Recently the Obama Administration took a step to try to deal with one of the nation’s most intractable problems: how to reduce the recidivism rate of those released from prisons.  There are approximately 1.5 million people in state or federal prisons.  Those prisoners are serving time because they have been convicted of a serious crime.  But the question is – what happens when their time is up and they are released back into our communities?

The statistics are grim:  Despite prisons being called “correctional facilities,” they do a dismal job in turning lives around.  According to the U.S. Department of Justice, nationwide about two-thirds of released state prisoners were re-arrested within three years and three-quarters within five.  Prison is a revolving door.

And it’s a revolving door that impacts certain communities worse than others.  According to the Cuomo Administration, nearly half of New York inmate population is African American, nearly one quarter is Hispanic, and nearly one quarter is white.

The revolving door too often sends recently-discharged inmates into communities in which they will commit a future crime.  As a result, neighborhoods are less safe and people’s lives are too often ruined.  The currently high recidivism rate helps no one, so what should be done?

The Obama Administration recently unveiled a pilot program that will allow Pell Grants (the federal college subsidy program for the poor) to be issued to a small number of colleges to offer college courses to eligible inmates.  While prisoners can sometimes get access to educational courses now, they are ineligible for the federal Pell Grant program as well as the New York State Tuition Assistance Program (TAP).  Since the vast majority of inmates are low income, they usually cannot afford college courses while in prison.

Why offer college classes to prisoners?  The connection between higher education and reduced recidivism has been well established.  In one study, individuals who earned an Associate’s degree were 62 percent less likely to return to prison than those who did not.

A study conducted by the University of California at Los Angeles found that “[a] $1 million investment in incarceration will prevent about 350 crimes, while that same investment in education will prevent more than 600 crimes. Correctional education is almost twice as cost effective as incarceration.”

The Cuomo Administration has cited benefits to educating prisoners as well.  The Administration has found that formerly-incarcerated people who did not take classes while in prison were almost four times more likely to be re-arrested than those who did.

Thus, the Obama Administration’s plan.  The reason that it is a pilot program is that under a twenty year old law, the Congress prohibited Pell Grants for prisoners.  The President’s pilot program is allowed, according to the Administration, because of a provision in the Higher Education Act that allows the Education Department to study the effectiveness of a student-aid program without approval from Congress.

Similar efforts have been tried (unsuccessfully) in New York State.  Earlier this year, the Cuomo Administration urged passage of an initiative to give incarcerated individuals the opportunity to earn a college degree through funding college classes in prisons across New York.  That plan failed

Not surprisingly, there has been opposition to these types of reforms.  Some in Congress argue that the Administration is operating outside of the law.  Others – both at the national and statewide levels – argue that it is not right for prisoners to get financial aid, when the cost of going to college is skyrocketing which has led to a trillion dollar college debt.

And they do have a point.  In New York State, while the governor offered his own plan to help incarcerated individuals take college classes, his Administration has been advancing plans to annually hike tuition – thus driving up the cost of going to college for all.

But the debate is not really about how to keep college affordable, it’s about how our society treats those behind bars.  It is obvious that the current approach has not worked.  Punishment alone will not reduce the nation’s recidivism rate.

This week marks the beginning of the semester for most colleges in New York State.  As students begin their next collegiate experience, families tackle how to pay for it.

American higher education has seen a dramatic shift in who pays for public college.  America was once a society that valued college education and put its collective money where its mouth is by funding the bulk of the cost of that education.

But since the 1980s, there has been a shift in the burden of paying for public college from government to the families of those in college.  The clearest evidence of that shift has been the reduction state dollars going to public colleges and the dramatic increase in tuition over the last three decades.

While state funding for the State University of New York (SUNY) has remained largely flat over the last few years, the total cost to maintain SUNY’s and the City University of New York’sexisting services has increased by nearly $200 million. The state made up the difference using hikes in public college tuition. Stagnant state support coupled with rising tuition has had an impact: Prior to the 2008 recession, tuition covered about half of SUNY’s budget.Now, tuition covers more than 60% of SUNY’s budget.

