"It is fortunate that a major feature of American social policy is a series of programs, often referred to as the safety net, that are designed to provide people with cash and other benefits when they fall on hard times—which they are more likely to do during a recession," write the authors of a new report on the response of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program—the major federal welfare program that replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) in 1996—to the Great Recession that lasted from December 2007 to June 2009.

In their report, "The Responsiveness of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program during the Great Recession," Ron Haskins, Vicky Albert, and Kimberly Howard write that "All in all, we conclude that the American system of balancing work requirements and welfare benefits worked fairly well, even during the most severe recession since the Depression of the 1930s."

Their report is based on three studies: (1) an examination of the changes in the TANF rolls compared to changes in AFDC rolls during previous recessions, plus changes in TANF rolls in relation to rising unemployment state-by-state; (2) a review of data on single mothers' likelihood to receive TANF benefits during the 2001 and 2007 recessions, their receipt of other program benefits, and what actions single mothers took to deal with the recession; and (3) interviews with 44 directors of state TANF programs to determine their state's response.

"An important question" noted by the authors at the outset "is whether the response of the nation's safety net program in general and the TANF program in particular was commensurate with the challenge posed by the huge level of unemployment during and following the Great Recession."

Some Results of the TANF Study

Haskins, Albert, and Howard arrived at a number of conclusions from the TANF/AFDC study, including:

• TANF rolls increased more in the 2001 recession and the 2007 Great Recession than did AFDC during previous, pre-welfare reform (1996) recessions.
• The increase in TANF rolls was greater during the period of rising unemployment in each state, which did not coincide exactly with the dates of the Great Recession, than during the official recession period nationally.
• The "nation's safety net as a whole performed well during the Great Recession and prevented millions of people from falling into poverty."

"The nation experienced 51 different recessions and 51 different responses by the TANF program to the recession,” they write. "But the key point is that measuring the rise of the TANF caseload in response to the unique increase in unemployment in each state reveals TANF to have been more responsive to the recession."

Some Results of the Single Mothers Study

• Compared with the 1990 recession before welfare reform, "single mothers were less likely to receive benefits from the TANF program during the 2001 and 2007 recessions."
• Single mothers were more likely to receive other "safety net" help such as Unemployment Compensation, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly food stamps), Supplemental Security Income, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and child care, school lunch and breakfast, and other benefits for their children.
• In all the 1990, 2001, and 2007 recessions, "single mothers took action on their own" by finding jobs, living with family, and other ways to "weather the recession."
• Based on income, "poverty among single mothers and their children was lower during the Great Recession than during the recession of 1990."

Given the array of available benefits, the authors conclude that:

a mother with two children earning even as little as $11,000 per year could and still can escape poverty, as measured by income that includes non-cash benefits and tax credits, because of the generosity of these benefits. In our view, the combination of strong work requirements and generous work support benefits is a reasonable policy, despite the fact that fewer mothers receive TANF now than in the past.

Some Results of the TANF Directors Study

"Arguably the people who know the most about the goals and operation of state TANF programs and how the programs responded to the recession are the state TANF directors," write Haskins, Albert, and Howard. "They were, after all, the point persons for state TANF programs before and during the Great Recession. Interviews with TANF directors can provide an insider's view of the TANF issues that we have so far analyzed from the outside." Some of their conclusions from these interviews include:

• Most states did not struggle to pay for growing TANF rolls during the Great Recession.
• Most state directors considered their state's response to the recession "as adequate or better."
• The directors had suggestions for improving the TANF program, including having more flexibility in work participation rates, gaining access to the Contingency Fund, and placing greater emphasis on job training.

Some Policy Recommendations

Although the authors believe that the TANF program worked well, especially in conjunction with other safety net programs, they suggest some potential reforms:

• TANF allows vocational training to count toward states fulfilling their work requirement, but only a maximum of 30 percent of the work requirement can be fulfilled by TANF recipients in education or training. In times of high unemployment, Congress could raise the percentage limit from 30 to 40 or even 50 percent when unemployment reaches some specified level in the state, given that most experts believe the unemployed should expand their skills through job training during recessions.
• Congress should consider changing the 12-week limit on job search during periods of high unemployment to as much as six months, given that the average period of search before finding a job increases sharply during periods of high unemployment.

Download and read the full report for complete methodology, analysis, and data.

Bernie Sanders may have had no foreign policy advisers until this week, but he can justly claim to have proposed one of the boldest and radical foreign policy ideas of the 2016 presidential campaign. In what he describes as the most important speech of his campaign—on Democratic Socialism at Georgetown University in November 2015—Sanders called on the United States to fight terrorism in the same way it waged the Cold War. He said: “We must create an organization like NATO to confront the security threats of the 21st century” and we must “expand our coalition to include Russia and members of the Arab League.”

NATO was created in 1949 to give the United States a way to forward-deploy its forces so they would immediately be entangled in a war if the Soviets attacked Western Europe. The most important feature of NATO was the mutual defense clause, whereby an attack on one would be treated as an attack on all. In a new NATO to fight terrorism, the United States could find itself having to deploy tens of thousands of troops throughout the Middle East to fight ISIS. The United States may even be treaty-bound to use its troops to fight alongside Russia in Chechnya. 

