CALIFORNIA CHILDREN ANDTHE STATE BUDGETJanuary 2013Michele Stillwell-Parvenskymsp@childrensdefense.orgPolicy AssociateChil...
Children’s Defense Fund A non-profit child advocacy organization that has worked relentlessly for nearly 40 years to ensur...
Deep Cuts to Children’s ProgramsOver Past 5 Years   K-12 education: $7 billion   CalWORKs: $4 billion   Medi-Cal: $3.6 ...
Governor’s 2013-14 BudgetProposal   Balanced budget – revenues and expenditures    are roughly in balance   Proposes to ...
K-12 Education   Proposes a Prop. 98 increase of $2.1 billion (4%)   Pays back $1.8 billion in deferred payments to    s...
Local Control Funding Formula   Similar to the weighted    student formula proposed last    year to change how schools   ...
Community Colleges   Provides a base increase of $197 million   Pays back $179 million in deferred payments    to commun...
Higher Education   Proposes a multiyear    higher ed budget plan to    increase GF spending by    4-5% per year over the ...
California Work Opportunity andResponsibility to Kids (CalWORKs)   CalWORKs provides cash assistance and    services to l...
Child Care   Child care has been cut significantly since    2008,     $1billion dollars in cuts, eliminating 110,000 slo...
Medi-Cal Expansion   Currently, Medi-Cal provides health coverage for    the lowest-income Californians, including nearly...
1.4 millionCalifornianswill be newlyeligible forMedi-Cal
Other Medi-Cal Changes   Extends two “provider fees” that draw down    federal dollars for a GF savings of $527 million  ...
Dept. of Developmental Services   Extends the Annual Family Program Fee, which    assesses a fee of $150-$200 to families...
In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS)   IHSS helps low-income seniors and people with    disabilities, including children, l...
What’s Next: Finding the Right Balance   Legislators may push back against the    Governor in search of the right balance...
Thanks to…     California Budget Project www.cbp.org     Western Center on Law and Poverty      www.wclp.org     Legisl...
Thank you!         Michele Stillwell-Parvensky         msp@childrensdefense.orgChildren’s Defense Fund – California       ...
California Children in the 2013-14 State Budget
California Children in the 2013-14 State Budget
California Children in the 2013-14 State Budget
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

California Children in the 2013-14 State Budget

1,389 views
1,349 views

Published on

Presentation exploring how Governor Brown's 2013-14 state budget proposal will affect California children, including an analysis of K-12 education, higher education, CalWORKs, health care, and other social services.

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,389
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,081
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Hello, my name is Michele Stillwell-Parvensky and I’m with the Children’s Defense Fund-California. In this presentation, I’m going to delve in to the impact that the Governor’s budget proposal would have on California children.
  • The Children’s Defense Fund is a nonprofit advocacy organization that has worked relentlessly for nearly 40 years to ensure a level playing field for all children.CDF was founded by Marian Wright Edelman in 1973 in Washington D.C., and the California office was opened in 1998.
  • Before we jump into the impact of this year’s budget proposal on children, it’s worth taking a look back at what’s happened over the past 5 years. California’s most vulnerable children have been disproportionately impacted by devastating state budget cuts to education, health care, and social services. Over the past five years, California has made billions of dollars of cuts to programs serving children and families, and children of color and poor children have been hardest hit.
  • And these severe cuts to programs for children and families came at the precise time that need for a strong social safety net was increasing because we fell into a recession. Here, we see the trajectory of the child poverty rate in California over the past 20 years – the top line is California and the bottom line is the U.S. Over the last 5 years – when we were making those cuts I just discussed – the child poverty rate increased from 18% to 23.4% in 2010. Currently, almost 1 in 4 California children live in poverty. Nearly 1 in 3 African American and Latino children live in poverty.
  • Now on to the Governor’s budget proposal. Let’s take a moment to appreciate what a much better situation we’re in than in past years – we have a balanced budget, which means there are very few new proposed spending cuts! We also don’t see much in the way of restoration of past cuts – except in education.With the exception of education funding, the remainder of state General Fund spending reflects a baseline budget. This means that spending levels established in 2012-13 generally continue “as is” in 2013-14 – that is really important to note because it means that all of those cuts to children’s programs are assumed to be the “newnormal” in a sense. Under the administration’s forecasts, this situation of a baseline budget except for education would likely continue into 2014-15.The Governor has been very clear that he believes this must be a year of fiscal restraint – you can see from the photo there that he’s telling advocates and legislators to slow down. The Governor's message is that debt repayment is the top priority for new state funds and only minimal investment, restoration, or expansion of programs will occur in the budget. He pays down $4.2 in budget-related debt - part of his aggressive proposed multiyear effort to decrease the state’s “wall of debt” from $35 billion in 2010-11 to less than $5 billion by 2016-17. He also creates a $1 billion reserve.
