Social Policies
#28Key Findings
Showing significant weaknesses, the United States falls into the lower-middle ranks (rank 28) with regard to social policies. Its score on this measure has declined by 0.2 points relative to 2014.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the healthcare system’s massive inequalities. The Trump administration’s elimination of the Obama-era individual health insurance mandate increased the numbers of the uninsured, and increased the cost of insurance premiums. The Biden administration has sought to improve access.
Despite strong funding, education system inequalities are severe. Lagging financial aid for low-income students means that wealthy students are far more likely to graduate from college. Income inequality has increased dramatically. The Trump administration cut programs for the poor. Pandemic-era legislation temporarily increased welfare benefits and tax credits for poor families.
Direct family policy is minimal, but families with children receive tax benefits. Access to abortion has become nearly nonexistent in some states. Ideological stalemate has prevented passage of pension-system sustainability reforms. The Biden administration has reversed most of Trump’s anti-immigrant policies. Escalating urban homicide rates and large-scale shootings are increasing problems.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the healthcare system’s massive inequalities. The Trump administration’s elimination of the Obama-era individual health insurance mandate increased the numbers of the uninsured, and increased the cost of insurance premiums. The Biden administration has sought to improve access.
Despite strong funding, education system inequalities are severe. Lagging financial aid for low-income students means that wealthy students are far more likely to graduate from college. Income inequality has increased dramatically. The Trump administration cut programs for the poor. Pandemic-era legislation temporarily increased welfare benefits and tax credits for poor families.
Direct family policy is minimal, but families with children receive tax benefits. Access to abortion has become nearly nonexistent in some states. Ideological stalemate has prevented passage of pension-system sustainability reforms. The Biden administration has reversed most of Trump’s anti-immigrant policies. Escalating urban homicide rates and large-scale shootings are increasing problems.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent does education policy deliver high-quality, equitable and efficient education and training?
10
9
9
Education policy fully achieves the criteria.
8
7
6
7
6
Education policy largely achieves the criteria.
5
4
3
4
3
Education policy partially achieves the criteria.
2
1
1
Education policy does not achieve the criteria at all.
The performance of primary and secondary education in the United States has long been disappointing. Historically low high school graduation rates significantly improved over the last two decades, reaching a record high of 82% in 2016, but this is a low rate for a wealthy country. The education system largely lacks vocational alternatives to high school education. High school students’ performance in science, math and reading remains below most wealthy OECD countries. Yet the educational system is generously funded. Its shortcomings are the result of several factors, including the impact of deficiencies in the home environments of many children in low-income/minority neighborhoods, severe inequalities in school quality between wealthy and low-income areas, a lack of accountability for outcomes in the fragmented system, and effective resistance to school reforms by powerful teachers’ unions.
As college and university costs have increased, financial aid for low-income students has failed to keep up. As a result, students from the top income quintile are now at least three times as likely to graduate as those from the lowest quintile. Trump cut budgets for college loan programs and relaxed accreditation requirements for the often-predatory for-profit higher education sector. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, a pause on student loans was enacted. This pause continued during the first year of the Biden administration.
In March 2021, Dr. Miguel Cardona became President Biden’s Education Secretary and the new Democratic administration made it clear its goal was to overturn many of Trump’s education policies, particularly in areas such as anti-discrimination measures targeting racial and sexual minorities as well as students with disabilities (Waters, 2021). More generally, education equity within a better-funded public education system became a major aspect of the Build Back Better agenda of this Biden administration.
Citations:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/charter-schools-losing-the-narrative-but-winning-the-data.html
Waters, Laura. 2021. “Biden Pledged to Overturn Trump’s Education Policies. So, How’s It Going?” Education Post, June 30.
https://educationpost.org/biden-pledged-to-overturn-trumps-education-policies-so-hows-it-going/
As college and university costs have increased, financial aid for low-income students has failed to keep up. As a result, students from the top income quintile are now at least three times as likely to graduate as those from the lowest quintile. Trump cut budgets for college loan programs and relaxed accreditation requirements for the often-predatory for-profit higher education sector. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, a pause on student loans was enacted. This pause continued during the first year of the Biden administration.
