Nevertheless, She persisted.

by Elsa Mendoza, intern in the office of Senator Sylvia Garcia

Before I started this journey, my biggest concern was that I would be placed in an office that had dissimilar ideologies than my own. I was convinced I would be swimming against the waves.

However, I was fortunate to be assigned to a member who is noble, admirable and has consistent political and social ideologies – and she is a social worker! I am now faced with being so emotionally attached to my work because of how invested she is in absolutely everything she does.

Being on her team has allowed me to feel empowered as a woman, as a person of color, as a daughter of immigrants, and as a person who is not afraid to not be politically correct, all while in an environment with people who are against some or all of these characteristics.

The biggest lesson that she has taught me, without her knowing, is how troubling it can be to stand up for what is right. It is easy nowadays to just post something on social media about what you think is right and move on with life feeling like you took a stance on something important. But in the real world, it is commitment and perseverance that separates the talkers from the doers.  I have witnessed her fight the good fight with strategy, guts, and all of the energy she may have – EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Now, I am glad to know that I am swimming against the waves with someone who is not going to give up until she shifts the tides in the direction she believes in.

People know her commitment to social justice very well.  You have seen her sit for hours in solidarity with individuals who she is fighting to protect. You have seen her make efforts to inform those who may not be aware of how policy may be affecting them.

It is sometimes not easy to work for someone like that. The long hours the team puts into the work in order to provide support to such a passionate leader are not always pleasant. While inspiring, keeping up with her incredible devotion to her constituents can be physically and emotionally draining.

But then the moment comes where we witness her speak on behalf of our families, our friends, and our neighbors in ways that other members may never have the guts to do. We are there for the moments where tough decisions are being made all with one goal: social justice for ALL. As she is walking out of the office ready to face the opposition, to face the hate and the ignorance, that is the moment I feel the most grateful for the exhaustion, the long hours, and the team I have been lucky to a part of.

Posted in Elsa | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Senate Bill 4- Impact, Implications, and Emotions

By Andrea Elizondo, intern in the Texas Legislative Study Group, and Chenelle Hammonds, intern in the University of Houston Office of Governmental Relations

On May 7, 2017 Texas Governor Greg Abbott officially signed into law SB 4, authored by Republican State Senator Charles Perry of Lubbock, otherwise known as the “anti-sanctuary city law,” and criticized as the “show me your papers” law. The law enforces federal immigration law compliance on state and local entities. This means that local peace officers are now required to act as stand-in federal immigration agents. This measure will make Texas the first state to ban sanctuary cities under the Trump administration, when it goes into effect September 1, 2017. A few months prior, President Donald Trump signed an executive order giving broad discretion to immigration agents to arrest undocumented immigrants, regardless of the commission of a crime, while also threatening to withhold federal funding from any city deemed a “sanctuary city.” SB4 mirrors President Trump’s injunction, focused specifically on the state of Texas.

This special post is longer than our usual blog posts to help social workers and others better understand this major new law, the context in which it emerged, its potential impacts in Texas, and ways that social workers can support immigrant families within this new legal environment.

Jump to: Brief History of U.S. Federal Immigration Laws, The Origin of SB4 and the Concept of Sanctuary Cities, How Did SB4 Develop, and What Does it Do?, Emotions & Reactions from Both Sides, Assessing the Potential Impact, What Social Workers Can Do Moving Forward, Media Related to the Events of SB 4


Brief History of U.S. Federal Immigration Laws

To get to the root of SB4, it is helpful to better understand the history behind federal immigration laws. Relatively free and open immigration was encouraged within the U.S. until some states began to pass immigration laws in the late 1800s, following the Civil War. In 1875, the Supreme Court determined that regulating immigration is a federal responsibility. Although various statutes governed federal immigration laws in the proceeding years, there was no official unified body of text until the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1952.

The Act, sponsored by two Democrats, was originally vetoed by President Harry Truman. President Truman, also a Democrat, vetoed the Act as he regarded it to be “un-American” and “discriminatory.” Eventually however, Truman’s veto was overridden by Congress and passed into law. Bipartisan efforts to curb illegal immigration resulted in the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. The IRCA denied welfare benefits to undocumented immigrants and strengthened sanctions against employers hiring such immigrants, yet nevertheless granted amnesty to certain undocumented immigrants under specific circumstances. The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act addressed the relationship between the federal and local governments. It made minor crimes – such as shoplifting – grounds for possible deportation, placed restrictions on institutions of higher education from granting undocumented students in-state tuition, and outlawed the bans some cities had against employers reporting an employee’s immigration status to federal authorities.

