What Can We Learn from Social Policy to Advance Climate Justice?

Increasing the capacity of frontline communities to meet the current and future challenges brought about by climate change will require a significant future expansion of assistance programs and resources. There are decades worth of lessons to be learned from the design and implementation of past laws and policies that are intended to improve the lives of those with lower income levels, in particular social benefit and anti-poverty programs. Climate justice policymaking can build upon the precedent of what has worked in the past. In the same way, the mistakes and injustices of the past can be avoided and rectified. Our latest paper, “Delivering Climate Benefits to Disadvantaged Communities: Lessons Learned from Social Policy,” examines some of the strengths and weaknesses of U.S. social benefit policies and programs that can support advocates and policy makers in ensuring that future climate-related policymaking effectively delivers for frontline communities.

READ THE FULL REPORT HERE

Through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), historic investments are being made to address the climate crisis and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The IRA includes provisions designed to benefit frontline communities who are disproportionately impacted by climate change. The degree to which the legislation brings about meaningful change for frontline communities remains to be seen, and these investments should be regarded as a down payment, as they fall far short of the need. Increasing the capacity of frontline communities to meet the current and future challenges brought about by climate change will require a significant future expansion of assistance programs and resources. This includes social benefits (e.g., financial assistance, affordable housing, accessible transportation), employment, education, and economic development supports, infrastructure investment, and disaster relief and recovery assistance. Among the many challenges in meeting this objective is identifying how to get assistance and resources into the hands of community members in an efficient and timely manner and to monitor outcomes to ensure goals are being met. Without such assistance, those most at risk will experience worsening economic conditions, displacement, and loss of life.

The U.S. has a long history of developing and implementing policies to deliver financial assistance and supportive services to those in need. In many cases, social policies have brought about meaningful change and measurably improved outcomes for recipients. At the same time, social policymaking has frequently, whether inadvertently or by design, excluded certain populations, including Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) households, from accessing the assistance and services that they need and for which they are eligible. Climate justice policymaking can build upon the precedent of what has worked in the past. In the same way, the mistakes and injustices of the past can be avoided and rectified.

The paper considers a number of anti-poverty policy design features that have proved to be more effective in delivering assistance to those in need. These include:

Entitlement programs: If the goal is to get assistance to those who need it, there is no more effective means to do so than through entitlement programs. Entitlement programs have predominantly been the result of legislation at the federal level. Federal protections provide a floor that can be expanded upon through state innovation. Design features of entitlement programs that advance equity include:
- Eligibility criteria that are set in legislation.
- Program expenditures that rise or fall according to the size of the eligible population.
- A legal right to benefits for those eligible.
Targeted universalism: Targeted universalism is outcome-driven with a foundation in equity. It sets universal goals around delivering the resources that people need to thrive while targeting implementation. It looks at the entire population relative to identified goals and assesses populations or groups that fall short of the goal or the extent to which they fall short. Strategies are then developed to more effectively reach those particular groups or populations to ensure that the entire population reaches the goal.
Streamlining access and reducing the knowledge gap: Even entitlement programs require someone seeking benefits to submit an application. Access to needed programs, services, and benefits is frequently reduced because the eligible population is unaware of available assistance and because of onerous paperwork requirements. There are, however, ways to reduce these barriers, even within structures designed to limit participation.
Direct access to benefits: Policies like direct cash transfers that cut checks, directly deposit funds to bank accounts, and offer electronic benefit transfers without fees for withdrawals, transfers, or use are all means of getting assistance to those in need quickly and effectively. Similarly, refundable tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit or the Child Tax Credit (a partially refundable tax credit which was fully refundable under the American Rescue Plan), provide meaningful benefit to many lower-income households.
Expanding to meet the need: The National School Lunch Program is one of the rare instances in which program benefits have expanded, access to those benefits has improved, administrative barriers have been reduced, safety provisions have been enhanced, and assistance has been directed toward areas of higher need. Programs that adapt to the needs of those in need of assistance can make a meaningful difference in the lives of community members.