In March 2021, Dr. Miguel Cardona became President Biden’s Education Secretary and the new Democratic administration made it clear its goal was to overturn many of Trump’s education policies, particularly in areas such as anti-discrimination measures targeting racial and sexual minorities as well as students with disabilities (Waters, 2021). More generally, education equity within a better-funded public education system became a major aspect of the Build Back Better agenda of this Biden administration.
Citations:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/charter-schools-losing-the-narrative-but-winning-the-data.html
Waters, Laura. 2021. “Biden Pledged to Overturn Trump’s Education Policies. So, How’s It Going?” Education Post, June 30.
https://educationpost.org/biden-pledged-to-overturn-trumps-education-policies-so-hows-it-going/
Graph View
To what extent does social policy prevent exclusion and decoupling from society?
10
9
9
Policies very effectively enable societal inclusion and ensure equal opportunities.
8
7
6
7
6
For the most part, policies enable societal inclusion effectively and ensure equal opportunities.
5
4
3
4
3
For the most part, policies fail to prevent societal exclusion effectively and ensure equal opportunities.
2
1
1
Policies exacerbate unequal opportunities and exclusion from society.
The United States has long featured high levels of economic inequality that have continued to increase. In recent years, poverty has remained persistent and been accompanied by exceptionally large income gains among the top 1% and, in particular, the top 0.1% of earners. The United States ranks in the top five among the 41 OECD countries with regard to the proportion of the population (17.3%) that receives less than 50% of the median income. Overall income inequality (after taxes and transfers) hit a record high in 2019, according to the Census Bureau.
President Trump and the Republican Congress have introduced major cuts to programs targeting the poor – including healthcare, food stamps, student loans and disability payments. They have also sought to exclude undocumented immigrants from receiving the Child Tax Credit (CTC) or the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). They have sought to eliminate the expanded low-income health coverage that was introduced by Obamacare. In 2019, the Trump administration signed the Reducing Poverty in American Act, an executive order that expanded work requirements in the social welfare net, especially in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, emergency legislation expanded temporary both EITC and SNAP benefits. In March 2021, the American Rescue Plan also led to an unprecedented yet temporary increase in the CTC, which many Democrats hope could later become permanent. The expansion of CTC rapidly appeared as a major tool to fight poverty in the United States that is likely to significantly reduce poverty over time (Béland, Dinan, Rocco and Waddan, forthcoming).
Citations:
Daniel Béland, Shannon Dinan, Philip Rocco and Alex Waddan. Forthcoming. “COVID-19, Poverty Reduction, and Partisanship in Canada and the United States,” Policy and Society.
President Trump and the Republican Congress have introduced major cuts to programs targeting the poor – including healthcare, food stamps, student loans and disability payments. They have also sought to exclude undocumented immigrants from receiving the Child Tax Credit (CTC) or the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). They have sought to eliminate the expanded low-income health coverage that was introduced by Obamacare. In 2019, the Trump administration signed the Reducing Poverty in American Act, an executive order that expanded work requirements in the social welfare net, especially in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, emergency legislation expanded temporary both EITC and SNAP benefits. In March 2021, the American Rescue Plan also led to an unprecedented yet temporary increase in the CTC, which many Democrats hope could later become permanent. The expansion of CTC rapidly appeared as a major tool to fight poverty in the United States that is likely to significantly reduce poverty over time (Béland, Dinan, Rocco and Waddan, forthcoming).
Citations:
Daniel Béland, Shannon Dinan, Philip Rocco and Alex Waddan. Forthcoming. “COVID-19, Poverty Reduction, and Partisanship in Canada and the United States,” Policy and Society.
Graph View
To what extent do health care policies provide high-quality, inclusive and cost-efficient health care?
