PUBLIC POLICY ALERT

Children cannot vote and we can make a difference in the lives of children and their families. We need to continue the connections to our legislators at the district offices and especially at the State Capitol where policies are made.

North Bay AEYC Public Policy Committee

We are looking for individuals who would like to be on our Committee

If you are interested, please email Dan Savage at daniel.savage@ca.rr.com

LAO Analysis of Our Children, Our Future: Local Schools and Early Education Investment Act

The key components of Governor Brown's 2012-13 state budget proposal affecting children include:

· Severe cuts to education, early learning and development

· Significant, detrimental changes to children's health programs

· A restructuring of child welfare programs and services

Read the complete, concise analysis of the budget proposal's impact on children

Once again, the well-established fiscal and social benefits of prioritizing investments in children are being ignored in the state budgeting process. The reason is troubling: children's needs and the clear gains for all Californians of addressing them now—not in the future—continue to be overwhelmed by the much stronger influence exerted on the state's leadership by other interest groups.

The Children's Movement of California can correct this, tipping the policymaking scales in children's favor, where they belong. If you haven't yet done so, please join the Movement today. Or, if you're already a member, please encourage others to join by (1) forwarding this message to your contacts or (2) using social media to spread the word.

California begins with kids.™

An Open Letter On the Need To Advocate For Quality, Child-Centered Early Learning Programs In Our Community

Gregory Uba

Governor Brown’s Budget Proposal will have harsh and long-lasting consequences for our children and our communities. His proposed re-alignment of State-subsidized child development funding from the Department of Education to the Department of Social Services to be administered by the Counties means that California ’s efforts to address the Achievement Gap will be driven by politics rather than by what we know to be best practices for young children.

High quality early education opportunities are crucial for children – particularly those in disadvantaged communities. In particular, these children need access to child-centered, play-based, programs with abundant opportunities for outdoor play, inquiry-based learning and social and emotional experiences. When I reflect upon the nature of childhood, I am convinced that we are in jeopardy of transforming the landscape of childhood forever – away from that place of wonder and excitement, adventure, discovery and challenge – into a sanitized and managed period in which we tolerate children as we mold them into the tools of production that we need for our comfort and convenience.

The pressures upon schools that have driven an emphasis on academics from third grade to second to first to kindergarten – have encroached upon preschools. The kindergarten of my childhood, a part day program with time for blocks, trucks, and the sandbox has all but vanished. Sandboxes have vanished from preschools across my community as the inconvenience of dirt and sand and sweeping for adults has taken priority over the basic developmental needs of children. Painting easels have been disappearing as have wooden blocks as spills, noise and accidents have become unacceptable risks. Things that require effort and space and cleaning up have become indefensible uses of teacher time as they are pressed to complete the required assessments in the prescribed time.

And yet, in the wealthiest and most affluent neighborhoods, programs that emphasize outdoors, arts, construction and play thrive. These children, whose parents can pay the tuition necessary to afford them childhood as it was meant to be in preschool programs that celebrate play – these children will enjoy scraped knees, grass between their toes, and shouts of wonder.

When did we, as adults become so selfish that we would deny our children the most precious days of their lives? When did our need to design computers, serve bigger burgers, and sell more stuff become greater than our need to stop and watch a child mesmerized by a spider building a web?

Child development experts speak of the multiple intelligences of people, the critical periods of development, the stages of play, the research on brain development – all of which points to play and exploration rather than rote memorization and academic drills. Teachers in the most literate countries of the world delay the formal instruction of reading until age seven. Teachers in other countries declare that the most important thing about preschool is the child’s developing approach to learning and becoming a part of a community of children. Teachers from other countries once visited American schools to learn how to instill inquiry and critical thinking skills in their own children. While we race backwards – implementing failed policies and practices at earlier ages, somehow believing that implementing ineffective practices at earlier ages will somehow create smarter children.

Sharon L. Kagan, Ed.D., speaking on early learning standards in 2005, began her presentation with the history of play in early care and education programs. Citing Piaget, Froebel, Pestalozzi, she asserted that “leading scholars in early childhood education have all recognized that play is the basis of good early childhood pedagogy and practice”… and “THE fundamental cornerstone for children’s development” (Kagan, 2005). Play addresses all five of the major domains of development – physical, social-emotional, approach towards learning, language and literacy, and cognition and knowledge.

While the experts agree that play is essential to childhood, our need to quantify school success prioritizes the successful documentation of failed strategies above the essential, organic character of childhood learning. In other words, we would rather have in our hand a map that leads us to a place we don’t wish to go than to trust our vision, experience and memory to get us to a place we wish to be.

Governor Brown is drawing a new roadmap for early care and education. The map takes us on a journey whose purpose is to minimize inconvenience for adults. Get my neighbor to work, keep my taxes as low as possible, reduce the responsibility of the village to raise a child or to help a neighbor. The roadmap is one that, regardless of the direction we set out, leads us back to our own selfish starting point.