If that sounds very unlike Bernie Sanders, it's because it is. It is clear from the speech that Sanders had very little idea what NATO actually is or why it was founded. He was looking for a way to pass the burden of fighting terrorism on to other nations, particularly Muslim nations. Lacking any clear idea as to how to do this, a formal treaty must have seemed as good a way as any. Sanders would surely say that he meant an alliance without a mutual defense pact and without the United States taking the lead. But such an organization currently exists—it is called the counter-ISIS coalition. Presidents Bush and Obama also both sought ways to deepen cooperation with Russia and Arab countries on terrorism without a formal NATO-style alliance, which led to the situation Sanders decries. In any event, the new NATO served its purpose. Sanders could later claim to have given a speech on foreign policy. The specifics of the idea went un-scrutinized. 

Mind the gap

Bernie Sanders’ foreign policy remains a mystery because he has said so little about it. Unlike Donald Trump, who has been vocal about his foreign policy views for many decades, Sanders has focused his message on inequality and the nefarious influence of big money in politics. Recently though, he has begun to come out of his shell. He regularly invokes his opposition to the Iraq War in an effort to negate Hillary Clinton’s superior experience in foreign policy. Sanders clearly hopes that this vote will enable him to win over many Barack Obama supporters who remain suspicious of Clinton. In recent weeks, some foreign policy experts have sketched out how Sanders could build on Obama’s foreign policy legacy and distinguish himself from Clinton. 

Sanders-Obama is the real foreign policy fault-line in the Democratic Party.

The conventional wisdom of the foreign policy debate in the Democratic Party sees an Obama wing that is skeptical of military intervention and a Clinton wing that is more willing to use American power overseas. This is a paradigm that Sanders would certainly endorse and hope to capitalize on but it is not an apt description of the 2016 divide. There is a reason why Obama has come close to endorsing Clinton and has left no doubt that he sees her as his true heir. The gap between Sanders and Obama is much greater than between Clinton and Obama. Obama is an avowed globalist who looked outward, even as he was campaigning in Iowa in 2007. Sanders is a liberal nationalist who looks inward, not just in his rhetoric but in his policy. 

A Sanders nomination would be a striking repudiation not just of Clinton but of Obama’s worldview and message. Sanders-Obama is the real foreign policy fault-line in the Democratic Party. 

Obama 2008: Looking outward

Obama’s 2008 campaign is now shrouded in mythology. He is often described as unlikely a candidate as Sanders. Forgotten is the fact that weeks after he started, he secured the support of major donors and dozens of foreign policy experts. He was always the favorite of a particular part of the establishment. He was young but he had thought about the world and America’s role in it. In 2005, he hired Samantha Power to be his foreign policy adviser in the Senate. His 2006 book "The Audacity of Hope" had a chapter on foreign policy that culled ideas from think tank row. 

In April 2007, a full 18 months before the election, Obama gave a revealing interview to The New York Times' David Brooks in which he spoke about the influence that American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr had on his foreign policy. Niebuhr was a seminal figure in U.S. diplomatic thinking during the Cold War and is credited with developing the most sophisticated critique of American idealism. Obama said that Niebuhr provided:

“the compelling idea that there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away...the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism.”

Some of these themes would reappear in his extraordinary speech in Oslo in 2010 on receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. 

Throughout the 2008 campaign, Obama spoke about reviving American leadership and presenting a new face to the world. In his announcement speech in Springfield in 2007, Obama said “ultimate victory against our enemies will come only by rebuilding our alliances and exporting those ideals that bring hope and opportunity to millions around the globe.” In his acceptance speech in Chicago, he spoke to “those watching tonight from beyond our shores”. “Our stories are singular,” he said, “but our destiny is shared and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.” 

Obama’s challenge in office, and the challenge of progressives after the Iraq War, was to develop a foreign policy that remained faithful to his internationalist ideals while resisting calls for large-scale military interventions. In this, his record was mixed. The Middle East stands out as a major failure but he had successes elsewhere. He helped rescue the international financial system, he deepened U.S. engagement in Asia, he negotiated several trade deals, and he secured a controversial nuclear deal with Iran. Throughout, he articulated a case for a liberal brand of American exceptionalism and for continued U.S. global leadership. 

Sanders 2016: Drawing inward

That is now at risk, not just by the prospect of a Trump presidency but also from within the Democratic primary. Sanders has had remarkable success with a campaign message that is entirely inwardly focused. Read his speeches, whether at Georgetown or on the stump, and you will see a sharp change of tone from Obama of 2008. Gone are the passages on a new era of American global leadership. Gone are the messages for people beyond these shores. Gone is the optimism about America’s global role. Gone too is the sense that the United States, flawed as it is, has a positive and indispensable role to play in upholding the international order. 

Rhetorically, Sanders is deeply pessimistic about the United States and its role in the world. For Sanders, America is not getting better—it’s getting worse, including on Obama’s watch. And, woe betide those who think that America can be any more successful abroad. In his Georgetown speech, he said that the first element of his foreign policy would be an acknowledgement of how America gets it wrong so frequently. In addition to the Iraq War, he mentioned the toppling of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, of Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, of Goulart in Brazil in 1964, and of Allende in Chile in 1973. 

[Sanders] offered no examples of how the United States has made the world a better place.

Apart from the ham-fisted description of NATO, he offered no examples of how the United States has made the world a better place. The toppling of foreign leaders is not, for him, even partially balanced out by successes in promoting democracy in Chile in 1987 or in Eastern Europe in the early 1990s, or in Indonesia in 1998. He did not mention the Kosovo intervention in 1999, which he actually supported at the time. The speech was not without irony however. Sanders organized the domestic section, on democratic socialism, around Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1944 State of the Union speech but made no mention of FDR’s heroic—and frequently risky—efforts to win the war and the post-war world.

