As Healthy Families Deficit Rises, Tax Pressure Rises With It

The Healthy Families program has run out of money, according to state health officials. The deficit currently stands at almost $100 million and will keep rising every month, accordding to Janette Casillas, executive director of the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board, which oversees Healthy Families.

Gov. Jerry Brown's administration is pursuing two ideas for refilling the coffers: reinstitution of a recently expired tax on managed care organizations and an appropriation bill if the MCO tax isn't revived.

"The Healthy Families Program budget shortfall [is currently estimated] at $33 million general fund," Casillas said. That figure does not include $15 million the state has used from the general fund to help make Healthy Families ends meet, Casillas said. The sum of those two figures -- $48 million -- represents half of what the state is missing. California's share of Healthy Families funding is matched by the federal government so the state is almost $100 million short.

That amount -- reflecting a shortfall of less than two months -- will increase, Casillas said.
Health plans serving Healthy Families need to wait for payment until the deficiency is resolved, said Diana Dooley, state Secretary of Health and Human Services.

"We have a deficiency process every year," Dooley said. "They will be paid, as happens whenever there's a deficiency. Ultimately, they will be paid."

Healthy Families, California's Children's Health Insurance Program, serves 860,000 children. The state is shifting beneficiaries from Healthy Families to Medi-Cal managed care plans and eventually intends to eliminate Healthy Families. The deficit does not affect the transition or the program's beneficiaries.

Since 2009, the Healthy Families program has relied on some of its funding from the MCO tax, which expired despite the Brown administration's effort last year to reinstitute it.
"It has to do with a failure to extend the MCO tax," Dooley said. "So now there will be a deficiency that will be met through the deficiency process."

That could be a sticky process because of the complexity of reinstituting the MCO tax.
Numerical, Political Hurdles in Reinstating Tax reinstating a managed care tax requires a two-thirds vote in the Legislature, which will require Republican support if the governor can't line up every Democratic vote in the supermajority Legislature. Ironically, Republican lawmakers four years ago were fully behind the MCO tax to support Healthy Families, but support has eroded because the state is phasing out the program.

A tax on managed care companies still could pass -- assuming it has the support of the health plans -- but there seems to be some political arm-wrestling in Sacramento over how the money from that tax would be spent.

Patrick Johnston, president and CEO of the California Association of Health Plans, said insurers could support reinstating the MCO tax, but he hoped it would augment coverage and not just go into the existing Medi-Cal fund.

"The state owes the plans, and we expect the plans will be paid for covering children in Healthy Families," Johnston said.

"The state has a cash flow problem, and we expect the state to resolve it and that the plans will get paid. I mean, it's clearly not a dispute about the plans being owed," he said. "So now the state has the option of internal borrowing or seeking a supplemental appropriation."
Internal borrowing is an unlikely fix, Casillas said.

"We would refer to this as a need for a supplemental appropriation," Casillas said. "Borrowing internally was not an option for us, although that was explored. Collectively, we had explored the possibilities or options, given that the MCO tax expired and was not reinstituted. It is apparent we will need a supplemental appropriation, where a bill goes to the Legislature and asks for X amount of money."

Casillas pointed out that MRMIB is stuck in an unusual position because the state's budget relies on an extension of the MCO tax, but those dollars aren't coming into Healthy Families. Basically, part of the Healthy Families budget is funded with money that doesn't exist, once the MCO tax expired.

Measuring the shortfall is made more complicated by the transition of children from Healthy Families to Medi-Cal managed care plans. Enrollment will decline every month, so the monthly additional deficiency must be determined based on changing numbers of enrollees.
"It's very odd that I find myself -- that the program finds itself -- in this position," Casillas said. "We will have to figure out each month and see how that deficiency is growing, even though it's growing off a declining enrollment base."

Health Plans Can Wait Johnston said health plans will wait for the state to resolve its deficiency.

"Just like with anyone else, timely payment is better than late payment," he said. "But the health plans have contracts with the state to provide services, and we'll count on the state honoring its obligation to pay according to the contracts. What the state does internally to manage its cash flow is its problem."

