Solutions For The South

Solutions for the South
november 2009
2100 m st nw • ste 610 • washington, dc 20037 • rooseveltcampusnetwork.org

volume 1 • issue 1 • november 2009
copyright 2009
Editorial Board
Jeet Guram, USC

Editor in Chief
Awais Khaleel
National Policy Director
Editors
Kevin Chang, UGA
Rocky Cole, UGA
Patrick Dever, Jr., UGA
Aaron Sayama, UGA
Marty Hyman, UNC

Katharine Pelzer, UNC
Nikki Rumley, UNC
Jeanne Tilley, UNC
Alina Arbuthnot, USC

Peter Schaeffing, USC
Alex Wang, USC
Published online at www.rooseveltcampusnetwork.org.
The opinions expressed within this volume are entirely and exclusively those of the
individual authors and do not represent the views of the editorial board, the Roosevelt
Institute, or any of the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network’s chapters, centers, advi-
sors, or affiliates.
Letter from the Editor
During the 2008 Roosevelt summit in Hyde Park, New York, the
Southern chapter leaders I met were a passionate and brilliant
group. Though we had to go our separate ways after the confer-
ence, we wanted to continue working together in order to create
something greater than any one of our chapters could create on
its own.
So I, Alex Wang, and Sydney Daigle from USC; Aaron Sayama

and Bobby Rosenbleeth from UGA; and Libby Longino from UNC
decided to harness the student energy across our campuses to
publish a journal of policies targeting the most urgent problems
affecting our region. Solutions for the South was born.
Working with so many innovative students in developing this jour-

nal has been a privilege. Authors have written persuasively and
editors have refined submissions with special care. The project
has sparked activity across our chapters and has provided our
region with a stage from which it can project its potential.
The policies you are about to read meet the challenges confront-
ing the American South with solutions deeply informed by an un-
derstanding of local realities. These ideas need to be heard. And
I hope the bonds we built between Southern chapters in draft-
ing this journal will continue facilitating productive collaborations
into the future.
Sincerely,
Jeet Guram
Editor in Chief
The Roosevelt Institute Campus Network, a national student initiative, en-
gages young people in a unique form of progressive activism that empowers
them as leaders and promotes their ideas for change. Through communica-
tion and coordination with political actors and community members, students
identify pressing issues facing their towns, counties and states. Taking advan-
tage of the unique resources on their college campuses, they engage in policy
research and writing and then connect the fruits of that work to the political
process, delivering sound, progressive proposals to policymakers and advoca-
cy groups. We call our unique model of policy activism Think Impact. Adding
policy papers to picket signs, Think Impact engages young people in activism
fueled by innovative, student ideas.
Founded in the wake of the 2004 election, the Campus Network was formed
in order to strengthen the progressive movement by meaningfully engaging
young people in politics. Young people can do far more than participate in
campaigns; here, students are asked to take action on their ideas and cre-
ate an impact in their communities. It encourages them to campaign for the
progressive policies that they have written. It gives them an opportunity to
reshape their communities. It allows them to experience, first-hand, the power
of progressive thought in creating positive change. And the Network empow-
ers students to see themselves as progressive leaders in their own right.
Today, the Campus Network boasts more than 7,000 members organized at
approximately 80 chapters across the country. Chapters foster debate and
dialogue on campus, teach policy courses, engage with local policymakers,
generate policy, and promote student ideas through conferences and publica-
tions. Since it’s founding, Roosevelt members have presented student policies
on Capitol Hill, testified to city council, implemented legislation, and worked
directly in their communities.
The Roosevelt Campus Network is a division of the Franklin and Eleanor

Roosevelt Institute, an organization dedicated to preserving and promoting
the legacy of their namesakes for future generations.
Legislative Briefs
7 Creating Local Newswires
Stephan Allen et al
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
11 Food Security in Durham, NC

Laurel Averett et al
15 Funding Richland County Buses

Ryan Shelton-Benson
University of South Carolina
19 Subsidizing Alternative Biofuels

Peter Schaeffing
Univeristy of South Carolina
23 Health I.T. for Southern CHCs

Jeremy Ford
27 LEED Certification in Schools

Michael Levy and Tyler O’Connor
Emory University
31 Inclusionary Zoning in Athens, GA

Ellyn Echols
University of Georgia
35 Raising Taxes on Georgia Cigarettes

Lucas Puente
White Papers
Curbing Dropouts with P.A.R.K. 39

Katherine Bogle et al
Harding University
Mandatory Impact Fees 51

Rocky T. Cole
Child Care Foundations 67

Lauren Coleman
Building a Faculative Bioreactor 81

Malin Dartnell and Shanell Davis
Durham Enrichment Project 95

Jeff Gruber
Building Effective College Access 101

Nikki Rumley et al
Simplifying Eligibility for Kids 113

Tracy Yang
Author Biographies 129

Creating Local Newswires
Stephan Allen, Ethan Bowers, Jeannie Burnette, Amanda Conklin,
William McKeen, Katherine Littlefield, and Andrew Reynolds
There is a lack of media coverage of local government. By running
a newswire service supported by a public university, students can
inform citizens on critical local issues in North Carolina.
The Internet and other electronic resources are increasingly used to access the
news. In his book, The Vanishing Newspaper, pioneer journalist and University
of North Carolina-Chapel Hill professor Philip Meyer calculates that print news
will die in America by 2043. In response, papers are downsizing and cutting
staff who provide valuable coverage, diminishing the ability of sources to cover
important local issues. According to the Newspaper Association of America,
the number of people employed in the industry fell by 18% between 1990 and
2004.1 Small, local newspapers are in an especially difficult situation, lacking
the resources and funding to compete with larger companies in a shrinking
market. As news organizations lose resources to cover county and municipal
governments, local citizens run the risk of being uninformed about local issues
that affect them profoundly. A student-run wire service at North Carolina sys-
tem universities would provide a way to get facts and firsthand accounts about
local issues to the public.
Background
The North Carolina Policy Information Network (NCPIN), an online news server,
would provide a central database for information on local news.2 It would offer
a crucial resource for citizens who are otherwise ill informed about local mat-
ters because of the decrease in community coverage, thus enabling the citizens
to play a greater, more knowledgeable role in their communities.
By building partnerships with North Carolina’s higher education system and

non-profit organizations, students can deliver timely, accurate, and bipartisan
information about local government throughout the state.3 Students recruited
for the program would have a background in Journalism, English, or Commu-
nications and would benefit by receiving firsthand experience in the field, as
well as networking opportunities and academic credit. Participation in NCPIN
would take place during a semester-long course in which students would report
on the proceedings of local, county, and municipal governments. After gather-
ing information, participants would then upload their coverage to an online
server, which could be accessed directly by citizens or client news organiza-
tions.
7
Several universities have similar newswire programs. For example, Virginia
Commonwealth University runs a newswire in the spring semester that reports
on the proceedings of the state’s General Assembly.4 Students meet two times
a week for story planning and skills development. They then are expected to
spend at least ten hours outside of class each week reporting for one or more
client newspapers; they receive three credit hours for their work. This year,
the school added a companion course for students interested in editing the
newswire.
Capital News is another example of the type of program we aim to create.5

A student-led version of the Associated Press at the University of Maryland,
it provides coverage of DC and Annapolis government proceedings through
state and community newspapers, radio, and television.
Analysis
News organizations and the general public would have access to the NCPIN.6
It would also be of use to University of North Carolina system schools, other
private colleges, central information-technology organizations, and public, ed-
ucational television. It is in the best interest of these organizations to become
involved with the service if they are to maximize community outreach.7 A pro-
posed budget for the program calculates the cost of a professional to oversee
the operation of the newswire to be from $22,000 to $28,000. Additionally,
start-up costs, which include the promotion of NCPIN to news media and local
governments across the state, are around $50,000.8 University support is also
needed to establish a pilot program at a UNC system school. The “home” or-
ganization should have a significant and stable information-technology organi-
zation, and based on every day observations of classroom and extracurricular
excellence, the students at UNC-Chapel Hill are well prepared to carry out the
mission of the newswire. The long-term benefits of direct community involve-
ment for UNC system students, faculty, and other organizations involved would
far outweigh the start-up costs.
Works Cited
1. “Who Killed the Newspaper?” The Economist 24 Aug. 2006. 31 Mar. 2009 <http://
www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=7830218>.
2. Each story would include a template with relevant documents and a student-writ-
ten article. Corrado, Gail. Carolina Wire Service Document.
3. Fifth Point Consulting Group. NCPIN.
4. “About CNS.” VCU College of Humanities & Sciences. 17 Mar. 2009 <http://www.
has.vcu.edu/mac/cns/about.htm>.
5. “Capital News Service.” CNS | Philip Merrill College of Journalism. University of
Maryland. 16 Mar. 2009 <http://www.journalism.umd.edu/cns/>.
6. Fifth Point Consulting Group. NCPIN.
7. A partnership has already been established with the North Carolina Center for
Voter Education in Raleigh, and the Policy Department at UNC has conducted a
survey to discover what kind of news local newspapers need.
8. Start-up costs would include website creation, database acquisition, media liability
insurance.
9
Food Security in Durham, NC
Laurel Averett, Rainbo Hultman, Jeslyn Keziah,
Sara Mishamandani, and Lauren Peterson
Impact studies executed prior to new construction in Durham, NC,
should include provisions that address the food security of the af-
fected community as defined by United States Department of Agri-
culture (USDA) guidelines.
Key Points
• Adequate access to nutritious, culturally appropriate, and affordable
food is critical for the health of every community member.
• Food insecurity is the lack of access to nutritional food and effects
11.1% of households in the US.1
• Grocery stores catalyze local economic growth through job creation,
taxes, and multiplier effects.
• When authorizing construction, the local government should con-
sider its impact on food security.
• Food security should be assessed with the USDA Food Security As-
sessment Toolkit readily available on the USDA website.2
• This policy would be the first legislation in the south designed to pre-
vent new construction from causing food insecurity.
Background
Food security entails access to sufficient food to live a healthy life at a cost that
does not put a family in economic risk.3 Food insecurity - the inability to reach
and afford fresh, nutritious food - is on the rise in many urban areas across the
South.4 The consequences of food insecurity are dire, as food-poor areas have
been linked to higher rates of obesity and diet-related illnesses,5,6,7 lower cog-
nitive development in children,8 and higher rates of crime and violence.9 Gro-
cery stores are more reluctant to open in urban areas due to the perception
of crime, economic hardship, and lack of transportation for locals.10 Therefore,
closing an urban grocery store eliminates a valuable economic asset that is
not likely to return. With socio-economic pressure on grocers to leave, and few
benefits for returning, grocery stores are precious to urban areas and should
be protected.
In Durham, NC, the Durham Town Council recently decided to widen Alston
Ave in order to alleviate traffic in the area. The construction will result in the
destruction of Los Primos, the primary grocery store in the area.11 This situation,
which will leave many already struggling families without adequate food op-
11
tions, is one example of food insecurity impacted by construction and reflects
the need for future protection of this area’s food supply.
The Durham city commissioner must consider including a food security provi-
sion in future impact studies for construction and development projects. Con-
siderations of food security would fit well into previously established environ-
mental impact studies. Data on food security should be gathered annually and
included in models developed for transportation assessment.
Analysis
The urgency of diminishing food security in the country has led to several initia-
tives seeking to increase access to food through various outlets such as com-
munity gardens, farmers’ markets, and nutrition programs in schools. However,
most US government programs addressing the needs of households with low
food security focus on the ability to pay for groceries rather than how to access
healthy food. No policies currently exist in the south that protects the food
security of a community from construction threats.
The current state of food security in Durham should be determined using guide-
lines outlined by the USDA Community Food Security Assessment Toolkit.2
Many of the aspects of this assessment, such as transportation patterns and
community demographics, are readily available to the county commissioner.
Other aspects, such as collection of community surveys, require minimal time
and training from a small number of individuals. Generally speaking, when
construction causes the elimination of a food supply in an area, food security
risk should be measured with and without the presence of the provider using
the guidelines set out by the USDA. The impact on food security in Durham
must be weighed against the improvements in traffic congestion of the pro-
posed construction.
Including a food security assessment in a proposed construction impact study

will require both time and money. Individuals must be hired to assess the food
security in an area as outlined by the USDA assessment. This potential chal-
lenge should be remedied with funding from the local government institution
involved in approving construction projects. Raising awareness of the impor-
tance of food security is an essential tool to encourage funding. In addition
to health and cognitive benefits, food security can also stimulate the economy
within a community through improved work potential in adults, fewer thefts,
and a decrease in overall health care costs.
Works Cited
1. Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. 2008. “Food Security in the United
States.” United States Department of Agriculture. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Brief-
ing/FoodSecurity.
2. Cohen, Barbara. 2002. “Community Food Security Assessment toolkit.” Economic
Research Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/efan02013/efan02013.pdf.
3. Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. 2009 “USDA Food Plans: The Cost of
Food.” http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USDAFoodPlansCostofFood.htm.
4. Food Research and Action Center. 2008. “Hunger in the U.S.” http://www.frac.org/
html/hunger_in_the_us/hunger_index.html>.
5. Adams, E. J., L. Grummer-Strawn, and G. Chavez. 2003. Food Insecurity is Associ-
ated with Increased Risk of Obesity in California Women. Journal of Nutrition 133:
1070-1074.
6. Tamler, J. 1982. Diet and Coronary Heart Disease. Biometrics 38: 95-114.
7. Seligman, H. K., A.B. Bindman, A. B, E. Vittinghoff, A.M. Kanaya, and M.B. Kushel.
2007. Food Insecurity is Associated with Diabetes Mellitus: Reuslts from the Na-
tional Health Examination and Nutrition Examination Survey. Journal of General
Internal Medicine 22: 1018-1023.
8. National Food Service Management Institute. 2001. “Nutrition and Cognitive De-
velopment.” University of Mississippi. http://www.nfsmi.org/documentlibraryfiles/
PDF/20080612091850.pdf.
9. Gesch, C. B., S.M. Hammond, S.E. Hampson, A. Eves, and M.J. Crowder. 2002.
Influence of supplementary vitamins, minerals, and essential fatty acids on the an-
tisocial behavior of young adult prisoners. The British Journal of Psychiatry 181: 22-
28.
10. Pothukuchi, K. 2005. Attracting Supermarkets to Inner-City Neighborhoods: Eco-
nomic Development Outside the Box. Economic Development Quarterly 19: 232.
11. Gager, Paul et al. 2008. A Comprehensive Analysis of Potential Threats to Food
Security Using Durham as a Heuristic. Chapel Hill: Ramses Consulting.
13
Funding Richland Co. Buses
Ryan Shelton-Benson
The Richland County Council should place a referendum on the No-
vember 2, 2010 general election ballot to increase the county sales
tax by 0.25% in order to permanently fund the Central Midlands Re-
gional Transit Authority’s bus system.
Key Points
• The Central Midlands Regional Transit Authority (CMRTA) public
bus system is committed to providing safe, dependable and acces-
sible public transit in Columbia, S.C., and surrounding areas.
• The CMRTA only has temporary funding through the year 2010.
• In November 2004, residents of the nearby city of Charleston, S.C.,
voted for a sales tax increase after the Charleston Area Regional
Transit Authority’s service was cut by 75%.
• Up to 85% of the CMRTA system could be shut down if permanent
funding is not established.
• The CMRTA operates on an annual budget of $11 million.
• Public transportation benefits the community by reducing traffic con-
gestion, facilitating economic development, reducing greenhouse
gas emissions and lessening dependence on oil.
Background
South Carolina Electric & Gas’ parent company SCANA, a public utility, pro-
vided bus service to the midlands of South Carolina under an 85 year-old court
order as part of their license agreement to operate in the Midlands.
In 2002, the City of Columbia agreed to relieve SCANA of its obligation for a
financial package valued at $71 million over 30 years. The package included a
$15 million payment to the city and a subsidy of $2.47 million per year for seven
years, expiring in 2009.1
The City of Columbia has not developed permanent funding for the CMRTA
since. In August 2008, the CMRTA faced the possibility of ceasing service after
Richland County Council did not renew an unpopular vehicle registration tax
that charged $16 for private cars and $24 for commercial vehicles. This tax was
used to fund the CMRTA. Not renewing the vehicle registration tax led to a
substantial decrease in CMRTA service.
In February 2009 Richland County Council voted to temporarily fund the CM-
15
RTA through 2010 by reinstating a vehicle registration tax. This will fund the
CMRTA through 2010 but will not provide funding afterward.2
Analysis
In 2005 Richland County projected that a one percent increase in the county
sales tax would generate $62 million a year in revenue.3 Raising the sales tax
.25% could provide $15 million per year of funding for CMRTA.
CMRTA operates on an annual budget of $11 million. Increasing the sales tax
could permanently fund the CMRTA.4 The excess funding could then be used to
enhance the bus system by adding additional routes and stops and by upgrad-
ing equipment.
Charleston, S.C., has shown that using sales tax is a viable method for funding
a bus system. Voters in Charleston approved a half percent increase in sales
tax that should generate $1.3 billion over 25 years. Eighteen percent of roughly
$234 million will be used for mass transit.5
One shortfall of using a sales tax system is that income may vary from year to
year. Therefore, Richland County would need to set aside a rainy day fund to fill
budget gaps when revenue is down.
A sales tax is the most equitable way to tax for the bus system. Everyone ben-
efits from mass transit because mass transit eases traffic congestion, improves
air quality and reduces energy consumption. According to American Public
Transit Association, for every $10 million invested in public transportation, more
than $15 million is saved in costs to both highway and public transportation
users. Buses emit about 80 percent less carbon monoxide than the cars neces-
sary to transport the same number of people. Public transit reduces auto fuel
consumption by 1.5 billion gallons annually.6
The previous vehicle registration tax only taxed people with registered vehicles
in Richland County, excluding commuters who live outside but work in the city. A
sales tax would generate revenue from these people who frequent the city but
do not have cars registered inside Richland County.
State Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Richland, believes Columbia cannot expect to

continue its record growth without an adequate transit system.
“As industries look to move into the area they need their employees to have ac-
cess,” he said. “You cannot expect business to run that way. Look at the retail
sector and their ability to get customers to the store. You’re not only losing
employees.”
Next Steps
The referendum could be voted on in the November 2, 2010 General Election. If
approved, the tax could begin collection on January 2, 2011. The cost of placing
this referendum on the ballot and collecting the tax would be minimal. Busi-
nesses within the county are already required to collect sales tax, and the pro-
posal would only change the percentage collected.
However, voters may oppose an increase in the county sales tax. For example,
voters in Charleston opposed such an increase when it was initially proposed.
Fortunately, an increase in the sales tax to fund the bus system has a strong ally
in popular five-term Columbia Mayor Bob Coble. Having an influential propo-
nent would likely build support for the referendum.
Works Cited
1. Ward, Eric. “Comparing Bus Deals: Columbia v. Charleston” Free Times. 27
Aug. 2008. Free-times.com 2 Mar. 2009 <http://www.free-times.com/index.
php?cat=121304064644348&z_Issue_ID=11012708083079347&ShowArchiveArticle_ID
=11012708083953609&Year=2008>.
2. Ward, Eric. “Bus-Funding Plan Heading for Approval” Free Times. 11 Feb. 2009.
Free-times.com 2 Mar. 2009 < http://www.free-times.com/index.php?cat=199291206
4017974&ShowArticle_ID=11011102093769899>.
3. “Local Sales Tax option” Richland County, South Carolina. Richlandonline.com 2
Mar. 2009 <http://www.richlandonline.com/Information/Forms/LocalOption.asp>
4. “Lack of Leadership Brings Bus System” CMRTA 20 June 2006. GoCMRTA.com
2 Mar. 2009 <http://www.gocmrta.com/content/pdf/6.20.06_Lack_%of_%20leader-
ship.pdf>
5. Knich, Diane. “Funds Cut For CARTA, TriCounty” The Post and Courier 18 Feb.
2009. Charleston.net 2 Mar. 2009 <http://www.charleston.net/news/2009/feb/18/
funds_cut_carta_tricounty72072/>.
6. Weyrich, Paul. “How Transit Benefits People who Do Not Ride” American Pub-
lic Transportation Association Oct 2003 APTA.com 2 Mar. 2009 <http://www.apta.
com/research/info/online/how_transit_benefits.cfm#tac
17
Subsidizing Alternative Biofuel
Peter Schaeffing
Subsidizing the cultivation of jatropha in areas of the rural American

South suffering from depleted soil will stimulate local economies and
encourage a viable alternative energy source.
Key Points
• Jatropha curcas, a weed native to Central America, produces oil in
its fruit that has been successfully used in the production of biodie-
sel.
• Much of the American South has poor soil due to previous use of the
land. Jatropha can grow in nearly any soil in warm climates.
• Jatropha is completely inedible, meaning it avoids the “food or fuel”
controversy.
• Many rural Southerners would require temporary subsidies in order
to start farming jatropha.
Background
In 2003, the most recent year for which the United States Department of Agri-
culture has statistics, the rural poverty rate in the South was 17.7%, the highest
rate of any region in the country and nearly 5% higher than the urban poverty
rate in the south.1 That figure is 3.5% higher than the nation’s rural poverty rate.
The same study shows that the South has the highest concentration of counties
with persistent poverty (defined as more than 20% of the population in poverty
since 1970). The vast majority of these counties denoted as having persistent
poverty are non-metropolitan.
One contributor to the South’s rural poverty is soil exhaustion. Due to past
agricultural practices, particularly the overplanting of crops such as cotton and
tobacco as well as the use of harmful fertilizers, large sections of the South’s
farmland are not suitable for traditional crops.2 Jatropha has been cultivated
with tremendous results in soil that is otherwise not arable. Its only inhibitor to
growth is cold climates, which makes much of the South, particularly Texas, Lou-
isiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida an ideal location for it.3 Additionally,
the weed’s fruit has already been used in the production of biodiesel, as several
airlines have run successful test flights using jatropha jet fuel.4 Thanks to these
favorable results, Goldman Sachs has called it “one of the best candidates for
future biodiesel production.”5 These positive indicators make jatropha an excel-
lent alternative energy source in which the United States should invest.
19
The proposed subsidy for farmers wishing to cultivate jatropha would be vari-
able and would depend on the cost and the financial situation of the farmer.
Priority funding would be given to applicants living in counties marked with
persistent poverty and whose average income is less than 200% of the poverty
line, and who own at least 20 acres of farmable land. After these applicants
receive funding, the remaining allotment would go to applicants meeting the
above requirements in other counties, and then to any applicant with at least
20 acres of farmable land until the funding allotment is exhausted. This would
ensure that low-income farmers can take advantage of this program and that
only those with adequate acreage receive funding. Subsidies would be avail-
able on a decreasing scale for ten years, at which point the operation will either
be profitable or will fail.
Analysis
This policy has historical precedent in public subsidies to farmers. These sub-
sidies amounted to $13.4 billion in 20066 and could easily be extended to farm-
ers cultivating jatropha. Furthermore, the federal government has subsidized
the production and development of alternative energy sources since 1980.7 The
substantial cost that this policy would incur could be paid by reducing subsi-
dies to other farmers, as they disproportionately and unfairly benefit corporate
farming operations. A portion of the subsidies given to other alternative ener-
gy producers could be diverted to cover the costs as well. Moreover, decreased
reliance on foreign oil and increased incomes in rural communities in the South
would positively impact the economy and counterbalance costs.
A possible barrier to this policy is the potential difficulty in processing and dis-
tributing biodiesel made from an unconventional source. However, each state
in the South already contains at least two biodiesel production facilities8 and
three biodiesel distributors.9 Any modifications necessary to these facilities to
prepare them to process jatropha could be paid for through the subsidy pro-
gram or by the facility itself if it is economically viable option. Initial costs to
this program would not be a major concern because of its great profit potential,
as biodiesel contains more than three times the amount of energy that it takes
to produce.10
Investing in biodiesel production from jatropha in the South could increase in-
comes and land values in poor rural communities.
Works Cited
1. United States Department of Agriculture. “Rural Income, Poverty, and Welfare: Ru-
ral Poverty.” 10 November 2004. <http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/incomepover-
tywelfare/RuralPoverty/>
2. Byres, Terence J. “Book Reviews.” Journal of Agrarian Change. Vol. 5, Issue 2. P281-
297. April 2005.
3. National Biodiesel Board. “Feedstock Fact Sheet.” 12 June 2009. <http://www.biod-
iesel.org/resources/ sustainability/pdfs/feedstockfactsheet.pdf>
4. Padgett, Tim. “The Next Big Biofuel?” Time. Feb. 9 2009. Vol. 173, No. 5.
5. Barta, Patrick. “Jatropha Plant Gains Steam in Global Race for Biofuels.” Wall
Street Journal. 31 August 2007.
6. “In Recession, Modest Help for Most Americans, But Big Bucks for Big Farms.” Envi-
ronmental Working Group. 14 April 2008. < http://farm.ewg.org/farm/newsrelease.
php>
7. “Article 29: The Alternative Fuel Production Credit.” Energy Information Agency. 10
December 2000. < http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy/box_txt.html>
8. “Biodiesel Production.” U.S. Department of Energy. 10 July 2009. <http://www.afdc.
energy.gov/afdc/fuels /biodiesel_production.html>
9. “Buying Biodiesel.” National Biodiesel Board. 12 July 2009. <http://www.biodiesel.
org/buyingbiodiesel/ distributors/biomaps/biomaps.shtm#>
10. “Biodiesel Benefits.” U.S. Department of Energy. 10 July 2009 <http://www.afdc.en-
ergy.gov/afdc/fuels/biodiesel _benefits.html>
21
Health IT for Southern CHCs
Jeremy Ford
Increased financial support for electronic medical records (EMRs)

would improve healthcare outcomes of the uninsured in southern
community health centers (CHCs).
Key Points
• Electronic medical records in CHCs have the potential to mitigate
health disparities for rural uninsured patients.1
• Southern state legislatures must increase their financial support of
EMRs in rural CHCs to supplement recent federal legislation.2
• Legislation on both the state and federal level must do more to en-
courage the adoption of proven EMR systems.
Background
Community health centers serve as a medical safety net for low-income and
uninsured populations.3 People who earn moderate incomes are increasingly
likely to be uninsured.4 Therefore, with the persisting economic crisis, it is more
likely that people of middle-class backgrounds will also find themselves in the
CHC system as the number of uninsured will continue to increase.
This presents problems for the already underfunded CHCs of southern states.
For example, there are 26 federally funded CHCs in Boston but only 28 CHCs
in the entire state of North Carolina.5,6 Due to the lower population density,
people often from rural areas are often required to travel long distances, creat-
ing major accessibility issues.7
Given the growing number of uninsured individuals and the problems faced
by southern clinics, CHCs must be as efficient as possible. In ambulatory care,
an accepted method for improving efficiency and health outcomes is the utili-
zation of electronic medical records. The potential benefits include reduced
operational costs, improved preventive care, and fewer adverse drug events.8
However, the capital costs of EMRs for cash-strapped CHCs are prohibitive.9
Federal and state governments should therefore provide support for CHCs to
implement effective EMR systems to offset the problems these clinics face in
rural settings.
Analysis
According to a survey by the Commonwealth Fund, Florida was the only south-
ern state that identified EMRs as a significant issue.10 However, there has been
23
legislative activity regarding EMRs throughout the south. Support has typically
been in the form of tax credits for clinics that have already implemented EMR
systems. Unfortunately this is not helpful to CHCs, which usually do not have
the financial resources to implement EMRs. Therefore, they are unable to re-
ceive a tax credit post investment. Some states have stressed standardization
and interoperability, an essential element of a usable EMR system, but only the
Florida legislature has directly addressed low-income patients by funding EMR
development for Medicaid providers.11
On the federal level, the first major success in EMR legislation was an attach-
ment on President Obama’s economic recovery package – $19 billion for as-
sistance in implementing EMRs in doctor’s offices. This bill included $40,000 in
incentives for physicians who use EMRs, the creation of grant programs, and
resources to promote interoperability.12
This multi-faceted approach to support EMR policies is a step in the right direc-
tion. However, future policy regarding EMRs must be informed by proven EMR
systems that have worked for both patients and practitioners. This will allow
federal legislation to optimize the effect of its incentives by allocating more
funds for clinics that have or will adopt a proven model of EMR utilization. Giv-
en technology’s ability to offset the inefficiencies faced by rural CHCs, southern
state legislatures should supplement federal support with grants directed to-
ward rural EMR development. EMR systems throughout the rural south would
improve clinic efficiency and health outcomes.
Works Cited
1. Fiscella, K and Geiger, HJ (2006) Health Information Technology and Quality Im-
provement for Community Health Centers. Health Affairs 25:405-412.
2. http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/110/sbill.pdf
3. National Association of Community Health Centers, “The Safety Net on the Edge,”
August 2005, http://www.nachc.org/research/Files/SNreport2005.pdf; and J. Tay-
lor, “The Fundamentals of Community Health Centers,” NHPF Background Paper, 31
August 2004, http://www.gwumc.edu/sphhs/healthpolicy/ggprogram/BP_CHC_08-
31-04.pdf
4. Tanne, JH (2006) Number of Uninsured US Citizens Grows. BMJ 332:1047.
5. Community Health Centers in North Carolina. The North Carolina Community
Health Center Association. http://www.ncchca.org/page.aspx?id=177278
6. Community Health Centers by Boston Neighborhood. Massachusetts League of
Community Health Centers. http://www.massleague.org/HealthCenters-ByBos-
tonNeighborhood.htm
7. Thomas, AA (2005) Access to Transportation and Health Care Utilization in a Rural
Region. Journal of Rural Health 21:31-38.
8. Hillestad, R, et al. (2005) Can Electronic Medical Records Transform Health Care?
Potential Health Benefits, Savings, and Costs. Health Affairs 24:1103-1117.
9. Shields, AE, et al. (2007) Adoption of HIT in Community Health Centers: A National
Survey. Health Affairs 26:1374-1383.
10. V. K. Smith, K. Gifford, S. Kramer, et al. (2008) State E-Health Activities in 2007:
Findings From a State Survey, The Commonwealth Fund.
11. National Conference of State Legislators (2007) 2007 State Legislation on Elec-
tronic Health Records and Personal Health Records. http://www.ncsl.org/pro-
grams/health/forum/07EHRChart.htm
12. http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/110/sbill.pdf
25
LEED Certification in Schools
Michael Levy and Tyler O’Connor
Emory University
Employ LEED Certification standards for construction of new school

