Posted on 01/21/2006 10:03:17 AM PST by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO - For the first time since then-private citizen Arnold Schwarzenegger persuaded voters to pass Proposition 49 in 2002, the state will start spending more than $500 million on after-school programs next year.
Under Schwarzenegger's proposed 2006-07 budget, the state will spend an additional $428 million on after-school programs under Proposition 49, bringing the total funding for those programs to $550 million.
That is new spending required for the first time under Proposition 49 as triggered by an increase in state revenue, although it is not supported by new taxes or other revenue sources.
But some critics say the measure is an example of the "auto-pilot spending" that now-Gov. Schwarzenegger has derided since taking office, and some Democratic legislators think the state should ask voters to repeal or modify it.
Among the groups who opposed the measure in 2002 was the League of Women Voters of California, which argues that the state's current fiscal situation justifies the concerns expressed then.
"We opposed Proposition 49 because we thought it was poor policy," said league program director Trudy Schafer. "It's more of the auto-pilot spending that many policymakers object to, including the governor himself. We think what we're seeing now is an illustration of the things we objected to."
Even though the program has a trigger tied to revenue, she said, it is still taking more decision-making authority out of the hands of the state officials elected to make budget and policy decisions.
Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, chairman of the budget committee, agrees Prop. 49 seems to fit the governor's definition of "auto-pilot spending."
One of the problems, he said, is the state has to allocate the funds even if the programs aren't ready to spend the money immediately, meaning funds could sit around unspent while other, more needy programs remain underfunded.
At the same time Schwarzenegger is pumping money into after-school programs, he is proposing cuts in other social service programs, such as withholding $48 million in cost-of-living adjustments to senior citizens and others on the State Supplementary Program, he noted.
"This requires a certain amount of money (be allocated) even if the programs aren't ready to go," Laird said. "It would be more important to have the flexibility to spend only when they're ready, rather than to have to hold money back that isn't ready to be used, when seniors aren't getting their (SSP) cost-of-living increase."
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuez, D-Los Angeles, and Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill have suggested that the state should consider asking voters to modify the measure, possibly on the June ballot.
There are at least two other major "auto-pilot" ballot measures that restrict the state's ability to spend funds: Proposition 98, which guarantees substantial funding for education, locking up more than 40 percent of the state general fund; and Proposition 42, which dedicates the sales tax on gasoline to transportation projects.
Last year, when Schwarzenegger launched his budget and government reform proposals, he complained about those measures tying his hands when it came to shaping the state's spending priorities.
But Propositions 98 and 42 can be suspended by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Proposition 49 cannot.
Schwarzenegger argues that 49 is different because it only is triggered after state revenues increase by a certain amount.
"Prop. 49 was done in the most responsible way because what we did was instead of wanting to increase taxes ... we went the responsible way by saying, OK, let us go and say that we want to have money for after-school programs, but only if our revenues hit a certain level," the governor said during his press conference to release the budget.
"So we waited for four years. It was passed in 2002, now it's 2006. We waited for four years, and now in this new budget year it will kick in. So I think that's the right way to go, that you wait your turn rather than just forcing your way in and crowding out other programs."
Those who run after-school programs said they are desperately needed. They help keep children busy and out of trouble after class and provide them with additional education and physical fitness at a time when California's schools are lagging other states in test scores, and its children are dealing with unprecedented levels of childhood obesity. They also help economic development by allowing parents to remain at work when their children finish school, supporters say.
Carla Sanger, president of the nationally recognized L.A.'s BEST after-school program, said it is still unclear how the new state funding will affect her programs because she anticipates a decrease in federal funds.
L.A.'s BEST, or Better Educated Students for Tomorrow, was established in 1988 and now serves 24,000 children in 147 schools throughout the Los Angeles Unified School District. Schwarzenegger consulted Sanger as he was crafting Proposition 49.
L.A.'s BEST is planning to release a study soon that shows substantial benefits for the kids in the program, including significantly lower dropout rates, she said.
The program more than pays for itself in several ways beyond just the direct benefit to children, Sanger argued. For one, it helps increase school attendance, which is important to local districts that receive funding partly based on average daily attendance. It also provides additional benefits to the community, including jobs and serving as an entry point for teacher training.
"This is probably one of the most important programs that government could fund," Sanger said.
Her program is funded through $21 million in grants; $9.9 million from the state general fund; about $6 million from the city of Los Angeles and $3.5 million in federal funds. L.A. Unified provides free facilities and insurance, which she estimates is worth around $15 million.
The free program is focused in the city's poorer neighborhoods but does not require parents to show any income eligibility.
Michelle Diggs, who runs the L.A.'s BEST after-school program at Limerick Elementary School in Northridge, said there is a strong demand for expansion of her program and others like it throughout the San Fernando Valley.
The program is not, as some critics think, just baby-sitting for busy parents, she said. It offers recreational and educational activities, from helping kids with their homework to aerobics and quilting.
The school's Spanish-speaking parents particularly appreciate the homework help, Diggs said, because they themselves are often not able to help with English-language assignments.
Her program has 220 children and a waiting list of 45 more. She had been expecting to reduce it to 200 next year, although that could change if the additional state funding comes through.