10
9
9
Health care policy achieves the criteria fully.
8
7
6
7
6
Health care policy achieves the criteria largely.
5
4
3
4
3
Health care policy achieves the criteria partly.
2
1
1
Health care policy does not achieve the criteria at all.
For many years, the U.S. healthcare system has provided the best care in the world, though highly inefficiently, to most of its residents, that is, those with health insurance coverage. It has provided significantly inferior care to the large numbers without coverage, in particular, people with relatively low incomes or those who are ineligible under the means-tested Medicaid program. In 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, often called “Obamacare”), mainly to extend healthcare coverage to more people. The ACA was essentially designed to fill gaps in the existing healthcare system’s patchwork of financing arrangements.
In 2017, the Republican tax bill effectively abolished the individual mandate (a requirement for otherwise uncovered individuals to purchase health insurance), which is central to making the ACA financially viable. In addition, Republican officials in 19 states filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the ACA (despite the prior Supreme Court ruling), and the Trump administration authorized “short-term” insurance plans that included sharply reduced coverage. The elimination of the individual mandate has increased the numbers of those not covered by health insurance and increased the cost of premiums for those who are covered.
The COVID-19 pandemic stressed the massive inequalities at the center of the U.S. healthcare system. Immediately after become President, Biden signed many executive orders meant to reserve some of the Trump-era policies on healthcare meant to weaken the ACA. Signed in March 2021, the American Rescue Plan also featured temporary increases in premium tax credits and other measures that should improve access to healthcare coverage. The administration would like these policies, which are only in effect until the end of 2022, to become permanent, which would have a positive impact on healthcare provision in the United States.
Citations:
Kaiser Family Foundation, The Affordable Care Act’s Little-noticed Success: Cutting the Uninsured Rate, 2016, http://kff.org/uninsured/perspective/the-affordable-care-acts-little-noticed-success-cutting-the-uninsured-rate/
In 2017, the Republican tax bill effectively abolished the individual mandate (a requirement for otherwise uncovered individuals to purchase health insurance), which is central to making the ACA financially viable. In addition, Republican officials in 19 states filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the ACA (despite the prior Supreme Court ruling), and the Trump administration authorized “short-term” insurance plans that included sharply reduced coverage. The elimination of the individual mandate has increased the numbers of those not covered by health insurance and increased the cost of premiums for those who are covered.
The COVID-19 pandemic stressed the massive inequalities at the center of the U.S. healthcare system. Immediately after become President, Biden signed many executive orders meant to reserve some of the Trump-era policies on healthcare meant to weaken the ACA. Signed in March 2021, the American Rescue Plan also featured temporary increases in premium tax credits and other measures that should improve access to healthcare coverage. The administration would like these policies, which are only in effect until the end of 2022, to become permanent, which would have a positive impact on healthcare provision in the United States.
Citations:
Kaiser Family Foundation, The Affordable Care Act’s Little-noticed Success: Cutting the Uninsured Rate, 2016, http://kff.org/uninsured/perspective/the-affordable-care-acts-little-noticed-success-cutting-the-uninsured-rate/
Graph View
To what extent do family support policies enable women to combine parenting with participation in the labor market?
10
9
9
Family support policies effectively enable women to combine parenting with employment.
8
7
6
7
6
Family support policies provide some support for women who want to combine parenting and employment.
5
4
3
4
3
Family support policies provide only few opportunities for women who want to combine parenting and employment.
2
1
1
Family support policies force most women to opt for either parenting or employment.
The United States ranks near the bottom of the developed world on many measures of direct governmental and regulatory support for working mothers. This is the case partly because of the lack of federal paid parental leaves and limited access to affordable, subsidized childcare in many states. Nevertheless, the United States provides significant support for families with children, largely through tax benefits. The policies have the greatest effect for poor families, especially single mothers, partly because of low governmental tolerance for welfare dependency.
