context on how policing evolved into the system seen today. In short, the racialized history of criminal justice policies and practices, such as “broken windows” policing and the War on Drugs, encouraged aggressive policing tactics, skyrocketing incarceration rates, and larger police budgets.

Next, this report examines police budgets in two distinct geographical areas — the City of Elizabeth and Gloucester County — to highlight how, regardless of the geographic region, local governments invest vast resources on law enforcement while essential health and human service programs are underfunded. Elizabeth is a diverse, vibrant city in Northern New Jersey. Its police budget makes up 19 percent of the total municipal budget and has increased by an average of $1.8 million each year since 2018. In comparison, Gloucester County is a more rural area in Southern New Jersey that, while not lacking in racial and ethnic diversity, has a more segregated population than Elizabeth.[v] Across the county, local police budgets vary from about 14 percent to 25 percent of the total municipal budget, with an average of 20 percent. In total, local governments in Gloucester County appropriated over $77 million to police departments in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 alone.[vi] The report then puts police budgets in context by comparing them to local investments in health and human service programs, which promote public safety more broadly by addressing the structural root causes of crime.

Finally, this report proposes alternative models to public safety that are centered on harm reduction and a broader vision for a safer and more just New Jersey. This includes a range of public health policies designed to minimize negative social, emotional, and physical outcomes for all residents. The policy recommendations included in this report were crafted with input from residents directly harmed by police violence, as well as faith and community leaders.

Policing in the United States: A Primer

Policing and race have always intersected in the United States. From the horrors of slavery, to the terror of Jim Crow, to the modern era of mass incarceration, the U.S. has systematically used public policy and the criminal legal system to disempower and subjugate Black residents. Policies that define criminal behavior or “crime” have changed over the years and, as demonstrated below, are often racialized and used to maintain social control rather than to promote public safety. Whether expressly or implicitly, police departments are the enforcement arm of these public policies. The following section examines the link between racism and law enforcement and the role policing plays in creating and maintaining racial inequities.

Slave Patrols (1700s–1800s)

Most modern police departments can trace their roots directly to slave patrols, which were organized, government-sanctioned groups of armed men who monitored and, by use of violence, regulated the activity of people who were enslaved. Indeed, historians describe slave patrols as the first publicly funded police departments in the South.[vii]

Slave patrols were first established in the early 1700s to enforce slave codes, or laws that defined enslaved people as property.[viii] The patrols served three main functions: chase down those who had escaped, “provide a form of organized terror to deter slave revolts,” and punish any enslaved worker who was alleged to have violated the rules of a plantation.[ix]

Historical evidence suggests the beating and terrorizing of enslaved people by patrollers was officially justified as a civic duty.[x] In many states, serving on these patrols was required of all able-bodied white men.[xi]

After the end of the Civil War, slave patrols evolved into police departments, carrying over many aspects of the patrol, including the systematic surveillance of Black communities.[xii] In the years that followed slavery, the primary role of police departments was to enforce Black Codes, an extension of the slave codes, and Jim Crow segregation laws, both of which were designed to deny Black residents equal rights and maintain the de facto structure of slavery.[xiii] 

The Great Migration and Segregation (1900s–1970s)

Due, in part, to the brutal enforcement of segregation laws in the South, millions of Black residents moved from Southern states to Northern states between 1916 and 1970, a population shift known as the Great Migration.[xiv] People who migrated, however, would come to find that segregation and systemic racial violence were also woven into the fabric of Northern states. Contrary to popular belief, segregation began in Northern abolitionist states with the country’s first racially separate railcar operating in 1838.[xv]

In Northern states, police departments did not develop as a response to crime but, rather, “disorder.”[xvi] Governments tasked police with the surveillance and control of disenfranchised people: poor workers, immigrants, and Black people.[xvii] Again, police were encouraged to use force against these disenfranchised communities, and police violence was commonplace in the early 1900s.[xviii]

At this time, police were required to enforce segregation and keep order by squashing any unrest, or perceived unrest, among Black communities. By the 1940s, police in Northern states had earned a reputation for protecting whites at the expense of the Black population.

“[Police] used ‘persuasion’ rather than firm action with white rioters, while against Negroes they used the ultimate in force: nightsticks, revolvers, riot guns, sub-machine guns, and deer guns.”

-Thurgood Marshall, describing the experience of protests that erupted in Detroit over police brutality and racial animus due to the increasing Black population, “The Gestapo in Detroit,” The Crisis, 1943

New Jersey, now known as one of the most progressive states in the nation, also played a role in the systemic subjugation of Black residents. Black New Jerseyans could not enjoy summers at the shore, lived in segregated neighborhoods, and were barred from most entertainment and social venues until the passage of federal civil rights legislation in 1965.[xix] De facto segregation and hostility towards Black people, however, continued.

In the summer of 1967, residents of Newark rebelled after witnessing white police officers brutally attack John Smith, a Black cab driver.[xx] While this instance of racial violence was a breaking point for many, the rebellion emerged also in response to rising tensions over “urban renewal” policies that sought to raze and redevelop neighborhoods without input from Black residents as well as and the ongoing abuse and killing of Black people by police.[xxi] After several days, 700 people were injured and 26 died, most of whom were Black.[xxii]

The rebellion lasted less than a week, but its legacy still looms large today, where the relationship between police and the general public remains strained by decades of violence.

“There are still some emotional trauma and other things we haven’t recovered from and social conditions that led to the rebellion itself. And it hasn’t been fully addressed.”

-Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, in response to whether or not the city of Newark had recovered from the 1967 riots, The New York Times, 2017

The War on Drugs and Mass Incarceration (1970s–2000s)

The Civil Rights movement brought inequities faced by Black and brown people to the forefront of public consciousness and won major legislative battles in the 1960s, namely the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. However, these wins did not prevent policymaking that criminalized and otherwise harmed Black and brown communities. The War on Drugs, 1990s-era crime bills, and the expansion of police powers in recent decades have arguably become an extension of Jim Crow-era policies criminalizing Black people.[xxiii]

The War on Drugs officially began in 1971 when President Richard Nixon introduced a wave of drug enforcement policies, declaring a “full-scale attack” on drug use.[xxiv] Since then, the drug war has led to a slew of federal, state, and local anti-drug policies that militarized police departments, expanded police powers, and ordered aggressive enforcement.[xxv] Nationwide, state and local police spending doubled from $131 per capita to $260 per capita between 1992 and 2008 to support the drug war, even as crime rates decreased.[xxvi] War on Drugs policing strategies also increased rates of police brutality with tactics like “stop and frisk” that encouraged the targeting of people of color.[xxvii]

The War on Drugs also resulted in mass incarceration. The number of people imprisoned in the U.S. increased roughly 6 to 8 percent per year from 1972 to 2000,[xxviii] drug arrests more than doubled between 1980 and 1989, and incarceration rates grew sharply in the 1980s even as violent crime rates fell.[xxix] In 2020, the 2.3 million people incarcerated in the U.S.[xxx] was seven times the number of people incarcerated in 1972.[xxxi]

Moreover, racial disparities in arrest and prosecution after 1972 produced high incarceration rates for Black people but not white people.[xxxii] From 1980 to 1990, Black people were imprisoned at a rate of 6.5 to 6.8 times that of white people,[xxxiii] despite white people both using and selling drugs at similar or higher rates.[xxxiv] By 2021, despite being 13 percent of the U.S. population,[xxxv] Black residents accounted for about 38 percent of all inmates.[xxxvi]

“We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or blacks, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin and then criminalizing them both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night in the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

-John Ehrlichman, Nixon’s domestic policy advisor in a 1994 interview in response to what the drug war was “really about.”[xxxvii]

The Legacy Continues Today

Now that the history of policing in the United States has been outlined, we can better understand the present state of affairs. This section reviews current Black arrest and incarceration rates, deadly and non-deadly use of police force on Black residents, and how the system of policing, beyond the actions of individual officers, reinforces the rates of racial disparities and violence seen today.

Arrest and Incarceration

The U.S. is home to nearly 20 percent of the world’s prison population despite making up a mere four percent of the global population.[xxxviii] This high rate of incarceration does not indicate that U.S. residents are committing more crimes than their international peers; rather, it points to, in part, the overly harsh consequences of drug convictions. And despite an increased recognition from Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike that we cannot arrest ourselves out of drug use, enforcement of the drug war continues: in 2019 alone, approximately 1.6 million people in the U.S. were arrested, prosecuted, incarcerated, and placed under supervision and/or deported on a drug law violation.[xxxix]

Like the rest of the nation, New Jersey excessively enforces the drug war. Drug violations account for a large portion of arrests across the state, totaling approximately 21 percent of all arrests in 2019.[xl] Drug war arrests have also increased over the past 30 years. In 1986, New Jersey made 398 drug war arrests per 100,000 residents; in 2019, New Jersey made 626 drug war arrests per 100,000 residents — an increase of 57 percent.[xli] To learn more about drug war arrests and the associated social and economic costs, see NJPP’s report, A War on Us: How Much New Jersey Spends Enforcing the War on Drugs.

Of those arrested in 2019 in New Jersey for drug violations, 43 percent were Black[xlii] despite Black residents making up 15 percent of New Jersey’s population and national survey data showing that Black residents are no more likely to use or sell drugs than white residents.[xliii]

Black New Jerseyans are Arrested For Drug Violations at Disproportionate Rates - Graph

As of January 2021, Black New Jerseyans represent about 61 percent of the state’s correctional population,[xliv] even though they make up about 15 percent of the state population.[xlv] In contrast, white New Jerseyans account for 20 percent of the correction population, while representing 64 percent of the state population.[xlvi]

Black New Jerseyans Are Incarcerated at Disproportionate Rates - Graph

Use of Force

The Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), arguably the largest social movement in recent U.S. history, brought increased attention to the murders of Black residents at the hands of the police and the role that the drug war plays in militarizing police forces, providing pretexts for police brutality.[xlvii]

What M4BL amplifies and what the data show are that police officers are more likely to use force on people of color than other populations. Broadly, use of force is contact that goes beyond what is usually required to make an arrest, including physical force such as striking, kicking, or tackling, and mechanical force, meaning the use of a weapon.[xlviii] Use of force is permitted under specific circumstances, such as in self-defense or in defense of another individual or group.[xlix] But here is where the problem lies: police officers do not receive uniform guidance about when situations necessitate use of force or how much force is appropriate.[l] This is true across the country and in the Garden State, making it difficult to determine police fault in excessive use of force incidents that result in injury or death.

As a result of this ambiguity, use of force has become routine and unchecked. In fact, the following data likely underestimate the magnitude of law enforcement violence given that comprehensive information on deaths, physical injuries, and frequency of encounters is limited and underreported.[li] Based on available New Jersey data, between October 2020 and February 2021, there have been over 5,000 documented incidents of police force across the state, or roughly 37 incidents per day.[lii] Of these incidents, at least 44 percent involved Black individuals, and 63.5 percent involved individuals that were documented as showing signs of being under the influence or having a mental illness.[liii]

Far too often, police encounters result in not only injury but in death. Since 2015, police in the U.S. have shot and killed more than 5,000 people.[liv] Black people were killed at more than twice the rate of white people.[lv] In New Jersey, there have been 86 known deaths at the hands of police since 2015, with 14 of the people killed documented as showing symptoms of mental illness at the time of their death.[lvi] Almost half, 48 percent, of those killed were Black.[lvii] Consequently, New Jersey has one of the highest racial disparities among victims of police violence in the country: Black New Jerseyans are killed at a rate 8.3 times higher than white residents as compared to the national rate of three times higher.[lviii]

Almost Half of All New Jerseyans Killed By Police since 2015 are Black - Graph

Civilians are not the only ones that can be harmed by the current system of policing. These same policies put police officers into situations for which they are not sufficiently trained or trained at all. For instance, police are often the first responders to calls for mental health emergencies, even though they are not trained mental health professionals. Because of this, there is increased risk of escalation and tragic results, contributing to the stigma, shame, fear, and criminalization of mental illness.[lix] Looking at training more broadly, police in New Jersey can work for 18 months before receiving even full basic police training.[lx]

Many instances of police violence stem from calls where an armed police response may not be the most appropriate. Roughly 58 percent of all police killings escalated from nonviolent situations, such as traffic stops, mental health checks, and domestic disputes.[lxi] One-fourth of all fatal police encounters involve individuals who have a mental illness, making those with mental illness more likely to be killed by a police officer.[lxii]

Despite the high stakes of police encounters, there is little oversight. Police oversight and accountability mechanisms are internal, with investigations often conducted by close colleagues, leaving room for bias. In other words, officers “police” themselves, and based on how police departments are structured historically, there is little guidance, a lack of external oversight, and few consequences.[lxiii] Of the 86 total killings by police in New Jersey between 2015 and 2021, only four officers have been charged with wrongdoing.[lxiv] Of those killed, 14 percent were documented as having no weapon whatsoever, and fewer than half were recorded as having a gun.[lxv]

Further, internal investigations rarely rule in favor of people who file civilian complaints, showing a lack of accountability for police violence more broadly. For example, from 2016 to 2018, the Elizabeth police department received 47 complaints accusing officers of excessive force, wrongful arrest, or other crimes.[lxvi] The internal investigations did not substantiate a single claim despite Elizabeth police officers’ using force at a rate that is 90 percent higher than other departments in New Jersey, including those in larger cities.[lxvii]

In sum, the history of policing in the United States shows a system conceived to surveil and control Black people, and one that has continued to do so well beyond the Civil Rights era of the 1960s. The result has been, at best, ineffectual policing for specific and delicate individual and communal crises and, at worst, active harm against the communities being policed, particularly communities of color. This system is fed by budgetary appropriations at multiple levels.

