From the Dispatch

Boards of Education Rewriting History and Science

Altaf Rahamatulla — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:22:06 +0000

In January, members of the predominantly conservative Texas Board of Education discussed revising the state's social studies curriculum to include highly partisan perspectives on civil rights, the role of government, and American history in general. Some of the more divisive suggestions range from banning mention of activist and union organizer Cesar Chavez to citing Ronald Reagan’s "leadership in restoring national confidence' following Jimmy Carter’s presidency." The Board also discussed instructing students to "describe the causes and key organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.” There were further proposals to reference the United States as a Christian nation with a divine mission in the world.

This is not a new trend. Just last year, the same Board urged schools to discuss the "weaknesses" of the scientific theory of evolution. Unfortunately, Texas' ultimate decision on its curriculum will likely reverberate throughout the country. The state's education fund is the largest in the nation, with $22 billion in resources. A sizable share goes to purchasing and distributing 48 million textbooks a year. Since Texas is one of the nation's largest consumers of textbooks, the educational standards the state Board of Education adopts not only impact Texas students, but can strongly influence the content of textbooks purchased in other states as well.

Attempts to input conservative ideology in the classroom: Just as troubling, there have been several attempts to insert socially conservative views in K-12 education across the country.

Back in 1999, the Oklahoma Textbook Committee required that publishers who did business in the state insert a disclaimer in biology textbooks stating that evolution is “a controversial theory which some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants and humans."
A similar effort was undertaken in Georgia in 2004, but public backlash forced the state's superintendent to restore references to evolution to middle and high school textbooks.
Following Dover, Pennsylvania school district's 2004 decision to require classroom discussion of intelligent design, opponents challenged the decision in court. In 2005, a federal court in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District ruled the district could not teach intelligent design, as the theory "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents" and does not respect the constitutional separation of church and state.

Progressive Mobilization Against Censorship of Science: Fortunately, progressives have combated conservative censorship of issues like evolution for years. The Kansas Citizens for Science (KCFS) have consistently challenged extreme right views expressed on the state's Board of Education. The organization played a crucial role in challenging the Board's 1999 decision to remove aspects of the theory of evolution. The Board lost its conservative majority following the controversial vote, to only regain it a few years later and push to identify evolution as a flawed theory and require discussions of intelligent design. In 2006, conservatives again lost their majority, partly due to the work of advocacy groups like KCFS, which led to the adoption of new science-based education standards to replace the anti-evolution ideology.

There are several other gorups across the country working to promote and protect science education. Citizens for Science, a network of state-based groups, formed to push back against right-wing censorship of science textbooks.

Challenging the Texas Textbook Censors: Placing ideology over academics is an extremely troubling prospect that endangers the public education system. It is quite telling that last May, Texas Sen. Letica Van de Putte criticized the board as the “laughingstock of the nation” under the leadership of Don McLeroy, a dentist and self-identified Christian fundamentalist. That same month, the Texas Senate blocked the reconfirmation of McLeroy as head of the Board of Education due to concerns about his religious views. McLeroy, who does not support the separation between church and state and describes himself as a "'young earth' creationist who believes dinosaurs once co-existed with people," remains an outspoken advocate along with other conservative ideologues who hold seven out of fifteen seats on the Board.

Texas' March 2 primary includes eight seats on the Education Board. Accordingly, voters will have the opportunity to help shape the debate and decide whether they want rightwing zealots rewriting history.

Resources:
Kansas Citizens for Science
Citizens for Science
National Center for Science Education
Anti-Defamation League - Religious Doctrine in the Science Classroom; Putting Education & Religious Freedom at Risk
National Science Teachers Association - The Teaching of Evolution
The New York Times - How Christian Were the Founders?
The San Antonio Express-News - Texas Voters to Referee School "Culture War"

Article Images

http://progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/Textbooks.jpg

Job Creation and State Fiscal Relief Resolutions Moving in the States

Altaf Rahamatulla — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:12:03 +0000

In the State of the Union speech, President Barack Obama stated:

"The devastation remains. One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. And for those who'd already known poverty, life has become that much harder... That is why jobs must be our number-one focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill."

With the fiscal crisis forcing states to layoff hundreds of thousands of teachers, nurses and police officers, the need for more federal job creation and state fiscal relief support is clear. And there is substantial momentum building around this issue in the states.

New Mexico Rep. Eleanor Chavez introduced HJM39, a joint memorial calling on the federal government to pass a jobs creation plan. The memorial passed the House of Representatives last Saturday and will now be considered by the state Senate.
Similar resolutions are likely to be introduced in Illinois, Nevada and Vermont. Members of the Tax Fairness Organizing Collaborative (TFOC), including New Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness (NYFF) and the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN), are working with lawmakers in their states to highlight the acute need for increased federal support.
Along with Maine Senate President Libby Mitchell, House Speaker Hannah Pingree held a press conference this past Tuesday to garner awareness of Maine's economic and fiscal situation and highlight the need for another round of federal aid.

If you are a lawmaker interested in introducing a resolution requesting the federal government to move a jobs bill, PSN can assist you in that effort. Please contact us at jobcreation@progressivestates.org for support. General resolution language can be found here.

Additionally, over one hundred legislators from thirty-one states have signed on to Progressive States Network's letter calling on the President and Congress to move swiftly on job creation and state fiscal relief. State lawmakers can sign onto the letter here, while citizens and advocates can use this online tool to contact their state legislators and ask them to add their signature.

The Need and Public Support for Action: As we discussed in January, the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in early 2009 was critical in preventing a full collapse of the national economy and helping states address huge budget gaps. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the ARRA created or maintained 600,000 to 1.6 million jobs as of September 2009 and found it decreased the unemployment rate by almost one percentage point. Unfortunately, millions of Americans are still out of work and states are struggling to find ways to deal with enormous deficits and plummeting revenue. Projected governors' budgets could lead to layoffs amounting to an additional 900,000 jobs lost in the economy.

There is extensive bipartisan support for federal funding for job creation and aid to states. Winthrop University conducted a poll in late 2009 and found that 71.6 percent of respondents favor funding for jobs (94.5 percent identify as Democrats, 53.4 percent Republican, 68.9 percent Independent) and 62.7 percent support "giving aid to states in serious financial trouble" (80.6 percent Democrat, 50.9 percent Republican, 63.6 percent Independent).

As the U.S. Senate moves on a jobs package within the next few weeks, timing is crucial. State lawmakers must send a strong message to Washington that the country needs jobs and states need relief.

Resources:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Additional Federal Fiscal Relief Needed to Help States Address Recession's Impact
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Recession Continues to Batter State Budgets; State Responses Could Slow Recovery
Stateline.org - Economist Mark Zandi: On stimulus, jobs, state finances, inflation and the year ahead
Moody's Analytics - The Case for Another Round of Federal Aid to State & Local Govt
WhiteHouse.Gov - Remarks by the President of the United States in State of the Union Address
Winthrop University - Winthrop Poll Results - November 2009 Findings
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Governors’ New Budgets Indicate Loss of Many Jobs if Federal Aid Expires

Article Images

http://progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/JobsVoteYes.jpg

Take Action: Additional Federal Job Creation and State Fiscal Relief Needed

Altaf Rahamatulla — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:34:38 +0000

With the new year, Progressive States Network is working with allies to launch a campaign to demand a new, federal job creation plan that includes fiscal relief to state and local governments in order to foster economic growth and create and maintain jobs. We are asking state legislators to sign onto a letter to promote this job creation plan, the full text of which can be seen at www.progressivestates.org/jobcreation. Legislators can sign the letter at www.progressivestates.org/jobcreation or by emailing jobcreation@progressivestates.org.

We are also asking advocates to sign onto a similar letter for organizations in support of additional federal action on job creation and state fiscal relief. Activists, too, can also take action by using our handy online tool to contact their state legislators to let them know about the job creation letter and to encourage them to sign.

The passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in early 2009 was critical for staving off a full collapse of the national economy, helping states create and maintain jobs and addressing gaping state budget deficits. By directing a substantial portion of funds towards education and Medicaid, the Recovery Act kept teachers in our classrooms, nurses employed in our clinics and hospitals, and public safety officers protecting our streets.

Nevertheless, economic uncertainty persists. Although the national recession may have technically ended, millions of Americans are out of work and states are struggling to find ways to deal with enormous deficits. High unemployment, a record number of foreclosures, huge cuts to public services, and decreased quality of educational systems threaten long-term recovery.

The gravity of this crisis demands swift and bold action by federal lawmakers on job creation. Accordingly, Progressive States Network is working to highlight state voices advocating for additional action on jobs. PSN encourages legislators to sign on to our letter calling on President Barack Obama and Congress to enact a new, broad-based job plan, including fiscal relief to states and local governments to foster growth and create jobs across the nation.

TAKE ACTION: www.progressivestates.org/jobcreation

Table of Contents:

- 2009 Recovery Plan Provided Significant Support to the Ailing Economy

- Why More Federal Job Creation Funding is Needed

- Economic Benefits of Public Programs: Why Federal Dollars Should Be Invested in the States

- The Need for Federal Action

- TAKE ACTION: Sign on to PSN's Job Creation Letter

2009 Recovery Plan Provided Significant Support to the Ailing Economy

The core of the Obama administration's response to the economic downturn was the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) last February. In a speech to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in September 2009, Christina Romer, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, confirmed that, "[p]roviding $787 billion of tax cuts and spending increases [is] the boldest counter-cyclical fiscal expansion in American history....the key reason that we begin this fall with a sense of hope rather than dread of a second Great Depression is because the policy response in 2008 and 2009 has been fast, bold, and effective."

Indeed, the rapid implementation of the Recovery Act has alleviated the severity of the recession. After four consecutive quarters of decline, the country posted a 2.2 percent increase in gross domestic product (GDP) in the third quarter of 2009. The Council of Economic Advisers finds that the ARRA has had an immense impact on national economic performance and added up to 4 percent to growth in the third quarter. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the ARRA created or maintained 600,000 to 1.6 million jobs as of September 2009 and found it decreased the unemployment rate by almost one percentage point. With large portions of the stimulus funding public education and health care programs in the states, a key part of that job creation program was to keep teachers in the classroom and medical professionals caring for patients across the country. It is estimated that there would be 250,000 fewer education professionals employed across the country without the ARRA funds.