As the campaign has progressed, Sanders has been pressed on what he would do if he were to be elected president. He said in a February Democratic debate that the “key doctrine of the Sanders administration would be no, we cannot continue to do it alone, we need to work in coalition.” The very idea that a Democratic candidate could make the unilateralist charge against Obama, one of the most multilateral presidents in modern American history, is itself remarkable and rather implausible. 

The very idea that a Democratic candidate could make the unilateralist charge against Obama, one of the most multilateral presidents in modern American history, is itself remarkable and rather implausible.

But this has not deterred Sanders. He has repeatedly argued that the Obama administration has not done enough to get Muslim nations to fight ISIS. At Georgetown he declared, “We need a commitment from these [Muslim] countries that the fight against ISIS takes precedence over the religious and ideological differences that hamper the kind of cooperation we desperately need.” Quite how Sanders would accomplish this was left unsaid. The reason ISIS is difficult to defeat is because Muslim nations see other challenges, particularly the sectarian struggle with Iran, as a much greater threat to their vital interests. 

Simply saying that the president can will other countries to act contrary to what they see as their vital interests is about as plausible as Trump persuading Mexico to pay for his wall. Clinton has repeatedly recognized the challenges associated with persuading Muslim countries to take on more of the anti-ISIS fight, but Sanders has just doubled down on his charge against Obama. “I’ll be dammed,” he told CNN, “if the kids of Vermont have to defend the Royal Saudi family” and take the lead in the fight against ISIS, even if is just with air power. 

On economic policy, Sanders offers an even more radical departure from Obama’s legacy. Sanders has opposed all U.S. trade agreements throughout his political career, including General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In 2005, he sponsored a bill calling on the United States to withdraw from the World Trade Organization. He has called for tariffs to prevent American industry from investing in China, Vietnam, and Mexico. He was the only Democrat to vote against the Import-Export Bank and he opposed the expansion of the H1-B visa program for high-skilled workers. 

He has offered no positive vision for the world economy and sees it as a zero sum game—either American workers’ win or other nations do. Obama indulged in anti-trade rhetoric, as has Clinton, in the heat of a primary campaign, but Sanders is different. He has consistently sought to disengage from the global economy—the same one that Obama did so much to save in 2009. This is no small matter. As the global economy flirts with recession and a new crisis, this time originating in China, the rest of the world is asking if America can continue to lead or if it is all tapped out. 

He has consistently sought to disengage from the global economy.

A President Sanders would not try to destroy America’s alliances like Donald Trump or leave the Middle East entirely like Rand Paul. But, he would surely try to hide from the world and tend to matters at home. He will be immediately tested by allies and adversaries alike as they try to find the limits of his commitments. All presidents are tested of course—especially those, including Obama and Clinton, who promise to focus on the home front— but they usually try to respond in a resolute way to dispel the concerns. Obama sent additional troops to Afghanistan in 2009, for example. Sanders will probably resist the pressure and focus on his domestic agenda, thus exacerbating foreign crises. He would surely feel a sense of betrayal as America’s allies failed to take up what he considered to be a fair share of the burden. 

America in the world?

2016 is a very different world than 2008. Then, Obama and Democrats saw a world that was full of opportunity, despite the financial crisis and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They believed the United States could offer a new face, and a new form of leadership, to the world. When we look back on 2016, it will surely be the year when the United States and much of the rest of the world faced a choice about whether to look outward or turn inward. It is not just the Republican and Democratic primary. Britain will vote on June 23 whether to leave the European Union. Germany and much of the rest of Europe will decide whether to close its borders to refugees.

When we look back on 2016, it will surely be the year when the United States and much of the rest of the world faced a choice about whether to look outward or turn inward.

Of all these tests, the biggest by far is in the United States. Republican and Democratic foreign policy populism is different, of course. Trump and his supporters are both terrified by threats from overseas and determined to lash out as viciously as possible against anything and everything associated with them. To his great credit, Sanders has not peddled fear of the other. His supporters are not frightened by the world. But they are disappointed in it and largely agnostic about what happens outside the United States. The left used to be inherently internationalist, but today Sanders sees no opportunity to lead, only risks of becoming embroiled in someone else’s problems. Sanders will not tear down the liberal international order but he does want to avoid doing much to uphold it. 

Sanders, his aspiring advisers, and much of the media have an interest in situating his foreign policy worldview within the Obama-Clinton paradigm but it is simply not consistent with what he is saying or with what he has done in the very recent past (never mind decades ago). Obama and Clinton obviously differ on some elements on U.S. foreign policy. It is not about large-scale invasions, as is commonly thought. Clinton is not about to send tens of thousands of ground troops to Syria. Rather, she tends to favor small-scale action early on in a conflict to tip the balance while Obama is extremely cautious about a slippery slope. Clinton also tends to see world politics more in terms of power politics while Obama often speaks as if we are headed toward a post-national, more global system. But this all pales in comparison to fundamental questions about whether the United States ought to be engaged in the world, not just militarily but also economically. Obama was elected on a platform of renewing American leadership in the world. He will soon find out if Democrats want to stay on the broad path he set.