Before the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Trump administration’s main actions affecting low-income families consisted of strengthening work requirements in cash assistance, food stamps and low-income healthcare programs. In the aftermath of the pandemic, the United States witnessed an expansion of family benefits. For instance, in March 2021, President Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan, which featured a major expansion of the federal Child Tax Credit for one year. Later in the year, as part of the Build Back Better debate, Democrats sought but ultimately failed to prolong this temporary expansion of the Child Tax Credit for a second year.
Responding to the arrival of two Trump-appointed conservative Supreme Court justices, several state governments have taken steps to dramatically restrict or even abolish access to abortion. The hope of these governments is that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 decision that established the right to abortion, and therefore uphold their efforts to restrict abortion. In some states, access to abortion has become nearly nonexistent.
Before the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Trump administration’s main actions affecting low-income families consisted of strengthening work requirements in cash assistance, food stamps and low-income healthcare programs. In the aftermath of the pandemic, the United States witnessed an expansion of family benefits. For instance, in March 2021, President Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan, which featured a major expansion of the federal Child Tax Credit for one year. Later in the year, as part of the Build Back Better debate, Democrats sought but ultimately failed to prolong this temporary expansion of the Child Tax Credit for a second year.
Responding to the arrival of two Trump-appointed conservative Supreme Court justices, several state governments have taken steps to dramatically restrict or even abolish access to abortion. The hope of these governments is that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 decision that established the right to abortion, and therefore uphold their efforts to restrict abortion. In some states, access to abortion has become nearly nonexistent.
Graph View
To what extent does pension policy realize goals of poverty prevention, intergenerational equity and fiscal sustainability?
10
9
9
Pension policy achieves the objectives fully.
8
7
6
7
6
Pension policy achieves the objectives largely.
5
4
3
4
3
Pension policy achieves the objectives partly.
2
1
1
Pension policy does not achieve the objectives at all.
The Social Security retirement program is the United States’ main public pension system that complements various employer-based pension plans, tax-subsidized retirement saving plans (401k plans) and private retirement accounts. Social Security is funded by mandatory employee and employer contributions, totaling 12.4% of wages, on wages up to approximately $120,000 per year. The wage-replacement rate of the public system is on average 45%, which is below the OECD average, though the rate is higher for people with lower incomes. Benefits from company-based and private accounts raise the wage-replacement rate to 80%. However, 78 million Americans have no access to company-based retirement plans. In addition, the financial crisis of 2008 hit the asset base of pension funds, which has resulted in many private employers proving unable to make full payments. A long-term Social Security funding shortfall has been politically intractable, with Democrats blocking benefit cuts (or reductions of scheduled benefit increases) and Republicans blocking increases in the payroll tax.
With respect to the three goals of pension systems (i.e., poverty prevention, intergenerational equity and fiscal sustainability), the U.S. pension system is partially successful in reducing poverty among the elderly. Historically, each succeeding retirement cohort has received generous subsidies from current workers, but the growth of the elderly population threatens coming retirement cohorts with potential losses of expected benefits. The system is currently at risk with respect to financial sustainability.
So far, Democrats and Republicans alike have proved unwilling to raise taxes and/or cut benefits in order to address the long-term funding deficiencies of the Social Security program. These funding deficiencies are increasingly problematic and will require larger, more painful adjustments with every year in which the government fails to act. The economic downturn created by the COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on the Social Security trust fund. Finally, during the pandemic, Social Security and Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries became eligible to emergency Economic Impact Payments.
With respect to the three goals of pension systems (i.e., poverty prevention, intergenerational equity and fiscal sustainability), the U.S. pension system is partially successful in reducing poverty among the elderly. Historically, each succeeding retirement cohort has received generous subsidies from current workers, but the growth of the elderly population threatens coming retirement cohorts with potential losses of expected benefits. The system is currently at risk with respect to financial sustainability.