The Recovery Act has not only assisted national economic performance, but has also provided relief to families. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) analyzed the affect of several provisions of the ARRA, including the expansion of tax credits for working families, temporary strengthening of unemployment insurance benefits, increasing food stamps, and a "one-time payment for retirees, veterans, and people with disabilities," and discovered that the recovery efforts are responsible for keeping over 6 million Americans above the poverty line and alleviating the severity of poverty for almost 33 million.

Why More Federal Job Creation Funding is Needed

Yet, federal action did not go far enough. In fact, several economists called for a much larger recovery package at the time of its passage.

An analysis by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) entitled Jobs Crisis Fact Sheet provides a somber analysis of the current situation: 15.4 million Americans are unemployed; 38.3 percent of unemployed have not had a job in over six months; 8 million jobs were lost during the recession, which includes 1.6 million lost in construction and 2.1 million lost in manufacturing; 1 in 10 Americans are unemployed; 1 in 6 Americans are underemployed; and 15 states are experiencing double-digit unemployment.

Two recent reports, the Pew Center for the States' Beyond California: States in Fiscal Peril and the National Governors Association and the National Association of State Budget Officers' joint publication, Fiscal Survey of States, both highlight burgeoning budget gaps, precarious economic circumstances, enormous declines in tax revenue, and generally reveal a poor fiscal outlook for states in the upcoming years. Currently, 48 states confront deficits in the upcoming years. In fact, CBPP estimates that states will face cumulative budget deficits of approximately $350 billion in 2010 and 2011. The downturn has additionally taken an enormous toll on tax revenue. Mark Zandi, Chief Economist at Moody's Economy.com, reports that state and local tax revenues have dropped 9 percent from last year, "the largest decline on record going back to just after World War II."

Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Recession Continues to Batter State Budgets; State Responses Could Slow Recovery

The ARRA played a significant role as a buffer against larger budget cuts this fiscal year, which would have severely hampered economic recovery even further. However, states will again be forced to consider drastic fiscal measures to alleviate budgetary strain that will likely result in enormous cuts to vital social programs, like education and health care. CBPP examined the states' response to shortfalls and notes that to date:

28 states instituted cuts that will limit low-income children's access to health care
24 states have slashed services for the elderly and disabled
36 states have reduced funding for higher education
42 states implemented cuts that affect state employees, including 26 that have hiring freezes, 14 that have announced layoffs, 26 that have decreased wages

Since August 2008, state and local governments have eliminated 132,000 positions from their workforces. Teachers, nurses, public safety officers, and many other state and local employees face the dire prospect of job loss during a time of economic uncertainty. At the same time, families will have to deal with the reality of budget cuts: larger class sizes, an inferior educational system, reduced health care services, and generally diminished quality of vital public programs. Furthermore, as EPI indicates, budget cuts have a detrimental impact on private employment and performance. About half of the economic activity and jobs lost due to budget cuts will occur in the private sector.

Economic Benefits of Public Programs: Why Federal Dollars Should Be Invested in the States

As federal aid to states has a very high economic multiplier effect or "bang for the buck," states are some of the most effective vehicles for job creation. Moody's Analytics finds that every federal dollar spent on extending unemployment insurance benefits fosters $1.61 in economic activity. Similarly, a federal dollar spent on:

Temporarily increasing food stamps creates $1.74 in economic activity
Aiding state governments creates $1.41 in economic activity
Investing in infrastructure creates $1.57 in economic activity

On the other hand, tax cuts and credits generally do not produce similar economic benefits as assisting families or state governments. For instance, a dollar spent on cutting the corporate income tax only results in $0.32 of economic activity. As a result, direct relief to states and a concerted effort to create and sustain jobs for Americans on Main Street is the most prudent course of action.On the flip side, EPI provides the following chart illustrating the unique danger of state budget cuts, which can ripple through the economy as teachers, nurses and police are laid off, state funds supporting private sector activity are reduced, and individuals receiving state support stop spending in their local communities.

Source: Economic Policy Institute - Dire states--State and local budget relief needed

The Need for Federal Action

For these reasons, the federal government must take proactive steps to create jobs and enact further fiscal relief for state and local governments. This includes extending the federal medical assistance percentages (FMAP) increase for Medicaid, providing additional support for education, boosting funding for infrastructure projects and public transportation investments, supporting the long-term unemployed to sustain them until they reenter the workforce, and providing direct and comprehensive financial assistance to state and local governments to perform the vital services needed to maintain growth in local communities.

There is abundant bipartisan support for federal funding for job creation and aid to states. Winthrop University conducted a poll in November 2009 and found that 71.6 percent of respondents favor funding for jobs (94.5 percent identify as Democrats, 53.4 percent Republican, 68.9 percent Independent) and 62.7 percent support "giving aid to states in serious financial trouble" (80.6 percent Democrat, 50.9 percent Republican, 63.6 percent Independent).

Congress has begun taking action. On Wednesday, December 16, 2009, the House passed H.R. 2847, the Jobs for Main Street Act of 2010, which would redirect money from the Wall Street bailout to fund environmental and infrastructure projects, extend FMAP, support education jobs, and provide small business loans. Some of the major provisions include:

$23.5 billion to extend the higher federal match for Medicaid through June 2011
$27.5 billion for highway improvements
$8.4 billion investment for public transportation investments
$23 billion to create and maintain 250,000 education jobs to modernize public education facilities
$1.18 billion to support 5,500 law enforcement positions
$2 billion for clean and safe drinking water projects
$2 billion to address public housing needs
$500 million to retain and hire firefighters

This is a good start, but Congress should go further. The federal government must act boldly to ensure a robust economic recovery and provide relief to working families across the nation. Moreover, federal lawmakers should include provisions for the highest level of transparency in any jobs bill to guarantee that recovery efforts are equitable and efficient. To that end, PSN is a member of States for a Transparent and Accountable Recovery (STAR), a network of groups that work at state and local levels to ensure that the implementation of ARRA is transparent, accountable, fair and effective.

TAKE ACTION: Sign on to PSN's Job Creation Letter

If you are a state or local lawmaker, please sign onto a letter calling on the President and Congress to enact a comprehensive jobs plan, including fiscal relief to states and local governments to foster economic growth and create and maintain jobs. Organizations can sign onto a similar letter as well. Activists are invited to contact their state legislators and ask them to sign on to this letter.

PSN looks forward to working with lawmakers and advocates on this issue. If you are a lawmaker interested in introducing a resolution requesting the federal government to move a jobs bill, PSN would like to assist you in that effort. Please contact us at jobcreation@progressivestates.org.

Resources

2009 Recovery Plan Provided Significant Support to the Ailing Economy

Bureau of Economic Analysis - Gross Domestic Product: Third Quarter 2009
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - State-Level Data Show Recovery Act Protecting Millions From Poverty
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - New CBO Report Finds Recovery Act has Preserved or Created up to 1.6 Million Jobs
Congressional Budget Office - Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output as of September 2009
Christina D. Romer, Chair, Council of Economic Advisers - Back from the Brink
Christina D. Romer, Chair, Council of Economic Advisers - On Today's GDP Numbers
Government Accountability Office - Status of States' and Localities' Use of Funds and Efforts to Ensure Accountability
The New York Times - U.S. Economy Started to Grow Again in the Third Quarter

Economic Benefits of Public Programs: Why Federal Dollars Should Be Invested in the States

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Additional Federal Fiscal Relief Needed to Help States Address Recession's Impact
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Recession Continues to Batter State Budgets; State Responses Could Slow Recovery
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - An Update on State Budget Cuts
Economic Policy Institute - Dire states--State and local budget relief needed
Economic Policy Institute - Jobs Crisis Fact Sheet
National Governors Association and the National Association of State Budget Officers - Fiscal Survey of States
The New York Times - New Consensus Sees Stimulus Package as Worthy Step
Pew Center for the States - Beyond California: States in Fiscal Peril
Stateline.org - Economist Mark Zandi: On stimulus, jobs, state finances, inflation and the year ahead
Mark Zandi - The Impact of the Recovery Act on Economic Growth
Moody's Analytics - The Case for Another Round of Federal Aid to State & Local Govt

The Need for Federal Action

AFSCME - Legislative Report
Winthrop University - Winthrop Poll Results - November 2009 Findings

Article Images

http://www.progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/cbpprecession.png

Focus on Jobs: The Next Step in National Economic Recovery and State Fiscal Relief

Altaf Rahamatulla — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:01:45 +0000

On Tuesday, December 8th, President Barack Obama delivered an address to the Brookings Institution on the need for increased focus on the job crisis that is affecting so many working families across the country. His proposals included key programs administered by the states, such as investments in infrastructure, clean energy investments, the extension of unemployment insurance, and ensuring that states are not forced to lay off teachers, police, and other vital service providers. This would be complemented by direct federal help such as tax breaks for small businesses and extension of COBRA subsidies for the unemployed.

The President stated, "[f]or even though we've reduced the deluge of job losses to a relative trickle, we are not yet creating jobs at a pace to help all those families who've been swept up in the flood. There are more than 7 million fewer Americans with jobs today than when this recession began. That's a staggering figure, and one that reflects not only the depths of the hole from which we must ascend, but also a continuing human tragedy." The speech followed a job summit the President convened last week that featured CEOs, small business owners, labor leaders, and nonprofits sharing insights on methods to foster economic growth.

Reports Detail the Jobs Crisis and the Need for Expanded Recovery Programs: While a new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study documents that the recovery plan has created or saved as many as 1.6 million jobs, millions of unemployed Americans are still in need of help.

This need for new jobs highlighted by the President is echoed by a recent analysis by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), entitled Jobs Crisis Fact Sheet. Among their findings:

15.4 million Americans are unemployed;
38.3 percent of unemployed have not had a job in over six months;
8 million jobs were lost during the recession, which includes 1.6 million lost in construction and 2.1 million lost in manufacturing;
1 in 10 Americans are unemployed;
1 in 6 Americans are underemployed;
15 states are experiencing double-digit unemployment.

These bleak figures are exacerbated by state fiscal uncertainty that is forcing lawmakers to consider cuts to vital programs, such as education and health care. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) indicates in Additional Federal Fiscal Relief Needed to Help States Address Recession's Impact, total state deficits in FY2011 and 2012 will likely exceed what can be covered by ARRA funding by over $260 billion. Furthermore, "[p]resuming they will get no more fiscal relief, states will have to take steps to eliminate deficits for state fiscal year 2011that will likely take nearly a full percentage point off the Gross Domestic Product. That, in turn, could cost the economy 900,000 jobs next year."