  • Now, I’m going to go into how the budget affects children on various issues – except for child care, which Tim will cover later. Let’s start with K-12 education. First, a little bit of background on Proposition 98. Proposition 98 (1988) constitutionally guarantees a minimum level of funding for K-12 schools, community colleges, and the state preschool program. Because increases in state General Fund revenues tend to boost the Proposition 98 guarantee, voter approval of Proposition 30 inNovember 2012 increased the state’s minimum funding obligation for education. For 2013-14, the Governor proposes to fund at the administration’s estimate of the minimum guarantee. When you consider that the budget funds education at the constitutional minimum required by Prop. 98, you’ll see that the increases to K-12 education aren’t actually out of step with the Governor’s message of fiscal restraint.Overall, K-12 spending would be increased by $2.1 billion, or about 4% over last year.During the past several years, the state relied heavily on deferring payments to schools as a way to achieve budgetary savings. This budget provide $1.8 billion to partially restore previously deferred payments to school districts (reducing the state’s payment deferrals to K-12 education to $5.6 billion). Paying down deferrals means school districts will have to borrow less to manage their cash flow during the school year. Proposition 39, passed by the voters in November 2012, closes a corporate tax loophole to raise about $1 billion per year, with half going to support projects to improve energy efficiency and alternative energy. The Governor proposes to allocate all Proposition 39 energy-related funding over the next five years exclusively to schools and community colleges, and counts all of that money towards the Prop. 98 minimum guarantee. This may prove to be somewhat controversial, both because it means that the Prop. 39 dollars aren’t necessarily going to the best energy efficiency projects overall, and because it means that school districts have less base dollars that can be used for any purpose. The Legislative Analyst Office calls this out as an area of significant concern.Provides approximately $1.6 billion for school districts and charter schoolsto create a “Local Control Funding Formula” – I’ll talk more about that in a moment.The budget also increases K-12 mandate block grant by $100 million to fund two new mandates - Graduation Requirements and Behavioral Intervention Plan programs
  • This is a chart on education that was included in the Governor’s budget, showing the Administration’s projections for a continuing reinvestment in education. This is Prop. 98 spending.It’s important to look at that first bar, which was 2007-08. Between 2007-08 and 2011-12, education spending went down by more than 16% - a decrease of almost $10 billion. In response, many K-12 school districts reduced their days of instruction, eliminated programs, and laid off teachers while community colleges reduced enrollment and increased fees.Now, even with the increases proposed in 2013-14, and the inclusion of the Prop. 30 revenue, we are not even back up to the 2007-08 spending numbers – and that even taking into consideration inflation during that time.It’s also worth noting that California has among the lowest levels of per-pupil spending in the country. According to an annual Education Week report released this month, California was 49th in the nation in per-pupil spending (adjusting for regional cost differences). California’s per-student spending was $8,482, 28% below the national average of $11,824. Those numbers were from 2010, so they don’t include the recent increase.