Fast forward more than a decade later, and the U.S. is still marked with conflicting waves of pardoning and restricting illegal immigration. The history of U.S. immigration shows that periods of influx of newcomers settling into American neighborhoods, communities, businesses, and schools have often been met with calls for the tightening of immigration laws. According to Pew Research, the growth in Texas’ Hispanic population is second only to California, increasing 56% from 6.7 million in 2000 to 10.4 million in 2014. Texas is no exception to this pattern of immigration regulation and reform prompted by increasing numbers of migrants.


The Origin of SB4 and the Concept of Sanctuary Cities

Law enforcement agencies in Texas already comply with U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Nevertheless, the bill was proposed in response to Travis County (Austin, Texas) Sheriff Sally Hernandez’s statement that she would comply with ICE on the minimum level, meaning that her office would only call ICE for a serious offense (human trafficking, murder, sexual assault, etc.) and not for minor offenses. According to Cacho v. Gusman, federal law permits this; this specific settlement agreement allowed the prisons in question to only follow ICE hold requests where serious crimes were involved and prohibited local sheriffs from investigating individuals’ immigration statuses.

Gov. Abbott seized this opportunity to make an anti-sanctuary city bill one of his top legislative priorities. He also cited concerns for public safety and a particular incident involving an undocumented immigrant known as Juan Rios. Rios had been arrested in Texas multiple times and deported three times. Last September, he went on a deadly crime spree across Texas, killing two people and kidnapping another. In his 2017 State of the State address, Abbott stated that “To protect Texans from deadly danger, we must insist that laws be followed.”

It is to be noted, however, that there is no legal definition of a “sanctuary city.” The specific term emerged in the 1980s during protests against federal immigration policies that denied El Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees asylum. Several cities led the way in pushing back; most notably, San Francisco passed an ordinance forbidding city police or civil magistrates from assisting federal immigration offices. In response, a Roman Catholic Priest in Los Angeles by the name of Luis Olivares declared his church as a “sanctuary” for people who were poor, homeless, and undocumented. Hence, the term “sanctuary cities” emerged.

The term became more widely used during the 2008 Republican Presidential Primary, when Mitt Romney accused former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani of running the city as a “sanctuary” for undocumented immigrants. (Giuliani was once a staunch proponent of a path to citizenship.) Since then, opposition to “sanctuary cities” has manifested into a movement sweeping across the U.S.

Of note, Attorney General Jeff Sessions – appointed by President Trump – visited Austin in April,  suggesting that the city is not an actual “sanctuary” and acknowledging that Travis County is, in fact, complying with federal immigration law. So what then, constitutes a “sanctuary city?” Neither the U.S. Department of Justice, the Trump administration, nor the Texas Legislature (even in this law) have defined this term. With no clear definition of the highly politicized term, how is a ban like SB4 to be fairly enforced?


How Did SB4 Develop, and What Does it Do?

The Texas Senate acted on SB4 swiftly, passing it in February. It was passed by the Texas House on April 27th. The Senate confirmed the changes made by the House and sent the bill to the Governor for his signature on May 3. While Gov. Abbott originally slated the bill to target those who have committed crimes in the State, as the legislative process developed – particularly on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives – the bill deviated from its original intent, becoming more punitive to undocumented immigrants.

At its core, SB4 enforces federal immigration law compliance on state and local entities. It excludes peace officer enforcement in hospitals, churches, school districts, open-enrollment charter schools, and public health departments like community health centers and mental health facilities. A series of amendments sought to limit the law’s impacts on certain populations; however many of these proposed amendments failed. As a result:

  • Officers can inquire about immigration status of a person, even if the person is a victim or witness to a crime.
  • Countless amendments offering protections to pre-kindergarten children, homeless shelters, and shelters for battered and abused women were shot down with a consistent vote along party lines.
  • Campus police departments are required to comply.