As expected, the latest data from the Census Bureau’s 2009 American Community Survey (ACS) confirm that the worst U.S. economic downturn in decades exacerbated trends set in motion years before, by multiplying the ranks of America’s poor. Between 2007 and 2009, the national poverty rate rose from 13 percent to 14.3 percent, and the number of people below the poverty line jumped by 4.9 million. Yet because the economic impact of the Great Recession was highly uneven across the nation, the map of U.S. poverty shifted in important ways over the past couple of years, with implications for both national and local efforts to alleviate poverty.

An analysis of poverty in the nation’s 100 largest metro areas, based on recently released data from the 2009 American Community Survey, indicates that:

The number of poor people in large metro areas grew by 5.5 million from 1999 to 2009, and more than two-thirds of that growth occurred in suburbs.  By 2009, 1.6 million more poor lived in the suburbs of the nation’s largest metro areas compared to the cities.

Between 2007 and 2009, the poverty rate increased in 57 of the 100 largest metro areas, with the largest increases clustered in the Sun Belt.  Florida metro areas like Bradenton and Lakeland, and California metro areas like Bakersfield, Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, and Modesto, each experienced increases in their poverty rates of more than 3.5 percentage points.

Poverty increased by much greater margins in 2009 than 2008, with cities and suburbs experiencing comparable rates of growth in the recession’s second year.  Between 2008 and 2009, cities and suburbs gained 1.2 million poor people, together accounting for about two-thirds of the national increase in the poor population that year.

Several metro areas saw city poverty rates increase by more than 5 percentage points, while many suburban areas experienced increases of 2 to 4 percentage points between 2007 and 2009.  The city of Allentown, PA saw a 10.2 percentage-point increase in its poverty rate, followed by Chattanooga, TN with an increase of 8.0 percentage points.  Sun Belt metro areas were among those with the largest increases in suburban poverty, including Lakeland, FL and Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA.

Downloads

• Full Paper
• Appendix A
• Appendix B

"World class." The term has been bandied about the Puget Sound region for years now. But during the grinding tech and aerospace busts of recent years and the recession that followed, the term became a mocking one.

Despite those setbacks, Seattle nonetheless remains on the cusp of becoming a world-class city and region.

It just doesn't seem to know it sometimes.

Seattle is among the most educated places in the country. From this brainpower spring high median wages paid by good jobs. Despite the price pressure exerted by those wages, Seattle has low rates of childhood poverty and overall poverty, leading to a balanced income distribution, as documented by a recent Brookings study.

Moreover, Seattle has come a long way from the days when gas-station owners would raise prices on Boeing paydays. The University of Washington and a strong network of other research institutions like the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center are continually setting the stage for more diversification of the economy by fostering new ideas and technologies.

Immigrants both foreign and domestic also contribute to the innovative ferment of the region.

In short, Seattle has Boston's high educational attainment without the persistent ghosts of racial animosity and deep poverty. Seattle has the Research Triangle of North Carolina's talent for innovation, but in a still mostly urban-centered environment surrounded by some of the greatest natural amenities and vistas in the world.

With the region slowly emerging from the recession, the technology bust and aerospace industry trouble, more growth is surely on the horizon. What form will that growth take?

Seattle and the Puget Sound like to talk about the sustainability of growth. To its credit, under the Greg Nickels administration, the city of Seattle has been moving toward allowing more density downtown to increase housing choices and, presumably, reduce growth pressures on the urban fringe. And suburban cities throughout the region—such as Bellevue, Renton and Auburn—are working to boost their downtowns in conjunction with transit investments.

Sustainability is also the rationale for myriad shoreline-reclamation and creek-restoration projects.

But regardless of all the respect for the environment evidenced in hundreds of decisions, Seattle, as constituted, is an unsustainable region.

For all of Seattle's and the region's current greatness, failure to address three key issues—transportation, housing and schools—will unravel achievements to date and degrade the quality of growth to come.

Despite employment density and concentration, mobility—partly because of geography and partly because of a lack of a unified transportation strategy—is getting worse. Left unaddressed, the pressure of excessive decentralization will be severe and the impact on quality of life will be brutal.

The innovative nature of the region's economy and its high wages are bidding up real-estate prices, raising three big threats: stunting of middle-class growth as burdens on low-income families become severe and dampen their ascent; acceleration of population decentralization by the search for affordable housing (again impacting quality of life and the environment); and stagnating economic growth.

The other limiting factor to future economic growth is education. Seattle's public schools continue to wrestle with severe budget problems and quality is sadly far too correlated with race and income, disadvantaging the students who need good schools the most.

Additionally, the University of Washington is turning away qualified students for lack of capacity. This especially hurts graduates of the region's successful community colleges such as Seattle Central, a key ladder into the middle class for many low-income and immigrant students. To shunt such potential elsewhere is nonsensical and will eventually hurt the region competitively and economically.

These three challenges threaten the region's current prosperity and undermine its potential to do what few U.S. cities have done—grow sustainably, spread the wealth and preserve natural and environmental assets—becoming truly world class in the process.

As Seattle contemplates its future, it needs to think along these lines:

• On transportation, the region has simply grown too much to have mobility run by a farrago of agencies.

Despite progress by Sound Transit on light rail, the days of multiple competing systems and their redundancies, wasting infrastructure dollars (read taxes), need to end. A coordinated regional transportation strategy is necessary.

Also, the one bidder, price yet-to-be-determined monorail seems a solution in search of a problem. Public dissatisfaction with transportation is understandable. Spending over a billion dollars out of pique on a system with no park-and-rides serving only one of the region's job centers, albeit downtown, is not.