Whenever I can, I ask teachers to reflect upon their best childhood memories. They talk. They laugh. They remember a childhood that has already vanished from many of our neighborhoods. The next day, a few of them will fill the paint cups and drag the water hose to the edge of the sandbox, grab a broom and a towel and grant their children that same wondrous opportunity. Others will pull out the flash cards and workbooks, unable to be inconvenienced by what the research says or afraid to challenge their principals or directors or funding source. The only loser after all is the child… and the child can’t vote, can’t legislate, and can’t pay. But isn’t that exactly why they need us?

www.scaeyc.net/files/kagan_play.ppt

Governor Brown Releases 2011-12 Budget Cuts

Breakout of the Governor's proposed budget $2.5B cuts

$946M cut to CALWORKS (safety net for the families with children)
$842M cut to MediCal (health safety net for very low income)
$163M cut to In Home Supportive Services for the disabled
$447M (non 98 general fund) and $69M (prop 98 funds) cut to child care for low income families
$87M cut to other programs for low income families

Elimination of Cal Learn that provides services to low income teen parents. (CAL SAFE for teen parents in high school continues to not be safe as a Tier 3 program)
$10.4M cut to supplemental meal reimbursement to private schools and private (nonprofit?) child care programs.
Continues 4.25% rate cut to providers of servces to the developmentally delays
$200M cut to services to persons with developmental delays
$4.8 B trigger cut to K-14 if the voters do not approve additional taxes
$1.1B elimination of the Redevelopment Agencies. 20% of funds supported affordable housing.

Child Development

$446.9 M cut in non Prop 98 general fund for child care for low income famillies
$69.9M in cuts to Prop 98 general fund child care for low income families. (Is this part day preschool?)
Reduce eligibility for subsidized child care from 70% to about 61% of median income
Reduce Regional Market Rate reimbursement from 80% to 50%
Reduce Standard Reimbursement Rate by 10% for Title 5 contracted programs

Transfer the child development programs for APP and Title 5 centers to the counties and Title 5 center based families will be served by a voucher starting in 2013-2014 except for part day preschool that will remain with the State Department of Education
$26.3 M cut to Stage 2
No COLA for child care
$224B+- Eliminiation of Transitional Kindergarten mandate. Schools may fund it at the local level.

DATE: January 5, 2012
FROM: Tim Fitzharris, Ph.D.
Legislative Advocate

CDPI INFORMATION BULLETIN January 5, 2012

Governor Releases FY 2012-13 Budget Proposal Early; Includes Devastating Cuts to Child Care and Development

In an unexpected, early release of his FY 2012-13 Budget proposal, Governor Jerry Brown laid out a gap-closing plan which includes additional March cuts to social and other state-supported programs, and a new set of "triggered," mid-year reductions if his new tax revenues initiative fails next November.

In his press conference this afternoon, the Governor made these major points:

California's fiscal condition is improving. A year ago, the state faced an immediate $26.6 billion shortfall and future estimated annual budget gaps of $20 billion. This year, the state faces a $9.2 billion budget problem and future annual budget gaps of $5 billion or less.
The FY 2012-13 Budget builds on last year's progress by continuing to move government closer to the people, protect education and public safety programs from the worst of the cuts, improve government efficiency, and pay down debt. The balanced budget will provide fiscal stability, make California more attractive for business and investment, and accelerate the state's economic recovery.
The enacted 2011 Budget made substantial progress in stabilizing California's finances. It rejected the past approach of over-relying on one-time solutions and instead substantially shrank the ongoing deficit.
Last year, the Governor and the Legislature agreed to about $5 billion in cuts to health and human services programs. Many of these cuts - such as reducing CalWORKs grants to below their 1987 level - have already been implemented. Other cuts, however, have been blocked by the courts. For example, a portion of the Medi-Cal provider rate reductions has been enjoined. In other instances, the federal government has rejected or delayed timely implementation - both copayment requirements for Medi-Cal beneficiaries and expanding the sales tax to personal care services have yet to be approved. Each cut that cannot go into effect further strains the state's budget and requires deeper cuts.
The Budget proposes a total of $10.3 billion in cuts and revenues to balance and to rebuild a $1.1 billion reserve.
The Governor is seeking additional tax revenues to mitigate the need for the deepest of cuts. However, these revenues will not be sufficient to close the entire budget gap. Among the difficult actions necessary to balance the Budget are:

Refocusing CalWORKs and subsidized child care by increasing income support to working families and reducing assistance to families who are not meeting work requirements. (Savings of $1.4 billion)
Merging service delivery for those who are eligible for both Medi-Cal and Medicare. This will reduce costs and improve the coordination of services. Additional savings will be achieved by other changes. (Savings of $842 million)
Eliminating domestic and related In-Home Supportive Services for recipients in shared living arrangements. (Savings of $164 million)
Eliminating supplemental funding for schools associated with the elimination of the sales tax on gasoline and making other Proposition 98 adjustments. (Savings of $544 million)
Reducing grant amounts for students who attend private institutions and making other reductions to the Cal Grant program. (Savings of $302 million)
Repealing, making permissive, or suspending many state mandates on local governments that are unnecessary and burdensome. (Savings of $828 million)