buildings in the Dekalb County School District to save money on
long-run energy and utility costs while improving the learning envi-
ronment for students.
Key Facts
• The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Certification is
a building standard developed by the United States Green Building
Council, judging the energy efficiency of new buildings.1
• A typical LEED certified school saves an average of $100,000 per
year in reduced operational costs due to energy efficiency.2
• Study of Chicago and DC area schools found documented increase
of 3-4 points on standardized test scores with environmentally sus-
tainable facilities.3
• Dekalb County Schools can partake in this sustainability venture and
improve the student health while simultaneously reducing the long-
term utility costs of all their facilities.
Background
Current building codes in Dekalb County, Georgia focus on limiting short-term
construction costs but neglect the significantly higher long-term operational
costs resulting from inefficient energy consumption. To encourage the con-
struction of both sustainable and economical buildings, the U.S. Green Build-
ing Council established the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) Certification, which provides guidelines for the construction of all new
buildings.4 LEED Certification decreases costs by employing environmental
standards that recognize and eliminate energy inefficiencies.5 Although sever-
al public schools in Georgia (as well as buildings at Emory University in Atlanta)
have been built to meet LEED requirements, the recently finished Arabia Moun-
tain High School is the first LEED Certified public school in the Dekalb County
School District.6 The chief architect of Arabia Mountain, Sean Hamlin, expects
significant savings resulting from less energy use.7 Although LEED schools ini-
tially cost marginally more than non-LEED schools, the decreased operational
costs associated with sustainable schools make them a less expensive long-term
investment.8 In addition to the economic benefits, sustainable public schools
have seen educational and health benefits relative to their traditionally con-
structed peers.9 Because of the benefits associated with LEED Certified public
27
schools, many public officials around the country have joined efforts to promote
sustainability initiatives in the nations’ public school systems.10
Analysis
The primary challenge confronting the sustainable schools movement is the no-
tion that buildings designed to environmental standards incur severe construc-
tion cost premiums. However, improvements in technology have reduced the
average premium on LEED certified schools to only $3 per square foot, or about
1.7% of project costs.11 This initial cost premium is defrayed by reduced life-cycle
costs as well as economies of scale when environmental standards are widely
adopted, enabling the bulk purchase of LEED compatible construction materi-
als.12 The average LEED Certified school saves an average of $100,000 per
year in reduced operational costs due to decreased energy and water con-
sumption.13 The benefits of LEED Certification are already being seen in Dekalb
County, where Arabia Mountain High School, the first LEED certified school
built in the school district, is expected to see a 25% savings on energy costs.
The school also finished six months ahead of schedule and resulted in a minimal
cost premium relative to other non-LEED projects.14 Similarly, the state of Ohio
has calculated savings of $1.4 billion over the next 40 years due to implementa-
tion of environmental standards in public schools.15
Constructing LEED Certified schools also results in healthier, better-educated

students. Because of poor air quality and ventilation, traditionally constructed
public schools buildings can have harmful effects on students.16 LEED Certifica-
tion provides standards for air quality and ventilation and has been shown to
reduce student absenteeism and increase productivity.17 Green schools have
also achieved a documented 12% decrease in teacher sick days, benefiting
students and operational bottom lines alike.18 Another study of Chicago and
Washington, D.C. area schools found that better school facilities can add three
to four percentage points to a school’s standardized test scores, even when
controlling for demographic factors.19
Recently, bipartisan groups of United States Mayors and Congressman

have joined in the effort to provide our youth healthy and sustainable public
schools.20,21 With President Obama’s Stimulus Package allocating over $200 mil-
lion to Georgia for state and local weatherization and energy efficiency efforts,
now is the time for Dekalb County to take responsibility and implement LEED
standards in all new public schools.22
Works Cited
1. “What LEED Is.” Intro- What LEED Is. 2008. United States Green Building Council.
19 July 2009 <http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1988>.
2. Burnham, Michael. “‘Green Schools’ Caucus Sprouts on Capitol Hill.” U.S. Green
.Building Council. 17 November 2007. http://www.buildgreenschools.org/news/
news_story_1.html
3. Schneider, Mark. “Public School Facilities and Teaching: Washington, DC and Chi-
cago,” November 2002.
4. “What LEED Is.” Intro- What LEED Is. 2008. United States Green Building Council.
19 July 2009 <http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1988>.
5. “What LEED Measures.” Intro- What LEED Measures. 2008. U.S. Green Building Coun-
cil. 19 July 2009 <http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1989>.
6. Katz, Gregory. “Greening America’s Schools: Costs and Benefits.” October
2006. A Capital E Report. 20 March 2009. http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.
aspx?DocumentID=2908
7. Hamlin/Perkins and Will Architects, Sean. “Interview with Sean Hamlin.” Telephone
interview. 25 Feb. 2009.
8. “Green Schools 101.” Build Green Schools. 2009. U.S. Green Building Council. 20
Mar. 2009 <http://www.buildgreenschools.org/gs101/save.html>.
.Building Council. 17 November 2007.
interview. 25 Feb. 2009
.Building Council. 17 November 2007.
15. King, Ledyard. “Cost, Concerns Push Schools to Use Eco-friendly Elements.” USA
Today [Mclean, Virginia] 30 July 2008: .
18. Ibid.
19. Schneider, Mark. “Public School Facilities and Teaching: Washington, DC and Chi-
cago,” November 2002.
20. “Mayors’ Alliance for Green Schools Announced.” U.S. Green Builiding Council. 16,
October 2008. http://www.usgbc.org/News/PressReleaseDetails.aspx?ID=3855. 21
March 2009.
21. “Green Schools Caucus: Making the Case on Capitol Hill.” U.S. Green Building
Council. http://www.buildgreenschools.org/action/green_schools_caucus.html 21,
March 2009.
22. Newkirk, Margaret. “Stimulus Sparks Surge in Energy Conservation Industry.” At-
lanta Journal Constitution. Atlanta,, Georgia. 29, March 2009. http://www.ajc.com/
business/content/business/stories/2009/03/29/georgia_energy_stimulus.html
29
Inclusionary Zoning in Athens, GA
Ellyn Echols
Athens-Clarke County, Georgia is facing a housing crisis not uncom-

mon in the South. Past zoning ordinances have served to segregate
suburban neighborhoods and leave low to median-income earners
without access to affordable homes. By adopting inclusionary zon-
ing (IZ) in Athens-Clarke County (ACC), the local government can
not only promote the availability of housing for lower-income resi-
dents, but also integrate a socio-economically stratified community.
Key Points
• As new or renovated housing caters to students in ACC, some rent
and homeownership costs rise in the area and many residents can no
longer afford housing.
• ACC has identified a specific population that can no longer afford
housing and defines this low-income group as families earning 30
percent or less of the median income of the area.
• Inclusionary zoning not only costs little to the local government in
administrative costs, but can also produce mixed-income neighbor-
hoods and provides high quality, affordable homes.
Background
Historically, the federal government has been the foremost enactor of policy
for affordable housing across the country. Currently, however, local govern-
ments are taking a much more active role in constructing policies that directly
impact the availability of quality, affordable units in the community. In 2002,
the Department of Human and Economic Development (HED) in ACC released
a comprehensive study on housing concluding that, while Athens has sufficient
housing in terms of true numbers of available units, most of these units were in-
accessible for those earning less than 30 percent of the median income for this
area.1 Furthermore, not unlike other communities in the South, ACC faces the
problem of supplying quality, affordable units for homeownership to individuals
who lie between low-income and upper middle class populations. These people
are sometimes known as the public service demographic, as a significant per-
centage of them are employed as teachers, policemen, and firemen. This group
presents a need for high quality, affordable housing in a location near bus lines
or conducive to a short commute. In order to promote this kind of development,
the local government could adopt a policy of inclusionary zoning, requiring de-
velopers to include a certain percentage of affordable housing in new develop-
ments. This policy approach costs little to the local government in administra-
31
tive costs while potentially providing mixed income neighborhoods and good
quality, affordable houses and townhouses in new developments. ACC should
adopt this approach to promote affordable housing for the community and to
provide sustainable housing for future generations.
Analysis
In recent years, inclusionary zoning (IZ) has been used to promote integration of
affordable housing units in residential development in cities like Boston, Wash-
ington, DC and San Francisco. IZ ordinances either permit or require builders
of new developments to devote a percentage of their projects to affordable
housing in exchange for some non-monetary incentives. These ordinances are
flexible and thus adaptable to different communities’ housing trends. Further-
more, IZ allows new, full price development to continue while simultaneously
producing quality, affordable units for medium to low-income populations.
For Athens specifically, inclusionary zoning offers the chance for increasingly
scarce land to be used in a way that is beneficial to all members of the com-
munity. Since research shows that mandatory programs are far more effec-
tive at producing affordable units, the governing body should adopt a policy
of mandatory inclusionary zoning. This policy would be administered by the
planning department, which can then specify terms for builder compensation
(unless already designated in the governing ordinance.)
The larger benefits of inclusionary zoning are two-fold. First, inclusionary zoning
relies less on monetary support from the public than other tactics to promote
affordable housing and is seen as more fiscally sustainable for a community.
Although developers may realize less profit or even lose money on affordable
units, incentives, such as density bonuses, help avoid negative financial impact.
Second, IZ promotes socio-economic and racial integration within new devel-
opments, as well as the school systems that serve these areas.2
Critics argue that with mandatory IZ ordinances, developers will simply build
elsewhere. However, making the program mandatory levels the playing field
for all developers within the community, allowing the land and housing market
to adjust for this element.
There is little research to date about how IZ ordinances affect housing markets
of communities that employ them in the long term. The research that is avail-
able indicates that these programs must be tailored city by city to be effective.
The ability for customization is a unique and positive quality of adopting IZ
ordinances in Athens-Clarke County and across the South.
Works Cited
1. W. Keith McNeely, “Affordable Housing Survey, 25 September 2002,” Human Eco-
nomic Development Department, Athens-Clarke County, Georgia.
2. Shuetz, Jenny et al. “The Effects of Inclusionary Zoning on Local Housing Markets:
Lessons from the San Francisco, Washington DC and Suburban Boston areas.”
Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy, New York University. 19 Novem-
ber 2007.
33
Raising Taxes on GA Cigarettes
Lucas Puente
The Georgia General Assembly should adopt legislation to raise

the excise tax on cigarettes from $0.37 to $1.21, thereby providing
the state with much-needed funds while gradually encouraging de-
creased cigarette consumption.
Key Points
• The State of Georgia faces a budget deficit of $2.2 billion for FY
2010.
• 20 percent of Georgians smoke cigarettes, costing the state $1.8 bil-
lion annually in medical costs and $3.3 billion in lost productivity from
morbidity and mortality.
• The current average for state cigarette excise tax rates is $1.21 per
pack, while Georgia’s excise tax on cigarettes of $0.37 is the 43rd
lowest rate in the country.
• Raising the Georgia excise tax on cigarettes would yield hundreds of
millions of dollar in revenue, erode detrimental cigarette consump-
tion among Georgians, and reflect the will of Georgians according
to public opinion surveys.
Background
The State of Georgia currently faces an unprecedented budget shortfall of
$2.2 billion for FY 2010.1 Although the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act has partially helped address Georgia’s budgetary challenges, state legisla-
tors must take additional measures to ensure a properly funded government.
Moreover, twenty percent of adults and high school students in Georgia smoke
cigarettes, a trend estimated to lead to lethal cases of lung cancer for 180,000
current middle school students in Georgia.2 Unfortunately, budgetary shortfalls
and public health concerns attributed to smoking are not unique to Georgia;
throughout the South, states are struggling to balance their books and reduce
health expenditures directly related to smoking. State policy makers must ad-
dress these challenges. Raising the state excise tax on cigarettes is one of the
most effective tools in combating the public health concerns of cigarette con-
sumption and raising revenue for state governments. Although Georgia was
the second state to originally adopt this fiscal instrument, its current cigarette
excise tax is the forty-third lowest in the nation at $0.37 per pack, well below the
national average of $1.21.3 This trend is common across the South, with an aver-
age excise tax of merely $0.38.5 in Kentucky, Virginia, North and South Caro-
lina, Georgia, and Tennessee.4 Thus, Georgia, like all southern states, should
35
raise its excise tax on cigarettes to $1.21, thus placing it on par with the national
average.
Analysis
The benefits of implementing this policy are remarkably positive as a rise in
cigarette excise taxes nearly always results in increased fiscal revenues and
diminished consumption.5 To quantify the former, a $1 excise tax increase would
provide the state of Georgia with an estimated $450 million annually.1 For the
latter, the benefits are even more unambiguously positive; for every 10 percent
increase in price, overall cigarette consumption will fall 3-5 percent and smok-
ing among children will drop 6-7 percent.6 This reduction in consumption would
substantially alleviate the $1.8 billion annually that the state directly bears in
cigarette-related health costs, as well as the $3.3 billion in lost productivity due
to morbidity and mortality.1 Politically, this initiative is viable, as 79 percent of
Democrats and 73 percent of Republicans in Georgia supporting an excise tax
increase of $1.00.7
Furthermore, if Georgia were to adopt this policy recommendation, it would be

following the path of its regional peers. North Carolina is considering passing a
$0.50 excise tax increase, while Arkansas and Kentucky recently doubled their
tax and Florida raised its tax by $1.00.8 Changes have also occurred in Wash-
ington, where legislation passed in February raised the federal cigarette tax to
$1.01 from $0.39.
Despite the obvious benefits, a few predictable skeptics remain, notably the
National Association of Tobacco Outlets. The organization argues that this tax
increase will lead to approximately 117,000 job losses in the tobacco industry
as consumption drops and profit margins shrink.9 However, several sources of
academic literature attest that any decrease in tobacco industry employment
could easily be offset by a labor-market expansion in other consumable goods
industries that would be catalyzed by a more efficient allocation of resources.10
Overall, Georgia would be wise to raise its excise tax on cigarettes to $1.21. Al-
though legislation advocating a $1.00 increase failed to pass through the state
House earlier this year, many state policy makers remain committed to enacting
this meritorious legislation.12 Such a move would simultaneously address state
budgetary and public health concerns, place Georgia on par with its peers, and
more accurately reflect public sentiment in the state.
Works Cited
1. “Tax Reform: A Reality Check.” Georgia Budget and Policy Institute. 20 Jan. 2009.
<http://www.gbpi.org/documents/20090120.pdf>.
2. Jones, Walter C. “Doctors Seek Higher Tax on Cigarettes.” Augusta Chronicle. 6
Feb. 2009. <http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2009/02/06/met_510430.shtml>.
3. “Reducing Tobacco Use:
4. Lindlom, Eric. “State Cigarette Excise Tax Rates and Rankings.” Campaign for
Tobacco Free Kids. 15 Oct. 2008. <http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/fact-
sheets/pdf/0097.pdf>.
5. McKay, Betsy. “Cigarette Tax Clouds Boosts Among States.” Wall Street Journal. 8
Feb. 2009 <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123414187016161821.html>.
6. Lindlom, Eric and Boonn, Ann. “Raising Cigarette Taxes Reduces Smoking, Espe-
cially Among Kids.” Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. 9 Jan. 2009. <http://tobac-
cofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0146.pdf>.
7. “Voters in All States Support Significant Increases in State Cigarette Taxes.” Cam-
paign for Tobacco-Free Kids. July 2008. <http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/fact-
sheets/pdf/0309.pdf>.
8. Baxter, Tom. “New Tobacco Tests Meaning of ‘Inelastic Demand.’” Southern Politi-
cal Report. 1 April 2009. < http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_41_823.
aspx>.
9. Briant, Thomas. “Massive Tobacco Tax Increase by Congress Spells Even More
Economic Disaster for Jobs.” National Association of Tobacco Outlets. 12
Jan. 2009. <http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS197335+12-Jan-
2009+PRN20090112>.
10. Chaloupka, Frank J et. al. “The Economics of Tobacco Control.” Briefing Notes
in Economics. Dec. 2004. < http://www.richmond.ac.uk/bne/63_Frank_Chaloupka.
pdf>.
11. Stephens, Ron, et. al. House Bill 39. H.B. 39. 2009. <http://www.legis.ga.gov/le-
gis/2009_10/search/hb39.htm>.
37
Curbing Dropouts with P.A.R.K.
Katherine Bogle, Andrew Burnett, Karie Cross, Neely Hewes, Kathleen
Larkin, Amy Littleton, Tiffany Parrish, and Bobby Wilkinson
Harding University
Executive Summary
• Positive role models, supplemental academic assistance, and healthy
recreational activities are not often available to at-risk youth in
Southern urban areas, leading to alarmingly high drop-out rates
from high school.
• Positive Atmosphere Reaches Kids, or P.A.R.K., serves as a supple-
mental education and character development program for high
school students deemed at-risk due to having GPAs below 2.5.
• P.A.R.K. provides a safe environment for students to gain scholastic
assistance and engage in positive activities while attaining key life
skills such as practices for a healthy lifestyle and appropriate social
interaction. In 2009, the program’s tenth graduating class included
twenty-five graduates who had formerly been at-risk.
• Programs similar to P.A.R.K. should be developed in other Southern
cities to help address education problems and high drop-out rates.
Funding could be provided by local businesses and universities or
celebrities and sports figures native to the area.
• In order to be successfuln other urban areas in the South, the P.A.R.K.
model must be tailored to the specific needs of each community.
To illustrate the P.A.R.K. model’s ability to adapt to specific needs
in various urban communities, we analyze the educational needs in
Texas, Louisiana, and Georgia.
• The PARK model can address region specific issues such as inad-
equate academics, language and cultural diversity, and nutritional
and health concerns. P.A.R.K.’s method of helping young people in
every aspect of their lives allows it to address each of these specific
issues.
Introduction
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, North
Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia make up ten of the eighteen states whose
public high school graduation rates fell below the 2006 national average of
68.6 percent.1 The disproportionate number of Southern states that fall into
this category raises a red flag for policy makers across the region. Failure to
address the socioeconomic disparities in the South has led to the loss of poten-
tial intellectual capital. Due to the lack of mental stimulation and a community
environment conducive to education, at-risk Southern youth often fail to realize
39
their full potential.
The organization Positive Atmosphere Reaches Kids, or P.A.R.K., serves the Lit-
tle Rock, Arkansas, area by providing various programs to address the issues
facing such students. The implementation of programs like P.A.R.K. will not only
reduce drop out rates, but also lower crime rates and create a better-educated
workforce. This will in turn raise the income of those participating, as well as
benefit each state by those individuals paying higher income taxes. In order to
make educational disparities a part of Southern history, community initiatives
such as P.A.R.K. must be implemented in urban areas throughout the South to
lay the foundation for a more promising future.
Background
The Associated Press released an article on April 1, 2008, describing the dis-
turbing circumstances of the education system in the United States. In the ar-
ticle, former secretary of state Colin Powell, states, “When more than 1 million
students a year drop out of high school, it’s more than a problem, it’s a ca-
tastrophe.”2 Further, a disproportionately high amount of low-income students
drop out of school, and the South contains nearly half, 41 percent or 10.5 million
children, of the United State’s low-income families.3
Schools in the South have standardized test scores, particularly on the ACT
and SAT, which fall below the national average.4 In addition to disadvantages
stemming from regional and historical education problems, Southern schools
also suffer from racial gaps in achievement. African-American and Hispanic
students consistently score lower than white students on standardized tests,
a factor which contributes to the educational plight in the South.5 Southern
students, and especially southern minority students, need outside assistance to
help them bridge the gap between their level of achievement and that of the
rest of the United States.
A startlingly large number of students in the South fail to emerge from the
formative high school years with the knowledge and skills necessary to equip
themselves to be productive citizens, many of whom do not even receive a high
school diploma. Programs must be developed to target those students who are
in danger of failing to graduate. One such initiative is P.A.R.K., an after-school
and summer program targeting at-risk students. According to the P.A.R.K. pro-
gram, almost a third of all public high school students do not graduate.6 The
graduation rates of ten Southern states fall even lower than the 2006 national
average of 68.6.7 A central tenet to the PARK program is that problems within
school systems, homes, and communities contribute to a lack of support for
struggling students.
The P.A.R.K. program reports that students from historically disadvantaged mi-
nority groups, including American Indians, Hispanics, and African Americans,
have barely a 50 percent chance of graduating with a high school diploma.
Students who attend schools in areas characterized by high poverty rates and
racial segregation are 15 percent to 18 percent less likely to graduate than stu-
dents attending schools that are relatively free from those problems.8 Hispanic
youth are more at risk than other students, comprising 41 percent of high school
dropouts in 2005 even though they accounted for only 17 percent of the popula-
tion.9
This lack of education creates a cycle of poverty as educational attainment is

highly correlated with future income. According to the Child Trends Data Bank,
high school dropouts earn an average of $9,245 less per year than students
who earn a diploma.10 A potential source for these disturbing statistics is the
lack of community and home support received by such students. Oftentimes in
poverty stricken homes, parents are working in the afternoons and summers,
and students do not obtain the homework help, encouragement, and access to
recreational activities that successful youths receive.
P.A.R.K. has found a way to bridge the educational gap that is created by eco-
nomic, racial, and ethnic backgrounds, as well as a plethora of other factors.
The program targets all students with a GPA of 2.5 or less, largely due to the
fact that these students are ineligible for after-school sports and clubs. P.A.R.K.
is a non-profit organization founded by Keith Jackson, an Arkansas native and
former NFL football player. The Little Rock facility has a capacity of 250 stu-
dents and an annual budget of $1 million with a mission “to provide high-risk stu-
dents the opportunity to further their education by completing high school so
they can attend college.”11 It pursues a three-fold goal: encouraging academic
achievement that will open up new opportunities, instilling a concept of intrin-
sic self worth and spirituality, and teaching discipline of service and helping
others. P.A.R.K. believes that students whose minds are fostered in this type of
environment will become active, contributing members of society.
The strongest, and often toughest critics of P.A.R.K., the students themselves,
have indicated that they are very supportive of the program. According to a
survey taken of 116 P.A.R.K. participants, 87 percent of students are glad they
participated and say that the program has helped them with their study skills.
Seventy-five percent of students’ grades improved, and 97 percent of students
advocated participation in a program similar to P.A.R.K. to address academic
concerns. 91 percent of participants say that their future is brighter because of
the program. When asked what they would do in the afternoons after school
if they were not at the P.A.R.K. facility, students responded that they would
be playing games, hanging out on the streets, and basically doing anything to
41
amuse themselves besides their homework.12
A current P.A.R.K. participant, Rodrick McCullom, reports that his life has com-
pletely changed since he began his five-year commitment to the program. Mo-
nique Martin-Palmer, the Education Outreach Coordinator, reports, “Rodrick
started the program a shy and quiet kid. He often tried to fade into the back-
ground. Over five years, we have seen him blossom here at P.A.R.K. He has
improved his grades, stepped into leadership roles and is very active in his com-
munity.”13 Rodrick’s transformation is the ideal success story for the P.A.R.K.
program. His life’s turn-around illustrates the good that focused attention can
do for disadvantaged, at-risk students.
Tyler Desbrow represents another success story. His ACT score of 23 is the
highest ever achieved by a P.A.R.K. student, and he will attend the University of
Arkansas at Fayetteville this fall. Precious Bell, a current participant and senior
at Little Rock’s John L. McClellan High School, achieved the highest GPA for a
student’s first nine-week period, at a 3.85. Bell is also active in his community,
presenting the dangers of tobacco use to local elementary school students and
participates in Future Business Leaders of America.14
Another participant, Robert Irby, claims that the program saved him from a
dangerous life of gang activity. “It really, truly unraveled me and helped me
blossom into the young man I wanted to be. When I was selected [to participate
in P.A.R.K.] in the eighth grade, I was in the peak of my gang activity. [P.A.R.K.]
gave me a place to go after school to keep me from getting involved on the
street.”15 As demonstrated by the above testimonies, P.A.R.K. not only provides
a safe place for youth to get academic help, but it also transforms lives.
Proposal
Societal problems found throughout Southern cities can be combated by policy
initiatives to implement P.A.R.K. model programs. These specific and targeted
after school programs for at-risk high school students transform young people
who exhaust law enforcement and welfare funds into successful, productive
citizens. Although cities would be required to invest in the programs initially,
they would gain far more in resources long-term funding by creating a better-
educated, engaged community. Due to these tremendous benefits, local gov-
ernments across the states in the South should pass a resolution, which desig-
nates land for the specific use of P.A.R.K. program initiatives.
Students who are targeted by this program tend to live in inner cities and pov-
erty-stricken areas that have few safe places to be outside. Recreation facilities
and summer programs will motivate students to attend and will provide con-
structive substitutes to activities such as drug use and gang involvement com-
mon among youth in poverty stricken areas. A program similar to P.A.R.K. will
have the ability to fund construction of basketball courts, green spaces, and en-
closed areas away from the dangers of traffic, pollution, and other hazardous
street conditions. Such open and safe places will enable students to strengthen
their bodies as well as their minds. If they have no safe place to be active out-
doors, they are far more likely to develop a sedentary lifestyle, leading to future
health problems associated with obesity. Ultimately, after-school programs like
P.A.R.K. would offer at-risk students a safe alternative to the streets that would
develop the entire student—mind, body, and character.
Implementation
The key factor to the implementation of these programs would be adaptability.
The objective is not transplantation of P.A.R.K. in Little Rock, but adaptation
of important ideas that mold to fit the needs of each community. An illustra-
tion of this policy can be seen in the urban communities of Texas, Louisiana,
and Georgia—three Southern states with unique challenges. These states were
specifically chosen based on their economic significance, demographic varia-
tion among their respective populations, and their overall need for academical-
ly-focused attention to “high-risk youth” in their public high schools.
As students of diverse backgrounds immigrate into the United States without