The region, and not just the political leadership, also needs to unite behind a solution, whatever it may be, to replacing the creaky Alaskan Way Viaduct, a highway of not just state but national significance (read federal funding) due to trade and the Port of Seattle.

Though the state and city seem to be united on a tunnel solution, funding remains problematic, and many are still arguing for a new elevated viaduct because of views for drivers, a risible proposition at best. Form needs to follow function both for transportation and land use.

• On housing, the city and region need to embrace density in appropriate locations. But dense housing cannot be the province only of the well-to-do.

Dense, new housing needs to incorporate favorable regulatory treatment for affordable housing and local support not just for the very poor but work-force housing to allow people to live closer to their jobs if they choose.

• On education, Seattle schools and the city have made a start by targeting the latest levy at performance in the most struggling schools. But more needs to be done to spend existing revenues more wisely.

A re-examination of Olympia's long-unchanged local-funding formulas is also overdue.

More broadly, the economic integration fostered by housing redevelopment in the Rainier Valley and White Center can only benefit surrounding schools and their students. High-quality public schools keep middle-class residents close to their jobs, fostering many of the region's goals.

Complicating action on all three of these challenges is the region's sclerotic political culture in which process is valued more than results and Weyerhaeuser is kept in business by the printing of report after report after task force after advisory committee.

Seattle, from the outside, seems blessed with talent, but an overabundance of process compounded by a reflexive populism and anti-elitism leads people to dismiss valuable ideas and proposals. In South Lake Union, for example, many oppose a revamp of the neighborhood solely due to Paul Allen's involvement, despite the huge potential the area has as a new locus of jobs and housing.

Admittedly, in a state where so many people are from somewhere else, it's tough to achieve consensus. And certainly the region's leaders should not make decisions willy-nilly—especially in immigrant-heavy neighborhoods that most need investment—without public input.

But if the city's and region's political culture does not mature enough to leverage its economic strengths, the magnets bringing people to the Puget Sound and keeping them there—be it jobs, outdoor recreation or the sheer diversity of the metropolis—will decline.

Lost will be not just Seattle's opportunity to become the Vancouver, B.C., of the American West Coast, but the chance to become the leading city of the Pacific Rim, with jobs, culture and architecture like the San Francisco Bay Area and Tokyo, but with an ease of living too often only ascribed to the Sun Belt in this country.

And then in the struggle to become truly world class, local civic and political leaders won't have to worry about people being from somewhere else.

They will live there, having either left Seattle or never arrived.

Think of Seattle’s workforce and you may imagine overworked tech employees at Amazon, Microsoft software developers, or Boeing engineers.

But the region’s workforce’s story is more complicated. Alongside the highly skilled workers driving the region’s strong growth since the Great Recession is an increasingly diverse youth population in South Seattle and its surrounding South King County suburbs often disconnected from the region’s trademark innovation economy.

As a result, the region faces a skills challenge as only one-quarter of the roughly one-half of King County adults who hold a bachelor’s degree are Washington natives. This limits both individual opportunity and long-term regional competitiveness: 67 percent of jobs in the state will demand postsecondary education within two years, according to an estimate from Georgetown University, but only 28 percent of students in South Seattle and the South King County suburbs receive a postsecondary credential by their mid-20s.

These challenges aren’t unique. Many regions are grappling with rising diversity’s impact on the labor force, and thinking about how educational programs and outreach need to adapt to reach diverse populations in an era of constrained resources and growing suburban poverty.

But Greater Seattle has an advantage over many communities: a committed group of cross-sector leaders working together as part of the Road Map Project and its ambitious goal “to double the number of students in South King County and South Seattle who are on track to graduate from college or earn a career credential by 2020 and to close racial/ethnic opportunity gaps.”

In the six years since it started, Road Map has tackled the region’s educational disparities in many ways: connecting students to scholarships, boosting parental involvement, and attracting a $40 million federal Race to the Top grant for the region’s school districts. Its approach follows the collective impact model, which emphasizes setting shared goals and coordinating resources and activities to magnify the impact beyond that of isolated interventions.

With four years left to meet its goal, Road Map released a report last month analyzing student success at the area’s community and technical colleges. This unique effort—marrying data from Road Map-area high schools with area community and technical colleges—produced a finely-grained view of 2011 high school graduates’ progress toward completion, tracking key criteria such as attaining college-readiness in math and completing 30 or more credits in the first year of college.

Community and technical colleges are critical institutions in the region—nearly one-third of 2011 Road Map-area high school graduates were direct enrollees—but the report found that only slightly more than one-third of those students successfully completed a degree or transferred to a four-year institution within three years. And outcomes for blacks, Latinos, and, in many cases, Native Americans, consistently trail those of whites and Asians.

In response, the Road Map report recommends a series of strategies aimed at attacking the problem from multiple directions, including working with high schools to boost college readiness, helping institutions improve their ability to deliver on student completion, adopting new culturally responsive strategies, and pushing for increased funding for both the institutions and student scholarships.

Filling these gaps and meeting the 2020 goal will be difficult. A different Road Map Project report highlights an improving high school graduation rate, but lagging enrollment of graduates directly into college. Nevertheless, the region’s collaborative approach of working across institutions and jurisdictions continues to hold great promise. As more regions confront similar demographic challenges and seek new solutions for boosting skills and opportunity, Greater Seattle offers a compelling case study in how to move beyond one-off collaborations and initiatives to achieve real systems change. 
 