The Budget

Municipal budgets are much more than line items of revenues and expenses. Where investments are made — and where they are not — highlights what leaders value most. To better inform the ongoing and future debates about police budgets in New Jersey, this section analyzes the police budgets for the urban City of Elizabeth and the more rural Gloucester County. These case studies highlight the similarities and differences between two distinct areas, creating the opportunity to explore flexible recommendations that will not be one-size-fits-all. It also shows that investments in police departments are significant across the state, not just in densely populated areas. Please note that, from here on out, references to Gloucester County or Gloucester refer to the combined police budgets and departments of all of the municipalities within the county, as well as the Gloucester County Sheriff’s Office.

The budgetary analysis that follows shows both Gloucester County and Elizabeth spend more on policing than other vital municipal departments, such as health and human services. In Elizabeth, the police budget is over five times that of the Department of Health and Human Services. In Gloucester County, the combined county and municipal police budgets are more than two and a half times that of all the funding for health and human services departments in the county. Gloucester County allocates an average of 20 percent of their total municipal budgets to police, and Elizabeth allocates 19 percent. This is likely an underestimate, as it does not include pension payments, health benefits, and dollars that flow to police departments from other sources such as state and federal grant programs and other departments for police services.

Police Budgets 101

Police budgets in New Jersey vary from municipality to municipality, but they all have basic line-items. A New Jersey police budget typically includes funding for:

  • Salaries and wages, including a set amount for anticipated overtime compensation
  • Non-personnel costs including equipment maintenance, office supplies, travel, and training

 

The following are not included in police budgets, but account for significant expenses:

  • Overtime compensation funded through grant programs[lxviii]
  • Pension payments made by a municipality
  • Health benefits and insurance costs paid by a municipality
  • Most equipment upgrades or acquisitions, often found in capital improvements sections of municipal budgets
  • Compensated absences, like unused paid time off that can be cashed out upon departure from the department, paid from a special reserve fund
  • Additional funding and equipment to police departments from other sources, such as state and federal grant programs

 

City of Elizabeth

The City of Elizabeth is New Jersey’s fourth most populous municipality with more than 137,000 residents.[lxix] Roughly 20 percent of Elizabeth’s residents identify as Black, higher than the state’s 15 percent average.[lxx] The city also has almost double New Jersey’s poverty rate at nearly 18 percent, with a median household income of about $48,331 a year.[lxxi] As of 2021, the Elizabeth Police Department employs 365 law enforcement officers.[lxxii]

Police Appropriations

Elizabeth’s municipal police budget, which largely is allocated to base wages, is about $52 million, or about 19 percent of the city’s total budget, for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021.[lxxiii] The total budget includes $1.75 million for police overtime pay,[lxxiv] roughly $5,000 per officer.[lxxv] Over the last three years, Elizabeth’s police budget has increased by an average of 9.2 percent, or $1.8 million, each year.[lxxvi]

However, with pensions, health benefits, employment taxes, and other benefits included, Elizabeth’s police appropriations are about $69.7 million.[lxxvii] This is $507 per capita, and 25 percent of Elizabeth’s total budget.

The City of Elizabeth Spends $70 Million on Police Annually

In addition to pensions and health benefits, the municipality added additional funding for Elizabeth’s police department in FY 2021, such as:

  • Compensated Absences: The city added $1.0 million to a fund that pays for compensated absences, or sick days, for all qualified municipal employees.[lxxviii] The current liability, or what the municipality potentially owes, for police officers is $9.8 million.[lxxix] Moreover, if a police officer takes no sick days for an entire year, they get a bonus of $1,500 with an additional $1,000 the following year if they can keep it up.[lxxx] These bonuses may have to be taken from elsewhere in the budget or bonded if a large number of officers qualify at the same time.
  • Capital Improvements: Elizabeth also authorized $4.4 million in capital improvements amidst the global pandemic to upgrade the Elizabeth Police Department’s gym, showers, bathrooms, and conference room.[lxxxi] $200,000 of this will be taken from the capital improvement fund and the remaining $3.8 million will be taken on as debt. Capital improvement funding generally comes from a broader municipal fund to support large infrastructure projects that are expected to be paid for over multiple years. Examples include acquisition, construction, improvement and/or renovation of buildings, roads, utilities, or structures and acquisition or development of land.[lxxxii] Capital projects can also include acquisitions of major equipment, which is how many police departments receive funding for new technology.

Additional Revenue

In addition to local revenue, New Jersey police departments receive funds from federal, state, and private grants. For example, Elizabeth received about $260,300 in state and federal grants for programs and resources in FY 2020, per the latest available data.[lxxxiii] The bulk of the grants — 84 percent — went to police enforcement of the drug war.

The Elizabeth Police Department received $218,200 from the Byrne Grant (also known as JAG) in FY 2020. JAG is a drug war-era federal program that provides grants for police resources to be used at the discretion of the police department. JAG is linked to increased arrest rates and racial disparities in policing, despite attempts to rectify such disparities.[lxxxiv] For every $100 increase in Byrne Grant funding since 1987, drug-related arrests increased by roughly 22 per 100,000 white residents and by 101 arrests per 100,000 Black residents.[lxxxv]

The remaining grant funds, roughly 19 percent, went to body armor purchases for police officers and Drunk Driving Enforcement, which consists of overtime pay for increased numbers of police in certain locations and incentives for ticket writing. Additionally, police departments are entitled to $95 of the $100 surcharge resulting from a drunk driving conviction in their community, per New Jersey State Statute 39:4-50.8.[lxxxvi]

Most Grants to the Elizabeth Police in 2020 Went to Drug War Enforcement

In addition to the funding listed above, the Elizabeth police department can also receive funding from Municipal Alliances, which are local organizations composed of various stakeholders, including teachers, school staff, social service agency representatives, government officials, and police. Funding is collected from fines and fees from drug offenses to be used to fund programs at the discretion of the Alliance.[lxxxvii] Union County’s Municipal Alliances, the county in which Elizabeth is located, typically uses some of these funds for programs run by police, such as Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.), Law Enforcement Against Drugs (L.E.A.D.), and Cops in Schools, all of which provide dollars to police departments.[lxxxviii] In FY 2020, Elizabeth’s Municipal Alliance received about $57,000 dollars.[lxxxix]

Municipal Alliances are also responsible for the passage of over 1,000 local private property ordinances across the state that add new punishments related to drug and alcohol use, indirectly funneling money to police departments by increasing arrest rates and police activity.[xc] Moreover, programs like D.A.R.E. that promote abstinence have not curbed drug use.[xci]

Police Budget in Context

Elizabeth’s municipal police budget of $52 million, about $379 per capita, is 5.7 times greater than the city’s Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHS) $9.1 million budget.[xcii] The appropriations for the entire DHS equate to a mere $66 per capita.[xciii]

As of FY 2021, DHS employs 96 full-time and 44 part-time employees in numerous divisions and offices.[xciv] The city’s DHS provides various programs and services, including opportunities for rental assistance, help with prescription drug payments for struggling residents, and burial assistance for those who cannot afford funerals for their loved ones.[xcv] They also provide free health clinics, vaccines, and screenings for the under- or uninsured through the Public Health Nurses Division.[xcvi] Between FY 2020 and FY 2021, the police budget increased by $2.8 million (or 5.8 percent), while the funding for DHS decreased by $401,000 (or 4.2 percent).[xcvii] This is an increase of approximately $20 per capita for police.

Despite increased police funding, Elizabeth has not seen a significant increase in police performance or public safety. A standard measure of police performance is the clearance rate, which is the percentage of crimes that result in police locating and bringing charges against a likely suspect. In 2020, the latest available data states that the Elizabeth Police Department had a clearance rate of 13.2 percent,[xcviii] a rate that has remained stable since at least 2017, despite increases in funding.[xcix]

Gloucester County

Gloucester County is a predominately white, more-rural county that is home to roughly 300,000 people.[c] The county is comprised of 24 municipalities which vary tremendously in population size, density, demographic diversity, and income levels. These municipalities have a total of 19 local police departments, as well as a county-level sheriff’s office.[ci]

Police Appropriations

In FY 2020, the 19 local police departments and county-level sheriff’s office in Gloucester County received more than $77 million in funding, according to the most recent data available.[cii] This averages $257 per capita,[ciii] with the average municipal police budget at about 20 percent of its respective municipal budget, ranging from about 14 percent to 25 percent across municipalities. Please note that the police budget totals below do not include payments made for pensions and other benefits for police officers.

Police Budgets in Gloucester County, by Municipality

Additional Revenue

In addition to local revenue, law enforcement agencies in Gloucester County received revenue through a variety of grant programs in FY 2019. Notably, the “Click It or Ticket” (CIOT) and the “Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over” (DSOGPO) programs provide grant funding for an increased, “highly-visible” police presence.[cv] Specifically, the programs fund overtime enforcement to improve the “threat of a traffic ticket.”[cvi] In addition to the unavoidable time spent on court appearances or paperwork, overtime is used to make police more visible by putting additional officers in certain targeted areas, especially during holidays. Each campaign spans approximately two weeks per year, during which police track how many citations they were able to issue.

In FY 2019, Gloucester County’s police departments received over $79,000 and issued 4,163 citations in a total of just over four weeks through these programs.[cvii] All of the county’s police departments participated except Franklin.[cviii]

Programs like these engage in a strategy known as “proactive policing,” specifically “hot spots” policing,[cix] which involves preemptively sending officers to targeted areas to deter and reduce crime.[cx] However, the increased volume of police results in more ticketing and traffic stops, and a higher frequency of interactions between police and civilians in targeted locations, which are typically areas with higher rates of Black and brown people and poverty.[cxi] Increased police stops and ticketing also significantly increases the possibility of escalation. In 2020, nearly 11 percent of all U.S. police killings began with a routine traffic stop.[cxii]

Other sources of police funding in Gloucester County include:

  • School boards using education-dedicated dollars to pay for police presence at schools, School Resource Officers (SROs), which provided about $1 million to Gloucester County police departments in FY 2019
  • Grants from private companies or institutions: In FY 2020, Walmart gave Monroe’s police department and community affairs $6,073 in the form of a “Community Grant.”[cxiii]
  • State and federal programs that pay for or provide police resources: For example, in FY 2019, municipalities in Gloucester County received about $100,000 in state and federal grants for bulletproof vests and body armor alone.[cxiv]

 

The chart below shows the dollars Gloucester County received in FY 2019, the most recent comprehensive data, that were authorized to fund policing.[cxv] These funds, totaling over $5.4 million, are outside of the dedicated funds in the police budgets.[cxvi]

Additional Police Revenue in Gloucester County in FY 2019

Additionally, various Municipal Alliances in Gloucester County received a total of $247,428 in funding in FY 2019.