So far, Democrats and Republicans alike have proved unwilling to raise taxes and/or cut benefits in order to address the long-term funding deficiencies of the Social Security program. These funding deficiencies are increasingly problematic and will require larger, more painful adjustments with every year in which the government fails to act. The economic downturn created by the COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on the Social Security trust fund. Finally, during the pandemic, Social Security and Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries became eligible to emergency Economic Impact Payments.
Graph View
How effectively do policies support the integration of migrants into society?
10
9
9
Cultural, education and social policies effectively support the integration of migrants into society.
8
7
6
7
6
Cultural, education and social policies seek to integrate migrants into society, but have failed to do so effectively.
5
4
3
4
3
Cultural, education and social policies do not focus on integrating migrants into society.
2
1
1
Cultural, education and social policies segregate migrant communities from the majority society.
Prior to the Trump presidency, the United States was ranked ninth out of 31 assessed countries and first with respect to anti-discrimination laws and protection. The United States also ranked high on the access-to-citizenship scale, because it encourages immigrants to become citizens. Legal immigrants enjoy good (but often low-paid) employment opportunities and educational opportunities. However, the United States does less well with regard to family reunification. Many legal permanent residents cannot obtain visas for other family members.
A large share of immigration to the United States has consisted of illegal immigrants, most of whom have crossed the border from Mexico and often have lived, worked and paid taxes in the United States for their entire adult lives without ever becoming legal residents. These illegal immigrants account for nearly one-third of the immigrant population, numbering 12 million to 15 million individuals or 3% to 4% of the country’s overall population. They have in effect been tolerated (or even virtually invited by the ease of illegal entry) for their economic contributions, often as agricultural workers or in low-paying service occupations. Children of illegal immigrants attend public schools, and businesses that employ illegal immigrants have not been subject to effective penalization. There have been several bipartisan efforts to enact major immigration reforms but such efforts have not succeeded.
Events taking place starting in 2016 profoundly increased the insecurities faced by large numbers of immigrants. President Trump’s election campaign was based on his opposition to immigration, especially from Mexico, the Middle East or other Muslim countries. Trump carried out a wide-ranging, aggressive attack on immigration – targeting illegal immigration in particular. Though his actions were often overturned in federal courts, Trump sought to ban the otherwise legal entry of individuals from a number of mostly Muslim-majority countries and to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program (which protects adults who were brought into the country illegally as children from deportation). In addition, he declared his intention to abolish birthright citizenship (despite his lack of constitutional power to do so). Trump insisted on his demands to build a wall on the Mexican border. In what became an international human-rights scandal, his administration separated thousands of children from their parents who had entered the country, most often legally, in search of asylum. Trump also threatened to withdraw permanent resident status from immigrants who draw on public assistance.
Immediately after entering the White House, President Biden began to reverse Trump’s immigration policies, notably by reaffirming DACA protections, halting the construction of the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, and ending the travel ban on people from mostly Muslim-majority countries. Yet, the new administration did maintain some of the travel restrictions first enacted in 2020 as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Citations:
Migration Policy Institute (December 2017), Immigration under Trump: A Review of Policy Shifts in the Year Since the Election, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigration-under-trump-review-policy-shifts (accessed December 2017)
A large share of immigration to the United States has consisted of illegal immigrants, most of whom have crossed the border from Mexico and often have lived, worked and paid taxes in the United States for their entire adult lives without ever becoming legal residents. These illegal immigrants account for nearly one-third of the immigrant population, numbering 12 million to 15 million individuals or 3% to 4% of the country’s overall population. They have in effect been tolerated (or even virtually invited by the ease of illegal entry) for their economic contributions, often as agricultural workers or in low-paying service occupations. Children of illegal immigrants attend public schools, and businesses that employ illegal immigrants have not been subject to effective penalization. There have been several bipartisan efforts to enact major immigration reforms but such efforts have not succeeded.