Brookings John Austin provided Great Lakes regional economic context for a forum of Ohio and Pennsylvania business and civic leaders convened by Congressmen Jason Altmire (PA), and Tim Ryan (OH) to develop strategies for growing the bi-state regional economy.

Downloads

• Download

Policy Brief #173

America needs to transform its energy system, and the Great Lakes region (including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, West Virginia, western Pennsylvania and western New York) possesses many of the needed innovation assets. For that reason, the federal government should leverage this troubled region’s research and engineering strengths by launching a region-wide network of collaborative, high intensity energy research and innovation centers.

Currently, U.S. energy innovation efforts remain insufficient to ensure the development and deployment of clean energy technologies and processes. Such deployment is impeded by multiple market problems that lead private firms to under-invest and to focus on short-term, low-risk research and product development. Federal energy efforts—let alone state and local ones—remain too small and too poorly organized to deliver the needed breakthroughs. A new approach is essential.

America needs to transform its energy system in order to create a more competitive “next economy” that is at once export-oriented, lower-carbon and innovation-driven. Meanwhile, the Great Lakes region possesses what may be the nation’s richest complex of innovation strengths—research universities, national and corporate research labs, and top-flight science and engineering talent. Given those realities, a partnership should be forged between the nation’s needs and a struggling region’s assets.

To that end, we propose that the federal government launch a distributed network of federally funded, commercialization-oriented, sustainable energy research and innovation centers, to be located in the Great Lakes region. These regional centers would combine aspects of the “discovery innovation institutes” proposed by the National Academy of Engineering and the Metropolitan Policy Program (as articulated in “Energy Discovery-Innovation Institutes: A Step toward America’s Energy Sustainability”); the “energy innovation hubs” created by the Department of Energy (DOE); and the agricultural experiment station/cooperative extension model of the land-grant universities.

In the spirit of the earlier land-grant paradigm, this network would involve the region’s research universities and national labs and engage strong participation by industry, entrepreneurs and investors, as well as by state and local governments. In response to local needs and capacities, each center could have a different theme, though all would conduct the kinds of focused translational research necessary to move fundamental scientific discoveries toward commercialization and deployment.

The impact could be transformational. If built out, university-industry-government partnerships would emerge at an unprecedented scale. At a minimum, populating auto country with an array of breakthrough-seeking, high-intensity research centers would stage a useful experiment in linking national leadership and local capacities to lead the region—and the nation—toward a more prosperous future.

The Great Lakes Energy System: Predicaments and Possibilities

The Great Lakes region lies at the center of the nation’s industrial and energy system trials and possibilities. No region has suffered more from the struggles of America’s manufacturing sector and faltering auto and steel industries, as indicated in a new Metropolitan Policy Program report entitled “The Next Economy: Rebuilding Auto Communities and Older Industrial Metros in the Great Lakes Region.”

The region also lies at ground zero of the nation’s need to “green” U.S. industry to boost national economic competitiveness, tackle climate change and improve energy security. Heavily invested in manufacturing metals, chemicals, glass and automobiles, as well as in petroleum refining, the Great Lakes states account for nearly one-third of all U.S. industrial carbon emissions.

And yet, the Great Lakes region possesses significant assets and capacities that hold promise for regional renewal as the “next economy” comes into view. The Midwest’s manufacturing communities retain the strong educational and medical institutions, advanced manufacturing prowess, skills base and other assets essential to helping the nation move toward and successfully compete in the 21st century’s export-oriented, lower-carbon, innovation-fueled economy.

Most notably, the region has an impressive array of innovation-related strengths in the one field essential to our nation’s future—energy. These include:

• Recognized leadership in R&D. The Great Lakes region accounts for 33 percent of all academic and 30 percent of all industry R&D performed in the United States.
• Strength and specialization in energy, science and engineering. In FY 2006, the Department of Energy sent 26 percent of its federal R&D obligations to the Great Lakes states and is the second largest federal funder of industrial R&D in the region. Also in 2006, the National Science Foundation sent 30 percent of its R&D obligations there.
• Existing clean energy research investments and assets. The University of Illinois is a key research partner in the BP-funded, $500 million Energy Biosciences Institute, which aims to prototype new plants as alternative fuel sources. Toledo already boasts a growing solar industry cluster; Dow Corning’s Michigan facilities produce leading silicon and silicone-based technology innovations; and the Solar Energy Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the oldest of its kind in the world, has significant proficiency in developing practical uses for solar energy. Finally, the region is home to the largest U.S. nuclear utility (Exelon), the nation’s largest concentration of nuclear plants and some of the country’s leading university programs in nuclear engineering.
• Industry potential relevant to clean energy. Given their existing technological specializations, Midwestern industries have the potential to excel in the research and manufacture of sophisticated components required for clean energy, such as those used in advanced nuclear technologies, precision wind turbines and complex photovoltaics.
• Breadth in energy innovation endeavors and resources. In addition to universities and industry, the region’s research laboratories specialize in areas of great relevance to our national energy challenges, including the work on energy storage systems and fuel and engine efficiency taking place at Argonne National Laboratory, research in high-energy physics at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, and the work on bioenergy feedstocks, processing technologies and fuels occurring at the DOE-funded Great Lakes BioEnergy Research Center (GLBRC).
• Regional culture of collaboration. Finally, the universities of the Great Lakes area have a strong history of collaboration both among themselves and with industry, given their origins in the federal land-grant compact of market and social engagement. GLBRC—one of the nation’s three competitively awarded DOE Bioenergy Centers—epitomizes the region’s ability to align academia, industry and government around a single mission. Another example is the NSF-supported Blue Waters Project. This partnership between IBM and the universities and research institutions in the Great Lakes Consortium for Petascale Computation is building the world’s fastest computer for scientific work—a critical tool for advancing smart energy grids and transportation systems.

