Archive for March, 2011

Below are cuts to other programs states are making to programs that benefit children, families, and low-income individuals. Click here for the full report on state budget cuts.

• Governor Brown in California proposes cutting the CalWorks (TANF) Program by $1.5 billion. He would reduce the lifetime limit on the number of months that a needy family can receive cash benefits from 60 to 48 months. He also proposes a reduction in the size of Cal-Works grants; for instance, his proposal would reduce the maximum monthly Cal-Works grant for a family of three from $694 to $604, a 13 percent cut.

  Brown also proposes cutting $750 million from child care programs, in part by reducing subsidies by 35 percent and requiring recipients to have incomes less than 60 percent of the state’s median income (down from 75 percent of the median income today). The Governor’s proposal would reduce the number of subsidized childcare slots by about 9,900, or 3 percent.

• Delaware’s Governor Markell eliminates a General Assistance program that provides cash assistance to people in deep poverty and who are often homeless.
• Governor Deal in Georgia proposes funding subsidized child care at a level that would reduce the monthly number of children served by as many as 10,000 and create a waiting list of up to 4,000 children.
• Governor Jindal of Louisiana would reduce by 30 percent state support for child and family services. Jindal does not specify the services he proposes to cut, but a 30 percent cut to these services will hurt some of the state’s most vulnerable families. For example, cutting by 30 percent the number of low-income children whose parents receive child care subsidies would eliminate support for the families of more than 10,000 children.
• Maine’s Governor LePage would eliminate access to state-funded temporary cash assistance and healthcare for legal immigrants in the country less than five years, cutting about 2,500 people from these supports.
• Governor Snyder of Michigan proposes reducing the lifetime limit on cash assistance for poor families to 48 months from 60 months and to eliminate before- and after-school programs.
• Nebraska’s Governor Heineman proposes eliminating a state-funded program that provides food assistance to up to 500 low-income legal residents each year who are ineligible for federal food aid because they are not citizens and have not been in the country more than five years.
• Governor Kasich of Ohio would cut aid to local governments and libraries by more than $1 billion over the coming two-year budget cycle. He also would reduce the income limit for working parents to be eligible for help paying for child care, to 125 percent of the poverty line from 150 percent. That means that a working mother with one child and income over about $18,400 would not be eligible. Kasich would also cut by 7 percent payment rates for businesses that provide child care to low-income families and deeply cut funding for public defenders and a number of other state services.
• Wisconsin ’s Governor Walker proposes to cut funding for the state’s child care program by charging working families more for child care, reducing the income limit for accessing financial assistance for child care, and cutting the amount that some child care providers are reimbursed. He would also eliminate a state-funded program providing food assistance to legal immigrants in the country less than five years and reduce the temporary cash assistance that low-income mothers with children can receive when they are between jobs.

In addition to proposed federal cuts to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, community health centers, and school based health clinics being debated in Congress, several states have proposed deep, identifiable cuts in health care that will reduce access to care for low-income children, families and people with disabilities. (These cuts are in addition to health cuts already implemented in 34 states since the recession began.) Click here to read the whole report:

