OPPOSES
Proposition 49 - Before and After School Programs. State Grants.
Initiative Statute.

Proposition 49 takes an existing program, the Before and After School Learning and Safe Neighborhoods Partnership Program (BASLSNPP), makes certain changes to it, and raises and guarantees its funding. The program would be renamed the After School Education and Safety Program (ASESP). Beginning in 2004-2005, the state would be required to provide up to $550 million a year as a continuing appropriation for the ASESP. This could only be changed by a subsequent ballot measure.

The measure would add computer training, fine arts and physical fitness to the list of activities eligible for funding, and allow programs to be conducted away from school sites. It would require law enforcement agencies to be included in the planning process of all programs. Priority for funding would go first to programs already funded in 2003-2004, and those programs would be funded at their current level. The second priority would be for "universal" grants given to every eligible school, but the maximum grant would be reduced by $25,000 from current levels and there would be no grant size adjustment for large schools. (If funding were insufficient, schools with at least 50 percent of their pupils eligible for federally subsidized meals would have priority for these new grants.) The third priority would be to use any remaining funds to provide additional grants under current rules, which allow more funding for large schools and give priority to schools serving predominantly low-income students.

The measure provides a "trigger" mechanism that would tie its funding to the increase in General Fund spending, requiring a $1.5 billion increase in non-Proposition 98 appropriations before increased ASESP funding would be mandated. The Legislative Analyst estimates that requirement will be met, and Proposition 49 fully funded, in 2004-2005. (The LAO expects that non-Prop 98 spending will increase by $5 billion from 2003-2004 simply because of cost-of-living adjustments and increased program caseload growth.) After that year, the new level of ASESP funding would be built into the Proposition 98 guarantee, and could only be reduced if Proposition 98 funding were reduced, and only by the same percentage.

The state now funds several before and after school programs for students in elementary through junior high schools, one of which is the Before and After School Learning and Safe Neighborhoods Partnership Program (BASLSNPP). It provides competitive grants for schools for educational enrichment and either tutoring or homework assistance before and after school.

The maximum grants are generally $75,000 for elementary schools and $100,000 for middle and junior high schools for after school programs. For before school programs, the grants are capped at $25,000 for elementary schools and $33,000 for middle and junior high schools. Grants require a 50 percent local match in cash or in-kind funds, not including use of facilities. Larger schools may receive higher amounts, and supplements are available for summer and vacation programs. The program gives priority to students from schools with at least 50 percent of pupils eligible for federally subsidized meals. Programs must be at a school or recreation site adjacent to a school. A variety of other similar programs are funded by the federal and state government, as well as private organizations.

State support for the BASLSNPP was $95 million in 2001-2002. This funding is included in the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantee for K-14 education.

When the Legislature finally adopted a budget for 2002-2003, it did not adequately address the fundamental disparity between expenditures and revenues, leaving California with potential budget deficits of $10 billion or more for each of the next several years.

Cumulatively, Prop 49 and Prop 51 would commit the state to more than $1.5 billion in guaranteed spending each year. Since neither measure makes adequate provisions for today's tough economic times, both could take effect while the state still grapples with multi-billion-dollar budget shortfalls, almost assuring that other programs will have to be cut or eliminated to fund them.

• Proposition 49 takes one after school program, expands it and guarantees its funding in the annual budget process. Unlike other measures such as Proposition 10, it does not provide new funds to pay for expanding the program, but simply makes an appropriation of as much as $550 million from the state General Fund each year.
  
  
• Protecting the well being of children and encouraging them to reach their full potential requires more than just after school programs. It requires programs that provide child protection, family advocacy, medical care, dental care, mental health care and assistance in meeting basic human needs . . . food, clothing and housing. None of these programs receives the kind of special protection afforded by Proposition 49, leaving them in jeopardy.
  
  
• There are many programs that don't have a direct impact on children, but are just as important and yet receive no protection from tough budget decisions made each year. Public safety, adult health care, environmental protection, transportation, social service programs, higher education, job training, drug rehabilitation and prevention and state fire protection will all have to compete for a smaller portion of the state budget if Proposition 49 passes.
  
  
• The state budget will be tight for some time to come, even if the economy starts to recover soon. Projections are that the state will face multibillion dollar deficits for the next several years. That will mean that each year there will be hard choices to make between a number of critical programs. This is no time to give one program a free ride through the budget process: pass Go, collect $550 million.
  
  
• Proponents claim that a trigger mechanism would keep their measure from taking effect "until our economy has recovered." But the California Budget Project (CBP) and the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) estimate that in upcoming years, spending for existing programs will require increases due to population growth and inflation that significantly exceed the trigger amount. This means that even as the state continues to face budget deficits in coming years, Proposition 49 will still take effect and its protected $550 million in spending will add to future budget crises.
  
  
• Proposition 98 guarantees a certain amount of the state budget to K-14 education. Proposition 49 funding will be included within that guarantee. But Proposition 49 represents a precedent-setting attempt to establish a guaranteed level of funding for a specific program within the Proposition 98 guarantee.
  
  
• The $550 million in guaranteed funding provided by Proposition 49 could only be reduced by submitting another ballot measure for voter approval or by suspending Proposition 98, which has not happened since Proposition 98 was approved by the voters in 1988. Even then, Proposition 49 funding could only be reduced by the percentage that Proposition 98 was reduced. Example: If Proposition 98 spending were reduced by 10 percent, then the funding provided by Proposition 49 would also be reduced by 10 percent. This would translate into a reduction of more than $4 billion in Proposition 98 spending, which would likely result in the elimination of whole programs, while this after school program would endure a relatively minor reduction.
  
  
• If the strategy behind Proposition 49 works, it is likely that backers of other special programs who can afford to pay for a ballot campaign will use the same means to get guaranteed money for their pet projects from the state General Fund. Discretionary spending is already limited in the budget, and measures like this would further tie up funds so that changing needs could not be met. Current budget disagreements might look trivial in comparison to future budget battles.

Other opponents include: American Association of University Women (AAUW) California; Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California, Child Care Law Center; Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.

Marion Taylor, LWVC Government Director, mtaylor@got.net

Anne Henderson, LWVC Legislative Director, annehenderson@.att.net

Trudy Schafer, LWVC Program Director/Advocate, and Eric Wooten, LWVC Advocacy Aide, 926 J Street Suite 515, Sacramento 95814

Phone: 916-442-3236, stop49@lwvc.org, http://www.stop49.org

What Would Proposition 49, The After School Education And Safety Program Act, Mean For California? (7 pages), by Delaine McCullough. California Budget Project (CBP), July 2002. Available from CBP (916-444-0500) and at www.cbp.org/2002/bb020701.htm

Note: Please adapt this letter to your own community and check your local paper's word limit for published letters.

Editor:

Proposition 49 is a bad approach to a good cause. We support a variety of programs designed to give children safe, healthy places to go when they are not in school and programs that provide constructive activities for them.

But Proposition 49 would unfairly take one program with a powerful sponsor and give it funding off the top of the budget process every year. Even in tough economic times when it will take money away from more critical needs like health care, public safety and other school programs. Even if it requires taxes to be raised. Even if it isn't the best after school program or the one that best fits the needs of our community.

Needs and priorities change, and new proposals compete with old ones for funding in the annual budget process. But this program creates a permanent spending contract costing $550,000,000 each year, unless it is repealed by another state ballot measure. Is this fair?

If Prop 49 passes, others with the money or name recognition to mount an expensive ballot campaign will try the same ploy to protect their pet programs. Each time one succeeds, there will be less money available for other needs, making future budget battles in Sacramento even more formidable.

Stop Proposition 49.

Sincerely,