Advocacy

New Study Suggests Literacy Programs in Ghana Lead to Lower Rates of Infant Mortality

/ The Old Crank

Although it supports the (apparently) widely agreed notion among those in the global development community that adult literacy programs are not effective, a new study does point to an “unintended success” of such programs: decreasing child mortality.

So says Niels-Hugo Blunch, associate professor of economics at Washington and Lee University, in his recently published a paper, “Staying Alive: Adult Literacy Programs and Child Mortality in Rural Ghana.”

Blunch says that evaluations of adult literacy programs in developing countries tends to skip over beneficial outcomes that would cast them in a more successful light. From Washington and Lee’s news release:

Blunch explained that although the adult literacy program is formally about literacy and numeracy, it is really a multiplex program that integrates other modules such as health and social issues, income generation/occupational skills and civic awareness. Approximately 28 different topics are covered across those three modules.

Under the health module, women learn about family planning, teenage pregnancy, environmental hygiene, immunization, HIV/AIDS, safe motherhood and child care, drug abuse, traditional medicine and safe drinking water.

Blunch is hoping that publication of his paper will get the attention of the global development community, including the World Bank, and result in increased attention and funding for these programs, especially in rural areas.

I also thought this was interesting:

Classes in rural Ghana are held two to three times a week for a total of about six hours per week and, in most cases, there are 20 to 30 participants per instructor. It takes about 21 months to complete the course. Yet, according to Blunch, a significant reason for the skepticism and resulting reduction in funding of these programs is the poor outcomes in Latin America and South America, where classes frequently lasted only six to eight months, were shorter, and often also not with the additional health, income generating activities and civic awareness components.

I don’t have any direct experience with adult literacy programs outside of the U.S., so I can’t speak with any kind of expertise about them, but in general, with adult literacy, it shouldn’t be a surprise that programs that are longer, with a greater intensity of instruction and an integrated learning approach would lead to better outcomes than the programs he is describing in Latin and South America.

Blunch’s paper also included a cost-benefit analysis (again, this is according to Washington and Lee’s news release—I don’t have a link to the paper itself) of program participation that showed “substantial positive net benefits in monetary terms, including the future earnings of children whose deaths have been averted, even when disregarding women learning about income-generating activities, as well as the many other positive potential outcomes of program participation.”

From the perspective of domestic adult literacy policy and advocacy, I think it’s equally important to conduct this kind of research, and to point out these “indirect” outcomes to policymakers—and in monetary terms. (I know, of course, that there has been research like this, but there needs to be more of it, and it needs to be better publicized.) Anyone who has been around an adult education program here in the U.S. has seen the positive impact that simply enrolling and participating in a program can have on the individuals who have enrolled—in terms of their health and overall well-being, the example they set for their children, etc. We sell our programs short here in the U.S. as well.

No Harm, No Foul

/ The Old Crank

(Updated Below)

Republicans in the House would like you to know that they haven’t really been hearing much about the sequester from their constituents.

From Roll Call this morning:

[W]hile the impacts are starting to appear in local media across the country, particularly near military bases, rank-and-file Republicans generally say they aren’t feeling much pressure yet, and they expect the sequester will simply stay in place.

“I think, generally speaking, people haven’t noticed,” said Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa, noting that the flap about canceled White House tours is one exception.

“I’m not hearing anything at home, really,” said Rep. John Campbell. The California Republican said he’s been asked about the sequester more by the press than constituents. He said he heard from one contractor who said, “You know, we may lose a contract over this, but we’ll survive.”

Campbell said Republicans going home for the Easter break are going to be focused instead on touting the GOP plan to balance the budget.

I’m not surprised that many House Republicans haven’t heard much from their constituents about the sequester. Republican members of the House (and only Republicans were interview for this story) often represent wealthier districts where, in fact, the sequester probably won’t have much of an impact.

But this does raise the question: During the upcoming House and Senate Easter recess (March 25th – April 5th), what will members (on either side of the aisle) hear about it? Do grassroots organizations have their folks prepared to meet with lawmakers during the break? Have folks back home just resigned themselves to the idea that the cuts are here to stay? Will stories that are “starting to appear” in the local media become more frequent?

There could be a lack of urgency about the sequester because many programs have not been affected yet. WIA Title II Adult education funding, for example, will not be cut until July 1st, because like many (but not all) education programs, it’s forward funded. So adult education programs aren’t going to see the effects until new grant awards are made over the summer. Plus, depending on how states decide to distribute the cut, I suppose some programs may not even see much of a decrease.

But it’s still important, I think, to speak up about the importance of federal support for adult education in our communities now, even if the sequester effects haven’t settled in yet. Remember also that sequestration is a multi-year process, and will work very differently next year. Instead of across-the-board cuts to every program, in 2014-2021 the cut will be in the form of overall budget caps. Congress and the administration will then have to figure out how to live within those reduced caps. In other words, after 2013, there are no automatic, proportional cuts to discretionary programs like adult education. It will be up to the President and Congress to decide how much to cut from each program. They could even eliminate funding altogether for some. (For those interested in the gory details, I recommend the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities latest paper on how this all works.)