As noted in the analysis of Elizabeth’s budget, police departments also have access to new technology or equipment through capital improvement funding. Capital improvement funds are set aside to be used for parks, municipal buildings, and other community improvements. Typically, these projects take years to implement and, as such, are funded over a number of years. Some notable projects for police departments in Gloucester County include:

  • $70,860 for tasers, long guns, and new radar for police vehicles for Monroe, in FY 2020.[cxvii] $3,543 will be taken from the capital improvement fund while the remaining $67,317 is authorized to be taken on as debt.
  • $133,622 for police equipment for Mantua in FY 2020.”[cxviii] $6,681 will be taken from the capital improvement fund while the remaining $126,941 is authorized debt.
  • $956,996 for various police projects in Washington Township, including body cameras, ballistic shields, vehicles, and other expenses noted in the budget as “technology” in FY 2019.[cxix] $47,850 was taken from the capital improvement fund while the remaining $909,147 was authorized debt.

 

Police Budget in Context

Gloucester County invests a high proportion of its budgets for policing, and the opportunity costs of this investment are significant. In FY 2020, total police appropriations were more than two and a half times that of total health and human services (HHS) budgets across the county, with police appropriations averaging about $257 per capita and HHS averaging $99 per capita.[cxx]

Police Appropriations Per Capita are over Tow and Half Times That of Health and Human Services

As the table below shows, Gloucester County municipalities with the largest share of their budgets going to police departments tend to increase funding for police while funding for health and human services remains stagnant or decreases.[cxxi]

Gloucester County Municipalities with Largest Police Budgets Did Not Invest Comparable Funding to Health and Human Services in FY 2020

Despite increased funding and resources, Gloucester County police departments reported a clearance rate of 25 percent on average in 2020,[cxxii] meaning that of the crimes reported, only 25 percent of them resulted in police locating and charging likely suspects. In 2017, the rate was just over 37 percent, since then it has remained stagnant with an average of 25 percent.[cxxiii]

A Way Forward: Policy Recommendations

The current system of public safety relies on a model of justice that disproportionately funds and prioritizes policing, rather than communities. This model continues to target Black residents through racial profiling, aggressive policing, and mass incarceration.[cxxiv] This also forces police officers to handle issues for which they often are not trained, such as in mental health, domestic violence, and substance use disorder.[cxxv]

This section offers two main strategies that must be taken together to provide safer and healthier communities.

Invest in Communities

Although local governments have historically used policing and incarceration as primary crime reduction strategies, methods to strengthen communities and address the structural roots of crime that have proved more effective do exist. One major way to promote safe and healthy communities and get to the root cause of crime is to invest in health and human services. Broader investments in communities will also be required. Some examples include investments in:

Health care
There is a strong correlation between health care access and involvement in the criminal justice system. Research from the City of Camden demonstrates a significant relationship between high use of hospital emergency departments and frequent arrests, suggesting that a holistic approach to health care may reduce arrest rates.[cxxvi] Moreover, broader access to health care, especially substance use disorder treatment, is consistently linked to crime reduction.[cxxvii] Across the U.S., increased health care access reduced violent crime by 5.8 percent and property crime by 3 percent, with an estimated savings of $13 billion to taxpayers due to crime reduction.[cxxviii]

Neighborhood restoration
With community support and input, investments in parks, green spaces, and the restoration of blighted or vacant land can have positive outcomes on public safety. Increasing access to green spaces is shown to reduce violent crime[cxxix] and improve health outcomes for residents.[cxxx] Restoring vacant lots is also shown to reduce violence in urban areas.[cxxxi] Maintenance of the physical environment in a community also strengthens the social environment, fostering a sense of connectedness that creates a willingness to intervene and social contracts that have been shown to prevent crime.[cxxxii]

Quality early childhood education
Early childhood education is shown to have positive outcomes for children and parents by providing stable child care and increasing access to other opportunities. Access to early childhood education correlates with increased academic achievement, stronger parent-child relationships, and a significant reduction in the likelihood of being charged with a crime.[cxxxiii]

Community centers and nonprofits
An increased number of local organizations actively working to reduce violence and strengthen communities have demonstrated positive outcomes, including crime reduction. For example, drawing on a panel of 264 cities spanning more than 20 years, every ten additional organizations focusing on crime and community life leads to a 9 percent reduction in the murder rate, a 6 percent reduction in the violent crime rate, and a 4 percent reduction in the property crime rate, a 2017 study found.[cxxxiv]

Community-based violence interruption programs
Informal and formal social networks are effective crime prevention tools. That’s because building strong community relationships and mutual trust among residents has been shown to reduce crime.[cxxxv] Community-based violence interruption programs incorporate this knowledge by having trusted neighbors and community members partnered with trained staff, and some programs have proven effective in preventing violence.[cxxxvi] The Newark Community Street Team (NCST) can serve as a model for this kind of program in New Jersey.[cxxxvii]

Invest In Alternative Response Teams

Police are first responders to situations for which they don’t have sufficient training, such as in areas of domestic violence, mental health, substance use disorders, and housing insecurity. These encounters between the police and people in crisis too often end in arrest, violence, or emergency room transport, and without needed referral to long-term support.

Thankfully, there are alternative models to support people in crisis that do not center policing.

Some of these models include teams of health care professionals and social workers that respond to calls for service instead of police. Other models include a social worker and a police officer responding in tandem.

These models are not new. Beginning at least 40 years ago, research has consistently shown the effectiveness of alternative response teams.[cxxxviii] For instance, a three-year study from 1974 looked at an alternative service model involving a team of police and social workers whose objective was crisis intervention, not arrest. There was a marked reduction in referrals to court and lowered recidivism rates.[cxxxix] It was also noted in these studies that there was a need for community services among the recipients of interventions, such as access to stable housing, employment service, and an emergency petty cash fund.[cxl]

Today, many localities are exploring alternative models based on successful models (see box below). Ithaca, New York is considering replacing the city’s entire 63-officer, $12.5 million-per-year department with a “Department of Community Solutions and Public Safety.”[cxli] This department would include armed “public safety workers” and unarmed “community solution workers,” all of whom will report to a civilian director instead of a police chief.[cxlii] Further, California is considering the C.R.I.S.E.S. Act, which would provide funding to community-based emergency response teams to serve as alternatives to police for a wide range of issues, including domestic disputes and mental health crises.[cxliii]

There is also evidence that police departments are open to alternative models so they can be more effective and increase community trust. In Minnesota, 69 percent of police chiefs surveyed across 40 different departments reported that collaboration with social workers or other mental health service providers would reduce avoidable casualties and build or increase police-community trust.[cxliv]

Examples of Successful Programs

Communities around the country have successfully implemented crisis response teams that serve as an alternative to and work in tandem with the police. These programs can serve as examples of how to reimagine public safety through person-centered responses.

CAHOOTS

The Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets (CAHOOTS) program, serving Eugene, Oregon since 1989, provides an innovative community-based public safety system that deploys crisis response teams. Each team consists of a medical professional and a crisis worker with training in mental health interventions.[cxlv]

According to the most recent program evaluation, CAHOOTS diverted 5 to 8 percent of 911 calls from the Eugene Police Department between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019.[cxlvi] This means that up to 8 percent of the calls placed to dispatch that would normally involve police being sent to the scene result in no police or police resources arriving on the scene at all.[cxlvii] If calls for service directly to CAHOOTS are taken into account rather than just 911 calls, the diversion rate could be as high as 20 percent.[cxlviii]

The CAHOOTS program saved the City of Eugene an estimated average of $8.5 million in annual public safety spending between 2014 and 2017.[cxlix]

STAR

In 2020, Denver launched the Support Team Assisted Response (STAR) pilot program closely modeled on CAHOOTS, where specific kinds of 911 calls were approved for an alternative, non-police response. Calls that involved injuries, weapons, threats, or any other types of violence were excluded.

Data gathered during the pilot period revealed that the STAR program could reduce Denver police calls by almost 3 percent.[cl] Of the calls the STAR team responded to, 61 percent of individuals served were identified as having a mental health condition, and 41 percent of individuals served were transported to other support sites such as shelters or mental health crisis centers.[cli] These individuals were able to receive specialized care or transportation to needed service providers through STAR. Due to the positive response, the City of Denver plans to expand the STAR program in 2021.[clii]

Newark Community Street Team

The Newark Community Street Team (NCST) is a trauma-informed approach to public safety that centers health and prevention in Newark, New Jersey. The program began in 2015 with the support of Mayor Ras Baraka. NCST provides Safe Passage at schools, operates a Trauma Recovery Center, and has a robust victim services program, including a partnership with University Hospital’s Hospital-Based Violence Intervention Program. NCST also engages in High Risk Intervention (HRI) in Newark.[cliii] NCST is also currently leading efforts to create a harm reduction centered alternative emergency response to overdose in Newark, building off its community-based model of care and intervention.

The HRI team responds to reports of violence from the community or law enforcement.[cliv] HRI connects those involved to supportive counseling, crisis intervention assessment and mediation, and referrals to outside resources to restore peace and avoid arrest and incarceration.[clv] From 2016 to 2020, there have been record-low homicide rates in Newark.[clvi] This trend correlates with the existence of the NCST.[clvii] In 2018, Mayor Baraka credited NCST with not only the reduction of crime but also increased economic development.[clviii] The NCST offers a model for what decreased police intervention could look like in New Jersey.

Conclusion

New Jersey’s local governments, from counties to urban centers to small municipalities,  spend a large share of their budgets on policing in the name of public safety. However, evidence shows that many policing policies and outcomes harm civilians, especially Black residents.

New Jersey has the opportunity to be a leader in the fight for equity and justice. But to do so, the state must respond to and invest in the unique needs of historically marginalized communities by exploring alternative models to policing. These models, like police departments, may look a little different in every community. Elizabeth would likely need their own response team, while municipalities across Gloucester County could share services. Yet, whatever the model, the throughline remains a directive to invest in resources like mental health counseling, affordable housing, and employment opportunities, to build and restore communities and center harm reduction while developing real police accountability measures.


End Notes

[i] USA Today. (2020). Tracking protests across the USA in the wake of George Floyd’s death. https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/graphics/2020/06/03/map-protests-wake-george-floyds-death/5310149002/

[ii] Geller, A., Fagan, J., Tyler, T., & Link, B. G. (2014). Aggressive policing and the mental health of young urban men. American Journal of Public Health, 104(12), 2321–2327. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302046

[iii] American Public Health Association  (APHA). (2018). Addressing Law Enforcement Violence As A Public Health Issue. https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2019/01/29/law-enforcement-violence

[iv] American Public Health Association (APHA). (2020). Mass Incarceration Supplement. https://www.apha.org/news-and-media/news-releases/ajph-news-releases/2020/mass-incarceration-supplement

[v] Data obtained from Washington Post Segregation Database found: Williams & Emamdjomeh. (2018). America is more diverse than ever — but still segregated. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/segregation-us-cities/

[vi] All appropriations in this report have been adjusted to 2021 dollars.

[vii] Walker, S. (1980) Popular Justice: A History of American Criminal Justice. Pg. 20. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

[viii] Hasset-Walker. (2021). How Your Start is How You Finish? The Slave Patrol and Jim Crow Origins of Policing. Human Rights Magazine, The American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/how-you-start-is-how-you-finish/

[ix] Potter. (2003). The History of Policing in the United States. EKU School of Justice Studies. Pg. 3. https://plsonline.eku.edu/sites/plsonline.eku.edu/files/the-history-of-policing-in-us.pdf

[x] Hansen. (2019). Slave Patrols: An Early Form of American Policing. National Law Enforcement Museum. https://nleomf.org/slave-patrols-an-early-form-of-american-policing/ /

[xi] Lepore. (2020). The Invention of Police. The New Yorker.  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/07/20/the-invention-of-the-police

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Hasset-Walker. (2021). How Your Start is How You Finish? The Slave Patrol and Jim Crow Origins of Policing. Human Rights Magazine, The American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/how-you-start-is-how-you-finish/

[xiv] Walker, S. (1980) Popular Justice: A History of American Criminal Justice. Pg. 20. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

[xv] Luxenberg, S. (2019) The Jim Crow Car: The North, the South and the forgotten origins of racial separation. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/02/20/feature/the-forgotten-northern-pre-civil-war-origins-of-jim-crow/. There is also a book on this subject: https://wwnorton.com/books/separate/

[xvi] Potter. (2003). The History of Policing in the United States. EKU School of Justice Studies. Pg. 3. https://plsonline.eku.edu/sites/plsonline.eku.edu/files/the-history-of-policing-in-us.pdf

[xvii] Ibid. Pg. 3-5

[xviii] Robinson, M. (2017). From the Slave Codes to Mike Brown: the brutal history of African Americans and law enforcement. USAPP– American Politics and Policy. Pg. 1-2. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/85472/1/usappblog-2017-10-05-from-the-slave-codes-to-mike-brown-the-brutal.pdf

[xix] Goldberg, D. (2016) The Retreats of Reconstruction: Race, Leisure, and the Politics of Segregation at the New Jersey Shore. Fordham University Press.

