Mobility Agenda

In a new report released this week, The Mobility Agenda finds that the U.S. economy, workplace, workforce, and labor market have changed radically in the last 50 years, yet public and private policies have not kept up with these changes.

In recent years, policymakers have begun considering new options for allowing workers to meet the often-conflicting demands of work and other life obligations. These proposals include a variety of options for time off from work—both paid and unpaid—and more flexibility in the workplace through initiatives like paid family and medical leave, paid sick days, and scheduling predictability.

In Work-Life Policies for the Twenty-First Century Economy, the authors review the evidence regarding work-life conflicts, the economic case for policy initiatives, and effectiveness of the policy options.

“Currently, no federal or state laws exist to guarantee that employers offer paid sick days,” says Margy Waller, Executive Director of The Mobility Agenda and a co-author of this report. “Yet, providing more flexibility in the workplace not only helps employees, but also can yield important benefits for employers.”

The Mobility Agenda is a think tank in Washington, DC that seeks to stimulate and shape a dialogue to build public support for strengthening the labor market, benefiting our economy, workers, and communities.

“No single policy will meet all needs, which is why we recommend a menu of policy solutions to address changes in workforce, living arrangements, and society,” explains Waller. The authors, Heather Boushey, Layla Moughari, Sarah Sattelmeyer, and Margy Waller present a clear explanation of the policy options and make specific recommendations for decision-makers.
______________________________________________________________________________
For more information, including the full report and abstract, please see: our web site.

Here's an update from The Mobility Agenda's Senior Research Associate, Sarah Sattelmeyer.

Yesterday, the New Jersey Senate approved a (long time in the works!) paid family leave bill, which the Assembly passed in March. Governor Corzine has committed to signing this bill, which will make New Jersey the third state to adopt paid family leave.

For those of you who are not work-life policy junkies like myself, family and medical leave (which differs from paid sick days) can guarantee workers time away from work to recover from a personal health condition, for the birth or adoption of a child, to care for an elderly family member, and/or to incorporate additional longer-term family care needs.

The 1993 federal Family and Medical Leave Act, administered by the US Department of Labor, provides unpaid family and medical leave for some U.S. workers. On the other hand, State Temporary Disability Insurance programs are administered on a state level and offer paid family and medical leave for workers. Employer and employee generally jointly fund these programs.

Many states are working (California has been successful!) to extend their Temporary Disability Insurance programs or develop new programs to cover a wide array of family and medical needs, including adoption. According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, New Jersey's new law falls into this category in that it will expand the state's temporary disability insurance program to give workers up to six weeks of family leave benefits to care for a sick family member or a newborn or newly adopted child. It provides temporary disability insurance benefits at two-thirds of wage replacement up to a maximum of $524 per week in 2008, and is financed by a small employee payroll deduction.

It’s about time, right? But despite the passage of this bill through both houses of the New Jersey legislature, significant conflict about the idea of work-life policies still exists. According to an Associated Press reporter and Newsday.com, Sen. Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth) and other opponents of the bill fear that "[t]his [bill will] impose a tax on every employer in our state and continue…to lay the groundwork for the exodus of citizens and employers."

This comment by Senator Beck should have provided the perfect opportunity for Senate Majority Leader Stephen Sweeney, a leading proponent of the bill, to use language that bridged the business-worker gap. But instead, he followed in the divisive footsteps of Senator Beck by commenting that "[t]his bill…signif[ies] a new day for the state's work force, in that, the needs of families will be put before the needs of business owners."

Senator Sweeney, while meaning well and clearly a strong champion of workers who is on the right side of this issue, lost his chance to promote the pro-business benefits of work-life policies when he verbally created a divide between “families” and “business owners”—between us and them.

In many situations, employers have used public and private policy to balance competing work-life priorities. In a recent study conducted by WFD Consulting and Corporate Voices for Working Families, offering work-life policies in the workplace improves employee retention, creates more positive human capital outcomes, and establishes a more productive workforce, all of which can lead to stronger financial performance, especially for retail companies whose employees often have a direct relationship with customers. In fact, researchers reporting on a 2002 Watson Wyatt study found that “companies that provide more flexible work arrangements” could see as much as a 3.5 percent rise in shareholder value.

