California businesses fights proposed bill tha outlines healthcare fines

As employers across California scramble to figure out what their obligations will be next year under federal health reform, many of them are simultaneously fighting to defeat proposed state legislation that would throw a whole new set of calculations into the mix.
A bill sponsored by Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez, D-Los Angeles, would fine large employers if any of their non-disabled employees who work at least eight hours a week are enrolled in Medi-Cal, the state's health insurance program for the poor.

Advocates of the bill, including the California Labor Federation and the United Food and Commercial Workers union, argue that it merely fills a hole in the federal Affordable Care Act.

The act, widely known as Obamacare, would penalize employers who don't provide affordable health coverage, if even one of their workers receives a federal tax subsidy to buy it independently in one of the state-run insurance exchanges established under the law. But the reform law says nothing about a lower-income group of workers -- those who earn little enough to qualify for Medi-Cal, which is California's version of the federal-state Medicaid program.

The proposed state law stipulates that all fines collected go back into the Medi-Cal program. It requires a two-thirds vote in both the Assembly and the Senate, which lengthens the odds of its passage, even if Democrats do command a two-thirds majority -- barely -- in both houses.

Despite the bill's uncertain prospects, businesses that employ a lot of part-time and seasonal labor -- retailers, restaurants, tourism and hospitality businesses, homebuilders and farms, for example -- are furious about it. So are some nonprofits, which would also be liable for the penalties.

A group of Orange County business representatives gathered in Santa Ana on Wednesday to denounce the legislation, arguing that it would hit the economy at a time of continued economic fragility and deny opportunities to first-time employees, college students and people re-entering the labor market.

They also said that the "vagueness" of the language creates a lot of uncertainty that could lead to numerous lawsuits.

"It would put the brakes on job growth, discourage businesses from locating in California and impact our tourism industry, which is huge in Orange County," said Heidi Larkin-Reed, CEO of the Orange Chamber of Commerce.

Steve Smith, spokesman for the California Labor Federation, which co-sponsored the legislation, said that reports of companies cutting workers' hours to avoid or limit their responsibility under the Affordable Care Act "caught our attention," and was one of the factors behind the bill.

If employees work few enough hours or earn low enough wages to be covered by Medi-Cal, their employers are essentially dumping responsibility for them onto the taxpayers, Smith argued. And that violates the spirit of the federal health reform, which calls on everyone to "pay their fair share," he said.

He also noted that the most recent California budget slashes the state's spending on Medi-Cal by 10 percent from its 2011 level. The pending legislation, which would generate "fairly significant" revenues for Medi-Cal, is "a very important way to support the long-term viability of the program," he said.

About 250,000 Californians are enrolled in Medi-Cal and work for companies employing 500 or more people -- the threshold established in the bill -- according to the Labor Center at UC Berkeley. That figure could rise as high as 350,000 next year and 380,000 by 2019 because of the Medicaid expansion envisioned under Obamacare, the center estimates.
Rick Fowler, CEO of the nonprofit Community College Foundation, complained that his organization's "good public work" could be lost if the bill passes.

The foundation tutors schoolchildren under the federal "no child left behind" program, puts college students in paid internships, and runs a financial literacy program. "If we had to pay a health care fine for part timers, we would be put out of business," Fowler said.
via medcitynews.com

California's Recidivism Problem

Two years after the United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its severely overcrowded prisons by more than 30,000 inmates, the state is still trying to figure out how to comply. Governor Jerry Brown released a new plan in early May that called for the early release of elderly inmates and the relocation of thousands of others to private lockups and state fire camps.

These are undoubtedly fine ideas, but they will never solve the fundamental problem of California's prisons. To do that, Governor Brown and his administration will have to confront the state's recidivism problem: too many people are released from California's prisons, return home and then proceed to commit new crimes or violate parole rules. Before long, they are back in prison.

California has the second highest rate of recidivism in the country, according to the Pew Center on the States. Nearly 58 percent of the state's offenders are sent back to prison within three years of their release, according to the Pew Center.

Unless this cycle is broken with bold actions -- unless people can be diverted from a lifetime of crime, repeatedly shuttling into and out of prison -- California will remain stuck trying to jam too many inmates into too few prison cells. This pattern carries enormous costs, both human and financial.

Under pressure from the courts, the state has a unique opportunity. It can confront its correctional problems head-on by shifting its priorities from incarceration to rehabilitation.

That would involve moving many more nonviolent offenders from prisons into alternative community programs for drug treatment and job training. The best cure for recidivism is for ex-offenders to learn how to stay drug-free and to develop skills for real, full-time jobs. There is nothing like a job to keep someone from reverting to a life of crime.

To do this, California would find itself relying as never before on nonprofit and perhaps even for-profit social service providers. These have traditionally been the organizations that work with inmates and parolees to help them re-enter society successfully. People who have spent time in prison need help, often a lot of help, to develop the necessary skills that lead to a job, independence and a responsible life.

It can be done. In fact, it is done on a small scale every day in places around the country. But it is also costly. Over the long run that initial expenditure can produce extraordinary savings for taxpayers. Right now, California pays an enormous sum, about $9 billion a year, to fill its prisons to overflowing. Since 1980, the state's spending on higher education has declined by 13 percent, adjusted for inflation, while its spending for corrections has increased by more than 400 percent.

Given the enormity of the task, California and other state governments burdened with huge corrections costs, are going to have to learn how to distinguish social service providers that produce positive outcomes from those that do not. It makes no sense to commit to serious reform, investing in drug treatment and job training, if you select social service agencies that are unable to help former offenders stay out of prison.

For rehabilitation to succeed, California will have to select organizations that can produce verifiable results. Social service agencies will have to use transparent, performance-based data to track their work, and they will have to be held much more accountable for what they do than they are now.