• Governor Brewer of Arizona original budget proposal eliminated Medicaid coverage for 280,000 people, more than 4 percent of the state’s population. The cut would have resulted in the loss of $1.1 billion in federal matching funds next fiscal year. With newly received permission from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to reduce Medicaid enrollment, Governor Brewer has proposed grandfathering coverage for currently enrolled adults without dependent children (approximately 100,000 people), but eliminating the program for future enrollees. The governor’s new proposal mandates that childless adults and parents re-qualify for coverage every six months (rather than annually) and continues to call for a 5 percent cut in Medicaid provider rates that would take effect in April 2011.
• California’s Governor Brown proposes scaling back the state’s Healthy Families (CHIP) program by eliminating vision benefits, increasing premiums for families with incomes between 150 and 250 percent of poverty, and increasing co-payments, among other cuts.
• Georgia’s Governor Deal proposes cuts to several areas of Medicaid and children’s health. Many children’s services would be subject to co-pays for the first time.
• Idaho Governor Otter, according to news reports, seeks $25 million in unspecified cuts to Medicaid.
• Kansas Governor Brownback would eliminate funding for mental health services for 850 families of children with severe emotional disturbances.
• New Jersey’s Governor Christie would apply to the federal government for a “global waiver” to allow the state to restructure its Medicaid program. The Governor says the restructuring would save New Jersey $300 million in the coming fiscal year. To achieve savings of that magnitude, the waiver likely would significantly reduce services and access to medical care for low-income people.
• Oklahoma’s Governor Fallin proposes cuts to state health care programs that likely will lead to the elimination or sharp reduction of child abuse prevention services that protect about 2,000 children, as well as payment cuts for Medicaid providers and reductions in the medical services covered by Medicaid.
• Texas’ initial budget proposal would cut Medicaid provider rates by 10 percent, making it more difficult for Texas doctors to accept Medicaid patients because of the state’s low reimbursement levels relative to other states, further restricting low-income Texans’ access to health care.
• Washington Governor Gregoire’s budget proposes deep cuts to health and disability services, including eliminating a health program for 27,000 undocumented children.
• Wisconsin’s Governor Walker proposes to eliminate Medicaid coverage for about 70,000 people, beginning in July of 2012 (and to seek federal approval for even deeper cuts).

In addition to the proposed cuts at the federal level to the Pell Grant program currently being debated in Congress, at least 20 states have proposed large, identifiable cuts in support for state colleges and universities with direct impacts on students. (These cuts are in addition to higher education cuts already implemented in at least 43 states since the recession began.) Click here to read the full report on these state cuts.

• Governor Brewer of Arizona proposes cutting funding for public universities by one-fifth, or $170 million. This would add to deep previous cuts: from 2008 through 2011, state support for universities fell by $230 million, resulting in the elimination of more than 2,100 positions (an 11 percent reduction in the workforce). Universities have raised tuition significantly, closed eight extended campuses, and merged, consolidated, or disestablished 182 colleges, schools, programs, and departments. Combined with those previous cuts, Brewer’s proposal would bring per-student state funding down to 46 percent below pre-recession levels.

  Governor Brewer also proposes to cut community college funding for operating expenses by about $73 million. The cut amounts to 6.2 percent of total community college operating revenues and half of all state support for community colleges.

• California’s Governor Brown proposes significant cuts to higher education. He would increase fees at community colleges by 38 percent; for the average student, this would mean an annual fee increase of $300. He also proposes to reduce funding for the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU) systems by $1 billion ($500 million each). Both the UC and CSI systems already have been cut deeply since the recession struck; the governor’s proposal would reduce UC funding to levels last seen in the 1998-1999 fiscal year, when the system had 73,600 (31 percent) fewer students than it does today, and would reduce CSU funding to levels last seen in the 1999-2000 fiscal year, when the system had almost 70,000 (16 percent) fewer students than it does today.
• Governor Hickenlooper of Colorado would cut state university spending by $878 per student over the prior year, which will result in tuition and fees increases.
• Georgia Governor Deal’s budget would cut funding for a popular merit-based college scholarship program by about one-third, cut university funding by 10 percent, and cut funding for technical colleges by 6 percent.
• Governor Branstad of Iowa proposes state support for public universities that is 6 percent below FY11 levels, which the state Board of Regents say may result in higher tuition, larger classes, and more teaching assistants and adjunct faculty teaching undergraduate courses.
• Michigan Governor Snyder’s budget would cut by 15 percent state support for public universities, only partially offsetting this cut with an incentive fund to keep tuition increases below a 5-year system-wide average.
• Minnesota Governor Dayton proposes reducing by one-third state support for the state’s work-study program. Approximately 2,600 fewer students would have a work study opportunity in as a result of the cut. Dayton’s budget also would phase out state funding for a college savings program that helps low-income families save for college expenses. About 2,500 families will no longer receive a state match on their savings.
• Missouri Governor Nixon proposes cutting state support for higher education by 7 percent, which has led the state’s university system to propose tuition hikes for next school year ranging from 4.7 percent to 6.6 percent. The proposed cuts would continue a trend of declining state support for Missouri’s universities; over the last decade, state support has fallen 28 percent.
• Nevada Governor Sandoval would reduce the state funding for higher education by 18 percent and give the Board of Regents full discretion over raising tuition to make up for the loss in funds.
• Governor Lynch of New Hampshire would cut state funding for public universities by 23 percent, or about $750 per student. The governor also proposes a 21 percent cut in state funding for community colleges, a reduction of roughly $400 per student.
• New Mexico’s Governor Martinez proposes a 5 percent cut in funding for public universities.
• Governor Cuomo of New York proposes cutting state support for the State University of New York (SUNY) system by 9.1 percent and reducing state support for the City University of New York (CUNY) system by 5.2 percent. These reductions would come on top of substantial cuts in previous years, which have resulted in (among other consequences) a 14 percent SUNY tuition increase.
• North Carolina Governor Perdue proposes University of North Carolina campus operating budgets by 9.5 percent and asks campuses to meet this reduction by reducing the number of senior and middle management positions, eliminating low-performing or redundant programs, faculty workload adjustments, among other things. She estimates that the cut might reduce the number of University positions by 1,900. Her proposal would allow for tuition increases to restore funding equivalent to 450 positions.