Work-life policies also lead to better mental health and less stress, which contribute to a reduction in employee health care costs. According to the CDC, stress at work can increase employees’ unscheduled absences, and health care expenditures (something about which we are all concerned!) are nearly 50 percent greater for U.S. workers who report high levels of stress.

We still need research to explore the narrative lens that works best when discussing work-life policy with a pro-business contingent. But even without the research, stakeholders should use common sense in their public remarks about work-life policy. New Jersey legislators just passed a bill that will help thousands of workers, but Senator Sweeney’s comments did not even open the door for a productive dialogue with the business community about legislation that affects all of us.

The facts are on his side. The battle is won, but not the war. The Senator Sweeneys of the world need to see their legislation through in a manner that will help other leaders win similar battles.

The Mobility Agenda will soon release Work-Life Policies for the Twenty-First-Century Economy, a report that explains the need for better work-life policy and provides recommendations for stakeholders.

The movement to guarantee that all workers have paid time off for work life balance is gaining momentum.

Washington DC just passed the second local law in the nation (despite the limitations of the provision, this is progress) and New Jersey seems poised to pass a law offering paid family and medical leave.

And finally, check out this innovative use of the web to create on “online rally” for paid sick days.

Spend your lunch break today speaking out for paid sick days for all working people.

Join us virtually at the U.S. Capitol for the first-ever Online Rally for Healthy Families — a special online event hosted by the National Partnership and the Healthy Families Act coalition.

Bring your friends and co-workers along....

You can join the rally by visiting EveryoneGetsSick.org and then share your story, upload a photo, take action, and more.

Color me green – I love this creative use of the available technology.

DC is the second city in the nation to have a new labor standard ensuring paid sick days for workers. When we started our research on New Ideas for Better Jobs, this kind of progress was hard to imagine.

But, the news from the DC Employment Justice Center suggests we have some work to do now that City Council voted against residents yesterday by seriously limiting the reach of the new labor standard and leaving out many workers, rather than ensuring all workers can take time off when they are sick.

We would surely benefit from a little more research on the best way to have this conversation in order to sustain the political space and public will necessary for a standard that works for the entire community.

We have good evidence in hand of the economic reasons for better work-life policy.Yet too many people seem to believe that a guarantee of a limited number of paid sick days would hurt the local economy.

From the Employment and Justice Center:

D.C. Council Includes One-Year Waiting Period, Other Harsh Amendments before Passing the Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act

Washington, DC- Today, the D.C. Council voted unanimously to pass the Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act of 2007, an historic piece of legislation that is poised to make D.C. the second city in the nation to provide all of its workers with a limited amount of paid sick time, and the first to protect workers who need time off to address a domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking situation. Unfortunately, after more than two hours of arguments and a slew of amendments, the bill that ultimately passed the Council today was a shadow of the original legislation. After including an amendment requiring that employees complete a full 12 months of employment before accessing paid sick and safe time, and after adding exemptions for health care workers and for restaurant wait staff, the bill that the Council supported today was, while laudable, dramatically weaker than what they voted 11-2 to pass just one month ago.

There are estimated to be over 200,000 workers in DC who do not get paid sick time, with high concentrations in low-wage food service, retail, and construction. These include part-time workers and workers in seasonal positions that, under the current bill, may never meet the one-year full-time minimum to access paid sick and safe time.

Members of the Council claimed that the amendment, which redefined "employees" according to the definition in the Family Medical Leave Act, was necessary in order to bring clarity to the bill. "In reality, the amendment was an effort to deeply weaken the bill, because using the FMLA definition in this legislation means that workers and their family members will have to go a full year without anyone being sick or needing protection from domestic violence situations," stated Karen Minatelli, Deputy Director of the DC Employment Justice Center. "It's completely unrealistic." Despite the ultimate 7-6 vote to pass this amendment, advocates thank Councilmembers Barry, Bowser, Graham, Mendelson, Schwartz, and Wells for standing up for workers and the heart of the bill, by voting against the one-year delay.

Councilmembers Graham, Mendelson, and Schwartz also opposed exemptions for wait staff and health care workers. "Exemptions for health care workers and wait staff are contrary to one of the bill's purposes," added Minatelli. "If we are trying to address public health concerns about the spread of illness, then it makes no sense to exempt workers in the health field or in jobs with such public contact."