Johnston likened it to selling a car, where the seller doesn't ask how the buyer is going to come up with payment. "Whether you get it from checking or savings is your decision-making process. My expectation is that you'll make the payment. I mean, you don't turn to me and say, 'How do you think I should get the money?'"

The real question is whether the governor can muster the political capital to reinstitute the MCO tax. When the Healthy Families program was in financial trouble in 2009 and was about to restrict enrollment, the health plans were the ones that came up with the idea of the MCO tax, Casillas said.

The state likely needs health plan support to make the reinstatement of the MCO tax palatable to Republicans. However, the health plans association has ideas about how the money should be spent that may differ from the Brown administration's.

All of that makes a bit of a political minefield, so Johnston paused from the discussion, to carefully consider his words.

"We will await further guidance," he finally said.

Health Plan Backing According to Johnston, health plans would support reinstatement of the MCO tax as long as it all doesn't go in the general Medi-Cal pot, but is spent at least in part on beefing up services for seniors and the disabled.

"We would consider a renewal of the MCO tax to supplement the Medi-Cal program and contribute to its long-term integrity," Johnston said. "Medi-Cal is underfunded in many areas, including seniors and persons with disabilities, so a tax on Medi-Cal plans that would draw down federal funds should use the money to supplement and not supplant existing funding.
"
Although the Brown administration has not said publicly where it wants the MCO money to go, Johnston said the state is considering putting all the money from the MCO tax into the general Medi-Cal fund and he doesn't think that's right.

"A tax on Medi-Cal plans must meet the task of being used for Medi-Cal programs, and we think this added money should augment existing funds to fund particular areas that have struggled, most recently the transfer of elderly and frail beneficiaries to Medi-Cal managed care programs will need additional support," Johnston said.

"Health plans have not opposed the MCO tax, but where the money goes always matters," he said. "We would hope that our voice would matter."
The deadline for resolving the issue is June 15, assuming the budget is passed on time.

California GOP sees role to protect education funds

What's a marginalized minority party to do?

It's a key question for Republican lawmakers staring down a newly enshrined Democratic supermajority. Part of the answer so far seems to be a renewed emphasis on higher education.

Both Sen. Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres, and Assemblyman Jeff Gorell, R-Camarillo, have introduced a pair of bills that would freeze tuition at the University of California andCalifornia State University for the seven-year duration of the higher tax rates mandated by Proposition 30.

Since voters approved the tax measure last fall, the authors say they have a role to play in ensuring that an influx of new money from Proposition 30 is exclusively used for education. They say failing to do so would betray voters to whom the initiative was sold as a vehicle for averting more education cuts.

"A lot of people made a lot of implied promises to college students that everything would be OK if Prop. 30 passes," Cannella said. "If anyone thinks the state of California will just keep that money in a bank account," he added, "it's just not going to happen."

Democrats are more skeptical of Republican lawmakers' motives, given that they resisted putting such a measure on the ballot in the first place. Had it failed to pass, resulting cuts in higher education would likely have spurred a tuition hike.

"They're in a situation where they have been fundamentally irrelevant to most of the public policy discussions in Sacramento for quite a while now, and their first step to have some credibility is to say something in the public policy debate," said Democratic strategist Bill Carrick. "So what they've done, obviously, is say, well, people care about education, let's get out front on this."

The fact that Republicans went from opposing Proposition 30 to casting themselves as responsible stewards of the money it raised is a move born more of expedience than of principle, said Steve Maviglio, a Sacramento political consultant who worked for two Democratic Assembly speakers. He called the emphasis on higher education "a post-election gimmick."

"It's like they woke up the day after the election and decided they have a commitment to education," he said.

The focus on higher education was evident in GOP responses to Gov. Jerry Brown's budget proposal last month, which Brown trumpeted as a testament to the new-found fiscal stability Proposition 30 is set to provide.

While many Republican lawmakers praised Brown's budget, they also exhorted Brown and Democrats to ensure that the influx of new funding goes to schools.

In a written response to the budget, Republican Connie Conway, R-Tulare, called the tuition freeze bills an effort to "ensure that this revenue goes to boost higher education funding and prevent tuition and fee increases at our public colleges and universities, just as the voters intended."

In a follow-up interview, Conway affirmed that "we see our role as a watchdog."