  Perdue also proposes to cut financial aid to students attending private colleges by 6.5 percent and raises tuition rates for community college students enrolled in curriculum courses. The increase will mean $176 more per year for full-time students, bringing resident students’ tuition to $1,984 annually.

• Ohio’s Governor Kasich would decrease funding of higher education by 11 percent, a cut of $510 per student.
• Governor Kitzhaber of Oregon proposes cutting state funding for community colleges per full-time student by 11 percent, to $1,559 from $1,744. The governor also proposes cutting state support for the Oregon University System by 4.9 percent from FY 2009-2011 levels, and recommends giving university graduate and professional programs more flexibility in raising tuition.
• Governor Corbett in Pennsylvania proposes to cut funding for the state’s system of higher education by $271 million or more than 50 percent, resulting in the lowest level of state funding for public colleges and universities since the state established consolidated funding in 1983. He also proposes to cut funding for the state’s four “state related” universities (Penn State, the University of Pittsburgh, Temple, and Lincoln University) by over 50 percent and to reduce funding for the state’s community colleges by 10 percent. The University of Pittsburgh’s chancellor has warned that the governor’s proposed funding cut would lead to large tuition increases. Penn State’s president has said that the cut would lead to both tuition increases and significant program cuts, including potential layoffs.
• Tennessee’s Governor Haslam proposes to cut state spending for higher education by 2 percent. In November 2010, when a smaller cut of 1.2 percent was expected, the Tennessee Higher Education Commission recommended minimum tuition increases of 7 percent at universities and 5 percent at community colleges. This continues a trend over the last several years of increasing tuition as state support declines. Assuming a 7 percent tuition increase for universities next year, tuition and mandatory fees at the University of Tennessee–Knoxville will be 48 percent higher than in the 2005-06 school year.
• Texas’s budget would cut public college and university funding by 16 percent, likely forcing tuition increases, reductions in course offerings, and layoffs. The budget would also cancel funding for four community colleges, and it would eliminate financial aid awards for new students under the Texas Grant program, which combines state and institutional money to cover tuition and fees at public schools for 87,000 students with financial need and good academic records.
• Washington’s Governor Gregoire proposes cutting state funding for colleges and universities by $345 million and allowing them to make up for most of this loss through tuition increases. She also proposes reducing by 2,800 the number of students receiving state work-study funds.
• Wisconsin’s Governor Walker proposes reducing funding for state universities by $250 million and provides for tuition increases. The cuts would require a 25 percent reduction in funding for administering the university system, as well as other cuts for university operations.

In addition to the cuts to public education currently being debate in Congress, at least 21 states have proposed identifiable cuts in support for public schools. In many cases, these cuts undermine school finance systems that are intended to reduce disparities between high-wealth and low-wealth school districts, so the largest impacts may be felt in communities that are least able to compensate for the loss of funds from their own resources. (These cuts are in addition to education cuts already implemented in at least 34 states since the recession began.) Click here to read the full report on this information.