Unions, workers and advocates celebrate the passage of this important legislation and the support from Councilmembers who opposed the harsh amendments, but look forward to a time when the District will truly provide sick and safe leave for all D.C. workers.

Back when I was working on state-level policy in Ohio, and Ted Strickland was a newish member of Congress, he spoke to a group of Cincinnati progressives (no, it’s really not an oxymoron) interested in policy issues that I helped to found. I wouldn’t have said he was “stimulating” exactly – but definitely smart and thoughtful about social issues. (Plus, he was one of the speakers who went out with us after the event – our favorite kind of presenter.)

Now that he’s governor, Strickland has been taking some innovative steps to strengthen the economy.

For example, he’s implementing a policy idea that surfaced in our national scan, New Ideas and Strategies for Better Jobs: creating democratic workplaces with state level policy. These policies address the system of leadership and decision-making within workplaces, particularly in employment sectors that have traditionally been excluded from activities such as collectively negotiating better working conditions.

Last summer, Governor Strickland gave home health care workers the opportunity to organize and negotiate over work conditions. Last week, he extended this option to about 8,000 home-based child care workers.

The New York Times reports that San Francisco won a round in the fight with local employers over how to pay for universal health care.

A federal panel of judges granted San Francisco the right on Wednesday to put in place a key part of its universal health care program as legal arguments about the first-in-the-nation plan continue.

The unanimous decision, from a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, allows the city to require businesses with more than 20 employees to pay a fee to help cover employees’ health care costs, something city officials say will help about 20,000 people without insurance.

The law, which passed the city’s Board of Supervisors in 2006, had been successfully challenged by a local restaurant trade group, which argued that it would violate a 1974 federal statute that prohibits conflicting local, state and federal benefit plans. That opinion was seconded in late December by Judge Jeffrey S. White of Federal District Court, who suspended the law, which was due to take effect on Jan. 1.

But on Wednesday, Judge William A. Fletcher of the circuit court said that the city had a “strong likelihood” to prevail in the case, and granted a temporary stay of the district court order while the full appeal is heard.

Joined by Judges Alfred T. Goodwin and Stephen Reinhardt, Judge Fletcher wrote that “the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of the city,” adding “that the public interest would be served by a stay.”

Dennis Herrera, the San Francisco city attorney, said the ruling would greatly strengthen the health plan, which has already signed up nearly 8,000 residents.

It’s about time.

Finally, a few Senators appear willing to engage in the fight over health care in a substantive way – not just in some (misguided) effort to establish a campaign issue.

Eight Democratic senators say they cannot support any compromise that limits their states’ ability to cover parents along with children.

Democratic leaders had been considering such a compromise. But in their effort to mollify Republicans, the Democrats have begun to alienate some members of their own party on this and other issues.

The eight senators told Democratic leaders this week that they could not support any bill if their states lost money for the coverage of parents.

A compromise bill must “protect state flexibility to cover parents,” the senators said in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and the House majority leader, Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland. “Our states have taken the lead to provide health care to this specific population, and we do not want to inhibit their ability to continue providing this important coverage.”

The letter is signed by senators from five states that together cover more than 250,000 parents. The senators are Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Frank R. Lautenberg and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin….

…. in their letter, the Democratic senators warned Congressional leaders against “further compromise,” saying it would erode their support for the bill.

Mere passage of legislation is not winning. Better to communicate what you stand for than just pass a bill that communicates something altogether different. Even if it means the bill doesn't become law.

After all, will anyone believe you when you say you want health care for all but support a bill that moves in another direction?

If you support a bill that provides health care for the “poor kids”, where do you go next?

You will have a hard time convincing anyone that you REALLY want health care for everyone when you were willing to cut eligibility for families who cannot afford health care and whose employers are not providing it. Not only willing to cut, but actively proclaimed your preference for “poor children first”, while denying coverage to immigrants and adults in the same bill.

These senators haven't said quite everything that'd be nice to hear on this topic - but this is a step in the right direction, finally.

The New York Times reports that an employer in the retail sector is now thinking of “health benefits as as an investment in the work force rather than as a cost” and has committed to supporting universal health coverage.