In short, the Great Lakes states and metropolitan areas—economically troubled and carbon-reliant as they are—have capabilities that could contribute to their own transformation and that of the nation, if the right policies and investments were in place.

Remaking America’s Energy System within a Federal Policy Framework

America as a whole, meanwhile, needs to overcome the massive sustainability and security challenges that plague the nation’s energy production and delivery system. Transformational innovation and commercialization will be required to address these challenges and accelerate the process of reducing the economy’s carbon intensity.

Despite the urgency of these challenges, however, a welter of market problems currently impedes decarbonization and limits innovation. First, energy prices have generally remained too low to provide incentives for companies to commit to clean and efficient energy technologies and processes over the long haul. Second, many of the benefits of longrange innovative activity accrue to parties other than those who make investments. As a result, individual firms tend to under-invest and to focus on short-term, low-risk research and product development. Third, uncertainty and lack of information about relevant market and policy conditions and the potential benefits of new energy technologies and processes may be further delaying innovation. Fourth, the innovation benefits that derive from geographically clustering related industries (which for many years worked so well for the auto industry) have yet to be fully realized for next-generation energy enterprises. Instead, these innovations often are isolated in secure laboratories. Finally, state and local governments—burdened with budgetary pressures—are not likely to fill gaps in energy innovation investment any time soon.

As a result, the research intensity—and so the innovation intensity—of the energy sector remains woefully insufficient, as pointed out in the earlier Metropolitan Policy Program paper on discovery innovation institutes. Currently, the sector devotes no more than 0.3 percent of its revenues to R&D. Such a figure lags far behind the 2.0 percent of sales committed to federal and large industrial R&D found in the health care sector, the 2.4 percent in agriculture, and the 10 percent in the information technology and pharmaceutical industries.

As to the national government’s efforts to respond to the nation’s energy research shortfalls, these remain equally inadequate. Three major problems loom:

The scale of federal energy research funding is insufficient. To begin with, the current federal appropriation of around $3 billion a year for nondefense energy-related R&D is simply too small. Such a figure remains well below the $8 billion (in real 2008 dollars) recorded in 1980, and represents less than a quarter of the 1980 level when measured as a share of GDP. If the federal government were to fund next-generation energy at the pace it supports advances in health care, national defense, or space exploration, the level of investment would be in the neighborhood of $20 billion to $30 billion a year.

Nor do the nation’s recent efforts to catalyze energy innovation appear sufficient. To be sure, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided nearly $13 billion for DOE investments in advanced technology research and innovation. To date, Great Lakes states are slated to receive some 42 percent of all ARRA awards from the fossil energy R&D program and 39 percent from the Office of Science (a basic research agency widely regarded as critical for the nation’s energy future). However, ARRA was a one-time injection of monies that cannot sustain adequate federal energy R&D.

Relatedly, the Great Lakes region has done well in tapping two other relatively recent DOE programs: the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) and Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs). Currently, Great Lakes states account for 44 and 50 percent of ARPA-E and EFRC funding. Yet, with ARPA-E focused solely on individual signature projects and EFRC on basic research, neither initiative has the scope to fully engage all of the region's innovation assets.

The character and format of federal energy R&D remain inadequate. Notwithstanding the question of scale, the character of U.S. energy innovation also remains inadequate. In this respect, the DOE national laboratories—which anchor the nation’s present energy research efforts—are poorly utilized resources. Many of these laboratories’ activities are fragmented and isolated from the private sector and its market, legal and social realities. This prevents them from successfully developing and deploying cost-competitive, multidisciplinary new energy technologies that can be easily adopted on a large scale.

For example, DOE activities continue to focus on discrete fuel sources (such as coal, oil, gas or nuclear), rather than on fully integrated end use approaches needed to realize affordable, reliable, sustainable energy. Siloed approaches simply do not work well when it comes to tackling the complexity of the nation’s real-world energy challenges. A perfect example of a complicated energy problem requiring an integrated end-use approach is transportation. Moving the nation’s transportation industry toward a clean energy infrastructure will require a multi-pronged, full systems approach. It will depend not only upon R&D in such technologies as alternative propulsion (biofuels, hydrogen, electrification) and vehicle design (power trains, robust materials, advanced computer controls) but also on far broader technology development, including that related to primary energy sources, electricity generation and transmission, and energy-efficient applications that ultimately will determine the economic viability of this important industry.

Federal programming fails to fully realize regional potential. Related to the structural problems of U.S. energy innovation efforts, finally, is a failure to fully tap or leverage critical preexisting assets within regions that could accelerate technology development and deployment. In the Great Lakes, for example, current federal policy does little to tie together the billions of dollars in science and engineering R&D conducted or available annually. This wealth is produced by the region’s academic institutions, all of the available private- and public-sector clean energy activities and financing, abundant natural resources in wind and biomass, and robust, pre-existing industrial platforms for research, next-generation manufacturing, and technology adoption and deployment. In this region and elsewhere, federal policy has yet to effectively connect researchers at different organizations, break down stovepipes between research and industry, bridge the commercialization “valley of death,” or establish mechanisms to bring federally-sponsored R&D to the marketplace quickly and smoothly.