Although the law includes an anti-discrimination clause, this clause is relatively vague, stating, “A local entity, campus police department, or a person employed by, or otherwise under the direction or control of the entity or department, may not consider race, color, religion, language, or national origin while enforcing immigration laws except to the extent permitted by the United States Constitution or Texas Constitution.”  These “exceptions” leave much room for possible targeted discrimination toward foreign immigrants.

The law specifically addresses the complaint process, if one believes that a law enforcement agency or campus police department is not compliant with this law. Any individual residing in a law enforcement jurisdiction or enrolled/employed at an institution of higher education may file a complaint to the state attorney general against a person or entity found to be non-compliant. If law enforcement agencies or campus police are found by the state attorney general to have violated state and federal immigration law, the following penalties will ensue:

  • The agency will be charged with a civil penalty of $1,000-$1,500 for the first violation and $25,000-25,500 for each subsequent violation.
  • The law enforcement agency will be charged with a Class A Misdemeanor, the most serious misdemeanor in the state, punishable up to $4,000 and up to one year in jail.
  • A person holding elective or appointed office of a political subdivision that violates federal immigration law or any sections of SB4 would forfeit their position.

Perhaps the most controversial portion of the law, however, is an amendment added on the House floor. The original Senate and House version allowed local peace officers to inquire about immigration status during a lawful arrest – this change allows officers to question the immigration status of any person they detain. This amendment goes so far beyond the bill’s original focus solely on criminal undocumented immigrants that even the author of the House version bill, Rep. Charlie Geren of Fort Worth, amongst a few other Republicans, opposed it on the House floor.

As a result of this detention provision, now incorporated into the law, opponents have proclaimed that Texas, like Arizona in 2010, has become a “show me your papers” state. The Arizona law was the target of much criticism, boycotts, and lawsuits, culminating in a settlement with immigrant rights groups last year. However, Gov. Abbott argues that this provision differs from the Arizona law, in that it “allows” officers to check legal status, but does not require it. Despite such assurances from the Governor, this amendment still begs the question: If SB4 is really just about ICE detainers and public safety, why allow routine traffic stops to become reasonable grounds for suspicion?


Emotions & Reactions from Both Sides

During the 16-hour debate on the floor of the House, emotions stirred high amongst opponents of the bill with state representatives wearing their hearts on their sleeves. State Representatives Rafael Anchia, Mary Gonzales, Ana Hernandez, and Gene Wu gave heartbreaking personal privilege speeches to show their opposition towards the bill. (Videos of some of these incredible, emotional speeches are linked here: Anchia, Wu).

During 10 hours of testimony before the House State Affairs Committee, as well as in other community efforts to oppose this bill, advocacy groups and members of Texas’ immigrant community argued that the legislation is redundant, unconstitutional, and based on fear-mongering and generalizations of the immigrant communities. Many Hispanic immigrants in Texas voiced their opposition, viewing the bill as a direct attack on their community. This idea is not far-fetched, as Cardoso and Faulkner find that “deportations disproportionately impact the Latino community – 96% of all people deported were from Latin America and the majority of children with at least one undocumented parent are Latino, mostly from Mexico (70%) and other Latin American countries (17%).” While undocumented immigrants are not solely Latino, Latinos are stereotyped at a disproportionate rate for being undocumented due to media portrayal of this group.

Other opponents see this bill as a fear-mongering tactic; some suggested that the man being used as example for this bill’s necessity would not have been politicized in this same way had he been a White American citizen. These opponents testified that in contrast to immigrants of color, Whites are often seen as individuals, meaning, that if one White person does harm, society doesn’t punish the whole group, nor enact policies that target the entire group based on the actions of one.

Opponents also expressed concern that SB 4 will terrorize immigrant communities in Texas. They argued that fewer crimes will be reported because individuals from immigrant communities will be too afraid to report crimes out of fear of deportation. They believe that this law will hurt the most vulnerable in Texas, like human trafficking victims, domestic and sexual assault victims, school age children, and immigrant families. For instance, a rape victim who is an undocumented immigrant may fail to call law enforcement out of fear of being detained; thus, the perpetrator could go free and continue to harm others. Testifiers suggested that this would accomplish the exact opposite of the bill’s expressed purpose, making communities less safe. They posited that children with undocumented parents and their mixed-status families will face mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, etc., and that undocumented college students won’t feel safe going to class or will feel discouraged to attend out of fear. This could negatively impact the state’s college retention rates, education workforce, and labor market. Additionally, opponents argued that this law will exacerbate mistrust of law enforcement within communities of people of color, further damaging the police and community relationship and enabling racial profiling of immigrants.