In contrast, there are a multitude of policy design features that fail to deliver. Whether inadvertently or by design, these policies fail to advance the health and welfare needs of millions of Americans and work at cross-purposes to the anti-poverty policy design features highlighted in the paper. Some examples of these include:

“Trickle-down” economics: Despite the persistent refrain that tax cuts spur economic growth, it should be clear by now that “trickle-down” economics has done nothing more than widen the chasm of income equality, particularly among BIPOC people. Lower tax revenues has led to reduced public investment in education, social services, and other public services. The concentration of wealth at the top has weakened economic vitality and led to wage stagnation.
Block grants: The policy feature that is the source of many of the access barriers advocates and eligible populations complain about most frequently is the block grant. For several decades, block grants have been presented by their proponents as a way to more effectively tailor federal assistance to local conditions and needs. In practice, they often restrict access to benefits due to design features that include:
- Static funding: Funding levels are set through the Congressional appropriations process and do not expand in alignment with the needs of the eligible population. As a result, large segments of the eligible population go unserved.
- Allowing grantees to determine who receives assistance and how they get it: Because funding levels are, by design, never sufficient to meet the needs of all eligible people, grantees have broad discretion in prioritizing who gets served.
- Numerous administrative hurdles for applicants: Inadequate funding creates the incentive to make application and recertification processes more onerous for applicants, which can drive caseload reduction. This includes applications that are only accepted during specific times of the year or in particular locations, long appointment wait times, or lack of translation services.
- Policies that facilitate discrimination: Block grants create the opportunity to discriminate among the eligible population in the ways described above. This is facilitated by the latitude state or local officials receive in determining the administration of funds. It becomes much easier to perpetuate systemic inequities with little to no recourse for eligible populations.
Regressive tax policies: Regressive tax policies increase inequality by requiring households with lower incomes to pay a greater proportion of their household incomes for taxes compared to wealthier households. Progressive tax policies, in contrast, apply higher percentage rates of taxation to those with higher incomes.
Restricting benefits to only citizens: Policymakers at the state and federal levels frequently restrict access to assistance to U.S. citizens, despite the fact that immigrants pay income, payroll, property, and sales taxes, regardless of immigration status. Even in cases where such restrictions have since been lifted, confusion about program accessibility, stigma, and fears related to immigration status are significant barriers to participation. Such restrictions are profoundly unjust and make it very difficult for individuals and families to make ends meet and actively participate in community life.
Creating benefits that sound good but are inaccessible. Benefit programs often promise to bring about meaningful change for those in need but fail to deliver on their promise because of design flaws or a host of barriers that are thrown up to prevent access. Barriers include application and administrative requirements that are so onerous that those eligible are unable to access benefits. Programs are sometimes so underfunded that it is impossible to meet anything but a small portion of the need. Frequently, the underfunding of programs goes hand-in-hand with a lack of public awareness, as the scarce resources are not publicized. Other barriers that limit access include work requirements, “benefit cliffs,” and program requirements that create disincentives that are greater than the incentives due to stigma, immigration status concerns, the cost of applications, harassment, waiting lists, or accusations and investigations related to fraud.
Linking the desirable with the undesirable. In order to sidestep difficult conversations about tax policy or societal obligations, lawmakers frequently link funding for public benefit programs to sectors of the economy that are deemed undesirable or have higher levels of public opposition, or alternatively, to things that seem necessary to satisfy a public or private interest. The effect is to either create incentives to continue the undesirable policies in order to maintain funding for the desirable policy or to reduce funding over time for the desirable policy as public support for the undesirable policy wanes. Examples include linking utility assistance with continued reliance on fossil fuels or public transportation construction funded through a gas tax.

As climate justice policies are created, considered, passed and implemented, the successes and failures of U.S. social policy provide clear lessons. There are features of public policy that advance justice and improve health and welfare, while other aspects of public policy do the opposite. There are opportunities for climate justice and anti-poverty advocates to join forces on behalf of frontline communities. Communities with lived experience struggling with and navigating the complexities of social assistance programs – which are now being introduced in the climate space – need to be at the head of the table to inform and shape policy proposals going forward.

Moving forward, effective anti-poverty policy features can be woven into public policy while avoiding those features that present obstacles and barriers to eligible beneficiaries. The incorporation of best practices into future social and climate-related policymaking can ensure that assistance is delivered in a timely, efficient, and equitable manner to those most in need.