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, expressed a similar sentiment in an interview with Stateline.org: "I think it’s vital states get additional stimulus. If no more aid is forthcoming, then (states will) be cutting jobs, programs and raising taxes”¦ because their fiscal situation continues to deteriorate more rapidly. Tax revenues are still falling at a very rapid clip. So states are going to have a huge hole beginning in 2011 when the current stimulus runs out. I suspect they’ll be cutting spending and raising taxes long before reaching that cliff."

For the unemployed specifically, the National Employment Law Project and the Center for American Progress highlighted in their report Keeping a First Line of Defense for the Jobless that benefits for the unemployed provided by the ARRA recovery plan, from extended unemployment benefits to COBRA health care premium subsidies, have been critical in providing help to jobless individuals and injecting cash into communities hardest hit by unemployment. The report outlines how these programs have helped the economy and why the programs should be renewed.

Renewed Support for States and the Unemployed Needed: Accordingly, any federal job creation and economic growth plan must be accompanied by further fiscal relief for states. Progressive States Network, along with a wide range of allies, have called for a second round of federal stimulus to assist burgeoning state budget gaps.

Resources:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Additional Federal Fiscal Relief Needed to Help States Address Recession's Impact
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - New CBO Report Finds Recovery Act has Preserved or Created up to 1.6 Million Jobs
The Economic Policy Institute - Jobs Crisis Fact Sheet
The Economic Policy Institute - Plenty of need for a second stimulus
NELP and Center for American Progress - Keeping a First Line of Defense for the Jobless
Progressive States Network - Job Losses and State Fiscal Crises: Time for More Federal Stimulus Spending
Stateline.org - Economist Mark Zandi: On stimulus, jobs, state finances, inflation, and the year ahead
The White House - The Big Picture and Some Next Steps on Jobs
The White House - President Obama Announces Proposals to Accelerate Job Growth and Lay the Foundation for Robust Economic Growth

Article Images

http://progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/UnemploymentLine.jpg

Stimulus Delivering Jobs & Preserving State Education Programs

Altaf Rahamatulla — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:53:30 +0000

In his major stimulus speech in January, President Barack Obama stated, "I am confident [the stimulus] will save or create at least three million jobs over the next few years." In particular, he emphasized that state fiscal relief "will save the public sector jobs of teachers, cops, firefighters and others who provide vital services."

Indeed, initial reports demonstrate that the stimulus is achieving one of its primary objectives: to save and create jobs. The effect is most notably evident in preserving funds for public education and reducing the prospect of massive teacher layoffs. In fact, the White House reports that 250,000 education positions have been created or maintained across the country. Governors and state officials across the country are lauding the progress of the economic recovery. For instance, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, highlighting new projects and offering insight on the overall recovery, commented "[t]he positive impact on the economy is unmistakable...the direct investments translate into about $780 per household in (Pennsylvania)." Other states are reporting similar numbers of jobs either saved or created with stimulus funds, including:

California: 100,000 jobs, 62,000 in education
Michigan: 19,498 jobs, 14,483 in education
Minnesota: 11,800 jobs, 5,900 in education
Missouri: 8,500 public education jobs
New Mexico: 4,128 jobs

Ohio: 13,144 jobs, 3,400 in public education
Oregon: 8,000 jobs, with two out of every three jobs in the education field
Pennsylvania: 1,000 jobs
Tennessee: 7,710 jobs
Texas:1,100 jobs
Utah:4,164 jobs, 2,600 of which are teaching positions

Additionally, Recovery.gov compiled data from each state on jobs saved or created through the distribution of federal contracts and finds that, to date, this figure has reached 30,383 nationally.

More information will become available later this month. Since reporting requirements mandate that jobs be reported by hours of employment instead of the actual number of people working, the total economic stimulative effect will not be captured by this data release. Moreover, as the Coalition for an Accountable Recovery (CAR) points out, the data released in early October represents less than half of total funding available. It only covers direct jobs created and will not reveal information about the "ultimate recipient of Recovery Act funds." Nevertheless, as early reporting indicates, the stimulus is fulfilling intended objectives and assisting states through the economic crisis, especially considering the major role it has played in maintaining funding for public education.

Concerns about States' Use of Stimulus Funds for Education: As positive as these reports are, the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) released an alert memorandum in September, denoting that certain states are improperly using stimulus funds to replace education budget cuts, which "could adversely impact the achievement of the education reform objectives of the SFSF (State Fiscal Stabilization Fund) program." The Inspector General notes that as a stipulation of receiving federal stimulus dollars, states are required to preserve education funding at FY2006 levels, a provision intended to allow budgeting flexibility. But, some states, which planned to allocate a certain level of funding towards education before passage of ARRA, utilized this statute to actually reduce funding and still take advantage of the availability of federal dollars. For instance, before Congress passed the stimulus, Connecticut intended to allocate $1.889 billion to education in FY2010. After passage, the state reduced the amount to FY2006 levels, representing a 14.3% reduction in funding.

Looking Ahead: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) finds that not only is the stimulus achieving certain economic objectives, but it has also assisted six million Americans from falling below the poverty line this year, including almost two million children and 500,000 seniors. ARRA has had an evident impact and alleviated the worst of the economic downturn.

As of August, less than 25% of total stimulus funds had been spent. Accordingly, as states continue to utilize recovery dollars in the upcoming fiscal year, lawmakers should be mindful that proactive investments in vital areas, such as education, augment job growth and improve overall economic conditions.

Resources:
CAR - What to Expect on Oct. 15, 2009
CAR - Coalition for an Accountable Recovery Praises Timely Release of Recovery Act Recipient Reports; Criticizes Tools for Understanding Data
Christina D. Romer, Chair, Council of Economic Advisers - Back from the Brink
Council of Economic Advisers - The Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, First Quarterly Report
Council of Economic Advisers - Estimates of Job Creation from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Domestic Policy Council, Executive Office of the President - Educational Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Economic Policy Institute - Recovery.gov's jobs data: A (very) partial monty
Lawrence Mishel, Economic Policy Institute - The Safety Net and the Recession
Recovery.gov - Most Jobs Created by State (Figures shown are for Federal Contracts only)
States for a Transparent and Accountable Recovery - Overcoming ARRA Perception Problems
USDE - Political Consequences of the Maintenance of Effort Requirements under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act State Fiscal Stabilization Fund

Article Images

http://progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/CommunityCollegeCampus.jpg

Report: Dropout Rates Across the States

PSN — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:38:53 +0000

As President Obama mentioned earlier this year, the United States has "one of the highest high-school dropout rates out of any industrialized nation." Currently only about 7 out of 10 public school students graduate high-school with a diploma. Similar issues with graduation rates exist on the college level. On average, across the nation, less than 60 percent of first-year students who enter a four-year college receive a degree from that institution within six years. Getting a high-quality education is especially an issue for low-income and minority students. According to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, only 20% of "Hispanic young people graduate high school ready for college, and only a quarter of low-income students earn a degree or credential post high school."

During his first address to Congress, President Obama emphasized the fundamental role that quality education will play in revitalizing our economy. Noting that in today's global economy a high school education is no longer sufficient, the President asked "every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training," and has established a goal that "by 2020 America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world."

A new report published this week by Education Week and the Editorial Projects in Education (EPE) Research Center, entitled Diplomas Count 2009, highlights the high school dropout rates in each state. According to the study, graduation rates across the states are significantly different. New Jersey had the highest graduation rate, 82.1%; while in Nevada only 47.3% of students graduated high school. In addition, there is great discrepancy between the graduation rates of different demographic populations. The graduation rate of Non-Hispanic whites rose to 76.1%, while Hispanic and African-American graduation rates rose to 55% and 51.2%, respectively.

While most school districts performed at the level that experts would predict based on factors such as poverty rates and spending per student, there were districts that had graduation rates higher than expected. For example, in 2006, despite the fact that more than half of the district's students are minorities and 6 in 10 are from low-income families the Texarkana Independent School District in Texas had a 79% graduation rate. According to an article by the Christian Science Monitor, district officials believe that multiple factors led to their success, including a "focus on early education and providing high schoolers on the verge of dropping out with alternative education paths."

Helping Students Prepare for College: In addition, the report outlines the importance of defining "college readiness" and providing a road map that will helps students identify what it will take to be successful in their post-secondary institution. Hopefully, helping students chart a high school course load that is geared towards preparing them for college will lead to a reduction in college drop out rates in the future. Today, approximately 20 states have articulated the skills and information base they feel is needed by a freshman in college. While many of the standards set forward are related to academic course work, seven states include "soft skills", like time management, as part of college readiness standards.

Lastly, the report studies state data systems that have been implemented to track students and help administrators evaluate their academic progress in high school and at postsecondary institutions. The ARRA has appropriated approximately $250 million in new competitive grants for such systems.

Resources:
Diplomas Count 2009
Diplomas and Dropouts: Which Colleges Actually Graduate Their Students (and Which Don't)
US high school graduation rate climbs to 69.2 percent
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Statement on President Obama's Call for 'A Complete and Competitive American Education
Obama: High School Education Not Enough
Fast Track to College Act would lead nation closer to goals Obama set forth

Article Images

http://progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/HighSchoolClassforCOllege.jpg

Assuring Accountability and Equity in Recovery Spending

Nathan Newman — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:20:48 +0000

In January, Progressive States Network highlighted the many reasons Why States Need to be a Focus for Any Economic Recovery Plan. Without help, states would catastrophically slash both spending and payrolls, deepening the economic crisis in communities across the nation, while undermining the investments needed to revive the economy in the long-term.

But we have also emphasized that any stimulus spending has to be tied to increased accountability and transparency in spending decisions, especially by government contractors who often operate like a shadow government with little oversight. One key reality, as this Dispatch will highlight, is that those most in need often don't receive help from government spending without transparency and accountability measures built into the rules. While the recent federal recovery plan made real strides in expanding such accountability, additional measures are still needed if the recovery plan is going to deliver real equity in our economic recovery.

- Assuring Recovery Funds Address Immediate Crisis

- The Link Between Accountability and Equity

- Demanding Transparency and Accountability in the States

- Conclusion

Assuring Recovery Funds Address Immediate Crisis

As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities outlined in a recent report, federal aid is covering roughly 30-40 percent of state budget shortfalls. Virginia, for example, has been able keep open three mental health facilities, reverse a planned cut in Medicaid payments, lessen reduction in universities aid, avoid a major education budget cut, and avoid laying off an estimated 310 deputy sheriff positions.