The Budget assumes the passage of the Governor's proposed initiative at the November election. This measure temporarily increases the personal income tax on the state's wealthiest taxpayers and temporarily increases the sales tax by one-half percent. The measure guarantees these new revenues to schools and constitutionally protects the 2011 Realignment funds for local public safety. It will generate an estimated $6.9 billion through 2012-13. After accounting for the increased Proposition 98 minimum guarantee, it will provide $4.4 billion in net benefit to the General Fund budget. The measure will prevent deeper cuts to schools, protect local public safety funding, and assist in balancing the budget. The revenues will allow the state to invest in higher education and to pay off the $33 billion in outstanding budgetary borrowing and deferrals by 2015-16.
There are consequences if the tax initiative fails: The Constitution requires that the annual state budget be balanced. To pay the state's bills on time, the budget must be credible and financeable. The Budget proposes a backup plan if the ballot measure is not approved. The plan specifies $5.4 billion in cuts affecting education and public safety - the areas protected by the Governor's initiative. These ballot trigger cut would go into effect on January 1, 2013. (ED. NOTE: No additional child care cuts are triggered in such case. It's all proposed to be taken in March.)

CalWORKs

Redesigning and Refocusing the CalWORKs Program. The CalWORKs program is a "work first" program that encourages employment as the most direct method of achieving self-sufficiency. With the impacts of the Great Recession still lingering, the changes described below are necessary to refocus the CalWORKs program to prioritize resources on the families most likely to become employed and to manage the program within the state's available resources. The new strategy creates two sub-programs within CalWORKs, each with differing grant structures, services arrays, and time limits:

CalWORKs Basic Program. The CalWORKs Basic program will serve families moving toward self-sufficiency by providing up to 24 months of welfare-to-work services, including job search, employment training, child care, and barrier removal services (e.g., substance abuse, mental health, and domestic violence recovery assistance). Effective October 2012, clients not participating in sufficient hours of unsubsidized employment after an initial job search will be placed in the CalWORKs Basic program and will be required to participate in welfare-to-work activities. After the first 12 months, the adult will again participate in job search. If, during the second 12 months, the adult remains unable to find unsubsidized employment, the adult will continue to participate in welfare-to-work activities, including subsidized job placements. As in the current program, failure to meet welfare-to-work requirements will result in a sanction equal to the adult portion of the grant. Clients unable to meet federal work participation requirements after 24 months, or cases in sanction status for more than three months, will be disenrolled from CalWORKs.

CalWORKs Plus Program. The CalWORKs Plus program will serve those clients working sufficient hours in unsubsidized employment to meet federal work participation requirements, generally 30 hours per week (20 hours per week for families with children under the age of six). Effective April 2013, this program will reward clients who meet federal work participation requirements with a higher grant level by allowing them to retain more of their earned income through a higher income disregard (first $200 earned and 50 percent of subsequent income disregarded for purposes of computing the monthly grant level). For a family of three, this equates to an average increase of $44 per month. These clients will also have full access to supportive services and child care.

These benefits willcontinue for up to 48 months as long as clients continue to meet work participationrequirements through unsubsidized employment. After 48 months, the adult will nolonger be aided, but the higher earned income disregard will remain available if the employment continues.

This new design will use incentives to encourage unsubsidized employment and focus available resources on early client engagement. State and federal rules regarding hours of required participation will be aligned. This, combined with eliminating current state rules regarding core and non-core work activities, will afford counties maximum flexibility under federal law. Sanction months will count toward the 48-month time limit, further emphasizing the importance of work. As a package, the proposal will save the CalWORKs program $1.1 billion in 2012-13.

Transition to Success. To assist families in obtaining employment sufficient to meet federal work participation requirements, all currently aided eligible adults will be eligible for up to six months of welfare-to-work services and child care following the October 2012 implementation of the CalWORKs Basic program. Prior to this transition, $35.6 million will be provided to counties to serve these families.

Providing Additional Work Supports. Consistent with the proposal to redesign and re-focus the CalWORKs program, the Administration proposes to align eligibility and need criteria for low-income working family child care services with federal TANF rules for work participation requirements. Over time, the three-stage child care system for current and former CalWORKs recipients and programs serving low-income working parents will be replaced with a work-based child care system administered by county welfare departments. (More about this below) In addition, the Administration proposes to create a state benefit to increase support for low-income working families. Beginning July 1, 2013, the state will provide working families receiving CalFresh (formerly, Food Stamps) benefits or child care, but who are not in the CalWORKs program, with a $50-per-month supplemental work bonus. Providing this additional benefit to working families will increase the state's work participation rate and help avoid federal TANF penalties.

New Child Maintenance Program

The Budget provides continued support to children from low-income families. Beginning in October 2012, the state will create a new Child Maintenance program to provide for child well-being through basic support to children whose parents are not eligible for aid under the restructured CalWORKs program. Income and resource eligibility criteria for the Child Maintenance program will be the same as for CalWORKs families, but the Child Maintenance program grant will be less than the current amounts available for child-only cases. This will decrease the average monthly grant for child-only cases from $463 to $392.