"I believe that promises made should be promises kept, so if you're out there telling people 'if you vote for this to raise taxes then it's going to go to education,' then it should," Conway said.

Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Marysville, has also introduced a pair of higher education bills. They would create pilot programs enabling students to obtain a degree for $10,000 and $20,000, respectively, an effort to hold down ballooning tuition costs.

"We're pricing kids out of a good education, especially the middle class," Logue said.

Democrats campaigned heavily for Proposition 30 on college campuses, mobilizing student voters by saying the ballot measure would prevent a tuition hike.

Logue is also promoting his measures to the young voter bloc, which had some of the highest turnout rates of any age group in California during the November elections.

In a recent press release, he said students have "some of the most powerful voices when it comes to getting involved in government" and called his bills "the beginning of a revolution to the very pressing issue of the rising costs of education."

The 2012-13 budget promised the University of California and California State University $125 million each in 2013-14 if Proposition 30 passed, and the schools agreed to hold tuition steady for 2012-13. Dianne Klein, a spokeswoman for the University of California, said the funding levels in Brown's budget should be enough to prevent a tuition bump this year.

Pushing to ensure that remains the case is one way for Republicans to exert influence when they otherwise have little room to maneuver, said Aaron McLear, political consultant and former press secretary to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"They have limited leverage, no question about it," McLear said. "So I think they're using what power they have to try and effect change in the state instead of just curling up and moaning about being in the superminority."

Cannella did not publicly take a position on Proposition 30. But now that the voters have spoken, Cannella said, "the equation has changed." New revenues are coming, and that presents a chance for Republicans to make the most of their diminished status.

"On a political landscape in which support for education is measured predominantly by the amount of money you're willing to spend, Republicans don't get many opportunities to play the education issue to their advantage," said Dan Schnur, director of the University of Southern California's Unruh Institute of Politics. "By arguing about how the Prop. 30 money is going to be spent, they get a chance to look like the big guys."

via The Sacramento Bee

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/03/5161070/minority-california-republicans.html#storylink=cpy

California farmers eager for immigration reform

At Chandler Farms, just outside of Selma in the San Joaquin Valley, about three dozen workers are needed each season to pick acres of delicate peaches, plums, nectarines and citrus.

In recent years, however, owners Carol and Bill Chandler have struggled to find laborers as immigration from Mexicohas slowed to a near standstill.

"When the crops are ripe, we need a reliable labor force," she said. "That's what we're worried about going forward."

The Chandlers are among the state's farmers who welcomed a move this week by Congress to make immigration reform a legislative priority this year.

But the promised changes may not be enough to solve their chronic labor problems, which have been exacerbated by deportations, a stronger Mexican economy and, in good times, the lure of construction jobs.

On Monday, a group of Republican and Democratic senators unveiled a blueprint that aims to grant legal status to an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country.

President Obama also joined the fray Tuesday, urging Congress to move legislation along quickly this year.

Immigration reform has been a rallying cry among farm groups in California and around the country for years.

According to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, roughly half of all hired crop farmworkers are in the country illegally. Of all workers, 7 of 10 are from Mexico, a country that has provided a steady supply of farm laborers to California since the middle of the last century.

With immigration reform back on the table this year, California farm groups are fiercely lobbying to make sure proposed legislation includes provisions for their workers.

There have been false starts in the past, including efforts by former President George W. Bush, who sought to create a guest worker program and overhaul immigration laws during his administration.

But the latest push to tackle the highly politicized issue is "one of the best signs we've seen in a long time," said Ken Barbic, senior director of government affairs for Western Growers in Irvine, a trade group that represents farmers in California and Arizona.

If Congress passes legislation, "the folks who are currently working here with false documents, it takes them out of the shadows," Barbic said.

Barbic added that immigration reform would remove legal liabilities for employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Diego Olagaray, 51, who grows 750 acres of wine grapes in Lodi, just north of Stockton, said that granting legal status to the state's agricultural workers ensures that both farm hands and employers would be able to breathe a little easier.

"Some of these workers go back to Mexico on a regular basis," Olagaray said. When they travel, "they're fearful of something happening to them. With amnesty, it'll make them feel more comfortable. They'll also feel that they're part of society.… And it will make it easier for employers as well."