In contrast, proponents of SB4 argued that the law fosters a greater sense of security amongst all residents, including immigrant communities. Supporters believe that by ensuring that local entities do not prohibit enforcement of federal immigration laws, both local officials and federal authorities can work together to keep dangerous criminals off the street. They argue that the law simply applies uniform standards to the state, affecting few cities, as most cities report that they operate in compliance with federal law. Under current law, all law enforcement agencies send an arrestee’s fingerprints to the FBI, after which ICE can request that a jail hold inmates suspected of being in the country illegally for up to 48 hours. SB4 calls for an undocumented individual to be held in federal custody confinement for no more than 7 days for a serious crime, and the state is expected to wait for a transfer approval from ICE if there is no current detainer request from ICE on the individual. Supporters argued that allowing certain cities and entities to disregard these requests enables potential criminals to return to the community and commit serious crimes.

Proponents also stated that the law has other positives, including allowing law enforcement agencies to adopt a written policy about educating the public on the bill and its implementation, potentially improving police-community relations. This outreach must include victims of family violence and sexual assault. Supporters noted the law creates a system of due process, as the Attorney General can sue entities or departments in a district court only upon determination that a complaint of non-compliance is valid. Furthermore, the law creates a grant program to financially support cities and counties in offsetting costs related to enforcing immigration laws and complying with federal requests to maintain custody of someone relating to a possible immigration violation. Supporters suggested that this will provide more support to local law enforcement agencies and local communities.


Assessing the Potential Impact

With the passage of SB4, Texas meets the criteria of one of 18 states deemed “hostile” towards immigrant populations, based on research conducted by professors at Dartmouth. “Hostile states” are identified as those with laws requiring verification of immigration status in order to acquire a driver’s license, universal employment verification, or cutting funding to “sanctuary cities.” In fact, on May 9, two days after the law’s passage, the ACLU issued a travel alert to travelers to Texas, stating:

“We plan to fight this racist and wrongheaded law in the courts and in the streets. Until we defeat it, everyone traveling in or to Texas needs to be aware of what’s in store for them…every interaction with law enforcement can become a citizenship interrogation and potentially an illegal arrest.”

Several of these “hostile states” have experienced lower numbers of undocumented immigrants living in the state, with unintended consequences. Texas risks facing similar negative economic impacts as previous states that have passed restrictive immigration laws. For example, Georgia experienced substantial labor shortages in agriculture, triggering an estimated $140 million in agricultural losses the year after the state passed HB 87. In response, the state had to send prisoners to harvest fruit and vegetables from the state’s farms. Arizona faced national scrutiny after its passage of SB 1070. While the law was intended to offer increased safety and economic security to Arizona’s residents by cracking down on those in the State unlawfully, its actions came at a great cost. The city of Phoenix alone lost $141 million in business from the tourism and convention industry in the four months following SB 1070’s passage. Parts of the law were eventually found to be unconstitutional as a federal judge ruled that various police departments had engaged in racial profiling in their immigration enforcement practice; this led to an appointed monitor to institute reforms in the state and an agreement that one particular sheriff, Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, pay a series of civil sanctions for failing to comply with court orders.

In 2011, Alabama passed HB 56, regarded as the toughest anti-immigration bill in the U.S. to date. The number of Hispanic children attending public schools dropped significantly. Industries dependent on migrant labor workers were heavily impacted, as American citizens were unwilling to work for low pay under these harsh working conditions. The law also was found to have contributed to an increase in violent crime rates. The immigration law was so broad that a few months after its passage, a German Mercedes-Benz executive was arrested in Alabama, when he left at his hotel his passport identifying his permission to be in the U.S. A month later, a Japanese Honda executive was also stopped at a checkpoint and ticketed even though he had a valid passport and U.S. work permit. Research predicted that HB 56 would shrink Alabama’s annual GDP by $11 billion due to lost sales, lost income taxes, and reduction in consumer demand; however, the law’s financial impact was never able to be truly assessed, as, in October 2013, federal courts declared a number of the controversial law’s provisions unconstitutional.