When combined with CalFresh benefits, the full monthly grant will be sufficient to keep families of three with CalFresh-eligible adults at approximately 64 percent of the federal poverty level. Children will be aided as long as they meet eligibility criteria, including a new requirement to participate in an annual well-child exam. There are estimated to be 296,000 Child Maintenance cases on average each month in 2012-13.

Because Child Maintenance cases are outside of the state's welfare-to-work program, they will have minimal case management and an annual reporting requirement. These cases can move to the CalWORKs Plus program anytime by obtaining unsubsidized employment sufficient to meet federal work participation requirements. Every six months, work-eligible adults who still have time remaining on the 48-month aid clock may ask for one month of child care to attend job search. If a sanctioned adult still has time remaining on the 48-month aid clock and the 24-month services clock, the family can transfer to the CalWORKs Basic program after complying with a welfare-to-work plan for at least two months. The cost of this program partially offsets the savings in CalWORKs, resulting in a net savings of $946.2 million.

Child Care and Development (Education)

Restructure Administration and Reduce Child Care Costs - A decrease of $446.9 million in Non-98 General Fund and $69.9 million in Proposition 98 General Fund to State Department of Education (SDE) child care programs to reflect changes to reimbursement rates, and to reflect the alignment of eligibility for low-income working family child care services with federal welfare-to-work work participation requirements. These changes are consistent with the Administration's proposal to restructure CalWORKs, which will focus limited state resources on low-income parents working a required number of hours.

Total funding for SDE child care programs in 2011-12 is $2 billion, consisting of $1.1 billion in non-Proposition 98 General Fund, $373.7 million in Proposition 98 General Fund, and $543.1 million in federal funds. Stage 1 child care totals $428.3 million General Fund/TANF and is included in the DSS budget. Collectively, the SDE programs are estimated to serve 298,600 average monthly enrolled children and Stage 1 child care serves 44,300 children, for a current-year average monthly total of 342,900.

Reduce Child Care Costs and Restructure Administration of Child Care - Total funding proposed for SDE child care programs in 2012-13 is $1.5 billion, consisting of $585.3 million in non-Proposition 98 General Fund, $310.2 million in Proposition 98 General Fund, and $557.9 million in federal funds. The $1.5 billion total funding reflects a $446.9 million reduction to child care programs funded from non-Proposition 98 General Fund, and a reduction of $69.9 million in Proposition 98 General Fund for part-day preschool. Funding for cash-aided families who are currently enrolled in Stage 1 child care totals $442 million General Fund/TANF and is included in the DSS budget. Collectively, the SDE and DSS programs are estimated to serve 292,900 average monthly enrolled children in 2012-13. This figure reflects the elimination of 62,000 child care slots and other caseload changes.

The reductions to SDE child care programs reflect changes to reimbursement rates. They also reflect the alignment of eligibility and need criteria for low-income working family child care services with federal income eligibility rules and welfare-to-work participation requirements. These changes are consistent with the Administration's proposal to restructure CalWORKs, which will focus limited state resources on low-income families working a required number of hours. Over time, the three-stage child care system for current and former CalWORKs recipients, and programs serving low-income working parents, will be replaced with a work-based child care system administered by county welfare departments.

By focusing the state's subsidized child care programs on supporting work, the state will be able to maximize the number of available child care slots within constrained resources. Using Proposition 10, federal and other local funds, local entities can invest in program quality improvement based on local needs and priorities.

The child care reductions

A decrease of $293.6 million in non-Proposition 98 General Fund by requiring families to meet federal welfare-to-work participation requirements. This change will eliminate services for families who do not work a required number of hours. Part-day preschool programs will not be affected by this reduction, as these programs are not intended to meet the full-time needs of working parents. This reduction will eliminate about 46,300 child care slots.
A decrease of $43.9 million in non-Proposition 98 General Fund and $24.1 million in Proposition 98 General Fund by reducing the income eligibility ceilings from 70 percent of the state median income to 200 percent of the federal poverty level. This level equates to 61.5 percent of the state median income for a family size of three, reflecting a reduction in the income ceiling from $42,216 to $37,060. This reduction will eliminate about 15,700 child care slots.
A decrease of $29.9 million in non-Proposition 98 General Fund and $11.7 million in Proposition 98 General Fund by eliminating the statutory COLA for capped non-CalWORKs child care programs.
A decrease of $11.8 million in non-Proposition 98 General Fund by reducing the reimbursement rate ceilings for voucher-based programs from the 85th percentile of the private pay market, based on 2005 market survey data, to the 50th percentile based on 2009 survey data. To preserve parental choice under lower reimbursement ceilings, rates for license-exempt providers will remain comparable to current levels, and these providers will be required to meet certain health and safety standards as a condition of receiving reimbursement. (A corresponding $5.3 million General Fund decrease is made to Stage 1 in the DSS budget.)
A decrease of $67.8 million in non-Proposition 98 General Fund and $34.1 million in Proposition 98 General Fund by reducing the standard reimbursement rate for direct-contracted Title 5 centers by 10 percent.