Olagaray said that if immigration isn't resolved soon, labor shortages will become more pronounced. Last spring, he said he had trouble filling his usual crew to work on his vineyard, and other growers saw ripe crops languish in the fields.

Still, any policy effort may do little to solve the labor shortage for California farmers, said Edward Taylor, a professor of agriculture and resource economics at UC Davis.

Such shortages predate the recession. During boom times, contractors persuaded many workers in the fields to work in construction jobs, according to farmers and Taylor, who recently co-wrote a study that examined the decline in the number of farmworkers from Mexico.

A key finding in Taylor's study was that more immigrants were staying home to work on Mexico's farms. They were taking advantage of a strengthening Mexican economy and a growing middle class that ramped up agricultural production.

Now, American farmers find themselves competing for a dwindling supply of workers.

"Immigration policy stops being a solution if you can't find workers," Taylor said.

Farmers in California have already begun adapting to the drying supply of laborers.

Growers, for instance, have swapped out labor-intensive crops such as tomatoes and peaches for less labor intensive ones such as tree nuts.

Almonds, which were the second-most valuable crop in California in 2011, were ranked No. 11 in 2000. Sales of almonds have skyrocketed from $682,000 to $3.9 billion during that time period, according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

Technology is also playing a role. Using robots that shake loose crops from trees, farmers have been able to cut back on labor costs.

Paul Wenger, president of the California Farm Bureau Federation, said farmers are well-aware that their industry is changing.

And although he agrees that a dwindling labor supply will cause problems further down the line, he said Congress should still pass immigration reform that will allow farmers to hire legal farmworkers.

"Within the next two decades, we're going to have a problem. A domestic workforce will not want to work in the fields," he said. "It's going to be a problem. But that still doesn't mean we shouldn't fix the problems that exist today."

via LA Times

California restricts hiring after dual-paycheck revelations

Gov. Jerry Brown's administration has restricted state departments' hiring authority following revelations that hundreds of public employees were receiving pay for second state jobs in addition to their normal salaries.

Workers receiving more than one state paycheck, known in official parlance as "additional appointments," were found in a variety of departments and agencies, including the California Public Employees Retirement System and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and in several state hospitals.

The Brown administration did not ban the practice, but any such hire must now be approved by its Office of Human Resources.

"It appears that in some cases people were paid additionally for the job they were hired to do in the first place," said Assemblyman Jeff Gorell (R-Camarillo), who introduced a bill Wednesday to ban salaried state employees from holding more than one state job. "It's inappropriate at best and potentially abusive," he said.

Gorell said the proliferation of double paychecks highlights the need for more legislative oversight of the executive branch.

"It's clear that the governor and his administration don't fully understand what's happening in these agencies," he said.

Documents provided by the state controller's office show that 571 nonunion employees hold more than one position in various departments. The records do not show what those employees were paid.

The Sacramento Bee reported that dozens of state corrections officers received additional compensation beyond that of their regular jobs — some of which paid up to $20,000 per month. The paper also reported that the chief psychiatrist at Napa State Hospital, who receives an annual salary of more than $275,000, was receiving an additional $125 per hour for work as a staff psychiatrist.

"It's a scam," said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit advocacy agency. "Many people in all kinds of different jobs work for a set salary understanding that sometimes that means working long hours. Unfortunately, that's not always the culture of government."

A spokesman for the state's largest public employee union said the extra pay was for managers and other nonunion employees who are not eligible for overtime. Most unionized workers receive overtime if they put in extra hours.

A spokesman for CalPERS said it had allowed salaried workers to receive extra pay since June 2011 to help the agency launch and test a new technology project. Brad Pacheco said that using existing workers saved CalPERS an estimated $1.6 million that would have been spent to hire outside consultants and train new staff.

The human resources agency issued a statement saying that officials were "conducting a full review to determine whether there is any justification for continuing this practice."

via LA Times 

California's gun background-check system could be national model

Every day for the past 22 years, California's background checks have stopped about a dozen felons, mentally ill people and others from buying guns.