These tuition increases are the result of a so-called “rational tuition” policy.  New York’s law, described by proponents as “rational,” hiked public college tuition each year for five years.The only thing rational about it is that it guarantees increases in the cost of attending a public college.  As a result, New York families are paying more – and in some cases adding to an increasing college debt load.

Nationwide, student loan debt is currently over $1 trillion and it is estimated to be $2 trillion by 2025.At New York’s four University Centers 56% of graduates carry debt averaging over $22,000. Studies show that students burdened with student loan debt are less likely to start a business or own a home.This can create a ripple effect where current debt hamstrings future wealth growth—the effect is even greater for low-income students and students of color.

A college-educated workforce is in demand. A Georgetown University study found that, by 2018, nearly two-thirds of New York jobs would require a post-secondary education.Yet, 2013 Census data shows that less than half of New York adults hold an associate’s or bachelor’s degree.Tuition increases outpacing income growth, paired with decreased state investment, have eroded college affordability.

But the New York model is not the only way.

Other states are enacting another form of “rational tuition” – they are either freezing tuition rates, or cutting the cost of attending public colleges and universities.

A growing number of states are trying to rein in the price students and their families pay to attend public colleges and universities. Tuition rose sharply during the Great Recession after states cut higher education funding. Now student loan debt is topping $1 trillion nationally, and even upper-income families are worried about rising college costs. As a result, legislatures are under pressure to bring prices down.

In July, the state of Washington enacted a new law that cut in-state tuition. The state of Minnesota passed legislation that freezes tuition at two-year colleges this fall and will cut tuition next year.  The state of Ohio froze in-state tuition for two- and four-year institutions. Wisconsin froze in-state tuition across the 26 campuses in its university system. The University of Maine System kept tuition flat for the fourth year in a row.

New York’s law, described as “rational,” hiked public college tuition.  At the end of the Spring, 2016, New York’s law will expire.  The debate on what to do about that law is heating up.  What is the best way for New York to define rational from a student’s perspective – rationally jacking up tuition or rationally keeping it at the same rate?  This year’s college students will soon know.

As the nation begins to cram in its end of summer vacationing, many Americans head to the beach, particularly those on the ocean.  Little do they see the increasing reality: the oceans are choking on garbage, particularly plastic waste.

According to a recent report, experts estimate that over eight million tons of plastic waste ends up in the world’s oceans each year, and that amount is likely to increase dramatically over the next decade unless nations act.

The amount of plastics waste found in the ocean is the equivalent of “five plastic grocery bags filled with plastic for every foot of coastline in the world.”  Experts estimate that by 2025, the amount of plastic waste entering the oceans would double, or the equivalent of 10 bags per foot of coastline.

While the United States is not the world’s worst offender – that distinction goes to China – the U.S. generates an estimated 110,000 metric tons of marine debris a year.

Plastics have been spotted in the oceans since the 1970s.  Since then, masses of plastic waste have been observed floating where ocean currents come together and plastics can be found on the world’s most remote beaches and in arctic sea ice.

Exposed to saltwater and sun, coupled with the effects of wave action, the plastics break up into tiny pieces that can become coated with toxic substances like PCBs and other pollutants.

Research into the marine food chain suggests that fish and other organisms consume the bite-size particles and may reabsorb the toxic substances. Those fish are eaten by other fish, and by people.  It has been estimated that roughly 20 percent of small fish have plastic in their bellies.

Cleaning up the plastic once it is in the oceans is impractical; only a portion of it floats, while most disappears, and what does not wash ashore settles to the bottom.  For example, plastic beverage bottles, immediately sink. Studies suggest the seafloor–typically 2½ to 3¾ miles down–may hold far more than surface waters.