Some nonprofit and for-profit groups will no doubt be put off by such rigorous demands, but others, including mine, The Doe Fund, will welcome them.

For more than 20 years, our Ready, Willing & Able program has been helping former offenders in New York City and Philadelphia to develop skills, find work and become productive citizens. Along with like-minded groups, we are not afraid of having our work measured and judged. We want to know if we are really improving our clients' lives.

With support and guidance, people can lift themselves from unemployment, crime, drug addiction and homelessness. Over the last two decades, thousands of formerly homeless men -- 70 percent of whom are former offenders -- have completed our program; they have found private sector jobs, lived independently and remained sober and drug free.

Reconfiguring California's criminal justice system will require commitment and ambition, and it will be expensive, at least at the outset. But it could produce extraordinary changes and would surely save the state vast amounts in the future. Lowering the recidivism rate would significantly reduce the size of the state prison population, saving hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It would also cut the crime rate.

California will have to apply new rigor in contracting out social services and be willing to experiment with innovative strategies to meet the burden of the Supreme Court's order. But unless it makes a concerted new effort to prepare inmates and parolees for life after prison, the cycle of arrest and re-arrest will surely continue. And California's prisons will continue to overflow.

via The Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harriet-mcdonald/californias-recidivism-pr_b_3267575.html

Bill to distribute condoms in California prisons advances

A bill that would allow condoms to be distributed in California prisons has passed the state Assembly and now moves to the Senate, officials said Thursday. Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, argues that his Prisoner Protections for Family and Community Health Act or AB 999 will help reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS.

While sexual activity among prisoners is deemed illegal, it does occur, Bonta has said. Prisoners who have had unprotected sex may be putting partners and others in the community at risk when they are released from incarceration.

"Sexually transmitted disease is a tragic reality of life in prisons," Bonta said in a statement. "The HIV/AIDS infection rate in prison is 8 to 10 times higher than among the general population. Our state must address this unsettling and sometimes disturbing topic head-on and realize that the long-term benefits to vulnerable communities, and to the budget, are well worth the modest state investment,"

AB 999 included results of a pilot program conducted inside Solano State Prison in 2008 that showed that when condoms are distributed, they are used.

Bonta said the California Department of Health Services estimates the average cost per patient with HIV in the Medi-Cal system is $23,964 per year. The cost to distribute condoms is $1.39 per prisoner to implement.

Condoms already have been available in jails in Los Angeles County.
 Support for the bill includes the AIDS Project Los Angeles, Women Organized to Respond to Life-threatening Diseases, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the California Academy of Preventive Medicine, California Prevention and Education Project, L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety, Allen Temple Health & Social Services Ministries, and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children.
Meanwhile, a bill requiring the use of condoms on adult film production sets across California has stalled in the state Assembly after it was shelved in the Appropriations Committee.

via San Jose Mercury News http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_23357225/bill-distribute-condoms-california-prisons-advances

Gov. Jerry Brown Faces Off with Counties on California Budget

SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Jerry Brown has promised to be blunt when tackling the state's problems, and he had a straightforward message for county officials on Wednesday.

"Give me $300 million and we'll call it a day," he said.

Brown is trying to reduce the amount of money the state sends to counties to fund healthcare for uninsured and poor Californians. He says the counties won't need the funds because more people will be covered by the state and private insurance under the federal healthcare overhaul.

However, county officials have resisted Brown's plan. They say they'll still need the money because up to 4 million Californians will still be uninsured, even after the healthcare changes are fully implemented.

"There isn't $300 million" to give the state, said Matt Cate, executive director of the California State Assn. of Counties. "That's the problem."

Cate said counties are willing to give up some money eventually, but the state should wait and see how the healthcare overhaul works out before making any changes to funding formulas.

In future years, Brown's plan would reduce healthcare funding to counties even more, reaching $1.3 billion in the fiscal year that begins in July 2015. The funding would be reduced by requiring counties to pay for other social services like child care.

The plan is part of the budget being negotiated right now with lawmakers. Brown said he would be meeting with legislative leaders on Wednesday.

Democratic lawmakers are pushing their own budget plan, which relies on a sunnier economic forecast and is almost $2 billion larger than Brown's $96.4-billion proposal.
"I'm not willing to bet on capital gains and Wall Street," Brown said. "We've been disappointed too often."

He wouldn't say whether he would veto the budget if the Legislature approves one larger than he wants.

"We're in an exploratory, quasi-collaborative mode," he said. "I don't think edicts or pronunciamentos would help that process."

via The Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/news/local/political/la-me-pc-jerry-brown-faces-off-with-counties-on-budget-20130529,0,6709013.story

California is Richest, Poorest State

It’s fair to say that California is the richest state in the nation. We have more millionaires than any other state, and mansions dot our coastal bluffs and inland canyons.

But California is also, arguably, the poorest state in the nation. We have more people in poverty — 6.1 million — and more children in poverty than any other state.

Even more ominously, a new measure of poverty shows that California has the highest percentage of its population living below the poverty line.

By the traditional measure, California’s poverty rate is 16.6 percent, 20th in the nation. But the new, supplemental measure released last year by the Census Bureau puts California at the top of the list with a poverty rate of 23.5 percent.

Unlike the official measure, the supplemental poverty measure reflects the cost of living – including housing – in a state and also reflects transfer payments such as food and housing subsidies and tax credits.

By either measure, though, it is clear that California has a lot of poor people, far more than its glittering image would suggest.

Part of this is a reflection of our diversity, and the character of our recent population growth. We are a state of immigrants, and the wave of immigration from Latin America that peaked in the 1990s brought millions of desperately poor people to California.