I also continue to fear that over time, pressure on states to find money to shore up other places where the sequester is affecting their budgets is going to result in reduced state support for adult education, much in the way that California school districts have been snatching funds from adult education to support K-12. Which means that this is also an important time to let state lawmakers know how important adult education is in your community.

The media pays a lot of attention to the political wrangling between the administration and Congress over making some kind of deal to roll back the sequester, but without strong constituent pressure—and soon—I can’t figure out why we should expect that anything will actually be done.

Update: More on the same theme, from Brian Beutler at TPM:

It’s been nearly three weeks since President Obama issued the sequestration order. Across the country, newspapers carry reports of furloughs, airport closings, children kicked out of Head Start. The consequences are beginning to snowball. But lawmakers have reacted to the bad news with a collective shrug.

In the same week Congress is expected to pass government funding legislation that effectively locks in sequestration until the end of September, an unexpected reality is dawning on Washington: as bad as sequestration is, and was intended to be, it’s not bad enough to do what it was designed to do.

That’s left Democrats resigned to malfunctioning and underfunded government in perpetuity, and Republicans confident they can weather the coming months and turn sequestration spending levels into a new normal. (my emphasis)

SKILLS Act Approved by the House – Now It’s Off to Die in the Senate

/ The Old Crank / 1 Comment

If you follow this legislation closely, you already know this, but in case you missed it: the House of Representatives, to no one’s surprise, approved the House Republicans’ Workforce Investment Act (WIA) reauthorization bill, H.R. 803 (known as the SKILLS Act) on Friday, pretty much along party lines. Only two Democrats voted in favor: Rep. Matheson (UT) and Rep. Barrow (GA).

Fourteen Republicans voted against:

Paul Cook (CA)
Gary Miller (CA)
Paul Broun Jr. (GA)
Thomas Massie (KY)
Justin Amash (MI)
Walter Jones Jr. (NC)
Frank LoBiondo (NJ)
Jon Runyan (NJ)
Christopher Gibson (NY)
Michael Grimm (NY)
Peter King (NY)
Michael Turner (OH)
Jim Bridenstine (OK)
David McKinley (WV)

Rep. Tierney (D-MA) offered the Democrats’ substitute bill, H.R. 798, as an amendment, but again, not surprisingly, it didn’t pass.

Interestingly, the two Democratic House members vying for John Kerry’s former Senate seat, Edward Markey and Stephen Lynch, both sat out the vote.

The bill will now go on to find a nice hole to crawl into in the Senate. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee is reportedly working on a bipartisan WIA reauthorization bill, and thus it is extremely unlikely that the SKILLS Act, having received virtually no Democratic support in the House, will ever see the light of day on the Senate floor.

It was a bit frustrating (for me, anyway) to see this bill introduced at this time, since it’s going nowhere in the Senate. Because WIA is so critical to adult education funding, adult education advocates couldn’t ignore it, but I fear that it served as a distraction from immigration reform, where I think there is better opportunity right now to generate some new awareness and support in Congress for adult education.

House Republicans to Democrats on WIA: You Just Got Jammed

/ The Old Crank
Councilman Jamm

Pawnee Councilman Jeremy Jamm

The House Education and the Workforce Committee has announced that it will markup its Workforce Investment Act (WIA) bill, H.R. 803, “Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act’’ or the ‘‘SKILLS Act’’ on March 6th. If you missed last week’s hearing on this bill, an archived webcast is available here. If you don’t have time to watch the whole thing, I do recommend—if only for the sheer entertainment value of it—skipping to about the 1:51 mark to hear Rep. Tierney (D-MA) and Chairwoman Foxx  (R-NC) argue over Tierney’s charge that the Chairwoman has not been willing to work with Democrats on the committee on a bipartisan bill. Lots of talk on the Democratic side about the bill being “jammed through.” Pawnee’s infamous Councilman Jeremy Jamm would be proud.

You can read CQ Roll Call‘s account of the debate between Tierney and Foxx here. In addition to the on-the-record comments made by both, CQ Roll Call reports that the two “participated in a heated exchange off-microphone after the hearing officially ended.”

I don’t have much to say about this. The SKILLS Act is essentially the same bill that Rep. Foxx introduced last session. There are several things to dislike about the bill if you are an adult education advocate, but far and away the most critical problem is that it would allow states to consolidate Title II adult education funding together with job training programs into these big block grants to states that the bill would create, and I don’t believe there is enough in the bill to ensure that states will use their Title II funding for adult education and literacy services (or to ensure that money isn’t shifted away from the underserved populations that many of the Title I training programs were designed to help).

The Democrats on the committee have introduced their own WIA reauthorization bill (H.R. 798)—and, like H.R. 803, it’s also essentially the same bill they introduced last session. They may offer it as an amendment on the 6th.

People close to this issue tell me that it’s very important for groups to voice concerns about H.R. 803 now, before markup, or at least before the bill gets to the floor, rather than waiting for the Senate to take this up. Even if it’s likely (and I think it is) that H.R. 803 passes through committee and the full House without any significant changes, the thought is that speaking up now to build a record of strong opposition from around the country will make it easier for the Senate to push for significant changes if/when they take this up.