[xx] Rojas & Atkinson. (2017). Five Days of Unrest that Shaped and Haunted Newark. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/nyregion/newark-riots-50-years.html

[xxi] Ibid.

[xxii] Ibid.

[xxiii] Alexander. (2010). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The New Press.

[xxiv] Nixon. (1971). Special Message to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/special-message-the-congress-drug-abuse-prevention-and-control

[xxv] Cooper. (2015). War on Drugs Policing and Police Brutality. Substance use & misuse, 50(8-9), 1188–1194. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4800748/#R27

[xxvi] Lynch, M. (2012). Theorizing the role of the “war on drugs” in US punishment. Theoretical Criminology. Pg. 16. https://socialecology.uci.edu/sites/socialecology.uci.edu/files/users/lynchm/tc_war_on_drugs_final.pdf ; Urban Institute. (2020). Criminal Justice Expenditures: Police, Corrections, and Courts. https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/criminal-justice-police-corrections-courts-expenditures#Question3Police

[xxvii] Cooper. (2015). War on Drugs Policing and Police Brutality. Substance use & misuse, 50(8-9), 1188–1194. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4800748/#R27

[xxviii] National Research Council. (2014). The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18613. Pg. 34-36. https://www.nap.edu/read/18613/chapter/4#34

[xxix] Ibid. Pg. 46-47.

[xxx] Wagner & Bertram. (2020) “What percent of the U.S. is incarcerated?” (And other ways to measure mass incarceration). Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/01/16/percent-incarcerated/

[xxxi] National Research Council. (2014). The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18613. Pg. 34-36. https://www.nap.edu/read/18613/chapter/4#34

[xxxii] National Research Council. (2014). The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18613. Pg. 58. https://www.nap.edu/read/18613/chapter/4#34

[xxxiii] Ibid.

[xxxiv] Borden, T. (2016)  Every 25 Seconds: The Human Toll of Criminalizing Drug Use in the United States. Human Rights Watch. Pg. 4. https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/10/12/every-25-seconds/human-toll-criminalizing-drug-use-united-states

[xxxv] U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/RHI225219

[xxxvi] Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2021) Inmate Statistics. https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp

[xxxvii] Baum. (2016). Legalize It All. Harper’s Magazine. https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/

[xxxviii] Walmsley, R. (2018) World Prison Population List: Twelfth Edition. Institute for Criminal Policy Research. Pg. 6. https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/wppl_12.pdf. Note that some countries may not report complete prison/detention lists.

[xxxix] FBI: UCR Crime in the United States 2019 data table. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-29

[xl] NJPP calculation using FBI UCR data for all non-traffic arrests and arrests for “Drug Abuse Violations — Grand Total” reported by participating New Jersey law enforcement agencies, 1986 and 2019. Available at https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/home.

[xli] Mellor. (2021). A War on Us: How Much New Jersey Spends Enforcing the War on Drugs. New Jersey Policy Perspective. https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/a-war-on-us-how-much-new-jersey-spends-enforcing-the-war-on-drugs/ ; NJPP calculation using FBI UCR data for all non-traffic arrests and arrests for “Drug Abuse Violations — Grand Total” reported by participating New Jersey law enforcement agencies, 1986 and 2019. Available at https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/home.

[xlii] NJPP calculation using FBI UCR data for all non-traffic arrests and arrests for “Drug Abuse Violations — Grand Total” reported by participating New Jersey law enforcement agencies, 1986 and 2019. Available at https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/home.

[xliii] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2018). National Survey on Drug Use and Health. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-reports/NSDUHDetailedTabs2018R2/NSDUHDetailedTabs2018.pdf

[xliv] State of New Jersey Department of Corrections. (2021) Offender Statistics. p.36. https://www.state.nj.us/corrections/pdf/offender_statistics/2021/Entire%20Offender%20Characteristics%202021.pdf

[xlv] Data for New Jerseyans that identify as “Black or African American alone or in combination,” (2020). Census Bureau.  https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/race-and-ethnicity-in-the-united-state-2010-and-2020-census.html Note that Census data for Black or African American alone or in combination includes Black/African American residents identifying as Hispanic, whereas the corrections data splits Hispanic out as a separate category.

[xlvi] Ibid. This includes white New Jerseyans that identify as more than one race or ethnicity.

[xlvii] Mellor. (2021). A War on Us: How Much New Jersey Spends Enforcing the War on Drugs. New Jersey Policy Perspective. Pg. 4. https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/a-war-on-us-how-much-new-jersey-spends-enforcing-the-war-on-drugs/ ;

Movement for Black Lives. “End the War on Drugs.” Policy Platform. https://m4bl.org/policy-platforms/end-the-war-on-drugs/

[xlviii] Office of the Attorney General. (2020). Use of Force Policy. The State of New Jersey. Pg. 6. https://www.nj.gov/oag/force/docs/UOF-2020-1221-Use-of-Force-Policy.pdf

[xlix] National Institute of Justice. Overview of Police Use of Force. (2020). https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/overview-police-use-force

[l] University of Chicago Law School – Global Human Rights Clinic. (2020). Deadly Discretion: The Failure of Police Use of Force Policies to Meet Fundamental International Human Rights Law and Standards. Global Human Rights Clinic. Pg. 2 https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=ihrc ;

US Commission on Civil Rights (2018). Police Use of Force: An Examination of Modern Policing Practices. Pg. 15. https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2018/11-15-Police-Force.pdf

[li] American Public Health Association  (APHA). (2018). Addressing Law Enforcement Violence As A Public Health Issue. https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2019/01/29/law-enforcement-violence

[lii] NJPP analysis of AG’s Use of Force Database.

[liii] Ibid.

[liv] The Washington Post. Fatal Force Database (2021). https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/?nid

[lv] The Washington Post. Fatal Force Database (2021). https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/?nid

[lvi] NJPP analysis of The Washington Post. Fatal Force Database (2021). https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/?nid  & Mapping Police Violence Database (2021). https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/

[lvii] Ibid.

[lviii] Data from Mapping Police Violence: https://public.tableau.com/profile/ssinyangwe#!/vizhome/PoliceViolenceperPD/PoliceKillingsbyState

[lix] Gur, O. (2010). Persons with mental illness in the criminal justice system: Police interventions to prevent violence and criminalization. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations. Pg. 3. 17-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332581003799752

[lx] The Institute for Criminal Justice Training Reform. (2021).

https://www.trainingreform.org/state-police-training-requirements

[lxi] Graph from an analysis of The Washington Post. Fatal Force Database (2021). https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/?nid & Mapping Police Violence Database (2021). https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/ – data is between 1/2015 and 4/2021. Note that there may be variation across the reporting of domestic disputes that could classify some involving assault as nonviolent.

[lxii] Fuller, Lamb, Biasatti, & Snook. (2015). Overlooked in the Undercounted: The Role Of Mental Illness In Fatal Law Enforcement Encounters. Pg. 1. Treatment Advocacy Center. https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/storage/documents/overlooked-in-the-undercounted.pdf

[lxiii] ACLU of New Jersey. (2013). The Crisis Continues Inside Internal Affairs. https://www.aclu-nj.org/files/3413/6059/3876/ACLU_NJ_Internal_Affairs.pdf ;

Reilly. (2015). Here’s What Happens When You Complain to Cops About Cops. Huffpost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/internal-affairs-police-misconduct_n_5613ea2fe4b022a4ce5f87ce

[lxiv] NJPP analysis of The Washington Post. Fatal Force Database (2021). https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/?nid & Mapping Police Violence Database (2021). https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/ – data is between 1/2015 and 4/2021.

[lxv] Ibid.

[lxvi] Sullivan & Everett. (May 2019). Residents say this troubled N.J. police department ignores excessive force complaints. Records reveal it hasnʼt upheld a case in years. NJ.com. https://www.nj.com/politics/2019/05/residents-say-this-troubled-nj-police-department-ignores-excessive-force-complaints-records-show-it-hasnt-upheld-a-case-in-years.html

[lxvii] Ibid.

[lxviii] Police get additional overtime compensation from private citizens and companies for a variety of reasons, including monitoring the street during construction projects or during special events. These dollars would not be accounted for in the municipal budget.

[lxix] New Jersey Demographics, data linked to US Census. https://www.newjersey-demographics.com/cities_by_population

[lxx] U.S. Census Bureau. (2021). New Jersey. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/elizabethcitynewjersey,NJ/PST045219

[lxxi] Ibid. All dollars taken from the census data are 2021 dollars and have been adjusted from 2019 dollars.

[lxxii] Elizabeth Municipal Ordinance. 2.56.110 – Police Department Administration and Personnel. (2021). https://library.municode.com/nj/elizabeth/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT2ADPE_CH2.56PODE_ARTIIADPE_2.56.110ADPE

[lxxiii] NJPP analysis of FY2021 Adopted Budget

[lxxiv] NJPP analysis of Elizabeth’s FY 2021 User Friendly Budget personnel costs

[lxxv] Ibid. This calculation is based on the number of officers employed at the time, which was

[lxxvi] NJPP analysis of FY2018 – FY2021 Adopted Budgets. All dollars used in analysis are in 2021 dollars.

[lxxvii] NJPP analysis of total police personnel costs in Elizabeth’s FY2021 User Friendly Budget

[lxxviii] NJPP analysis of FY 2021 User Friendly Budget.

[lxxix] Ibid.

[lxxx] Contract Between City of Elizabeth and PBA4. Pg. 23. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20472639/elizabeth-and-pba-loc-4-2018.pdf

[lxxxi] NJPP analysis of FY 2021 Adopted Budget – capital improvements

[lxxxii] Local Finance Board – Capital Budgets And Capital Improvement Programs. https://www.nj.gov/dca/divisions/dlgs/resources/rules_docs/5_30/njac_5304.pdf

[lxxxiii] NJPP analysis of FY 2021 Adopted Budget. In 2021 dollars. Note that these grants are not listed as “anticipated” for FY 2021.

[lxxxiv] Cox & Cunningham. (August 2017). Financing the War on Drugs: The Impact of Law Enforcement Grants on Racial Disparities in Drug Arrests. Pg. 26-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3035640

[lxxxv] Ibid.

[lxxxvi] NJ Department of Law and Public Safety. (2021). Drunk Driving Enforcement Fund. https://www.nj.gov/oag/hts/grants/index.html

[lxxxvii] Governor’s Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. https://gcada.nj.gov/alliance/

[lxxxviii] Union County, New Jersey. Municipal Alliance Programs. https://ucnj.org/departments/human-services/alliance-to-prevent-alcoholism-and-drug-abuse/municipal-alliances/municipal-alliance-programs/

[lxxxix] NJPP analysis of FY 2021 Elizabeth Adopted Budget.

[xc] Mellor. (2021). A War on Us: How Much New Jersey Spends Enforcing the War on Drugs. New Jersey Policy Perspective. https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/a-war-on-us-how-much-new-jersey-spends-enforcing-the-war-on-drugs/

[xci] West, S. L., & O’Neal, K. K. (2004). Project D.A.R.E. outcome effectiveness revisited. American Journal Of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.94.6.1027

[xcii] NJPP analysis of FY 2021 Adopted Budget, In order to make an apples-to-apples comparison, this section compares the municipal police budget itself, without additional police revenue.

[xciii] This does not include federal or state dollars for programs like TANF or SSI. This comparison is salaries and wages and day-to-day operating expenses of the departments.