These immigrants were not just penniless, but many also had little formal education. They had very little capacity to work in any job outside of agriculture and menial labor. They were, largely, stuck at the bottom rung of the economic ladder. Their lives here might have been better than the conditions they left behind, but still they formed a large and stubborn bubble in the state’s poverty numbers.

Immigration also helps explain the regional differences in poverty in California. Immigrants tended to concentrate in counties where agriculture was big and the cost of living was low. A look at the poverty numbers by county shows the contrast.

The counties with the lowest poverty rates (using the traditional measure) are generally those near the coast, places like Marin, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Some foothill counties are also on this list: Placer and El Dorado near Lake Tahoe, and Calaveras County in the Gold Country.

On the other extreme are, for the most part, counties in the Central Valley and other agricultural regions. In Merced County, more than one-quarter of the households have incomes below the poverty line. The situation is similar in Fresno, Kern, Tulare and Imperial counties. In fact, three of the five most impoverished metropolitan areas in the nation are in the Central Valley.

The numbers also show the connection between poverty and family structure. Families headed by a single parent are much more likely to be living in poverty. In the ten counties with the lowest poverty rates, 25 percent of families have a single parent. But in the ten counties with the highest poverty rates, 36 percent of the families are headed by one parent. And in those counties, more than half the families with a single mother are living in poverty.

Education is also correlated with poverty. The counties with the lowest high school drop out rates, like Placer, Calaveras, Marin and El Dorado, also tend to have the lowest poverty rates. And the same is true in reverse: some of the poorest counties, like Kings, San Joaquin, Yuba and Fresno, also have some of the highest rates of high school drop outs. It’s not clear whether failing to complete high school causes poverty or is caused by it, or both, but the two are definitely related.

The good news for California is that second-generation immigrants tend to be better educated than their parents, speak English better, and are less likely to be living in poverty. By the third generation, the gap between the grandchildren of immigrants and other Californians becomes shrinks even further. So with immigration having peaked in the early 1990s, time will slowly make at least a dent in these numbers.

But California still has a long way to go. As the economy improves and the wealthy and middle-income people see their situations improve, the state needs to be careful not to sustain a forgotten underclass.

Especially in the Central Valley, but in pockets of poverty throughout the state, we need a concerted, focused effort to change the things that are correlated with poverty — from high school drop-outs to single parenthood.

That won’t eliminate poverty. But if every child born here at least has an equal chance to join the economic mainstream, that would be a big start.

via Fox & Hounds: Keeping Tabs on California Business & Politics http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2013/05/california-is-richest-poorest-state/

Bill Ensures Paid Family Leave For California Workers

California businesses would be prohibited from firing or retaliating against employees who take advantage of the state’s paid family leave program under a job-protection bill moving through the Legislature.

The legislation would protect workers who use the California Paid Family Leave insurance program, which allows qualified employees to take up to six weeks off with partial pay. Supporters say nearly 37 percent of workers who needed the leave did not apply for the benefit for fear of being fired, angering their employers or hurting their chances at promotion. They cited a 2011 study by the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research based in Washington, D.C.

“This is a right that employees pay into,” said Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, the author of SB761. “So all the bill says is you can’t retaliate for people taking it.”
The leave is part of the State Disability Insurance program, which is funded through employee paycheck deductions.

Employer groups including the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Restaurant Association oppose the bill. It would transform an employee-paid insurance program meant to replace lost wages into a protected leave of absence, a move that increases costs to all employers, especially small businesses, said Jennifer Barrera, a lobbyist for the chamber.

Barrera noted that the state already has existing job-protection laws.
“When you are out on a separate statutory leave of absence or an employer-provided leave of absence, you can access these wage replacement benefits to compensate you if it’s an unpaid leave,” she said. “By itself, it is not an independent right to a leave of absence from work.”
California established the Paid Family Leave program in 2002 as a way to allow parents time to bond with a newborn or newly adopted child, or to care for a seriously ill family member. An estimated 13 million California workers who are covered by the disability insurance program also have some coverage for paid family leave, according to the state’s Employment Development Department.

Generally, an employee will receive 55 percent of his or her wages, and the six weeks of leave does not need to be taken all at once.

Employee advocates say the existing system needs to be expanded because only half of California’s workforce is covered by other job-protection laws, even though almost all private employees in the state contribute to the Paid Family Leave program through the short term disability payments taken out of their paychecks.

“Everyone who pays into the tax is covered by the Paid Family Leave Act, but that act doesn’t contain an anti-retaliation provision,” said Julia Parish, an attorney with the San Francisco-based Employment Law Center, which is sponsoring the bill.

While Family Paid Leave is intended to replace some lost wages, supporters say the program has a hole because not all employees have the same job protections if they want to take it.
Under the separate California Family Rights Act, which mirrors the federal Family Medical Leave Act, people employed by businesses with 50 or more workers can take an unpaid leave of up to 12 weeks if they have to take time off because of a serious medical condition of a family member or to care for a newborn or adopted child. Their jobs are protected for the 12-week duration.

Employees also must meet certain wage and employment requirements.
But small businesses are exempt from that job-protection law, meaning there is no legal requirement that they hold a job for an employee. There also is no guaranteed job protection for a worker at any company of any size under California’s paid family leave program.

According to the state Employment Development Department, 96 percent of California’s 1.4 million businesses had fewer than 50 employees. Those businesses employ roughly 41 percent of all employees, or 6 million out of 14.7 million workers.

Parish said it’s why a majority of the 1,600 calls the Employment Law Center received last year dealing with work and family issues came from people who could not take their paid family leave. She said workers who contribute to the program should have a right to access the benefit.

“We hear from people on almost a daily basis that want to bond with their new baby, but their employer says they can’t. They have to go right back to work,” Parish said. “They have to risk their job if they’re going to take care of them.”