English speaking skills, the knowledge they began to develop in their home
countries rarely comes to fruition. A study done by the Pew Hispanic Cen-
ter explains that “only eight percent of the nation’s teens are foreign born,
but nearly [one fourth] of teen school dropouts were born outside the United
States.” Texas, more so than other Southern states, has a high rate of foreign
born or non-native English speaking students. According to the U.S. Census
Bureau, 31.2% of households in Texas do not speak English in the home. Due
to lack of immersion-based English language enrichment in their homes, these
students often find themselves at a disadvantage in their school classes. The
innate dissatisfaction of students who have a hard time understanding their
teachers and peers is strong motivation to consider dropping out of school.
However, the PARK model can easily adapt to provide English as a Second
Language (ESOL) classes to these students. With the ability to provide ESOL
classes and an English-immersion environment outside of the home, P.A.R.K.
model programs combat the issues that these Texas students face in complet-
ing their education.16
A dishearteningly common problem found among much of Louisiana’s youth,

which P.A.R.K. programs can address, is malnutrition. In a study of major urban
areas in the state of Louisiana, LSU AgCenter food and nutrition expert Dr.
Annrose Guarino states that “more than 40 percent of low-income children live
43
in homes that do not have access to nutritionally adequate diets.” This correla-
tion between low quality diets and low household incomes adds an intriguing
aspect to the docket of possible urban issues that a P.A.R.K. model program
can address. The same study states, “Elementary school children from food-
insufficient families were more likely to have repeated a grade in school and
have higher rates of tardiness and absences from school, which may affect
their overall academic performance.” If elementary-age children begin their
academic careers disadvantaged because of poor diets, they are more likely to
have a difficult time in upper levels of their education, quite possibly resulting in
drop-outs. P.A.R.K. model programs can be tailored to address the nutritional
needs of disadvantaged students by providing nutritious snacks and education
and incentives for a healthy life-style.17
Additionally, an innovative component of the Arkansas P.A.R.K. program that

further addresses the needs of its students is a recent partnership with Blue
and You Foundation for a Healthier Arkansas.18 Students work toward a better
quality of life as they compete for prizes in weight loss competitions. Teams vie
for points by exercising, eating vegetables, and participating in activities such
as Zumba, a fitness program inspired by Latin dance. Similar health and fitness
programs could be implemented in all facilities.
While some states have very unique and interesting needs that can be ad-
dressed, some, like the state of Georgia, simply need a strong, intensified focus
on student academics. P.A.R.K. model programs also fulfill this traditional role
while adding an essential layer of physical and character development. In Eng-
lish/Language Arts, only 47% of high school student meet or exceed the state
of Georgia’s testing requirements annually. Even worse, in the area of Math-
ematics/Science, only 25% annually meet or exceed the state’s requirements.
The holistic approach that P.A.R.K. model programs follow is able to address
both the traditional aspect of academic tutoring and the measurable concerns
of academic success. By specifically targeting the academic concerns faced by
at-risk students, access to upper-level education and better jobs will improve
not only the individual student, but also the communities in which they reside.
In addition to programs designed to meet the specific needs of each state and
community, a typical P.A.R.K. model facility would include a study and tutoring
area fully equipped with computers, as well as a library, volunteer tutors, and
other resources to help promote academic success. The students would be pro-
vided with a cafeteria supplying after school snacks and extensive recreational
spaces for them to enjoy after their homework is completed. Recreational op-
tions could include multiple basketball courts, a track, a weight room with exer-
cise equipment, a game room with foosball tables and gaming systems, a “girls
room” that includes a beauty salon that is kept stocked with hair and nail sup-
plies, and an expansive “backyard” for outdoor activities. Each facility can be
tailored to the individuals who are enrolled in the program to fit their specific
needs.
These programs would not serve students only after school hours; similar to the
P.A.R.K. program in Little Rock, facilities and tutors would be available to stu-
dents, and at sometimes required, during the summer. Due to space limitations,
all eligible students are unable to be accepted, therefore, potential students
must go through a rigorous selection process in which both students and their
families are interviewed. Students new to the program, the most committed and
motivated young people, would undergo a period of intensive, remedial educa-
tional instruction focusing on core subjects in a summer enrichment program.
This helps ensure that students will have as solid an academic base as possible
before entering their eighth grade year, a crucial time of learning before high
school. It also provides the opportunity to sharpen scholastic skills that have
grown dull from a summer’s disuse.
Academic achievement would be evaluated every nine weeks, holding students

accountable to the program. Those with more than one D or F on their report
card would spend more time working on academic skills while at the program
facilities.19 Once students enter the 10th grade, P.A.R.K. programs would pro-
vide additional college preparatory work. Students will learn standardized test
taking methods, be taught how to find scholarships, and take tours of area col-
leges and universities.
A unique aspect of the Little Rock program that could be adapted and individu-
alized elsewhere is the incentive system used to reward hard work. Students
earn points for attendance, academic achievement, and good behavior. Points
would be used for special activities such as trips to the theater, an amusement
park, or sporting event. When students go above and beyond expectations,
they would see immediate results. These incentive programs encourage the
students to continue working hard, resulting in long-term academic improve-
ments.
Students would be tutored in ways that not only improve their grades, but also
develop strong personal characters. P.A.R.K. programs would seek to provide
an enriching environment that enables students to grow holistically. Integrity
would be emphasized in these highly selective programs, because good grades
are not the only important component of a resume or a college application.
Potential employers of these students need to know that their employees will
be honest and diligent, sometimes in spite of their backgrounds.
45
Funding
One of the most crucial obstacles to the implementation of programs modeled
after P.A.R.K. is funding. The fact for the matter is that for these programs to
get off the ground, funding is going to have to come from a variety of sources.
Local communities should be proactive and creative about places from which
to raise money. One innovative option would be for the programs to be funded
by partnerships with local businesses. These businesses would be motivated to
invest because of tax incentives, the potential for the growth and development
of a new and loyal workforce, positive press and goodwill in the community, as
well as free and positive advertising. Businesses can receive tax deductions
based upon the total income of the business. Ten percent of income can be giv-
en as contributions to organizations, all of which is tax deductible.20 Students
in these programs and other community members will be aware that they are
funded by certain businesses, and if representatives from those businesses have
a presence in the students’ lives, further fostering the relationships between the
program and the businesses. This may well lead to the opportunity for the
best students to graduate and go to work at the companies that played such
a crucial role in their development and success. This will create long-standing
trust and loyalty between employer and employees. In addition, the connection
between businesses and after-school programs will provide impoverished and
at-risk students with networking opportunities in the business community, which
they would otherwise lack access. As the community recognizes the goodwill
and altruism of the business, the benefits to the company will only multiply.
One example of a successful partnership between the business and education-

al community is the city of Durham, North Carolina. This city was awarded the
2007 Community Competitiveness Award, which “acknowledges a city whose
initiatives have promoted public and private sector cooperation and contrib-
uted to education and workforce development.”21 Durham introduced initia-
tives such as the Superintendent’s Business Advisory Council, Carolina Student
Transfer Excellence Program, and Durham Technical College’s Middle College
High School.22 Although the collaboration exemplified in Durham may not be
an exact model of the type recommended for other Southern cities, it clearly
demonstrates that there is a vested interest for the business community in suc-
cessful local education.
Another funding option is to seek patrons and spokespeople to fund and pro-
mote these programs. One reason P.A.R.K. is so successful is the presence of
Keith Jackson. The involvement of other sports figures, celebrities, or prominent
community members would only enhance the visibility and promote the success
of these programs. Potential spokespeople should be eager to be involved be-
cause of humanitarian interest, tax incentives, and a positive public image. Tax
incentives for individuals are based on the individuals’ income. There are limita-
tions for donations, but ten percent of an individual’s income may be donated
and tax deductible.23
Colleges and universities should also have vested interests in funding programs
such as P.A.R.K. Marquese McFerguson entered the program with a 1.9 GPA
and, on a P.A.R.K.-secured scholarship, eventually earned a degree in graphic
design from Ouachita Baptist University in Arkansas. Universities gain hard-
working, disadvantaged students when they fund at-risk high school students
such as McFerguson. Robert Irby, another college graduate, also secured his
university scholarship through P.A.R.K.24 Universities as well as communities
have a responsibility to promote education at all ages so they and the state
receive the best students possible.
Conclusion
The Southern region is comprised of states and communities, including the
three documented in this paper, with distinct and diverse challenges faced by
failing school systems. Implementation of independent and adaptable after-
school and summer programs similar to P.A.R.K. would allow each city or state
to address these issues in ways unique to their particular problems.
Some might argue that supplemental education programs already exist across
the South, and that even in Little Rock where the P.A.R.K program is already in
place, it has not single-handedly solved all of the education problems for the
community or come even close for that matter. It must be recognized, however,
that P.A.R.K type programs are a crucial step in the right direction and make
an enormous difference in the lives of each young person that they serve. The
P.A.R.K. programs do not expect to solve all of the educational problems in the
South, however they are able to promote and improve the lives of at-risk stu-
dents with whom they come in contact with. The unique characteristics of the
P.A.R.K. program, combined with other existing and continuing efforts, can help
strike the fatal blow to the crisis of failing Southern education.
The critical aspect of this recommendation is adaptability. In order for the spe-
cific needs of specific communities to be properly met, the programs must be
dynamic, flexible, and structured to conform to and address the problems of
each city in which they are implemented. The P.A.R.K. program has had a tre-
mendous impact in the inner city of Little Rock, Arkansas, partially because it
was founded by a Little Rock native. Moreover, it is run by Little Rock residents
and funded by local people and businesses that care about the community.
The PARK model depends upon the community taking an interest in the future
of its youth. It is not the goal of this proposal to transplant P.A.R.K. into other
cities; its aim is to provide an adaptable blueprint that can be adopted and
transformed. Although education in the South is an expansive problem that will
47
require attention for generations to come, this will take the vital first step to
finding a solution that will propel the South towards a better future.
Bibliography
“After-school Programs Really Do Work.” The Park Progress, Winter 2009. http://
www.positivekids.org/pdfs/March%2009.pdf (accessed March 29. 2009).
Associated Press, “High School Graduation Rates Plummet below 50% in some U.S.
Cities”.1 April 2008; www.associated press.com (accessed March 29, 2009).
“Durham Public Schools is a National Model for Great Partnership with Businesses
and Corporations.” Durham Public Schools. http://www.dpsnc.net/community/busi-
ness/whats-new-in-business-support/durham-public-schools-is-a-national-model-for
(accessed March 29, 2009).
“Former P.A.R.K. Students: Robert Irby.” Positive Atmosphere Reaches Kids: P.A.R.K.
www.positivekids.org/profiles/irby.htm (accessed March 29, 2009).
Hewes, Robert (CPA), interview by author, Searcy, AR, Marcy 21, 2009.
“High School Dropout Rates.” Child Trends Databank. http://www.childtrendsdata-
bank.org/indicators/1highschooldropout.cfm (accessed March 29, 2009).
Jackson, Jenny and Joan Lord.“Improving ACT and SAT Scores: Making Progress,
Facing Challenges.” Southern Regional Education Board, (2007): 7-10. http://www.sreb.
org/main/Goals/Publications/07E02_ACT_and_SAT_Test_Scores.pdf (accessed March
29, 2009).
“Malnutrition Impairs U.S. Children’s Health, Behavior,” LSU AgCenter, http://
www.lsuagcenter.com/en/family_home/family/childcare/Children_Childcare/Malnu
trition+Impairs+US+Childrens+Health+Behavior+Says+LSU+AgCenter+Food+and+N
utrition+Expert.htm (accessed March 29, 2009).
Moody, Kareem. “Blue & You Weight Loss Challenge.” The Park Progress, Summer
2008. http://www.positivekids.org/pdfs/summer08.pdf (accessed March 29. 2009).
Moseley, Jack. “Those Shocking U.S. Education Statistics.” Arkansas News, August 11,
2005. http://dev2.arkansasnews.com/?s=Those+shocking+U.S.+education+statistics&x=3
1&y=10 (accessed March 29. 2009).
National Center for Children in Poverty, “Geography of Low-Income Children and
Families”. Report issued November 2003; www.nccp.org (accessed March 29, 2009).
NCHEMS Information Center for Higher Education Policy Making and Analysis,
“Public High School Graduation Rates” http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.p
hp?submeasure=36&year=2006&level=nation&mode=graph&state=0 (accessed July 23,
2009).
Positive Atmosphere Reaches Kids: P.A.R.K. http://www.positivekids.org/ (accessed
March 29, 2009).
“Texas: State and County Quick Facts,” U.S. Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.cen-
sus.gov/qfd/states/48000.html (accessed March 29, 2009).
Footnotes
1. NCHEMS Information Center for Higher Education Policy Making and Analysis,
“Public High School Graduation Rates” (accessed July 23, 2009).
2. Associated Press, “High School Graduation Rates Plummet below 50% in some U.S.
Cities”.1 April 2008; www.associatedpress.com (accessed March 29, 2009).
3. National Center for Children in Poverty, “Geography of Low-Income Children
and Families”. Report issued November 2003; www.nccp.org (accessed March 29,
2009).
4. Jenny Jackson and Joan Lord, “Improving ACT and SAT Scores: Making Progress,
Facing Challenges,” Southern Regional Education Board, (2007): 7-10. http://www.
sreb.org/main/Goals/Publications/07E02_ACT_and_SAT_Test_Scores.pdf (accessed
March 29, 2009).
5. Ibid.
6. Positive Atmosphere Reaches Kids: P.A.R.K, http://www.positivekids.org/ (accessed
March 29, 2009).
7. NCHEMS Information Center for Higher Education Policy Making and Analysis,
“Public High School Graduation Rates” http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/
index.php?submeasure=36&year=2006&level=nation&mode=graph&state=0 (ac-
cessed July 23, 2009).
8. P.A.R.K, http://www.positivekids.org.
9. “High School Dropout Rates,” Child Trends Databank., http://www.childtrendsdata-
bank.org/indicators/1highschooldropout.cfm (accessed March 29, 2009).
10. Jack Moseley, “Those Shocking U.S. Education Statistics,” Arkansas News, August
11, 2005, http://dev2.arkansasnews.com/?s=Those+shocking+U.S.+education+statisti
cs&x=31&y=10 (accessed March 29. 2009).
12. “After-school Programs Really Do Work,” The Park Progress, Winter 2009, http://
www.positivekids.org/pdfs/March%2009.pdf (accessed March 29. 2009).
14. Ibid
15. Ibid
16. “Texas: State and County Quick Facts,” U.S. Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.cen-
sus.gov/qfd/states/48000.html (accessed March 29, 2009).
17. “Malnutrition Impairs U.S. Children’s Health, Behavior,” LSU AgCenter, http://
www.lsuagcenter.com/en/family_home/family/childcare/Children_Childcare/Maln
utrition+Impairs+US+Childrens+Health+Behavior+Says+LSU+AgCenter+Food+and+
Nutrition+Expert.htm (accessed March 29, 2009).
18. Kareem Moody, “Blue & You Weight Loss Challenge,” The Park Progress, Summer
2008, http://www.positivekids.org/pdfs/summer08.pdf (accessed March 29. 2009).
20. Robert Hewes (CPA), interview by author, Searcy, AR, Marcy 21, 2009.
21. “Durham Public Schools is a National Model for Great Partnership with Businesses
and Corporations,” Durham Public Schools, http://www.dpsnc.net/community/busi-
ness/whats-new-in-business-support/durham-public-schools-is-a-national-model-
for (accessed March 29, 2009).
22. “Durham, NC to Receive First Community Award from Chamber’s Institute for a
Competitive Workforce,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce. http://www.uschamber.com/
press/releases/2007/september/07-158.htm (accessed July 26, 2009).
23. Robert Hewes (CPA), interview by author, Searcy, AR, Marcy 21, 2009.
24. “Former P.A.R.K. Students: Robert Irby,” Positive Atmosphere Reaches Kids: P.A.R.K,
www.positivekids.org/profiles/irby.htm (accessed March 29, 2009).
49
Mandatory Impact Fees
Rocky T. Cole
Executive Summary
• Over the past fifty years, low-density, leapfrogging development—
colloquially known as urban sprawl—has become the predominant
form of urban growth in America.
• Neglected infrastructure, including deferred roadway maintenance,
and overcrowded public schools are both negative outcomes associ-
ated with unchecked outward expansion.
• Georgia has been ranked as one of the most sprawling regions in the
Untied States.
• Despite the early enactment of growth management legislation,
Georgia has failed almost entirely to curtail sprawl. Inherent weak-
nesses in the Georgia Planning Act, limited funding for Smart Growth
initiatives, and rigid beliefs in local autonomy continue to cripple the
state’s management efforts.
• Mandatory impact fees for new development, or one time fees paid
by developers to finance the additional infrastructure required (i.e.
roads, schools, and sewer lines), are one way the state can encour-
age more efficient uses of existing infrastructure, thereby ensuring
that future development pays for itself.
What is Urban Sprawl?

Though urban sprawl is easily recognized, it proves much more difficult to de-
fine. According to urban planner David Soule, it is “low density, auto-dependent
land development taking place on the edges of urban centers, often ‘leapfrog-
ging’ away from current denser development nodes.”1 Low-density develop-
ment is defined as an overall increase in the number of large homes situated on
privately owned lots, accompanied by lower household densities. Leapfrogging
development, a hallmark of sprawl, describes development that exponentially
moves away from existing urban centers to the peripheries of large metropoli-
tan areas where land is cheaper by ‘hopping over’ vacant or semi-developed
land.2 Open space disappears in sprawling cities. Thousands of acres of farm-
land are converted into commercial zones, while campus style office parks ap-
pear along arterial roads.3
Georgia, specifically the Atlanta area, is one of the most sprawling regions in
the United States. Between 2000 and 2007, the Atlanta population increased
by 41 percent and a subsequent housing boom increased the number of new
housing units by 21 percent. Almost all of this growth was low-density and oc-
51
curred on the peripheries of the City of Atlanta. Nine of the region’s outmost
counties—Forsyth, Paulding, Gwinnett, Coweta, Pickens, Walton, Cherokee and
Barrow—experienced population increases greater than 50 percent (see Ap-
pendix, Figure 1).1 The USA Today Sprawl Index, a measure of sprawl based
on changes in population densities during the 1990s, ranks Atlanta as the fifth
most sprawling city in America with a population over one million.5 The Rutgers
Center for Urban Policy Research, using a complex formula accounting for pop-
ulation density, amount of public space, alternative modes of transportation,
etc., ranks Georgia as the 14th most sprawling state.6 In a calculation measuring
levels of sprawl using temporal and geographic change published in the Urban
Affairs Review, Atlanta was assigned a value of 80.65 out of 100, with 100 repre-
senting absolute sprawling development, compared to the national average of
67.97.7 Not surprisingly, Atlanta boasts the nation’s eighth longest average com-
mute time, with residents spending an average of 27.1 minutes commuting one
way to work. Moreover, 19 percent of Georgians commute more than 45 minutes
one way to work, compared to the national average of 17 percent.8
The Costs of Sprawl

Sprawl places enormous financial strains on cities and municipalities. Since in-
frastructure projects are usually funded by municipalities from property and
sales taxes, capital improvements can only occur so long as cities raise ad-
equate tax revenue. Sprawling development, by all accounts, is more expensive
than compact development. It forces communities to pay for additional infra-
structure—which is more expensive because of sprawl—with smaller tax bases.
Unable to pay for necessary capital improvements, cities’ infrastructure falls
into disrepair. Schools become overcrowded. Traffic congestion is exacerbated.
In short, sprawling cities are pressured to pay for more infrastructure than they
can afford, thereby decreasing the quality of life for everyone.
Infrastructure Costs
Perhaps the greatest cost associated with sprawl is the burden on requirements
for local infrastructure. More miles of sewer lines, water lines, and roads are
necessary to support increasing populations under sprawling scenarios than
compact scenarios. In a 1974 landmark study now cited by Georgia and other
states9 as their official assessment of sprawl, the Real Estate Research Corpo-
ration estimated the capital costs of two hypothetical communities of 10,000
housing units over a twenty year period. Two scenarios, ‘low-density sprawl’
and high density ‘planned development,’ were created based on characteris-
tics observed in actual developments. They found that communities with low-
density sprawl incurred 74 percent higher capital costs than planned develop-
ment. Capital expenses for roads and utilities alone were 120 percent higher
for the sprawl scenario, while operating expenses were a surprising 13 percent
higher.10
In 2005, senior Brookings Institute Fellows Robert Burchell and Anthony Downs
updated The Costs of Sprawl using two growth scenarios—sprawl and com-
pact growth—to forecast expected infrastructure costs through the year 2025.
Under the compact growth scenario, five percent of all people entering the
housing market were concentrated into existing urban centers rather than un-
developed land, and the expected 52 million new development units were con-
structed with an expected 20 percent higher population density and 10 percent
higher floor area ratios. Under the sprawling scenario, growth continued on its
current trend. Again infrastructure costs were significantly higher under the
sprawling scenario. Between 2000 and 2025, state governments would save an
estimated 6.6 percent—or a total of $12.6 billion—on water and sewer infrastruc-
ture if growth occurred in a more compact fashion. A total of 188,305 fewer
miles of road would be constructed, saving an estimated $109.7 billion.11
It should be noted that Burchell’s study measures only the hypothetical costs
of sprawl—that is, it does not measure real world increases in per capita infra-
structure costs. However, evidence suggests that these costs are accurate for
Georgia. Each year beginning in 2000, the Georgia Municipal Association con-
ducts a survey of approximately 500 member cities to determine the amount
each expects to spend on various capital improvement projects over a five
year period. In 2003, these cities reported needing an estimated $83 million for
transportation improvements and $21 million for water/sewer improvements. For
2009, the same cities reported needing $263 for transportation and $386 mil-
lion for water/sewer improvements (see Appendix, Figure 2). When controlled
for inflation, these changes represent a 33 percent increase in per capita ex-
penses for water/sewer infrastructure and a 126 percent increase in per capita
transportation infrastructure. While urban development may naturally lead to
some increased per capita infrastructure expenses, the observed increases in
Atlanta are indicative of sprawling growth. If larger numbers of people were
paying for a similar number of miles of road and sewer lines—in other words,
if Atlanta were developing at higher densities—per capita costs could be ex-
pected to either decrease or remain constant.12 As these costs increase steeply,
it is safe to attribute some of the increases to lower population densities and
overall greater demands for infrastructure.
In most sprawling areas, increasing pressure to provide infrastructure decreas-

es the quality of public service and leads to overall greater fiscal deficits.13 When
cities cannot provide adequate revenue to fund needed capital improvements,
they simply take out low-interest loans from state authorities and engage in
deficit spending. In Dr. Burchell’s study, fiscal deficits resulting from sprawl
amount of roughly $4.4 billion annually at the national level, or an aggregate
of $1.1 billion for Southern cities. Deficits, however, pose a particularly difficult
problem for Georgia. Since the Georgia State government and many individual
53
cities have balanced budget amendments, deficit spending is not an option.
Instead, Georgia cities face more expenditure pressures relative to their fiscal
capacity than do other states; in other words, Georgia’s cities are pressured to
pay for more capital improvements than they can afford.14 Large fiscal deficits
in Georgia’s sprawling areas therefore translate into neglected infrastructure,
much to the detriment of the entire community.
Deferred Maintenance and School Overcrowding

One tangible example of deferred maintenance resulting from sprawl can be
seen in Georgia’s bridges and roadways. According to the American Society
of Civil Engineers, 27 percent of America’s bridges are in disrepair. Driving on
roads in need of repair costs U.S. motorists $54 billion a year in extra vehicle
repairs and operating costs—$275 per motorist.15 In Georgia, nearly 20 percent
of all bridges are in disrepair, while driving on aging roads costs Georgians
an estimated $255 million a year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs,
or $44 per motorist.16 The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) can
already point to a large backlog of necessary repairs which compete with other
capital improvement projects for funding in the annual GDOT budget. Recently,
150 proposed roadway improvement projects were recently canceled due to
inadequate funding.17
Sprawling development has also had negative consequences for Georgia’s

public schools. Facing increasing enrollment rates, metro Atlanta counties have
been forced to expand at breakneck speeds. Because of sprawling, low-density
development, the counties have been unable to keep up with the demand for
quality education, leading to severely overcrowded schools. Between 1995 and
2000, Georgia State University’s Fiscal Research Center tracked school enroll-
ment rates relative to tax base increases for the entire state.18 Their results show
that, in the 13 country Atlanta area, enrollment rates increased by nearly two
percent more than tax bases annually. In fact, every county except Douglas and
Forsyth experienced higher annual enrollment rates than tax base increases
(see Appendix, Figures 3 and 4). By comparison, non-sprawling counties—most
of which had positive growth rates—experienced roughly .10 percent higher tax
base increases annually relative to enrollment (Appendix, Figure 5). Thus, non-
sprawling areas were able to pay for their new growth, while the sprawling At-
lanta area schools were left unable to provide adequate educational facilities.
Overcrowded schools pose a serious risk to educational quality. As Douglas D.