  • The governor also proposed a few significant changes to K-12 education. He would change how schools are funded in an attempt to give schools and districts more flexibility. He would do this by eliminating the vast majority of categorical programs. He would also introduce a local control funding formula (similar to the weighted student formula he proposed last year) to provide more money to districts with high proportions of low-income students or English learners.Under his proposal, all districts would receive an equal base per-pupil amount, plus additional funding to serve disadvantaged students.Notes:The Governor’s proposal would eliminate the majority of programs currently earmarked for specific purposes – so-called “categorical” programs – consolidate funding with state general purpose revenues, and establish a new education funding formula that would be phased in during a period of seven years. Several programs would be excluded from consolidation within the new funding formula, including special education, the After School Education and Safety Program, and child nutrition. Funding for the Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grant and the Home-to-School Transportation programs would also remain outside the new funding formula. It would distribute dollars to school districts through a base revenue limit funding grant per average daily attendance (ADA) and would provide a supplemental grant to school districts, equal to 35 percent of the base grant, based on their proportion of English language learners and students who are eligible for free and reduced-price meals. The Governor’s proposal would provide an additional grant for school districts in which English language learners and economically disadvantaged students exceed 50 percent of the total student population. This concentration grant would be equal to 35 percent of the base revenue limit funding grant for each English language learner and student eligible for free and reduced-price meals.The Governor proposes to include current funding for career technical education in a grade span adjustment for grades nine through 12 and provide a K-3 grade span adjustment linked to a maximum class size of 24 students per teacher once the new funding formula has been fully implemented.Require school districts to adopt a District Plan for Student Achievement that would address how dollars received from the new state funding formula would be used.The Governor’s plan would consolidateK-12 revenue limits and almost all of the state’sroughly 60 categorical programs into onestreamlined funding formula with essentially noassociated programmatic spending requirements.The formula would provide a base funding grantper student. The formula also would providesupplemental funding intended for districtsto serve English learners and students fromlow-income families as well as provide lower classsizes in grades kindergarten through third andoffer career technical education classes in highschool.Would be implemented over 7 years.Excludes a number of programs from the new formula: such as Special Education, After School Education and Safety, Child Nutrition, Preschool, Home-to-School Transportation, Targeted Instructional Improvement Grants (TIIG)
  • Let’s move on to community colleges. Community college spending is also part of the Prop. 98 minimum guarantee – and has similarly undergone significantly cuts over the past 5 years - $900 million was cut between 2007-08 and 2011-12, a reduction of more than 20 percent.This year, the Governor proposes to increase state funding for apportionments – the largest portion of community college funding – by almost $200 million. The proposal would allow the Chancellor’s Office to make its own decision about how the funds would be distributed and for what purpose.Notably, the year-over-year increase in Proposition 98 funding is notably greater for community colleges (10 percent) than for K-12 education (4 percent).He also proposes to pay down more budget-related debt here by providing $179 million to partially restore previously deferred apportionment funding, reducing the state’s payment deferrals to community colleges to $622 million.The Governor also proposes to change the basis on which community college districts are funded for credit instruction. Currently, the amount of funding a district receives depends largely on the number of students enrolled at the third or fourth week of the semester. Beginning in 2013-14, the Governor proposes to based funding o the number of student enrolled at the end of each term. According to DOF, any reduction in a district’s enrollment monies resulting from this policy change would be automatically transferred to that district’s categorical programs providing student support services (such as tutoring and counseling). This proposal will apportion funding by focusing on completion at the end of the term, thereby incentivizing districts to focus on outcomes.He also provides $300 million to create a new adult education block grant program within the community colleges. Currently Adult Education programs are funded and administered by both K-12 school districts and community colleges. The Governor proposes to eliminate this bifurcated system and create a more accountable and centralized adult education learning system within the community colleges.
  • In recent years, deep cuts to General Fund spending for the University of California and California State University systems have translated into large increases in tuition and fees. General Fund spending for the UC declined by 30%between 2007-08 and 2011-12. Tuition and fees increased by over $5,000 during the same period.The budget proposes a multiyear plan to increase higher education spending. It would increase General Fund spending for the UC and CSU by 5%per year in this year and next and by 4%per year in the following two years. The UC and CSU would be expected to use the annual funding increases to avoid tuition and fee hikes. In 2013-14, this funding increase would equal $125 million each for the UC and CSU, in addition to the $125 million that both the UC and CSU will receive for not increasing tuition and fees in 2012-13, as required by last year’s budget agreement.Proposes capping the number of courses students can take if they receive Cal Grants or other state subsidies, in an effort toimprove students’ time-to-degree. In the first two years, UC and CSU students would be required to pay the full cost of additional units after they exceeded 150 percent of standard units needed to complete most degrees. In later years, students would be required to pay the full cost of additional units beyond one additional year of coursework
  • Let’s move on to CalWORKs, which provides cash assistance and services to low-income families, including 1.1 million children. 78% of CalWORKs recipients are children. The CalWORKs budget has undone significant cuts and changes in recent years, and CalWORKs benefits are very low – they provide just 41% of the federal poverty line. Fortunately, there are no new proposed cuts in the 2013-14 budget – generally, this is a baseline budget for CalWORKs with no significant cuts or restorations. However, the budget does maintain the cuts and changes made in previous years, including: reducing time limit for parents to receive benefits from 60 months to 24 months; lowering grants by 12%; and cutting child care and work assistance funding.The Governor does propose an increase of $143 million General Fund to support counties in enhancing CalWORKs employment services. Annual funding for this purpose had been reduced by more than $375 million from 2009-10 through 2011-12. The proposed funding increase is intended to help implement a significant program change that took effect January 1, 2013: a 24-month limit on the amount of time CalWORKs parents can access the full array of welfare-to-work activities available under state law before being required to meet less flexible federal work participation requirements. Notes:Welfare‑to‑work services include job search, employment training, child care, and barrier removal services (e.g. substance abuse, mental health, and domestic violence assistance)
  • CalWORKs has undergone devastating cuts in past years.In this graph from the California Budget Project, we see that welfare spending as a share of total state spending had dropped by more than half since 1996. In 1996, 6.8% of California state spending was spent on CalWORKs and in 2011-12 it was just 2.9%, and further cuts went into effect last year.Unlike the education graph we saw earlier where we’re going to be moving back up toward the past high, there are not significant restoration of these cuts in the Gov’s budget.