Sabrina Lowell, 30, lost her accounting assistant job at a small office last year. The Vallejo woman took Paid Family Leave last year to care for her three nephews, whom she has since adopted. Lowell said she felt it was important to spend time with the boys, ages 7, 8 and 10. One has autism and another has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

“Time after time, I talked to them about the boys’ transition and how they were behind in school and their behavior needed my attention and support,” she said. “When they told me that they would not approve it, I … felt I didn’t have a choice (but) to take it given their troubles at school and troubles at home. When I did, I lost my job.”

But Barrera, from the state chamber, said DeSaulnier’s bill would create a burden on small businesses. As the bill stands, there is no limit on the amount of compensation an employee can demand in a lawsuit and no minimum length of time the worker will have needed to be employed to qualify for the benefit.

An employer with three employees could have all three workers take a leave at once, she said.

“If I say, my business can’t continue to operate if you’re gone for six weeks, I can file a lawsuit now against you for retaliation or discrimination by denying you that leave,” Barrera said. “It is a huge burden to small businesses.”

If employees of small businesses are concerned about paying into a benefit they cannot access, Barrera said state lawmakers can tweak the law so they are exempt from contributing to the Paid Family Leave insurance program.

DeSaulnier, a former restaurant owner, acknowledged parts of his bill still need work. While he believes there needs to be an enforcement mechanism, DeSaulnier said he recognizes the complication for small-business owners. He suggested the state could impose a fine or establish an appeals process to avoid lawsuits.

The issue is worth exploring because the Paid Family Leave program has been beneficial for working families. Supporters also say businesses benefit by experiencing less turnover.
“I’m not unsympathetic; I don’t want to create a lot of lawsuits, either, that leverages employers,” he said. “But having said all that, this is a balancing act. This is an existing right that employees pay for.”

via Insurance Journal.com http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2013/05/21/292800.htm

Justice reform paying off sooner than expected

When Gov. Nathan Deal prompted the Georgia General Assembly to undertake sentencing reform for the adult criminal justice system (to be followed the next year by juvenile justice reform), he acknowledged that he didn't expect to see any substantial changes for a few years. In terms of the state prison population, that's certainly the case so far. In fact, the state inmate count actually rose slightly from the end of 2010 through last year.

At the county level -- for many offenders, the entry point to the criminal justice system -- it's a different story, the kind of story Deal and the legislature hoped the reforms would tell.
According to a Tuesday report by Walter C. Jones of Morris News Service, the state's overall county inmate population has decreased by almost 10 percent, just in the year since sentences for many nonviolent crimes were reduced.

Even the jails that are crowded beyond their intended capacity are fewer in number -- from 31 in 2010 to just 19 last month.

The sentencing reforms were a post-recession response to a corrections system that had swollen beyond the state's ability to afford it. Years of mandatory minimum sentencing laws, passed by politicians who wanted to look tough on crime and didn't think very long about the consequences, had put more people behind bars than the state could handle.

And the overflow, of course, spilled down to the county jails, where state inmates are often held for years. (In 2010, the report notes, 14 percent of county inmates were awaiting transfer to state prisons; that's down to just 8 percent today.)

Deal's idea, and the whole philosophy behind sentencing reform for adults and juveniles alike, was to divert those convicted of less serious crimes to local supervision, especially in the case of drug- and alcohol-related offenses, and spend that money on treatment rather than incarceration.

In many cases, alternative sentencing is a judgment call. Rep. Jay Neal, R-LaFayette, who chairs the House State Properties Committee, was quoted in the Morris report as saying the evaluation of offenders before sentencing is a key to success of the program: "When you're able to match the sentence with the offender, you're going to get better outcomes."

The long-term outcomes will be measurable not just in jail and prison populations and their effects on budget lines, but also in overall crime and recidivism rates. The first obligation of criminal justice is public safety, and sentencing overhaul is not really reform if its prevention and/or deterrent value doesn't eventually work its way to street level.

That said, these earlier-than-expected returns suggest common-sense corrections to our corrections system were long overdue. What a shame that it always seems to take an economic crash or some other crisis to get us there. 

via Ledger-enquirer.com

Southern California wildfires raise concerns for community safety

May 5, 2013 – The recent Springs Fire in Ventura County near Malibu, on the Pacific Coast, highlights the threats to homes and property from wildfire in communities across California. Driven by windy, dry conditions, the fire has burned close to 8,000 acres and many homes and commercial properties remain under threat.

East of Los Angeles, the Summit Fire near the towns of Banning and Beaumont, has burned nearly 3,000 acres, while other areas across the state continue to experience red-flag warnings. In 2012, California experienced nearly 8,000 fires that scorched more than 800,000 acres, but California officials warn a more difficult fire season is ahead and predict the number of fires in the state should increase this year.

Many local residents, however, have already taken steps to reduce their wildfire risk. Using proven principles for wildfire safety, 61 communities in California have participated for several years in the national Firewise Communities/USA® Recognition Program, which emphasizes community involvement and helps residents learn how to do their part to keep their homes and property safer from wildfire.

Participating Firewise communities near Los Angeles include Beverly Hills and Carbon Canyon in Chino Hills. Two communities, East Orange County Canyons in Silverado and the Foothill Communities Association in Santa Ana, closest to the Summit Fire, became official Firewise sites in 2012. A list of all California Firewise-recognized sites can be found on the Firewise website.