[xciv] NJPP analysis of FY 2021 Adopted Budget. Pg. 129. https://www.elizabethnj.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/75

[xcv] Department of Health and Human Services. City of Elizabeth. https://www.elizabethnj.org/323/Human-Services

[xcvi] Public Health Nursing. City of Elizabeth. https://www.elizabethnj.org/328/Public-Health-Nursing

[xcvii] NJPP analysis of FY 2021 Adopted Budget for Elizabeth

[xcviii] 2020 Uniform Crime Report. https://www.njsp.org/ucr/uniform-crime-reports.shtml

[xcix] NJPP analysis of 2017-2020 Uniform Crime Reports. Note clearance rates do not track important information like if the person who was arrested was the person who committed the crime, drug and other nonviolent crime, and many police initiated encounters.

[c] U.S. Census Bureau. (2019) Gloucester County, New Jersey. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/gloucestercountynewjersey,US/RHI225219

[ci] NJPP analysis of municipal documents. This does not include the Prosecutor’s Office, Department of Corrections, or Rowan University’s police department in Glassboro.

[cii] NJPP analysis of FY 2020 municipal budgets. This number does not include the budgets for the Department of Corrections or the County Prosecutor’s Office.

[ciii] This is an underestimate given that the dollars for shared service agreements are not included.

[civ] Newfield, Wenonah, South Harrison, Swedesboro, and National Park do not have their own police departments and pay a fixed sum to another department to share services. They are difficult to compare to the 19 individual departments. Thus, their absence from the chart.

[cv] New Jersey Department of Public Safety, Division of Traffic Safety. (2019). Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over. https://www.nj.gov/oag/hts/youlose.html

[cvi] New Jersey Department of Public Safety, Division of Traffic Safety. (2019). Click It Or Ticket. https://www.state.nj.us/oag/hts/clickitorticket.html

[cvii] “Click it or Ticket,” p. 12: https://www.state.nj.us/oag/hts/downloads/CIOT_2019_Final_Report.pdf; “Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over,” p. 11: https://www.nj.gov/oag/hts/downloads/2019_DSOGPO_Report-WEB.pdf

[cviii] Ibid.

[cix] National, A. O. S. E. A., Division, O. B. A. S. S., Committee, O. L. A. J., & Committee, O. P. P. E. O. (2018). Proactive policing : Effects on crime and communities. Pages 1-3. ProQuest Ebook Central

[cx] Ibid.

[cxi] American Public Health Association  (APHA). (2018). Addressing Law Enforcement Violence As A Public Health Issue. https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2019/01/29/law-enforcement-violence

[cxii] Mapping Police Violence Database (2021). https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/ssinyangwe/viz/PoliceViolenceperPD/KillingsbyEncounterType

[cxiii] NJPP analysis of municipal budget. More information for Walmart’s community grant program: https://walmart.org/how-we-give/local-community-grants. In 2021 dollars.

[cxiv] NJPP analysis of Gloucester County municipal budgets. In 2021 dollars.

[cxv] Dollars from the MAADA grants are eligible to be used in other ways aside from policing and not all these dollars go to police departments, but there is no explicit breakdown in the municipal budgets to illustrate what share of these dollars go to programs outside of police departments.

[cxvi] This includes dollars given to police departments from municipalities that do not have their own police department as a contribution for the shared service.

[cxvii] NJPP analysis of FY2020 Adopted Budget for Monroe, Gloucester County. In 2021 dollars. Total estimated costs are over $200,000, but the remainder is to be funded in future years.

[cxviii] NJPP analysis of FY2020 Adopted Budget for Mantua, Gloucester County. In 2021 dollars. Total estimated costs are over $640,000, but the remainder is to be funded in future years.

[cxix] NJPP analysis of FY2019 Adopted Budget for Washington Township, Gloucester County. In 2021 dollars.

[cxx] NJPP analysis of various FY2020 municipal and county budget documents for Gloucester County.

[cxxi] NJPP Analysis of FY 2019 and FY 2020 Adopted Budgets. All adjusted for 2021 dollars.

[cxxii] 2020 Uniform Crime Report. https://www.njsp.org/ucr/uniform-crime-reports.shtml

[cxxiii] NJPP analysis of 2017-2020 Uniform Crime Reports. Note clearance rates do not track important information like if the person who was arrested was the person who committed the crime, drug and other nonviolent crime, and many police initiated encounters.

[cxxiv] Sawyer, W. (2020). Ten key facts about policing: Highlights from our work. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policingfacts/

[cxxv] Stemen. (2017). The Prison Paradox: More Incarceration Will Not Make Us Safer. The Vera Institute. https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/for-the-record-prison-paradox-incarceration-not-safer/legacy_downloads/for-the-record-prison-paradox_02.pdf

[cxxvi] Milgram, A., et al. (2018). Integrated Health Care and Criminal Justice Data — Viewing the Intersection of Public Safety, Public Health, and Public Policy Through a New Lens: Lessons from Camden, New Jersey. Harvard Kennedy School. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/wiener/programs/pcj/files/integrated_healthcare_criminaljustice_data.pdf

[cxxvii] Wen, H. (2017). The effect of Medicaid expansion on crime reduction: Evidence from HIFA-waiver expansions. Journal of Public Economics, 154, 67–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.09.001;

Volger, J. (2017) Access to Health Care and Criminal Behavior: Short-Run Evidence from the ACA Medicaid Expansions. SSRN. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pam.22239

[cxxviii] Volger, J. (2017) Access to Health Care and Criminal Behavior: Short-Run Evidence from the ACA Medicaid Expansions. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3042267

[cxxix] Shepley, M., et al. (2019). The Impact of Green Space on Violent Crime in Urban Environments: An Evidence Synthesis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245119; Hoffman, A. (2020). Community service activities reducing hate crimes and extremism: A “green intervention” approach. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 48(3), 207–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2019.1625606

[cxxx] Kondo, M., Fluehr, J., McKeon, T., & Branas, C. (2018). Urban Green Space and Its Impact on Human Health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(3), 445–. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15030445

[cxxxi] Moyer, R., MacDonald, J., Ridgeway, G., & Branas, C. (2019). Effect of Remediating Blighted Vacant Land on Shootings: A Citywide Cluster Randomized Trial. American Journal of Public Health (1971), 109(1), 140–144. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304752

[cxxxii] David-Ferdon, C. et al. (2016). A comprehensive technical package for the prevention of youth violence and associated risk behaviors. CDC. Pg. 31. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/yv-technicalpackage.pdf

[cxxxiii] Giovanelli, A., Hayakawa, M., Englund, M., Reynolds, A. (2018). African-American Males in Chicago: Pathways From Early Childhood Intervention to Reduced Violence, Journal of Adolescent Health, Pg. 80-86,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.08.012 ;

National Bureau of Economic Research. (2001). Favorable Long Term Effects of Head Start. NBER.  https://www.nber.org/digest/aug01/favorable-long-term-effects-head-start

[cxxxiv] Sharkey, P., Torrats-Espinosa, G., & Takyar, D. (2017). Community and the Crime Decline: The Causal Effect of Local Nonprofits on Violent Crime. American Sociological Review, 82(6), 1214–1240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417736289

[cxxxv] Weisburd, D., White, C., Wire, S., & Wilson, D. (2021). Enhancing Informal Social Controls to Reduce Crime: Evidence from a Study of Crime Hot Spots. Prevention Science, 22(4), 509–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-020-01194-4

[cxxxvi] David-Ferdon, C. et al. (2016). A comprehensive technical package for the prevention of youth violence and associated risk behaviors. CDC. Pg. 33. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/yv-technicalpackage.pdf

[cxxxvii] To learn more about NCST see the box contained examples of successful programs and visit them at https://www.newarkcommunitystreetteam.org/

[cxxxviii] Watson, A., et al. (2019). Crisis Response Services for People with Mental Illnesses or Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: A Review of the Literature on Police-based and Other First Response Models. Vera Institute. https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/crisis-response-services-for-people-with-mental-illnesses-or-intellectual-and-developmental-disabilities.pdf ;

Batko, S., et al. (2020) Alternatives to Arrests and Police Responses to Homelessness: Evidence-Based Models and Promising Practices. Urban Institute. Pg. 22-25. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/103158/alternatives-to-arrests-and-police-responses-to-homelessness.pdf

[cxxxix] Treger, T. (1974). A Police-Social Work Team Model: Some Preliminary Findings and Implications for System Change. Crime and Delinquency. https://doi.org/10.1177/001112877402000308

[cxl] Ibid.

[cxli] Lowery, W. (2021). The Most Ambitious Effort Yet to Reform Policing May Be Happening In Ithaca, New York. GQ. https://www.gq.com/story/ithaca-mayor-svante-myrick-police-reform

[cxlii] Ibid.

[cxliii] French, P. (2021). California Bill That Promotes Alternatives To Policing Is Back Despite Governor’s Veto. The Appeal. https://theappeal.org/politicalreport/california-crises-act-2021/

[cxliv] Lamin, T. (2016). Police social work and community policing. Cogent Social Sciences, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1212636

[cxlv] White Bird Clinic. (2020) CAHOOTS. https://whitebirdclinic.org/category/programs/cahoots/

[cxlvi] CAHOOTS Program Analysis. (2019). Pg. 8. https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/56717/CAHOOTS-Program-Analysis

[cxlvii] Ibid.

[cxlviii] Ibid.

[cxlix] White Bird Clinic. (2020) CAHOOTS. https://whitebirdclinic.org/what-is-cahoots/

[cl] STAR Program Evaluation. (2020). https://wp-denverite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/02/STAR_Pilot_6_Month_Evaluation_FINAL-REPORT.pdf

[cli] Ibid.

[clii] McRae, J. (2021). STAR Program In Denver Expands To Respond To Calls Seven Days A Week. CBS Denver.  https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/08/31/star-program-mental-health-denver-police/

[cliii] Newark Community Street Team. (2021). What We Do. https://www.newarkcommunitystreetteam.org/what-we-do/ Note that homicide rates increased in 2021.

[cliv] Ibid.

[clv] Ibid.

[clvi] Newark Community Street Team Narrative Evaluation. (2020). Pg. 58 – 60.  https://www.newarkcommunitystreetteam.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/NCST-Evaluation_FINAL.pdf

[clvii] Ibid.

[clviii] Ibid.

Build Back Better Legislation Makes the Tax Code Fairer — But Only if SALT Cap Stays in Place

The tax proposals in the Build Back Better legislation recently approved by the House Ways and Means Committee would make the U.S. tax code more progressive, but only if the $10,000 cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions is kept in place, according to two new reports by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP). As currently written, the $3.5 trillion package would raise taxes on the nation’s richest households and biggest corporations while providing a tax cut for the average taxpayer in all income groups except the top 5 percent.

These tax reforms would pay for nearly all of the groundbreaking investments in the bill, like child care infrastructure, targeted rental assistance, new Medicare benefits, carbon emission limits, and permanently enhanced tax credits for workers and their families (more on that below).

Here’s what the tax changes of the Build Back Better bill would mean for New Jersey. First, income taxes would go up, but only for 2.7 percent of New Jersey tax filers. According to the ITEP analysis, 86 percent of the tax increases would be paid for by the richest 1 percent of earners, who have a projected average annual income of $2.73 million in 2022. The bill would also raise taxes on corporations. Again, this reform would primarily fall on the wealthiest people as they are the most likely to own stocks and other business assets. Third, the bill would raise federal taxes on tobacco and nicotine, which would affect individuals in all income groups. Together, these tax increases account for 94 percent of the revenue that would be raised in the bill’s first 10 years.

The biggest tax cuts in the legislation are through expansions to the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which would mostly benefit the bottom 60 percent of earners. These changes would result in a lower effective federal tax rate for households in all but the wealthiest income brackets.

Total Net Tax Change in the House Ways and Means Build Back Better Bill

The bottom 20 percent of earners in New Jersey would receive a tax cut equal to 7.3 percent of their income if they qualify for the CTC or EITC expansion. On the other end of the income spectrum, the richest 1 percent in New Jersey would receive a tax increase equal to 3.3 percent of their income. That’s a progressive shift away from the tax policies currently in place, especially after the enactment of the 2017 Trump-GOP tax law, which disproportionately benefits the richest tax filers.

The graph below shows how each of the major tax policies of the proposed legislation would affect each income group as a share of income. Unlike the regressive tax changes made during the Trump administration, these policies target those who have flourished while improving the tax code for those who were disproportionately harmed by the public health crisis and its economic fallout.

Tax Change in the House Ways and Means Build Back Better Bill by Category

But, should amendments include a full repeal of the $10,000 cap on deductions for state and local taxes (SALT), the bill’s progressive income tax reform would be completely wiped out, putting key investments at risk, according to a follow-up analysis by ITEP released last week.