A New Approach to Regional, Federally Supported Energy Research and Innovation

And so the federal government should systematically accelerate clean energy innovation by launching a series of regionally based Great Lakes research centers. Originally introduced in the Metropolitan Policy Program policy proposal for energy discovery-innovation institutes (or e-DIIs), a nationwide network of regional centers would link universities, research laboratories and industry to conduct translational R&D that at once addresses national energy sustainability priorities, while stimulating regional economies.

In the Great Lakes, specifically, a federal effort to “flood the zone” with a series of roughly six of these high-powered, market-focused energy centers would create a critical mass of innovation through their number, size, variety, linkages and orientation to pre-existing research institutions and industry clusters.

As envisioned here, the Great Lakes network of energy research centers would organize individual centers around themes largely determined by the private market. Based on local industry research priorities, university capabilities and the market and commercialization dynamics of various technologies, each Great Lakes research and innovation center would focus on a different problem, such as renewable energy technologies, biofuels, transportation energy, carbon-free electrical power generation, and distribution and energy efficiency. This network would accomplish several goals at once:

• Foster multidisciplinary and collaborative research partnerships. The regional centers or institutes would align the nonlinear flow of knowledge and activity across science and non-science disciplines and among companies, entrepreneurs, commercialization specialists and investors, as well as government agencies (federal, state and local) and research universities. For example, a southeastern Michigan collaboration involving the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, the University of Wisconsin and Ford, General Motors, and Dow Chemical could address the development of sustainable transportation technologies. A Chicago partnership involving Northwestern and Purdue Universities, the University of Chicago, the University of Illinois, Argonne National Lab, Exelon and Boeing could focus on sustainable electricity generation and distribution. A Columbus group including Ohio State University and Battelle Memorial Institute could address technologies for energy efficiency. Regional industry representatives would be involved from the earliest stages to define needed research, so that technology advances are relevant and any ensuing commercialization process is as successful as possible.
• Serve as a distributed “hub-spoke” network linking together campus-based, industry-based and federal laboratory-based scientists and engineers. The central “hubs” would interact with other R&D programs, centers and facilities (the “spokes”) through exchanges of participants, meetings and workshops, and advanced information and communications technology. The goals would be to limit unnecessary duplication of effort and cumbersome management bureaucracy and to enhance the coordinated pursuit of larger national goals.
• Develop and rapidly deploy highly innovative technologies to the market. Rather than aim for revenue maximization through technology transfer, the regional energy centers would be structured to maximize the volume, speed and positive societal impact of commercialization. As much as possible, the centers would work out in advance patenting and licensing rights and other intellectual property issues.Stimulate regional economic development. Like academic medical centers and agricultural experiment stations—both of which combine research, education and professional practice—these energy centers could facilitate cross-sector knowledge spillovers and innovation exchange and propel technology transfer to support clusters of start-up firms, private research organizations, suppliers, and other complementary groups and businesses—the true regional seedbeds of greater economic productivity, competitiveness and job creation.
• Build the knowledge base necessary to address the nation’s energy challenges. The regional centers would collaborate with K-12 schools, community colleges, regional universities, and workplace training initiatives to educate future scientists, engineers, innovators, and entrepreneurs and to motivate the region’s graduating students to contribute to the region’s emerging green economy.
• Complement efforts at universities and across the DOE innovation infrastructure, but be organizationally and managerially separate from either group. The regional energy centers would focus rather heavily on commercialization and deployment, adopting a collaborative translational research paradigm. Within DOE, the centers would occupy a special niche for bottom-up translational research in a suite of new, largely top-down innovation-oriented programs that aim to advance fundamental science (EFRCs), bring energy R&D to scale (Energy Innovation Hubs) and find ways to break the cost barriers of new technology (ARPA-E).

To establish and build out the institute network across the Great Lakes region, the new regional energy initiative would:

• Utilize a tiered organization and management structure. Each regional center would have a strong external advisory board representing the participating partners. In some cases, partners might play direct management roles with executive authority.
• Adopt a competitive award process with specific selection criteria. Centers would receive support through a competitive award process, with proposals evaluated by an interagency panel of peer reviewers.
• Receive as much federal funding as major DOE labs outside the Great Lakes region. Given the massive responsibilities of the proposed Great Lakes energy research centers, total federal funding for the whole network should be comparable to that of comprehensive DOE labs, such as Los Alamos, Oak Ridge and others, which have FY2010 budgets between $1 and $2 billion. Based on existing industry-university concentrations, one can envision as many as six compelling research centers in the Great Lakes region.

Conclusion

In sum, America’s national energy infrastructure—based primarily upon fossil fuels—must be updated and replaced with new technologies. At the same time, no region in the nation is better equipped to deliver the necessary innovations than is the Great Lakes area. And so this strong need and this existing capacity should be joined through an aggressive initiative to build a network of regional energy research and innovation centers. Through this intervention, the federal government could catalyze a dynamic new partnership of Midwestern businesses, research universities, federal laboratories, entrepreneurs and state and local governments to transform the nation’s carbon dependent economy, while renewing a flagging regional economy.

Downloads

• Download Policy Brief

Video

• Research Strength in the Great Lakes
• Pursuing Large Scale Innovation