Although some Americans believe that immigrants negatively impact the economy by ‘stealing’ jobs or pushing down wages, evidence does not support this claim. Research has also shown that immigrant populations are not marked with increased violence. In fact, immigrants are less likely to commit violent crimes than individuals born in the U.S. Both immigrants born outside the U.S. (first-generation) and children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents (second-generation) are substantially less likely to commit violent crimes than are children born in the U.S. to native-born parents (third-generation). The goal of protecting communities can come at a hefty price tag, but are the concerns lawmakers raise based in truth…or scare tactics?


What Social Workers Can Do Moving Forward

As social workers, we have a commitment to social, economic, and political justice. SB4 presents an opportunity for social workers and others who share our values to begin the discourse on how we can increase public safety, community involvement, and public trust for all communities, while also respecting the human rights of individuals. Given the sharp divisions in this country on the issue of immigration, it is even more crucial now that we strategically devise advocacy efforts to bring the state of Texas and our nation together. There needs to be more advocacy not only in talking collectively to proponents and opponents of this bill but in listening, working together, and educating each other on our concerns and experiences.

Equally important, is the need to exercise keen discernment between opposing undocumented immigration and anti-immigrant sentiments. One can value “law and order” while also valuing the worth and dignity of people. In response to SB4, local community organizations plan to set up presentations like “Know Your Rights,” “Protect Yourself from Deportation,” and “Planning Ahead.” For those interested in helping populations that may be affected by SB4, we encourage you to get training in these areas and reach out to your local immigrant community and local law enforcement.




This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Posted in Andrea, Chenelle | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

My Thoughts and Ramblings After a Courageous and Radical Testimony

by Serena Ahmed, intern in the Texas Legislative Study Group

For the past two months, at least half of my work week as a policy analyst for the Legislative Study Group has been spent in committee hearings. I typically sit in the back of the room with my computer on my lap, so that I can take notes on every bill being heard that day. Bills are primarily referred to committees based on subject matter. The committee chair and her clerks plan the committee schedule each week, including what bills will be heard that day and organizing the order by which they will be heard. The order is not known to the public beforehand  – just like most of the bill process, that happens “behind the scenes.” When it is a bill’s time to be presented and delved into, the author, who is a member of the Texas House of Representatives, gives an opening statement describing the background and purpose to the committee. Representatives who are members of the committee may ask questions of the author during the opening and closing statement, and they do so by pushing a button near their microphone that alerts the chairwoman that they wish to ask a question. After the author’s opening statement, witnesses testify in support of, against or neutral on the bill. There is typically a three-minute time limit, but this tends to be enforced inconsistently; it is enforced more often when it is late after a long day, or when the committee is trying to finish before the House floor convenes. The Representatives may ask questions of the witnesses. The bills are then “left pending in committee” and only live to move on to the next step in the procedure if they are voted out of committee. Most bills never even get voted on by the committee.

One of the best memories I have of a hearing was during a meeting of the Business and Industry (B&I) Committee. This is the primary committee devoted to the conflictual relationships between employers and employees. As such, all the bills for the 85th session related to increasing the minimum wage statewide were referred to B&I. The committee organized it so that all 8 or 10 of them were heard on the same day. It was exciting. The press was there. The room was packed with different activist groups there to testify and support, including Fight for 15. Fight for 15 started a few years ago with a few hundred fast-food workers that protested in New York City for a $15 minimum wage and a right to unionize. It grew into an international movement comprised of hundreds of thousands of workers in a wide variety of industries.

One Fight for 15 activist and worker who testified that day on behalf of increasing the current Texas minimum wage from $7.25/hour left me with thoughts and feelings of respect and awe for their bravery and commitment to social and economic equality. In front of a room where most of the people were not going to agree, they talked about the greedy hand of capitalism. They were laughed at and brushed aside, while far right-wing testimony is never so simply casted off in this context. It was proclaimed that the witness and testimony could not be taken seriously. It was unsurprisingly casual and typical, while simultaneously so difficult to just sit there and watch all at the same time.

These bills on increasing the minimum wage were heard a couple of months ago. It is clear that they will not be voted on in committee, yet alone referred to the Calendars committee to even be considered for a House floor vote. “Calendars” is where bills go if they are voted out of committee. Many bills die during this stage of the bill procedure because the Calendars committee decides that they will not vote them to the House floor. No one from the public witnesses this stage at all.