So what can be done?  Some researchers are looking into trying to collect much of the floating plastics.  For example, nonprofit tech developer The Ocean Cleanup wants to use ocean currents to corral plastics into an array of anchored booms to concentrate and remove them.

Easier than trying to recover these practically irretrievable bits of broken-down plastic is keeping plastic stuff out of the water in the first place. In 2013, volunteers with the Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup collected more than 12.3 million pounds of beach trash around the globe, including more than 940,000 plastic bottles.

Better yet, the nation should curb plastic use altogether. The average American throws out 185 pounds of plastic every year. Cutting plastic bag use can dramatically reduce waste.  After San Jose, California banned plastic bags in 2012, plastic bag litter dropped by almost 90 percent; it fell by 60 per­cent in creeks and rivers.

And San Jose is not alone:  San Francisco passed a ban in 2007. A similar law took effect across California this summer.In addition to California, a de facto statewide ban exists in Hawaii as all of the most populous counties in the state prohibit non-biodegradable plastic bags at checkout, as well as paper bags containing less than 40 percent recycled material. Other states, including Delaware, Maine, and North Carolina have also passed laws governing plastic bags.

In addition to the benefits to reducing the amount of garbage in the oceans, plastic bags aren’t biodegradable, and less than one percent of plastic bags are recycled. Even when they are, it costs more than producing a new one.

One staff member from San Francisco’s Department of the Environment, commented, “There’s harsh economics behind bag recycling: It costs $4,000 to process and recycle one ton of plastic bags, which can then be sold on the commodities market for $32.” It is clear that recycling plastic bags makes little economic sense, banning them is best.

New York State should do its part too – by banning plastic bags.  The ocean views will be that much better.

The scandals and controversies that have engulfed Albany surely feed public cynicism.  However, the vast majority of the time, government is providing services that help people, and it does so in a reasonably efficient and ethical way.

But that doesn’t make news.

Last week, there was evidence of how effective New York’s policymaking has been – at least compared to the rest of the nation.

Recently, the Obama Administration unveiled its plan to combat global warming by ordering a cut in carbon emissions from power plants.  The plan calls for a 32 percent nationwide carbon reduction in power plant emissions by the year 2030.

The President’s plan makes sense.  2014 was the hottest year in recorded history.  The world’s experts have stated that global warming is largely due to human activity—primarily the result of reliance on fossil fuels.  They argue that the only way to respond to this crisis is to dramatically slash the use of fossil fuels, like coal, oil and gas, which, when burned, emit the greenhouse gases warming the planet.

New York State has been responding.  In June, the state’s energy plan committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent, decreasing energy consumption in buildings by 23 percent, and making sure half of the state’s energy is produced from renewable sources.  These goals are part of the state’s overall effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050, the goal set by the world’s climate experts as part of the overall worldwide strategy to reduce the impacts of global warming.

While the federal plan focuses on power plants, the state’s energy plan also looks at other sectors – suchas heating buildings and the transportation industry – toboost energy efficiency.

New York’s plans – if enacted – would ensure that the state meet the Obama Administration’s deadline a full decade ahead of the federal mandate.

New York’s head start is the result of its policymaking.  A key component has been New York’s participation in a nine-state effort known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which caps each state’s annual carbon emissions and requires power plants to purchase pollution allowances at auction, with the money supposed to be reserved for clean-energy projects in each state.

The potential program that could dramatically boost the state’s global warming efforts is New York’sReforming the Energy Vision (also known as “REV”) plan.  REV is under active development before the state’s Public Service Commission.  REV has the potential to fundamentally reshape the production and distribution of electric power and significantly reduce the creation of heat-trapping carbon emissions through the use of energy reductions, efficiency measures and the move to reliance on alternative energy sources, such as solar power.

The REV is also the vehicle for modernizing the state’s energy system.  Under the current utility structure, the power sector in New York is on track to spend an estimated $30 billion to replace and modernize the state’s aging energy infrastructure over the next decade.  REV offers a way to modernize that system in a “green” and affordable way.