“If workers are ‘healthy, they will do a better job at work, they’ll be more productive, they’ll be happier, nicer to…customers’…all of which results in less absenteeism and turnover, a longstanding problem in retailing.”

Which employer?

Wal-Mart.

Meanwhile, USA Today reports in a cover story: “Traditional pensions are almost gone. Is employer-provided health insurance next?”

The percentage of people with health insurance through their employers — traditionally the way most people get coverage — is continuing to shrink, raising anxiety among workers and invigorating a debate about whether insurance should be tied to jobs.

Seems like progress to me. As employers recognize the value of health care coverage and agree to publicly support universal coverage, we're moving forward on the road to a place where most agree that a government policy solution is a necessity.

Inclusion's Mobility Agenda invites you to a timely discussion about cross-Atlantic issues including employment, poverty, mobility, and the economy.

DATE: October 25, 2007
TIME: 10 - 11:30 AM
PLACE: Phoenix Park Hotel Ballroom, 520 North Capitol Street, NW

This event will feature two major presentations.

First, we will hear from the Secretary of Work and Pensions in the UK, the Rt. Hon. Peter Hain MP. Mr. Hain is a distinguished politician having served in various positions in the UK Labour Government and contributed to many aspects of Britain's domestic and foreign policies. In his first public speech in the US since his appointment, he will discuss these longstanding goals to increase employment and reduce inequality.

Second, Inclusion will release a new report written by Matthew C. Nisbet, a professor in the School of Communication at American University. The report, Communicating about Poverty and Low Wage Work: A New Agenda, reviews research and survey work in the US on how messages shape public perspectives. He will share his conclusions about the promising implications of the UK approach on these issues for the United States and recommendations on next steps.

Beth Shulman, author of The Betrayal of Work and co-chair of The Fairness Initiative, will offer a reaction and start the conversation.

This event will make an important contribution to the discussion about developing new policy goals in the United States. For additional information: Lessons from the UK and US: Developing Goals for Economic Mobility, Social Inclusion, and Employment. Seating is limited. To RSVP, send an e-mail to rsvp (at) inclusionist.org.

Here is a review of the film event from Sarah Sattelmeyer, Research Assistant, and Emily Groene, Program Assistant. -- Margy Waller

**********************

October has been a busy and productive month for us here at Inclusion!

Last night (October 10th) we co-sponsored a screening of the documentary Center for Social Media at American University as part of the DC Labor Film Festival (whew!).

Here is the flier:

For those of you who are movie buffs, Made in L.A., which documents the interrelationships between garment workers in L.A and their struggle to gain and maintain basic workplace rights, made its debut at documentary film festivals across the country this year, including SilverDocs in Silver Spring, MD. It also aired on the PBS program POV on September 4th. So needless to say, we were pretty lucky to have this (free!) opportunity and be able to share it with others from the DC area.

In case you are not convinced yet, here is what some other "movie buffs" thought about the film:
LA Times
New York Times

Over 100 people were present for the screening and many stayed after the movie to engage in discussion and dialogue about low-wage work in America. Margy was joined on the discussion panel by the film’s director Almudena Carracedo (who, I must add, was wearing amazing boots from Spain!) and its producer Robert Bahar, as well as by Rich Stolz from the Center for Community Change’s Immigration Team.

As a panelist, Margy offered a broader look at the state of the low-wage workplace and explained to an audience composed of students, professors, and community members why Inclusion promotes an economy that works for and allows participation by everyone in society. Perhaps the most salient point made by the discussion panel (to us, of course!) was when Almudena and Robert acknowledged that the story of illegal and unhealthy work practices told in Made in L.A. could have been told about many other parts of the service industry.

The message to us at Inclusion was loud and clear: the struggle for job quality and higher labor standards is universal. While the film did a beautiful job of interweaving the personal narratives of three female garment workers with their struggle for justice in the workplace, it also addressed issues experienced by Americans in every part of society. We hope that the many film students who were in the audience took note of how a film can exist as a symbiotic effort between filmmaker and community and how a strong social message can be portrayed to an audience through documentary film.

We enjoyed the opportunity to bring this dialogue out of our downtown Washington policy wonk-y office and into the community and the chance to use a different form of media to explore and project social messages.

Please see this list of things you can do to help!