For the economy, some of the most immediate money flowing into states is via the expansion of food stamps benefits in the recovery plan: 32.5 million people in April got a 13.6 percent monthly increase in benefits, averaging about $20 per person. Since the federal government pays 100% of food stamp benefits, states that vigorously sign up people who qualify can stave off some need to use other benefits directly funded by the states. While many states are stepping up outreach efforts, only 60 percent of eligible Americans received food stamps in 2004, the most recent year data are available. Signing up more people is a direct way to expand federal stimulus spending in states.

Assuring States Maintain Spending to Fuel Consumer Demand: While the federal government is dramatically expanding support for programs like education, food stamps, and Medicaid for state governments, the key caveat is that states can't use the funds just to paper over state cuts for the programs. In using state fiscal stabilization funds, states must assure that in fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011, they will maintain state support for elementary, secondary and public higher education institutions at fiscal year 2006 levels. The goal is to assure that the federal stimulus to expand the economy is not just undermined by state governments cutting spending -- avoiding what economist Paul Krugman calls "fifty Herbert Hoovers" promoting austerity economics and deepening the economic downturn.

"States Rights" versus Accountability: Some state leaders like Texas Governor Rick Perry have tried to argue that any conditions on federal money is a violation of states rights; Perry even supported a resolution asserting "sovereignty" for the state of Texas and arguing all federal legislation that "requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed." It is a bit strange to see some conservative leaders -- who usually argue that government spending should be tied to reciprocal responsibility by recipients -- suddenly demand that federal dollars be a blank check with no accountability for states receiving it. Of course, even most conservative leaders have agreed to the accountability measures required to qualify for funding under the federal recovery act. Ironically, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford -- who is seeking to reject $700 million in education spending approved by his own state legislature -- has argued that federal courts, rather than state courts which are not seen as sympathetic to his position, should decide whether the governor can prevent the state from spending the money.

Fight over Unemployment Funds: That the strongest resistance to federal funds has come over funding unemployment insurance for many of the poorest unemployed workers is evidence that the fight over "states rights" is actually a fig leaf for ideological attacks on those most in need. As the National Employment Law Project has documented, incentives in the recovery act to encourage states to extend unemployment benefits to poor and part-time workers often excluded from unemployment systems, has been a major success of the recovery plan, with states across the country reforming their laws to improve equity in their systems. While both Republican and Democratic leaders in many states have readily expanded such benefits, it is a few ideologues on the right, such as Perry in Texas or Gov. Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, that have used the unemployed as whipping boys for their rhetoric. Even as many families continue to suffer post-Katrina in the state, Jindal chose to forego $100 million in federal unemployment dollars, as legislators have labored to override his opposition to unemployment insurance modernization. As Dan Lavoie of Policy Link argues, "This is a looming disaster for folks who’ve had too much disaster in their lives already."

Resources:
ProPublica - Stimulus Infrastructure Funding Short-Changes States With High Unemployment
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities - Federal Fiscal Relief for States Is Working As Intended: The Cases of New York and Virginia
U.S. Department of Education - Guidance on the Maintenance-of-Effort Requirements in the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program
National Employment Law Project - Modernizing Unemployment Insurance--The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Policy Link - Thousands to Protest Jindal Stimulus Rejection

The Link Between Accountability and Equity

The exclusion of many of the working poor from unemployment insurance systems is just part of the broader problem of equity in in state spending and assuring that the federal recovery plan is directed to reviving communities hardest hit by the global economic downturn. Unfortunately, state-by-state analysis of federal transportation recovery funds by the independent research organization ProPublica finds that "the higher a state’s unemployment, the less money it gets." States with the most people out-of-work are seeing fewer job openings on transportation projects.

Within states, the same phenomena seems to be happening. By basing dollars spent on transportation money on whether a community has "shovel ready" construction projects, the law has bypassed some communities with the highest unemployment. In Indiana:

An analysis of Indiana's per-capita transportation stimulus dollars committed through this month shows that of the state's 10 counties with the highest unemployment rates, three have received no funding, and four have received less than $37 per person, the median amount given to counties that did receive funding.

Building Equity into Transportation Budgets: Richer communities often already had more money in the pipeline for new projects, so they had "shovel-ready" projects ready to be funded. As a report by Policy Link and Transit Equity Network argues, "There is serious concern that the timeline for spending recovery dollars will reinforce historic inequities by concentrating funds on ex-urban highway projects versus maximizing low-income community benefits through investment in transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure." As report co-author Radhika Fox, an Associate Director at Policy Link argues:

Historically, the deck has been stacked against transportation projects that can improve the lives of low-income people and people of color. To ensure that the federal recovery package does not continue this imbalance, advocates and community leaders must be ready and prepared to fight to ensure their communities get a fair share of the recovery dollars.

“Accountability in government spending is job number one when it comes to the stimulus,” said Laura Barrett, national policy director for the Transportation Equity Network. “The nation's governors must make sure that all stimulus-spending targets distressed communities and brings jobs to low-income people, women and minorities. The public needs to know who got the jobs and who can be held accountable."

Lack of Data Has Held Up Addressing Inadequate Teaching in Poor Schools: Transparency in spending decisions is also the key to actually making sure poor schools receive the help they have usually been denied in the past. The stimulus measure’s provision on equitable distribution of teachers is identical to language in the federal No Child Left Behind Act that requires states to put plans in place to ensure that poor and minority students aren’t taught disproportionately by out-of-field, inexperienced, or unqualified teachers. Not much momentum on this goal was made under President George W. Bush, some experts say, in part because of states' archaic recordkeeping, a former Bush administration official indicated. “It was difficult to move the needle on teacher-quality efforts in the states at the time,” said M. René Islas, who oversaw the issue at the Education Department between 2002 and 2006. “They lacked the data systems and the incentive.”

Greater accountability and greater transparency in data for the recovery plan is a necessary step in making it possible for low-income and minority communities to be able to demand equity in the distribution of funds.

Resources:
Policy Link and Transportation Equity Network - An Engine of Opportunity: A User’s Guide to Advocate for Transportation Equity in the 2009 Recovery Act
Education Week - Stimulus Bill Spurs Focus on Teachers: Language on Fair Distribution, Effectiveness Offers Policy Clues

Demanding Transparency and Accountability in the States

Recognizing the need for broader accountability in the federal recovery plan, advocates have formed States for an Accountable and Transparent Recovery. In this effort, Progressive States Network has joined with a number of key allies -- including the Apollo Alliance, Center for Community Change, Common Cause, Consumer Federation of America, Good Jobs First, National Employment Law Project, National People's Action, OMB Watch, Partnership for Working Families, Policy Matters Ohio, Right to the City, Smart Growth America, Transportation Equity Network, U.S. PIRG, and Wider Opportunites for Women -- to work for both greater equity and accountability as the recovery plan is implemented in states across the country.

Limits of Federal Transparency Rules: The ARRA includes a wide range of accountability provisions and created a Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board. President Obama has announced that Vice President Joe Biden will “oversee the Administration’s implementation of the Recovery Act’s provisions." The Vice President issued his first quarterly ARRA progress report on May 13.

President Obama has made a broad commitment to create transparency for federal spending, but the problem is that as funds move from federal government to state to local government to hired contractors, the data to assure accountability starts to disappear. As the Washington Post highlighted in a recent article:

The Office of Management and Budget requires stimulus spending to be reported by primary and secondary recipients, but in many cases, this means the reporting will stop short of the contractors and subcontractors that are hired to do the work. For instance, if a state allocates transportation money to a local authority, such as Metro, that authority would not necessarily have to disclose what contractors were hired.

Earl E. Devaney, the Interior Department Inspector General who has been placed in charge of stimulus oversight, admits, "The law doesn't require [recipients] to go to the depth that people imagine it does."

State Accountability Sites: The States for a Transparent and Accountability Recovery site has a state-by-state review of accountability practices in each state, including overviews of state-level recovery act websites and other government-run accountability sites, how coordination and oversight for the recovery plan is being administered in each state, the in-state policy debates on the recovery plan, as well as a list of state watchdog groups and other resources. Some states are providing greater transparency than others, yet almost none yet provide the level of detail needed to monitor either the overall equity in distribution of funds or what contractors are really doing with the funds they receive.

Expanding Transparency and Accountability in the States: As PSN outlined in February, there are a number of models for state leaders seeking to expand transparency in their recovery and state contracting systems. These included:

Good Jobs First's model language for economic subsidy data collection
Contractor and subcontractor data collection language from Oregon's proposed HB 3366
Online transparency language from Massachusetts' proposed Act Relative to Transparency in State Revenues and Expenditures

As we emphasized, not only do such accountability measures assure that money goes where intended, they can actually save states money by streamlining spending decisions and eliminating spending abuses that thrive in secrecy.

Funding Transparency: One area where the federal government can step up is in making funding of state accountability systems a greater priority. An April Government Accountability Office report found that state funding for oversight was a problem:

Officials in most of the states and the District expressed concerns regarding the lack of Recovery Act funding provided for accountability and oversight. Due to fiscal constraints, many states reported significant declines in the number of oversight staff—limiting the ability to ensure proper implementation and management of Recovery Act funds.

If the feds are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on the recovery plan, providing the funds to protect and expand the capacity of states to build better accountability systems would be money well spent.

Resources:
Progressive States Network - Transparency and Economic Recovery: What States Are Required To Do and Why They Should Do It
States for an Accountable and Transparent Recovery
Coalition for an Accountable Recovery
Education Week - Initial Aid Is Puzzle to Track: Transparency Proves Elusive as Stimulus Funds Flow
ProPublica - Tracking States' Spending Sites

Conclusion

Accountability and transparency are not just "good government" issues. Without such measures, money inevitably flows to those who already have political and economic power. Only with clear accountability rules -- and data collected to assure such rules are being implemented -- will we see recovery funds go to those most in need and the money used to address the real problems of economic inequality in communities across our country.

Article Images

http://progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/EquityandAccountability250.jpg

Early Education Investments: Economic Importance and Policy Implementation

PSN — Mon, 04 May 2009 17:45:54 +0000

Early Education Investments: Economic Importance and Policy Implementation

With record numbers of parents in the workforce, helping parents with child care has become critical for long-term economic growth, strengthening families, and creating equality for women. As the child care and early education needs of families continue to increase dramatically, the cost or unavailability of high-quality child care and early education programs often place parents in an impossible position -- they need to work but they also need to know that their kids are taken care of in order to work.

The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) dedicated tens of billions of dollars to providing families access to affordable quality child care and pre-kindergarten programs. Recognizing that any true effort to invest in the long-term strength of our economy must not just initiate "shovel-ready" transit projects, but also ensure that our future workforce has the educational foundation it needs to be globally competitive.