When prospective gun buyers stride into California gun stores such as Ron Kennedy's Canyon Sports in Martinez, they must swipe their driver's licenses or state IDs. That sets off a review process that runs their names not only through the same FBI criminal database other states use but also almost 20 other sources, from mental health records to DMV data. It's a check more rigorous than any other state's.

California is also one of only two states -- Rhode Island is the other -- requiring such checks not only for purchases from licensed gun dealers, but also for all purchases at gun shows, or even if you're just buying a gun from a neighbor.

For those reasons, California's universal background check system is being held up by gun control advocates as a model for the rest of the country. Yet in the emotionally charged national debate that has ensued since December's massacre at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school, whether implementing such a system nationwide would prevent similar tragedies and gun crimes remains a bitter point of contention.

Some statistics are clear: Only 1 percent of California's background checks lead to denials, so the system barely reduces the number of guns out there. But the national denial rate is 0.6 percent, so California's checks are obviously much better at preventing people who can't legally own guns from buying them.

"You have to assume that if you stop one person who would otherwise take that gun and kill people, it's been a success," said Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Napa, chairman of the House Democrats' gun violence task force.

But many gun-rights advocates fear universal background checks are nothing more than a prelude to universal registration and perhaps even confiscation.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president and CEO of the National Rifle Association, warned during a recent speech in Reno that President Barack Obama "wants to put every private, personal firearms transaction right under the thumb of the federal government."

At a Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, LaPierre sparred with Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, on the background check issue after LaPierre argued that more checks would simply force law-abiding citizens to pay more fees for the right to own a gun.

Other statistics can be used to support either side of the argument. Consider:

In 2011, California's rates of killings, robberies and assaults involving firearms were all higher than the national rates. But California had lower rates of armed robberies and armed assaults that year than Arizona or Nevada, which conduct less stringent background checks for gun store sales and no checks at all for gun show or private, person-to-person sales.

The Golden State definitely has a lower rate of gun deaths -- including accidents, suicides and homicides -- compared with the nation and many other states, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. California had 8.9 such deaths per 100,000 people from 1999 to 2010, ranking 33rd among states and the District of Columbia and falling under the 10.2 national rate. Nevada's gun death rate ranked sixth, at 15.9; Arizona's ranked seventh, at 15.3.

Yet it's hard to draw a direct link between background checks and rates of gun crime or gun deaths. Those rates might also be affected by other California gun laws, including a 10-day waiting period -- most states have none -- meant both to accommodate the expanded background checks and to let any hotheaded buyers cool off before taking possession of a gun. The state also has an assault weapons ban, handgun registration and other gun control measures that other states don't. And some criminologists argue that crime rates have more to do with a state's poverty, joblessness, education or other social factors than its gun control laws.

What does seem clear is that California's background check system functions well -- and could be replicated elsewhere.

Kennedy of Canyon Sports said the state's online system is "relatively flawless" and, in most cases, easy to use.

San Jose Gun Exchange owner Michael Fournier agreed. "I've got no problem with it," he said. "I couldn't sleep at night thinking someone got a gun who shouldn't own one."

Arizona-based gun show promoter Lori McMann said all her California shows have a "transfer dealer" present to handle the transactions, submit information to the state and hold onto the gun during the 10-day waiting period. In other states, she said, her company simply reminds sellers of their obligation to verbally ask buyers whether they're convicted felons or otherwise prohibited from owning a gun.

It might take hiring more federal and state workers to handle the increased workload, McMann said, but imposing a California-like system nationwide "is definitely doable."

But will it help?

"Criminals don't buy guns in gun stores" or at gun shows, Kennedy insisted. "They steal them or have them purchased for them by someone else."

Nor does it seem background checks -- at least, as they are run now in most of the nation -- stop horrific mass shootings.

The Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill 20 kids and seven adults in Newtown was bought legally by his mother at a licensed gun store after she passed a background check.

James Holmes passed background checks with the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to buy the arsenal he carried in August into an Aurora, Colo., movie theater, where he killed 12 and wounded 58. Jared Lee Loughner also passed an NICS check to buy the gun he used to try to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., killing six people and wounding 12.

Both Holmes and Loughner had documented mental problems that were not recorded in the FBI's database, but it's not clear whether they would have been disclosed to California's system.