Components of the administrative restructuring of child care

Beginning in 2013-14, families meeting federal work requirements will receive a work bonus issued by the county welfare departments to better support working families.

In the budget year, the SDE will continue to administer services payment contracts with alternative payment programs (which administer voucher-based programs) and Title 5 centers. Contracts with alternative payment programs for funding remaining after the reimbursement rate and eligibility reductions will be consolidated. Priority for voucher-based services will be given to families whose children are recipients of child protective services, or at risk of being abused, neglected, or exploited, and cash-aided families. Cash-aided families that are currently enrolled in Stage 1 will continue to receive child care services.

Beginning in 2013-14, the eligibility and payment functions will shift from the alternative payment programs and Title 5 centers to the counties, though counties may contract with these agencies to perform the payment function. All eligible families, including those currently enrolled in Title 5 centers, will receive a voucher for payment to a provider of their own choice. This will shift responsibility for the administration of services for approximately 142,000 children from the SDE to the counties. The SDE will continue to administer part-day preschool programs.

The Administration is also proposing legislation, effective in 2013-14, to require counties and alternative payment programs to identify and collect overpayments. The legislation also imposes sanctions on agencies that do not reduce the incidence of overpayments, and it also imposes sanctions on providers and families who commit intentional program violations. Any savings will be reinvested in child care slots.

The significant workload adjustments for Child Care programs

Stage 2 - A decrease of $26.3 million non-Proposition 98 General Fund in 2012-13, reflecting primarily the decline in the number of eligible CalWORKs Stage 2 beneficiaries. Nearly 9,000 children whose families were determined eligible for diversion services as a result of the Stage 3 veto in 2010-11 will lose Stage 2 eligibility and re-enter Stage 3 in the budget year. Total base workload cost for Stage 2 is $416.2 million.

Stage 3 - A net increase of $4.5 million non-Proposition 98 General Fund in 2012-13 that reflects a relatively flat caseload. The anticipated transfer of nearly 9,000 children from Stage 2 to Stage 3 in the budget year is offset by the number of children who will be disenrolled in the current year due to the contract reduction included in the 2011 Budget Act. Total base workload cost for Stage 3 is $148.1 million.

Capped Non-CalWORKs Programs - On a workload basis, the Budget provides an increase of $29.9 million in non-Proposition 98 General Fund to fund the statutory COLA of 3.17 percent for capped child care programs, and an increase of $11.7 million in Proposition 98 General Fund to fund the COLA for part-day preschool. However, this COLA is eliminated as part of the child care reductions.

Child Care and Development Funds (CCDF) - A net increase of $14.9 million federal funds in 2012-13 reflecting removal of one-time carryover funds available in 2011-12 ($3.5 million), an increase of $23.2 million in carryover funds, and a decrease of $4.8 million in available base grant funds.

K-12 and Proposition 98

K-12 Deferrals - An increase of $2.2 billion Proposition 98 General Fund to reduce inter-year budgetary deferrals.

Transitional Kindergarten - A decrease of $223.7 million Proposition 98 General Fund to reflect the elimination of the requirement that schools provide transitional kindergarten instruction beginning in the 2012-13 academic year. These savings will be used to support existing education programs.

Charter Schools - An increase of $50.3 million Proposition 98 General Fund for charter school categorical programs due to charter school growth.

Special Education - An increase of $12.3 million Proposition 98 General Fund for Special Education ADA growth.

K-14 Mandates Funding - An increase of $110.1 million to support a new block grant program for K-12 and community college mandates as discussed further below.

Cost of Living Adjustment - The Budget does not provide a cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) for any K-14 program in 2012-13. The projected 2012-13 COLA is 3.17 percent, which would have provided a $1.8 billion increase to the extent Proposition 98 resources were sufficient to provide that adjustment. A deficit factor will be established in 2012-13 for school district and county office of education revenue limit apportionments to reflect the lack of a COLA, ensuring that funding in future years is used to restore this adjustment.

Local Property Tax Adjustments - An increase of $196 million for school district and county office of education revenue limits in 2011-12 as a result of lower offsetting property tax revenues. An increase of $627 million for school district and county office of education revenue limits in 2012-13 as a result of reduced offsetting local property tax revenues.

Redevelopment Agency Elimination - An increase of $1.1 billion in offsetting local property taxes for 2012-13 due to the elimination of redevelopment agencies.

Average Daily Attendance (ADA) - A decrease of $694 million in 2011-12 for school district and county office of education revenue limits as a result of a decrease in projected ADA from the 2011 Budget Act. An increase of $158 million in 2012-13 for school district and county office of education revenue limits as a result of projected growth in ADA for 2012-13.

Unemployment Insurance - An increase of $21.8 million in 2012-13 to fully fund the additional costs of unemployment insurance for local school districts and county offices of education.

Child Nutrition Program - An increase of $37.2 million for 2012-13 in SDE federal local assistance funds to reflect growth of nutrition programs at schools and other participating agencies.