-- Emily Groene and Sarah Sattelmeyer

If you are in the DC area, please join us tonight – Wednesday October 10 – for a free screening of a new documentary.

The Mobility Agenda is collaborating with documentary filmmakers and an intermediary, Active Voice, to promote the new film about low-wage work: Made in LA.

Active Voice brings filmmakers, policy advocates, and researchers together on issues of mutual interest. Recently, Inclusion’s Mobility Agenda team hosted a roundtable discussion about the film with Active Voice, just as the documentary began its festival circuit with a showing in DC at the SILVERDOCS festival.

We’re excited about this film for two reasons:

First, Made in L.A. is a story about the low-wage labor market and the critical importance of organizing the workplace to create a space for worker voices, and providing intermediary support and resources (like worker centers and unions) that can improve low-wage job conditions. It also provides a teaching moment for shoppers - if the price is a "steal", someone else probably already "paid" for it in low wages.

Second, at Inclusion and The Mobility Agenda, we are committed to using new media approaches for sharing ideas about issues of economic security and mobility, and successful strategies for system change. We are really impressed with the Active Voice leadership and their approach using documentary film to advance public understanding and policy change. While the film presents the particular experience of immigrant workers in LA, this documentary provides information about the low-wage labor market that is relevant across sectors.

Here is a description from the filmmakers:

MADE IN LA follows the remarkable journey of three Latina immigrants working LA’s garment factories and their struggles for self-empowerment as they wage a three-year battle to bring a major clothing retailer to the negotiating table. In an intimate vérité style, MADE IN LA offers a rare and poignant glimpse into this “other” America, where immigrants in many industries toil long hours for sub-minimum wages, fighting for an opportunity in a new country.

When we conducted a nationwide scan for The Mobility Agenda seeking new ideas on improving low-wage work, the strategy we heard about most often was guaranteeing paid time off for all workers. At the time, there was little discussion of this option, but after we talked to workers in Madison, WI and San Francisco, CA about local campaigns to ensure paid sick days, we started tracking new efforts across the country.

The SF campaign succeeded with overwhelming voter support, and the Madison initiative barely missed passage in city council. Since then, news media coverage of the issue has picked up and over 20 other places are considering making paid sick days official by creating a labor standard (like minimum wage) that covers all workers.

Now, there’s news of broad, bipartisan national support offering paid sick days to all workers.

A nationwide poll of 1,200 likely voters expresses strong bipartisan support for federal, state and local efforts currently underway to ensure employers provide paid sick days as a minimum workplace standard. Currently, 48 percent of the nation’s workers have no paid sick days.

Last week in seven states, as part of a nationwide movement, advocates highlighted efforts to ensure that workers are offered paid sick days. And in March, the proposed Healthy Families Act was introduced in Congress.

The poll of likely voters, taken June 20 – 27 of this year, shows that:

• Eighty-nine percent of poll respondents favor a basic labor standard that would guarantee all workers a minimum number of paid sick days.

• There is strong bipartisan agreement for paid sick days, with at least four in five Democrats, Independents and Republicans expressing agreement (Democrats – 94 percent agree; Independents – 90 percent; Republicans – 83 percent).

In addition, the poll results show:

• Support for a basic standard of paid sick days is greatest among younger voters (92 percent) and among African American voters (91 percent) and Hispanic voters (97 percent).

• Nearly one in eight voters (12 percent) surveyed reported that they or another adult worker in their family had been fired or penalized by their employer for taking time off from work to care for a sick family member or recover from their own illness. Among Hispanic and African American voters polled, nearly one in six (16 percent) reported that they or a family member had been fired or penalized for taking sick time off.

For more information, our friends at the National Partnership for Women and Families have posted additional results and information about efforts across the country at www.paidsickdays.org.

It will be interesting to see whether this idea picks up steam in the campaigns, and also whether candidates put this strategy in the context of new efforts to strengthen the economy with a focus on labor market issues (as opposed to say - calling it an "anti-poverty" initiative!). They'll also need to be prepared to deal with the inevitable complaint (see John McCain's statement for an example) that offering paid sick days could hurt small businesses.

The press release for a new report from CEPR and Inclusion on how unionization increases the upward mobility of workers in low-wage jobs:

Washington, DC: Unionization substantially raises wages and benefits even in typically low-wage occupations, according to "Unions and Upward Mobility for Low- Wage Workers ", a report released today by the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Inclusion.