Ready and Valerie E. Lee show in their study of California’s school systems, the
optimal size high school for all students is around 600-900 students.19 Schools
in Georgia’s sprawling areas, by comparison, are bursting at the seams with an
average size between 2000-3000 students. Moreover, Georgia’s response to
school overcrowding has typically been to add portable classrooms. Accord-
ing to Ready and Lee’s study, the best response to school overcrowding is to
build more schools—precisely the outcome least likely under sprawling growth
scenarios.
Responses to Sprawl: Growth Management in Georgia

States possess a wide range of tools which can limit the negative effects of
sprawl, and measurable steps have already been taken to contain low-density
growth. In general, the different strategies employed by states to mitigate the
effects of sprawl may be divided into two approaches. Statewide growth man-
agement strategies (SGMS) are ‘top-down’ attempts to limit the amount of low-
density growth occurring within a defined area. In areas with SGMS, strong
central governments direct planning and provide overall guidance for state-
wide development. Fee based approaches, on the other hand, represent more
market driven solutions to sprawl, using taxes to reduce the negative outcomes.
Impact fees, or taxes levied on new development in areas without existing infra-
structure, are the most popular example of this approach.
Georgia’s growth management strategy over the last thirty years includes ex-
amples of both SGMS and fee-based approaches, neither of which has prov-
en an effective means of limiting sprawl. In 1988, Georgia tepidly entered the
growth management movement by adopting the Georgia Planning Act. The act
requires local governments to develop comprehensive development plans fol-
lowing state mandated “minimum criteria.” These criteria include annual ‘Com-
munity Assessments’ of economic and physical growth patterns, ‘Community
Outreach’ programs in which Georgians provide feedback on development,
and local governments’ participation in the Quality Growth Objectives, which is
a non-binding survey asking such questions as “are bicycle lanes a part of your
comprehensive plan?” The comprehensive plans are then submitted to one of
twelve Regional Development Centers—now designated as Regional Develop-
ment Commissions (RDC) under a 2008 amendment—for review and comment.
Local governments are deemed either in compliance or noncompliance with
the Planning Act. Those plans deemed in compliance then become eligible to
receive state funding for capital improvement loans from the Georgia Environ-
mental Facilities Authority (GEFA) and the Department of Community Affairs
(DCA).
Impact fees also play a role in Georgia’s growth management strategy. As a

part of the movement which led to the adoption of the Planning Act, the Geor-
gia Legislature enacted the Georgia Development Impact Fee Act in 1990 to
promote “orderly growth and development by establishing uniform standards”
by which municipalities and counties may require that new growth and devel-
opment pay a “proportionate share” of the cost of new public facilities needed
to serve new growth and development.20 The act authorized local governments
55
to levy impact fees on capital improvement projects to be calculated on the
basis of “levels of service” for public facilities that are adopted in the municipal
or county comprehensive plan. Impact fees under the legislation are applicable
to existing development, as well as the new growth.21
Despite Georgia’s early entrance into the growth management movement, the
Georgia Planning Act has failed to curtail sprawl.22 As the report of the Growth
Strategies Reassessment Task Force noted in 1998, “the casual observer could
probably conclude that land use and development patterns during the 10 years
since adoption of Growth Strategies have changed little from what was hap-
pening before Growth Strategies.”23 With the exception of gentrification move-
ments in select Atlanta areas, the same remains true in 2008.24 Inherent weak-
nesses in the Planning Act, as well as a lack of regional coordination in the
state, continue to allow sprawl in Georgia. In the words of Cobb County Com-
missioner and Chairman of the Atlanta Regional Commission, Sam Olens, “The
Planning Act has no teeth.”25
The twelve RDCs which prepare regional comprehensive development plans

lack authority to enforce the implementation of these plans, and consequently,
the plans are mitigated to procedural guidelines containing no real measures
for directing or limiting growth. The Planning Act fails to specify long-term
goals for development, citing only a need “to assist local governments to par-
ticipate in an orderly process for coordinated and comprehensive planning…
which will develop and promote the essential public interests of the state and
its citizens….”26 Little additional funding is provided for plans trending toward
Smart Growth (growth aimed at revitalizing urban centers), and the phrases
Smart Growth, higher density or desirable growth are nowhere to be found in
the Act. As the Task Force noted, “the state has provided no guidance as to
what types of plans or decisions related to growth or development patterns
are preferred.”27 In short, the state has failed to develop a practical solution for
ensuring that municipalities have the resources they need to develop adequate
infrastructure.
Policy Recommendation
Despite Georgia’s history of popular aversion to strong growth management
programs, a looming shift in the state’s political climate may open wide the
door for increased state regulation. Unhappy with long commute times and
overcrowded schools, Georgians are becoming increasingly aware of sprawl’s
negative consequences.28 The rise of political figures opposed to sprawling de-
velopment hints toward a new future for Atlanta area residents. Recent amend-
ments to the Georgia Planning Act providing additional funding to Regional
Development Centers and a ballot initiative to create Infrastructure Develop-
ment Districts suggest that municipalities are willing to further engage in re-
gional planning. As Georgia’s population will almost certainly reach 12 million
by 2030—and the total number of housing units in Atlanta will almost certainly
reach 2 million in the same time period—now is the time to adopt meaningful
legislation to guide development into the 21st century.29
New legislation will need to look far beyond Georgia’s current development
patterns: to assume that growth will proceed as it did throughout the 1990s
would be naïve. As Chairman Olens notes, the Golden Age of Sprawl may be
coming to an end. Natural market forces, i.e. a demand for more ‘traditional
forms of growth,’ may begin to marginally correct sprawling development; thus,
any beneficial anti-sprawl legislation will need to avoid simply adding addition-
al layers of bureaucracy that Georgia policymakers view as ineffective. Further,
although Georgians routinely express disdain for traffic congestion and over-
crowded schools, a radical overhaul of Georgia’s growth management strategy
remains far from tenable. So what can, and should, be done? One option is
to change the way capital improvements are financed. Mandating that local
governments levy impact fees when they cannot raise enough revenue to fund
necessary infrastructure projects is one way Georgia can ensure that future
development pays for itself.
Mandatory Capital Improvement Impact Fees

Impact fees shift the costs of the required infrastructure for new communities
to the developers and new residents. When a new development is proposed,
local municipalities evaluate the additional burden the development will place
on existing infrastructure. If the new development cannot be integrated into
the existing infrastructure, more must be built. When local governments can-
not raise enough revenue to pay for the additional infrastructure, they have
several options. They can raise taxes or divert general funds from activities
such as public savings. They can defer maintenance or accept congested facili-
ties/inadequate infrastructure. Or, they can choose to levy a tax on the new
development to offset the costs of the new infrastructure minus existing rev-
enue streams (property taxes, sales tax, etc.). When municipalities are limited
by anti-taxation sentiments, impact fees become the best option for funding
capital improvements without diverting general funds.
If municipalities do levy impact fees, firms respond by attempting to shift the

additional costs of the fee back to consumers or landowners. This shift results in
either higher housing prices or lower land values. By increasing the cost of con-
verting undeveloped land through forcing developers and consumers to pay for
the additional infrastructure cost, firms are encouraged to fully utilize existing
infrastructure. Higher housing prices in undeveloped areas decrease demand
for those homes resulting, effectively, in a tax on sprawling development.30
Since impact fees provide municipalities with much needed revenue for capital
57
improvement, they have the added value of promoting economic growth and
increasing overall infrastructure quality.
Impact fees are an excellent option for Georgia’s cities struggling to catch up
with needed capital improvements. According to the interviews conducted for
this research, impact fees are generally viewed by Georgia policymakers as a
necessary element of responsible growth.31 Unfortunately, however, a general
fear of their misuse limits widespread implementation of such exactions. The
State Legislature should therefore amend the Georgia Development Impact
Fee Act O.C.G.A. § 36-71-3(a) to read “Municipalities and counties reaching
‘Intermediate’ and ‘Advanced Planning Levels’ (specific levels of density and
development) which have adopted a comprehensive plan containing a capital
improvements element, when unable to raise adequate revenue to meet system
improvement costs, are required to impose by ordinance development impact
fees as a condition of development approval on all development pursuant to
and in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.” The fees would continue
to be calculated on a service area a basis and would be application only in situ-
ations where the:
Total System Improvement Costs - Existing Revenue Streams > $0
For example, if total system improvement costs—i.e. the total costs for develop-
ing new infrastructure—equal $10, 000 per housing unit in a particular subdivi-
sion, and the municipal government can allocate only $5,000 from property
and sales tax revenue per unit, the developer would be charged a $5,000 per
unit fee to offset the additional costs. If the total system improvement costs
equaled $10,000 and municipalities raised enough revenue to allocate the full
$10,000 per unit towards infrastructure without diverting general funds from
other areas, no impact fees would be required.
As the DCA notes in an official publication describing local planning require-

ments, cities and counties across the state are diverse in terms of size, growth
rate, economic base, and environmental and geographic conditions. Their
needs, concerns and goals for the future differ dramatically.32 Impact fees
are only efficient in areas with robust new growth, because they apply only to
developments which require the construction of additional infrastructure. For
this reason, the proposed amendment should be conditional upon municipali-
ties experiencing positive economic growth rates. Municipalities experiencing
shrinking economies, as measured by rising unemployment rates and tax base
declines, should be exempt from levying impact fees.
Further, as with any state mandate, some degree of state oversight is necessary.
The state cannot simply mandate that local governments collect impact fees
and expect absolute compliance. The legislature should therefore include in
the proposed amendment a clause linking qualifications for major state grants
and low-interest loans to compliance with the Impact Fee Act. If municipalities
refuse to levy fees when it is clear they cannot pay for necessary infrastructure,
as defined by O.C.G.A. § 36-71-2, funding from GEFA and GDOT should be with-
held until municipalities comply.
Benefits
Mandatory impact fees as an alternative method for funding capital improve-
ments would entail great benefits for Georgia’s cities. First and foremost, re-
quiring municipalities to levy impact fees instead of deferring maintenance or
diverting general funds will both limit sprawling development and ensure that
future growth in Georgia pays for itself. Since the additional costs of the impact
fees will be passed along to consumers in the form of higher housing prices,
mandatory impact fees can be seen as a tax on sprawling development. If con-
sumers truly wish to enjoy the benefits of sprawling development, they will be
able to do so, but will simply pay more to engage in a sprawling lifestyle. De-
velopers, on the other hand, will recognize that if they raise housing prices too
much too quickly, they risk lowering demand and thereby limiting their profits.
Accordingly, they will find more efficient uses for existing infrastructure in order
to avoid paying exorbitant impact fees. In the end, Georgia cities can expect
the higher housing prices to be more than offset by firms finding more efficient
uses of existing infrastructure. The risk that housing prices will rise steeply and
limit access to housing markets is therefore limited.
Another benefit of mandating impact fees is that they would lower financial and
political pressure on municipalities to expand basic infrastructure requirements
and focus on long-term development. Since, local governments receive a major-
ity of their funding from property and sales taxes, more development translates
into more revenue. Georgia has a large number of local governments and one
of the most fragmented political systems in the country. As Burchell notes, these
sprawling conditions “create a never-ending upward spiral of costs” which does
not end once municipalities construct new water and sewer infrastructure. In-
creased usage of city infrastructure puts more pressure on governments to
conduct capital improvements. Since tax bases are smaller under sprawling
scenarios, local governments often compete for development that will expand
their property tax bases by offering tax incentives and favorable zoning regula-
tions for new development. Adopting more restrictive development regulations
runs the risk of turning developers away to neighboring jurisdictions.
Under these conditions, impact fees are a more efficient way to pay for in-
frastructure improvements than taxes. As the fees make the linkage between
those benefitting from the infrastructure and those paying for the costs more
59
direct, economic efficiency would be increased. Since cities would have a guar-
anteed source of funding for necessary capital improvements, they would face
less financial and political pressure to expand their tax bases. This would allow
them to focus on long-term development goals, such as providing necessary
roadways, bridges and parks, as well as increasing the overall quality of public
service, such as education. Mandatory impact fees would therefore constitute
a step toward ending the ‘vicious cycles of sprawl’ now plaguing some Georgia
communities.
Challenges
The greatest challenge to mandating the use of development impact fees is
a widespread belief by Georgia’s policymakers and elected officials that fees
slow overall economic growth. Empirical evidence shows, on the contrary, that
even under worse case scenarios impact fees have no negative effects on job
growth. Some studies even suggest that impact fees may increase the amount
of mixed-use developments in a community, which in turn catalyzes aggregate
job growth.33 As a rule, however, impact fees should not exceed the costs of
infrastructure apportioned to the development net of other revenues used to
finance the same project—that is, if other government funding is available to
partially subsidize capital improvements, the impact fee should not exceed the
costs of development less existing revenue streams.34 Under any other circum-
stances, impact fees promote deadweight losses of efficiency in the form of
higher housing prices or lower land values with no appreciable economic ben-
efits. The proposed mandatory impact fees avoid this pitfall by adhering to the
method for calculating fees laid out by O.C.G.A. § 36-71-4(a) in which develop-
ment impact fees shall not exceed “a proportionate share of the cost of system
improvements.” Under this amendment to the Impact Fee Act, ‘proportionate
share’ is defined as the difference between total infrastructure costs minus
existing revenue streams. Moreover, O.C.G.A. § 36-71-4(L)(1) provides a clear
loophole for municipalities to exempt certain projects from impact fees if they
are “determined to create extraordinary economic development and employ-
ment growth or affordable housing,” thereby mitigating concerns about stifling
meaningful economic growth.
Mandatory statewide impact fees do, however, face several technical limita-
tions. First, not all local governments in Georgia have equal personnel or op-
erating budgets. It is not unusual to find urban planners doubling as clerks in
smaller, more rural municipalities. Some municipalities may simply lack the nec-
essary manpower to collect or impose the required fees. Therefore, only those
municipalities classified as ‘Intermediate’ and ‘Advanced’ should be required
to collect exactions. Because Intermediate and Advanced planning zones are
larger metropolitan areas with vast resources and manpower, this provision of
the policy will ensure that smaller municipalities are not overburdened by state
requirements. All other municipalities should retain the current authority to levy
impact fees if they so choose.
Second, policymakers will likely view this proposal as an attempt to increase

state control over local development guidelines, citing the fact that impact fees
are not one size fits all as reasonable evidence that the fees only increase bu-
reaucracy. Given that some communities are able to raise more revenue than
others, thereby affecting the rates necessary to offset development costs, such
criticism is not unreasonable. But this proposed policy accounts for the fact
that local governments have greater abilities to estimate their projected ex-
penditures—the calculation, levying, and collection of impact fees remains the
responsibility of local governments. The state is simply requiring local govern-
ments to levy fees to offset the costs of building new infrastructure. Overall,
this policy is less invasive than the 1988 Georgia Planning Act, which required
extensive local comprehensive planning and state oversight of local develop-
ment. With this policy, the state would only have oversight authority if commu-
nities refused to levy impact fees when they could not afford to build required
new infrastructure.
Conclusion
Despite Georgia’s early implementation of a growth management strategy, the
Atlanta area has become one of the most sprawling in the nation. Widespread
political opposition to state intervention limits Georgia’s ability to control low-
density development to largely ceremonial procedures in the form of local com-
prehensive planning. With a shift in the political climate looming, a window of
opportunity for reinvigorating Georgia’s growth management strategy may be
opening. Owing to the heavy fiscal and social costs of sprawling development,
Georgia should take advantage of this opportunity and enact meaningful re-
forms to guide development into the 21st century. Mandatory statewide impact
fees would be a more efficient way to finance capital improvements.
Works Cited
1. Soule, David C. (Ed.), Urban Sprawl: A Comprehensive Reference Guide, (Westport:
Greendwood, 2006).
2. Burchell, Robert W., Anthony Downs, Barbara McCann and Sahan Mukherji, Sprawl
Costs: Economic Impacts of Unchecked Development, (Washington: Island, 2005).
3. Gillham and MacLean, “The Limitless City: A Primer on the Urban Sprawl Debate”,
(Washington: Island, 2002).
4. Atlanta Regional Commission Technical Reports: Population Element, Public Facili-
ties Element, and Transportation Element (2004).
5. See http://www.usatoday.com/news/sprawl/main.htm
6. Sprawl Costs: Economic Impacts of Unchecked Development
7. Lopez, Russ, Hynes, H. Patricia “Sprawl In The 1990s: Measurement, Distribution,
61
and Trends,” Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 38, No. 3, (2003): 325-355.
8. U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey
9. For example, Colorado, California, New Mexico and South Carolina.
10. Burchell, Robert, “Conventional Development Versus Managed Growth: The Costs
of Sprawl,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 93, No. 9, (September 2003):
1534-1540.
11. Ibid.
12. Heimlich, Ralph E. and William D. Anderson, “Development at the Urban Fringe
and Beyond: Impacts on Agriculture and Rural Land,” United States Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report No. (AER803), June 2001.
13. Ibid
14. Tannewald, Robert and Nicholas Turner, State Tax Notes, May 23, 2005: 585-598,
In the 2005 Fiscal Impact report, produced by the Georgia State University Fiscal
Research Center.
15. American Society of Civil Engineers, “2008 Report Card for America’s Infrastruc-
ture State Fact Sheets,” http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=145
16. American Society of Civil Engineers, “2005 Report Card for America’s Infrastruc-
ture: Georgia,” http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=50
17. “DOT Stopping Work on 150 Projects, Trimming Fast Forward Progam, Insiders
Say” Insider Advantage News Service, http://www.insideradvantagegeorgia.com.
18. Hawkins, Richard, “Does Growth Pay for Itself? Property Tax Trends for Schools in
Georgia,” Georgia State University FRC Report No. 57, January 2002.
19. Ready, Douglas D. and Valerie E. Lee, “Educational Equity and School Structure:
School Size, Overcrowding, and Schools-Within-Schools,” Teachers College Record,
Vol. 106, Iss. 10, (2004).
20. Georgia Development Impact Fee Act of 1990, O.C.G.A. § 36-71-1 (2008)
21. Ibid.
22. While no official survey of public officials or DCA publication makes this claim, my
own interviews with such officials confirmed that an overwhelming consensus of
Georgia’s policymakers believe the Planning Act has no role in effecting growth
patterns. In fact, many view the Department of Community Affairs as mere bureau-
cracy.
23. Georgia Growth Strategies Reassessment Task Force, “Georgia’s Future: Beyond
Growth Strategies,” December 1998. A document procured from DCA.
24. Interviews.
25. Interview with Chairman Olens
26. Georgia Planning Act of 1988, O.C.G.A. § 50-8-30 (2008)
27. “Georgia’s Future: Beyond Growth Strategies.”
28. Interviews with state representatives, public officials and urban planners.
29. Atlanta Regional Commission Technical Reports: Housing Element (2004), http://
www.atlantaregional.com/documents/lu_rdp_ch6_housing_12_04.pdf
30. Been, Vicki, “Impact Fees and Housing Affordability,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy
Development and Research, Vol. 1, No. 8, (2005): 139-185.
31. Based on interviews with over 20 high ranking public officials.
32. “Rules of Georgia Department of Community Affairs Chapter 110-12-1 Standards
and Procedures for Local Comprehensive Planning,” Department of Community
Affairs, Retrieved from http://www.dca.state.ga.us/development/PlanningQuality-
Growth/programs/downloads/MinimumStandardsAdopted.pdf.
33. Ihlanfeldt, Keith and Timothy H. Shaughnessy, “An Empirical Investigation of the
Effects of Impact Fees on Housing and Land Markets,” Presented at the Lincoln
Institute of Land Policy
34. Conference: Analysis of Urban Land Markets and the Impact of Land Market Regu-
lation, July 2002. Nelson, Arthur C. and Mitch Moody, “Paying for Prosperity: Im-
pact Fees and Job Growth,” A discussion paper prepared for the Brookings Institu-
tion Center for Urban and Metropolitan Policy. http://www.brookings.edu/reports/
2003/06metropolitanpolicy_nelson.aspx.
See following page for Appendix.
63
Appendix
Figure 1. Percent Change in Total Housing Units (Source: U.S. Census Bureau)
Figure 2: Per Capita Infrastructure Costs Adjusted For Inflation (Source: Georgia Mu-
nicipal Association Capital Improvement Survey, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008)
Figure 3: Percent Change in Tax Base Size vs. Public School Enrollment in the 13 County
Atlanta Area (Source: GSU Fiscal Research Center)
Figure 4: Percent Change in Tax Base Size vs. Public School Enrollment in Sprawling
Counties (Source: GSU Fiscal Research Center)
Figure 5: Percent Change in Tax Base Size vs. Public School Enrollment in Non-Sprawl-
ing Counties (Source: GSU Fiscal Research Center)
65
Child Care Foundations
Lauren Coleman
Executive Summary
• Athens-Clarke County (ACC), categorized as one of the 91 persis-
tently poor counties in Georgia, faces a staggering 28.3 percent pov-
erty rate.1
• While a host of issues contribute to the fiscal instability of local fami-
lies, adequate funding for child care continues to be a problem.
• In an effort to more consistently address child care needs, the ACC
government should engage in a public-private partnership with local
businesses to administer child care subsidies to a broader subset of
the Athens population.
• Drawing upon a pre-existing Georgia tax credit and additional lo-
cal funding, Athens businesses will pay 75 percent of employee child
care costs directly to accredited child care centers selected by the
individual workers.
• The local ACC government must establish a third party administra-
tive committee as a means to maintain personal information privacy
and establish recommended subsidy figures.
• Over a period of 5 years, as companies start to see benefits such as
reduced turnover, higher morale, and decreased absenteeism, ACC
will gradually remove additional funding.
• Additional benefits include more flexible child care options, increased
disposable household income, higher rates of accredited enrollment,
and a strengthened focus on quality facilities.
• A program similar to this proposal found success in local Athens busi-
ness, burton+Burton. Additionally, burton+Burton utilizes the same
tax credit publicized within this proposal, found within the Official
Code of Georgia section 48-7-40.6.2
Introduction
Athens-Clarke County (ACC), Georgia, struggles with a startling poverty rate
of 28.3 percent and has approximately 26,000 residents living in poverty.3 Re-
cently, however, the community has fostered a public discourse on how to reduce
poverty through the advocacy group Partners for a Prosperous Athens (PPA),
which later developed into the OneAthens Foundation. This group recognizes
that the task of reducing poverty is multi-faceted, requiring a substantial effort
in a variety of policy domains, ranging from affordable housing to vocational
education initiatives. Specifically, the OneAthens foundation recognizes that
increased access to early childhood care for the Athens community is vital to
67
attaining the general goal of poverty reduction. Early childhood care and de-
velopmental programs have the potential to attack poverty by decreasing edu-
cational disparities between children as they enter kindergarten. Currently, the
costs for families to invest in child care are staggering and generally comprise
a sizeable percentage of total household income. The insufficient funds cur-
rently allocated to child care subsidization are limiting what low-income fami-
lies can do to better the lives of their children while still managing an attainable
household budget.
In an effort to support the working families of ACC, the local government, in a

partnership with the Athens area Chamber of Commerce and the OneAthens
Foundation, should introduce in an initiative encouraging businesses to pro-
vide direct subsidies for child care. The ACC government will provide incentives
for companies to participate by utilizing current tax credits available from the
state of Georgia and direct funding from the county. Once local employers par-
ticipate in this practice, companies will experience non-monetary benefits, such
as increased morale and reduced turnover. Through this partnership, the ACC
government can expand the community’s battle with poverty, inviting coopera-
tion between local officials, businesses, and the current anti-poverty movement
headed by the OneAthens Foundation.
Background: What is at Stake?

Acknowledging the importance of early childhood programs in a child’s devel-
opment, the U.S. Congress and the Georgia General Assembly have allocated
significant amounts of money to implementing early childhood initiatives such
as Head Start, Even Start, and Pre-Kindergarten. Head Start and Even Start
programs aim to serve disadvantaged and low-income families by mandating
90 percent of funding assist children at or below the federally calculated pov-
erty line.4 However, in FY 2008 President George W. Bush failed to request
additional funds for early childhood education. Providing an additional 148
million dollars in Head Start funding, his budget only accounted for increases
due to inflation.5 While the total amount money approved by Congress is a
large sum, it is insufficient for the growing needs of child care and education
programs across the nation. Pre-Kindergarten programs are funded by indi-
vidual states, with Georgia establishing funding through the Georgia Lottery.
The state of Georgia has one of the most far reaching programs in the country,
serving nearly 74,000 families in 2006. Additionally, further federal funding is
available through a variety of grants, such as The Child Care and Development
Block Grant (CCDBG).
While there are several programs available at the state level, families in Athens-
Clarke County (ACC), and particularly low-income households, face a limited
set of affordable child care options. Free programs, including Pre-Kindergarten,
Head Start, and Even Start, already have sizeable waiting lists. The waiting list
for Pre-Kindergarten in ACC was equal to nearly 40 percent of 2006 enroll-
ment, forcing 198 children to look to other sources for assistance. Even more
staggering was the 2006 waiting list of 154 children for Head Start programs.6
As of September 2008, 6,218 children either have both mother and father or
their sole caregiver in the work force. Of that group of children, only 3,324 chil-
dren were in some form of regulated care, leaving approximately 2,894 children
either without care or in unaccredited programs.7 Accredited institutions are
child care facilities that have undergone a process of training and assessment
overseen by the National Association for the Education of Young Children
(NAEYC) and Georgia’s Department of Early Care and Learning.8
For those not enrolled in free programs, the average cost of providing private
care is approximately $5,900 per year for an infant. That figure comprises 20.8
percent of median family income in Clarke County.9 To reduce this cost, some
subsidies, provided by the Family and Child Services (DFCS) division of the
Georgia Department of Human Resources, are available to partially pay for
child care programs. However, guidelines for subsidies are fairly restrictive. For
a single parent and one child to receive the funding, the annual household in-
come must be no higher than $21,120. Additionally, the guardian must meet a
minimum work requirement of 30 hours per week. In four person households, a
maximum income of $32,000 is required along with 30 hours a week for both
parents in order to receive DFCS subsidies. Furthermore, parents attending a
four-year college or university are not eligible for the subsidy.10
In addition to families facing hardships, reduced access to child care limits the
productivity and success companies derive from their employees. When em-
ployees face balancing a healthy family life and maintaining their job, it is often
the businesses that are penalized. In a survey of five major corporations, 82
percent of working employees reported missing work, leaving early, or arriv-
ing late due to difficulties with child care. Similarly, supervision arrangements
fall through for one in four employees at least once a month due to unreliable
care.11 Cases such as these leave employers with little or no notice to adjust and
account for workplace disruptions.
A Plan to Increase Access

Increasing access to child care in ACC is an essential step to improving the
lives of both children and parents troubled by high child care costs. Naturally,
addressing the problems associated with increasing access to child care must
occur before the quality of care inside the classroom can improve. However,
getting funding for child care programs is typically a post facto occurrence,
meaning socioeconomic diversity must be present in programs prior to the al-
location of federal or state funding. While increasing government funding can
69
be a difficult task due to the number of competing interests, approaching the
problem from a different angle may be advantageous. Instead of utilizing mon-
ey directly from the government, employers can serve as a source of reliable
funding for employees’ child care needs.
Athens-Clarke County should implement an employer-based subsidy initiative.

In this program, the local government would strongly encourage employers
to provide up to 75 percent of the costs of employee child care expenditures,
with a total $5,000 cap. Based on a sliding scale that evaluates total income
and percentages of income spent on child care, a third party local government
committee would determine the appropriate funding level for each employee.
The scale would be configured by the county as a baseline for all companies
involved in the program. The government administration committee, as its first
task, needs to constitute an upper eligibility limit for total family income. Fami-
lies or individuals above this limit are ineligible for any funding from their em-
ployer. Then, as families’ total family incomes decrease, the percentage of child
care costs paid by the employer would increase.12 For each family, the sliding
scale determines money provided by the subsidy as a set percentage of the
family’s total child care expenditures.
Figure 1: Proposed Model, U.S. Office of Personnel and Management

Total Family Income % Total Child Care Cost Paid by Company
60,001 and above 0
45,001 - 60,000 30
26,001 - 45,000 40
26,000 and under 70
*Numbers are based on U.S. Office of Personnel and Management recommendations. Com-
panies should use the most recent income data to establish a scale that fits best for the
demographics of Athens. The scale should also be adjusted as costs of living rise.13
**Example: If a family’s total income is $50,000 and its total annual cost of childcare is
$6,000, the company pays 30% ($2,000) and the family pays the remainder ($4,000).
In acquiring the subsidies, employees would disclose the total income of the
household, the child care provider, and the cost of the child care program to the
third party government committee as a privacy protection safeguard. In order
to ensure that quality centers are the sole recipients of funding, the program
requires all providers attain or hold NAEYC accreditation. After careful evalu-
ation of the forms and background checks on centers by the ACC committee,
the group will make subsidy figure recommendations to employers on behalf
of the given companies’ employee applicants. After receiving subsidy recom-
mendations, employers would make direct payments to the approved child care
centers selected by their employees. By providing child care facilities with pay-
ments directly, companies can ensure that the money is going to child care
rather than other employee expenditures.14
The finance department’s office of management and budget will house the third
party committee mentioned earlier. Consisting of current department employ-
ees, the committee will employ demographic data in order to devise the subsidy
funding scale. After laying the foundational guidelines, the committee will re-
ceive, review, and make funding recommendations for enrolled businesses. The
committee will also communicate with the revenue department and consider
the level of county funding awarded to participating companies. In addition
to handling the administrative aspects of this program, the ACC committee
would also select a liaison to both the OneAthens Foundation and the Athens
Chamber of Commerce. These representatives will inform the organizations
about the progress of the project while also noting advice and recommenda-
tions. Each of these partnerships allows the subsidy program to prosper under
the supervision of both child care advocates and business professionals. Finally,
increased community involvement also produces a degree of transparency vital
to the survival of the initiative.
Georgia currently offers a 75 percent tax credit for companies that provide as-
sistance to employees so long as the credit does not account for more than 50
percent of the taxpayer’s taxable income liability for the corresponding fiscal
year.15 The 75 percent tax credit accounts for the direct investment employers
make for dependent care, including child care assistance. This provision in state
law already provides a large incentive needed to encourage employer funded
child care, yet the tax incentive is grossly underused.16 Therefore, as a neces-
sary first step in attracting businesses to participate the program, the ACC
Chamber of Commerce needs to publicize the tax credit to local employers
through newsletters, meetings, and direct engagement. Critical to the overall
success of this program is communication with the entirety of the Athens area
workforce, not simply owners and managerial staff.
The ACC government initially will fund the remaining 25 percent of child care
costs incurred by employers through an increase in the current tax on liquor
and beer sales. The necessary tax increase will depend on how many compa-
nies participate in the program. In the first year of operation, ACC government
would provide the remaining 25 percent of total funding, making the program
cost neutral for participating employers. Then, over a five-year period, ACC
would gradually decrease funding as companies began to see returns on their
investment. Then as the county phases out funding for the program, the money
collected from the tax increase could then finance other Athens area projects,
serve as an alternative source of revenue, or face removal, depending on com-
munity sentiment.
71
By making the program cost neutral to employers, ACC is providing an oppor-
tunity for companies to experiment and experience the benefits of a program
that was likely unfeasible for many employers to apply on their own. Further-
more, ACC funding is designed to be the primary initial incentive for companies
to participate so that even the most skeptical companies will not see a nega-
tive impact on their returns As the program gains momentum, companies will
likely see benefits such as reduced turnover, improved recruiting benefits, and
decreased absenteeism. The savings derived from these benefits will eventually
take the place and hopefully surpass the funding provided in the initial stages
of the program.
It is important to note that companies are not required, but strongly encour-
aged, to participate in the employer subsidy program. By providing large in-
centives, including direct funding from the ACC government, businesses will
recognize the advantages of such a program. Additionally, with publicity that
reaches not only management, but all employees, businesses will most likely
see an increase in employee demand, leading to further encouragement for
program enrollment.
Benefits: Who Wins?