States have been expanding early education programs in recent years by strengthening funding for child care tax credits and subsidies for child care. Additionally, in FY08 33 of the 38 states that have a state-funded pre-k program expanded enrollment. Given the present fiscal crisis, some states have felt pressure to cut pre-k spending, however, others have taken advantage of the federal recovery funds to expand investments in the next generation. For example, Pennsylvania's Governor is proposing to expand the number of kids in pre-k by 8.5%, and the Minnesota House recently voted for a modest early education funding increase.

As this Dispatch will discuss, despite the tough fiscal times, funding from the federal recovery plan can help offset the costs of maintaining and even expanding early education programs. ThisDispatch will also highlight the economic and educational benefits of supporting early education programs, as well as the different methods that state governments are employing to help reduce the cost of and promote the expansion of quality early child care and state pre-k programs.

Resources:

Families and Work Institute
National Women's Law Center
National Institute for Early Education Research
Pre[k]Now

Center for Law and Social Policy: Child Care and Early Education

How the Recovery Plan Supports Child Care and Early Education Programs

The ARRA provides numerous resources to help states fund early childhood education programs. The goal is to capitalize on economic benefits in both the short-term -- by making it easier for parents with young children to afford child care and rejoin the workforce -- and the long-term -- by investing in children's education to ensure that we have a competitive work force. Early childhood education funds will be spent over a two year period and move through current formulas unless it is stated otherwise. In addition, the Act implements standards to increase transparency and accountability.

Specifically, the ARRA extends funding support to early-childhood programs, primarily through Child Care and Development Block Grants (CCDBG), Head Start and Early Head Start.

$2 billion for the Child Care and Development Block Grant. $255.2 million of these funds are to be reserved for initiatives aimed at improving quality.
$2.1 billion will go to Head Start (including $1.1 for Early Head Start, to be awarded on a competitive basis and $1 billion for Head Start).

Beyond these specific funding sources, the joint statement by House-Senate conferees includes language for tens of billions of other education funding in the ARRA. Specifically, “the conferees expect States to use some of the funding provided for early childhood programs and activities.” Title I funds of $13 billion for low-income school districts will provide an especially fruitful source of support for early childhood education programs.

Resources:

Pre[k]Now - Recovery Round-Up
National Women's Law Center - Making Use of Economic Recovery Funds: Child Care Policy Options for States (March 9, 2009), Child Care is Essential to Economic Recovery
National Governor's Association - State Opportunities under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Early Childhood Programs
Pre[k]Now - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Provision Pertaining to Early Childhood Education
New America Foundation

Department of Education

Why Early Education is so Critical to Economic Growth and Equity

Early childhood education and care programs provide both immediate and long-term benefits for children, parents and communities. Specifically, they provide both an immediate and long term stimulus to the economy, while also achieving greater equity in the educational system.

An Immediate Stimulus Creating Jobs: Spending on child care is one of the most effective ways to create new jobs and stimulate economic recovery. A recent Cornell University study found that funds spent in the early education sector have more stimulative effect on the economy than most other spending. The study stated, "[c]ompared to other economic sectors, child care purchases more of its inputs locally, and expenditures on child care circulate longer in the state economy." In fact, as an earlier study found, the early education sector is far larger and more critical to local economies than most people understand. For example, in New York State, one of the largest American tourist destination, early education has more employees than the hotels and transportation.

Helping Parents Stay at Work: Early education programs also helping parents to take advantage of opportunities to participate in the workforce. In fact, nearly 85% of the workforce consists of parents, and currently about 64% of women with children under age 6 are part of the workforce.

Knowing that their children are in a safe and healthy environment allows parents to be more focused on their jobs. It has been shown that providing child care improves parents' productivity at work, lowers their absenteeism rate, reduces turnover rates and can increase a companies' value. Further, public early education and childcare programs ease the financial burden on parents, which in turn provides two benefits. First, it ensures that working families are not forced to put their kids in substandard and potentially unsafe care situations out of financial desperation. Second, families who are not burdened with paying high child care cost have more discretionary income, which they can spend to purchase goods and services and thus stimulate the economy.

Long-term Economic Returns: As numerous studies indicate, increasing the accessibility of quality and affordable early education and child care programs leads to improved communities, economically and socially. It has been shown that single mothers with young children receiving child care assistance were 39%, and former welfare recipients were 82%, more likely to still be employed after two years than those who did not receive any help paying for child care.

Ensuring that children have the basic skills to be successful can decrease the drain on taxpayers down the road. Research has continually shown that early education is important in maximizing children’s learning potential and creating an equal foundation for educational success. Some of the demonstrated benefits of early education and child care programs include reduced drop-out rates and need for special education, and increased college attendance, as well as less criminal activity and reduced dependence on welfare. All of these benefits combat costly issues that drain national resources. Two studies have attempted to aggregate the specific financial savings to tax payers. The Economic Promise of Investing in High Quality Preschool, released by the business-backed Committee for Economic Development, estimated that for every dollar invested in preschool, there was an expected return of $2 to $4 in future societal benefits, including savings to states from less crime and lower remedial educational costs. Another study, "The Economics of Investing in Universal Preschool Education in California," found that every $1 invested in high-quality pre-k saves taxpayers up to $7.

Assuring Long-Term Economic Equity: Providing access to quality and affordable early education and child care programs also creates more equity in education which in turn provides more equal employment opportunities. Research has shown that oftentimes children from low-income households are already trailing their wealthier peers at the start of kindergarten. Pre-k programs are one way that states have attempted to address the readiness gap. Studies have shown that early education and child care programs improve language and math skills, and increases literacy rates. These initial skill improvements in school age children translate into better standardized test scores, fewer instances of grade repetition and higher high school graduation rates. In the long run, attending quality early education and child care programs lead to greater employment opportunities and higher wages.

The Challenge: The cost of quality child care is continuously rising. According to the National Women's Law Center, in 2007, "the average fee for full-time, center-based child care ranged from over $3,800 to $14,600 annually," varying based on factor such as a family's geographic location and childrens' ages. However, despite the rising cost of early education and child care programs the necessity of and demand for such programs continues to increase. In order to help families afford quality early education and child care, states must adopt a comprehensive set of policies and extend access to state-funded programs to all those in need.

Resources:

Cornell University Linking Economic Development and Child Care Project-

The National League of Cities' Institute for Youth, Education and Families - The American and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Expanding Access to Early Care and Education
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis - Early Childhood Development: Economic Development with a High Public Return
Rand - Preschool Delivers - documents the benefits of increased lifetime earnings, improved K-12 schools, and significant reductions in violent juvenile offenses and costs of incarceration.
NIEER - The Effects of State Prekindergarten Programs on Young Children’s School Readiness in Five States. A study of pre-k programs in five states finding that children in those states had clear gains in early language, literacy, and mathematical development.

State Efforts to Evaluate the Effects of pre-kindergarten pre-k helps children do better on standardized tests and reduces grade repetition

Georgetown University - The Effects of Universal pre-k on Cognitive Development. Study of the Oklahoma pre-k program which found across-the board gains from preschool for all socio-economic groups.
National Women's Law Center - The Reality of the Workforce: Mothers Are Working Outside the Home
U.S. Health and Human Services - The Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey. Found children at Head Start pre-k centers had more advanced skills, allowing teachers to spend more time working directly with children and less on classroom management.

Chicago Longitudinal Study found that Chicago children who attended a pre-k program were 29 percent more likely to graduate from high school and 41% less likely to require special education services.

State Policies to Support Early Child Care

The child care sector allows parents to earn more than $100 billion annually by providing a service that enables them to be members of the workforce. Not only does access to quality child care help our nation by helping build a stronger workforce, it also helps prepare our workforce of tomorrow. Unfortunately, for many households, and not just those who are considered low-income, high-quality child care is just not an affordable option. However, by providing well structured tax credits and subsidies, among other options, states can help make child care a more accessible.

Child Care Tax Credits: Many states provide a tax credit for working families linked to the value of the federal government's Child and Dependent Care Credit for tax payers with children. According to the National Women's Law Center, 28 states (including the District of Columbia) have their own, additional, child and dependent care (CADC) tax provision and in recent years, the value of these provisions has increased in most of these states. The federal credit is not available to many working families with children who do not make enough to pay income taxes. Additionally, a 2006 study by the National Women's Law Center found that 17 states provide a tax credit that is a percent of the federal tax credit, 4 states provide a tax deduction for expenses eligible for federal credit and 4 states provide a tax credit whose amount is a percent of expenses eligible for the federal credit.

Many of the state tax credits improve upon the federal credit, such as by having their credits be refundable or by establishing a more generous income test for receipt of the state benefits. For example, thirteen states (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont) provide either a fully refundable (nine states) or partially refundable (four states) credit for child care expenses. A refundable credit is important because it means a family gets a check back from the state if the family’s credit exceeds the tax owed. The maximum value in any state for a CADC tax provision is New York's, which extends a credit of $2,310 for families. However, in Louisiana, an eligible family may claim both a child care tax credit and a household expense tax credit, for a maximum combined value of $3,150. Aside from providing the aforementioned figures, The National Women's Law Center lays out a comprehensive list of best policies states should consider when developing or reformatting their state CADC.

Direct Child Care Subsidies: Instead of families needing to wait until they file a tax return to receive child care tax credits, some states provide direct subsidies for child care up front for low-income families. However, these subsidies are often so restricted that families lose help once they get a job that pays even a bit more than a poverty wage. Further, since federal block grants, including the Child Care Development Fund and TANF have not been keeping pace with inflation states have cut direct child care subsidies in recent years and limited eligibility.

While federal law limits eligibility for child care subsidies to those earning less than 85% of a state’s median income, states set their own policies for child care generally based on family income as it relates to the poverty line or the state's median income. According to a report by the National Women's Law Center, across different states income eligibility for a family of three can range from $20,604 (38% of the state's media income) in Nebraska to $47,124 (71% of the state's median income) in Hawaii. In seventeen states even families that are eligible for child care subsidies face long waiting lists, with nine of those states lists increasing between 2007 and 2008. For example, from the beginning of 2008 to October, the waiting list in Pennsylvania grew from 8,424 children to over 13,000 children.

All of this can leave many lower-income families too poor to benefit from income tax credits, but with too much income to qualify for direct child care subsidies or just stuck on waiting lists. In addition, to the issues mentioned above, it is important that states consider the economic impact of required copayments on parents receiving child care asistance and/or reimbursement rates.