Like any realist, I believe in incremental change. This is a simple fact of life. The question is what change are we moving towards. I want to be a part of radical, structural change. One that is not afraid to question systems that may seem so ingrained and natural, but in actuality are just a few minutes in the history of humanity.

I am so thankful for my experiences here. However, I cannot wait until May 29th when my journey continues outside of the space of the Capitol. I did not need this experience to come to the realization that this is not where the radical changes will find nourishment and grow, but it is certainly an excellent reminder each day. I am so excited and looking forward to spending my life organizing and educating with a variety of communities and groups, and slowly but surely building a radical base of progressive critical consciousness in both theory and action.

Posted in Serena | Tagged | Leave a comment

There is Hope in This House

by Tyler Anderson, intern in the Texas Legislative Study Group

We’re four months into this legislative session and if there’s one thing I can say about the Texas House of Representatives, it’s that, oftentimes, hope can seem scarce. It seems that every day a different bill advances that would strip basic human rights or harm a certain vulnerable population; most times, these populations are the same ones that we as social workers hope to work with and protect throughout our careers. I could easily name 30 bills filed this session that would hurt women, immigrants, people of color, people living in poverty, veterans, children, and even animals – as policy analysts, we see these bills up close every day and are intricately familiar with how easily they become the laws that govern people’s lives. While being so close to the process has its advantages, more often than not, it leaves me feeling frustrated, disillusioned, and hopeless. For the past month or so, I’ve been in a major rut because of these feelings; it becomes more difficult to perform to the best of your ability when you feel like your advocacy efforts fall on deaf ears.

For the past couple of weeks, however, I’ve been reflecting on times when I have seen hope in the legislature. I’ve seen advocates show up tirelessly, week after week, in order to speak for vulnerable communities. I am reminded of the children who have bravely testified in front of legislative committees against bills that would negatively impact their families, such as SB 4 and HB 2899. I look to members such as Representative Victoria Neave, who boldly embarked on a spiritual hunger fast for four days in opposition to SB 4. I come back to members such as our boss, Chairman Garnet Coleman, who filed HB 2702, “The Sandra Bland Act,” a bill that seeks to make meaningful and necessary reforms to our criminal justice system at a time when people are dying at the hands of this system every day. I think about the courtesy and respect I’ve seen members with opposing political views give each other during heated floor debates. I look to my social work colleagues here in the Capitol who are putting everything they have into this job in hopes of influencing policies that will have lasting impacts on Texas families.

All these examples don’t fully negate the hopelessness I feel. At the end of the day, many of these harmful bills will pass and become law. They also do not eliminate the real consequences these bills will have on people throughout the state. I would be remiss, however, to not take time to recognize and appreciate these examples and the solace they bring me. With five weeks left in session, I will continue to draw motivation from the strong, caring people I work with and the families I hope I am able to help. I will tell myself that it’s ok to be overwhelmed by the scope and ramifications of these harmful bills. I will continue to look for ways I can advocate both within my work and outside of it. Most importantly, I will continue to remind myself that there is hope in this House, and it’s ok to focus on that from time to time.

Posted in Tyler | Tagged | Leave a comment

Breaking New Ground

by Fabeain Barkwell, intern in the Texas Legislative Study Group

Being at the Texas Capitol has been an eye-opening experience for me in more ways than one. I didn’t fully anticipate how instrumental the impact of participating in this internship program would be in teaching me about myself as a social worker. At the beginning of the program I was asked, “What are you most excited about gaining from this experience?” Many of the thoughts that came to my mind had to deal with learning how to interpret and create policy and being able to take my knowledge from the capitol and utilize it with clients in the future. The one thing I felt I was looking forward to the most from this internship was the personal growth and development I was going to experience, and how it would affect my future career.

Once I was accepted into the legislative internship I was dead set on learning everything I could about mental health policy in Texas. Since my practice background is in behavioral health, I thought it was appropriate that my experience here in Austin reflect that as well, and I sought out every opportunity I could to do so. During this legislative session, I have had the opportunity to work on major mental health bills such as HB 10, relating to behavioral health parity and access to care, and HB 13, dealing with local mental health challenges and establishing community grants.