• Governor Bentley of Alabama proposes cutting the state’s K-12 Foundation Program (which provides the vast majority of state K-12 education funding) by 6.4 percent. The state’s Superintendent of Education has argued that meeting these funding levels would require the elimination of 1,251 teaching positions in Alabama schools and the imposition of two furlough days for remaining teachers.
• Colorado Governor Hickenlooper’s budget proposal would cut state spending on K-12 education by $497 per pupil.
• Florida’s Governor Scott would impose a $700 per pupil, or 10 percent, reduction in state and local spending on K-12 education. This cut results from a small reduction in the state’s share of education funding, a large reduction in the property taxes local school districts are required to levy to receive state education aid, and the disappearance of most federal fiscal relief.
• Governor Deal of Georgia proposes to cut state and lottery funds for pre-kindergarten by 5.6 percent. This would require eliminating 4,500 pre-K slots, reducing payments to providers by nearly $230 per child, or a mix of cutting slots and reducing payments.
• Governor Branstad of Iowa eliminates the state’s voluntary preschool program, replacing it with a means-tested voucher program, and halves other state funds that help children access preschool. As a result, state support for preschool will decline by 41 percent.
• Kansas Governor Brownback proposes a $232 per-pupil cut in K-12 base student funding, bringing base funding nearly 6 percent below fiscal year 2011 levels.
• Louisiana Governor Jindal’s proposal would reduce funding for the state’s K-12 education finance program, which ensures adequate funding for at-risk and special needs students, by 2.4 percent, an $82 million cut.
• Michigan’s Governor Snyder proposes a $470 per pupil cut to K-12 education spending.
• In Mississippi, Governor Barbour’s budget would fail — for the fourth year in a row — to meet the state’s statutory obligation to support K-12 schools, underfunding school districts by 11 percent or $231 million. The statutory school funding formula is designed to ensure adequate funding for lower-income and underperforming schools. According to the Mississippi Department of Education, the state’s failure to meet that requirement over the past three years has resulted in 2,060 school employee layoffs (704 teachers, 792 teacher assistants, 163 administrators, counselors, and librarians, and 401 bus drivers, custodians, and clerical personnel).
• Governor Nixon of Missouri proposes freezing funding for K-12 education at 2011 levels. This would mean that for the second year in a row, the state has failed to meet the statutory funding formula established to ensure equitable distribution of state dollars to school districts.
• Nebraska’s Governor Heineman also proposes to freeze K-12 funding. Funding would fall $200 million short of the state’s statutory funding formula.
• Governor Sandoval of Nevada calls for reducing K-12 funding by $270 per student, cutting teacher pay by 5 percent, and freezing merit and longevity pay for teachers (and other public employees).
• Governor Martinez of New Mexico proposes reducing K-12 funding by $30 million (1.5 percent) and sparing “classroom spending” from cuts, which would mean greater proportional cut to other areas of K-12 education, like school libraries and guidance counseling. She also proposes a 20 percent cut in the general fund operating budget of the Public Education Department.
• New York’s Governor Cuomo proposes a $1.5 billion, or 7.3 percent, cut to state education aid. This cut would delay, for the third year in a row, implementation of a court order to provide additional education funding to under-resourced school districts. It would also come on top of a substantial education aid reduction in the current fiscal year.
• North Carolina’s Governor Perdue proposes a 5 percent cut in state spending on pre-kindergarten for at-risk four-year-olds and a 5 percent cut to the state’s early childhood development network that works to improve the quality of early learning and child outcomes. Her budget would also shift responsibility for future school bus replacements to local governments and eliminate high school dropout prevention grants to local school agencies and organizations.
• Governor Kasich of Ohio proposes to cut funding for K-12 education by 10 percent, a cut of $489 per student and equivalent to more than 16,500 full-time teachers’ salaries.
• Governor Corbett in Pennsylvania proposes to cut K-12 education aid by $550 million, or 10 percent, reducing funding to the lowest level since fiscal year 2009. The budget also cuts over $500 million in additional funding that the state provides to school districts to implement effective educational practices (such as high quality pre-kindergarten programs), train teachers, and maintain tutoring programs, among other purposes.
• South Dakota Governor Daugaard is calling for a 10 percent cut in K-12 funding. The cut is so large that the state’s largest school district says it would be unable to satisfy it even if it were to eliminate all school buses and remove all athletic and fine arts programs.
• Texas’s initial budget, produced by state’s Legislative Budget Board (the Governor is not required to produce an initial budget in Texas), would eliminate funding for pre-K programs that serve almost 100,000 mostly at-risk children — over 40 percent of the state’s pre-kindergarten students. The budget also would reduce K-12 funding to 23 percent below the minimum amount required by the state’s education finance law. Texas already has below-average K-12 education funding compared to other states, and this cut would depress that low level even further at a time when the state’s school enrollment is growing. This would likely force school districts to lay off large numbers of teachers, increase class sizes, eliminate sports programs and other extracurricular activities, and take other measures that undermine the quality of education.
• Washington’s Governor Gregoire would take nearly $1 billion from education funds designed to reduce class size, extend learning time, and provide professional development for teachers. Gregoire also would eliminate early education for 1,300 three-year-olds.
• Wisconsin’s Governor Walker proposes to reduce state aid designed to equalize funding across school districts by $749 million over the coming two-year budget cycle, a cut of 8 percent.