New York’s REV offers a vision for how to modernize the energy grid while mitigating the impacts from global warming.  At the moment, it is just a plan.  But if it succeeds, it can offer a model for the nation and perhaps the world.

And it is an example of innovation in state government.  It’s easy to get depressed by the news coming out of Albany.  It is, however, important to keep the bad news in perspective.  There is a lot happening in New York that’s good, too.  The state’s efforts to tackle global warming areexamples of its positive efforts to respond to the most daunting issue of our time.

When Albany is in the dog days of summer, it is usually quiet at the state Capitol.  Lawmakers are doing whatever they do during the summer and, in recent decades, the governor isusually downstate.

But this has not been a typical summer.  The arrests and indictments of Albany’s legislative leaders earlier in the year and the recent convictions of other leaders have kept the issue of ethics reform alive.

For reasons that are not entirely clear, the governor continues to do all that he can to keep throwing cold water on the calls for action.  Most recently he smothered calls for a special legislative session devoted solely to ethics reforms, declaring:  “I haven’t heard anything from the Senate or the Assembly saying, ‘Our minds are changed, we now want to pass a bill that we didn’t want to pass.’ So for the taxpayers to spend a lot of money to bring the legislators back to Albany for the same outcome they had several weeks ago makes no sense.”

It is certainly out of character for this governor to allow someone else to dictate his actions.  Let’s take at face value his statement that lawmakers have rejected, and will continue to reject, his reforms.  What reforms is the governor talking about?  He never mentions them at all.

There is one reform that the governor has not advanced and the legislature has not considered: strengthening the state’s ethics enforcement agencies.

The problems with the state’s leading ethics watchdog bubbled to the surface last week when the Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE) held its monthly meeting.  Some of the members publicly complained that the governor’s staff had been meddling in its internal affairs (which, if true, is a violation of the law).

At the meeting, several members questioned whether the governor had too much influence over the agency, which is now looking for its third director in less than four years.  The first had served as Cuomo’s inspector general and worked for Cuomo when he was attorney general.  The second worked for Cuomo in both the governor’s office and the attorney general’s office before that. She left the commission to join Cuomo’s tax department.

Meddling by the governor is not the only problem:  The agency has been nearly invisible in combatting corruption.  Federal prosecutors, not state ones, have brought the vast majority of the high-profile corruption cases.

When the governor talks about the reforms that he cannot get approved by a recalcitrant legislature, he conveniently ignores the need for reform of the state’s ethics agencies.   And reforms are needed to ensure that ethics is monitored by an independent ethics agency that is looking out for the public interest, not the interests of either the governor or the legislature.  Here are a five needed reforms:

• In a rare, if not unique, provision, New York law allows JCOPE’s board to include elected officials. Given the role of the agency in monitoring elected officials, as well as monitoring the lobbying industry (which is also a rich source of campaign contributions), New York should ban the involvement of electedofficials from the ethics watchdog panel.
• New York law also allows the appointees of legislative leaders to veto JCOPEinvestigations of the legislators. That provision must be repealed.
• There should be a “revolving door” limitation that prohibits legislative or executive staff from becomingthe top staff of any of the state’s ethics watchdogs.
• Those executive directors should serve for a fixed term so as to enhance her or his independence from political retribution. And ethics agencies should be guaranteed budgets that are predictable, adequate, and not subject to political pressures.
• Ethics agencies should be covered by the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Open Meeting Laws requirements and make all investigation records open to public inspection when a matter is closed, as was the practice of the Temporary State Commission on Lobbying.

New York law requires that an independent commission review the work of JCOPE.  That group has been appointed and is beginning its work.  Its recommendations are due later this year.  When its reactions become public, the governor should use that opportunity to call lawmakers back to get cracking on ethics reforms.

The best laws in the world will not work without real oversight and enforcement.  It’s time New York State’s ethics watchdogs became more independent – entities that not only barked, but were free to bite.