Resources:

National Women's Law Center -

Urban Institute - State Tax Credits for Child Care

Striving for Universal Access to Pre-K

In order to ensure that all children's early education needs are met states need to implement a comprehensive multi-faceted approach, which includes funding for low-income as well as middle-income households. Policy experts, educators and state leaders have acknowledged the benefits of pre-kindergarten, sparking an acceleration of state pre-k expansion.

Expanding Pre-k Programs: According to the State of Preschool 2008 report by the National Institute for Early Education Research, in FY08, "40 states and the District of Columbia fund some type of state pre-k program or provide additional state funding for Head Start." Specifically, the report found that:

In 33 of the 38 states that have state-funded pre-k programs, enrollment climbed in recent years. In fact, today pre-k program now serve more children nationally than Head Start.
During the 2007-2008 school year, states increased spending for pre-kindergarten, enough to support both increases in enrollment and improvements in quality standards.
State funding for preschool rose to almost $4.6 billion and funding from all reported sources exceeded $5.2 billion, an increase of nearly 23 percent over the previous year.
The increase in spending helped raise the enrollment of 3- and 4-year-old's in state-funded preschool, including pre-k and state-funded Head Start, by more than 108,000 to 1.1 million children, 973,178 at age 4 alone.

Unfortunately, while pre-kindergarten programs expanded during the 2007-08 school year the gains may be short-lived. Securing adequate funding for pre-k will be more challenging as the states are forced to slash budgets in order to cope with the worst economic downturn in a generation. According to the New York Times, thus far at least nine states, (including California, Florida,New York, and North Carolina) have announced plans to cut pre-k spending. While other states may have yet to announce specific cuts to pre-k there are some that are considering enrollment cuts, reductions in program standards, and postponing plans for expansion.

Despite Recent Growth State Funded pre-k Remains a Program Primarily for Low-Income Children: A 2008 report on the cost of child care by the National Association of Child Care and Referral Agencies, stated that child care for a four-year-old can account for up to 14% of the median income of a two-parent family; if a household has two young children, the added cost of care can raise the burden to as much as 32% of the state median income. For many families, child care ends up using a large portion of discretionary income, costing families more than food, health care and for some more than in-state college tuition.

Despite the high cost of pre-k, Pre[k]Now reports that as of 2008 only "eight states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation to extend eligibility for pre-k to all children whose families want to enroll them." Of the other "38 states currently funding pre-k programs, 20 use family income as determining eligibility criteria." Therefore, in most of these states families are not eligible for state funded programs if they earn more than 200% of the federal poverty line ($42,400 for a family of four in 2008). These extremely low thresholds for eligibility render many working families who cannot afford quality child care ineligible for state funded pre-k. Even more troublesome than states with high income eligibility requirements are that 12 states provide no state pre-k programs. The only publicly funded early education program is Head Start -- in order to be eligible for Head State, a family's income must be no higher than the federal poverty level ($22,050 for a family of four).

Growing Disparities Between State Universal pre-k Efforts: The State of Preschool 2008 also highlighted that access to state pre-k programs grew during the 2007-08 year due to the "development of new initiatives in three states (Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Ohio) and increased capacity in 30 other states." Despite an overall growing trend in states to expand pre-k programs, major discrepancies exist in terms of how close each state is to achieving universal access to pre-k, including who is eligible for pre-k and the quality of programs. Since a study of the Oklahoma program indicated that lower-income children gained more benefits when programs included middle-income children, this creates a strong argument for more universal preschool programs that bring children together from all communities.

Pre-k at Age 4: States Making Positive Progress and Those Falling Behind: The Oklahoma Preschool Program is the longest standing state pre-k program and approximately 72 percent of the 4-year-olds in Oklahoma enroll in state funded pre-k. The link above highlights key statutory provisions on defining eligibility, the responsibility of local school boards, and the creation of both curriculum and teacher certification standards for the pre-k program. According to NIEER's the State of Preschool 2008 report, Florida, Georgia and Vermont have more than 50 percent of 4 years olds enrolled in state pre-k. Click here for a list of the top ten states serving 4-year-olds who attend a public preschool program of some kind.

In severe contrast, 12 states, (Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming) have "no regular state preschool education program." In eight states, fewer than "20% of children four years of age are enrolled in a public preschool program, even when including preschool special education and Head Start figures."

Pre-k at age 3 is much more limited than pre-k enrollment for 4-year-olds, despite the fact that for many children the effects of inadequate educational opportunities are clearly evident by age 3. While enrollment in private programs is very similar at ages 3 and 4, nationally only 4% of 3-year-olds in this country attend a state-funded pre-k program, compared to 24% of 4 year olds. This discrepancy in 3 and 4-year-old enrollment in pre-k programs is mainly because state provisions for pre-k for 3 years old are less expansive.

Even the leaders in pre-k for three-year-olds are far from providing universal access. Illinois is the only state committed to serving all 3-year-olds and during 2007-08 close to 20% of 3 year olds were enrolled. Arkansas, Vermont, and New Jersey are the only other states to serve more than 15% of 3-year-olds in state pre-k programs, and Kentucky and Massachusetts were the only states to serve more than 10 percent of their 3-year-olds outside of preschool special education. The State of Preschool 2008 found that most states, outside of special education programs and Head Start, only provide education for about 1 or 2% of their 3-year-olds; and only a handful of states make substantial efforts to serve 3-year-olds without disabilities.

Resources:

NIEER - The State of Preschool 2008: The Preschool Yearbook

Pre[k]Now - Funding the Future: States’ Approaches to pre-k Finance 2008 Update
Pre[k]Now - State Profiles
The Center for Public Education - pre-k: What the research shows
Georgetown University - The Effects of Universal pre-k on Cognitive Development. Study of the Oklahoma pre-k program which found across-the board gains from preschool for all socio-economic groups.

Assuring Quality in Early Education Programs- Design and Workplace Standards

In addition to providing universal access to pre-k it is also important that states are running or supporting quality programs. High-quality pre-k can not only improve children's educational success and thus reduce dropout rates and crime, but it has also been found to provide economic, social, and health benefits. One way to measure quality has been set forth by the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) which tracks 10 benchmarks that all high-quality pre-k programs should meet.

A NIEER's study the State of Preschool 2008 found that In 2007-08 state "pre-k spending per child rose to $4,061" nationally, but across states ranged from zero to more than $10,000 per child. Despite the increase in state pre-k spending, the level of funding per child still seems not to be enough to meet all 10 quality benchmarks. In fact, the NIEER study found that while most states meet a majority of the benchmarks for program quality standards, 5 states meet less than half. Highlights of the report include:

North Carolina and Alabama remain the only two states to meet all 10 benchmarks.
Louisiana NSECD, Maryland’s prekindergarten program, and Minnesota Head Start increased their quality standards and met nine out of 10 benchmarks for the first time.
Seven other states continued to fund programs that met nine out of 10 benchmarks—Arkansas, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, andWashington.
Five states that meet less than half of the quality pre-k benchmarks are Arizona,California, Florida, Ohio (ECE) and Texas.

Training: The success of a state's pre-kindergarten system depends not just on the accessibility or affordability of the system, but also on the quality of teachers. It has been shown that properly trained teachers promote language and early literacy skills and the social development needed for later academic and professional success. However, currently, training and certification requirements for pre-k teachers vary by state. As a compliment to expanded early education and child care programs it is important that states institute policies to ensure that the teachers being hired meet certain standards. Pre[k]Now sets forth policies that can help states to expand their base of qualified pre-k teachers, such as: requiring a bachelor's degree for pre-k teachers; a certification for assistant teachers and some form of specialized training for both; providing on-going professional development opportunities; and expanding access to teacher training and evaluating and monitoring of teachers in the classroom. Some specific state programs policies and programs highlighted by Pre[k]Now include:

Bachelor's Degrees and Specialized Training for Pre-k Teachers: As research demonstrates the positive impact of properly trained teachers in the classroom, more states are instituting policies to ensure that pre-k teachers have special certifications or a bachelor's degree. "A comprehensive education reform effort in 2004 in Kentucky led to the passage of a bill requiring that all new pre-k teachers have a BA degree and an early childhood certificate." On the other hand, there are some critics who argue that bachelor degrees are not needed for early education and child care teachers.
Assistant Teacher Requirements: Pre-k students benefit not only from having a qualified teacher, but also a qualified teaching assistant. Therefore, many states mandate specific training for assistant teachers. One way for states to increase their number of qualified pre-k educators is the "TEACH early childhood program (Teacher Education And Compensation Helps) which provides funding for child care professionals to attend classes at a participating college or university, and earn credits toward a CDA or an associate or bachelor's degree in early childhood education."
Require Ongoing Professional Development: An on-going investment in professional development is key to maintaining quality a pre-k program and retaining highly qualified teachers. "CIRCLE, the professional development component of the Texas Early Education Model project (TEEM), offers teachers training that includes sessions on best practices, language development, reading and writing." In 2004, Louisiana's Non-public Schools Early Childhood Development Program added a "requirement of "18 hours of in-service per year" for all pre-k teachers as well as a mandatory, two-day training workshop.

Wage Standards for Early Education Workers: The documented benefits of quality early education and care for children, parents and communities are clear and studies have shown that employee compensation is often linked to the care and education children receive. Yet, despite the important role child education and child care providers play in shaping our country's future, they are among the lowest paid workers and are often forced to take on second jobs or forgo health insurance. A direct result of low wages is high turnover in the industry.

A report by the National Women’s Law Center finds a growing trend to "give home-based child care providers the freedom to form unions is proving to be a promising strategy for securing increased public investment in child care and improving working conditions for providers."

For example, in 2006, the Washington State legislature approved HB 2353 which "allows family child-care providers to collectively bargain rate subsidies and reimbursements, as well as health benefits, training and grievance procedures."
Illinois issued an executive order in 2005 permitting child-care providers to bargain with the state through a union. Six months after the order, the Illinois state legislature approved a bill that made subsidized child-care providers public employees of the state in regards to collective bargaining rights.
New York, issued an Executive Order in 2007, "opening the door for the unionization of 60,000 home-based day-care providers paid in whole or in part by state funds," to provide for the children of working parents. New York was the eighth state to permit the unionizing of home-based child care providers.