On Monday, March 21st, Vote Kids continued our paid media ad campaign opposing the cuts to children’s programs passed by the United  States House of Representatives. Click here to see the details of these extensive cuts.

The US Senate must come to an agreement that removes these cuts and continues funding programs like Head Start, the Maternal and Children Health Program, community hospitals, etc. at the level they are slated to be funded at this year. Click below to listen to the ads. They will air in New Hampshire and Iowa through this week.

New Hampshire

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Click here to read more about what the House budget cuts would mean for New Hampshire.

Iowa

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Click here to read more about what the House budget cuts would mean for Iowa.

On Thursday March 3rd, Vote Kids launched our first paid media ads opposing the cuts to children’s programs passed by the United States House of Representatives. Click here to see the details of these extensive cuts.

The US Senate must vote these cuts down and continue funding programs like Head Start, the Maternal and Children Health Program, community hospitals, etc. at the level they are slated to be funded at this year. Click below to listen to the ads. They will air in Maine, Alaska, and North Dakota through next week.

Alaska

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Click here to read more about what the House budget cuts would mean for Alaska and to contact Senator Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich.

Maine

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Click here to read more about what the House budget cuts would mean for Maine and to contact Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

North Dakota

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Click here to read more about what the House budget cuts would mean for North Dakota and to contact Senator Kent Conrad and John Hoeven.

The disease causing delusional budget cuts to programs that provide education and nutrition to low-income children seems to be spreading outward from Capitol Hill. The US House has proposed eliminating 218,220 Head Start slots from the 2011 federal budget, and counties are going even further. In Frederick Maryland, County Commissioners voted 4-1 Tuesday to pull $2.3 million from the Head Start program as of March 1. They sensitively told upset parents in the audience that the best way to help their children is to stay married:

They also advised Head Start mothers to stay home with their children, and not hold jobs outside the home.

“Marriage is the best long-term way to help our children,” said Commissioner C. Paul Smith (R), who praised his wife for staying home to raise their 12 children at what he said was a great sacrifice to their family.

Commissioner Kirby Delauter (R) agreed, saying his wife stayed home to raise their four children. “I have four kids that graduated from Frederick County schools,” he said. “I agree with Commissioner Smith.”

Real forward thinkers in touch with the challenges of the modern family. They ignore the fact that the program is designed to serve children ages 3 to 5 in families that fall below the federal poverty line: $22,050 in salary for a family of four. Parents with children in Head Start do not have the luxury to choose between work and raising their family.

Stories like this are taking place all across the country. Adults in positions of leadership are not being forced into these decisions. They are making choices that have nothing to do with the best interests of children in their county/district/state.