Events taking place starting in 2016 profoundly increased the insecurities faced by large numbers of immigrants. President Trump’s election campaign was based on his opposition to immigration, especially from Mexico, the Middle East or other Muslim countries. Trump carried out a wide-ranging, aggressive attack on immigration – targeting illegal immigration in particular. Though his actions were often overturned in federal courts, Trump sought to ban the otherwise legal entry of individuals from a number of mostly Muslim-majority countries and to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program (which protects adults who were brought into the country illegally as children from deportation). In addition, he declared his intention to abolish birthright citizenship (despite his lack of constitutional power to do so). Trump insisted on his demands to build a wall on the Mexican border. In what became an international human-rights scandal, his administration separated thousands of children from their parents who had entered the country, most often legally, in search of asylum. Trump also threatened to withdraw permanent resident status from immigrants who draw on public assistance.
Immediately after entering the White House, President Biden began to reverse Trump’s immigration policies, notably by reaffirming DACA protections, halting the construction of the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, and ending the travel ban on people from mostly Muslim-majority countries. Yet, the new administration did maintain some of the travel restrictions first enacted in 2020 as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Citations:
Migration Policy Institute (December 2017), Immigration under Trump: A Review of Policy Shifts in the Year Since the Election, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigration-under-trump-review-policy-shifts (accessed December 2017)
Graph View
How effectively does internal security policy protect citizens against security risks?
10
9
9
Internal security policy protects citizens against security risks very effectively.
8
7
6
7
6
Internal security policy protects citizens against security risks more or less effectively.
5
4
3
4
3
Internal security policy does not effectively protect citizens against security risks.
2
1
1
Internal security policy exacerbates the security risks.
The United States invests massively in efforts to protect citizens against security risks such as crime and terrorism. In the years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the United States built an extraordinarily large security establishment centered in the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency.
The government has had less success dealing with two other kinds of violence. First, a number of large cities are plagued by homicides, primarily in inner-city black and Latino neighborhoods. New Orleans, St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit and Chicago all number among the world’s 50 cities with the highest homicide rates. Second, there are repeated instances of individuals conducting large-scale violent attacks on civilians in public spaces, killing large numbers of people. Hate crimes have increased, with Jewish and Muslim persons frequently targeted.
Under pressure from the National Rifle Association and its massive membership, Congress has failed to pass legislation tightening weapon regulations. In 2018, a massive national protest – led by students from a Florida high school that had suffered an attack – increased the pressure on lawmakers to introduce tighter restrictions on the sale and acquisition of guns and other weapons. Yet, amidst strong Republican opposition, federal gun control initiatives have stalled. Yet, in the absence of legislative progress, the Biden administration has unveiled a new strategy to reduce gun crime in the United States, notably by providing “funding for community violence intervention, or CVI, programs that have been shown to break cycles of violence by connecting high-risk individuals to wraparound social services” (Ward, 2021).
The issue of violence in predominantly black communities has remained highly controversial and the recent emergence of the Black Lives Matter movement has moved the issue of police abuse toward Black people onto the agenda. Whereas some studies have suggested that when apprehending a suspect, police are no more likely to use lethal force against blacks than whites, these studies have been criticized for methodologies involving conceptual bias. There are several other studies, however, showing that black men are much more likely than white men to be affected by police brutality. In terms of actual casualties and loss of life, the frequency of inner-city violence, which involves mostly black perpetrators and black victims, is by far the greatest failure to provide safe living conditions (see 2016 FBI data “Crime in the United States”).
Citations:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls
Ward, Myah. 2021. “Gun control legislation isn’t going to happen. Here’s what Biden’s doing instead,” Politico, November 5. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/05/biden-gun-violence-legislation-519625
The government has had less success dealing with two other kinds of violence. First, a number of large cities are plagued by homicides, primarily in inner-city black and Latino neighborhoods. New Orleans, St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit and Chicago all number among the world’s 50 cities with the highest homicide rates. Second, there are repeated instances of individuals conducting large-scale violent attacks on civilians in public spaces, killing large numbers of people. Hate crimes have increased, with Jewish and Muslim persons frequently targeted.