Wildfire doesn’t have to burn everything in its path. In fact, cleaning your property of debris and maintaining your landscaping are important first steps. Below are actions residents can take to reduce the risk of homes and property becoming fuel for a wildfire:

• Clear leaves and other debris from gutters, eaves, porches and decks. This prevents embers from igniting your home.
• Keep lawns hydrated and maintained. Dry grass and shrubs are fuel for wildfire.
• Remove flammable materials within 3-5 feet of the home’s foundation and outbuildings, including garages and sheds. If it can catch fire, don’t let it touch the house, deck or porch.
• Limit vegetation surrounding the home’s perimeter, at least 30-100 feet, depending on the area’s wildfire risk. The Firewise Guide to Landscaping can help distinguish the best vegetation based on distance to the home or structure. Firewise landscaping and plants list are also available on the Firewise website.

A comprehensive Firewise tips checklist for homeowners is available.
Those interested in making a lasting change to their home can consider a Firewise construction approach, which means building with less-flammable materials for homes, decks, porches and fences. This includes using Class-A roofing materials such as asphalt shingles and metal, cement and concrete products. Double-paned or tempered glass windows also make a home more resistant to heat and flames.

Learn more about how to keep families safe and reduce homeowners’ risk for wildfire damage at www.Firewise.org. Additionally, complimentary brochures, booklets, pamphlets, videos and much more can be found on the information and resources page of the website and ordered online through NFPA’s online wildfire safety catalog.

About FirewiseThe Firewise Communities Program encourages local solutions for safety by involving homeowners in taking individual responsibility for preparing their homes from the risk of wildfire. Firewise is one element of the Fire Adapted Communities initiative – a national effort that engages homeowners, firefighters, civic leaders and land managers to reduce wildfire risk in communities throughout the United States. The Firewise Communities Program and Fire Adapted Communities are sponsored by the National Fire Protection Association and USDA Forest Service.

About the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
NFPA is a worldwide leader in fire, electrical, building, and life safety. The mission of the international nonprofit organization founded in 1896 is to reduce the worldwide burden of fire and other hazards on the quality of life by providing and advocating consensus codes and standards, research, training, and education. NFPA develops more than 300 codes and standards to minimize the possibility and effects of fire and other hazards. All NFPA codes and standards can be viewed at no cost at www.nfpa.org/freeaccess.

via Firerescue1.com

Jerry Brown Prepares to Do Battle for His California Education Budget

 

For some time, California's budget woes brought to mind a jalopy barely coughing along on a quarter-tank of highly dubious grain alcohol. But thanks to the passage of Proposition 30 last year that lead to broad tax increases earmarked largely for K-12, the prospects have improved, at least from a revenue perspective. And Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, pledged not long after the measure's passage that he would actually simplify things, while also providing a bigger share of funding to districts with the highest proportion of English-language learners and low-income students. In addition, revenues from personal income taxes this year are also ahead of projections, further helping the budget outlook.

The newest budget plan from Brown includes $1 billion in additional spending on K-12 from fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2014, thanks to the infusion of Proposition 30 money that helps the fiscal 2013 budget in mid-stream to the tune of $2.9 billion, although the minimum guarantee for state K-12 aid is projected to drop from that level for fiscal 2014.

The Associated Press has examined how Brown's plan for K-12 breaks down. Total education spending would increase by $1,046 per student, and the base per-student funding level is $7,895 in the governor's 2013-14 budget plan. But the real controversy comes with Brown's weighted-funding formula. As part of his initiative to streamline the state's education-funding system, Brown wants to ensure that districts with a higher share of ELLs, low-income students, and students in foster care get a greater share of money. That would mean $1.9 billion in education spending specifically directed at those students under the new formula, or about 4 cents more out of every education dollar. Those numbers, by the way, were released on May 14, and are a revised version of the initial budget plan Brown released in January. Lawmakers have to pass a spending plan by June 15.

In Brown's new budget plan, there's a breakdown of how exactly the money would flow to districts through the new Local Control Funding Formula. (You'll find the breakdown on page 16 at the link.) In addition to the base grant per student, each district would receive a supplemental grant, based on the percentage of ELL, low-income, and foster children. But districts with a share of those students that tops 50 percent would get an extra boost in education spending through a second formula.
In the example used, a hypothetical California district with 41.9 percent of ELL, low-income, and foster students would have a final per-pupil spending amount of $9,053, while a district consisting entirely of students who fall into those categories would have $12,040 available per student. In an initial review of the January version of this formula, the California Legislative Analyst's Office pointed out that nothing in Brown's plan mandates that the supplemental cash actually go to supplemental services for the targeted students. Brown has reportedly tightened accountability for the supplemental money to try to ensure that it gets spent on the students in question.

Brown's plan also includes $1 billion in funding to implement the Common Core State Standards that districts can spend over the next two years. As John Fensterwald at EdSource notes, the chairmen of the Assembly and Senate education committees lobbied Brown to earmark funds for phasing in the new standards.

It's also worth pointing out that while Brown's budget plan includes an increase in K-12 spending, he said he was taking a cautious approach to spending in other respects, and his revised plan for all spending is $1.2 billion less than the one he put forward in January.
But as AP notes, legislators aren't entirely satisfied with what Brown has put out. As you might imagine, the feeling from some relatively wealthy (or at least middle-class) districts is that the formula won't be particularly fair to them. "The local control funding formula is an interesting problem because it's not really a partisan issue. It's more of a geographic issue," Assemblyman Jeff Gorell, a Republican who serves as vice chair of the Assembly Budget Committee, told the AP. And whether by coincidence or not, the government affairs director for the Chamber of Commerce in Gorell's district in Camarillo, Sean Paroski, also tweeted this on May 14: "W/new formula, $1 of $5 will go to English-learner or low-income students. What do suburban schools think of Prop 30 support now?"

Prominent Democrats, like Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, also say they have reservations about how Brown's plan would work, even if they like the general idea, as Fensterwald points out. So Brown has multiple fights on his hands as he presses forward with his plan, and indeed he appears to be approaching them pugilistically, saying that foes of his budget will be in for "the battle of their lives".

via Edweek.org

California's Budget Ills Could Be Cured With Repeal Of Prop. 13

It has been 35 years since California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 13, a measure that, as Gov. Jerry Brown put it in 2011, "started the centralization of power" in the state. He should know because he was also governor in 1978 and helped oversee that shift.