  • State policymakers have repeatedly cut child care and development programs in recent years in order to help close budget shortfalls. Annual funding was reduced from $3.2 billion in 2008-09 to $2.2 billion in 2012-13, resulting in the elimination of 110,000 child care and development “slots” – about one-quarter of total slots funded through the state budget in 2008-09.
  • Moving on to children’s health. Medi-Cal provides health coverage for the lowest-income Californians. As a result of the budget deal last year, the state is currently moving all the children who were in the Healthy Families Programs (which served children with a slightly higher income level) to Medi-Cal in several phases throughout 2013. By the end of the year, more than 4.5 million will receive Medi-Cal coverage.The Governor has committed to expanding Medi-Cal as part of federal health. The expansion would provide coverage to adults up to 138% FPL, paid for almost entirely by federal government. Proposes two options for the expansion: a state-based approach that would build on the current Medi-Cal program, and a county-based approach that would be run at the county level.Previously, counties provided care for low-income,uninsured individuals who did not qualify for Medi-Cal. Thebudget assumes the expansion will “will generate substantial savings” for counties, and that the state capture some of that county savings. One option raised in the budget is shifting programmatic and fiscal responsibility for various human services programs, including subsidized child care, to the counties.The Governorargues that the expansion “will generate substantial savings” for counties, which currently provide health care to low-income, uninsured adults who do not qualify for Medi-Cal.Notes:The state-based approach would enroll newly eligible Californians directly into Medi-Cal and provide the full range of Medi-Cal benefits to these new enrollees, with the exception of long-term care, which would not be part of the standard benefit package. Budget documents indicate that under this option, “the state would need to capture county savings and continue to use those funds to pay for health care coverage for this previously medically indigent population.” Budget documents suggest that this could be accomplished by shifting to counties the “programmatic and fiscal responsibility for various human services programs, including subsidized child care.” The county-based approach would build on the existing Low Income Health Program (LIHP), but would require counties to meet statewide eligibility and health benefit requirements. Most counties currently participate in the LIHP under a federal waiver that provides temporary federal dollars to help fund health coverage for low-income, uninsured adults. Under this option, which would require an additional federal waiver, “counties would act as the fiscal and operational entity responsible for” the Medi-Cal expansion.
  • With health care reform set to take full effect in 2014, the next big step is just around the corner: the expansion of Medi-Cal coverage to low-income adults under age 65 who currently are excluded from the program. This group includes nondisabled adults who don’t have children at home. It also includes parents who do have kids at home, but who lose access to Medi-Cal when their incomes rise more than a few percentage points above the federal poverty line – currently $19,090 for a family of three. The health of parents can have a dramatic effect on the health and well-being of children. In fact, researchshows that providing coverage for low-income parents and other family members is good for children too – in part because expanding Medi-Cal coverage to more low-income parents means that many of the 700,000 uninsured children in California who are eligible for coverage but not yet enrolled will get enrolled in health coverage when their parents sign up. Successful implementation of health reform in California will ultimately depend on creating a “culture of coverage” and connecting as many Californians with health coverage as possible. California’s families – and the entire state – will benefit if California fully implements the Affordable Care Act including the Medicaid expansion.