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program - An increase of $2 million for 2012-13 in SDE federal local assistance funds for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, which provides an additional free fresh fruit or vegetable snack to students during the school day.

Ballot Trigger Reduction

Again, if new revenues are not achieved, the Proposition 98 guarantee will drop by $2.4 billion in 2012-13. In addition, Proposition 98 will be re-benched to shift K-14 General Obligation Bond debt service costs into Proposition 98, resulting in additional savings of $2.4 billion. As a result, total program funding for Proposition 98 will drop by $4.8 billion, which will eliminate the $2.2 billion repayment of inter-year budgetary deferrals proposed in the Budget for 2012-13. The remaining $2.6 billion reduced from Proposition 98 would equate to shortening the school year by more than three weeks. The Administration will work with school officials and stakeholders to develop legislation that protects education programs, but allows schools to develop and implement necessary contingency plans.

Miscellaneous

Some other things I have picked up:

Proposition 10 - An increase of $50 million General Fund in 2012-13 to backfill for theone-time use of Proposition 10 funding for services to consumers age 0-5 years.
Cal Learn will basically be eliminated.

I will report more of the FY 2012-13 Budget details as they become known. You can peruse the Governor's FY2012-13 Budget proposal on the Department of Finance's web site at http://govbud.dof.ca.gov.

* * * * *

The Child Development Policy Institute (CDPI) is a non-partisan, independent organization whose mission is to help establish sound public policy that benefits the children of California. CDPI is a leader in the childcare and development field on fiscal and policy matters and a principal advocate for children and families in the California budget process. Originally part of the California Children's Lobby, CDPI was founded in 1993 and is lead by a board of diverse individuals from the education, early education, and child care fields.

For the past 16 years, CDPI has provided policy bulletins and forums to inform the Field and the public. The Capitol Plus is available on a subscription basis for $49 for calendar year.

Please go to www.cdpi.net.

Child Development Policy Institute, 1614 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (866) 662-9597 Fax (916) 441-6175 www.cdpi.net.

Notice: This is a report on California politics, a very dynamic, fluid circumstance at best. Information contained herein is our best effort to be both timely and accurate, but things change. Readers are cautioned to investigate the conditions and facts themselves before acting upon any information presented here. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Child Development Policy Institute or its individual board members.

LAO overview Governor’s proposed budget

If our current revenue estimates are closer to the target than the administration's, the Legislature will have to pursue billions of dollars more in budget-balancing solutions.

Page 10:

Although we find the Governor's CalWORKs and child care proposals have some advantages, they also involve potential trade-offs. Most clearly, the reductions proposed by the Governor would have significant negative impacts on many of California 's low-income families. Regarding CalWORKs, the Legislature may wish to consider whether reductions made to families most in need of support to achieve self-sufficiency would be too severe. Similarly, the Legislature may want to consider whether the Governor's proposal too severely restricts eligibility criteria and time lines for subsidized child care. More generally, the Legislature should consider whether focusing CalWORKs and subsidized child care primarily on supporting efforts of low-income families to obtain employment is consistent with its priorities or whether other objectives are also important.

Focusing these programs on a different set of objectives and priorities than the Governor would not necessarily eliminate opportunities for budgetary savings; however, the potential for savings could be less and there could be trade-offs in other areas of the budget.

page 22:

As such, we recommend

the Legislature adopt the proposal to not initiate the Transitional Kindergarten program, for the associated revenue limit savings of $224 million.

The Legislature could consider prioritizing state preschool slots for low-income children specifically affected by the change in kindergarten start date.

Moreover, in the context of this change-and the significant reductions proposed for the state's child care programs-the Legislature may want to modify or reject the Governor's proposed

$58 million cut to the state preschool program.

page 26:

In general, we find that the (CalWORKS) reforms proposed by the Governor are consistent with his stated priorities for the program. Evaluating the merit of supporting work over providing subsistence is largely a matter of legislative priorities; however, this approach does have budgetary advantages.

First, by targeting resources to a specific, smaller portion of low-income families, the Governor is more likely to achieve his objective with limited resources. Second, the Governor's focus on work would improve the state's ability to meet overall program work participation requirements established by the TANF program-which the state is currently failing to do. Failing to meet these requirements could result in significant federal sanctions and reductions to the state's federal TANF block grant. We similarly find that the Governor's attempt to consolidate, streamline, and prioritize the state's overly complicated child care delivery system has some merit. Specifically, the proposal would replace multiple state programs- and multiple reimbursement rates, contract administrators, and eligibility criteria-with one uniform approach.

www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/bud/budget_overview/budget-overview-011112.pdf

Looking for information about 2012 Initiative Measures

http://ag.ca.gov/initiatives/activeindex.php?active=A

Racing to raise taxes in California

By Kevin Yamamura
kyamamura@sacbee.com

Published: Saturday, Dec. 3, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 3A

Last Modified: Sunday, Dec. 4, 2011 - 3:24 pm

Inspired by new polls showing that California voters may pass higher taxes for schools, the race is on to place tax hikes on the November 2012 ballot. But insiders warn of "mutually assured destruction" if multiple tax measures qualify.