Under pressure from the National Rifle Association and its massive membership, Congress has failed to pass legislation tightening weapon regulations. In 2018, a massive national protest – led by students from a Florida high school that had suffered an attack – increased the pressure on lawmakers to introduce tighter restrictions on the sale and acquisition of guns and other weapons. Yet, amidst strong Republican opposition, federal gun control initiatives have stalled. Yet, in the absence of legislative progress, the Biden administration has unveiled a new strategy to reduce gun crime in the United States, notably by providing “funding for community violence intervention, or CVI, programs that have been shown to break cycles of violence by connecting high-risk individuals to wraparound social services” (Ward, 2021).
The issue of violence in predominantly black communities has remained highly controversial and the recent emergence of the Black Lives Matter movement has moved the issue of police abuse toward Black people onto the agenda. Whereas some studies have suggested that when apprehending a suspect, police are no more likely to use lethal force against blacks than whites, these studies have been criticized for methodologies involving conceptual bias. There are several other studies, however, showing that black men are much more likely than white men to be affected by police brutality. In terms of actual casualties and loss of life, the frequency of inner-city violence, which involves mostly black perpetrators and black victims, is by far the greatest failure to provide safe living conditions (see 2016 FBI data “Crime in the United States”).
Citations:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls
Ward, Myah. 2021. “Gun control legislation isn’t going to happen. Here’s what Biden’s doing instead,” Politico, November 5. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/05/biden-gun-violence-legislation-519625
Graph View
To what extent does the government demonstrate an active and coherent commitment to promoting equal socioeconomic opportunities in low- and middle-income countries?
10
9
9
The government actively and coherently engages in international efforts to promote equal socioeconomic opportunities in low- and middle-income countries. It frequently demonstrates initiative and responsibility, and acts as an agenda-setter.
8
7
6
7
6
The government actively engages in international efforts to promote equal socioeconomic opportunities in low- and middle-income countries. However, some of its measures or policies lack coherence.
5
4
3
4
3
The government shows limited engagement in international efforts to promote equal socioeconomic opportunities in low- and middle-income countries. Many of its measures or policies lack coherence.
2
1
1
The government does not contribute (and often undermines) efforts to promote equal socioeconomic opportunities in low- and middle-income countries.
Although the United States’ efforts have lagged behind those of other OECD countries, it provides a large share of the world’s development assistance. For most of the postwar era, U.S. foreign aid has had four features that have reduced its impact on economic development and welfare in poor countries: It has been modest in amount relative to national income; it has been heavily skewed toward military assistance; it has not always been coordinated with assistance from international organizations; and – at least with regard to food assistance – it has often been designed to benefit U.S. agricultural, shipping and commercial interests along with aid recipients.
Reversing this direction, Trump cut foreign aid budgets. To support Israel, he also barred aid to Palestine. In deference to anti-abortion demands, he barred international organizations that either promote or perform abortions from involvement in distributing economic aid. At the end of 2018, the Trump administration changed its course again.
With the Build Act and other activities, the administration looked again to foreign aid policy as an instrument of soft power in competing with Russia and China. In late spring 2021, as part of his first budget plan, President Biden called for a major boost in foreign aid, including more than 10 billion dollars for global health initiatives related partly to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Reversing this direction, Trump cut foreign aid budgets. To support Israel, he also barred aid to Palestine. In deference to anti-abortion demands, he barred international organizations that either promote or perform abortions from involvement in distributing economic aid. At the end of 2018, the Trump administration changed its course again.
With the Build Act and other activities, the administration looked again to foreign aid policy as an instrument of soft power in competing with Russia and China. In late spring 2021, as part of his first budget plan, President Biden called for a major boost in foreign aid, including more than 10 billion dollars for global health initiatives related partly to the COVID-19 pandemic.