Share of Benefits from Amending Ways and Means Build Back Better Bill to Repeal SALT Cap

New Jersey’s congressional representatives have repeatedly claimed that their “middle-class” constituents are hurt by the SALT cap. In reality, a full repeal would disproportionately benefit the richest households; almost none of the benefits would go to the state’s bottom 80 percent of earners. Those who make between $89,500 and $159,700 a year, like an East Rutherford police officer (average salary $152,461) or Edison teacher (average salary $96,455), would receive just 5 percent of the benefit with an annual average tax break that amounts to a dollar a day. In contrast, the richest 1 percent would enjoy over 50 percent of the benefit with an average tax break equal to $231 dollars a day, or $84,000 a year.

Further, claims that the bill raises revenue directly from the rich would no longer be accurate if the SALT cap is repealed. In fact, 81 percent of the proposed tax increases for the richest 1 percent would be wiped out. Unless other significant changes are made to the legislation (looking at you, stepped-up basis), an amended version that includes a full SALT cap repeal lets the rich off the hook and puts a huge dent in new tax revenue for the bill’s unprecedented investments in programs like universal pre-K and free community college. As written now, the income tax changes would raise $84.4 billion. But a repeal of the SALT cap would reduce new revenue by $114 billion, resulting in lost revenue overall.

EITC Expansion Benefits Residents and Boosts the Economy

In the recently signed state budget, lawmakers expanded eligibility for the New Jersey Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to young workers and seniors without qualifying dependents. This expansion of the EITC, a powerful tool for increasing the after-tax earnings of low- and moderate-income workers, will help thousands of residents cover the costs of basic needs. Increasing household spending power across New Jersey will also provide a boost to state and local economies as EITC benefits are often spent immediately and locally.

Workers between the ages of 18 and 20 and over 65 who do not claim dependent children will now qualify for the state EITC for the first time. This eligibility change builds upon an increase in the credit amount and expansion of eligibility in 2020, when lawmakers raised the New Jersey EITC to 40 percent of the federal credit and decreased the minimum age requirement for workers without qualifying children from 25 to 21, decoupling New Jersey’s state EITC from federal eligibility requirements for the first time.

These improvements will be supplemented by a new, temporary expansion to the federal tax credit. The American Rescue Plan Act (ARP) temporarily reduces the minimum eligibility age from 25 to 19 and eliminates the upper age limit (currently set at 65) for tax year 2021 only. The ARP also temporarily raises the maximum credit amount for workers without children from approximately $540 to approximately $1,500 and increases the income cap from approximately $16,000 to $21,000. In the absence of a permanent federal EITC expansion, New Jersey’s EITC eligibility expansion is an important step toward addressing inequities in the state version of the credit. State lawmakers can further strengthen the EITC for workers without qualifying children by increasing the income cap and credit amount for the state version of the credit.

Unfortunately, workers without qualifying children are not the only group of workers who are penalized by an inequitable EITC. Workers who use an Independent Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to file taxes are ineligible for any EITC. By including ITIN filers in the state version of the credit, New Jersey can remove another discriminatory barrier and expand access to the credit. Several other states, including California, Maryland, Colorado, and New Mexico have already enacted similar expansions.

Strengthening the state EITC is an important step toward promoting equity in the tax code, but more must be done as the credit provides a small benefit, especially for workers who are not raising children at home, and does not reach everyone facing financial hardship. Achieving economic equity in New Jersey will require more robust investments in a broad range of programs — including baby bonds, reparations, and guaranteed income — that can meaningfully address racial and economic inequities both during and beyond the current crisis.

Depleted Rainy Day Fund Shows How Broken the State Budget Process Is

Earlier today, NJ Spotlight News reported that the state Treasury has drained New Jersey’s rainy day fund and transferred the balance of $2.2 billion into the state’s general fund. This transfer was a surprise to state lawmakers, the press, and advocates alike, who all celebrated the budget bill for replenishing New Jersey’s historically depleted reserves. The shocking revelation should come as no surprise, as state lawmakers voted on the budget bill a mere 11 minutes after the bill text was made public. In response to the depleted rainy day fund, New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) releases the following statement.

Brandon McKoy, President, NJPP:

“The now empty rainy day fund is Exhibit A in how broken the state’s budget process is. Every single lawmaker voted on a budget bill that had more than a billion dollars tucked away in reserves. We are now finding out, for reasons that are not entirely clear, those reserves have already been depleted. Regardless of why, the fact is that one of the more positive developments of this budget no longer exists, which takes some lustre off of the finished project. This is yet another reason why having a more considered, transparent, and inclusive budget process is absolutely essential. Lawmakers should know exactly what is in the budget and how it will be enacted before they vote on it or sign it into law, and that requires not rushing and making mistakes.

“A strong rainy day fund can make the difference between falling back on drastic budget cuts and advancing equity with strong investments. The next time New Jersey faces a budget shortfall, which it will, lawmakers will once again cut funding for programs that low-income children, seniors, and families rely on, just as they have in the past when the rainy day fund was depleted. Let this sleight of hand serve as a reminder: This insider’s game that incentivizes politics and short-term decisions will never allow us to live up to our stated values of racial and economic justice. We must raise the standards of state budgeting by embracing transparency and proven best practices to build an economy that truly works for the many, not a chosen few.”

For more on this year’s state budget, read the latest NJPP report, Shining a Light on New Jersey’s FY 2022 Budget:
https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/shining-a-light-on-new-jerseys-fy-2022-budget/

# # #

Shining a Light on New Jersey’s FY 2022 Budget

From the rubble of a chaotic legislative process rises a record-breaking state budget that funds the immediate needs of New Jersey’s pandemic recovery, invests in key public assets, and pays down billions of dollars of current and future debt. Buoyed by stronger-than-expected income and sales tax collections, the $46.4 billion spending bill is approximately 15 percent bigger than last year’s budget. A large portion of the unexpected surplus is directed toward long-standing obligations like the public employee pension system and debt service on borrowing — as it should. By almost every metric, this budget sets the foundation for a strong recovery and addresses fiscal issues that have plagued the state for decades. At the same time, the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 budget misses a significant opportunity to enact bold, transformative changes that directly address centuries of racial and economic inequities that were exacerbated by the pandemic.

Almost everything that was first proposed by Governor Murphy back in February remains in the final budget, plus an additional $1.5 billion in appropriations. The state’s $10 billion surplus allowed lawmakers to strengthen programs that benefit low- and moderate-income residents, including early childhood intervention, pediatric behavioral health, wage increases for homeless shelter staff, reentry programs for individuals released from prison, summer youth programs, and services for domestic violence survivors. While things like Little League turf field renovations get outsized attention for their frivolous nature when juxtaposed against pandemic-induced challenges, these so-called “Christmas tree” items comprise less than a quarter of the last-minute additions to the budget, and many of these appropriations address critical local infrastructure needs.

And yet, the budget continues to leave far too many residents behind in the state’s pandemic recovery. Nearly half a million undocumented immigrants have been excluded from almost every form of state and federal relief for the past 15 months, and that trend continues with this budget bill — despite a multi-billion dollar surplus. The Fund for Excluded New Jerseyans, a modest cash assistance program, was established using $40 million in federal CARES Act dollars, but it will only reach a fraction of individuals and families excluded from federal relief programs.[i]

Fortunately, there are additional federal relief dollars to help the state invest in key areas that suffered during the pandemic and recession, including additional relief for excluded workers. The American Rescue Plan (ARP) passed by Congress provides a pandemic recovery roadmap with significant aid that can fund specific services like rental relief, food assistance, child care, and public education so that schools can safely reopen and help students recover from a difficult year. Additional federal aid is also available for a broader set of state-level purposes within the framework of a strong, inclusive, and equitable recovery. About a third of these flexible federal dollars ($1.86 billion) are included in the final state budget to help keep families safe in their rental homes, improve schools’ HVAC systems and offer disabled students an extra year of special education, enable hospitals to better serve low-income communities, and support child care facilities respond to growing demands.

Once the federal aid is gone, however, many of New Jersey’s structural deficiencies will remain. The school-aid formula that dictates state funding to K-12 school districts remains underfunded, and NJ Transit will again raid $360 million from its capital fund to pay for operating expenses due to chronic underfunding and no dedicated source of support. These bellwethers reveal an inconvenient reality: Despite the sheer size of this year’s budget, New Jersey is still struggling to meet its existing obligations fully.

Preparing for the future means taking a multi-year approach to the state’s obligations and assessing whether there are enough resources to meet them. Similarly, living up to our stated values of racial equity and economic justice will require a much more transparent and inclusive budget process. These changes would ensure more meaningful community engagement, help make sure already marginalized communities are not further left behind, and provide the necessary time for lawmakers to fully understand the budget before they vote on it.

Pension and Savings

Historic Pension Payment

Thanks to strong revenue collections, New Jersey is making its first full contribution to the public pension fund in 25 years. At $6.9 billion, the payment is over 40 percent larger than last year’s. This is not only the right thing to do for retirees and their families, it’s also smart budget policy, making the fund more secure and improving the state’s credit rating, which in turn lowers the cost of borrowing. New Jersey’s funded ratio — the value of plan assets in proportion to pension obligation — plummeted over the last three decades as the state decreased its contributions to the retirement system to cover budget shortfalls and avoid fair tax policies.

This year’s historic contribution is the third consecutive record payment into the retirement system. Though the state still has a long way to go in closing chronic shortfalls. At the end of FY 2020, New Jersey’s pension system held in its coffers just 58 percent of what was owed to retired state and local government workers.

Rainy Day Fund

New Jersey’s budget reserves were near-empty at the start of the pandemic and were quickly wiped out to make up for cratering revenue collections. The anemic state of the emergency fund was the result of lawmakers’ failure to replenish it in the wake of the Great Recession, instead relying on it to make ends meet without raising taxes. The Murphy administration deposited $421 million into the rainy day fund in FY 2019, representing the first payment into the fund in over a decade. Yet, despite the influx of extra revenue this year and the legislature intending to set aside $1.3 billion for such a purpose, the rainy day fund will remain empty leaving the state’s finances vulnerable to unexpected downturns and natural disasters once again. Investing in this reserve can make the difference between falling back on drastic budget cuts and advancing equity. Without this proven best practice, New Jersey will continue to fall short of building a state economy that works for everyone.

Debt Defeasance

The final budget also establishes the New Jersey Debt Defeasance and Prevention Fund, equal in size to the roughly $4 billion the state borrowed last fall through an emergency sale of general-obligation bonds. This fund will address $2.5 billion in current debt and set aside $1.2 billion for future infrastructure projects. Given how the fiscal emergency that sparked the borrowing never materialized, this debt fund acts as a compromise to ensure long-term debt repayment is a major priority.

Education

Strong public schools are necessary for setting kids up for success and maintaining a well-educated workforce. This requires steady investments in education, from pre-kindergarten through college. What will be particularly challenging for the upcoming school year is dealing with the disruption and loss from the COVID-19 pandemic. And school districts must figure out how much their students have missed and how to address it. While the FY 2022 budget provides a boost to the Department of Education (DOE), targeted investments will need to be made to ensure equitable recovery for all kids. Overall, DOE will receive $18.04 billion, a 55 percent increase over FY 2010 levels and a 27.2 percent increase over FY 2018 levels when Governor Murphy took office.

For public K-12 schools, the state provides nearly $9.3 billion for FY 2022, a $578 million increase over 2021 levels. However, some districts will lose funding due to recent changes made to the school funding formula and how it distributes aid. Notable increases for education include support for pre-K expansion and funding for kids with disabilities. For pre-K, the budget provides $924.2 million, a $50 million increase from last year, $26 million of which will go to new programs in 30 new districts ready to launch their pre-K programs. For students with disabilities, the budget provides $1.01 billion for Special Education Categorical Aid (SECA) and $400 million for Extraordinary Special Education (ESP).

Funding for Pre-K Increased by 28.5% since 2018 - Graph

Higher Education

A majority of states have cut funding for higher education since the Great Recession, fueling a college affordability crisis across the nation, including here in New Jersey. Thankfully, the FY 2022 state budget increases support for students with the greatest financial needs. Specifically, the budget provides $472.9 million for Tuition Aid Grants (TAG) for full-time undergraduate students enrolled in an approved degree or certificate program. About one-third of the state’s undergraduates receive support through this program.[ii] The budget also provides $54.3 million for the Educational Opportunity Fund (EOF), which offers students financial assistance and support services like counseling and tutoring.