At the time, Californians were enraged that their inflation-fueled home values were accompanied by rising local property taxes. The referendum limited those taxes to 1% of their property's value.

Advocates of Proposition 13 claimed it would limit government spending. They were wrong. Prop 13 simply shifted revenue collection from localities — which rely on property taxes — to Sacramento, the state capital.

Taxation moved from relatively stable property taxes to erratic income taxes and regressive sales levies. By moving to income taxes that treat capital gains as ordinary income, California raises much of its revenue from a boom-or-bust system.

That's why state revenue is rising today as the stock market reaches new highs, just as revenue rose alongside robust markets in 1999 and 2007, allowing Govs. Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger to proclaim the budget balanced, just as Brown can now.

When stocks fell, however, revenue tanked. When California's economy shrank by 2.8% in 2009, revenue contracted by 10 times as much because of the larger decline in stock markets.

Those temporarily balanced budgets were followed by years of deficits and tax increases. In the absence of reform, that will inevitably happen time and time again.

The state also moved to rely more on sales taxes on goods, raising the rate by more than 60% since 1970. In parts of California, the sales-tax rate on goods exceeds 9%. This system is inherently regressive, because low-income people spend a much larger share of their incomes than wealthy people do on the consumption of taxable goods.

There is a solution. The California Legislature and Brown could adopt a sweeping tax-reform measure combined with a request to voters to repeal Proposition 13 (only the electorate has that power).

Legislators already have two tax-reform models in front of them, one from the Commission on the 21st Century Economy, and the other by the Think Long Committee for California. To varying degrees, they reduce sales- and income-tax rates, and they impose sales taxes on services and severance levies on oil and gas.

Yet neither would do anything about repealing Prop 13. That leaves untouched a significant source of stable revenue and fails to tax real estate, California's biggest industry, which, because of the state's climate and other advantages, would still attract capital, even with higher property taxes.

It's crazy to tax incomes and goods that can move to other states but be barred from raising levies on real estate and resources such as oil that can't be moved. Accordingly, no California reform would be complete without enacting a severance tax and getting rid of Proposition 13.

Repealing it might seem politically impossible. Homeowners worried about higher property taxes would have to be guaranteed a long phase-in period, low increases and meaningful cuts in sales- and income-tax rates.

Governments would first need to reduce pension and health-care liabilities because, if not, most of the new revenue raised from lifting Prop 13 would go to retired employees, instead of to current services. Of course, there would be opposition from oil and gas companies, commercial-property owners and government employees.

Overcoming their opposition would require a great politician. No one would play that role better than Brown. He has high approval ratings, and he knows he won't solve the state's core budget issues — or fulfill his dreams for high-speed rail and other legacy-building projects — unless he addresses the tax system, pensions and health care. If he seeks and wins re-election in 2014, what else could be more important?

Brown has started to move government closer to the people by devolving some functions from the state to local governments. Now he needs to devolve revenue generation as well. That would move more power to local governments and school districts.

I worry that Brown wants to run for president before the next California budget crisis rears its ugly head. Yet who else can take responsibility for creating a sustainable revenue system and establishing effective government in California?

• Crane, a former financial-services executive, is president of Govern for California, a nonpartisan government-reform group. He was an economic adviser to Gov. Schwarzenegger from 2004 to 2011. 

via: investors.com

Health Care Reforms Penalize Some Native Americans

SAN FRANCISCO — When Liz DeRouen needs any kind of health care services, from diabetes counseling to a dental cleaning, she checks into a government-funded clinic in Northern California's wine country that covers all her medical needs.

Her care and the medical services for her children and grandchildren are paid for as part of the government's treaty obligations to American Indian tribes dating back nearly a century. But under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, DeRouen and tens of thousands of others who identify as Native American will face a new reality.
They will have to buy their own health insurance policies or pay a $695 fine from the Internal Revenue Service unless they can prove that they are "Indian enough" to claim one of the few exemptions allowed under the Affordable Care Act's mandate that all Americans carry insurance.

"I'm no less Indian than I was yesterday, and just because the definition of who is Indian got changed in the law doesn't mean that it's fair for people to be penalized," said DeRouen, a former tribal administrator for the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians who lost her membership amid a leadership dispute in 2009. "If I suddenly have to pay for my own health insurance to avoid the fine, I won't be able to afford it."
The Affordable Care Act takes a narrow view of who is considered American Indian and can avoid the tax penalty, which will reach a minimum of $695 when fully phased in. It limits the definition to those who can document their membership in one of about 560 tribes recognized by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Yet more than 100 tribes nationwide are recognized only by states and not the federal government. Many tribes do not allow their members to enroll before they are 18, meaning some school-age children whose parents are American Indian might not be considered "Indian" under the definition in the act.

Other tribal governments have complicated blood-quantum requirements or rules that all members must live on the reservation, even though nearly two-thirds of American Indians and Alaska Natives now live in metropolitan areas, partly a legacy of federal relocation and adoption programs.

The definition of Indian in the Affordable Care Act is roiling emotions on reservations and in native enclaves across the country, but U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman Erin Shields said the agency is powerless to change it without an act of Congress.

The problem is so new that the federal government is still seeking to establish how many people might be affected, although Indian health advocacy groups estimate it could be up to 480,000.