It is tough enough persuading voters to approve any tax, but particularly so if voters are confused by competing measures.

Any tax campaign will be built on funding schools rather than the state budget at large. A Field Poll in June found that 59 percent of voters opposed higher taxes to balance the budget. But a University of Southern California/Los Angeles Times poll last month determined that 64 percent would support higher taxes to increase school funding.

Gov. Jerry Brown and traditional Democratic labor allies are jockeying to ensure their plan emerges alone, but other tax proponents will not go away easily. At least two backers have vast personal fortunes to pay for enough signatures and a subsequent campaign. We assess four major proposals below:

Annual tax projection:

The median California adjusted gross income for joint filers in 2009 was $65,025, according to the Franchise Tax Board. We have estimated the additional tax burden for that filer using data from the FTB, proponents and previous legislative tax analysis.

Brown/Democrats

Likely backers: Brown, Democratic lawmakers, California Teachers Association, Service Employees International Union

Amount raised: $7 billion

Tax change: Increases the statewide sales tax by a half-cent. Imposes higher marginal income tax rates on the rich. Places in the constitution a tax shift to local governments to pay for incarceration and other "realigned" state services.

Annual cost for typical taxpayer: $123

Where the money goes: K-12 schools, public safety, social services, higher education, corrections.

Why it could pass: Voters may support taxing the wealthy and providing more money to schools.

Why it could fail: Voters may oppose a higher sales tax. Voters may be skeptical of plan that helps the state general fund budget.

'Our Children, Our Future'

Likely backer: Civil rights attorney Molly Munger, daughter of Berkshire Hathaway Vice Chairman Charles Munger

Amount raised: $10 billion

Tax change: Raises personal income tax rates on all but the poorest Californians, with the greatest increases on the wealthy.

Annual cost for typical taxpayer: $222

Where the money goes: Directly to school districts and early childhood development programs. Schools may not use the money to increase existing salaries or benefits.

Why it could pass: Voters may support higher taxes that go directly to schools.

Why it could fail: Brown and legislative leaders oppose the plan because it does little to bridge the state's $12.8 billion deficit. Could lead to deeper cuts to other state services.

Think Long Committee

Likely backers: Billionaire Nicolas Berggruen, Silicon Valley executives, businessman Eli Broad, former political leaders

Amount raised: $10 billion

Tax change: Extends the statewide sales tax to services. Reduces personal income tax rates. Reduces the corporate tax rate. Raises taxes on out-of-state firms.

Annual cost for typical taxpayer: $288

Where the money goes: Initially pays down debt. In future years, $5 billion goes to K-12 schools and community colleges; $2.5 billion to universities; $1.5 billion to county public safety; and $1 billion to cities.

Why it could pass: Voters may support higher taxes that go to education. Can tap into network of wealthy backers for campaign contributions.

Why it could fail: Has drawn the widest opposition of any tax proposal so far. Businesses oppose it for taxing services. The California Teachers Association opposes it for undermining a constitutional funding guarantee for schools. Critics say the drop in personal income tax rates benefits the wealthy.

Restoring California

Likely backers: California Federation of Teachers, Courage Campaign, University of California Student Association

Amount raised: $6 billion

Tax change: Raise marginal income tax rate by three percentage points on income between $1 million and $2 million. Raise rate by five percentage points on income over $2 million.

Annual cost for typical taxpayer: $0

Where the money goes: Three-fifths goes to K-12 schools and higher education; the remainder goes to local governments for public safety and infrastructure.

Why it could pass: Voters may support higher taxes on the rich, especially if the money benefits education.

Why it could fail: Does not have the fundraising capacity of other efforts. Lacks institutional support from Brown and Democratic unions.

The Governor released his ballot initiative – The Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012 – which, if passed, will increase taxes by 2% on high income earners for five years and impose a ½ cent increase in sales tax for two years. See his open letter below and click on the following to read the initative: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i1035_11-0090.pdf

When I became Governor again -- 28 years after my last term ended in 1983 -- California was facing a $26.6 billion budget deficit. It was the result of years of failing to match spending with tax revenues as budget gimmicks instead of honest budgeting became the norm.

In January, I proposed a budget that combined deep cuts with a temporary extension of some existing taxes. It was a balanced approach that would have finally closed our budget gap.

I asked the legislature to enact this plan and to allow you, the people of California, to vote on it. I believed that you had the right to weigh in on this important choice: should we decently fund our schools or lower our taxes? I don’t know how you would have voted, but we will never know. The Republicans refused to provide the four votes needed to put this measure on the ballot.

Forced to act alone, Democrats went ahead and enacted massive cuts and the first honest on-time budget in a decade. But without the tax extensions, it was simply not possible to eliminate the state’s structural deficit.

The good news is that our financial condition is much better than a year ago. We cut the ongoing budget deficit by more than half, reduced the state’s workforce by about 5500 positions and cut unnecessary expenses like cell phones and state cars. We actually cut state expenses by over $10 billion. Spending is now at levels not seen since the seventies. Our state’s credit rating has moved from “negative” to “stable,” laying the foundation for job creation and a stronger economic recovery.