Some of Obama's recent executive actions and new bills introduced in Congress from both sides of the aisle aim to plug up those holes, pressing states and federal agencies to feed more and better-detailed information into the FBI system.

But the gun lobby opposes any effort to expand that system's use to cover gun shows or private, person-to-person sales -- representing roughly 40 percent of gun sales.

Chuck Michel, spokesman and attorney for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, agreed with LaPierre that "the biggest problem with background check systems is they typically incorporate registration of law-abiding firearm buyer and owners."

It's true that California does, unlike many states, retain information submitted for background checks for handgun purchases. And next year it will start retaining that information from long-gun purchases.

But Thompson said law-abiding people have nothing to worry about and that it all comes down to keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them: "If you don't do a check, I don't know how you can do that."

At Thompson's task force hearing last week, David Chipman, a former special agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, likened the need for universal background checks to the need for heightened air security after Sept. 11.

Said Chipman: "Imagine the frustration of TSA employees if they were told that 60 percent of those getting on a plane would get full security screening and then 40 percent would be allowed to walk right on the plane, and then buildings kept blowing up and we were all like, 'Well, how did that happen?'"

via Mercury News

On Behalf of CURB: Stop the Expansion of the California Institute for Men in Chino

Join us WEDNESDAY Jaunary 30th-3 pm. 

As you might have heard, the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation is planning a controversial & massive expansion of the California Institute for Men in Chino. News stories report they intend to add as many as 3,000 more cells.

The city of Chino & CDCR are holding public meetings this Wednesday at 3:00 and again at 6:00 to discuss plans with the public. We at CURB hope that you can help us turn people out to those meetings who will voice opposition to expanding CIM. The meetings will be held at the Chaffey College Community Center, 5890 College Park, Chino.

Here are a few things you can help us with:

1) Meet us at Chuco’s Justice Center (1137 E. Redondo Blvd., on the border between South Central L.A. and Inglewood, one light west of Florence and Crenshaw | Inglewood CA 90302) at 1:30 pm so that we can carpool to the 3:00 pm meeting at Chaffey College Community Center. Please RSVP with Diana@curbprisonspending.org if you plan on attending. I will be emailing out talking points to all those interested in attending the meeting.

2) Forward this email to colleagues, students, friends and organizations who might be interested in stopping the growth of California's prisons.

3) Call 3-4 people and ask them to attend the meeting with you. Take a car full of people to the meeting.

4) Donate to CURB to help fund our work to shrink the number of Californians in prison.
https://co.clickandpledge.com/sp/d1/default.aspx?wid=62257

We will have talking points at the action, but please email or call me if you have any questions.

via Californians United for a Responsible Budget

Message from National Women's Law Center: Tax Family Credits

For millions of low- and middle- income Americans, tax season can mean extra money in their pockets. Claiming tax credits — including the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Child Tax Credit (CTC), and Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) — can provide thousands of dollars for vulnerable women and families struggling to make ends meet. The EITC alone is worth up to $5,891. But women and their families can't claim these credits if they don't know about them. 

Families can start filing their 2012 as early as January 30, so there's no time to lose. Today, on EITC Awareness Day, help us spread the word to make sure families know about available tax credits. Our new and improved Tax Credits Outreach Resources make it easier than ever for advocates to spread the word about these credits. 

Our new resources include:

• State-specific outreach fliers in English and Spanish (and some in Vietnamese and Mandarin Chinese)
• Our Toolkit for Advocates, with a sample:
• Newsletter
• Letter to the Editor
• PSA script
• Press release
• Social Media tools
• List of what to bring to free tax preparation sites
• Fact sheets on tax credits for families and tax information for domestic violence advocates
• A link to sign up to become an NWLC Community Partner

If you work or volunteer with families that are likely eligible for tax credits and/or in a program that supports children and families, you can help get the word out! Simply hanging fliers in classrooms, hallways, and offices, sending them home with young children, or encouraging employers to send fliers enclosed with W-2 forms could make a difference for the families you work with. Be sure to let us know how you're spreading the word about tax credits, or if there's anything we can do to help, by emailing Amy Qualliotine at aqualliotine@nwlc.org. 

via National Women's Law Center