Additionally, the budget appropriates $5 million for the implementation of a new program, the Garden State Guarantee Initiative, which will help students with household incomes below $65,000 pay for tuition and fees for two years at any of New Jersey’s four-year public colleges or universities. The program will fill the gap left by the state’s free community college program, which already funds two years of tuition and fees at community colleges for low-income students.

Despite these investments in tuition assistance, tuition and fees are still slated to increase in the upcoming school year, with Rutgers University increasing tuition and fees by 2.6 percent for the 2021-2022 academic year.[iii]

Higher Education Funding Increased Since Fiscal Year 2010 - Graph

Health

All New Jerseyans, regardless of race, gender, immigration status, income, or ability, deserve comprehensive and affordable health care. The FY 2022 budget reflects this growing recognition of health as a human right with big investments aimed at increasing access to care. This includes an additional $25 million toward subsidies on the state health insurance exchange (GetCovered NJ), which has proven successful at boosting health insurance enrollment. Taken together, the state’s health investments show lawmakers’ commitment to addressing the current health crisis, particularly among residents of color who have disproportionately suffered from the effects of COVID-19. Even so, the investments in this year’s budget must be maintained and expanded to build a stronger and healthier future for all New Jerseyans.

Cover All Kids

Even before the pandemic hit, more than 80,000 children in New Jersey lacked access to health insurance. This budget changes that. The new state budget invests $20 million toward providing health coverage to all kids by reducing many barriers keeping children uninsured. Specifically, the Cover All Kids initiative eliminates both premiums and enrollment waiting periods in the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and expands outreach efforts to encourage families to enroll their children. It also establishes a new buy-in program for children ineligible for NJ FamilyCare due to immigration status or income limits, paving the way for universal coverage once the program goes into effect next fiscal year.[iv]

Charity Care and Medicaid Expansion

After New Jersey expanded Medicaid in 2014, state funding has shifted away from Charity Care — which covers some uncompensated care provided to uninsured patients at hospitals — and toward expanding coverage offered through the NJ FamilyCare (Medicaid) program. This expansion has reduced the number of uninsured individuals, stabilized uncompensated care payments, and helped address public health issues, including racial inequities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these coverage options have been critical, especially for families of color.[v]

The ACA has Reduced Charity Care Spending and Decreased the Number of Uninsured Residents - Graph

The benefits of this shift helped keep residents with low incomes insured during the COVID-19 pandemic. Investing in NJ FamilyCare is not only good for public health but also for the state’s finances: through the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the federal government provides greater matching funds to states for Medicaid expansion than it does for Charity Care.[vi] While the state still needs to better address the many effects of historical and current systemic racism on health, the ACA’s provisions have supported significant steps toward a healthier, more equitable future.

As NJ Expands NJ FamilyCare (Medicaid) More New Jerseyans Have Access to Consistent Health Coverage - Graph

Graduate Medical Education

An ongoing shortage of doctors in New Jersey limited the state’s response to the pandemic. Without adequate funding for training new and more doctors of diverse backgrounds, the state will continue to struggle with cultural competency and meeting the needs of communities of color. The Graduate Medical Education (GME) program covers costs associated with training more doctors using a mix of federal and state funding.

Funding for GME is approximately three times higher than it was in FY 2010. However, funding has remained flat since FY 2019, which amounts to a cut when considering inflation. Of the total $242 million appropriated for GME, $218 million is distributed across all teaching hospitals, and an additional $24 million, known as Graduate Medical Education Supplemental, is distributed to the 14 hospitals that serve the highest proportion of Medicaid enrollees.[vii] Without more stable federal funds to supplement these investments, more state dollars are needed to expand New Jersey’s health care workforce.

Harm Reduction Services

All New Jerseyans who use drugs deserve access to the care that best fits their needs. With the ongoing public health emergency of the opioid overdose crisis, the state should move away from punitive measures and provide individualized support for people who use drugs. In this vein, the state has provided additional funding to harm reduction initiatives over the past several years. This year the Syringe Access Program receives $4 million, almost double what it received in FY 2018.

Yet, every year the program fails to spend its budget fully due to a lack of local participation. For new harm reduction centers to open, local governments must pass an ordinance allowing the program to operate. This results in the unnecessary politicization of lifesaving public health services and limits the number of sites; as it stands, only seven harm reduction centers exist in the state, despite the need for far more. With a lack of action from municipal authorities, the program will continue failing to meet its full potential.

Support for Harm Reduction has Increased in Light of the Opioid Overdose Crisis - Graph

Reproductive Health Services

All New Jersey families have the right to determine the best health care plan for them to thrive. This includes having access to family planning and other reproductive health services. The budget builds on New Jersey’s long history of protecting reproductive rights by funding contraceptives and prenatal care for undocumented individuals, extending Medicaid coverage for postpartum care from 60 days to 365 days, and securing universal coverage for a home visit within two weeks of birth for all parents. The budget also establishes a $2 million pilot rental assistance program for pregnant individuals. These provisions build upon the administration’s goal to reverse New Jersey’s dismal maternal mortality rates among Black women. However, more must be done to make reproductive health services accessible and affordable. The Reproductive Freedom Act (S3030/A4848) would do just that, but it is currently stalled in the Legislature.

Housing

The current health and economic crises have deepened barriers to stable housing, particularly for people who do not own their homes, Black and Hispanic/Latinx residents, and people with low incomes.[viii] To provide support during the immediate housing crisis, $466 million in new dedicated federal funds is now available for rental assistance. New Jersey will augment that emergency rental assistance fund with an additional $500 million, using flexible federal dollars allocated in the ARP. About $326 million has also been allocated to New Jersey through the ARP to assist unemployed homeowners.[ix]

Both state and federal dollars are also being used to expand access to safe and affordable housing. In the state budget, lawmakers preserved the full funding of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which helps municipalities and developers finance the construction of new, affordable homes throughout the state. In years past, these funds have been repeatedly diverted to cover the costs of other programs, contributing to the current affordable housing shortage of more than 200,000 units.[x] The budget also includes substantial investments in reducing lead exposure in homes, including $10 million for lead paint remediation programs.

Immigrants’ Rights

Legal Representation

All New Jersey residents deserve access to due process. Many immigrants, however, are forced to navigate the immigration system without access to legal representation. As a result, many immigrants are separated from their families and communities or detained in inhumane conditions. This year’s budget includes funding for two programs that improve access to legal counsel for these immigrants. The budget will increase funding by one-third for legal assistance to individuals facing detention or deportation, up from $6.2 million in FY 2021 to $8.2 million. In addition, the FY 2022 budget includes a new program that will fund legal representation and case management for unaccompanied minors and other immigrant youth. By expanding access to legal representation, this budget should help keep more families together.

Pandemic Relief for Excluded Workers

The current health and economic crises have increased financial hardship, especially for undocumented workers who are disproportionately represented in service sector jobs which has been hardest hit by the pandemic. While most people have been able to rely on public programs like unemployment insurance to make ends meet, many New Jersey workers are ineligible for these programs. Several states have taken meaningful steps to address these gaps; however, New Jersey has not allocated state dollars to assist residents excluded from other forms of relief. In May 2021, Governor Murphy announced a $40 million fund to support excluded workers using federal aid from the CARES Act. However, this amount falls far short of the need.[xi] With a substantial surplus, lawmakers could have dedicated funding in the FY 2022 budget to ensure that all New Jerseyans are able to cover the cost of basic needs. Instead, lawmakers ignored the calls of excluded workers and missed a big opportunity to support a stronger and more inclusive recovery.

Corrections and Reentry

Prison Operation

New Jersey has made significant progress towards incarcerating fewer residents over the last five years, largely due to bail reform. Yet the state continues to allocate large sums of money to prison operations under the New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJDOC). Since FY 2010, total state spending on corrections has remained steady at approximately $1 billion per year. On a per-capita basis, however, New Jersey will spend an estimated $91,000 per person incarcerated in FY 2022, up from $60,000 in FY 2010. With a prison population half of what it was in FY 2010, the state should assess whether this level of funding is still necessary — and whether opportunities exist to transfer these funds to other initiatives better-proven to increase public safety, like crisis intervention teams, mental health treatment, and harm reduction.

Parole and Reentry Services

As New Jersey incarcerates fewer residents, the state will need robust and compassionate reentry services for those leaving prison. The budget takes important steps toward building this reentry infrastructure through an expansion of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) as well as the creation of county-level reentry coordinators.[xii] The parole reentry programs, however, are unnecessarily punitive. The majority of dollars are used for surveillance, and reentry services issued through the Department of Corrections to parolees are often involuntary.

The table below compares the investments in parole reentry programs through the Department of Corrections over the last decade.[xiii]

There are additional reentry programs funded through NJDOC, some of which occur before an inmate is released in the form of training and others as support services after release. For FY 2022, these additional programs total approximately $73 million.

Reentry services are also funded through the Department of Community Affairs, which provides grants to nonprofit organizations and community-based reentry programs. Unlike the reentry services provided through the parole programs administered by NJDOC, these take a less punitive approach and are more accessible. For FY 2022, these reentry programs received just over $30 million, a boost of $7 million over what the governor proposed earlier this year.

Relief for Working Families

Unemployment Insurance

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the critical challenges facing the unemployment insurance system. The state has received an unprecedented 2.2 million initial unemployment claims and paid out $29.9 billion in federal and state unemployment benefits since March 2020 using a 40-year old computer system.[xiv] Underlying many of the problems with processing claims is that the federal unemployment system is itself antiquated and does not reflect the realities of a modern economy, resulting in confusion and unnecessary delays.

To help improve and modernize the processing of unemployment insurance benefits, the budget doubles funding from $3.9 million in FY 2021 to $7.8 million and allocates $10 million in federal dollars for this purpose. Some legislators have called for an even larger allocation. In light of progress toward a comprehensive upgrade to the federal unemployment system in the near future, however, the New Jersey Department of Labor has indicated that the amount allocated is adequate for planned changes to the state system, including communication improvements and preparation for a full modernization.[xv]

Rebate Checks and Property Tax Relief

The 2022 budget provides $339.5 million for the Homestead Benefit Program, which gives credits directly against the property tax bills of eligible homeowners. That’s $80 million more than what was first proposed in the spring. The boost represents a course correction of sorts, putting an end to the use of outdated, and thus lower, property tax bills to calculate the benefit. This annual sleight of hand has shortchanged hundreds of thousands of homeowners since the Great Recession — a 15-year time period when property taxes increased by 40 percent.[xvi] This year, just over 364,000 senior homeowners and homeowners with disabilities with gross incomes up to $150,000 and over 124,000 homeowners with gross incomes up to $75,000 will finally receive the full Homestead credit.

This summer, New Jersey will also be sending out over $300 million worth of income tax rebate checks, worth up to $500, to about 764,000 working families as part of last year’s deal to reinstate the millionaires’ tax. Households with less than $150,000 in gross income can expect an average of $425, and single parents with gross income below $75,000 will receive an average check of $297.[xvii] The tax break is nonrefundable, meaning that families with little or no earnings will receive a smaller benefit or will be excluded entirely. In addition to the income tax rebates, the budget introduces tax deductions for college savings, tuition and loans, cuts taxes on retirement income, and property tax relief for peacetime veterans as approved by voters last fall.

Earned Income Tax Credit

The federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a proven tool for boosting the earnings of low-paid workers, is currently inaccessible to many New Jersey residents due to narrow eligibility requirements. This is because New Jersey’s state-level EITC mirrors the narrow eligibility criteria of the federal tax credit. For example, the federal EITC is available to workers who do not claim dependent children on their tax returns but only if they are between the ages of 25 and 64. Under the federal ARP, the eligible age range will be temporarily broadened to include workers ages 19 to 24 and those over 65. However, this expansion is only in effect through 2021. In the absence of a permanent federal expansion, states are taking action to expand their own EITCs.

In FY 2021, New Jersey deviated from the federal EITC’s eligibility for the first time by lowering the minimum age for workers without qualifying children from 24 to 21. In FY 2022, the EITC will be further expanded for these workers by reducing the minimum age to 18 and lifting the maximum age requirement. Unfortunately, many New Jersey residents, including workers who file taxes using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), continue to be excluded from the EITC.