Employer based child care not only helps working parents afford care for their
children during working hours but also benefits children, employers, and the
community as a whole. Employer subsides essentially ensure that employees
receive a form of reliable funding for child care. Instead of employees using a
fluctuating portion of their salary to pay for child care expenses, the company
pays a large part of the expense, leaving formerly allocated child care expen-
ditures as other disposable income. This policy also results in children receiving
better care. For example, parents may decide to use their subsidy to move from
their existing center to a better quality but more expensive center since they
will have more financial flexibility. Furthermore, families that formerly resorted
to unaccredited care will have the opportunity to use their subsidy to place
their children in centers designed aid in early childhood development. The
ACC requires employees to demonstrate that their children are in licensed cen-
ters, reducing the number of children in unregulated care. Licensed child care
providers must meet specific baseline requirements, set forth by the NAEYC
ensuring at least some form of quality. Conversely, unregulated facilities have
no means of accountability.
Families can also select a center that is conveniently located near their home
or workplace, allowing employees to reduce daily travel time and expenses by
incorporating a facility that is on their regular route. The program designed
subsidies as a way give employees a considerable amount of options when se-
lecting a child care center that is better suited for their family. An increase in
funding would allow more options and fewer restrictions, allowing each house-
hold to choose what provider best serves their children and their family.17
Additionally, heightened participation in such a program will benefit the entire

community in the long-term. An increased number of children enrolled in early
childhood care programs will likely lead to more prepared children as they en-
ter kindergarten. With the advent of this program, many families who could not
afford child care and or remained on extensive waitlists for free or subsidized
programs will have increased alternatives and finally obtain the ability to pro-
vide care for their children. In addition, the mandate that all centers receiving
the subsidy are required to be accredited will ensure that the quality of care
that is provided will see an improvement. As of right now, 2,894 Clarke County
children are in unregulated care, leaving their development uncertain.18 While
there may not be enough space currently to take in all of the children in need,
there are approximately 500 spaces and additional centers working to meet
accreditation requirements.19 Furthermore, the increased demand will encour-
age new centers and business opportunities. Lastly, the increased need for child
care will facilitate competitive prices, making care generally more affordable.
Employers have a positive stake in this program, as well. By providing increased

funding for dependent care, employers can see benefits not only within their
working environments but also in the success of their businesses. First, providing
a reimbursement for child care provides companies the opportunity to recruit
workers who may otherwise be constrained by income or child care options.
National data collected by the Families and Work Institute states that one in
three parents are willing to change employers if child care options, including
the availability of vouchers or direct financial assistance, are available.20 Thus,
benefits that re-enforce the ability for families to provide adequate necessities
will attract a broad and competitive workforce to the Athens area.
Child care benefits also provide incentives for employees to stay in jobs, reduc-
ing turnover for employers. The cost of hiring and training new employees can
have immense impacts on company expenditures. In fact, research suggests
that the average cost of replacing working parent employees is up to 75 to 150
percent of annual salary costs.21 Providing employer-based assistance can curb
the cost of replacing workers. In a study of companies that provided some sort
of child care assistance, 37 percent reported reduced turnover.22 Improved mo-
rale and employee satisfaction are also known benefits of providing subsidies
for child care. A 1995 conference board survey conducted by the Department of
the Treasury found that 62 percent of companies with such programs reported
higher morale among employees.23 Child care subsidization can increase em-
ployee satisfaction by allowing more flexibility in employee’s personal budgets
and decreasing financially related stress.
73
Companies have shown significant returns on their investments in child care
and pro-family initiatives. The First Tennessee Bank reported reduced turnover
costs of $1 million annually through increased funding for child care initiatives.24
Within the first nine months of starting an employer funded child care program,
Honeywell determined that the company saved $45,000 above the initial in-
vestment.25 Additionally, the family-work programs, including flexible child care
accounts, at Waste Management led to a $1,400 net savings resulting from
reduced absenteeism, increased productivity, and fewer benefit claims.26
Finally, longitudinal studies have demonstrated high marginal returns on invest-

ments made on early childhood programs. Three influential studies stand out:
High/Scope Perry Preschool Project, the Abecedarian Project, and the Chi-
cago Child-Parent Centers.27 Each of these studies, conducted over extended
periods of time, make a point to track participants into adulthood while com-
paring students who did and did not receive pre-kindergarten care. All three
studies demonstrated higher successes in education and both the Perry and
Abecedarian projects reported greater employment success.28 In the Perry Pre-
school project 71 percent of students who received early childhood care gradu-
ated from high school, where only 54 percent of the control group received high
school degrees. Additionally, 70 percent of childhood program participants in
the Abecedarian project were employed at the age of 21 while only 58 percent
of control group members had employment at the same age. Finally, for every
$1 spent on participants public benefits ranged from $7.16 from $2.69, mean-
ing that the money spent provided gains not only for participating individuals
but also the communities involved.29 Overall, these longitudinal studies demon-
strate that increased investments in child care can have long-term effects that
will continue to benefit the community long after initial investments are made.
Case Study: burton + BURTON

Burton + BURTON (b+B), a family-owned ACC company, has implemented a
program similar to the one outlined here. When company employees were hav-
ing difficulty paying for the high costs of child care in Athens, b+B started a
program in which the company provided up to 75 percent of child care costs
with a $5,000 cap on funding. Parents who receive the subsidy are required to
pay the remaining 25 percent of child care costs. To attain the funding, full-time
employees complete a contract with the employer and the child care provider.
Employees must speak with the center director of their respective child care
provider and present them with the contract, verifying their cooperation with
the plan. After completing the contract, employees are responsible for filing
an either weekly or monthly invoice with the Department of Human Resources,
which sends payment to centers directly. Married employees who file separate-
ly face individual caps of $2,500. In addition, employees can only participate
in one child care reimbursement plan, meaning the funding must be the sole
source of child care assistance for a given employee.30
Since the program’s activation in January of 2001, burton+Burton employees

consistently continue to utilize available funding. Employees have responded
positively according to b+B’s Director of Human Resources, suggesting the
subsidy allows for increased flexibility with their already designated salaries.31
In 2006, 92 employees took advantage of the company-funded program with
a yearly cost of $258,074.35. Eighty-six employees used the program in 2007,
costing b+B a total of $244,928.70 for the entire year. Currently, 75 employees
are receiving funding from b+B and the cost of this year’s program thus far is $
189,803.70.32
Burton + BURTON takes advantage of a tax provision provided by the state

of Georgia, in which they receive a 75 percent tax credit for their investments.
Their policy, while similar to the program outlined within this paper, was started
voluntarily and operates independently of direct government oversight. How-
ever, the tax credit utilized and publicized by the burton+Burton program is
the same provision in the Georgia tax code outlined in the previous sections.
The funding they provide allows the company to receive the tax credit outlined
within the Official Code of Georgia section 48-7-40.6 and to be on a tax advan-
taged basis under Code Section 129, Rule 560-7-8.38.33
Obstacles to Implementation
While a program of this nature has the potential to benefit the Athens commu-
nity, there are several obstacles to implementation. First, it is hard to estimate
business support for the program. Starting employer subsidies will have high
up front costs that will not be offset until companies receive tax credits from
both state and local returns. This initial cost may be too much of a burden for
companies to bear. Small businesses are especially subject to this barrier since
their contributions to child care subsidies may account for a higher percent-
age of their total revenue. While this may seem to be a powerful criticism, it
is important to note that structure of the policy is designed to be sensitive to
start up cost and low initial returns. Although reimbursements from state and
county agencies will not come before the start of such a program, they should
be received within close enough proximity of the time of implementation to
justify initial investments.
Another potential challenge is the amount of existing space in Athens child

care centers. The current child care statistics demonstrate a disparity in the
number of children in non-licensed care for and the number of available spac-
es in Athens child care and learning centers. Data collected from the Child
Care Research and Referral agency located in Athens states that there are ap-
proximately 575 vacancies throughout the county.34 While that number is only
75
one-fourth of the space actually needed, other agents within the OneAthens
Foundation are working to increase availability and space. Unfortunately, no
one policy change can effectively fix all of the structural problems present in
Athens-Clarke County. However, the policy presented here attempts to combat
the problem of inadequate funding while PPA works to increase space. Addi-
tionally, with the implementation of this policy and the likely increase in child
care demand, the child care market will hopefully become more competitive
and better suit the community at large.
The employer-based subsidy proposed within this paper may also appear to
be a completely government-funded program. This notion oversimplifies the
proposed policy. First, one must consider that the 25 percent funding provided
by ACC will be gradually removed over a five year period, shifting some of the
burden back to businesses. The state credits, unlike appropriated money, will
also reduce wasteful spending by being applied after the exact cost of provid-
ing the benefit is already known. Therefore, while the program proposed here
is somewhat reliant on the government, the manner in which funding is admin-
istered is more efficient and cost effective for the state. Moreover, in the current
volatile economic climate, one could argue that providing a tax credit rather
than large amounts of appropriated funding may be a more efficient and time
sensitive mechanism for providing child care support. Now, more than in the
recent past, access to economical child care and increased income flexibility
has the potential to positively impact the economy.
Another potential weakness of this policy lies in finding support for the tax in-
crease on beer and liquor. Garnering support for tax increases given the current
economic climate could prove difficult and this proposal will likely face some
opposition. However, the proposed increase is small considering the culture
of Athens nightlife, along with its co-existence with the University of Georgia
and robust college population. Athens-Clarke County, while holding the title of
smallest county in the state of Georgia, has nearly 2.6 licensed alcohol distribu-
tors per square mile indicating that alcohol consumption is prevalent within the
county.35 Additionally, if handled correctly, the minimal tax increase could be
presented to the community as an investment for the betterment of the entire
community. Similar to the implementation of the Georgia Lottery to fund the
HOPE scholarship program, the policy advocated here is working as a “sin” tax
drawing revenue from a less socially accepted activity to further community
development. Lastly, rather than all ACC residents facing a tax increase, only
individuals who choose to partake in alcohol consumption will be impacted.
Establishing a good oversight mechanism may also be difficult to develop. The
county may not be able to devote enough energy into monitoring such a pro-
gram, ultimately leaving the program to deteriorate. However, the creation of a
county government administration committee, along with the partnerships with
the OneAthens Foundation and the Athens Chamber of Commerce will engage
a large portion of the Athens community. Employees receiving the added ben-
efit will also likely serve as proponents, hopefully aiding in the longevity of the
program. Lastly, getting the issue of child care onto the policy agenda might
serve as a battle in its own right. Salience often serves as an obstacle for many
policy areas. Drawing attention to the problem might prove difficult if those
affected, along with the media, are not forcing the issue to the front of public
policy debates in Athens. This issue can easily be surmounted with the aid of
the OneAthens Foundation and local child care advocates.
Broader Implementation
Although the scope of this policy is local, other cities throughout the southern
region can look to implement similar programs. Most notably, the city of Savan-
nah is an ideal candidate. Also located in Georgia, Savannah can utilize the tax
credit for child care investments utilized by the Athens program. Demographi-
cally, Savannah roughly has the same population size as Athens and also has a
recognized poverty reduction movement known as “Step Up Savannah.”36 Pre-
existing partnerships between “Step Up Savannah,” a variety of local business-
es, schools, and the Chatham County Government constitute the infrastructure
needed, facilitating the creation of a similar subsidy program.37 Drawing upon
the model set forth here, Savannah easily could implement government sup-
ported, employer-based subsidies.
Additionally other regional centers such as Columbia, SC, and Charleston, SC,
are demographically similar to both Athens in terms of total population and
racial make-up.38 Poverty rates in each of these cities are also above the state
average as reported by the U.S. census bureau.39 South Carolina, similarly to
Georgia, provides a 50% tax credit with a 3,000 dollar cap per employee to
businesses on investments made directly to child care providers.40 While the
tax credit provided by South Carolina is not as robust as the credit provided by
Georgia, it still presents employers with an incentive to provided child care ben-
efits. With additional local funding, both Charleston and Columbia could find
ways to encourage family friendly business practices within their communities.
Conclusion
High costs of child care often serve as a structural barrier limiting parents’ work
options. Parents struggling to balance work and family typically put families first,
leaving employers shortchanged. Efforts to cut child care costs and increase
access to quality programs would reduce the challenges Athens-area working
parents, especially those in lower-income households, face when providing ad-
equate care for their children. Therefore, by implementing an employer-based
subsidy program, Athens-Clarke County can reduce the strain of heightened
child care costs. The program outlined here utilizes a 75 percent tax credit from
77
the state of Georgia for investments businesses make on child care benefits,
along with additional funding to businesses from the county. From this funding,
employees will receive up to 75 percent reimbursement from their employer
for child care costs paid directly to an accredited child care facility. Families
receive subsides calculated on the basis of total family income. Additionally, a
government logistical committee, housed within the office of management and
budget, will handle the oversight, development, and funding of the program.
Over a period of five years, ACC will remove supplementary funding as compa-
nies start to realize benefits such as reduced turnover and lower training costs.
Ultimately, a public-private partnership for providing child care would ensure
that children and parents had accessible child care while the employers con-
tributed to a more effective and family-sensitive workplace.
Works Cited
1. A profile of Athens-Clarke county facts about poverty and other socio-econom-
ic data In Athens-Clarke county. Partners for a Prosperous Athens (2006.). Re-
trieved November 15,2008, from http://www.prosperousathens.org/poverty/index.
html#prate
2. Sherry Turner. Department of Human Resources. burton+BURTON. (2008). (Ed.),
Personal Communication
3. A profile of Athens-Clarke county facts about poverty and other socio-econom-
ic data In Athens-Clarke county. Partners for a Prosperous Athens (2006.). Re-
trieved November 15,2008, from http://www.prosperousathens.org/poverty/index.
html#prate
4. Gish, M. (2008). Head start: Background and issues. Washington, DC: Congres-
sional Research Service.
5. President submits budget request with 200,000 fewer children receiving child care
assistance – other important programs cut or frozen. National Association for the
Education of Young Children. (2008). Retrieved October 13, 2008, from http://www.
naeyc.org/policy/federal/02_05_08.asp
6. Dependent care: A profile for Athens-Clarke County (2006). University of Georgia:
The Fanning Institute.
7. Gowen, Jean. Child care statistics in Athens-Clarke County(2008). Athens, GA:
Community Connections: Child Care Resources and Referral of Northeast Geor-
gia.
8. National Association for the Education of Young Children. Accreditation. (2009).
http://www.naeyc.org/accreditation. Bright from the Start. Accreditation support.
(2009). http://decal.ga.gov/ChildCareServices/OpportunitiesforAssistanceinSeek-
ingNationalAccreditation.aspx
9. Dependent care: A profile for Athens-Clarke County (2006). University of Georgia:
The Fanning Institute.
10. Subsidized Child care. Georgia Department of Human Resources: Division of Fam-
ily and Children Services (2008). Retrieved October 17, 2008, from http://dfcs.dhr.
georgia.gov/portal/site/DHR-DFCS/menuitem.5d32235bb09bde9a50c8798dd030
36a0/?vgnextoid=16fa2b48d9a4ff00VgnVCM100000bf01010aRCRD
11. Elizabeth Windecker-Nelson, Shelley M. MacDermid. (1998). Child care: It’s good
business. The Indiana tool-kit for employers and community planners. Indianapolis,
IN: Purdue’s Center for Family Publication.
12. Subsidized Child care. U.S. Department of Human Resources (2008). Retrieved Oc-
tober 17, 2008, from http://dfcs.dhr.georgia.gov/portal/site/DHR-DFCS/menuitem
.5d32235bb09bde9a50c8798dd03036a0/?vgnextoid=16fa2b48d9a4ff00VgnVCM1
00000bf01010aRCRD
13. Guide for implementing child care legislation: Subsidy models. Washington, DC:
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
14. Issues in labor statistics: Employer-sponsored childcare benefits(1998). Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
15. O.C.G.A. § 48-7-40.6, (2008).
16. Tax incentives for employers to provide child care. Vienna, VA: National Child Care
Information Center. O.C.G.A. § 48-7-40.6, (2008).
17. Employer options for child care: Effective strategies for recruitment and retention
(2001). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University
gia.
19. Gowen, Jean. Child care statistics in Athens-Clarke County (2008). Athens, GA:
gia.
22. Investing in child care: Challenges facing working parents and the private sector
response (1993). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Treasury.
25. Johnson, A. A. (1995). The business case for work-family programs. Journal of Ac-
countancy, 180(2), 53-58.
26. Windecker-Nelson, Shelley M. MacDermid. (1998). Child care: It’s good business.
The Indiana tool-kit for employers and community planners. Indianapolis, IN: Pur-
due’s Center for Family Publication.
27. Galinsky, Ellen. (2006). The economic benefits of high-quality early childhood pro-
grams: What makes the difference?. Washington, DC: The Committee for Economic
Development.
Development.
79
Development.
Personal Communication.
33. O.C.G.A. § 48-7-40.6, (2008).
Community Connections: Child Care Resources and Referral of Northeast Georgia.
35. Athens-Clarke County. Athens By the Numbers. (2008). http://athensclarkecounty.
com/documents/pdf/pio/by_the_numbers.pdf
36. United States Census data. Quick Facts for Savannah, GA. 2006. http://quickfacts.
census.gov/qfd/states/13/1369000.html
37. Step up Savannah (2009). http://stepupsavannah.org/about-step-savannah/col-
laborative-partners
38. United States Census Data. Quick Facts for Charleston, S.C. (2006). http://quick-
facts.census.gov/qfd/states/45/4513330.htm United States Census Data. Quick
Facts for Columbia, S.C. (2006). http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/47/4714000.
html
39. United States Census Data. Quick Facts for Charleston, S.C. (2006). http://quick-
facts.census.gov/qfd/states/45/4513330.htm
40. United States Census Data. Quick Facts for Columbia, S.C. (2006). http://quickfacts.
census.gov/qfd/states/47/4714000.html O.C.S.C. §12-6-3440. (2009). http://www.sc-
statehouse.gov/code/t12c006.htm.
Building a Faculative Bioreactor
Malin Dartnell and Shanell Davis
Executive Summary
• Currently, the Athens-Clarke County (ACC) landfill does not emit
enough landfill gas for the US Environmental Protection Agency to
require that it be captured, but within the next decade, emissions will
be too high to allow it to be released freely into the atmosphere.
• Upon approval of the Athens-Clarke County Landfill expansion, sev-
eral new cells will be constructed on the newly purchased 79-acres
immediately north of the existing 24-acre cell.
• We recommend that these new cells be utilized as a facultative bio-
reactor.
• A facultative bioreactor controls the production of organic ammo-
nia (NH3) due to anaerobic respiration. This process yields methane
(CH4), due to anaerobic respiration, and nitrogen gas (N2), due to
denitrification.
• Ideally, as the waste breaks down and is neutralized, it will create
room for more waste to be cycled through, essentially converting the
landfill from a waste disposal facility to a waste treatment facility.
• The decomposition process will produce methane-rich landfill gas,
which will be comprised of approximately 50% methane. This gas will
be captured and piped to the University of Georgia, where it can be
used in a gas powered boiler that can replace the coal-fired boiler
currently being used for the majority of the University’s heating and
energy needs.
As the global population booms, requiring more space and creating more
waste than ever before, it has become evident that the waste disposal methods
used in the past are becoming outdated and even impossible to implement in
regions of extremely high-density populations. Using a variety of methods from
incineration to recycling, people are beginning to turn to alternative methods
of waste disposal.
The Athens-Clarke County landfill is nearing full capacity. Within the next ten
years, it will be necessary to dispose of the county’s waste elsewhere. It has
become obvious that traditional dry-tomb landfilling, as ACC has done in the
past, is no longer a reasonable option. After researching a variety of alterna-
tive methods, it became clear that the most viable and environmentally friend-
ly option would be a facultative bioreactor, which would also provide a new
source of energy for the University of Georgia as the perfect alternative to the
81
outdated coal-fired boiler that the University of Georgia currently uses.
This paper begins with a brief introduction to methane, the primary gas that
is released when waste is broken down in facultative bioreactor. It goes on to
describe our proposal in detail, beginning with a description of the bioreactor
itself and continuing by detailing the process required to implement the pro-
posal. Finally, the paper discusses the impact that it would have, were the pro-
posal to be acted upon, discussing any stakeholders and weighing the benefits
against the challenges that will arise.
Methane and Its Incarnations

Methane (CH4), landfill gas (LFG), and natural gas are three distinct entities.
Methane gas (CH4) is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon that is the byproduct
of the decomposition of organic materials, but it is also, along with carbon diox-
ide, a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG) that is released into the atmosphere by
natural and anthropogenic means.1,2 Landfill gas is between 40 and 60 percent
methane. The other 60 to 40 percent is mostly carbon dioxide (CO2) along with
“non-methane organic compounds” (NMOC), such as nitrogen, oxygen, water
vapors, sulfur, and inorganic contaminants like mercury. The composition of LFG
will vary based on what is put into the landfill. Natural gas is 80-99% methane
with traces of other hydrocarbons like butane (CH3), propane (CH2), and ethane
(CH).3 The distinction between these three gases is important when discussing
a landfill gas to energy system because of their different components.
It has also been observed that methane gas is 20 times more detrimental to the
atmosphere than carbon dioxide because it has an increased capability to trap
heat in the atmosphere.4 According to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), landfills are one of the largest sources of anthropogenic methane emis-
sion in the US, accounting for a total of 34% of US methane emission into the
earth’s atmosphere, which in 2007 was recorded as 6,327 Gg.5 This figure is
especially staggering when compared to the next two anthropogenic sources,
natural gas system emissions and coal mining emissions, which in 2007 were
4,985 and 2,744 Gg respectively.6 The US EPA requires any landfill that releases
more than 50 Megagrams of landfill gas per year to capture the gas. As of yet,
the ACC landfill has not reached the 50 Mg limit, but as ACC continues to grow,
the community will create more waste, which will lead to greater emissions.
Within the next decade, ACC LFG emissions will be too high to allow it to be
released freely into the atmosphere.7,8
The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) defines a bioreactor

as “any permitted Subtitle D landfill or landfill cell where liquid or air is injected
in a controlled fashion into the waste mass in order to accelerate or enhance
biostabilization of the waste”.9,10 The use of a bioreactor to degrade organic
waste is a departure from the traditional idea of a landfill. Traditionally, once
a section of a landfill is full, it is capped to seal out as much moisture as pos-
sible. This process essentially creates a “dry tomb” for trash to slowly degrade
over the span of 30 to 50 years.11 In contrast, moisture is the key ingredient in
a bioreactor. By creating an environment of optimal moisture (35-65 percent
according to the EPA), naturally occurring microbes can rapidly decrease the
decomposition and stabilization period of organic waste from decades to years
and produces a higher volume of methane gas that can be captured.12,13 Four
types of bioreactor processes, aerobic, anaerobic, hybrid, and facultative, can
be used, each requiring slightly different conditions and yielding slightly differ-
ent results (reference Table 1).14
In a traditional landfill, LFG emissions peak, then decrease over time, making it
less economical than capturing emissions from a bioreactor.15 Anaerobic, hybrid,
and facultative bioreactors consistently produce CH4 at about twice the rate of
traditional landfills, allowing for CH4 recovery over the lifespan of the landfill so
long as the input remains constant.16,17 This CH4 can be sequestered and sold to
a local industry, the University of Georgia, or used on-site to eliminate energy
costs. Utility companies are required by the Public Utility Regulatory Policies
Act (PURPA) to buy power generated at a landfill if the power is sold at fair
market value.18 We propose selling the methane to the University of Georgia,
Bioreactors require moisture, therefore the leachate produced, augmented by
storm water, wastewaters, or wastewater treatment plant sludge, is needed for
respiration to occur.19 By using these types of liquids, MSW treatment plants will
significantly reduce, if not eliminate, leachate disposal and treatment fees.20,21
With Athens-Clarke County’s traditional “dry-tomb” landfill, there are a total

of three cells able to accept waste. The current cell accepting waste will be full
in two years, and the two other cells not yet constructed- have a combined
lifespan of four years. Because it will take at least a year to construct a cell, by
next year a decision must be reached that will determine whether to construct
the other two cells or to develop the 64-acre plot.22 This proposal recommends
that Athens-Clarke County Municipal Solid Waste Department install a faculta-
tive bioreactor on this 64-acre plot.
A Plan for the Future

Our policy recommends that Athens-Clarke County install a facultative biore-
actor on the landfill expansion site to increase the longevity and sustainability
of waste disposal in this county. Once the ACC Landfill expansion is approved,
several new cells will be constructed on the newly purchased 79-acres immedi-
ately north of the existing 24-acre cell. A Municipal Solid Waste Certified liner
will line the bioreactor.23 The rest of the bioreactor will be comprised of a series
of twenty-foot layers of waste covered by a perforated pipe inside of a layer
83
Table 1: Four Types of Bioreactor Systems
Process End Product

Aerobic Bioreactor • Vertical and/or horizontal • Generates CO2, not CH4.
wells remove leachate from • Could potentially eliminate
the bottom layer and inject the emission of CH4 into the
air into the landfill. atmosphere.
• Leachate is sent to a liquid • Cannot be used to generate
storage tank before it is recir- an alternative energy source.
culated back into the landfill
in a controlled manner.
• Naturally occurring microbes
carry out aerobic respiration.
• Process consumes 02 and
produces CO2 , to rapidly
decompose organic waste
products.
Anaerobic Bioreactor • Vertical and/or horizontal • Generates CH4 at twice the
wells remove and reciculate rate of a normal landfill.
leachate while capturing and • Leads to more reliable higher
collecting CH4 gas. peak volumes of CH4.
• Occurs in the absence of • Production of CH4 decreas-
O2. es as organic waste decom-
poses fully.
• With consistent input the
peak will flatten to a stable
level of CH4 production.
Faculative Bioreactor • Controls the production of • Yields CH4, due to anaero-
the organic ammonia (NH3) bic respiration, and N2, due
due to anaerobic respiration. to denitrification.
• Leachate is treated to con-
vert NH3 into nitrate (NO3)
and is recirculated back into
the landfill where faculative
bacteria and other microbes
use NO3, instead of O2, for
respiration and produce ni-
trogen gas (N2).
Source: WM-Waste Management, “Waste treatment Landfill Brochure,” Waste Management,

http://www.wm.com/wm/environmental/bioreactor.asp (accessed 12 December 2008).
of gravel, glass, or other filtering material. It will be installed layer by layer as
waste is added. Ideally, as the waste breaks down and is neutralized, it will
create room for more waste to be cycled through, essentially converting the
landfill from a “waste disposal facility to a waste treatment facility.”24
The decomposition process will produce methane-rich landfill gas, which will
be comprised of up to approximately 50% methane.25 This gas will be cap-
tured, treated on-site, and piped nearly eight miles to the University of Georgia,
where it will be used in a gas powered boiler that will replace the coal-fired
boiler currently being used for the majority of the University’s heating and en-
ergy needs.26
Bringing about Change