Unfortunately, the deep cuts we made came at a huge cost. Schools have been hurt and state funding for our universities has been reduced by 25%. Support for the elderly and the disabled has fallen to where it was in 1983. Our courts suffered debilitating reductions.

The stark truth is that without new tax revenues, we will have no other choice but to make deeper and more damaging cuts to schools, universities, public safety and our courts.

That is why I am filing today an initiative with the Attorney General’s office that would generate nearly $7 billion in dedicated funding to protect education and public safety. I am going directly to the voters because I don’t want to get bogged down in partisan gridlock as happened this year. The stakes are too high.

My proposal is straightforward and fair. It proposes a temporary tax increase on the wealthy, a modest and temporary increase in the sales tax, and guarantees that the new revenues be spent only on education. Here are the details:

Millionaires and high-income earners will pay up to 2% higher income taxes for five years. No family making less than $500,000 a year will see their income taxes rise. In fact, fewer than 2% of California taxpayers will be affected by this increase.
There will be a temporary ½ cent increase in the sales tax. Even with this temporary increase, sales taxes will still be lower than what they were less than six months ago.
This initiative dedicates funding only to education and public safety--not on other programs that we simply cannot afford.

This initiative will not solve all of our fiscal problems. But it will stop further cuts to education and public safety.

I ask you to join with me to get our state back on track.

Court Rules on AB 99 in Favor of First 5

The Fresno Superior Court issued a ruling just before Thanksgiving in favor of the plaintiffs in their challenge to AB 99. The Court rejected virtually every argument by the State supporting the bill. AB 99, passed by the Legislature last spring, requires First 5 commissions to turn over $1 billion to the state by the end of this fiscal year. Commissions throughout the state severely reduced their funding in anticipation of making this exceptional payment. The State now has 60 days to file an appeal. But a smarter move would be to drop the matter, accept the Court's ruling, and stop spending much-needed money on expensive litigation....

Fresno judge rules state cannot take $1 billion from First 5

A Fresno judge ruled last week that California's attempt to take $1 billion from First 5 commissions was illegal.

Gov. Jerry Brown and state lawmakers initially relied on the money in March to help balance a then-$26 billion shortfall. Two months later, state leaders backed away from the budget solution because First 5 commissions filed suit to block it. But Brown continued to defend the move in court.

Fresno Superior Court judge Debra J. Kazanjian determined in her ruling that the First 5 take was illegal because it required voter approval under the initial 1998 ballot measure, Proposition 10.

First 5 programs are funded by a voter-approved tobacco tax to provide early childhood development services. State leaders instead dedicated that money toward ongoing Medi-Cal costs for children 0 to 5 years old.

The governor argued that the move was legal because it was consistent with Proposition 10's goal of supporting children in their first five years of life. His defense essentially was that the budget crisis would have otherwise left those children without Medi-Cal services.

Kazanjian disputed that interpretation: "But that argument is disingenuous in that it was the legislature that 'chose' to cut funding to existing services instead of taking what might be the unpopular step of raising revenue."

She also said elsewhere, "To claim that transferring decision-making from local communities to the state legislature is 'consistent with' Prop 10 is like asking the court to find that black means white."

Update (3:00 p.m.): Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer said the state has not yet decided whether to appeal.

The decision should not immediately impact the state budget given that Brown and lawmakers removed the First 5 solution from their final spending plan. But it does close a potential avenue as the state faces a $13 billion shortfall over the next 19 months.

State Representatives to Contact

Governor Jerry Brown , State Capitol , Sacramento , Ca. 94814 governor@governor.ca.gov

Holly Mitchell - Assembly Member - 47th District (323)937-4747) or (916)319-2047 assemblymember.Mitchell@assembly.ca.gov

Julia Brownley - Assembly Member – 41^st District (916) 319-2041 or (310) 395-3414 assemblymember.Brownley @assembly.ca.gov

Betsy Butler - Assembly Member - 53^rd District Tel: ( 310) 615-3518 or (916) 319 - 2053 assemblymember.Butler@assembly.ca.gov

Senator Fran Pavley - 23^rd District (916) 651- 4023 or (310) 441-9084 senator.pavley@sen.ca.gov

If your representative isn't listed please go to:

www.assembly.ca.gov

www.senator.ca.gov

http://leginfo.public.ca.gov/yourleg.html

The National Association for the Education of Young Children promotes national, state and local public policies that support a system of well-financed, high quality early childhood education programs in a range of settings, including child care centers, family child care homes, and schools.

Join Our E-mail List

http://capwiz.com/naeyc

VOICES FROM THE FIELD

Tell your story about how low wages, poor working conditions and or high turnover have affected you, your colleagues, your children or your child care program or how families in your program are having problems...

Email these stories to northbayaeyc@yahoo.com

If you wish to share your story please give the following information in the email:

Name, address, city, State and Zip code

Return to Home Page