In California alone, about 21,000 people who currently receive free health care through Indian clinics are not recognized as Native American by the federal government and would have to pay the penalty, according to the nonprofit California Rural Indian Health Board.
"We have and will continue to encourage a robust dialogue with American Indian and Alaska Native communities about this matter, and welcome their input and ideas for solutions," Shields said in a statement to The Associated Press. "Under the law, it would require a legislative rather than regulatory change to address this matter. And as we consider approaches to the best possible solution, we are eager to work with Congress."
The IRS is working with the definition but has not yet decided how the agency will verify who qualifies as Indian or assess the penalty on tax returns, agency spokesman Eric Smith said. The IRS and U.S. Treasury have scheduled a May 29 public hearing on their proposed rules establishing who qualifies for an exemption from the insurance coverage requirement.
Republican Rep. Tom Cole, a member of the Chickasaw Nation in Oklahoma and one of just two federal legislators who are members of a federally recognized tribe, said he was aware of the concerns and would ensure that care for native people was not compromised as the health overhaul rolls out. He declined to comment about whether he would sponsor a bill to address the issue.

"This could lead to some tribal citizens being required to purchase insurance or face penalties even though they are covered by IHS," he said in a statement to The Associated Press, referring to the federal Indian Health Service. "I am watching the situation closely to ensure that those individuals already benefiting from care through IHS continue to receive it."

The 2010 Census found that nearly one-third of the 6.2 million people who self-identify as American Indian or Alaska Native lack health insurance and that 28 percent live in poverty.
The Indian Health Service, a division of U.S. Health and Human Services, oversees a network of clinics that are required to serve all patients of Indian ancestry, even if they cannot document their federal tribal status.

One of those is the clinic in Santa Rosa, north of San Francisco, where DeRouen, 49, has been seen since she was a little girl. Molin Malicay, who directs the Sonoma County Indian Health Project, estimates DeRouen is among roughly 2,000 of his patients who would face the penalty.

"In the clinics in Central and Northern California, we see many of us Indians who are not considered Indians in the eyes of the federal government because the government itself terminated their tribes," Malicay said. "We're trying to get some of these people covered for care under Medicaid, but there is still so much confusion in the pamphlets and videos about who is Indian (that) it makes it hard to give advice."

Several members of the main tribal advisory group to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said in a recent conference call with the agency that the definition contained in the Affordable Care Act raises concerns that the U.S. could renege on its obligation to provide all people of Indian ancestry with free health care. Budget cuts already are set to reduce basic federal health programs for Indians by up to 8 percent.
Some tribal elders who favor tighter restrictions on who gets to identify as Native American see it another way.

Mychal Eaglefeathers, a 34-year-old member of the Northern Cheyenne Nation in southeastern Montana, said several elders he spoke with believe that allowing only members of federally recognized tribes to avoid the individual insurance mandate was a positive step, especially as the already strapped Indian Health Service clinics are forced to slash services.
"Especially the elders I've talked to say as long as you're recognized, fine. But if you're not federally recognized, people shouldn't get nothing," he said.

Valerie Davidson, a senior director at the Anchorage-based Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, estimates that about one-third of the 140,000 Alaska Native population would have to pay the health care penalty. That includes her nieces and nephews from the largely Yup'ik Eskimo region, comprised of tiny villages only accessible by plane or boat.
She raises the possibility that native people would have to get extra documentation to prove they qualify. People have historically been able to use their federal tribal blood-quantum cards to get IHS health services, but that alone is no longer enough to qualify for the tax exemption under the Affordable Care Act, she said.

In addition, many Alaska Natives who were born after December 1971 are prohibited from enrolling in their families' tribal corporations, even if all four grandparents are Alaska Native, she added.

"Are America's first people really being forced yet again to prove our Indian-ness?" she said through tears on a recent conference call with federal agencies. "Every single day in our own communities we have to fight to demonstrate that we are still here, that we do still exist. We should be believed that what your parents and grandparents say you are, you are.

"via huffington post

Bill would bring sunshine to California health-care reform

BY MICHAEL R. BLOOD/ASSOCIATED PRESS

LOS ANGELES -- Two lawmakers are pushing legislation to strip broad secrecy provisions from the state agency overseeing health-care reforms in California that could shield from the public how hundreds of millions of dollars are spent, officials said Monday.

The bill by Republican Sen. Bill Emmerson and Democratic Sen. Mark DeSaulnier was introduced in the state Senate less than two weeks after The Associated Press reported the degree of privacy granted Covered California appears unique among states attempting to establish their own health insurance exchanges under President Barack Obama's signature law.

"It should all be transparent," Emmerson said in an interview. The California agency was given authority "to do things no one else could do. There was no sunlight on it."

An AP review of the 16 other states that opted for state-run marketplaces found the California agency was given powers that are the most restrictive in what information is required to be made public, and that explicit exclusions from open-records laws might run afoul of the state constitution.

The bipartisan bill, if passed in the Legislature, would take effect immediately "in order to ensure that public resources are managed efficiently," according to the text. Only narrower, temporary exemptions would be allowed, consistent with long-standing state law.

In August 2010, when California was sprinting to become the first state to embrace the most extensive health care changes since Medicare, state lawmakers gave the new agency the authority to keep all contracts private for a year and the amounts paid secret indefinitely.

According to agency documents, Covered California plans to spend nearly $458 million on outside vendors by the end of 2014, covering lawyers, consultants, public relations advisers and other functions.

By reversing the law, the bill, SB 332, would make public meeting minutes and records that reveal recommendations, research or strategy of the board or its staff, or those that provide instructions, advice or training to employees.

The indefinite ban on releasing rates of pay to companies and individuals receiving contracts would be scrapped. That provision goes beyond exemptions for other state health programs, such as Healthy Families, which withholds rates of pay from disclosure for up to several years, but not permanently.

The new law would mirror Healthy Families, providing a one-year delay in release of contracts only with large health plans and a three-year delay for rates of pay with only those firms, which are intended to promote fair competition.