With the support and sponsorship of Commissioner Kelly Girtz, this proposal
will be brought before the Waste Reduction Committee. The Waste Reduction
Committee is a committee commissioned by the mayor in February of 2009 to
evaluate the best avenues to take concerning Athens-Clarke County’s waste
disposal. The committee is headed by Commissioner Kelly Girtz and Commis-
sioner Doug Lowry and consists of a representative from Athens-area schools,
industry, community, private haulers, and the University of Georgia.27 If accept-
ed by the Waste Reduction Committee as a feasible course of action , they
will make a formal recommendation to the full body Mayor and Commission.
At the same time, the University-County Relations Committee, the communica-
tion body between the University of Georgia and ACC, will also deliberate the
rationale of this proposal and make their formal recommendations to their re-
spective full bodies. Finally, should all parties agree, they would draft a formal
agreement.
The first question that will need to be answered is who will pay for the con-
struction of the bioreactor, pipeline, and new gas boiler. We recommend that
UGA provide the funds to replace the current coal-burning boiler with a gas-
powered boiler, that ACC, using various avenues, procure the funding for the
construction of the bioreactor, and that the cost of the pipeline be divided be-
tween UGA and ACC, although we do not recommend a specific percentage
breakdown.
Sources of funding open to ACC can be found on the local, state, and federal
levels as well as through private industry. According to Jim Corley, the Solid
Waste Director, ACC-SWD has already been receiving calls from private com-
panies willing to finance the development of the landfill gas from the new cell
in return for the carbon credits.28 Other options that would allow ACC to keep
the carbon credits include submitting this proposal as a Special Purpose Lo-
cal Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) project in 2010, and appropriating fund from
85
the Solid Waste Department.29 Appropriating funds from SWD would poten-
tially result in increased tipping fees in the short term. Financial aid could be
requested from the state’s general fund, but there is a strong likelihood that
there will not be funds available through the state, due to the current recession.
Potential federal sources of funding are available through the EPA and Presi-
dent Obama’s new economic stimulus package, under the Energy Efficiency
and Conservation Block Grant.30,31
The next step is to determine who will construct the pipeline and bioreactor.
The Mayor and Commission will place the job out to bid. We recommend using
a local construction firm, but according to “local and state code, there is not
an allowance for local construction firm preference”.32 Once the bid is returned
and accepted by the Mayor and Commission, the projected cost can be deter-
mined and construction can begin.
As previously mentioned, ACC’s current landfill will reach capacity in a few

short years, and because of this, $750,000 was spent to acquire 79 acres of
land that will be tied into the current 24 acre cell, and $250,000 was spent to
complete a site suitability report.33 Pending approval from the Mayor Commis-
sion and EPD, the location of the bioreactor has already been determined.
In order to transport the gas from the landfill to the UGA Physical Plant, ap-
proximately 8 miles of pipeline that complies with EPA regulations will have to
be constructed.34 UGA’s Office of Energy Services, ACC-SWD, and the con-
struction firm will have to determine where the pipeline will run, in an effort to
have the least impact on the environment and the citizens of the county.
Good Things Come to Those Who Act

The implementation of a bioreactor in Athens-Clarke County (ACC) will have
many direct effects, both quantitative and qualitative, on the residents of the
county and institutions within the county, such as the University of Georgia.
While much of the cost of the program will be covered by federal grants and
the revenues collected from energy sales, there may be some initial costs that
ACC Solid Waste Division will have to supplement. In addition, those that live
in the area immediately surrounding the landfill will be able to see the facility,
which could potentially lower property values in the area.
On the contrary, when the landfill gas is sold, ACC waste ratepayers will benefit
financially as sale of the gas will prevent tipping fees from rising. Alternatively,
the revenue could finance other waste-reduction efforts.35 The operational and
long-term landfill maintenance costs will be reduced, eventually decreasing the
cost of curbside pick-up. The life of the landfill will be extended, and the new
program will create jobs that will boost the local economy. By tapping the gas
that will otherwise be released into the atmosphere, the program will reduce
odor emissions from the landfill, and improve air quality in the surrounding
area. In addition, ACC residents will reap a myriad of less tangible benefits
from the program. The implementation of a comprehensive sustainable waste
management system, especially involving a technology as forward-thinking as
a bioreactor, will elicit countless press coverage across the region, furthering
the progressive reputation of the county and the University of Georgia. As the
county gains respect from outside sources, ACC citizens will, in turn, gain a
reinforced sense of pride. Moreover, the ACC community will benefit from the
knowledge that they are helping to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions.
The installation of a facultative bioreactor can accomplish two goals that will
result in a significant decrease in the cost of managing and maintaining a land-
fill. The first and most relevant concern for ACC that a facultative bioreactor
will solve is the question of future expansions. One of the main purposes of a
bioreactor is to extend the life of the landfill by increasing its vertical space
by 15-30% once the waste is degraded and stabilized.36 This process usually
takes between 5 and 10 years as opposed to the 30 to 50 years required for
a traditional dry tomb landfill.37,38 This will lead to an increase in revenue over
the long term and will reduce, if not eliminate, the need to horizontally expand.
Secondly, it will decrease air and groundwater pollution. By enhancing the nat-
ural process of decomposition, a facultative bioreactor will not only allow ACC
MSWD to harness CH4 emission, but it could also, potentially, decompose vola-
tile organic compounds (VOC), non-methane organic compounds (NMOC), and
inorganic compounds, such as dioxins and furans, found in MSW facilities.39,40
Groundwater pollution will decrease because the leachate will no longer be
stagnated in the bottom layers closest to the groundwater table. The leachate
will be treated on site and recirculated continuously throughout the landfill to
achieve optimal moisture.41
The University of Georgia will also see significant effects. The new program
will open up incredible research opportunities for students and faculty. The
University could work in conjunction with two universities currently conducting
research on bioreactors, the University of Florida and the University of Cen-
tral Florida, to help create standardized designs, operation procedures and
guidelines for bioreactors. The gas collected from the facility could eliminate
the University’s need for the coal-fired boiler that it currently uses for its heat
and energy needs.42 The simple act of replacing the coal-fired boiler will yield a
myriad of benefits for the University and the Athens community. In addition to
emitting over 500 tons of sulfur dioxide and ten tons of hydrogen chloride per
year, the boiler is a major contributor to the 110 pounds of particulate matter
that the University emits per year, according to the Athens Banner Herald and
the University Office of Energy Services.43 Replacing the coal-fired boiler with
87
a gas-powered boiler will eliminate these emissions. Additionally, disposing of
the ashes from the 16,000 tons of coal that the University burns each year has
presented a huge problem, as the two closest landfills to the University (the
Athens-Clarke County landfill and the Barrow County landfill)44 refuse to take
the waste. This causes incredible transportation costs which will also be elimi-
nated by the use of gas collected from the proposed bioreactor.
Most importantly, the program will result in approximately a 60-80% reduction

of methane emissions from the landfill. This figure, individually, does not seem
as though it would have an extreme effect on the atmosphere. It would, how-
ever, join the ranks of other bioreactors across the country, which does the work
of approximately 24 million acres of pine or fir forests or the removal of the an-
nual greenhouse gas emissions from more than 19 million passenger vehicles.45
The landfill gas as an energy source will, again, offset the use of nonrenewable
energy sources that will continue to benefit the global community.
Obstacles to Overcome
Potential challenges that may need to be confronted throughout this process
include, but are not limited to: the site purchased not being approved, a LFGE
facility being dismissed as unfeasible, the choice of a bioreactor and the type
recommended being called into question, and disputes over appropriate fund-
ing. We will address each of these in turn.
According to Jim Corley, if the land purchased for construction of new cells is
not approved, ACC Landfill will close in approximately 6 years and the county
will have to ship its waste to another landfill.46 This will lead to increased fees
across the board due to the cost of transporting and dumping the waste in
another county’s landfill. We do not recommend this course of action because
it will make ACC subject to the requirements of another county that does not
have to take our community’s needs into consideration. The development of the
79 acres purchased in July of 2008 must be approved to avoid this outcome.
Should the feasibility of a landfill gas to energy (LFGE) project be dismissed,

the necessity of one will not be ignored for long. EPD mandates that any landfill
emitting over 50 Mg/year of LFG be capped and flared or sold to an industry.47
The new site would eventually reach that point and prolonging the installation
of a LFGE facility would be economically and fiscally irresponsible. By initiating
this project before the landfill reaches the maximum mandated level of emis-
sions, ACC can apply for carbon credits that can be traded on the Chicago
Climate Exchange. Delaying constructions of a LFGE facility could potentially
deprive ACC of a source of revenue and/or the carbon credit incentives that
private industries are seeking in exchange for funding the construction of a
LFGE facility.
This proposal recommends a bioreactor, specifically a facultative bioreactor,
rather than the other methods of converting waste to energy or landfill gas to
energy. Our research determines that a bioreactor solves the problems both
of emissions and expansions at a more economically feasible cost than to the
other options, which are either extremely costly or solve only the problem of
emissions. A facultative bioreactor was recommended instead of an aerobic
type because we are seeking sustainable methods of waste management that
will bring in revenue to support the maintenance and management of the facil-
ity. An aerobic bioreactor will not produce a marketable product. Though an
aerobic bioreactor would be more environmentally friendly because the end
product is oxygen and soil, without a method to pay for the facility in the long
term, the feasibility of this project could be diminished (reference Table 1).48
The most obvious challenge to this project will be providing funding while keep-
ing the cost to the community down. As mentioned earlier, there are various av-
enues available for funding this project, but we, as a community, must come to
understand that there is a monetary cost for every ounce of waste we produce
and dispose. All attempts will be made to lessen the financial impact to the
citizens and industries of Athens-Clarke County, but an increase in certain fees
may follow whether or not this proposal is accepted. In the long run, however,
the future costs of doing the same old thing will greatly outweigh the short-
term costs of establishing a bioreactor.
Traditional “dry-tomb” landfills are no longer a feasible long-term option for

waste management and for most counties the cost of shipping their waste is
not economical. These problems are leading to the shift in how we perceive
waste management and the creation of innovative technology. Bioreactors are
one such technology that can effectively shift waste disposal to waste manage-
ment in Athens-Clarke County, GA, as well as, solve an energy problem for the
University of Georgia. Within the next five years, both ACC’s waste issues and
UGA’s energy problems will reach their pinnacle and a decision will have to be
against a backdrop of more stringent environmental regulations. By address-
ing these issues today, through an environmentally sustainable lens, they will
reap the benefits, both economically and socially, of voluntarily incorporating
innovative and sustainable technologies into the county.
89
Works Cited
1. United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Methane,” US EPA, http://www.
epa.gov/methane/ (accessed 11 December 2008)
2. EnergyJustice.Net, “Landfill Gas Fact Sheet”, Energy Justice Network, http://www.
energyjustice.net/lfg/factsheet-lfg.pdf (accessed 11 December 2008)
3. Ibid.
4. 1 Ibid.
5. 1 Ibid.
6. United States Environmental Protection Agency, “2009 Draft U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Inventory Report,” US EPA, http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinvento-
ryreport.html (accessed 13 March 2009)
7. United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Fact Sheet: Final Air Regula-
tions for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,” US EPA, http://epa.gov/ttn/atw/landfill/
mswfact.pdf (accessed 11 December 2008)
8. Corley, Jim. Interviewed by Malin Dartnell and Shanell Davis. Athens, Georgia, 17
February 2009.
9. Bioreactor.org, “Information,” Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Man-
agement, http://www.bioreactor.org/info.htm (accessed 13 November 2008)
10. Solid Waste Association of North America, “Certification: Bioreactor Landfill,”
SWANA, http://swana.org/Education/Educate/Certification/BioreactorLandfill/
tabid/96/Default.aspx (accessed 13 November 2008)
11. Bioreactor.org, “Florida Bioreactor Landfill Demonstration Project-Executive Sum-
mary,” Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, http://www.
bioreactor.org/publications.htm (accessed 13 November 2008)
12. 9 Ibid.
13. United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Wastes-Non-Hazardous Munici-
pal Solid Waste: Bioreactors,” US EPA, http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/
landfill/bioreactors.htm (accessed 13 December 2008)
14. WM-Waste Management, “Waste treatment Landfill Brochure,” Waste Manage-
ment, http://www.wm.com/wm/environmental/bioreactor.asp (accessed 12 Decem-
ber 2008)
15. 2 Ibid.
16. 9 Ibid.
17. 11 Ibid.
18. Green Power Market Development Group, World Resource Institute, http://www.
thegreenpowergroup.org/us.cfm (accessed 5 January 2009)
19. 11 Ibid.
20. 11 Ibid.
21. 14 Ibid.
22. 8 Ibid.
23. Bioreactor.org, “Bioreactor.org Home”, Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management, http://www.bioreactor.org/video/BioreactorHIGH_8-17-08a.
mov (accessed 12 December 2008)
24. 28 Ibid
25. 2 Ibid
26. UGA Office of Energy Services, “Go Green at UGA,” UGA Physical Plant Division,
http://www.uga.edu/energy/news/article_35.html, (accessed 1 February 2009)
27. Girtz, Kelly. Interviewed by Malin Dartnell and Shanell Davis. Athens, Georgia, 20
February 2009.
28. 8 Ibid.
29. ACC Online, “SPLOST - Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax,” Athens-Clarke
County Georgia, http://www.athensclarkecounty.com/splost/index.htm (accessed 1
February 2009)
30. West, Larry, “U.S. Economic Stimulus Package Includes Billions for Ener-
gy and the Environment,” About.com, http://environment.about.com/od/
environmentallawpolicy/a/econ_stimulus.htm (accessed 20 March 2009)
31. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Block Grant Program,” United States Department of Energy, http://www.eecbg.en-
ergy.gov/#le1 (accessed 30 March 2009)
32. Girtz, Kelly. Follow-up Interview by Malin Dartnell and Shanell Davis. Athens, Geor-
gia, 23 March 2009.
33. 8 Ibid.
34. 8 Ibid.
35. 33 Ibid.
36. 9 Ibid.
37. 11 Ibid.
38. Green Power Market Development, “Corporate Case Studies: Interface,” World
Resource Institute, http://www.thegreenpowergroup.org/wmv/landfillgas.wmv (ac-
cessed 19 November 2008)
39. Ewall, Mike, “Primer on Landfill Gas as ‘Green’ Energy,” Energy Justice Network
(2000), http://www.energyjustice.net/lfg/ (accessed 11 December 2008)
40. 39 Ibid.
41. 11 Ibid.
42. 31 Ibid
43. 31 Ibid
44. 8 Ibid
45. United States Environmental Protection Agency, “An Overview of Landfill Gas En-
ergy in the United States”, US EPA, http://www.epa.gov/landfill/docs/overview.pdf
(accessed 12 January 2009)
46. 8 Ibid.
47. 7 Ibid.
48. 14 Ibid.
91
Durham Enrichment Project
Jeff Gruber
The city of Durham, an integral corner of the renowned Research Triangle in

North Carolina, has experienced tremendous growth during the past fifty years.
The attraction of the Research Triangle, America’s largest science park, and the
nationwide housing boom of the 2000’s has led to unprecedented, and at times,
imprudent urban planning decisions. Hasty sprawl and development has led to
both a decay of older communities along with a polarization of income for the
city of Durham. In order for older areas of Durham to regain their stature, and
in order for the citizens of those neighborhoods to enjoy their district, steps
should be taken to invest in communities with significant local problems, such as
crime rate. What most of these communities have in common, and indeed older
communities throughout the United States, is the presence of vacant lots.
The Roosevelt Institute at UNC Chapel Hill, a student-run policy institution, re-
cently decided to apply the Think Impact message to a local level. The Think
Impact message combines the involvement of community service in conjunction
with the durability of policy implementation. This change in perspective allows
students to become actively involved in solving problems that they interact with
on a daily level. Our policy centers of Environmental and Energy Policy, along
with Civil Rights and Social Justice Policy, seek to redevelop vacant lots already
present in low-income communities into community gardens. These policy cen-
ters will implement a bottom-up process of utilizing citizen’s input for design and
using a local workforce to develop these gardens. After these lots are created,
the positive benefits of community gardens already documented in studies will
emerge, creating advantages for denizens of older neighborhoods and for the
populace in the city of Durham.
The Bane of Vacant Land on the Urban Landscape

Vacant lots are an intriguing aspect of urban development, with little about
the term “vacant land” being written or little about vacant land in cities be-
ing researched. Michael Pagano and Ann Bowman of the Brookings Institution
completed a survey in 2000 that sought to remedy this by surveying the acre-
age of vacant land in cities of 100,000 inhabitants or more, while also defining
a term for vacant land in order to find some relation concerning vacant lots in
city limits.
The results of Pagano’s and Bowman’s survey of vacant land in cities with
100,000 or more inhabitants, concluded that vacant land accounted for, on
average, 15.4 percent of land within American cities. Vacant land made up an
93
average of 19.3 percent of land for cities in the Southeast Region of the United
States, while only accounting for 15.1 percent of land within the city of Durham.
Pagano and Bowman sought to understand some reasoning behind the exis-
tence of vacant land within cities. Cities with high percentages of vacant land
were often in areas of recent booming growth. The South, with its average per-
centage of vacant land in city areas being 19.3 percent, and the West, having
an average of 14.8 percent of city development being vacant land, have had
the largest proportion of development in the nation since World War Two. Al-
ternatively, areas that have had stagnant development over several decades
display lower percentages of vacant land in cities, with the Midwest’s average
percentage of vacant land totaling 12.2 percent, and the Northeast’s average
percentage of vacant land equaling 9.6 percent. Pagano and Bowman both
show that areas with growing city lines tend to have higher amounts of vacant
property in the city limits, with the city of Durham being no exception.
Being close to the national average of vacant land percentage in city limits al-
lows Durham to establish a precedent for cities interested in adopting similar
policies towards developing unused land.
Community Gardens as a Solution

Vacant land stems from many sources and serves no positive benefit to the city
or community when left undeveloped. However, vacant land can act as a means
for community growth when developed into community gardens. In a study by
Donna Armstrong concerning community gardens in New York State 51 percent
of respondents reported that their community garden “improved attitudes of
residents about the neighborhood” (Armstrong 2000). Residents also reported
experiencing fresher and tastier food, positive mental health benefits, and co-
operation with other residents by having a community garden. The survey not-
ed that a community garden acts as a focal point to hold other local gatherings
for less wealthy neighborhood. As for managing the gardens, an astounding 87
percent of reporting garden sites organized and cooperated with fellow resi-
dents to hold activities and maintain their garden (Armstrong 2000). However,
what was most striking is the way in which a community garden helped improve
community relationships for neighbors. Local garden coordinators reported
programs led by citizens ranging from babysitting, exercising, forming a neigh-
borhood association, and forming a neighborhood watch. Most importantly,
gardens developed in poorer communities made residents “four times as likely”
to address area local problems such as “litter” or “lack of community cohesion”
(Armstrong 2000). This combination of healthier eating, greater community co-
hesion, and motivation by residents to address problems in the neighborhood
provides an astounding testimony for developing community gardens within
neglected quarters of Durham.
Current Problems in Durham
Durham ranks “7th–worst on income inequality [with] top earners mak[ing]
nearly seven times that of the lowest earners”, according to the Brookings Insti-
tution study of metropolitan areas (Muro et al. 2008). The problem of inequal-
ity stems from a long history of tremendous amounts of wealth from nearby
universities and science centers, however that wealth remains concentrated
in certain areas. Furthermore, According to Table 1, the rates for crimes within
Durham, excluding murder, exceed the national average in crimes, particularly
robberies, burglaries and larceny (Durham Crime Statistics and Crime Data
2006).
Table 1. Durham Crime Statistics

2006 Total Durham’s Avg. per National Avg. per
100,000 people 100,000 people
Violent Crime 1,957 936.6 553.5
Murder 13 6.2 7
Rape 98 46.9 33.1
Robbery 977 467.6 205.8
Aggravated Assault 896 415.9 336.5
Property Crime 11,866 5,679.1 3,906.1
Burglary 3,098 1,482.7 813.2
Larceny 7,617 3,645.5 2,601.7
Vehicle Theft 1,151 550.9 501.5
Arson 48 23 NA
The crime and inequality created in Durham contributes to a lower standard

of living within the community, which hinders community development for low-
income neighborhoods. A decreasing standard of living for the city yields lower
housing prices and a lower perspective of one’s own community (Brand and
Price 2000). This lower-valued community then attracts greater amounts of
crime further decreasing the overall value and standard of living of an area.
When aggregated, these vacant lots can bring down the overall appeal of the
city, obstructing future investments due to the city’s high crime rate and per-
ceived instability. Moreover, the city loses an opportunity to utilize these vacant
lands as a gain for community development. When lots remain undeveloped,
the city itself is underdeveloped, thus preventing it from reaching its potential
as a respected and developed locale within the nation. It therefore behooves
city officials to make the lots a beneficial asset for citizens and the city rather
than a burden on these communities.
95
Durham is failing to use its empty lots in the city as an effective asset for com-
munal usage. Durham needs to develop an effective solution for low-income
and at-risk communities to be sustainable for the future and livable for their
residents. The solution of developing vacant land into community gardens cre-
ates a more positive perspective of overlooked neighborhoods and allows for
a neighborhood congregating point for neighborhood activities and regionally
harvested food
Analysis of the Community Garden Solution

The community gardens act as an ideal solution for creating sustainable and
livable communities for at-risk and low-income areas. This will bring communally
cultivated pride and nourishment for areas that have high levels of crime or are
lacking community unity. Community Gardens in the city of Durham can help
meet the untapped communal spirit that exists in these at-risk neighborhoods.
Developing unoccupied lots in the area is crucial since a correlation between

vacant lots and crime exists. A study by the University of Washington in Tacoma
found a strong positive relationship between violent crime and the amount of
vacant land within the city area of Tacoma, a city roughly the same size as Dur-
ham (Bradshaw and Nelson 2007). While it cannot be immediately concluded
that the city of Durham has this same correlation, the Tacoma study can be
used as an example to show how a city suffers when lots are left undeveloped.
Additionally, it cannot be concluded that developing vacant land will be the
only necessary step to mitigate crime rates in a certain area. Crime stems from
various sources. This policy seeks to develop these lots in order to help instill a
greater sense of pride in declining neighborhoods, which will in turn lower crime
rates. The studies previously mentioned show that there is a negative effect
by leaving land undeveloped and when that land is developed, citizens report
significant benefits. It is therefore imperative for the city of Durham to develop
unused lots into actively used community gardens in order to enhance citizens
experience to Durham.
Alternatively, if a top-down approach were taken, a stronger police force would

be needed in order to control crime in certain areas, which will end up cost-
ing citizens more annually. Moreover, additional police units could not offer the
benefits that an individual experiences while communally gardening, as noted
in Armstrong’s research on community gardening. The resulting savings from
developing lots, rather than using more police, could be passed on to the com-
munity as a greater investment in government-funded fields, further benefitting
the community as well as the city.
Community gardens would establish a communal space for local Durhamites

to enjoy. These gardens would be developed to fit citizens’ needs by creating
a partnership with local leaders and officials to familiarize designers with the
needs of at-risk communities. Interacting with the neighborhoods and actively
integrating them in the implementation process is pivotal to the success of this
project, since the citizens will use these lots on a regular basis. Moreover, it is
imperative that designers and developers understand the demographics of the
community, along with their wants and needs for this project. If needed, addi-
tional resources available through city-held information could be utilized, such
as a crime-tracker, zoning references, and demographic statistics.
A community in the city will be selected to act as a proof of concept to ensure

that this particular approach will benefit individuals and the area as originally
predicted. After this selection, the Roosevelt Institute at UNC Chapel Hill or
similar organizations wanting to implement this design, will act as a design-
consulting firm with the community leaders to help develop the best plan to
fit unmet demands of a neighborhood. To ensure that the goals of equality,
sustainability and design are met, liaisons will be hired for social justice, en-
vironmental, and urban planning to keep Durhamites’ best interests in mind.
Additionally, a majority of residents or representatives for the residents must
approve the design. For efficiency’s sake, it will be best to have a president to
oversee the progress of the project. His or her responsibility would include be-
ing the face of the project and intermediating with residents, community lead-
ers, and local officials.
It will be advantageous for the community to establish the community garden

together, in order for the residents to have a pivotal part in the project. Howev-
er, if the labor force of the community is insufficient, then labor forces through
the Roosevelt Institute at UNC Chapel Hill or similar institution will provide ade-
quate labor, as part of its service to the community. Yet citizens of the neighbor-
hood must do maintenance of the garden. As mentioned in Armstrong’s study,
this usually unfolds on its own. However, to make sure that the garden does not
fall into decay, community leaders will act as a consistent overseer for these
lots, ensuring the lot’s future success. The Roosevelt Institute Campus Network
wants to empower these communities with their previously undeveloped assets,
which is why the integration of citizens in a planning and implementation stage
is crucial, as was seen in the Armstrong study, resident’s perspective of their
neighborhood, and willingness to tackle other local problems, arises when the
residents take an active role in their garden (Armstrong 2000).
Security is another important issue, since this program will be implemented in

at-risk or crime-laden areas. The solution for further prevention of drug deal-
ing of defacing public property exists in community policing. With an increased
presence outdoors, citizens will be vital for crime deterrence and reporting in-
formation relevant to crimes committed. Therefore, in conjunction with a com-
97
munity lot, empowered residents will develop community programs to ensure
safety. Armstrong has even suggested in her study that when gardens bring
people out and involved in local projects, citizens start looking out for their fel-
low residents, creating an impromptu neighborhood watch program.
After the initial vacant lots are organized and developed, statistics will be re-
corded on the community as well as the overall effectiveness of the vacant lots
effect on the area. These statistics will be used as for reference to understand
how effective these vacant lots have been, and can be used as a reference
guide for similar projects in other cities.
Conclusion
Community gardens, as evident by other studies, can offer the following ben-
efits for the denizens of Durham:
• Strengthen Community through cohesion and programs.