According to the National Women's Law Center as of 2007, the legislatures or governors in at least eleven states have taken action to authorize collective bargaining for home-based child care providers. At least seven states in total (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon,Washington, and Wisconsin) have "authorized union representation for providers." In four states (California, Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island) bills passed by the legislature authorizing child care providers to unionize were vetoed by the governor. In states where child care educators have signed contracts with unions, educators have seen "improvements in compensation, training and treatment for home-based providers." In addition, educators have used their unified voices to encourage the governors of these states to request additional funding for the home-based providers as well as other child care centers as well. For more details regarding the states contracts click here.

Resources:

NIEER - pre-k What the Research Shows
Pre[k]Now - Model Professional Development Policy
National Women's Law Center - Fact Sheet - Child Care Providers: Increasing Compensation Raises Women's Wages and Improves Child Care Quality
Equal Opportunity Institute - Early Childhood Education Career and Wage Ladder
WA HB 2353 - Washington State law giving child care workers collective bargaining rights
IL Executive Order on Collective Negotiation by Day Care Home Providers
SEIU Child Care and Head Start Workers
AFSCME Child Care Providers Together

United Federation of Teachers Family Child Care Providers

Conclusion

Support for quality affordable early education and child care is a core part of valuing families and growing the economy. Investments in quality early education and child care do not just offer immediate economic gains, but also offer long-term economic and societal benefits. States, especially in tough economic times, need to commit to providing quality and affordable early education and child care for all.

Article Images

http://progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/EarlyEducationInvestment.jpg

Report: Wave of Teacher Retirements Demands New Mentoring Program to Train Next Generation of Teachers

PSN — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:05:33 +0000

Increased retirement among experienced teachers over the next few years coupled with high attrition rates for beginner educators, places our education system in a precarious position. According to a report by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF), the "traditional teaching career is collapsing at both ends, older teachers are retiring and beginner teachers are being driven away by antiquated preparation practices, outdated school staffing policies, and inadequate career rewards." The consequences of high turnover is that schools, particularly high poverty schools, must divert focus and resources from efforts aimed at combating student achievement gaps to initiatives which address teaching quality gaps.

Not only might one-third of of today's most experienced teachers potentially retire over the next four years, but within the next decade it is possible that more than half of today's teachers will leave the school system. This high level of retirement will not only leave school systems without veteran teachers with a wealth of experience, but also put large pressures on retirement systems. Mass replacement of experienced veteran teachers with inexperienced beginners, however, is not an ideal or effective solution, since beginning teachers have yet to hone their craft and the attrition rates for new teachers have been rising steadily for more than a decade. According to some estimates in certain school districts "half of new hires are replaced every five years."

The NCTAF report urges policy makers to reorganize educational institutions to create learning teams to maintain experienced teachers and train new ones. Specifically, the report recommends:

Changing retirement policies to make it both attractive and feasible for talented veteran teachers to remain in the classroom, so that younger teachers still in the process of learning their craft can have mentors;
Establishing cross”generational learning teams composed of, among others, veteran and beginner educators;
Setting pay scales to reflect not only length of services but also rewards for teamwork between educators that improves student achievement and overall school performance.

The recommended learning teams are said to be cost effective, since they can help alleviate pressure on pension systems which will occur if a large number of teachers retire at the same time, allow schools to better leverage resources, and ensure new teachers have mentors during their first few, and typically most difficult years. Highlighted examples and study results on how learning teams help increase academic achievement included in the NCTAF report are:

A lauded learning team educational model is already in place in some schools in Boston.

An Education Sector report on a school improvement initiative in Tennessee found that "the effect on student achievement of merit pay for new teachers was less than the effect of steady improvements in existing teachers' effectiveness as a result of increased mentoring, support, and stronger collaborative leadership."
A National Center for Educational Achievement study (2006) of "250 schools in 20 states examined the "best practices" of 140 elementary and secondary schools that consistently outperformed demographically similar schools for at least three consecutive years across several grades on state exams. The study revealed that these proven track records of success were found in schools that had clear goals and instructional strategies that were developed through school”wide collaborative teamwork."

Now, due to the economic downturn and individuals wanting to remain in the workforce longer, is opportune time cities and states to consider efforts to keep quality veteran teachers.

Resources:
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, Learning Teams: Creating What's Next
Report Envisions Shortage of Teachers as Retirements Escalate
The Benwood Plan: A Lesson in Comprehensive Teacher Reform

Article Images

http://progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/NewTeachersNeeded.jpg

Privatization Update: Schools, Prisons, Mental Health -- and What States are Doing to Hold Contractors Accountable

Nathan Newman — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:24:25 +0000

Privatization Update: Schools, Prisons, Mental Health -- and What States are Doing to Hold Contractors Accountable

Given the central role of private contractors in delivering public services, this Dispatch continues our series of Privatization Updates (see November's edition). Today we focus on current privatization debates in the education, prison and mental health sectors -- and what states are doing to increase accountability for contractors.

Table of contents

- Education Privatization

- Prison Privatization

- Georgia's Proposed Privatization of Mental Health Services

- Chicago Privatizes Parking Meters

- Privatization Not Delivering Savings

- States Taking Action on Privatization Abuses

Education Privatization

Even as the right wing has been losing in the polls on promoting school vouchers, privatization has still been penetrating school systems through charter programs and support services. However, both teachers and governments have increasingly spotlighted problems and the failed promises of many school privatization contractors.

Rejection of School Vouchers: When Utah voters didn't support a school voucher ballot initiative in November 2007, it was the eleventh state referendum -- all defeated -- on various proposals for publicly-funded school voucher programs since 1972. After the state legislature approved a voucher program earlier in the year, opponents took the issue to the ballot where it was rejected by more than 60% of the vote.

Based on a few pilot projects, the number of students using vouchers has increased to 61,700 in the current school year, up 9% from last year, and nearly double the level in 2002 when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of vouchers in religious schools. But the Utah defeat is just one part of broader legislative and administrative changes likely to reverse those trends:

Congress in March voted to stop funding a voucher program for the District of Columbia.
Two other prominent voucher programs -- in Milwaukee and Cleveland -- are facing statehouse efforts to impose rules that could prompt some private schools to stop taking voucher students. In both states, the governors have proposed requiring private schools to administer state achievement tests to all of their student.
The stimulus bill Obama signed in February bars its funds from being used to provide financial aid to students attending private schools.
And the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that two state voucher programs for foster children and disabled students violate Arizona's constitution.

Debate on Charter Schools: As voucher systems are failing or being scaled back across the nation, charter schools sited within public schools continue to make gains. On March 10, President Obama called on states to lift charter school caps, a move that could usher in a large number of charter school openings if states follow the President's recommendation. Currently, 26 states and the District of Columbia now have caps. States began to respond immediately, as was reflected in a bill filed in the North Carolina House to lift the state's cap of 100 schools. "

Yet even as President Obama called for expanding the number of charter schools, he also recognized the problem of charter schools that are not delivering on their promises of higher student achievement. In states across the country, from Wisconsin to Texas, failing charter schools have been closed. On the other hand, in Louisiana, public schools are increasingly being turned over to private groups. Six of eight identified failing schools in the East Baton Rouge parish will become charter schools.

Increasingly, teachers at the charter schools themselves are identifying serious problems and demanding more of a voice, both in their own treatment and that of the students. The recent unionization of the KIPP AMP school in Brooklyn by the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) is only one example. Currently, 18 of New York's 115 charter schools have their own unions and similar schools, such as Green Dot in Los Angeles, are also unionized. Founders of the charter school movement have often been vocal opponents of teachers’ freedom to form unions, underlined by teacher complaints that KIPP administrators were intimidating teachers interested in unionizing. Teachers of the KIPP AMP School express confidence that unionization will lead to greater teacher retention, benefiting students by maintaining institutional knowledge.

Failures and Costs of School Support Contracts: The large, multi-state companies that schools most frequently employ to provide bus, school lunch, and custodial services dominate the market by buying out smaller businesses. Yet most communities are seeing few economic benefits and often just end up the losing party in bad contracts negotiated by these multi-state players.

For instance, the acquisition of Laidlaw Education Services by FirstGroup ensured that FirstGroup is now responsible for operating 12% of school buses in the US and Canada. The anti-trust implications of the FirstGroup takeover were so clear that the company was forced into an anti-trust consent decree in 2007 after lawsuits by eleven states gave states some options to take over leases and separate ownership of bus depots from the bus service contracts. One particularly questionable trend in school privatization is the responsibility of the state to purchase replacement equipment that, by contract, the contractor will own. Often, after fleets are sold to the contractor, the firm quickly requests new bus purchases, even when the old buses still meet thorough state inspection requirements. In Oregon, the Lake Oswego district was contractually bound to buy new buses requested by Laidlaw Transit (now FirstGroup), which led to no savings for the state and debts owed to the contractor. Similarly, a Minnesota report found that school districts pay an average of 10 percent more per student to outsource student transportation — and those higher prices come with higher rates of driver turnover, less experienced drivers, more accidents and a less reliable service.

For food service, Aramark has what is often seen as the worst record in serving public schools. The company provided such poor services in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Connecticut that all three states canceled their contracts with the corporation. In New Haven, CT Aramark employees alleged dangerous and hostile work environments, poor menus, and Aramark’s purchasing of low quality, even dangerous, equipment. School officials, students, and parents have agreed with charges of unhealthy and unappetizing food. One parent commented, "Our kids think the food comes from vending machines, and are calling it green eggs and ham." Aramark has also received publicized complaints in Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland.

Resources
NEA - School Vouchers
Edwize - Charter Schools
Labor Education and Research Center: University of Oregon - All Costs Considered: A New Analysis on the Contracting Out of School Support Services School Support Services in Oregon
SEIU Local 284 -Safe, from Home to School: The need for student transportation reform in Minnesota

Prison Privatization

The national spotlight has focused recently on privatized prisons after two judges in Pennsylvania pled guilty to receiving kickbacks for finding young offenders guilty of minor charges. They accepted $2.6 million to send an estimated 5,000 juvenile offenders to privately owned prisons. The two judges held high ranking positions in overseeing the juvenile court system, which allowed them to work in tandem to convince the state to send youth to new detention centers owned and operated by the private prison firms PA Child Care and partner Western PA Child Care. The judges' ill deeds clearly demonstrated that private profits can drive injustice and costly inmate expansions, and how the lack of state oversight allowed the problem to persist for years.