While I have had the ability to work on some mental health related issues, I have been most surprised to find that most of my attention has been spent on other topics that are new to me. My primary committees are Higher Education, Energy Resources, and Culture Recreation and Tourism. A few weeks ago, HB 1818, a major bill regarding the Railroad Commission of Texas, was sent out of the Energy Resources committee and set on the general calendar. Not having any personal background in oil and gas, or with the Railroad Commission, required me to dive head first into multiple resources, so that I could be as well versed on these issues as possible.

Along with writing the bill analysis for HB 1818, I was asked to give a presentation on the bill during a briefing before chiefs of staff, stakeholders, and my colleagues. At times, it can be difficult veering away from what is comfortable, immersing yourself in something new and challenging, but despite that, I was proud to see that all of the hard work I put into this bill was noticed, appreciated, and respected not only by my supervisor, but also by staff and supervisors from multiple offices in the capitol.

What I learned from this experience is the importance of swimming in new waters. Evolving requires taking on a challenge, and it is ok to broaden your skill set into other areas and remain open to any opportunities that present themselves to you.

Posted in Fabeain | Tagged | Leave a comment

A Social Worker’s Survival Guide to Budget Week at the Texas Legislature

Editor’s Note: This post and the post below both focus on interns’ experiences during “Budget Week,” the intense period of time during which the Texas House of Representatives debated and voted on their version of the state’s biennial (two-year) budget and the various amendments proposed by members. Debate lasted for over 15 hours on Thursday, April 6 and the early hours of Friday, April 7, before the House approved its version of the budget around 2 a.m., by a vote of 131-16. The House and Senate must now reconcile the differences between the funding priorities of each body, in order to adopt a final state budget.

by Elizabeth Hann, intern in the Texas Legislative Study Group

As Social Workers, we don’t like to talk numbers – unless it’s about caseloads. We don’t get into the social work profession for the money, although, we are happy when it comes our way. From my own experiences, it seems that a lot of the time we lose sight of the role that money plays in our ability to serve our clients. A couple weeks ago in the Texas Legislature, I experienced what is known in the Texas House of Representatives as “Budget Week”. This is the week in which the proposed budget and all of the amendments are filed, scrutinized, analyzed, and eventually voted on by the members of the House.

While the bulk of the attention to the budget process focuses on just one day and night on the House Floor, for the Legislative Study Group (LSG) – it was a full week. We spent hours poring over the 402 filed amendments, reading and analyzing each one to ultimately be published as a Floor Report and distributed to the representatives. Our main budget point person, Joel Kissell, did an amazing job analyzing the main 1,000+ page budget bill while the rest of the staff of social work interns attempted to figure out all the amendments. Without Joel, we definitely would have been lost.

We left the office past 2:00 a.m. every night that week. Now – just imagine – 10 sleep deprived social workers huddled in a room trying to make sense of fiscal notes, cost deficits, and general revenue funds. It was certainly a sight to see. With printers racing and phones ringing as we’re all frantically typing – we couldn’t even be bothered to check the clock.

Our budget week bender just about had us praying for a dark hole to crawl into, but at the end of the week – we had survived. For those coming after us – at the LSG or even in other legislative placements experiencing a similar stressful process – I have decided to write down some of the self-care tools we utilized to survive the long hours, lack of sleep, and extreme pressure we were under that week.

Survival Tip #1: Make a group plan beforehand

The Monday of budget week we all sat down with our supervisor and discussed the ground rules for how we would interact during the week. We wrote them down, agreed upon them, and came to a mutual understanding. This set the stage to allow us to understand our peer’s expectations and limitations.

Survival Tip #2: Don’t take things personally

Everyone is tired, hungry, and stressed. When someone lashes out, just remember that we are all here for the same purpose and are trying the best we can. Fighting does not contribute good to the situation. We really did a good job of discussing this beforehand and getting on the same page (see: Survival Tip #1) and it certainly paid off.

Survival Tip #3: Take scheduled breaks

It is easy to get caught up in the seriousness of what we do – social work is emotionally and physically tolling. Taking a scheduled break for very brief dance parties made the office environment less tense and gave us the time to stop and smile a bit. Without scheduled group dance breaks – coordinated by the amazing Kate Kirages – it felt like we would have died from the stress and pressure. Letting off steam, even just for a few minutes, was crucial.