• Offer a place for children and adults to go outside.
• Allow children and adults to learn about local flora and sustain-
ability.
• Allow the community to own an asset together.
Most importantly, the long-term goals of this project can be projected in three
ways:
1. Increase social justice in Durham by empowering at-risk communi-

ties.
2. Helping at-risk communities sustain themselves for future develop-
ment.
3. Make prudent planning the standard for future enrichment within
the city.
A community garden can act as a catalyst for neighborhoods that have fallen
victim to urban decay for further development. The community garden acts
as a focal point for citizens to gather and to engage. This social structure can
build the foundation for areas lacking such structure. Once these communi-
ties become strengthened, they will become less prone to violent crime and
gun-related crime (Patterson 1991). Moreover, this area offers an alternative
experience for residents. These gardens will allow people to enjoy a fresher
tasting and healthier diet, a method of low-impact exercise, and an enjoyment
of nature and open space that is often not found in urban areas or at-risk com-
munities.
Most importantly, this policy seeks to empower residents by being actively in-
volved in developing their community. Allowing the citizens to be actively in-
volved in the implementation of this project will help sustain the pride in neigh-
borhoods. Offering a third-place for Durhamites to go that is neither work nor
home is important for an impoverished and crime-surrounded community. An
overall positive perspective of their neighborhood, plus the multitude of ben-
efits that arise from having a community garden will be developed for residents
of this community. Most importantly, these communal gardens will give citizens
newfound pride and wealth within their communities, from previously undevel-
oped assets already in possession.
Works Cited
1. Armstrong, Donna. “A Survey of Community Gardens in Upstate New York: Impli-
cations for Health Promotion and Community Development.” Health and Place
6.1 (Dec 2000): p319-327. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_
imagekey=B6VH5-41C2TK0-6-1&_cdi=6057&_user=130907&_orig=search&_
coverDate=12%2F01%2F2000&_sk=999939995&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkWz&md
5=91b907a7484e08130669c7c96f15d64a&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
2. Bradshaw, Ray, John Nelson. “Spatial Analysis of Neighborhood Characteristics and
Crime Reporting in Tacoma, Washington.” GIS Certificate Program, University of
Washington, Tacoma. http://depts.washington.edu/uwtgis/gallery/tgis_312/20071/
bradshaw_nelson_tgis312_2007.pdf.
3. Brand, Sam, and Richard Price, eds. The Economic and Social Costs of Crime.
Home Office Research Study 217, 2000. http://publicpolicy.umd.edu/faculty/reuter/
CCJS%20720/Brand%20and%20Price.pdf.
4. Durham Crime Statistics and Crime Data (Durham, NC). “Durham North Carolina
Crime Statistics and Data Resources.” http://durham.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm
5. Kelly, Morgan. “Inequality and Crime. (United States Study Results) (Statistical
Data Included).” Review of Economics and Statistics 82.4 (Nov 2000): p 530. http://
find.galegroup.com/itx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&qrySerId=&inPS=
true&tabID=T002&prodId=ITOF&searchId=R1&retrieveFormat=PDF&currentPositi
on=1&userGroupName=unc_main&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&sort=DateDescend
&docId=A68273649&noOfPages=10
6. Muro, Mark, Bruce Katz, Sarah Rahman, David Warre. “MetroPolicy: Shaping a
New Federal Partnership for a Metropolitan Nation.” Washington DC: Brookings
Institution Center, 2008.
7. Pagano, Michael A., Ann O’M. Bowman. “Vacant Land in Cities: An Urban Re-
source.” Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Center, 2000.
8. Patterson, E. Britt. “Poverty, Income Inequality, and Community Crime Rates.” Crim-
inology 29.1 (Feb 1991): p 755-756. http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.
journals/crim29&collection=journals&page=755
99
Building Effective College Access
Nikki Rumley, Menna Mburi, Grayson Cooper,
Amanda Conklin, Mario Fitzgerald, Anna Peterson, and Joy Lampkin
Executive Summary
• Not everyone has equal access to higher education: minorities, low income
students, and 1st generation college-goers are at a disadvantage.
• College access programs have been implemented to address disparity in
college access.
• College access programs have varying program methods, strategies, and
definitions of effectiveness.
• Outcomes of the programs are rarely researched and evaluated, and of-
ten recorded results are subjective and are not based in sound research.
• Two different models of college access programs, CalSOAP and Admis-
sion Possible, are discussed.
• Carolina College Advising Corps, a third model created by the University
of North Carolina, is discussed. Anecdotal results of the program are
provided through interviews of advisers.
• Lack of systemization and research for college advising programs is dis-
cussed.
• College advising programs have the potential to be more effective and
efficient if they are more thoroughly researched and evaluated for effec-
tiveness.
Background
A college education is essential for attaining a high standard of living in the
United States. A study by Day and Newburger (2002) demonstrated that col-
lege graduates earn up to $27,000 more than high school graduates. In recent
years, higher education has increased in importance. Changes in technology
have caused a greater need for skilled workers, and the decline of labor unions
and in real minimum wage have contributed to a decrease in unskilled workers’
salaries. Textile workers and craftsmen in the South are among those who have
borne the brunt of these changes. According to a news release by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (2007), the majority of the thirty fastest growing occupations
require post-secondary education.
In addition to individual benefits, society as a whole benefits from having an

educated workforce. A 2005 CollegeBoard report by Baum and Payea indi-
cates that individuals with a bachelor’s degree or higher volunteer, vote, and
report good health more often than those with lower educational achievement.
Conversely, bachelor’s degree earners smoke less and have lower incarcera-
101
tion rates, thus they do not put as much of a strain on government resources.
While evidence has not proven a causal link between a bachelor’s degree and
the categories listed, the trend suggests a positive effect of a college education
on social welfare.
Unfortunately, different demographics of students have uneven access to high-

er education. In 2000, among U.S. residents over the age of 25, 28% of White
non-Hispanics had received a Bachelor’s degree, compared to 12% of Blacks,
and 11% of Hispanics (Day and Newburger 2002). Socioeconomic status also
plays a role: fewer low-income students enroll in college than do students from
families with higher incomes. Beginning with James Coleman’s report on equal-
ity of educational opportunity (1966), researchers have debated what enables
some children to achieve over others. They agree, however, that the achieve-
ment gap continues to grow.
One approach to addressing this issue is college access programs. These pro-
grams focus on three main factors to prepare students to apply and enroll in
college: academic preparation, familiarity with higher education, and financial
assistance (St. John 1991). College access programs address these through out-
reach initiatives such as college visits, summer seminars teaching academic
skills, SAT and ACT training, and assisting parents with financial aid forms.
Overall, these programs strive to enroll greater numbers of underrepresented
populations in college.
Because of the various methods college access programs employ to address

the discrepancy in college enrollment, one can measure effectiveness in a few
ways: the number of students enrolled in the particular program, the number
who become college ready, the number who go to college, the number who go
to college who would not have gone without the program, the types of colleges
program participants attend, and the number who actually graduate from col-
lege.
This paper attempts to highlight different strategies and methods college ac-
cess programs use for increasing the enrollment of racial minorities, first-gen-
eration students, and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds in college.
The variety of strategies employed by college access programs makes defin-
ing their effectiveness difficult. Because of this, few programs have accurate
and reliable data on both the effectiveness of different aspects of their model
as well as on the program as a whole. Through a discussion of two different
models of college advising programs as well as a qualitative study of a third
model, Carolina College Advising Corps, the need for a systematic analysis of
the effectiveness of college access programs becomes evident. Before more
resources are appropriated for college access programs, an efficient allocation
of resources must be identified. Therefore, future attempts to research college
access programs must conform to a measurable framework before asserting
levels of effectiveness.
Review of College Access Programs

Many college access programs try to prepare students for college in the early
stages of their education. This long-term model focuses primarily on students
who come from low-income backgrounds, are a part of an under-represented
minority group, or are the first in their family to attend college. Beginning as
early as fifth grade, these programs work with students with the ultimate goal
of acceptance and enrollment in college. Long-term programs, which often
span at least five years, provide a broader range of services than programs
that work exclusively with high school juniors and seniors. In addition to assist-
ing students with college applications and connecting students to financial aid,
these long-range programs provide services that help students prepare aca-
demically and personally for college. Common components of these long-term
programs include tutorials, study skill development, workshops on goal setting
and decision-making, standardized test preparation, and mentoring. By build-
ing academic skills, these programs try to prepare students not only for the
college application process, but also for higher education itself.
An example of a program that operates on this model is Cal-SOAP, or Cali-

fornia Student Opportunity and Access Program. This state-administered pro-
gram provides year-round services for junior high and high school students.
Cal-SOAP includes all of the typical components of a standard long-term col-
lege access program: workshops to provide students with information on finan-
cial aid and local scholarships, regular sessions that help students build study
skills, and SAT preparation classes. Additionally, Cal-SOAP has a full time staff
of professionals and college students who serve as tutors and mentors for par-
ticipants throughout their academic development.
The short-term model of College Access programs focuses on the barriers fac-
ing students throughout the college application process. Students typically en-
ter these programs as juniors in high school and learn skills that are directly ap-
plicable to the college application and admission process. Short-term programs
often involve preparation or assistance in registering for college entrance ex-
ams and always include assistance in completing applications for colleges and
financial aid or scholarships. These programs might arrange college visits or
develop essay writing and interview skills, but unlike programs that reach out
to students earlier, short-term programs only teach skills that prepare students
specifically for the college application process.
Admission Possible, a college access program based in Minnesota, is one of

103
these short-term programs. At the end of their sophomore year, low-income
high school students at participating schools may apply for admission into the
program. If accepted, they attend workshops after school throughout their
junior and senior years. They receive intensive preparation for the ACT and
learn skills for writing application essays. College visits are organized for the
students, and they receive guidance in selecting and applying to schools. The
program helps students apply for financial aid and scholarships and offers sup-
port as they transition into college. The program does not address students’
academic preparation, but instead focuses on the skills students need to apply
and enroll in college.
A Different Method: Carolina College Advising Corps

Many programs that fit these models are run by private organizations and
serve a limited number of students. To ensure that all students have access to
educational opportunities, a program needs to be established that addresses
the needs of more students, particularly those attending underserved schools
in rural areas or with high levels of minority students. The Carolina College
Advising Corps, another form of college access program, seeks to address this
issue by providing additional resources to supplement the current guidance
counselor staff in selected low performing high schools.
The Carolina College Advising Corps began in 2007 when the National Col-
lege Advising Corps established a chapter affiliated with University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. The program started in eight North Carolina schools
and expanded to nineteen schools the following year. Recent UNC graduates
are selected to be an adviser at low performing schools and to serve for one or
two years. Advisers serve districts of varying demographics and sizes ranging
from rural Halifax County to North Carolina’s most populated county, Meck-
lenburg. The advisers are available for consultation to all students in the high
school, but most of their time is devoted to assisting juniors and seniors in ap-
plying to and enrolling in college and gaining the financial aid to afford college.
First generation, low income, and minority students are the primary focus of the
advising corps.
Before serving the school, advisers participate in six weeks of training in aca-
demics, college selection, and financial aid programs of different colleges. The
information they receive is in large part specific to North Carolina schools;
however, it does include knowledge on outside scholarships, grants, and fed-
eral loans. Advisers also attend tours of the campuses of many North Carolina
universities, both private and public. Once placed in a school, each adviser
works with the school’s current guidance counselor to assist students in college
planning and applying for financial aid. Students see an adviser to gather in-
formation on specific colleges, determine if potential colleges are appropriate
considering a student’s academic achievement, SAT and/or ACT scores, and
personality. Advisers inform students of financial aid resources including schol-
arships offered by these colleges and opportunities for outside scholarships.
Data has not yet been collected on the effectiveness of the Carolina College
Advising Corps. In order to present an initial glimpse into the structure and ef-
fectiveness of the program, interviews of four of the fourteen CCAC counselors
were conducted. The interviews have several limitations, most notably the lack
of reliable numerical data to measure experiences of advised students; the re-
sponses are largely anecdotal. In addition, a low response level may also have
affected the results of the survey. Future studies should address these limita-
tions, as well as the lack of empirical research on college access programs in
general.
CCAC Survey Analysis

A survey of four CCAC counselors revealed that the counselors perceived that
most students needed assistance in completing college applications, particu-
larly in essay composition, applying for financial aid, and scholarship search-
es. These are the three primary areas of advising. Beyond this, they provided
limited advising services for SAT and ACT registration, course selection, and
extra-curricular activities.
These advisers believed that they helped a large number of students enroll in
college who would not have otherwise attended. The financial aid and scholar-
ship advising that the advisers provided was essential to increasing college
enrollment, and they identified this area of advising as their greatest success.
Advisers also helped students to overcome their fears about applying to col-
lege by building confidence and making the paperwork load more manageable.
They provided more information to students about the college process through
many strategies: one-on-one advising sessions, group advising, hosting alumni
visits, college fairs, and guest speakers at their high schools.
Advisers cited their accessibility to students as a primary tenant to their suc-

cess. They noted that students were more likely to seek help from CCAC advis-
ers because the advisers had just graduated from college. Unlike the schools’
guidance counselors, CCAC advisers were given the opportunity to focus solely
on college application. From the perspective of the advisers, they were making
a difference in the schools they served. One adviser estimated that 70-75% of
students she advised secured admittance to college, and she believed that 20
of the students she advised out of both schools she worked in would not have
enrolled without her assistance. Another adviser stated that she believed that
roughly a third of the students admitted to college would not have been able to
105
attend due to financial restraints, but she was able to help secure the resources
they needed. Overall, they are confident that as CCAC grows and begins to
compile data, the numbers will show a rise in college attendees in the high
schools served by the program.
Conclusion
In order to reduce the discrepancy in college access for low income, minority,
and first generation students, the government and many independent orga-
nizations have created a variety of college access programs. Though each of
these programs is distinct, most of them are based on one of a few standard
models. The National College Access Program Directory lists more than 100 or-
ganizations just within North Carolina that have the stated mission of increas-
ing college admission rates and/or preparing students for college. This increas-
ing number of college access programs implies that there is a great need for
these types of organizations. However, despite the widely held belief that more
resources within a school will foster greater student development, these col-
lege access programs have not proven to be effective, in large part because of
the lack of a system to measure success. As previously mentioned, the absence
of a tracking and measuring system prevents researchers from gauging the
programs’ success or failure. This paper demonstrates the need for a further
study of college access programs by highlighting their lack of systemization
and necessary research.
We propose a traditional social science study on the effectiveness of college

access programs. Measuring against a control group, researchers should seek
to discern what models of college access program and which strategies that
program employs foster the best long-term results. Determining what aspects
of these programs are the most effective could be a key to shrinking the achieve-
ment gap and strengthening the American work force. The establishment of
a systematic means of tracking the success of all of these programs may be
helpful for governments, schools, and individuals who are thinking of starting
similar programs. Reliable data that may include such information as program
retention rates, college admission rates, and college graduation rates will help
to prove which types of programs are most effective. Moreover, such a collec-
tion of data will help guide these organizations’ decisions as they continue to
provide services and expand.
For a complete view of data collected across sevent college access programs,
please refer to the Appendix.
Bibliography
Baum, S. and Payea, K. (2005). Education pays 2004: The benefits of higher educa-
tion for individuals and society. College Entrance Examination Board. Retrieved from
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/press/cost04/EducationPays2004.pdf.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007). Table 1. The fastest growing occupations covered
in the 2008-2009 occupational outlook handbook. Retrieved from http://library.nmu.
edu/guides/userguides/style_apa.htm#E6.
Day, J.C. and Newburger, E.C. (2002). The big payoff: Educational attainment and
synthetic estimates of work-life earnings (P23-210). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bu-
reau.
St. John, E.P. (1991). What really influences minority attendance? Sequential analyses
of the High School and Beyond sophomore cohort. Research in Higher Education. 32(2):
141-158.
Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld,
F.D., and York, R.L. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. (Report No. OE-38001).
Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED012275). Retrieved from ERIC database.
National College Access Network. (2008). Retrieved March 31, 2009 from Pathways
to College Network and National College Access Network Website: http://www.col-
legeaccess.org.
Works Cited
1. http://www.admissionpossible.org
2. http://www.striveforcollege.org
3. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/ps/avidgen.asp
4. Personal communication with Joyce Smith
5. Personal communication with Leah Yang
6. Bergin, D.A., Cooks, H.C., Bergin, C.C. (2007). Effects of a college access program
for youth underrepresented in higher education. Research in Higher Education.
Vol. 8(6). doi: 10.1007/s11162-006-9049-9
7. http://www.teri.org/
107
Appendix: Data Collected across Seven College Access Programs
Table 1: Services Offered

Admission Strive for AVID3 Missis- Santa EXCEL6 TERI7
Possible1 College2 sippi DOE Barbara
(Education- CalSOAP5
al Talent
Search)4
Test Prep x x x just begun x
College x x x x x x x
Admissions
Advising
Finan- x x advising x advising x x
cial Aid
Advising &
Assitance
Course x x x
Selection
Mentoring/ x x x x x x x
Tutoring
College x x x x x
Visits
Internships
Table 2: Target Population

al Talent
Search)4
Age group apply as start in 6th depends, year-round summer start in 6th
sophomore grade enroll in services for after 8th grade
middle middle and grade
school high school
Year in high juniors, juniors grades 9-12 grades 9-12 grades 9-12 grades 9-12
school seniors in spring
semester,
seniors
low income low income low income, low income, low income, underrepre- under-
and/or minority, 1st minority, 1st 1st genera- sented high- served, 1st
minority/ generation generation tion achieving genera-
underrepre- students tion, New
sented England
Table 3: Program Operators
al Talent
Search)4
Community non-profit non-profit
Gov’t Ame- receives funded funded by
riCorps state fund- by DOE, DOE
volunteers ing program is
state-admin-
istered
College/ x universities sponsored
University sponsor by local
events for university
participants
High offices in x courses in based in
School high schools m.s. and h.s. high schools
Table 4: Program Challenges

al Talent
Search)4
Selectivity GPA 2.0+, Eligible Counselor
2 teacher students recommen-
recom- are m.s. and dation, 3.0
mendations, h.s. students GPA, test
application from low- scores at
income, 8th grade
minority, 1st level or bet-
generation ter, essay
bkg
Staff volunteer volunteer site college
coordinator/ students &
teacher others
+ college
student
tutors
Cost $3,000 $3.51
per student, million
free to
student
# served 1,300 4,369 43 in EX- Nearly
(2008- schools CEL, 40 in 11,000 in
2009 served control group outreach in
year) (study) 2005
109
Overall Outcomes
Admission Possible
• 99% admitted
• 95% of those admitted enroll
Strive for College

• N/A
AVID
• AVID graduates have higher college-going rates for all students.
• 84% of graduates complete the sequence of courses necessary for
4-year college admissions.
• Graduates enrolled in California higher ed at a higher rate than
San Diego counterparts.
• 55% of African Americans who participated in AVID for 3 years
enrolled in four-year colleges, beating the national average of 33%
enrollment for the general African American population.
• 43% of Latino students in AVID enrolled at four-year colleges, ex-
ceeding the national average of 29%.
Mississippi DOE (Educational Talent Search)

• College admission rate: 80%
Santa Barbara CalSOAP

• N/A
EXCEL
• No effect on overall college-going rate.
• Participants did attend the sponsoring university at a slightly higher
rate.
• Participants desired higher education more than control group
participants.
TERI
• Since 1985, TERI has guaranteed loans for over 1 million students
attending 6,000 colleges and universities worldwide.
111
Simplifying Eligibility for Kids
Tracy Yang
Executive Summary
• PeachCare for Kids (PCK) provides free or low-cost health coverage
for Georgia children in low-income families and is part of the feder-
ally sponsored Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
• PCK is supported by federal and state funds and administered by
the Georgia Department of Community Health (DCH). Federal
funds account for 73 percent of funding for PCK.1
• A lack of funds for CHIP at the federal level resulted in under-pro-
vision of funds to PCK. In response, the Georgia DCH has frozen
enrollment. The DCH later lifted the freeze but increased documen-
tation requirements for proof of income, citizenship, and identity.
Reasons for this change are unclear because DCH officials stated
that increased regulatory measures were not instituted in response
to abuses of the program by ineligible individuals.2
• Case studies of procedural barriers in the CHIP programs of other
states suggest that increased administrative hurdles regarding eligi-
bility for PCK will result in lower rates of coverage for eligible chil-
dren in Georgia, greater administrative costs, and decreased health
outcomes for Georgia children overall. As expected, there has been
a 22 percent decrease (60,736 children) in enrollment from 2007 to
2008.3
• The Georgia DCH should reinstate the simplified verification meth-
ods used to determine proof of income. Such methods would include
self-attestation, citizenship confirmation (through social security
numbers), administrative verification of income, and presumptive eli-
gibility (where qualified institutions identify children likely eligible for
temporary coverage to determine citizenship and identity).4
• Increasing enrollment of uninsured children already eligible for PCK
will help Georgia provide health insurance for low-income children
and improve health outcomes.
Background
Health insurance increases children’s access to primary care and helps them
lead healthier lives. A study by Selden and Hudson of the Agency for Health-
care Research and Quality (part of the United States Department of Health
and Human Services) found that children without health insurance coverage
have lower rates of access to preventive care, which may increase the need for
future medical attention and treatment costs.5 Because these uninsured chil-
113
dren do not receive preventive care, more costly treatment options are often
required for later, more complicated health problems. Recognizing the need
to increase children’s access to care, the U.S. Congress enacted Title XXI of
the Social Security Act in 1997 to create the Children’s Health Insurance Pro-
gram (CHIP). This program provides health coverage for uninsured children
up to age 19 in low-income families whose incomes are too high to qualify for
Medicaid.6 In Georgia, the income threshold for eligible families is 235 percent
of the federal poverty level, or about $49,800 for a family of four.7 CHIP has
experienced much popular support, as 90 percent of Americans support ade-
quate health care coverage for low-income children.8 In Georgia, PCK provides
health care for uninsured children in Georgia families with household income
below 235 percent of the federal poverty level.9 As outlined by the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997, H.R. 2015, while CHIP is jointly financed by federal and state
governments, the states handle all administration under general federal guide-
lines. These guidelines require states to submit plans for outreach activities
and eligibility requirements to the federal government. Because requirements
are determined on a state-by-state basis, eligibility requirements vary across
the nation.
Resulting from the CHIP program, Georgia created PeachCare for Kids (PCK)
under Section 49-5-273 of the Official Code of Georgia in 1999 with CHIP funds.
The Division of Medical Assistance within the Georgia DCH administers Peach-
Care for Kids and Medicaid and develops the policies that set eligibility and
other requirements. The nine-person Board of Community Health, another
part of the DCH, also influences policies concerning PCK,10 which recently be-
gan to suffer due to federal funding cutbacks. This has left the state of Georgia
$131 million dollars short of essential funding for PCK by February 2007.11 The
Georgia DCH instituted an enrollment freeze for PCK on March 11, 2007 in re-
sponse to the shortfall.12
After Congress passed legislation appropriating funds for states experiencing

CHIP shortfalls in May 2007, the DCH lifted the enrollment freeze in July 2007.13,14
However, at this time the DCH also increased eligibility requirements for enroll-
ment in PCK. Specifically, the DCH began to require original documentation
for proof of income and citizenship, eliminating the use of self-attestation and
administrative verification.15 The intent of these measures was to screen out
ineligible applicants more effectively, thus cutting the costs for covering ineli-
gible children. In traditional administrative verification, state officials utilize
state databases and case records to confirm reported income. New applicants
for PCK must send proof of income through various forms such as pay stubs,
unemployment checks, letters from employers, Social Security Administration
award letters, or other documented work statements. In order to continue eli-
gibility, recipients must provide verification of income every year, shifting the
burden of proof from the government through state database authorization to
the recipient.
The Medicaid Citizenship Documentation Requirement, a provision of the 2005

Deficit Reduction Act (DRA), S. 1932, complicates enrollment procedures further
for eligible children.16 U.S. citizenship has been a requirement for Medicaid in
the past, but applicants could self-attest to their status. However, the DRA
altered this system to require proof of citizenship through the presentation of
original documentation. Although the citizenship documentation requirement
does not directly apply to CHIP, some states, such as Georgia after the enroll-
ment freeze, have applied the same enrollment procedures for both Medicaid
and CHIP.17
Citizenship and identity documentation are organized into three levels. Ap-
plicants for PCK can send documentation confirming citizenship and identity
with first level documents such as passports, certificates of citizenship, or cer-
tificates of naturalization. If applicants lack these documents, they must sub-
mit one document from the second level to prove citizenship (birth certificates,
extracts of hospital records on hospital letterhead, or other birth or adoption
records and one document from the third level to prove identity (an identifica-
tion card issued by federal, state, or local governments, school records, or other
similar documents).18
Impact of Policy Changes on Enrollment

The original intent of the DRA was to “ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries are
citizens without imposing undue burdens on them or the states”.19 However, the
Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Mark Mc-
Clellan, stated that “The [Inspector General’s] report does not find particular
problems regarding false allegations of citizenship, nor are we aware of any”
when the DRA was passed, complicating the legitimacy and necessity of such
a measure.20 Since there was not a serious problem with ineligible applicants,
many of the people who were rejected after the policy change were likely eli-
gible. In fact, the measures enacted by the bill have reduced health coverage
for eligible U.S. citizens because of the difficulty of obtaining necessary docu-
mentation.21 As expected, the change from self-attestation and administrative
verification has contributed to the 22 percent enrollment decrease in PCK,
coverage gaps for children, and increased administrative costs because of the
complications involved in obtaining original documentation.22,23
The reduction of administrative hurdles for families leads to reduced adminis-

trative costs as seen in the state of New York. One New York study found that
up to 80 percent of the $280 it costs to enroll a child in a public health insurance
program is associated with the complicated calculations and rules concerning
115
eligibility determinations. Sixty-one percent of the total cost of enrollment was
spent on application completion and documentation gathering. The study also
estimated that a simplified system requiring fewer documents would reduce
enrollment costs by 40 percent.24 Covering more children will require increased
funding in the short-term but will lead to decreased spending overall due to
reduced costs of uncompensated care and lower administrative costs.
Enrollment in CHIP and Medicaid is sensitive to changes in administrative

procedures. A Congressional Research Service report by April Grady dem-
onstrated declines in enrollment after the application of stringent enrollment
procedures; 13 states have reported a significant negative impact on enroll-
ment while another 24 report a modest impact.25 Furthermore, 16 states have
reported that thousands of people who seem to be eligible U.S. citizens (having
provided citizenship documentation but not a second form confirming identity)
have either lost or delayed benefits from CHIP,26 including Connecticut and
Wisconsin, which experienced declines in enrollment in their CHIP programs
after enacting documentation requirements for income and citizenship.27
A recent report by the DCH states that PCK enrollment decreased by 22 per-
cent between July 2007 and June 2008 after eligibility rules increasing required
original documentation went into effect.28 It is unlikely that this percentage of
PCK enrollees were illegitimate. Case studies and nationwide analyses indi-
cate that this decrease is largely associated with complicated eligibility and
enrollment procedures and will lead to lower health outcomes. In Georgia,
increased documentation requirements were the only major policy changes for
PCK, further suggesting that the decline was linked to the changes.
Overly stringent eligibility requirements create inefficiencies and threaten child

health. Over 300,000 children in Georgia, or 12.5 percent of Georgia children,
are uninsured.29 According to the National Conference of State Legislatures,
a non-governmental organization that provides research for policymakers re-
garding state issues, an estimated 100,000 children were eligible for PCK but
not enrolled as of 2007.30 This estimate may even be modest because Georgia
lacks effective methods for identifying uninsured but eligible children.
Inefficiencies involved in the determination of eligibility for PCK exist at vari-

ous levels throughout the application process and may be related to serious
detriments to child health care in Georgia. The hassle of obtaining documents
for the PCK application discourages families from beginning or continuing
the application process. After families provide the necessary documentation,
program administrators must also spend time verifying and monitoring these
documents. PCK cannot provide health insurance for all of Georgia’s children,
but simplification of procedural requirements regarding documentation would
most likely cause a significant increase in coverage for eligible children residing
in Georgia. As demonstrated by previous research outlined above, increases in
documentation requirements are linked to decreases in enrollment.
Simplifying Eligibility Requirements for PCK

The Georgia Department of Community Health should adopt simplified verifi-
cation methods such as a combined Medicaid and PCK application, determina-
tion of proof of income through self-declaration and administrative verification
of income, utilization of presumptive eligibility to deliver needed care immedi-
ately, and acceptance of social security numbers to establish citizenship and
identity. These measures will increase coverage for eligible children and pro-
mote administrative efficiency.
A Single Application for PCK and Medicaid

State officials of the DCH should simplify the overall application processes
for Medicaid and PCK by providing a single application for both programs. A
single application for PCK and Medicaid would decrease administrative costs
and increase the efficiency of the application process for families. The DCH
administers both PCK and Medicaid in Georgia, and a combined application
would not require significant bureaucratic restructuring. A single application
allows families to provide necessary information once, and program adminis-
trators can determine whether the child is eligible for Medicaid or PCK. The
state of Indiana reported that the use of a joint application for its children’s
Medicaid and CHIP program, Hoosier Healthwise, has decreased the time that
state workers spend verifying information provided by applicants by half and
has further saved on printing costs.31 Instead of applying for one program, and
potentially being rejected and having to apply for another program, parents
could apply for both programs at once, increasing the likelihood of their chil-
dren receiving coverage in an efficient manner.
Self-Attestation and Administrative Verification of Income

Self-declaration of income has been the historical method of determining eli-
gibility for CHIP-funded programs and provides another method of simplifying
the application process for families. Under this process, applicants provide
information on their incomes under penalty of perjury if they provide false in-
formation. States use existing administrative records to verify applicants’ in-
comes and supplement verification with random audits. Increased utilization of
information, which is already obtained by government agencies, will facilitate
eligibility evaluation through administrative verification without unnecessary
effort from applying families. In order to ensure the accuracy of the information
about family incomes, states often employ confirmation measures using state
databases, state departments of labor, and available case records as well as
conducting third-party checks before determining final eligibility. Previously,
117
Georgia caseworkers were required to consult three databases before deter-
mining a child’s eligibility for PCK or Medicaid.32 Georgia utilized these meth-
ods for years before the policy change, and reinstitution of these measures
would not create significant hurdles due to the systems previously in place.
If families are rejected from this application due to a lack of available records
or information, an alternative application process involving the current re-
quirements of original documentation should still be available. Through these
verification methods, the enrollment process is simplified while the program’s
selection process is still effective and efficient. Administrators must confirm eli-
gibility whether documentation is required or not, and administrative verifica-
tion reduces the paperwork that families must complete. By shifting the admin-
istrative burden back to the government, costs in terms of time and hassle to
the applicants are reduced, thus leading to increased enrollment among those
who are eligible. This practice also accelerates enrollment, leading to greater
numbers of applicant children receiving timely coverage.
An overview of procedures enacted by several states by Ross (director of out-

reach at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) and Hill (senior research
associate at the Health Policy Research Center at the Urban Institute) shows
that enrollment increases in states that institute simplified procedures such as
administrative verification.33
Use of Social Security Numbers to Determine Citizenship and Identity