  • In addition, the Governor assumes that payments to doctors and other Medi-Cal providers will be reduced by up to 10 percent as required by legislation enacted in 2011, resulting in a General Fund spending reduction of $488.4 million in 2013-14. The provider payment cuts were approved by the federal government, but have not yet been implemented due to pending litigationThe Medi-Cal budget includes a $350 million General Fund placeholder for costs associated with increased enrollment among individuals who are currently eligible for Medi-Cal, but not enrolled in the program, until a more refined estimate can be developed. The ACA contains several provisions that will likely increase enrollment among individuals who are currently eligible for Medi-Cal, including simplified eligibility and enrollment procedures, enhanced outreach activities, and the individual mandate to obtain health coverage. The state will be responsible for 50 percent of the costs associated with the increased enrollment among individuals who are currently eligible.
  • The Dept. of Developmental Services oversees a variety of services to Californians with developmental disabilities. DDS serves approximately 260,000 individuals with developmental disabilities in the community and 1,550 individuals in state‑operated facilities.Extends the Annual Family Program Fee, which was scheduled to sunset June 30, 2013, which assesses a fee of $150 or $200 per family. The fee is based on family size and additional criteria and assessed to families whose adjusted gross family income is above 400% FPL. The fee offsets General Fund costs by $7.2 million. An increase of $40 million General Fund to backfill the one‑time support provided by the First 5 California Children and Families Commission for programs serving children birth through five in the 2012 Budget Act.Assumes the scheduled sunset of the 1.25 percent regional center operations and provider payment reduction for 2013-14 and thus increases funds in DDS by $46.7 million ($32 million General Fund). Increases funding by $36.1 million in 2012-13 and $177.5 million in 2013-14 to reflect increases in caseload and utilization of services.
  • Another area of cuts in the governor’s budget that will affect kids is In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS), which helps low-income seniors and people with disabilities, including children, live safely in their own homes, preventing more costly out-of-home care. He would implement an across-the-board 20% reduction in hours of service, which the court has prevented from taking effect.This 20 percent reduction was adopted as part of the 2011 Budget, subject to a revenue shortfall trigger. When the trigger was pulled in December 2011, a court injunction halted implementation of the cut. The Governor assumes court resolution and implementation of this dramatic reduction in IHSS hours in 2013-14, resulting in a savings of $113.2 million in the budget year. The budget also assumes adjustments to previously enacted budget changes to IHSS, which will result in a net increase of $168 million.NOTES: Includes an increase of $92.1 million associated with more restrictive federal requirements to draw down enhanced federal matching funds under the federal Community First Choice Option.  Reflects restoration in 2013-14 of the 3.6 percent across-the-board hours reduction with an increase of $59.1 million.  Increases funding of $47.1 million related and pursuant to the recently enacted county maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement for IHSS.  Decreases funding by $30.2 million associated with the health care certification requirement enacted in 2011-12.
  • This is only the Governor’s proposal – and the next step is for the Legislature to weigh in and pass the budget. We are in a very different – and much better – situation than in past years given the balanced budget, and the lack of new proposed cuts, so there is a lot less tension between the Governor and legislative leadership. However, the legislature will definitely put forward modifications during the budget committee process. Some of the discussion will be in trying to find the right balance between the Governor’s desire for fiscal restraint (such as paying down $4 billion in debt and building a $1 billion reserve), and the Legislature wanting to restore some of the devastating cuts that they’ve made over the past 5 years. We are on an upward economic trajectory, with surpluses projected for the next several year – which suggests there might be room for key restorations or expansions – but policymakers also have to consider that the Prop. 30 taxes were temporary, and the state eventually needs to be able to balance its books without those revenues.Finally, I put new revenues on their with multiple question marks – as you know, Democrats now have supermajorities in both houses, which means that they could pass taxes (or eliminate tax cuts) without the support of the Republicans or the Governor – which might be a way to re-invest in California’s safety net. Legislative leadership have been very cautious on this point and indicate that they don’t want to pass tax increases, but it is a possibility.
  • I want to say thanks to a few organizations that provide very useful budget information – their websites are here is you would like to learn more.
  • Questions?Thank you for yourwillingness to learn about the California budget, and how the Governor’s proposal would impact our children. If you have any questions, I encourage you to contact me – my email address is in your handout. You can also visit our website at www.cdfca.org for updated information on the budget and how it affects children. I look forward to working together with you over the upcoming year to protect California children!