"It's so hard because the parents don't understand," Diggs said. "I say, Look, we can only take so many."
Not having after school programs is used against us here.
Our afterschool programs ran for a few years, then ran out of funding. The impact of the programs in my district were that they reduced petty crime, increased avg. grades and decreased incidences of family violence. As an elected official, I believe we got more bang for our buck in these programs than almost any other social program we have.
I am all for funding this program
I would agree with some of your assumptions. What would be nicer though is if some PRIVATE providers of after-school programs could be utilized somehow. Even better would be if some parents could start some programs. The latter happens at my sister's school.
I am all for taking care of the children if it benefits the kids first, sadly, that may not be the case state wide.
The tendency towards embracing the Nanny State philosophy as a whole is one more step closer towards completion unfortunately.
As you relate, you saw who may reap the near-term rewards, but it is the long-term harm it may also do that should be recognized as well.
It is one program to become addicted to, but if we must, I agree, what better than for the kids and parents.
Yeah - it seems like the attitude is always one of "If the government doesn't do it, it can't be done".
Wrong! Here's the appropriate subdivision:
the amount by which the state’s nonguaranteed General Fund appropriations for the current fiscal year exceed the sum of (i) the amount of the state’s non-guaranteed General Fund appropriations for the base year plus (ii) one billion five hundred million dollars ($1,500,000,000).
The initation of funding for Prop 49 is triggered by appropriations, not revenue. Appropriations that the Wilsonegger administration has fudged because they manipulated both the estimation and definition of revenue. Wislonegger triggerd Prop 49, not Californoania's financial circumstnaces.
Little is made of this in the press.
Proposition 49 will:By my calculations, the budget should be going down about $900 million.
• Make our neighborhoods safe
• Give our children a safe, educational, and recreational place to go after school
• Save taxpayers money
• Help working families
Proposition 49 is funded out of future growth in state revenues, but only after our economy has recovered. IT WILL NOT REQUIRE AN INCREASE IN TAXES OR AFFECT THE CURRENT BUDGET. The prestigious Rose Institute says Proposition 49 saves society approximately $9 for every $1 invested. THE RETURN TO TAXPAYERS ALONE IS APPROXIMATELY 3 DOLLARS FOR EVERY 1 TAX DOLLAR INVESTED. That’s why it’s endorsed by taxpayer watchdog groups such as the California Taxpayers’ Association, the National Tax Limitation Committee and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.(snip)
Yeah - it seems like the attitude is always one of "If the government doesn't do it, it can't be done".
To some probably. I remember though, this one private bus company that did the school buses one year and they DID stink. Whatever the case, to be successful, the attitude needs to be in it.
Not the same term as above.
Of course they don't understand. They're told, you're kids have to go to school. But at the same time, the govt doesn't provide any assistance for working parents to accomplish this. Meanwhile, many of these working parents work for hardasses that look down on them taking time off work to pick up their kids from school. I'm glad Kansas had this all figured out, because CA is a basket case. Fortunately, my wife doesn't work or it would be tough.
The YMCA is used in my school district in CA. Still, they can't keep up with demand and that is a problem.
Interesting. They usually have enough other programs (dance, sports, etc.) around here so the demand isn't too bad. We had a parent start a Spanish program here though and that has been pretty successful (no, it has nothing to do with any diversity crap so I won't get into that). I would like to see a few others and am considering doing something myself, though I have yet to decide what.
The irony here is truly rich. I just hope California voters don't fall for the preschool initiative. The same people who can't run decent schools or afterschool programs will now get paid ridiculous amounts to mess up the children even earlier!?!
In the school district I live in, which is truly amazing in its never-ending ability to reach new levels of ineptness, the after-school program IS just glorified baby-sitting. There is no organization, no training (even though it is available for free if the district would just get its act together enough to get its employees there) and not a lot of incentive to fix things (because right now most of the budget is going to pay teachers $60 an hour to provide a little bit of homework help). Meanwhile, the other employees make less than $10 an hour and there is not enough money to hire enough employees to keep control of the kids. Another nice feature is that many of the "employees" are parents who have no interest or clue in organizing sport activities or homework help. They also often fail to show up for work.
In another school district I am involved with, everyone I have seen use the program is either retired (custodial grandparents who are home when school lets out), on welfare (again, home when school lets out) or part of an immigrant family where several adults are in the home (and again, someone is home when school lets out). Thus, I have not seen where it is helping working parents.
Another irony in that school district is that parents are having trouble fitting all the government giveaways into the children's schedules as they try to take advantage of the after-school program and the federal boondoggle, the No Child Left Behind Act, which provides federal funding for private tutoring for students in failing school districts. I find this program more effective because some of the tutoring companies are well-run and results-oriented. But with all the competing programs, I think the main thing that is being done effectively is the taxpayers' wallets being cleaned.
Meanwhile, institutions that have been providing after-school services for decades (Boys'and Girls' Clubs, church homework clubs, Good News Clubs, small in-home daycares) are being left behind.
As you can tell, I'm a big fan of this boondoggle Schwarzenegger dreamed up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.