The Georgia DCH should allow families to use their children’s social security
numbers as proof of qualification for PCK as opposed to the current require-
ment for documentation to confirm citizenship and identity. Many states, in-
cluding Georgia, have interpreted the Medicaid Citizenship Documentation
Requirement in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act to apply to both Medicaid and
CHIP. Presentation of original documents to prove citizenship and identity has
been associated with substantial enrollment declines in these states. Families
already must present proof of legal immigration status or citizenship to the
Social Security Administration in order to obtain social security numbers for
their children. Further, the Social Security Administration confirms the submit-
ted documents through the same methods used by CHIP-sponsored programs
such as PCK through the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizen-
ship and Immigration Services.34 If a family applies for PCK and the child lacks
a social security number, the family must then provide proper documentation
based on the existing framework outlined by the Georgia DCH and the DRA.
Some states have not implemented a social security number requirement due
to the potential of families with undocumented parents being discouraged from
enrolling their eligible children in CHIP programs. However, PCK should assure
parents that the social security number is only necessary for the child.35
Presumptive Eligibility
The Georgia DCH should also adopt presumptive eligibility to temporarily en-
roll children who appear eligible for PCK benefits to provide immediate and
necessary care to children. Insurance providers began using presumptive eli-
gibility in the 1980s to determine whether an individual was likely eligible for
Medicaid.36 Presumptive eligibility allows clinics, hospitals, schools, and other
qualified entities to determine temporary eligibility for some public benefits.
Under these measures, children who appear eligible for PCK or Medicaid ben-
efits (based on self-reported incomes or enrollment in programs such as those
for reduced or free lunch) are provided with temporary coverage while their
families complete the necessary steps to apply for continued coverage. The
DCH will set a time frame for temporary coverage lasting the average dura-
tion of application processing; however, this precaution may be unnecessary
since decreased documentation places the application processing time in the
control of state officials. PCK will reimburse providers for delivering care dur-
ing this period, even if the child is later found to be ineligible for such cover-
age.37 The purpose for this provision is to allow children to access necessary
medical care immediately. Presumptive eligibility prevents substantial delays in
coverage while still providing a time limit to avert abuses of the program. Ten
states have adopted presumptive eligibility procedures for either Medicaid or
CHIP potential eligibility determination. Numerous studies have shown that
self-declaration of income and presumptive eligibility both increase enrollment
numbers considerably, and rampant abuses have not been documented as a
result of these measures.38
Simplification of citizenship confirmation increases the efficiency of enrollment

of eligible children. More efficient enrollment of eligible children will lead to
higher rates of coverage for Georgia children as well. By eliminating docu-
mentation requirements while maintaining verification of information through
efficient and effective methods, the Georgia DCH will reduce procedural ob-
stacles that waste state resources and complicate enrollment without sacrific-
ing the integrity of PCK.
Benefits of Simplified Enrollment Procedures for PCK

State-specific studies have investigated various public health benefits associ-
ated with enrollment in CHIP programs. A study based on Colorado’s Child
Health Plan Plus (CHP+) found that the percentage of families who reported
in a survey that it was “very easy” or “easy” to obtain necessary health care
for their children increased from 53.9 percent to 73.1 percent after enrollment
in the program.39 Furthermore, the percentage of families who reported that
their children saw health care providers as soon as they were sick or injured
increased from 77.5 percent to 90.9 percent. Necessary specialists’ visits also
increased from 34.0 percent to 56.6 percent.40 Enrollment in New York’s CHIP
119
program (CHPlus) increased primary care visits by 42 percent and lowered hos-
pitalizations by 36 percent.41 The increase in utilization of primary care and
reduction of hospitalizations indicates better health outcomes overall, since
preventive primary care is more effective at maintaining health than reliance
on hospitalizations for emergency situations. These examples indicate that in-
creasing enrollment in PCK is a vital step toward improving access of care and
health outcomes for Georgia’s children.
Health insurance carries many benefits for children and their families. Chil-
dren with health insurance have better access to preventive and primary health
care.42 Enrollees in PCK and other CHIP programs are more likely than unin-
sured children to receive office visits for primary care, preventive care, dental
care, and are less likely to have emergency room visits. Relationships between
access to health care and better school attendance, participation, and perfor-
mance have been found as well. For example, a California study conducted by
the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board and researchers from the Center
for Child Health Outcomes, Children´s Hospital and Health Center in San Di-
ego surveyed parents and found that children enrolled in CHIP or other public
insurance programs demonstrated a 68 percent improvement in their ability to
pay attention during school and keep up with assignments and activities.43
Reducing the amount of documentation required to determine PCK eligibility

will also decrease costs from a long-term perspective. As stated earlier, enroll-
ment in New York’s CHIP program (CHPlus) saw increases in primary care visits
by 42 percent and lowered hospitalizations by 36 percent when compared to
uninsured children.44 Additionally, because the Emergency Medical Treatment
and Active Labor Act (EMTALA, Title 42, § 1395dd) states that hospitals must
screen and stabilize any individual who arrives at the emergency department
and requests assistance regardless of their ability to pay,45 fewer hospitaliza-
tions result in lower costs incurred from uncompensated care. Parents can
take their insured children to receive primary care in the early stages of illness
rather than waiting on serious health problems to arise before seeking care
in emergency rooms. Due to financial constraints, the uninsured tend to seek
health care from emergency rooms when a doctor visit could be much more ef-
fective and less costly for the system overall.
From a public health perspective, healthy children create a healthier society

as a whole. Children participate in many activities in which they are in close
contact with others, such as attending day care programs and schools. Provid-
ing every child with adequate health care and its associated benefits, such as
immunization and primary care, not only decreases the burden on taxpayers by
reducing incidences of less cost-effective uncompensated care for preventable
diseases, but also protects the health of all children and adults through the
prevention of the pathogens proliferation.46 School-age children with health
insurance and their parents would benefit from the coverage of other eligible
but uninsured children through decreased exposure to untreated, preventable
communicable diseases. This public health benefit is a justification for the
subsidization of children through PCK; though the general public may have to
spend more in taxes, the public also benefits from decreased exposure to vari-
ous illnesses and ultimately lower health care costs.
Wisconsin, Medicaid, and BadgerCare: A Case Study

The comparison between Wisconsin’s Medicaid program and Georgia’s CHIP
program is relevant due to similar issues involving enrollment and eligibility re-
quirements, as Wisconsin’s program provides an example of the effects of docu-
mentation requirements on enrollment.
Between July 31, 2006 and March 1, 2007, 19,413 Medicaid-eligible individuals in
Wisconsin had their Medicaid coverage denied or terminated because of citi-
zenship documentation requirements.47 Despite Wisconsin’s attempt to reduce
the impact of the DRA requirement by obtaining birth records electronically
from its Vital Records agency, enrollment still decreased. Obtaining original
documentation, especially if administrators required applicants to provide
proof of identity with additional proof of citizenship, was a major factor con-
tributing to the drop in enrollment. Of the applicants denied Medicaid, 66.5
percent lacked an identity document, whereas 19.9 percent of applicants lacked
required citizenship documents (certificates of citizenship, naturalization, and
identity documents included government-issued identity cards), while only 12.3
percent lacked both citizenship and identity documents.48 These percentages
suggest that applicants denied Medicaid coverage were U.S. citizens rather
than non-citizens attempting to obtain public benefits; if applicants are able
to provide citizenship documentation, the likelihood that they are eligible citi-
zens is high. It is more likely that the hassle of obtaining additional documents
resulted in incomplete applications as opposed to applicants putting forth the
effort of forging one necessary document but not another. Increased docu-
mentation requirements created additional hassles that amplified the time and
effort required to apply for health care benefits. Wisconsin’s CHIP program,
BadgerCare, also experienced declines in enrollment. Between August 1, 2006
and January 1, 2008, Wisconsin reported that 32,907 children were blocked
from receiving Medical Assistance or BadgerCare because of documentation
requirements. In 62 percent of these cases, termination or denial was due only
to lack of identification rather than lack of documentation confirming citizen-
ship.49
Because the majority of applicants being denied coverage through Medicaid

or CHIP were actually eligible for benefits, factors including the difficulty of
121
obtaining out-of-state records (if the families in question had moved from an-
other state), increased hassle and time required for enrollment, and complica-
tions caused by documentation requirements most likely played a major role in
these denials. Wisconsin responded to declining CHIP enrollment by removing
the requirement for documentation of income and implementing administrative
verification instead. The state did not remove citizenship and identity docu-
mentation requirements, though such measures would simplify the application
process further. Wisconsin’s experiences with fluctuating enrollment of eligible
children in response to changing documentation requirements suggest that in-
creased documentation requirements played a major role in the recent decline
in enrollment in PCK. Simplification of these requirements would likely increase
enrollment of eligible but uninsured children who need this assistance but are
unable to receive benefits due to administrative barriers.
Challenges Involved with Increasing PCK Enrollment

In light of long-term CHIP funding challenges, PCK funding shortfalls, and re-
cent national and statewide economic struggles, the main challenges facing
increased enrollment in PCK are fiscal. Policy makers in the Georgia DCH may
be concerned about the responses of the Legislature, Governor, and citizens
if they change eligibility requirements that decrease documentation required
for enrollment. However, although the cost of increasing insurance coverage
for children may seem unaffordable, health insurance for children is relatively
inexpensive due to its preventive nature. The cost of uncompensated care and
other forms of healthcare provided for non-preventative purposes is higher
than the cost of providing insurance coverage. Health insurance is linked to the
utilization of primary care and can prevent many serious and expensive health
problems.50 Citizens of Georgia may have to pay increased taxes during the
period in which large numbers of eligible but uninsured children are enrolled in
PCK. However, this will be offset by reducing administrative costs to enroll chil-
dren in PCK, as well as less uncompensated care and fewer emergency hospi-
talizations for preventable health problems. Furthermore, the recent passage
of H.R. 2 (now P.L. 111-3) provides additional funding and incentives for the DCH
to institute the measures recommended in this policy and utilize newly available
federal funding to offset short-term costs.51
Higher enrollment in health insurance is linked to increased use of preventive

care and decreases in uncompensated care. In 2004, the U.S. spent $40.7 bil-
lion dollars on healthcare for people lacking health insurance, and $5.4 billion
was for uninsured children.52 All U.S. citizens must pay increased taxes and
insurance costs due to uncompensated care for the uninsured because of the
requirement under the EMTALA to screen and stabilize all individuals seeking
treatment in emergency departments. In fact, in 2005, private employer health
insurance was $922 higher on average per family due the costs incurred by the
system by the uninsured.53
The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that federal and state enrollment
costs of insuring eligible but uninsured children would amount to about $8.8 bil-
lion dollars a year after increasing efficiencies in eligibility.54 A $3.4 billion dollar
increase ($5.4 billion subtracted from $8.8 billion) in federal and state spending
due to children’s health care is relatively small, especially when compared to
current federal and state spending on Medicaid ($316 billion).55 This $3.4 billion
dollar increase also does not factor in reductions in spending on uncompen-
sated care or decreases in insurance premiums. Spending on uncompensated
hospital care would also be reduced because insured children require fewer
emergency room visits, and these visits will no longer create uncompensated
care costs.56 Funds spent on children’s health insurance that will prevent health
problems are more effective than dollars spent on uncompensated care to treat
issues that arise due to lack of preventive care.
Another challenge to relaxing documentation requirements for PCK eligibil-

ity may be concerns by Georgia citizens and state officials that non-citizens
will benefit from this public insurance program without paying taxes to support
it. Whether or not non-citizen children should receive public health insurance
benefits is not an issue addressed by this policy, but the steps involved in imple-
menting this policy strive to uphold the integrity of PCK enrollment. Self-attes-
tation and administrative verification of income, presumptive eligibility, and use
of social security numbers to determine citizenship or immigration status still
incorporate checks conducted by PCK administrators to verify information that
applicants provide. A small number of ineligible children might receive health
care coverage, but the benefits provided by covering the estimated 100,000
eligible but uninsured children in Georgia (a 31 percent increase in total PCK
enrollment) outweigh the negative repercussions of a handful of ineligible chil-
dren receiving care.57
Conclusion
Simplification of PCK documentation requirements for eligibility will result in
increased enrollment of eligible but uninsured children. By utilizing practices
such as a single application for PCK and Medicaid, self-attestation and admin-
istrative verification of income, presumptive eligibility, and use of social security
numbers to determine citizenship and identity, the Georgia DCH will stream-
line the processes through which children can receive benefits from PCK while
maintaining standards that will prevent ineligible applicants from receiving
coverage. Because children are unable to enroll themselves in PCK, the ap-
plication process should be as simple as possible for families with the govern-
ment responsible for confirming provided information. The short-term costs of
increased enrollment in PCK may cause some citizens and legislators to op-
123
pose this policy, however long-term benefits include fewer taxes paid by the
citizens of Georgia to cover uncompensated care and preventable emergency
hospitalizations, better health of society as a whole, and increased coverage
for children who are already eligible for PCK benefits. Coverage for children
is a stated goal of both federal and state legislation regarding CHIP and PCK.
The steps outlined in this policy proposal apply directly to PCK but also pro-
vide examples of policy measures that can be implemented in other states to
increase enrollment of eligible children in CHIP programs.
Works Cited
1. “Issue Brief: PeachCare for Kids Funding.” Emory University. http://www.sph.em-
ory.edu/WHP/documents/2007percent20Session/PeachCare_Issue.pdf (accessed
Sep. 20, 2008).
2. Ross, Donna Cohen, Aleya Horn, and Caryn Marks. “Health Coverage for Children
and Families in Medicaid and CHIP: State Efforts Face New Hurdles.” Kaiser Com-
mission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. www.kff.org/medicaid/7740.cfm (accessed
Sep. 15, 2008).
3. Summers, Carie. “Amended FY 2009 and FY 2010 Program Budgets.” Georgia De-
partment of Community Health. http://dch.georgia.gov/vgn/images/portal/cit_121-
0/20/14/120952990Augustpercent2028,percent202008percent20Budgetpercent2
0Proposalspercent20forpercent20DCHpercent20Boardpercent20Consideration-
percent20-percent20FINAL.pdf (accessed September 16, 2008).
4. Szilagyi, Peter G., Jack Zwanziger, Lance E. Rodewald, Jane L. Holl, Dana B. Mu-
kamel, Sarah Trafton, Laura Pollard Shone, Andrew W. Dick, Lynne Jarrell, and
Richard F. Raubertas. “Evaluation of a State Health Insurance Program for Low-
Income Children: Implications for State Child Health Insurance Programs.” Pediat-
rics 105 (2000): 363-370.
5. Selden, Thomas, and Julie Hudson. “Access to Care and Utilization Among Chil-
dren: Estimating the Effects of Public and Private Coverage.” Medical Care 44
(2006): 19-26.
6. “Balanced Budget Act of 1997.” (P.L. 105-33), United States Statutes at Large.
7. “A Snapshot of PeachCare for Kids.” The Georgia Department of Community
Health. http://dch.georgia.gov/vgn/images/portal/cit_1210/35/2/70650182PeachCa
re.12.2008.FINAL.pdf (accessed July 12, 2009).
8. Horner and Morrow, “Opening Doorways.”
9. Section 49-5-273. The Official Code of Georgia.
10. “A Snapshot of the Georgia Department of Community Health.” The Georgia De-
partment of Community Health. http://dch.georgia.gov/vgn/images/portal/cit_1210
/6/40/70648888DCH012009FINAL.pdf (accessed Oct. 14, 2008).
11. “Issue Brief: PeachCare for Kids Funding.” Emory University. http://www.sph.em-
ory.edu/WHP/documents/2007percent20Session/PeachCare_Issue.pdf (accessed
Sep. 20, 2008).
12. “Enrollment Freeze for PeachCare for Kids Lifted.” Georgia Department of Commu-
nity Health. http://dch.georgia.gov/vgn/images/portal/cit_1210/37/11/86098649PR-
PeachCare_Enrollment_Freeze_Lift.pdf (accessed September 18, 2008).
13. Ibid.
14. “Issue Brief,” Emory University.
15. Summers, “Amended FY 2009 and FY 2010.”
16. Ibid.
17. Grady, April. “Medicaid Citizenship Documentation.” Congressional Research Ser-
vice Report for Congress. http://aging.senate.gov/crs/medicaid14.pdf (accessed
Oct. 3, 2008).
18. “Citizenship and Identity Requirements.” PeachCare for Kids. www.peachcare.org/
FAQView.aspx?displayFaqId=9 (accessed September 28, 2008).
19. “HHS Issues Citizenship Guidelines for Medicaid Eligibility.” Centers for Medi-
care and Medicaid Services. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/release.
asp?Counter=1878 (accessed Oct. 18, 2008).
20. Ross, Donna Cohen. “New Medicaid Citizenship Documentation Requirement is
Taking a Toll: States Report Enrollment is Down and Administrative Costs are Up.”
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. http://www.cbpp.org/2-2-07health.htm (ac-
cessed Oct. 5, 2008).
21. “HHS Issues Citizenship Guidelines.”
23. Ross, “Health Coverage.”
24. Fairbrother, Gerry, Melinda Dutton, Deborah Bachrach, Kerry-Ann Newell, Patricia
Beozang, and Rachel Cooper. “Costs of Enrolling Children in Medicaid and CHIP .”
Health Affairs 23 (2004): 237-243.
25. Grady, “Medicaid Citizenship Documentation.”
26. Ibid.
27. Ross, “Health Coverage.”
29. “HB 340-PeachCare Reductions.” Georgia Budget and Policy Institute. http://www.
gbpi.org/pubs/healthcare/20070320.pdf (accessed Nov. 1, 2008).
30. “Georgia Considers How to Adapt to CHIP Funding Shortfall.” National Confer-
ence of State Legislatures. http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/shn/2007/sn486a.
htm (accessed Nov. 1., 2008).
31. Ross, Diana Cohen, and Ian T. Hill. “Enrolling Eligible Children and Keeping Them
Enrolled.” The Future of Children 13 (2003): 81-97.
32. Cox, Laura. “Allowing Families to Self-Report Income.” Center on Budget and Pol-
icy Priorities. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1494 (accessed July
14, 2009).
33. Ibid.
35. Cox, “Allowing Families.”
36. Kronebusch, Karl, and Brian Elbel. “Simplifying Children’s Medicaid and CHIP.”
Health Affairs 23 (2004): 233-246.
37. Ross, “Enrolling Eligible Children.”
38. Kronebusch and Elbel, “Simplifying Children’s Medicaid.”
39. Kempe, Allison, Brenda L. Beaty, Lori A. Crane, Johan Stokstad, Jennifer Barrow,
Shira Belman, and John F. Steiner. “Changes in Access, Utilization, and Quality
of Care After Enrollment Into a State Child Health Insurance Plan.” Pediatrics 115
(2005): 364-371.
40. Ibid.
41. Szilagyi, “Evaluation of a State Health Insurance Program.”
42. Ross, “Enrolling Eligible Children.”
125
43. Baron, Juliane, Jessica H. Kleinmann, and Kathleen Sylvester. “Health Insurance
for Children: Issues and Ideas.” The Future of Children. http://www.futureofchildren.
org/usr_doc/tfoc13-1_iig.pdf (accessed Nov. 1, 2008).
45. “Examination and Treatment for Emergency Medical Conditions and Women in
Labor.” (Title 42, § 1395dd), United States Code.
47. Ross, “New Medicaid Citizenship Documentation Requirement.”
48. Ibid.
51. “To Amend Title XXI of the Social Security Act to Extend and Improve the Children’s
Health Insurance Program, and for Other Purposes.” (P.L. 111-3), United States Stat-
utes at Large.
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid.
57. “Georgia Considers,” National Conference of State Legislatures.
127
Authors
Andrew Burnett
Harding University
Andrew, a Houston, TX native, is a Spanish and Internation-
al Studies major concentrating in Political Science and Eco-
nomics. His major policy interests include child welfare, eco-
nomic development, and anything involving Latin America.
He has spent the last two summers exploring his interests
by interning for the Congressional Coalition on Adoption
Institute (www.ccainstitute.org) in D.C. and developing ac-
cess to credit through organizing communal banks in rural
mountain villages in eastern Honduras.
Rocky Cole
Rocky Cole is a junior at the University of Georgia majoring
in international affairs and economics. He hopes to pursue
a career as a nonproliferation analyst and has previously
published articles on defense transformation, the role of
special forces in counterinsurgency warfare, and dual-use
nuclear technology in Iran. He is a Security Leadership Fel-
low at the Center for International Trade and Security and
a member of the Honors Program at UGA. He currently
serves as the Director of Policy at the UGA Chapter of the
Roosevelt Institute Campus Network.
Amanda Conklin
Amanda Conklin is a sophomore at UNC-Chapel Hill and
is majoring in International Studies. Amanda is originally
from Charlotte, North Carolina, and is involved with Stu-
dent Government, Millennium Village Project, and Model
United Nations on her campus. After graduation, she would
like to pursue a career with the Foreign Service sector of
the State Department. She has also been a guest columnist
in the Mint Hill Times (07/2008).
Karie Cross
Harding University
Karie graduated in 2009 from Harding University with ma-
jors in political science and English. She is currently a first
129
Authors
year master’s student at the University of Maryland, study-

ing public policy with a specialization in international devel-
opment. She hopes to work for an overseas development
agency or be an international policy advisor for an NGO or
government organization.
Shanell Davis
Shanell is an International Affairs major/Ecology minor and
will be graduating May 2010 from the University of Geor-
gia. Working with the Roosevelt has inspired her to continue
working with policy, especially energy and environmental
policy in anyway possible. Originally from Columbus, GA,
she has always been interested in environmental issues.
As the state of the global environment becomes more and
more pressing, she has begun to work with environmental
justice organizations such as GA Youth for Energy Solu-
tions, a sub-organization of the Southern Energy Network.
This is her first published article.
Ellyn Echols
Ellyn Echols is a senior at the University of Georgia majoring
in International Affairs. Originally from Nashville, Tennes-
see, she’s found a wonderful home in Athens, GA and has
enjoyed getting involved in the community through work-
ing with the Boys & Girls Club and local housing projects.
She currently sits on the Executive Board of Roosevelt @
UGA and has written about USAID, local housing issues in
Athens, and most recently counterterrorism. After gradua-
tion she plans to take a year off to work abroad and study
Arabic and then pursue a Masters in Public Policy. After
that, she hopes to start a career in public policy working on
issues such as national security and terrorism.
Jeremy Ford
Jeremy was a Braswell Scholar at UNC-Chapel Hill, major-
Authors
ing in Biology and minoring in Entrepreneurship and Chem-

istry. His prior publications include “Extending Prescribing
Privileges to Clinical Psychologists” in the Roosevelt Insti-
tute’s 10 Ideas for Health Care and “What the Doctor Or-
dered: A Check Up on the Past and Future of N.C. Mental
Health Care” in The Hill: Chapel Hill Political Review. Cur-
rently, he studies Neuroscience as a masters student at Tu-
lane University and is applying to medical school. Jeremy
also works in the neurorehabilitation unit at Touro Hospital
in New Orleans, and he conducts GED tutoring in the out-
patient unit. One day, he would like to practice psychiatry in
his hometown of Goldsboro, North Carolina.
Jeff Gruber
A junior at UNC Chapel Hill majoring in Philosophy and
Economics, Jeff plans to teach English abroad and go to
law school, and to eventually become a legal scholar on In-
ternational Law. Originally from Temecula, CA, Jeff serves
on the board of editors for LAMBDA, UNC’s LGBT maga-
zine. He is a member of the National Society of Collegiate
Scholars; Solutions for the South is his first published work.
Michael Levy
Emory University
Michael is currently a Junior at Emory University in Atlanta,
Georgia, pursuing a Bachelor’s in Business Adminisration
through the Goizueta Business School. He is also pursu-
ing a second major in International Studies. Originally from
Weston, Florida, Michael hopes to go into management,
political, or environmental consulting. In his time at Emory,
he has been awarded the 2008 Woodruff Library Under-
graduate Research Award and the 2009 Emory College
Language Center Hebrew Award.
Amy Littleton
Harding University
Authors
Amy Littleton, originally from Raleigh, North Carolina, is

a sophomore at Harding University. Double majoring in
Political Science and French, Amy plans on going to law
school after completing her undergraduate work. Amy is
a passionate advocate of international development, hu-
man rights, and enjoys keeping up on domestic policy. Amy
spends her spare time reading, going to the theatre, and
traveling wherever and whenever she can.
rooseveltcampusnetwork.org
Students at the Southern Empowerment Forum

Atlanta, Georgia
November 2009

Solutions For The South - Updated

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Solutions For The South - Updated

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Solutions for the South

Jeet Guram, USC

Marty Hyman, UNC

Alina Arbuthnot, USC

Published online at www.rooseveltcampusnetwork.org.

So I, Alex Wang, and Sydney Daigle from USC; Aaron Sayama

Working with so many innovative students in developing this jour-

The Roosevelt Campus Network is a division of the Franklin and Eleanor

11 Food Security in Durham, NC

15 Funding Richland County Buses

19 Subsidizing Alternative Biofuels

23 Health I.T. for Southern CHCs

27 LEED Certification in Schools

31 Inclusionary Zoning in Athens, GA

35 Raising Taxes on Georgia Cigarettes

Curbing Dropouts with P.A.R.K. 39

Mandatory Impact Fees 51

Child Care Foundations 67

Building a Faculative Bioreactor 81

Durham Enrichment Project 95

Building Effective College Access 101

Simplifying Eligibility for Kids 113

Author Biographies 129

By building partnerships with North Carolina’s higher education system and

Capital News is another example of the type of program we aim to create.5

Including a food security assessment in a proposed construction impact study

State Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Richland, believes Columbia cannot expect to

Subsidizing the cultivation of jatropha in areas of the rural American

Increased financial support for electronic medical records (EMRs)

Employ LEED Certification standards for construction of new school

Constructing LEED Certified schools also results in healthier, better-educated

Recently, bipartisan groups of United States Mayors and Congressman

Athens-Clarke County, Georgia is facing a housing crisis not uncom-

The Georgia General Assembly should adopt legislation to raise

Furthermore, if Georgia were to adopt this policy recommendation, it would be

This lack of education creates a cycle of poverty as educational attainment is

As students of diverse backgrounds immigrate into the United States without

A dishearteningly common problem found among much of Louisiana’s youth,

Additionally, an innovative component of the Arkansas P.A.R.K. program that

Academic achievement would be evaluated every nine weeks, holding students

One example of a successful partnership between the business and education-

What is Urban Sprawl?

The Costs of Sprawl

In most sprawling areas, increasing pressure to provide infrastructure decreas-

Deferred Maintenance and School Overcrowding

Sprawling development has also had negative consequences for Georgia’s

Overcrowded schools pose a serious risk to educational quality. As Douglas D.

Responses to Sprawl: Growth Management in Georgia

Impact fees also play a role in Georgia’s growth management strategy. As a

The twelve RDCs which prepare regional comprehensive development plans

Mandatory Capital Improvement Impact Fees

If municipalities do levy impact fees, firms respond by attempting to shift the

Total System Improvement Costs - Existing Revenue Streams > $0

As the DCA notes in an official publication describing local planning require-

Second, policymakers will likely view this proposal as an attempt to increase

See following page for Appendix.

In an effort to support the working families of ACC, the local government, in a

Background: What is at Stake?

A Plan to Increase Access

Athens-Clarke County should implement an employer-based subsidy initiative.

Figure 1: Proposed Model, U.S. Office of Personnel and Management