  • California Children in the 2013-14 State Budget

    1. 1. CALIFORNIA CHILDREN ANDTHE STATE BUDGETJanuary 2013Michele Stillwell-Parvenskymsp@childrensdefense.orgPolicy AssociateChildren’s Defense Fund – California
    2. 2. Children’s Defense Fund A non-profit child advocacy organization that has worked relentlessly for nearly 40 years to ensure a level playing field for all children. www.cdfca.org
    3. 3. Deep Cuts to Children’s ProgramsOver Past 5 Years K-12 education: $7 billion CalWORKs: $4 billion Medi-Cal: $3.6 billion Child care: $1 billion
    4. 4. Governor’s 2013-14 BudgetProposal Balanced budget – revenues and expenditures are roughly in balance Proposes to increase General Fund spending by 5% to $97.7 billion Increases for education, baseline for everything else Focus on fiscal restraint Pays down $4.2 in budget- related debt Creates a $1 billion reserve
    5. 5. K-12 Education Proposes a Prop. 98 increase of $2.1 billion (4%) Pays back $1.8 billion in deferred payments to schools Proposes $450 million for school energy efficiency projects Provides $1.6 billion for school districts to create a new K-12 funding formula Increases K-12 mandate block grant by $100 million to fund Graduation Requirements and Behavioral Intervention Plan programs
    6. 6. Local Control Funding Formula Similar to the weighted student formula proposed last year to change how schools are funded Would eliminate the majority of categorical programs and establish a new streamlined funding formula Formula would provide more money to districts with high proportions of low-income students or English learners
    7. 7. Community Colleges Provides a base increase of $197 million Pays back $179 million in deferred payments to community colleges Makes policy change to fund based on student course completion $300 million for restructured adult education program
    8. 8. Higher Education Proposes a multiyear higher ed budget plan to increase GF spending by 4-5% per year over the next 4 years - $250 million increase this year UC and CSU systems are expected to maintain current tuition and fee levels
    9. 9. California Work Opportunity andResponsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) CalWORKs provides cash assistance and services to low-income families, 1.1 million children No new proposed cuts in 2013-14 budget Maintains cuts made in previous years  Reducing time limit for parents to receive benefits from 60 months to 24 months  Lowering grants by 12%  Cutting child care and work assistance funding Proposed increase of $143 million to support counties’ CalWORKs employment services
    10. 10. Child Care Child care has been cut significantly since 2008,  $1billion dollars in cuts, eliminating 110,000 slots  Reductions to child care provider payments  Lower income eligibility for parents Budget proposal maintains current level of funding, but fails to restore past cuts
    11. 11. Medi-Cal Expansion Currently, Medi-Cal provides health coverage for the lowest-income Californians, including nearly 4.5 million children Budget commits to expand Medi-Cal as part of federal health reform Expansion would provide coverage to adults up to 138% FPL, paid for almost entirely by federal gov Proposes two options for the expansion Previously, counties provided care for uninsured – budget assumes state will capture county savings, such as by shifting child care to the counties
    12. 12. 1.4 millionCalifornianswill be newlyeligible forMedi-Cal
    13. 13. Other Medi-Cal Changes Extends two “provider fees” that draw down federal dollars for a GF savings of $527 million  Funds have traditionally supported children’s health, but budget puts toward the reserve Implements a retroactive cut of up to 10% to payments to doctors passed in 2011 but slowed up in court – $488 million in GF savings $350 million placeholder for anticipated increased enrollment in Medi-Cal due to improvements with health care reform
    14. 14. Dept. of Developmental Services Extends the Annual Family Program Fee, which assesses a fee of $150-$200 to families about 400% FPL - $7.2 million in GF savings Increase of $40 million GF to backfill one-time support from First 5 for children’s services Sunsets a 1.25% reduction to regional centers and provider payments
    15. 15. In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) IHSS helps low-income seniors and people with disabilities, including children, live safely in their own homes, preventing costly out-of-home care Many recent cuts to IHSS have not been implemented because of court action Implements a 20% reduction in hours that has been challenged in court to save $113 million Makes additional adjustments – net increase of $168 million
    16. 16. What’s Next: Finding the Right Balance Legislators may push back against the Governor in search of the right balance of fiscal restraint and restoration of severe cuts to critical programs Revenues??? Restoration of Cuts Pay Down Debt, Build Reserve
    17. 17. Thanks to…  California Budget Project www.cbp.org  Western Center on Law and Poverty www.wclp.org  Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov
    18. 18. Thank you! Michele Stillwell-Parvensky msp@childrensdefense.orgChildren’s Defense Fund – California www.cdfca.org

    ×