Rising Inmate Populations, Rising Profits: Private prisons hold 7.4% of the country's 1.59 million incarcerated adults. California has shipped more than 5,100 inmates to private prisons in other states since late 2006.While prison privatization sometimes appears to save states money, there is question as to whether company profits lead to costs down the road. Judy Greene, policy specialist at Justice Strategies argues, "Profit is still a motive and it's structured into the way these prisons are operated. Just because the system has expanded doesn't mean there is evidence that conditions have improved." And private prisons are, indeed, making a good deal of profit. Corpwatch reported that in February, GEO Group reported a $20 million quarterly profit with an annual 2008 profit of $61 million, a $23 million increase from 2007.

Cost Cutting at the Expense of Quality and Inmate Safety: Profits appear to come through cost cutting such as low quality or rotten food. Similarly, there have also been complaints of poor quality health care at detention centers operated by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and GEO Corporation. In 2008, state officials discovered that a mentally ill CCA inmate had not left his cell for a shower or recreation for nine months. CCA commented that they did not believe that showers were related to health care. Later in the year, a man died of pneumonia after receiving inadequate treatment from a CCA doctor he had seen the prior day. In February, prisoners rioted at a federal prison run by GEO to protest poor health care and an earlier report found that another GEO facility violated international and domestic laws, denying inmates food, due process, and humane treatment. As Deborah Golden, an attorney with the DC Prisoners Project observes, "When you try to run prisons as money makers what you do is cut back on the most expensive thing you can, which is medication and medical care."

Leaving States in the Lurch: Private companies operate to make a profit and when they find that they are not meeting projections, they break contracts. Contractors sometimes end a relationship with a state with little warning, leaving states scrambling to find new providers. In the autumn of 2008, GEO and Aramark broke contracts with prisons in Pennsylvania and Florida respectively. This was particularly problematic for the Florida system, which had only 120 days to find a new food provider for their 92,000 inmates, the third largest prison population in the nation. Furthermore, breaking contracts is not usually an option for dissatisfied states.

Resources
CorpWatch - GEO Group, Inc.: Despite a Crashing Economy, Private Prison Firm Turns a Handsome Profit
OneAmerica - Voices from Detention: A Report on Human Rights Violations at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma Washington
AFSCME - Prison Privatization Resources

Georgia's Proposed Privatization of Mental Health Services

Georgia's Department of Human Resources (DHR) is considering privatizing much or all of its public mental health hospital network and closing its mental health facilities in cities like Savannah and Augusta. State officials say that no final decisions have been made, but DHR is considering privatization as a solution to problems that have plagued state-run hospitals and that led to a U.S. Department of Justice investigation of the quality of care provided. DHR provided advocates and providers with an outline of its plan to consolidate the seven mental health hospitals into two and to rely more heavily on community-based services.

The only concrete step the state has taken toward enacting this plan has been to issue a request for proposals (RFP) to potential contractors to take over a unit at the mental hospital currently located in Savannah. Dena Smith, a spokesperson for the DHR, said, "If through that RFP process, it's found that it's not the best way to move forward, then it won't happen." However, the outline of the agency's plan indicates that the state is moving rapidly to close down its institutions and to switch to private providers. By the end of June 2009, the state intends to issue RFPs for new hospitals in Atlanta and South Georgia, both scheduled to open by the end of 2011, and will close the Savannah hospital. The mental health hospital in Columbus would close by July 2011, and by the end of the following fiscal year, public facilities in five other cities would likely close down.

Doubts about Cost Savings: Mental health advocates, state legislators, and members of Gov. Sonny Perdue's mental health commission have expressed concerns over the possibility of privatization, emphasizing that there is little evidence that having private companies take over state hospitals will save taxpayers money or improve the quality of patient care. They believe that more public participation in the DHR's privatization plans is necessary. Furthermore, they question the viability of turning state mental health hospitals over to for-profit companies. Most patients who end up in state institutions have exhausted all private insurance coverage, and there is no way to cost-shift the burden of caring for uninsured patients by treating insured patients. Given these limitations, private companies may resort to reducing staff and services in order to make a profit.

Problems in Other States fromPartial Mental Health Privatization: No other state has privatized its entire psychiatric hospital network, and states that have privatized some of their mental health services have not realized their intended results. In Florida, private facilities operate at only a slightly less expensive rate than state institutions, and they have not been able to demonstrate improvements in patient outcomes. In North Carolina, auditors found that the state wasted $400 million by allowing unqualified private companies to provide many mental health services. In a Texas private mental health clinic, poor staffing led to patients violently assaulting others, inadequate cleaning, and incorrect doses of medicine dispensed to patients.

Resources:

State board looks at privatizing mental hospitals

Don't rush to privatize mental health services

Mental health plan is big shift to privatization

Chicago Privatizes Parking Meters

On Thursday, December 4th, the Chicago City Council approved (by a 40-5 vote) Mayor Richard Daley's proposal to privatize Chicago's parking meters for the next 75 years. The city will receive $1.16 billion upfront from a Morgan-Stanley backed group in exchange for the rights to manage its parking-meter system. The city plans to use $325 million from the deal to balance the budget through 2012 and to set aside $400 million for the long-term. $100 million will be spent on social programs, and the rest will be used to stabilize the city's financial situation until the economy improves.

Rates are expected to increase each year over the next five years. By 2013, it will cost $6.50 an hour to park in the Loop (currently $3.00 an hour), $4.00 to park downtown (currently $1.00 an hour), and $2.00 to park in the neighborhoods outside the downtown area (currently $0.25 to $0.75 an hour). Many critics worry that the agreement was approved without appropriate transparency and government oversight measures in place, and as a result, taxpayers will not get a fair deal in the long run. The arrangement may alleviate current budget shortfalls, but at the expense of future revenue that could be used for essential public services. Chicago has a history of privatizing public assets for short-term gains. The city received nearly $5 billion upfront for leasing the Chicago Skyway, and it is in the process of privatizing Midway Airport.

Resources:

It's official: Chicago parking meters will be private, pricier

Chicago Banks on Private Parking

Meter Mania: 1 Hour Parking = 26 Quarters By 2013

Progressive States Network - Privatization Update: Recent News from Across the Country (11/25/08)

Privatization Not Delivering Savings

On Monday, November 24th, the Government Accountability Office released a report which revealed that the Labor Department understated the expense of contracting out its employees' work to private firms in the numbers it has previously provided to Congress. "DOL's savings reports are not reliable: a sample of three reports contained inaccuracies, and others used projections when actual numbers were available, which sometimes resulted in overstated savings," the GAO report said. "Because of these and other weaknesses, DOL is hindered in its ability to determine if services are being provided more efficiently as a result of competitive sourcing." The full report is available here.

On Monday, December 8th, Virginia's Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) released a report stating that Virginia's $2 billion transition to privately run information technology services has been slow and difficult and has not yet saved the taxpayers money. In 2005, Virginia agreed to a 10-year deal with Northrop Grumman to oversee the purchase and upkeep of computers, software, Internet access, and other IT needs. JLARC and Northrop Grumman dispute the extent to which the private firm has upheld the terms of the contract. This report comes on the heels of recent the high-profile IT privatization failures in Texas and Indiana that were profiled in our last Privatization Update.

Resources

GAO: Labor Dept. Misled Congress

Department of Labor: Better Cost Assessments and Departmentwide Tracking Are Needed to Effectively Manage Competitive Outsourcing Program

IT deal no money saver yet for state

States Taking Action on Privatization Abuses

States are increasingly getting tough with contractors found to have ripped off the public purse:

Terminating Contracts: In 2008, a Texas elder care program under the direction of UnitedHealth Group that served 74,000 senior citizens was fined more than $1 million by the state for delayed or refused medical care. In March 2009 the Texas Health and Human Services Commission terminated the contract, citing late treatment and 1,300 complaints filed against the company in 2008.
Taking on Private Prisons: Recognizing problems with CCA prison staffing, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections denied $589,000 in payments to CCA until their private prisons were fully staffed, particularly in health services. Officials decided to fine CCA after reading the findings of an audit requested by the state legislature. However, the auditors noted that oversight is expensive and takes time, saying that "[the process is] somewhat cumbersome in that it requires multiple levels of consideration by executive staffs." This indicates that any purported savings from private prisons may just be disguising the hidden costs of oversight not budgeted in most contracts.
Putting Welfare Privatization on Hold: In Indiana, after listening to months of complaints from constituents and health care providers, two committees of state lawmakers - the Medicaid Oversight Commission and the Health Finance Commission - called for a temporary halt in the privatization of social services until problems are resolved. Representative Suzanne Crouch and Senator Vaneta Becker (both Republicans) drafted HB 1691 to prevent Indiana's Family and Social Services Administration from extending the welfare privatization into the remaining 33 counties until a complete review of existing services is conducted. The Indiana House in February passed the bill and the Senate is now considering it.

Putting in Place Systemic Contracting Reforms: Ultimately, these piecemeal approaches to punishing privatization failures after the fact are not enough. A few states have enacted some individual reforms to better evaluate contracts before they are issued and put in place accountability measures However, a number of national organizations, including Progressive States Network, have highlighted model bills being proposed in Oregon, HB 2037 and HB 2867, which would establish unparalleled transparency and responsible contracting rules for state and local contractors in the state. Together, the policies in the bills would:

Require agencies to post information online regarding bidding processes, costs of contracts, amendments, wages paid and the number of jobs created under each contract.
Create standards of quality expectations for contracts.
Eliminate the practice of contracting the oversight of primary contractors to other contractors.
Prevent "revolving-door" conflicts of interest by barring public employees who work with a contracting firm from joining the firm within a year of leaving the public service.
Mandate a cost analysis of contracts over $25,000 to ascertain whether the same work could not be done as efficiently and effectively in house.
Expand responsible bidder guidelines to include a bidder's poor performance in prior contracts using such yardsticks as cost overruns and delays.
Require that agencies review the credentials of contractors on its prequalification list at least every three years.

Progressive States Network's Nathan Newman testified in Oregon earlier this month on behalf of these proposals. Putting contracting reform in the context of national recovery spending across the country, Newman argued, "Every state needs this data so that they can take money away from contractors who aren’t serving the public interest and give it to programs that are. It’s the best way to ensure that the recovery funds go into the hands of working families who have been hit the hardest by the recession.”

Resources

Oregon HB 2037 and HB 2867

Progressive States Network - National Experts Visit Oregon to Testify in SUpport of Precedent-Setting Transparency Legislation

AFSCME - Stop Bad Contracts and Protect Public Jobs: Sample Legislative Language

Partnership for Working Families - Policies & Tools

Center on Policy Initiatives - Good Government: Do It Right

oregongovernmentaccountability.com

Article Images

http://progressivestates.org/sync/images/dispatch/StatesHoldingContractorsAccountable.jpg