However, those contracts would be open for inspection -- at any time -- by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee.

All other contracts would be pulled under state open-records laws, rather than exempted from them.

It's routine in government to keep bids secret until contracts are awarded, so one vendor does not get an unfair advantage over others. After a bid is awarded, contracts generally become fully public.

"I am proud that California was the first in the nation to establish a health care exchange, but we should also be taking the lead in promoting transparency and accountability," DeSaulnier said in a statement. "An open process will only benefit the implementation of the" health overhaul.

Currently, it's not clear how many contracts the agency has executed, for how much or with whom.

In Massachusetts, the state that served as the model for Obama's health overhaul, the Health Connector program is specifically covered by open-records laws. The same is true in Idaho, where its exchange was established as a private, nonprofit corporation, and in New Mexico.

The Maryland Legislature subjected its exchange to the state's public information act, but protected some types of commercial and financial information.

via TheReporter.com

Gov. Jerry Brown's California budget includes major infusion for education

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Gov. Jerry Brown’s latest budget proposes a $17 billion infusion for California’s K-12 schools over the next four years, a dramatic turn-around after years of teacher layoffs and program cuts that were common during the recession.

He also wants to reshape the financial decision-making process by giving local districts more authority to spend state money as they choose. The question now is whether all the additional money and the freedom to decide how to spend it will be enough to restore the luster of California’s once-renowned public school system.

The budget released by the Democratic governor this week would boost K-12 spending in the current school year by $2.8 billion, including $1 billion to implement an overhaul of the state’s standards for English and math. That money, in particular, is encouraging to school advocates and teachers’ groups that stand to benefit as districts invest in professional training, technology and instructional materials.

“The proposals that are included in the budget are really game-changers,” said Arun Ramanathan, executive director of The Education Trust-West, which advocates for poor and minority children.

As important as the additional funding is the governor’s proposal to move much of the decision-making about how the money is spent away from Sacramento to the local level, where the administration believes officials are better able to decide their own needs.

“Each district … is supposed to come up with a plan on how they’re going to spend these dollars,” Ramanathan said. “And the plan has to have goals and targets. Parents are going to have under the proposal a big voice in that process, both in the committee level and at the district level.”

Students First, an education reform group headed by former Washington, D.C., schools superintendent Michelle Rhee, has pushed for states to make more information available about how school money is spent. Without transparency, it’s impossible to gauge whether the state spending is sufficient to properly educate California children, said Rebecca Sibilia, the group’s chief financial officer.

“We have to also ask, ‘Are we giving enough money in ways that districts can use it,’ because otherwise the money means nothing,” Sibilia said. “Parents should start to ask school district administrators what they’re spending the money on, how much of the money is going to the classroom. … It’s incumbent upon the district administrators to use the money in a way that benefits kids.”

Brown still has a fight on his hands over how best to distribute some of the extra money to the neediest children. Supplemental money will go to districts with students who are low-income, English-learners or foster children, and Brown wants to send even more to districts where more than half the students fall into one of those categories.

The governor and some education advocates say that funding formula is essential to equalizing the state’s education system and boosting achievement for the 6.2 million public school students, more than half of whom are poor, according to state guidelines. English is not the primary language for nearly a quarter of the students.

“Most of the school districts, even those that aren’t getting as much money, like the flexibility. That’s the feedback I’m getting from my district,” said state Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar. “It’s different in different areas of the state, but all in all, I think the governor is on the right track to give more local control.”

Lawmakers in both parties who represent more affluent and suburban areas are pushing back against Brown’s proposed formula.

Among them is Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. On Tuesday, he released a list of 405 California schools that he said would not stand to gain as much money as others under the governor’s plan.

“Those kids matter, too. Their civil rights matter too,” Steinberg said in a meeting with reporters.

Brown’s budget would push per-pupil funding in California to an average of $8,475 for the remainder of the current school year. Although the funding would dip slightly in the coming school year, it is expected to rise to $9,929 for the school year that starts in 2016.

The governor’s office said schools would return to their peak funding year, 2007-08, by the 2015-16 school year if current projections hold, but there are disagreements over the exact calculation.

Some education experts say even that level of funding would not be enough to fix some endemic problems in California schools.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, a Democrat, said a comprehensive state report completed in 2007 found that the public school system needed another $15 billion to $20 billion to get back to its revered status of the 1970s — and that was before the state cut about $20 billion from schools over the last five years.

He noted that other social service cuts made during the recession have affected poor children, who then come into California schools less prepared than in the past. As an example, he cited a $1 billion cut to the state’s preschool program.

———

Associated Press writer Don Thompson contributed to this report.

Via rgj.com

Breaking News - How the May Revise Affects the Criminal Justice Budget

via Criminal Justice Information Network

In the Governor's January budget, the budget proposed total funding of $9 Billion ($8.7 billion General Fund and  $252 million other funds) for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) for 2013-2014.

After the May revise, released just minutes ago, the budget for Corrections and Rehabilitation is now $9.1 Billion ($8.8 billion General Fund and  $252 million other funds) for CDCR.

Significant adjustments in the May Revise:

• Additional tools to assist counties in managing long-term offenders
• California Community Corrections Performance Incentive Act (SB 678) - increases funds for allocation to county probation departments that demonstrates success in reducing the number of adult felony probationers from going to prison
• Expands fire camp capacity reflecting 3,800 state prison inmates participating in fire camps
• Drug interdiction program - increase in general fund to reduce the prevalence of drugs in prison by implementing other state's best practices
• Health Care reorganization to support the transition of inmate health care back to the state
• Adult population adjustment -  more money allocated from the General Fund to reflect the increase in the average daily populations for adult inmates

Juvenile population reduction - slight decrease of funds for juvenile population adjustment