The report, which analyzed 15 of the lowest-paying occupations in the United States, found that unionized workers earned about 16 percent more than their non-union counterparts. Unionized workers in these same industries were also about 25 percentage points more likely to have health insurance or a pension plan.

For workers in these low-wage industries, unionization raised their wages, on average, about $1.75 per hour. In financial terms, the union effect on employer-provided health insurance and pensions was even larger.

"Our findings contradict the widespread belief that low-wage jobs are incapable of providing decent pay and benefits," said John Schmitt, a Senior Economist at the CEPR and one of the study's authors. "When workers have a voice at work, they can dramatically increase their wages and benefits, even in what are traditionally badly paying jobs."

The 15 low-wage occupations together employ just over 15 percent of all US workers and include cafeteria workers, child-care workers, cooks, housekeeping cleaners, home-care aides, janitors, ground maintenance workers, nurses aides and home-health aides, teachers assistants, and security guards.

"Given the prevalence of low-wage jobs without benefits in our labor market, and the likelihood that these sectors will grow rather than decline, some attention to this strategy of improving the U.S. labor market is critical to strengthening our economy and communities," according to Margy Waller, co-director of Inclusion and a co-author of the report.

The Mobility Agenda is collaborating with documentary filmmakers and an intermediary, Active Voice, to promote a new film about low-wage work: Made in LA.

Active Voice brings filmmakers, policy advocates, and researchers together on issues of mutual interest. Recently, Inclusion’s Mobility Agenda team hosted a roundtable discussion about the film with Active Voice, just as the documentary began its festival circuit with a showing in DC at the SILVERDOCS festival.

On Tuesday September 4th, Made in LA will air nationwide on the PBS documentary series, POV, as a Labor Day special. We’re encouraging others to watch show for two reasons:

First, Made in L.A. is a story about the low-wage labor market and the critical importance of organizing the workplace to create a space for worker voices, and providing intermediary support and resources (like worker centers and unions) that can improve low-wage job conditions. It also provides a teaching moment for shoppers - if the price is a "steal", someone else probably already "paid" for it in low wages.

Second, at Inclusion and The Mobility Agenda, we are committed to using new media approaches for sharing ideas about issues of economic security and mobility, and successful strategies for system change. We are really impressed with the Active Voice leadership and their approach using documentary film to advance public understanding and policy change. While the film presents the particular experience of immigrant workers in LA, this documentary provides information about the low-wage labor market that is relevant across sectors.

Here is a description from the filmmakers:

MADE IN LA follows the remarkable journey of three Latina immigrants working LA’s garment factories and their struggles for self-empowerment as they wage a three-year battle to bring a major clothing retailer to the negotiating table. In an intimate vérité style, MADE IN LA offers a rare and poignant glimpse into this “other” America, where immigrants in many industries toil long hours for sub-minimum wages, fighting for an opportunity in a new country.

Inclusion's Mobility Agenda and PRRAC recently co-sponsored a roundtable conversation to discuss the research evidence and promising practices for employment and housing mobility with some of the most knowledgeable people in the field.

At the meeting we discussed employment -- economic success and inclusion -- for low-wage households living in dispersed housing, particularly those moving from impacted high-poverty neighborhoods to less impacted communities, and cataloguing promising practices to improve the economic outcomes and social inclusion for employees, employers, and communities.

The meeting was “first of a kind” in a number of ways.

• The participants included an unusual combination of people who don't often sit around the same table: academic researchers, local providers and advocates, and policy analysts from all levels of government.

• Similarly, the presenters came from a few different issue areas -- housing, metropolitan, transportation, economy, labor market, non-profit sector, child care, and civil rights -- sometimes called issue "silos" when leaders develop strategy in isolation.

• We made our first foray into “taping” for online presentation. (We learned a lot….lessons we’ll put to good use at our next event.)

For a great deal of information about the intersection between housing and employment, check out the web page we’ve created. (Research Assistant Sarah Sattelmeyer is “AWESOME”!) On the page you’ll find all of the presentation materials, background reading, and video of much of the event along with a photo gallery.

Inclusion's work on this topic is supported by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.