Child and Dependent Care Credit

New Jersey’s Child and Dependent Care Credit will also be expanded this year in two significant ways. This tax credit helps offset caregiving expenses for working families with children under 13 and other dependents — but families with the lowest incomes receive little or no benefit.[xviii] This year’s budget changes that by making the credit fully refundable. In addition, the income threshold will increase from $60,000 to $150,000. Together, these changes will double the number of families who benefit from the credit.

Safety Net

The FY 2022 budget includes some crucial improvements to social safety net programs, including an increase in the amount of child support payments that go to Work First New Jersey (WFNJ) /Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) households, funding for voluntary intensive case management, and less restrictive program requirements for cash assistance. However, these changes do not necessarily address the increased need for assistance across the state. Participation in social safety net programs has expanded significantly during the pandemic, particularly in the WFNJ General Assistance program and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), showing a need to bolster these safety nets for future crises. Yet the FY 2022 budget does not accurately reflect this growing need. Instead, it provides no new funding for SNAP administration and fails to improve TANF cash assistance levels, which are currently at 30 percent of the Federal Poverty Level ($559 per month for a single-parent family of three).[xix]

With cash assistance levels left flat-funded and improvements to the safety net funded through one-time budget resolutions rather than legislation, the state’s commitment to transformative investments supporting families with low incomes remains subject to the dynamics of the budget season each year.

Transportation

The state supports an array of transportation infrastructure, including roads, rail and bus systems, airports, and bike paths. Considerable funding for transportation comes from an array of revenue sources outside of the state budget, as well as a separate capital budget process funded through state bonds and targeted federal dollars. Nonetheless, the annual state budget process plays an important role in securing and maintaining New Jersey’s transportation infrastructure.

Overall, the budget provides $1.81 billion to the Department of Transportation, an 8.3 percent increase over FY 2018 levels.

Funding for the Department of Transportation Increased Since Fiscal Year 2010 - Graph

NJ Transit

For NJ Transit operations specifically, the budget provides $2.65 billion for FY 2022, a 24 percent increase over FY 2010 levels. In addition, NJ Transit is slated to receive $2 billion in federal relief funds to help the agency recover from ridership loss due to the pandemic, and more than $5 million from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for the procurement of electric buses.

Funding for NJ TRANSIT Operations Increased by 23.7% Since Fiscal Year 2010 - Graph

While the increase in transit funding is welcomed as the state begins to prioritize programs like bus electrification, it doesn’t tell the whole story. Ongoing diversions from NJ Transit’s capital improvement budget ($360 million) and the Clean Energy Fund ($82 million) continue at a time when NJ Transit has yet to secure funding for $5.8 billion worth of projects in its 5-year capital plan.[xx]

The ongoing diversion from the Clean Energy Program funds is especially egregious. That fund is meant to offer financial incentives, programs, and services to help save energy, money, and the environment. To limit these diversions, the state should dedicate funds from the state Turnpike Authority to NJ Transit’s operating budget, something the state transportation commissioner has already pledged to do. This would start with a $375 million transfer and gradually increase to $525 million per year.

Electric Buses and Vehicles

Even with a $10 billion surplus in this year’s budget, there remains no clear funding source for the $5.8 billion needed to implement NJ Transit’s electric bus replacement program.[xxi] Thus far, NJ Transit has only funded one electric bus pilot in Camden during the past three years. NJ Transit needs lead time to plan for the electric bus transition and outline the necessary capital dollars for both electric bus procurement and electrification charging technology.

Under the Board of Public Utilities, the budget provides a $5,000 rebate to help offset the costs of electric car purchases made by individuals in underserved communities, flat-funded from FY 2021 levels. However, households in lower-income communities with higher concentrations of people of color, like Jersey City and Newark, are less likely to own a car. These funds can be better spent on reducing and mitigating the higher rates of pollution from cars and trucks that plague these same communities. Investing in these efforts reduces the long-term health harms that disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic/Latinx residents.

 


End Notes

[i] NJ.com, ‘We are all in need of help.’ Undocumented immgrants seek $989M addition for N.J. excluded worker fund, June 2021. https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2021/06/we-are-all-in-need-of-help-undocumented-immigrants-seek-989m-addition-for-nj-excluded-worker-fund.html

[ii] Higher Education Student Assistance Authority, The New Jersey Tuition Aid Grant, 2021. https://www.hesaa.org/Documents/TAG_program.pdf

[iii] Rutgers University News, Rutgers Board of Governors Approves 2.6 Percent Tuition and Fee Increase, June 2021. https://www.rutgers.edu/news/rutgers-board-governors-approves-26-percent-tuition-and-fee-increase

[iv] Office of Governor Phil Murphy, Governor Murphy Takes Action on Legislation, June 2021. https://nj.gov/governor/news/news/562021/approved/20210629a.shtml; New Jersey Department of Human Services, Response to OLS Budget Questions, 2021. https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislativepub/budget_2022/DHS_response_2022.pdf. Pg. 24-25.

[v] New Jersey Policy Perspective, Unprecedented and Unequal: Racial Inequities in the COVID-19 Pandemic, October 2020. https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/unprecedented-and-unequal-racial-inequities-in-the-covid-19-pandemic/; New Jersey Policy Perspective, Parents are Essential Too: Supporting Working Families During the Pandemic, December 2020. https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/parents-are-essential-too-supporting-working-families-during-the-pandemic/

[vi] Charity Care is generally split with half provided by the federal government and half provided by the state. This is done through a reimbursement process and with funding formulas determined by the state and federal governments. For simplicity, the funding shown in the table is the total spent or allocated (both state and federal funds). From 2014 to 2016, the federal government covered 100 percent of childless adults in the Medicaid expansion. This rate has decreased over time, as laid out in the ACA. In 2018, this federal matching rate was reduced to 94 percent. In 2022, the federal matching rate is 90 percent (meaning that the state pays 10 percent of enrollees’ coverage cost).

[vii] New Jersey Department of Health, Testimony of Judith Persichilli, Commissioner of Health, May 2021. https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislativepub/budget_2022/Persichelli_testimony_05112021.pdf. Pg. 13.

[viii] Eagleton Institute of Politics, Most New Jerseyans Say Housing Costs are a Serious Problem, Finding a Place to Rent is Difficult; Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Housing Access, June 2021. https://eagletonpoll.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Rutgers-Eagleton-Poll-HCDNNJ-Housing-June-16-2021.pdf

[ix] U.S. Department of the Treasury, Homeowners Assistance Fund, April 2021. https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/HAF-state-territory-data-and-allocations.pdf

[x] National Low Income Housing Coalition, The Gap: A Shortage of Affordable Homes, March 2021. https://reports.nlihc.org/sites/default/files/gap/Gap-Report_2021.pdf

[xi] NJ.com, Governor Murphy Announces $275 Million in Relief for Small Businesses and Individuals Impacted by COVID-19 Public Health Crisis, May 2021. https://nj.gov/governor/news/news/562021/approved/20210507a.shtml

[xii] Provides one 30-day supply of prescription medications plus two refills and a 90 day supply of injectables upon release.

[xiii] Excludes parolees classified as sex offenders as they are often parolees for life (PSL) and thus are excluded from many reentry services. Given that some number of sex offenders are not PSL, it is likely that the Reentry Allocations/Expenditures per parolee are slightly smaller.

[xiv] NJ.com, Lawmakers wanted $50M to fix N.J. unemployment system, but budget calls for $17M, June 2021. https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2021/06/lawmakers-wanted-50m-to-fix-nj-unemployment-system-but-budget-calls-for-17m.html

[xv] New Jersey General Assembly Budget Committee Hearing, April 21, 2021.

[xvi] NJ Spotlight News, Murphy plans to continue time-honored NJ tradition: Shortchanging recipients of Homestead tax relief, April 2021. https://www.njspotlight.com/2021/04/homestead-tax-relief-shortchange-baseline-frozen-2006-tax-returns/

[xvii] NJ.com, Murphy to sign biggest N.J. budget ever, and there’s plenty in it for you. What you’ll find, June 2021. https://www.nj.com/politics/2021/06/murphy-to-sign-biggest-nj-budget-ever-and-theres-plenty-in-it-for-you-what-youll-find.html

[xviii] New Jersey Department of Treasury, Division of Taxation, Child and Dependent Care Credit (P.L. 2018, c.45), June 2020. https://www.nj.gov/treasury/taxation/depcarecred.shtml

[xix] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (Ali Safawi and Ife Floyd), TANF Benefits Still Too Low to Help Families, Especially Black Families, Avoid Increased Hardship, October 2020. https://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/tanf-benefits-still-too-low-to-help-families-especially-black

[xx] NJ TRANSIT, Capital Plan Financial Summary (Unconstrained), June 2020. https://njtplans.com/downloads/capital-plan/NJ_Transit_Capital_Plan_Financial_Summary_(Unconstrained).pdf

[xxi] Politico Pro New Jersey, NJ Transit board approves $2.6B budget with no fare increase, October 2021. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/states/new-jersey/story/2020/10/22/nj-transit-board-approves-26b-budget-with-no-fare-increase-1329547

What Happened Today at the State House is Truly Shameful

Earlier today, New Jersey lawmakers voted on billions of dollars in state spending and on an expansion to the state’s controversial corporate tax subsidy program without bill language available to the public, press, policy experts, or advocates. Given the size and complexity of these bills, it is all but certain that state lawmakers did not have a chance to fully read and process the bills before they were rushed through for a vote. In response to today’s votes, New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) releases the following statement.

Brandon McKoy, President, NJPP:

“What happened today at the State House is truly shameful. Lawmakers voted on some of the most consequential bills of the year — totalling tens of billions of dollars in both spending and corporate tax breaks — without any of the bill language available to the public. This, after lawmakers promised an open and transparent budget process. Their behavior, in an election year no less, affirms how little they care about good governance and basic democratic principles. At the same time, this should not come as a surprise given the uncompetitive nature of New Jersey’s elections.

“After the year we all just went through, suffering a pandemic and recession that has yet to fully end, lawmakers had a golden opportunity to show their support for true community engagement. Instead, they have doubled down on a process that only values insiders and protects entrenched power. As long as New Jersey continues to construct its budget and legislative processes in this fashion, our state will never reflect the values that we claim to hold dear.”

# # #

Expanded Child Tax Credit Will Benefit More Than 1 Million Kids in New Jersey

Happy Child Tax Credit Awareness Day! Established by the Biden administration, this commemorative day is meant to boost awareness of the substantial expansion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARP). These improvements to the CTC will help families cover the costs of raising children, improving families’ economic stability and children’s wellbeing.

As part of the ARP, Congress temporarily increased the maximum CTC amount from $2,000 per child to $3,600 per child for children under 6 years old, and to $3,000 for children between 6 and 17 years old. Prior to the temporary expansion of the Child Tax Credit under ARP, an estimated 27 million children nationwide, including 561,000 in New Jersey, received less than the maximum credit amount or were excluded from the credit entirely because they live in a household with low earnings. Under ARP, the CTC is fully refundable, meaning that households with little or no income can qualify for the full credit amount. An estimated 65.6 million children, including 1.6 million children in New Jersey, will benefit from these improvements to the CTC.

In addition to changes in eligibility and the credit amount, the delivery process for the CTC will now allow families to receive the credit sooner. Instead of waiting for a lump sum at tax time, families will be able to receive advance payments so they can use credit to make ends meet throughout the year. The first payments are scheduled to be distributed in July 2021. Families who have already filed 2019 or 2020 taxes or who signed up to receive stimulus payments will automatically receive their CTC. Families who have not yet filed taxes or who typically are not required to file taxes because their incomes are too low can sign up to receive the CTC through a new online portal.

Expanding relief for families is especially important now as households with children face heightened financial hardship, but many families struggled to make ends meet even before the pandemic. While this historic CTC expansion under ARP will temporarily improve the lives of millions of families, this expansion will expire after one year. To realize the long-term benefits of such improvements, Congress should make the temporary expansions to the CTC permanent. In addition, lawmakers should make the credit more inclusive by expanding eligibility for immigrant children.

To learn more about the Child Tax Credit, visit childtaxcredit.gov.