Survival Tip #4: Take time to laugh

Inside jokes were KEY to our survival. Whether it was casually joking about our sanity, whisper screaming, or bonding over our conversations with other offices – we always found a way to work in some laughter into our environment.

Survival Tip #5: Be thoughtful of others

Having another coworker ask how you’re doing can make all the difference. Checking in on how each other was doing helped us keep our heads on straight.

Survival Tip #6: Know your limits

Everyone has a breaking point and self-care is CRUCIAL to surviving a high-stress, deadline-driven work week. Whether it’s stepping outside to take a brief walk, calling loved ones to check in, or taking some time to scan social media – we all needed to take some time for ourselves.

Survival Tip #7: Make sure to meet your basic needs

Don’t forget your basic needs like taking the time to grab a bite to eat, making some coffee, or sleeping (when you have time to!). Everyone is different – some need that caffeine fix, some get “hangry” without a snack, and others get delirious on sleep deprivation. We all get along better when these needs are met.

Survival Tip #8: Be a productive and trustworthy member of the team

We would not have survived Budget Week without each other. Working to the best of your ability and contributing quality work to the team makes everyone’s life easier. Don’t be afraid to ask for help if you can’t figure it out yourself.

After surviving Budget Week – I feel I can handle anything. I am so honored to be surrounded by my fellow LSG members and could not have made it through without them.

Posted in Elizabeth | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Learning to Speak Another Language

Editor’s Note: This post and the post above both focus on interns’ experiences during “Budget Week,” the intense period of time during which the Texas House of Representatives debated and voted on their version of the state’s biennial (two-year) budget and the various amendments proposed by members. Debate lasted for over 15 hours on Thursday, April 6 and the early hours of Friday, April 7, before the House approved its version of the budget around 2 a.m., by a vote of 131-16. The House and Senate must now reconcile the differences between the funding priorities of each body, in order to adopt a final state budget.

by Joel Kissell, intern in the Texas Legislative Study Group

Before we moved to Austin for the 85th legislative session, everyone warned us about Budget Week. While members, leaders, and constituents hope that other pieces of legislation pass, the budget determines how the state will spend its funds over the next biennium and is the only piece of legislation that must be passed each session. Therefore, pressures build during the days leading up to its hearing on the floor of the House.

The version of the bill originating in the Senate provides the technical basis for the budget bill that will become law this session; the Senate passed its initial version on March 28. When the Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1 (CSSB 1) passed out of the House Appropriations Committee and was set for a hearing on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives on April 6, 2017, the mood around the Legislative Study Group (LSG) office changed.

Within the LSG, I cover the Appropriations process and have followed each of its subcommittees as they worked through their respective articles of the state’s budget for the better part of two months. The other LSG analysts helped provide coverage when I was unable to be in four meetings at the same time, so that we could all have a sense of what was coming. We worked together to finish our analyses for other bills being heard during Budget Week to clear our schedules for the many amendments to CSSB 1 that were filed on Monday, April 3. It’s a good thing we did, because none of us were prepared for the 465-page packet of amendments that was released that afternoon.

Our team knocked it out of the park over the next three days and change. Drawing on the knowledge we have gained from our committee work over the course of the session and the leadership of our executive director Ana Ramon, we prepared analyses on the more than 400 amendments for members of our caucus. The first few hours were rough as everyone adjusted to budget terminology; my familiarity with the terminology, earned by witnessing the entire process, helped to explain concepts and get everyone up to speed. None of us got much sleep, relying on coffee and willpower to push forward, but we got through it.

The actual budget debate on the floor of the House of Representatives went faster than most people expected (see pictures of the representatives in action), without as many points of contention as in prior sessions. Some of this is probably because the budget is leaner than usual due to economic factors, as well as to decisions during previous sessions to reduce important revenue-generating taxes. A little more than 15 hours in, though, the members seemed to reach their limit and the budget passed with no fanfare at all. I had stepped out of the conference room for a minute and actually missed the vote, that’s how anticlimactic it was at the end. Outstanding amendments were tabled for consideration this week, and that was the end of debate.

The work is not done. The differences between each chamber’s budgets must be reconciled during the conference process, and there are plenty of topics beyond the budget to address for the good of the state. All I know for right now, though, is that I loved every stressful minute of it, and am so grateful for the support of my fellow analysts in the Legislative Study Group.

Posted in Joel | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment