Putting Texas First

7/31/2019 Putting Texas First

1/113


2/113

Putting Texas First

A policy primer or elected o cials and everyday Texans

Edited by David Edmonson and Katy Vedlitz

Copyright 2012 by the Texas First Education Fund

Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, with propercitation to the author and the Texas First Education Fund.

Special thanks to the policy experts who contributed to this report.

Putting Texas First is available online at www.texas rst oundation.com

Texas First Education Fund815 Brazos Street, Suite 200

Austin, TX 78701Phone: 512-401-3041

The Texas First Education Fund is a 501(c) (3) nonpro t organizationdedicated to researching public policy matters and public opinion and un-

derstanding how Texans consume political and policy news. The Texas FirstEducation Fund is a partner organization o the Texas First Foundation,

a 501(c) (4) nonpartisan nonpro t organization dedicated to ostering anhonest public dialogue where the truth matters, and advocating or policies

that put Texans rst.


3/113

Putting t exas F irst iii

CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Budget Facts and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Public Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Public Education Facts and Figures . . . . . . . . . 20

Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Higher Education Facts and Figures . . . . . . . . 31Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Health Care Facts and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Environment Facts and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Civil Justice and Consumer Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Civil Justice Facts and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Criminal Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Criminal Justice Facts and Figures . . . . . . . . . 71

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Transportation Facts and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Labor and the Work orce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Labor and Work orce Facts and Figures . . . . . . 94

Democracy and Voter Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Democracy Facts and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100


4/113

Putting t exas F irst 1

INTRODUCTION

Jim Dunnam, Senior Fellow, Texas First Foundation

With court battles over redistricting and voter ID promising to drag

on, several lawsuits challenging our state education nancing sys-tem ongoing, and a lagging economy in many parts o our state, Texaslegislators and elected o cials at the state and local levels have their work cut out or them in 2012 and beyond. Along with these struggles, how-ever, comes a great opportunity to break the status quo and con rontmany o the persistent challenges that Texans ace. We have the chancenow to take Texas in a new direction and make it a place where our chil-

dren can prosper.

The voices and needs o everyday Texans are o ten lost amid polarizingpolitical rhetoric emanating rom both ends o the political spectrum.The Texas First Foundation supports practical state policies that put Tex-ans ahead o partisan interests and ideology. We advocate or policies thatmake a quality public primary, secondary and higher education available

to all Texans. We support the equal rights o all citizens to have their voices heard in the political process and oppose any e orts to restrictthose rights. We think that in order to secure our economic uture, Texasmust begin to make budget investments in priorities like education, waterand transportation in rastructure. This means Texas must have a revenuestructure that is air to all taxpayers and avoids pre erences based on whohas the best lobby team. This means acknowledging and then addressing

the current structural de cit. This means re-evaluating our tax structurerom top to bottom to ensure a permanent solution that stops the revolv-ing door at the courthouse over state nances.

With help rom respected policy experts, the Texas First Education Fundhas compiled this guide or elected o cials and everyday Texans who arelooking or a new approach and a new way o thinking about some o themost important issues acing Texans going into the 21st century.


5/113


THE BUDGETThe undamental job o the Legislature during sessionis to enact a budget to und state agencies and programsor the ollowing biennium. Budget writing is an oppor-tunity or lawmakers to establish short- and long-termgoals or the state. Former Texas State Representative

and Texas First Senior Fellow Jim Dunnam talks about why the Legislature needs to do a better job setting pri-orities or Texas in our state budget and explains what isat stake i we do not make investments in important stateneeds like transportation, water and education.


6/113

4 Putting t exas F irst


7/113


MAKING AN INVESTMENT IN TEXAS FUTURE

Jim Dunnam, Senior Fellow, Texas First Foundation

Texas aces a serious budget crisis. The structural de cit (the recurring

one which will be back year a ter year) has reached $10 billion perbiennium, and we ace billions more in additional debt in order to pay or vital transportation and in rastructure projects, to protect our states

water supply, and more.

But Texas political climate has become one where the mere mention o government spending can send elected o cials into a cold sweat. Sel -ap-

pointed conservative watchdog groups have wielded heavy infuence overTexas political leadership, and the 2010 midterm election brought withit a tide o new adherents pledging no new taxes and no new spending nomatter what regardless o reality and the needs o the state.

The 82nd Legislature kept their promise and used the political capital they thought they earned to make drastic and destructive cuts to public educa-tion and other state spending in the ace o an unprecedented $27 billionbudget short all. Employing timeworn budget and accounting tricks thatde erred billions in obligations into the next budget cycle, while acceler-ating collection o tomorrows revenue today, lawmakers gave the alseillusion o balanced books. In addition, roughly $15 billion was hackedrom an already austere state budget or the upcoming biennium.

These cuts hurt, and the piper will have to be paid by uture taxpayers

or the short sighted accounting gimmicks. Countless headlines tellingo teacher layo s, increasing college tuition and no money or new roadconstruction around the state prove as much. The problem is not just anew one. Texas has not made real substantive investments in importantstate programs and projects in many years. Even during times o surplus,it has all gone something like this: the Legislature meets briefy; they cob-ble together a spending plan with no real long term plan, then hurry out

o town; all allowing us to squeak through another two years. Some yearsare worse than others, but conversations and di cult decisions about thestates uture and priorities always have to wait.


8/113


Recent budget cuts are only a symptom o the larger problems we ace rom persistently re using to invest in our collective utures. Texas ranks near dead last

among states in tax revenue and expenditures per capita, and the state o the state is a direct re ection

o our taxing and spending priorities.

Recent budget cuts are only a symptom o the larger problems we acerom persistently re using to invest in our collective utures. Texas ranksnear dead last among states in tax revenue and expenditures per capita, andthe state o the state is a direct refection o our taxing and spending priori-ties. No one wants to pay higher taxes, and i our only goal is to be a low tax state, Texas is doing a pretty good job. But the truth is that rom edu-cation to the environment, rom roads to health care, present and utureTexans are getting the short end o the stick. At some point, a decade ormore o putting o long terms needs will make attempts to change courseeven more di cult. Simply re using to address revenue issues means morethan you get what you pay or; it also means we are borrowing rom uturegenerations o Texans. For example, over the last 10 years lawmakers havechosen to borrow money or road construction, leaving $31 billion to bepaid back by uture taxpayers over the next 30 years.

The largest chunk o the state budget (over 40%) goes to public education.

Providing our youth with a quality education is a undamental necessity or a prosperous uture. Not only is it our obligation to make sure all

young people have an equal opportunity or a bright uture and a quality li e, but cultivating a well-educated work orce is the only way to build astrong economy. Many o the problems we ace nationally with the debt,unemployment, and the economy can be linked directly to our steady andmethodical de unding o public education. Texas cannot continue to pros-

per while having more o its population without high school diplomasthan any other state. Eventually these numbers will take their toll.

Yet, state leaders just cut public education unding by $5.4 billion orthe next two years. Because there is not enough to go around, unding


9/113


imbalances between districts are determining the winners and losers inschool accountability ratings. Today our tax structure, reduced unding,and uneven distribution o that money have us back in court with at leastve new lawsuits challenging the constitutionality o our school nance

system. As these slog their way through the system, millions o studentsare losing their uture. And our uture is tied to theirs. The Texas schoolnance system has been ound unconstitutional by the Texas SupremeCourt repeatedly over the last two decades. Texas lawmakers need to stopthe serial violation o school childrens rights and ace up to the toughproblems and make the tough choices.

Texas lawmakers need to stop the serial violationo school childrens rights and ace up to the tough

problems and make the tough choices.

Transportation and in rastructure are other examples o state investments

that are long overdue. These in rastructure needs continue to be delayedand de erred, even as the states population and the need or more andbetter roads increases. Meanwhile, the gas tax has stagnated at 1990slevels, and we are taking on more and more debt to nance road con-struction. Today, Texans are paying more to service that debt than we pay on new road construction. This is a serious concern i Texas is going tocontinue to grow and oster a vibrant economy that attracts business and

commerce to the state.

Furthermore, the ongoing re usal o the Legislature to und the state wa-ter plan is a huge liability. The persistent drought weve experienced overthe last year, and can expect to continue, only intensi es the outstandingneed or improved water in rastructure to meet state demand into the21st century. Not only do urban areas need water or development, but

the state economy relies heavily on rural communities or arming andagriculture. Everyone seems to agree that the state water plan is needed,and everyone seems to agree the plan will cost more than $50 billion overthe next 50 years, yet every session passes without meaning ul e ort toaddress this need. Weve had the money in the past to pay or water proj-


10/113


ects, but we didnt invest in them. Now with the state in a budget crisis we are not investing either.

The vital priorities that will keep Texans sa e and prosperous well into

the 21st century are not ree. The good news is that many state leadersrom both ends o the political spectrum are now beginning to tell thetruth about the budget and are advocating or increased spending on vitalpriorities. Even Republican House Speaker Joe Straus admitted that atsome point, I think, you cant cut your way to prosperity. Senate FinanceChair Steve Ogden is calling or us to immediately address the schoolunding crisis. True and established conservatives like Senator Tommy

Williams and Senator Bob Deuell are calling or responsible considerationo new revenues to address road construction and other state needs.

THE WAY FORWARD

The rst step is to have an honest conversation with the people o Texas

about our state budget. Texas is not a pay-as-you-go state anymore. We delay payments, accelerate receipts, and use other tricks to make itlook like we have a balanced budget. We rob money rom dedicated undslike the Gas Tax, which is supposed to und road construction, and theSporting Goods Sales Tax, which is supposed to go to our state parks, topay or other unrelated budget items. We increase the state debt to pay or the things we want and need now and pass along the bill to uture

taxpayers. This is deceit ul to the people o Texas, and we need to comeclean about it.

In order to secure the uture o our state, we must become responsibleand accountable or the choices we make in our state budget. This means

we must ace the di cult reality that we have to create a stable, growingand broad state revenue system to pay or the needs o our state. We needto pay as we go again and stop passing the bill to uture generations. Itmeans cutting hundreds o millions o dollars in waste ul spending oncorporate cronyism and recovering billions in tax exemptions the stateprovides to corporations that are not holding up their end o the deal.It means re orming the poorly per orming business margins tax so that


11/113


12/113


DETAILS

Budget cuts from the 82nd Legislative Session: 5

$4 billion cut from public schools per-student funding formulas, and $1.4 billion additionally cut fromeducation grant programs. 6

$559 million cut from TEXAS Grants (29,000 fewer

students) $1.6 billion cut from nursing homes (3% cut inMedicaid reimbursement)

23% cut to total state backed college nancial aid(43,258 fewer students bene tting)

$800 million (6.1%) cut from colleges anduniversities

HOW TEXAS RANKS

State government tax collections per capita, 2010:

48th at $1,567 1

Total state expenditures per capita, 2009:

47th at $3,630 2

Total gross state product, 2010:

2nd at $1,207,494,000,000 3

Fiscal year 2012 shortfall as percent of general fund budget:

5th at 20.5% 4

BUDGET FACTS AND FIGURES


13/113


Accounting tricks used to balance the budget during the82nd Legislative Session: 7

Deferred payments for public schools ($2.3 billion) Tax collection speed ups

Fee increases Underfunding Medicaid ($4.8 billion)

$176 million of the Sporting Goods Sales Tax revenue(Fund 64), which is supposed to be earmarked for StateParks, in 2012-2013 has been withheld to balance thestate budget. 8

Tax exemptions for the natural gas industry totaled$7.4 billion from 2004-2009. 9 According to the StateComptroller, the high cost natural gas tax exemptioncost the state more than $2.35 billion over the 2010-2011biennium. 10


14/113


15/113


PUBLIC EDUCATION Widespread access to quality public education is a key building block or a strong economy and crucial to a pros-perous uture or our state. In Texas, steady de unding o public education has put that uture in jeopardy. Texas al-ready ranks last or near last on education indicators like

graduation rates and SAT scores, and recent budget cutsare sure to exacerbate the problem. Education legal andpolicy expert Holly McIntush gives the landscape o publiceducation in Texas and makes the case or why increasedspending translates into better results.


16/113


17/113


TEXAS PUBLIC EDUCATION AND SCHOOL FINANCE POLICY

Holly McIntush, Associate, Thompson & Horton LLP

Texas has set an ambitious and vital goal or its public schools: to en-

sure that every Texas student nishes high school and graduates pre-pared to enter college or start a career. Everyone agrees that Texas uturedepends on our schools meeting this goal. According to the U.S. De-partment o Education, ninety percent o twenty- rst century jobs willrequire some level o post-secondary education. For twenty plus years,sociologist and demographer Steve Murdock has warned us that Texasmust increase the education and income levels o our growing minority

population or we will ace a dire economic and political uture. Recogniz-ing this, the Texas Legislature has mandated that schools o er a moredemanding curriculum, that students pass a rigorous set o tests in orderto advance to the next grade level or be promoted, and that teachers closethe achievement gap separating low-income and minority students romtheir white, middle-class peers. In other words, Texas schools, students,and teachers are being graded on whether they are meeting this ambitious

goal. The problem is this: the Legislature has not given Texas schools,students, or teachers the resources necessary to do so.

For twenty plus years, sociologist and demographer Steve Murdock has warned us that Texas must

increase the education and income levels o our

growing minority population or we will ace a dire economic and political uture.

The Curriculum

To help prepare students to be college or career ready by the time they graduate, Texas public schools are required to teach an increasingly broadand demanding curriculum. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) and theTexas Higher Education Coordinating Board worked together to devel-op College and Career Readiness Standards, which the State Board


18/113


19/113


math TAKS on its rst administration, only 76% o Hispanics and 69% o A rican-American students did so. Only 73% o eighth graders identi edas socioeconomically disadvantaged and only 55% o English languagelearners passed the same test on the rst go around. A similar gap exists

or every grade level and in every subject. I you look at the numbersor the higher college ready per ormance level, which is closer to thelevels students will be expected to per orm to on the STAAR, the prob-lem is even more daunting. In 2010, 70% o white students met the col-lege ready level on the English language arts TAKS, compared to 52% o Hispanics, 51% o A rican-Americans, 49% o economically disadvantagedstudents, and 10% o English language learners. When you consider that

the higher drop-out rate among poor and minority students means ewero them even take the exit-level test, you begin to see the extent o thechallenge acing Texas public schools and teachers.

Because the very populations that are being le t behind are those that aregrowing the most rapidly, what Steve Murdock said in 2003 is still truetoday: i we dont take positive steps to close the achievement gap, Texas

will have a population that not only will be poorer, less well educated,and more in need o numerous orms o state services, but also less ableto support such services. 12 In other words, the uture o Texas is tiedto the uture o its non-Anglo populations, and how well they do is how

well Texas will do. 13

The Funding Defcit

At the same time Texas schools and students are being held to a muchhigher standard, their unding has been cut. Funding or Texas schools

was cut by $5.4 billion during the 2011 legislative session. Approximately $4 billion o this cut came rom the basic per student ormulas. The re-sults o these cuts are already being elt in Texas schools. Thousands o teachers have been laid o , causing class sizes to increase. TEA has sincereceived a record number o requests to exceed the state-mandated class

size o limit o 22 students. Furthermore, everyone expects the cuts tohave an even bigger impact in the second year o the biennium.


20/113


At the same time Texas schools and studentsare being held to a much higher standard,

their unding has been cut.

Perhaps most disturbingly, much o the other $1.4 billion in cuts camerom special programs aimed at helping to close the achievement gap.Grants or ull day pre-kindergarten which is vital to ensuring thatpoor and minority students start kindergarten ready to learn wereeliminated. Funding was reduced signi cantly or tutoring, credit recov-ery, and drop-out prevention programs.

The unding cuts have also caused the systemto become inequitable and ine fcient.

The unding cuts have also caused the system to become inequitable andine cient. The Legislature has established two distinct unding mecha-nisms: (1) the target-revenue system, which is arbitrarily tied to theunding levels o 2006-2007; and (2) a ormula-based system that hasnot been updated in decades and does not refect the actual di erences ineducation costs across districts and student populations. Together, thesetwo mechanisms have created unjusti able unding di erences amongschool districts. Furthermore, even be ore last sessions unding cuts, nei-ther mechanism was tied to the actual cost o meeting the accountability standards or helping students become college and career ready. Becauseboth mechanisms are under unded, the Legislature cannot simply redis-tribute the money that is currently in the system and level-down on a unds available basis.


21/113


THE WAY FORWARD

Weve long recognized that the ability o Texas public schools todo their job to, in the words o our Texas Constitution, en-sure a general di usion o knowledge is vital to the unctioning o our state. With the growing and changing economy, the Legislature hasrightly determined that a general di usion o knowledge requires Texasstudents to graduate rom high school prepared to enter college or the

work orce. And so, the Legislature has built a rigorous accountability

system designed to measure their progress towards meeting this goal. Butour Constitution also says it is the Legislatures duty to make suitableprovision or the support and maintenance o an e cient system sothat schools have the ability to achieve a general di usion o knowledge.In other words, the Legislature must equitably und districts at a levelhigh enough to allow all Texas public schools to provide a quality educa-tion to all students.

The Legislature must provide our schools withequitable, adequate, and suitable unding so that

they can continue moving orward toward the goal o preparing every student or college or a career.

By cutting unds to public schools at the same time it is increasing ac-countability standards, the Legislature has ailed in its duty. The Legis-lature must provide our schools with equitable, adequate, and suitableunding so that they can continue moving orward toward the goal o preparing every student or college or a career.


22/113


HOW TEXAS RANKS

Pupil-teacher ratio in public elementary andsecondary schools in 2009:

23rd at 14.5 14

Estimated average salary of public school teachers in 2011:

33rd at $48,261 15

Average teachers salary as a percent of average annual pay in 2009:

48th at 104.4% 16

Percent of population 25 or olderwith a high school diploma in 2009:

50th at 79.9% 17

Public education expenditures per student in 2008-09:

44th at $8,610 18

Public education expenditures per student as a percentof the national average in 2008-09:

44th at 83.5% 19

Percent of public school fourth graders pro cient or better in reading in 2011:

38th at 28% 20

Percent of public school eighth graders pro cient or better in reading in 2011:

39th at 27% 21

Percent of public school fourth graders pro cient or better in math in 2011:

28th at 39%22

Percent of public school eighth graders pro cient or better in math in 2009:

12th at 40% 23

PUBLIC EDUCATION FACTS AND FIGURES


23/113


DETAILS

The 2012-13 budget cuts public education funding by $5.4billion, including a $4 billion cut to the Foundation SchoolProgram. 24

The 2012-13 budget is the rst time in modern history offunding public schools that the state did not fund studentpopulation growth. 25

Due to budget cuts, three times as many elementaryclassrooms have been allowed to exceed the states class-size limit in 2011 compared to 2010. 26

A statewide survey of school districts suggests that 32,000staff positions have been eliminated due to the 2011budget cuts, and most districts anticipate additional staff losses next year. 27

64.4% of Texas fourth graders are eligible for free orreduced-price lunches, compared to the national average of

52%.28


24/113


25/113


HIGHER EDUCATION As with public education, maintaining a strong highereducation system is crucial to sustaining and growing a ro-bust state economy and ensuring a bright and prosperousuture or Texans. Many groups and individuals have putorth proposals or re orming higher education in Texas.

Katy Vedlitz discusses the important balance o makinghigher education more accessible while preserving andimproving quality and excellence in our institutions.


26/113


27/113


HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM MAKING ACOMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE

Katy Vedlitz, Policy and Program Director, Texas First Foundation

The U.S. system o higher education is revered worldwide. Studentsrom across the globe desperately seek to enter our colleges and universities in order to get the best education to make them, and their homecountries, success ul, productive and competitive in the global market-place. The state o Texas contributes signi cantly to this system o ex-cellence, boasting six major public university systems and several moreindependent public colleges and universities. Texas A&M University and

the University o Texas at Austin, our fagships, both rank in the toptwenty public universities in the U.S. 29

While the quality o education available at many Texas public universitiesremains exceptional, questions and concerns have been raised about costand access to as well as e ciency and productivity within these institu-tions. As Texas budget troubles continue to loom, some budget writers

see our state universities as a place to cut costs.Controversy over some policy groups higher education re orm propos-als has reached a ever pitch in the Texas A&M and the University o Texas communities. University administrators and aculty have pushedback strongly against e orts to pit research against teaching and to pro-mote e ciency over quality. As these discussions continue, it is very important not to lose sight o the original purpose and incredible bene tso public universities.

Sometimes people orget that public higher education is not a ee orservice enterprise but, rather, a commitment by the public and their rep-resentatives to build the human capital we will need to meet the uturedemands our world will ace. Public higher education is a public good,like health care or roads or a judicial system or K-12 education. It is

something we invest in or the uture, and it is also a system that givesgreat return on our investment.


28/113


Economic Impact o Universities

Universities drive the economy in three major ways. The rst and mostimportant way is by teaching and graduating talented students that go on

to become productive members o the states work orce, innovating andcreating more jobs or subsequent graduates. A highly educated work-orce is the backbone o a strong economy. Public universities preparegraduates or careers in businesses, rms, nonpro ts, and all levels o gov-ernment. In these positions, they become the key players in the enginesthat drive our state, national, and global economies.

The second way is by competing or and winning major contracts andresearch grants. The new money that comes into universities not only produces jobs and income, but it also has a ripple e ect throughout com-munities and the state by way o real estate movement and generated taxrevenue. Each dollar invested in higher education produces an estimated$5.50 in economic returns. 30 In scal year 2010, Texas research institu-tions brought in $1.9 billion to the state in ederal research grants alone. 31

When private and other unding sources are included, these institutionsspent $3.55 billion on research and development in 2010.

Finally, many new technologies, ideas, and discoveries are a result o university research. Researchers work closely with businesses and industriesto develop ideas and bring them to the marketplace. Collaboration be-tween universities and the private sector contributes to innovation, eco-nomic growth, and job creation.

The challenge or Texas is to oster the development o more Tier One schools and continue a high level

o quality, per ormance and cost e fciency while educating the coming generations o our growing

and changing population.

Texas has our nationally recognized, or Tier One, research institu-tions, that drive the research and innovation that energizes the stateeconomy. These include the University o Texas at Austin, Texas A&M


29/113


University, the University o Houston, and Rice University. Seven otherTexas universities are designated as emerging research universities, on theroad to achieving the Tier One designation. The challenge or Texas isto oster the development o more Tier One schools and continue a high

level o quality, per ormance and cost e ciency while educating the com-ing generations o our growing and changing population.

Cost Saving and E fciency

Much o the debate over higher education re orm stems rom allegationsby some groups that there is widespread ine ciency in university budgetsand a lack o productivity or commitment to teaching among the aculty o public colleges and universities. By and large, these allegations are un-ounded and do nothing but damage the reputation o our best schoolsand top quality aculty.

Many Texas universities, particularly the fagships, are already some o themost e cient in their class in terms o cost vs. graduation rates. 32 Whilegraduation rates certainly have room or improvement, and many univer-sities are working to improve them, universities in Texas are an excellent

value when compared to those in other states. Growing enrollment num-bers, and the tens o thousands more students who seek admission to ourfagships, prove that.

The state can do more to improve graduation rates and e ciency by en-suring that all students graduating rom Texas high schools are prepared

to succeed in college and by making sure that students have access tonancial aid and other resources that make timely graduation possible.

We cannot go backward by cutting budgets and salaries, reducing the value o research and aculty who per orm research, or reducing the skilllevel and expertise o our university aculty. These specially-trained aculty members are crucial to maintaining the quality o our major universitiesand play a strong role in securing the economic uture o our citizens and

state.


30/113


State Budget Cuts and Tuition

In 2003, the Texas Legislature deregulated tuition at public universities,allowing individual governing boards to set tuition rates at their respec-

tive schools. Deregulation e ectively allowed the Legislature to slash stateunding or higher education while disconnecting itsel rom the resultingburdens placed on universities, students, and their amilies.

State unding or public universities has steadily declined when adjustedor infation and enrollment growth over the last several years. 33 The 2011legislative session was especially brutal or higher education, with drasticreductions to state-backed nancial aid and signi cant cuts to university budgets. 34 Universities increasingly are orced to make up or budget gapsby raising tuition and ees, cutting aculty and other sta , increasing classsizes, cutting programs, and reducing student scholarships. Tuition atpublic universities has nearly doubled since 2003.

In order to ensure that a quality college educationremains a ordable and accessible or all students,the state needs to make a renewed investment in

public universities and student fnancial aid.

While Texas universities are still keeping their heads above water despitesigni cant unding cuts, the long-term outlook does not bode well i tuition rates continue to escalate as the major source o school revenue.The state has a vested interest in making college a ordable or students.In order to ensure that a quality college education remains a ordable andaccessible or all students, the state needs to make a renewed investmentin public universities and student nancial aid.


31/113


THE WAY FORWARD

Texas has a great tradition o excellence in higher education. Un ortu-nately, the tone o the debate surrounding higher education re ormhas become overly critical, skeptical, and judgmental. This is not air touniversities, nor is it a productive way to ensure that all Texans have anopportunity to receive a high quality college education.

The state must fnd more ways to invest in universitiesand student fnancial aid and reverse the trend o

decreased state support o higher education.

Recent meetings o the Texas Legislatures new Joint Oversight Commit-tee on Higher Education have been very encouraging. We are hope ul

that uture discussions will lead to productive, meaning ul re orms duringthe 83rd Legislative Session. We o er the ollowing recommendations tohelp guide the dialogue and see that Texas universities continue to excel

well into the 21st century:

1. The Legislature must consider ways to x the states broken tax struc-tures, streamline revenue, and eliminate tax loopholes and inequalities in

order to bring revenues in line with the needs o the state. This includesrevamping the underper orming business margins tax to repair the statesrecurring structural de cit. The state must nd more ways to invest inuniversities and student nancial aid and reverse the trend o decreasedstate support o higher education. Increasing revenues and boosting statesupport or higher education could allow or an end to tuition deregula-tion, bringing tuition costs and increases back under legislative and voter

control.2. The Legislature should consider allowing universities to issue moretuition revenue bonds. During challenging economic times, bonds can be


32/113


a good way or schools to invest in important in rastructure projects andat a minimal cost to the state.

3. Lawmakers must reverse cuts to elementary and secondary public educa-

tion so that children have the educational oundation they need to succeedin college. Special consideration should be given to adequately unding Advanced Placement and other college readiness programs, which preparestudents or college-level coursework at a relatively low cost.

4. Lawmakers should be wary o any one-size- ts-all approach to highereducation re orm. When considering ways increase e ciency and improvegraduation rates, the Legislature should care ully study and weigh how policies will a ect teaching and research quality at individual universities,particularly the Tier One and upcoming Tier One schools.


33/113


DETAILS

State general revenue appropriations to higher educationtotaled $12.2 billion for the 2012-13 biennium, a 6.1percent decrease from $13.0 billion in the 2010-11biennium. 40

Legislative appropriations as a share of universities totalfunding sources decreased from 30% in 2004 to just 22%in 2011. 41

In the 2011 legislative session, Texas eliminated nancial

aid for over 43,000 students, including 29,000 incoming students who will not be able to get a TEXAS Grant. 42

From Fall 2006 to Fall 2010, enrollment in highereducation in Texas grew from 1,199,814 to 1,445,157 a 17% increase in just four years. 43

HOW TEXAS RANKS

Percent of population 25 and older with abachelors degree or more in 2009:

30th at 25.5% 35

Six-year graduation rate of bachelors students:

34th at 48.5% 36

Average in-state student costs at public institutionsof higher education in 2010:

23rd at $13,764 37

Enrollment rate in institutions of higher education in 2007:

43rd at 552 students per 1,000population 18 to 24 years old 38

Average SAT score:

47th at 1446 39

HIGHER EDUCATION FACTS AND FIGURES


34/113


By 2040, Texas will have about two million more childrenunder 18, and one million more adults age 18 to 24 thetraditional college age population than in 2000 44

An estimated 31% of Texas high school graduates going on

to college are not prepared for college coursework. 45

Between 2003 and 2010, tuition and fees at publicuniversities increased by 83%, and with recent budget cuts,many universities are planning another round of tuitionincreases. 46

Texas A&M University and the University of Texas at Austin

are both ranked in the top 25 out of the 100 schools onKiplingers 2011 Best Values in Public Colleges. 47


35/113


HEALTH CAREHealth care is one o the most daunting policy issueschallenging lawmakers at the state and ederal level, but itis also one o the most important. The Center or PublicPolicy Priorities Associate Director, Anne Dunkelberg,provides a comprehensive overview o some o the major

issues in health care acing Texans and how the state canmove orward to ensure that all Texans have access toquality care and the opportunity to lead a healthy li e.


36/113


37/113


STRONG MEDICINE FOR A HEALTHY TEXAS

Anne Dunkelberg, Associate Director, Center or Public Policy Priorities

Texas aces big challenges to the health o our people and to their ac-

cess to health care. These problems mirror those o the country atlarge, though in some instances our troubles are more extreme. Becausethe list o issues that a ect Texans health and their ability to get care islong and tightly intertwined, the progress can be slow and the work hard.Still, real gains have been made in the last decade and real progress is bothachievable and worth the e ort.

Obesity

Research confrms what those o us who grew up in the 1960s or be ore already suspected:

that Texans eat vastly more high- at, high-salt,high-sugar oods today than was true back when

there were no ast ood restaurants and evensoda pop came in 6.5 ounce bottles.

Obesity-related health issues are not worst in Texas among the states butare plenty bad. Our growing Hispanic population (nearly 38% o Texansin 2010) has higher rates o chronic illnesses like diabetes that are linkedto obesity, so much is at stake or the health o our population. O course,contemporary American ood habits and exercise trends are a big actor.Research con rms what those o us who grew up in the 1960s or be orealready suspected: that Texans eat vastly more high- at, high-salt, high-sugar oods today than was true back when there were no ast ood res-taurants and even soda pop came in 6.5 ounce bottles. Unhealthy oodstoday are cheap, plenti ul, engineered to appeal to instinctive human ap-petites, and available in places where healthy wholesome resh oods aremissing. Changing patterns o consumption that are so pleasurable andcommerce that are so pro table will likely require the kind o multi-yearand multi- aceted change that reduced smoking over the last hal a cen-


38/113


tury, as both consumers and the economic powers involved resist rapidchanges.

Lack o access to sa e and pleasant places to exercise, or to healthy oods

and groceries in urban and rural ood deserts contribute to the obesity problem. These barriers to a healthy li estyle owe more to city planningshortcomings than to cultural or ethnic di erences. Achievable, commu-nity-level changes across Texas can help ensure that low- and moderate-income Texans can eat right a ordably and get regular exercise sa ely.

Provider Shortages

Health care provider shortages in Texas are among some o the worst inthe country, and not simply in our large rural areas. Even Texas largestcities lack adequate supplies o certain kinds o care, and increasingly thereare shortages across the state o doctors willing to see seniors on Medi-care or children on Medicaid. With nearly one in three Texas working-ageadults (ages 19-64) uninsured, the urgent need to grow the health care

work orce in anticipation o more Texans gaining coverage under the A -ordable Care Act (ACA, the 2010 national health re orm law) is as seri-ous here as anywhere in the U.S. But while the ederal ACA has investedhundreds o millions in health training, Texas 2012-2013 state budgetmade deep cuts in programs training new health pro essionals.

Health Care A ordability

Financial barriers to care hamper solutions to Texas most basic healthcare challenges. Our uninsured rate one in our Texans is the na-tions highest, with some o the lowest rates o job-linked health bene tsin the U.S., higher-than-average insurance premiums due to cost-shi tingrom the uninsured, and almost no state insurance rate regulation. Lim-its on Texas Medicaid coverage o working poor parents and signi cantnumbers o immigrants who cannot use Medicaid or CHIP add to the

uninsured pool. The huge number o uninsured undermines Texas abil-ity to attack health challenges e.g., how best to provide community mental health services, improve prenatal care, reduce teen pregnancies,reduce obesity and diabetes and promote healthy li estyles because


39/113


nancial barriers stop so many Texans rom accessing the services andprograms designed to address these issues.

Our uninsured rate one in our Texans isthe nations highest, with some o the lowest rateso job-linked health benefts in the U.S., higher-than-

average insurance premiums due to cost-shi ting rom the uninsured, and almost no state

insurance rate regulation.

A ordable care or individual Texans and a ordable systems o care orthe state and nation are also interwoven. Our state illustrates the limita-tions o purely market-driven health care: that despite a phenomenally pro table and competitive health care and health insurance Texas mar-ketplace, we still have the worst access to care in country. In reality, nonation or state provides access to decent minimum standard o a ordablehealth care one that calls or a air-share contribution but still protectscitizens acing health crises rom nancial ruin unless the citizens pri-oritize establishing a system to ensure that access goal. Health care secu-rity un ortunately is not a natural by-product o a highly success ul healthcare industry, nor does it necessarily result even where there are stronge orts to control costs and improve health care quality.

Creating a system or nancial access to good a ordable care at all in-comes was a central goal o the ACAs health re orm, but most elected o -cials in Texas and the U.S. who oppose the ACA do not share or supportthat goal. Re orm opponents generally advocate in a general way or re-ductions in health care spending, and some even support eliminating theguarantee o minimum care provided to seniors today through Medicare.This refects a deep divide in vision o what Texas and America should be.

Health Spending and Cost Containment

Even with more than 6 million Texans and nearly 50 million people na-tionwide lacking access to decent care, our state and country still ace a


40/113


critical need to control the growth in health care spending as a bedrock component o addressing Americas long-term de cit and debt. The twobig goals are (1) total health care spending that does not grow aster thangeneral infation or growth in the economy, and (2) public health pro-

grams that are actuarially sound, so that the dollars coming in cover orexceed spending going out. Over the last 30 years, Medicare per-personcosts have infated astest, but care or the privately insured and Medicaidollowed closely, and neck and neck. We cant get health care costs undercontrol by looking just to Medicaid or Medicare re orms. We must work to re-direct our entire health system away rom runaway growth and reck-less spending.

This presents a challenge every bit as big as weaning Americans rom astood. One mans smarter purchasing like only paying or things i they really work and improve health outcomes is another mans rationingor inter ering with my doctors judgment. And, no matter how goodthe evidence or quality and e ectiveness-related change, every healthcare business sector resists costs containment.

Public Sector Role

In 2011 the average amily premium or job-based health benefts was $15,073, which was nearly

one-third o the median Texas household

income o $48,615.

In addition, to provide access to decent care or all at an a ordable price,a signi cant public-sector role has to be included. Without public nanc-ing o a sliding-scale system, low- and moderate-income Texans wouldonly have limited or substandard care, because even average Texas am-

ily incomes are not high enough to support the average cost o amily coverage to happen to make decent minimum standard o care available;in 2011 the average amily premium or job-based health bene ts was$15,073, which was nearly one-third o the median Texas household in-come o $48,615.


41/113


Making sure our health care system is sustainable requires attention toboth spending controls and revenues. This means that Texans must choosebetween stepping up and addressing the scal needs o our public healthcare sector, or abandoning the promise o a decent modern standard o

medical care or the majority o Americans. At home in Texas, we haveto deal with the structural de cit (revenue shortage) that state legislativebudget o cials on both sides o the aisle now acknowledge creates anongoing shortage o at least $10 billion every time the Legislature tries to

write a two-year budget. Our broken revenue system means Texas cannotsupport its public schools, let alone educate the new doctors and nurses

we need. The parallel ederal challenge is to nd a balance between sound

revenue collection and cost containment and across the entire health caresystem. We must meet this challenge, unless we are willing to leave themajority o average Americans without access to the standards o modernmedical science the U.S. has so proudly led the world in developing.

THE WAY FORWARD

The prescription or Texas is strong medicine: the courage to demandchange rom the many economic sectors that bene t today romhealth care overspending and rom unhealthy eating. This also calls or astrong measure o sel -discipline rom us all as citizens: to be willing tounderstand that a ordable health care requires us to take care o our ownhealth, to be thri ty and smart consumers, and to each pay our air shareboth in taxes and at the doctors o ce or drug store. I a majority o Tex-ans can agree that our American dream is not only worth keeping alive,but also that real equality o opportunity must include access to decenta ordable health care, then the hard work ahead is well worth doing and

we will reap the bene ts in a more prosperous uture or our children andour state.


42/113


HOW TEXAS RANKS

Percent of overweight/obese children:

19th at 32.2% 48

Percent of overweight/obese adults:

10th at 66.5% 49

Percent of population uninsured:

1st at 26% 50

Percent of children uninsured:

1st at 18% 51

Physicians per 10,000 population:

41st at 21.5 52

Registered nurses per 100,000 population:

42nd at 701 53

Nurse practitioners per 100,000 population:

47th at 34 54

Dentists per 10,000 population:

43rd at 4.6 55

Percent of households with food insecurity in 2009:2nd at 17.4% 56

Average monthly bene t per participant in Women, Infants,and Children (WIC) special nutrition program in 2010:

50th at $26.86 57

Teen Pregnancy Rate:

4th in 2005 at 88 pregnancies per 1,000 teen girlsage 15-19 58

HEALTH CARE FACTS AND FIGURES


43/113


DETAILS

In 2008, only 58% of Texas births obtained prenatal carein the rst trimester. 59

In 2009, 23% of Texans were living in poverty. 32% of children were living in poverty. 60

In 2009, about 17% of the nonelderly population inthe United States were uninsured. In Texas, that gure was 26%. 61

Average family health insurance premiums in Texaswere $14,526 in 2010, higher than the national averageof $13,871. 62

In 2011, the national average family health premium jumped by 9%, to $15,073. 63


44/113


45/113


ENVIRONMENTDrought, wild res, rolling blackouts, pollution and wa-ter shortages are only a ew o the environmental chal-lenges that Texas is acing and will continue to ace overthe next several years. David Weinberg, Executive Direc-tor o the Texas League o Conservation Voters, gives an

overview o some o the key issues that policymakers willgrapple with this year and beyond.


46/113


47/113


TEXAS AND THE ENVIRONMENT: KEY ISSUES DRIVINGPUBLIC POLICY IN 2012

David Weinberg, Executive Director,Texas League o Conservation Voters

2 012 will be a rocky road or environmental policy in Texas, with thestate acing critical environmental challenges involving contentiousissues related to water, electric reliability, and jobs. These issues will drivepublic policy debate in 2012 and into the 2013 state legislative session.

Looking back at 2011, state lawmakers seemed to recognize the need or

greater environmental regulation, highlighted by the passage o a man-datory disclosure law or hydraulic racturing fuids, as well as marketre orms that will enable more use o energy e ciency and renewable en-ergy. Positive legislation also passed the Texas Legislature in the areaso water conservation and recycling. Fewer regulatory rollbacks gainedtraction than expected.

However, state legislative gains were largely o set by a state budget thatdelivered some o the most perilous cuts to conservation and the environ-ment in the history o our state. To highlight one egregious shortcoming,the Texas Department o Parks and Wildli e announced at the end o 2011 that they were making an appeal to the public to help close a $4.6million dollar hole in the state parks systems budget. Success ul clean-airprograms also su ered.

Water, Drought & Wildfres

2011 was the kind o record year that we hope never to see again.Drought and wild res have taken a multi-billion dollar toll in direct andindirect costs to Texans, our communities and businesses, as well as tothe environment. Climatologists and meteorologists expect the droughtto last through at least the summer o 2012, and perhaps ar longer. The

drought, in turn, has been the per ect storm or a wild re season thatalso broke record books by scorching more than 3.9 million acres in thepast year. As disastrous as the drought was during 2011, a continuationo these conditions, along with the consistent ailure o state leaders toaddress underlying issues, places us at grave risk.


48/113


As disastrous as the drought was during 2011,a continuation o these conditions, along with

the consistent ailure o state leaders to address

underlying issues, places us at grave risk.

How the state deals with these immediate impacts and long-term chal-lenges o the drought, including dwindling water supplies and agricultur-al losses, is on a priority list o interim charges items or the legislatureto study between sessions set out by Lt. Governor David Dewhurst 64 and House Speaker Joe Straus. 65 A wide range o charges touch on thedrought and wild re prevention aimed at mitigating the skyrocketingcosts o these two natural disasters on our state. It appears that everythingrom unding or volunteer re ghters to desalination as a solution to our

water shortage woes is on the table or urther review and consideration.

Green Jobs and Electric Reliability

2012 will be a critical year or power generation in Texas, with a variety o actors combining to create a real capacity crunch and a need or new ideas. New U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) public-healthregulations regarding mercury, nitrogen oxide, and sul ur dioxide, as wellas market conditions lowering the price and production cost o alternativeenergy sources like wind and natural gas, may lead to the retirement o

some o Texas older, dirtier coal red plants. The drought also may a ectthe ability o these and other water-hungry ossil- uel plants to operate.

These actors, along with laws passed in the last state legislative sessionmay help state leaders orge a path toward a meaning ul expansion o renewable energy and energy e ciency programs in Texas. In particular,the Public Utility Commission (PUC), through rulemaking and policy changes, should encourage the expansion o energy e ciency programs,as well as availability o renewable energy on the Texas grid. An emphasison energy e ciency will reduce demands on the grid and save consumersmoney, all while creating good-paying green jobs. The states construc-tion o new power lines to West Texas is helping improve transmission


49/113


capacity and should expand the potential or large-scale wind and solarprojects in the state.

An emphasis on energy e fciency will reduce demandson the grid and save consumers money, all while

creating good-paying green jobs.

Sel -regulated power providers, including municipal and rural coopera-tives, will also play a major role in Texas green energy uture: San Anto-nios CPS Energy and Austins Austin Energy made public commitmentsto contract or hundreds o new megawatts o wind and solar generatingcapacity. These are the sorts o positive steps orward that can place Texason a path toward widespread adoption o renewable energy and createnew jobs in the green energy sector.

Hydraulic Fracturing

Hydraulic racturing, the controversial practice o using pressure to ex-tract oil and gas rom deep shale ormations, remains one o the mostdebated environmental issues both in Texas and nationwide. The TexasLegislature made headlines in 2011 when Texas became the rst stateto pass a mandatory hydraulic racturing fuid disclosure law. The TexasRailroad Commission moved quickly on adopting a rule or the new law,

which became nal in December o 2011. The Texas Legislature also au-thorized increased air monitoring in the heavily-populated Barnett Shaleregion in and around Fort Worth, and the Texas Commission o Environ-mental Quality is set to start air monitoring in the gas and oil rich EagleFord region o south Texas in early 2012.

Nationally, the EPA is continuing a comprehensive study on hydraulicracturing. The EPA will release initial study results in a 2012 report andan additional report at the end o 2014. In the U.S. Congress, the FRAC

Act was reintroduced in 2011. This bill would have ended the exemptionrom the Clean Water Act or oil and gas drilling passed in a 2005 energy


50/113


51/113


against the EPA was led September 20, 2011, and on December 30,2011, the court stayed the EPA rule.

Maximum Available Control Technology (Mercury/Power Plants)

In March 2011, the EPA released standards aimed at limiting emissionso mercury and other toxic pollutants rom industrial boilers, most nota-bly ound at power plants, chemical plants, re neries and paper mills. By controlling these plants pollution through a MACT (Maximum Avail-able Control Technology) rule, EPAs air toxics sa eguard will protect

Americans rom breathing arsenic, lead, acid gases and mercury. Even insmall amounts, MACT pollutants can be li e threatening and are linkedto cancer, birth de ects and brain damage.

Even in small amounts, MACT pollutants can be li e threatening and are linked to cancer, bir th de ects

and brain damage.

The positive health bene ts, reduction in health care costs and job cre-ation driven by a switch to cleaner technologies and energy sources wouldcertainly o set the compliance costs o the rule. Yet, the rules opponentsargue that it would put one- th o the nations coal- red electric genera-tional capacity into retirement. As more o these acilities are converted

to natural gas, as renewable energy gains broader adoption, and as coalacilities are shuttered or other reasons, the oppositions argument ap-pears ar less salient. 66

Ozone Rule

The ozone rule proposed by the EPA, which is also stalled, would helpTexas meet and maintain national standards or ground level ozone andne particle pollution (smog) which a ects the health o thousands o

Americans. The ozone rule would tighten requirements or pollutionrom a broad range o sources, including vehicles. This proposal has been


52/113


delayed by heated industry lobbying that pushed the Obama administra-tion to postpone a review o the rule until 2013.

The ozone rule is especially important to air quality in Texas due to the act that more than 20 countiesin Texas, including the cities o Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth, have ozone levels that health scientists

have determined threaten human well-being, and were designated or non-attainment or EPAs health based

standards or ozone pollution.

The ozone rule is especially important to air quality in Texas due to theact that more than 20 counties in Texas, including the cities o Hous-ton, Dallas, and Fort Worth, have ozone levels that health scientists havedetermined threaten human well-being, and were designated or non-attainment or EPAs health based standards or ozone pollution. Whilethe Clean Air Act standard in existence today is helping to keep the airhealthier or Texans and bring many counties into attainment, improvedstandards would accelerate and expand the number o counties cominginto attainment while also reducing ground level particle pollution, too.

Keystone XL Pipeline

A robust debate continues rom 2011 on whether the United Statesshould allow the construction o an oil pipeline to bring Canadian tarsands to U.S. re neries. The proposed pipeline would traverse sensitivelands, waterways and public spaces across Canada and the U.S., includingthe Ogallala Aqui er here in Texas all the way up to the Dakotas.

Every major U.S. environmental organization opposes this proposed $7

billion project, because squeezing oil out o tar sand is a waste ul anddirty process. To get a single barrel o oil rom tar sand, you must processbetween two to our tons o tar sand with two to our barrels o water.The massive pits required to develop tar sand destroys orests and wildli eand leaves a massive blight on the landscape, especially in the boreal orest


53/113


54/113


ENVIRONMENT FACTS AND FIGURES

DETAILS

The Bastrop Fire that burned in summer 2011 was themost destructive re in Texas history, destroying over 1,500homes. 73

According to Texas A&M University, the drought caused arecord $5.2 billion in agricultural losses alone. 74

In 2011, Texas suffered through the second hottestsummer in the history of the United States an average of 86.7F from June through August. 75

In 2011, Texas experienced the worst single-year drought inthe history of the state. 76

HOW TEXAS RANKS

Fossil fuel emissions in 2009:

1st at 630,500,000 tons o CO2 67

Total pollution released in 2009:

2nd at 189,779,393 pounds o toxins 68

Percent of electricity generated through

renewable sources in 2008:28th at 4.6% 69

Average monthly electric bill for residentialcustomers in 2009:

4th at $141 70

Average monthly electric bill for commercialcustomers in 2009:

14th at $665 71

Per capita energy expenditures in 2008:

5th at $6,803 72


55/113


A relatively unseen impact of the drought, groundwaterlevels in much of Texas have fallen to the lowest levels inmore than 60 years. 77


56/113


57/113


CIVIL JUSTICE AND CONSUMER RIGHTSConsumer sa eguards that protect the public have comeunder attack in recent years, and Texans access to thecivil justice system has been compromised by special in-terests and industry protections that limit corporate li-ability. Alex Winslow, Executive Director o the citizen

watchdog group Texas Watch, gives an overview o someo the blows to civil justice that have been dealt over thelast decade.


58/113



59/113


CORPORATE IMMUNITY HURTS TEXAS FAMILIES

Alex Winslow, Executive Director, Texas Watch

The civil justice system was designed by our Founders to ensure public

accountability or civil harms. The constitutions o both the UnitedStates and Texas guarantee access to the courts, as well as a trial by jury,in civil disputes. Without access to the civil justice system, individuals losethe ability to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable or needless death,injury, or nancial devastation.

Without access to the civil justice system,individuals lose the ability to hold corporate

wrongdoers accountable or needless death, injury,or fnancial devastation.

Over the last decade, however, Texas politicians and lobbyists have en-acted a series o devastating legal changes that severely restrict the rightso individuals, amilies, and small business owners. These changes havemade Texas a more dangerous place in which the value o accountability has been discarded.

Below are some o the most dangerous and ar-reaching changes enactedover the last decade:

Arbitrary Damage Limits : Texas has imposed an arbitrary, one-size- ts-all restriction on what a patient can recover rom a negligent physiciansliability insurance company. This e ectively deprives many patients andtheir amilies o due process without ul lling the promise to improve ac-cess to care or rural and under-served communities or to reduce the costo care or amilies and taxpayers.

Nursing Homes : Texas allows nursing homes to go bare and orgoliability insurance coverage altogether. Additionally, the Texas SupremeCourt determined that virtually any claim against a nursing home evenspider bites and sexual assault is considered medical negligence, giving


60/113


nursing home operators even greater protections against accountability.Texas ranks second-to-last in nursing home sta ng ratios and a quarter o all nursing home acilities in Texas have the nations worst quality rating.

Texas ranks second-to-last in nursing home sta fng ratios and a quarter o all nursing home acilities

in Texas have the nations worst quality rating.

Dangerous Products : Despite their claims to support local control, Tex-as politicians orce state courts to de er to unelected, unaccountable ed-eral bureaucrats to determine the sa ety o a product. I a product meetsederal guidelines it is assumed to be sa e. This deprives state judges and

juries o their ability to independently determine the sa ety o a particularproduct.

Asbestos Poisoning : Texas has placed severe restrictions on workers who

have been poisoned by exposure to asbestos by imposing impairmentcriteria that exceed those established by medical authorities and placingstringent ling requirements on sickened workers.

Winners Pay : In Texas, i plainti s reject a de endants settlement o erso that they can make their case be ore a jury o their peers, the plainti could be orced to pay a de endants legal costs even i he or she winsin court. In other words, a plainti could bring a valid claim that is ap-proved by a judge, have a jury rule in his or her avor and award damages only to be orced to pay the wrongdoers legal costs, erasing the entire

judgment in the process.

Windstorm Insurance : A ter Hurricane Ike, the Texas Windstorm In-surance Association (TWIA), the states windstorm insurer o last resort,

was caught allegedly engaging in un air claims handling practices. Ratherthan crack down on the insurance provider, lawmakers restricted the le-gal rights o policyholders by removing key penalties or wrongdoing by TWIA. Additionally, the legislature stripped judges and juries o theirpower, giving it to an unelected expert panel, required policyholders


61/113


to pay extra to retain their ull constitutional rights, and orced claimantsinto a Byzantine claims process.

THE WAY FORWARD

Texas lawmakers must begin the process o making the constitutionalpromise o open access to our courts a reality by enacting real legalre orms that protect amilies and small business owners. This would giveTexans the opportunity to have their disputes resolved by an impartial

jury o their peers. This would restore meaning ul public accountability or wrongdoers who cause needless harm to individuals, which will detercorporate misconduct and make our state sa er.


62/113


DETAILS

The average annual cost of Texans homeowner insurancepolicies, $1,511, is almost double the national averageof $880. 83

Low- and moderate-income Texas families bear adisproportionate share of state and local taxes. Texas hasthe fth most regressive state and local tax system of the50 states. 84

Since Texas instituted its medical liability limits in 2003,the number of payments made on behalf of Texas doctorsto compensate patients for medical errors fell more than50 percent between 2003 and 2010, and the value of those payments fell by nearly 65 percent. 85

HOW TEXAS RANKS

Average premium for homeowners insurance in 2009:

1st at $1,511 78

Average premium for auto insurance in 2009:

11th at $1,022 79

Homeownership rate in 2008:

45th at 65.5% 80

Income inequality between the rich and the poor:

9th 81

Income inequality between the rich and the middle class:

5th 82

CIVIL JUSTICE FACTS AND FIGURES


63/113


CRIMINAL JUSTICECriminal justice policy in Texas, like the rest o the Unit-ed States, is making a shi t away rom incarceration toother alternatives like rehabilitation and crime preven-tion. Ana Yez-Correa, Executive Director o the TexasCriminal Justice Coalition, discusses the history o crimi-

nal justice in Texas, the challenges we ace, and the rightpath orward to make sure that our justice system is sa e,air and e cient.


64/113


65/113


TEXAS CRIMINAL JUSTICE LANDSCAPE

Ana Yez-Correa, Executive Director, Texas Criminal Justice Coalition

Texas has made great strides in e orts to improve its criminal justice

system; however, we have ar to go to truly see a system that is just,e ective, accountable, cost-e cient, and humane. With 1 in 22 Texanscurrently under some orm o supervision, 86 taxpayers are spending bil-lions o dollars on incarceration every year. We must re-examine where

we can improve the system so we can achieve a stronger return on ourinvestment.

Why Does Criminal Justice Re orm Matter?

Texas historic tough-on-crime mentality with its corresponding ail-ure to ully invest in diversions/treatment programming or individualsover the long term has resulted in a criminal justice system that is de-cient in several critical areas, leading to the ollowing:

Substandard indigent de ense and wrong ul convictions

Continued weaknesses in court and conviction practices lead tounequal sentencing and ll jail and prison beds. In large part,this is caused by Texas indigent de ense nance structure, un-der which individual counties shoulder approximately 85% o thecosts related to meeting the constitutional requirement to pro-

vide indigent de ense services. 87

More than hal o all inmates in Texas jails(totaling approximately 70,000 per day) have not yet been convicted o a crime.

An ongoing lack o support or public de enders o ces or otherde ense delivery options leaves de endants sitting in jail await-ing trial. More than hal o all inmates in Texas jails (totalingapproximately 70,000 per day) have not yet been convicted o a


66/113


67/113


their budgets on the con nement o o tentimes low-risk,nonviolent individuals.

Corresponding lack o pre- and post-conviction diversions

Texas corrections and probation agencies are consolidated, withone pot o money biannually allocated to address the discreteagencies mission and activities. Currently, hard incarceration ac-counts or more than 88% o the states spending in this area(more than $6 billion), while only 12% is allocated to diversions 97 that are proven to be more cost-e cient 98 and programmatically e ective. 99

A re-entry system that ails to support returning individuals

The re-entry process must begin inside jail and prison acilities.However, the lack o evidence-based risk/needs assessments, acorresponding lack o programs/services, and poor conditionso con nement within state and county acilities each ail to ad-

equately prepare individuals or their reintegration into Texascommunities.

Annually, over 70,000 people leave Texas prisons, 100 while a mil-lion individuals cycle through local jails. 101 Various barriers andrestrictions prevent the success ul re-entry o many o these peo-ple into the community, including housing, employment, bene-ts and assistance, education, medical and mental health services,and community involvement. Without assistance or those exit-ing con nement, rates o re-o ending remain high 102 along

with associated en orcement and re-incarceration costs.

Texas parole system poses its own problems, as it is under-sta edand under- unded. Backlogs with programming and housingavailability also cause parole to become a bottleneck or those

otherwise eligible or release. And the parole systems oversightagencies the Parole Division and Parole Board o ten assignconficting release terms to parolees, increasing their opportunity or revocation.


68/113


Recent History o Criminal Justice Re orm in Texas

Texas criminal justice system has gone through major periods o changethroughout the past decade, with tough-on-crime strategies slowly being

replaced by more smart-on-crime alternatives. However, periodic budgetcrises have orced legislators hands, causing cuts to critical treatment anddiversion unds that are imperative in creating an in rastructure ocusedon saving taxpayers money, increasing public sa ety, and boosting thestrength o our communities.

From 2003 to 2011, 73 new re orms positively changed the course o Texas criminal justice and re-entry systems, resulting in massive taxpayersavings and an 18% drop in crime rate between 2003 and 2010. 103 We arenow seeing a greater emphasis on indigent de ense delivery, ewer proba-tion/parole revocations, ewer persons sentenced to prison, higher paroleapproval rates, and historic advances in re-entry.

In 2007, according to the Legislative Budget Board, Texas aced a projected prison population increase o up to 17,000 inmates by 2012 i

Texas pace o incarceration continued. Rather than agree to spend $2.63billion over ve years on new prison construction and operations, 104 poli-cymakers worked collaboratively to reinvest a raction o this amount $241 million in probation, parole, and treatment beds. 105

Despite a $27 billion budget short all, several new policies enacted dur-ing the 82nd Legislative Session will strengthen Texas amilies and com-munities while saving taxpayers millions o dollars, including through thepreservation o diversion and treatment programming as well as new al-ternatives to incarceration. Speci cally, we saw re orms in the ollowingkey areas:

Indigent de ense and innocence: creation o new Texas IndigentDe ense Commission to develop standards and policies or indi-gent de endants at the trial, appeal, and post-conviction stages;improved witness identi cation procedures; and greater post-conviction DNA testing availability.


69/113


Sentencing and e fciency: allowance o diligent participationcredits or state jail elons who complete sel -improvement, work,or vocational programs.

Probation: allowance o sel -improvement programming incen-tives or probationers; creation o a permissive incentive-based

unding program through which counties set goals to reduce thenumber o nonviolent prison commitments.

Re-entry: requirement that judges disclose to criminal de en-dants, prior to being placed on de erred adjudication community supervision, their later right to petition the court or an order o nondisclosure; expansion o opportunities or an expunction o ones criminal record.

2012-2013 Budget Cuts

Despite these legislative achievements, the states massive budget short-all did result in ewer dollars to some rehabilitative and treatment areas,

as policy-makers corrections priority largely continued to avor prisonsand hard incarceration. First, a $100 million reduction in allocationsto the correction systems medical provider (University o Texas MedicalBranch), without corresponding strategies to lower the patient popula-tion, risks higher long-term medical costs or those unable to be treatedin a preventative or timely matter, and potential costly lawsuits againstthe state or ailing to provide a constitutional level o care. Cuts to ront-line mental health service providers are similarly alarming given the highpercentage o individuals who cycle through prisons and jails with mentalhealth diagnoses, and given the considerable taxpayer dollars spent ware-housing these individuals as they await an open bed at a state hospital. 106

Loss o sta and course o erings will result in

ewer GED certifcations and post-secondary opportunities, and higher potential recidivism rates.


70/113


Policy-makers also reduced the budget or in-prison educational and vo-cational programming by nearly 30%, with a projected 16,750 individu-als losing their seats in Texas Department o Criminal Justice (TDCJ)classrooms as a result o the cuts. 107 Loss o sta and course o erings

will result in ewer GED certi cations and post-secondary opportunities,and higher potential recidivism rates. Furthermore, overall sta ng cuts atTDCJ were drastic: with 2,000 ewer ull-time personnel, but no large-scale strategies to signi cantly reduce prison populations, remaining sta and inmates alike ace greater sa ety and security risks, with associatedpotential sta retention problems or TDCJ administrators in the comingbiennium.

THE WAY FORWARD

All stakeholders must work to identi y and promote sa e, responsiblealternatives to incarceration that counter the states waste ul con-nement policies and practices. We must collectively strive or strategiesthat will minimize the entry points into the juvenile and criminal justicesystems, as well as address the root causes o criminal behavior botho which will lessen the devastating impact that many o our state policiesand practices have on amilies, and help people become and stay law abid-ing, productive community members.

Public sa ety and immigration: We must advocate or best prac-

tices in law en orcement, seeking to equip community membersand law en orcement with the tools to work together to imple-ment e ective, public sa ety- ocused, value-driven police services.

Indigent de ense and innocence: We must advocate or systemicchange to better ensure that indigent de endants are both in-ormed o their right to request counsel and are granted timely appointment o counsel that serves their best interests. Regard-ing innocence, we must seek strengthened innocence- ocusedpolicies and practices through measures that will impart moreairness, procedural sa eguards, and e ciency or both criminalde endants and the wrong ully imprisoned.


71/113


Sentencing and e fciency: Advocates must promote the adop-tion o programs/practices that use risk-reduction strategies toidenti y and address individuals criminal behavior. We must alsopromote the ull utilization o mechanisms that sa ely reduce

the length o stay or incarcerated individuals. Furthermore, wemust advocate or practices that strengthen sa ety, accountability,transparency, and e ciency within the criminal justice system, in-cluding through policies that address poor conditions o con ne-ment.

Diversions: Through educational outreach at the county andstate levels, advocates must vocalize the critical need or increasedresources to implement and improve community-based diversionprograms and treatment options or substance abuse and men-tal health problems. Advocates must also push policy-makers tocontinually re-invest cost savings realized under alternative-to-incarceration policies and practices in diversion programs andrisk-reduction programming/services.

Per-day prison costs to the state total $50.79 per individual, whereas probation only totals $1.30 and parole totals $3.74. Put another way, the cost

o 10 days in prison is equal nearly 13 monthson probation or 5 months on parole.

Probation and parole: Sustaining the states probation and pa-role revocation rates as some o the lowest in the country is key toeliminating the uture need or prison and jail construction andsaving millions in day-to-day incarceration costs. Per-day prisoncosts to the state total $50.79 per individual, whereas probation

only totals $1.30 and parole totals $3.74.108

Put another way, thecost o 10 days in prison is equal nearly 13 months on probationor 5 months on parole.


72/113


73/113


DETAILS

One in 22 Texans are under some form of supervision inthe states criminal justice system. 116

During scal year 2010, the 72,909 nonviolent individualson hand in state prisons and state jails alone cost

taxpayers more than $3.6 million daily. 117 More than 40 men have had their convictions overturned in

Texas as a result of DNA testing on evidence from the case,having collectively spent more than 500 years in prison forcrimes that they did not commit. 118

HOW TEXAS RANKS

Crime rate in 2009:

2nd at 4,506.4 crimes per 100,000 population 109

State prisoner imprisonment rate in 2009:

5th at 648 state prisoners per 100,000 population 110

Total executions since 1976:

1st at 476 111

Per capita state and local government expenditures for policeprotection in 2008:

34th at $231 112

Per capita state and local government expenditures for judicial and legal services in 2008:

40th at $90113

State Mental Health Agency per-capita expenditures:

51st 114

Total number of exonerations (including DNA exonerations):

3rd at 78 115

CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACTS AND FIGURES


74/113


75/113


TRANSPORTATIONTwo o the most undamental issues in state transpor-tation policy include how the state pays or roads and

who owns them. Melissa Cubria, Advocate or the TexasPublic Interest Research Group, analyzes the issues sur-rounding toll roads and road privatization. An op-ed by

ormer Rep. Jim Dunnam gives a glimpse into the statuso transportation unding as the state piles on more andmore debt to pay or in rastructure needs.


76/113



77/113


THE HIDDEN COSTS OF ROAD PRIVATIZATION

Melissa Cubria, Advocate, Texas Public Interest Research Group

When in rastructure is privatized (or corporatized), the decisions about

its size, shape and placement are driven by market demand. The private partners are interested in elements o in rastructure that can yield the longest and strongest streams o privately capturable revenue not the ones that yield the largest public bene ts. 119

A Worrisome Trend

It is easy to see why many states are turning to privatized in rastructurein order to repair, build, modernize, and operate highways and otherpublic assets. Cash-strapped states and cities are drawn by up- ront pay-ments or the potential to move costs o budget by substituting privateuser ees rather than taxes. They may also see privatization as a way toshi t uture nancial risks to private contractors.

The common terms o road privatization dealsrestrict the publics ability to act on its own behal ,orce the state to pay privatization companies when

those companies claim they would have reaped more revenue i not or state actions, and reduce

the publics right to know in ormation about how

public unctions are per ormed and how public dollars are spent.

In Texas, proposals or private toll roads have come under much criticism,prompting heated debates with most public attention paid to soaringtoll rates, seizures o ranch land through eminent domain, and concernsabout oreign corporations owning vital Texas roads. Largely neglectedrom these debates has been a discussion about the long-term e ects o standard provisions o privatization contracts. The common terms o road privatization deals restrict the publics ability to act on its own be-hal , orce the state to pay privatization companies when those companies


78/113


79/113


equately protect the public because Texas lawmakers granted private tollroad investors another way to secure their uture pro ts.

Compensation Provisions and Adverse Actions

Rather than outright orbidding the public rom promoting competition,road privatization contracts in Texas can instead stipulate that the publicmust pay steep compensation or the companys loss o pro ts. Accord-ing to contractual provisions in the CDA or the North Tarrant Express,competing transportation acilities may be built at any time by anyoneincluding TxDOT. However, TxDOT must compensate NTE Mobility Partners i the state builds additional lanes within the right o way o theproject that reduce the private partners revenues or increase their costs. 121 This compensation would add signi cantly to the cost o construction,limiting unds or other public projects. As an added cost, the exact levelo these uture payments may be subject to dispute and lawsuits.

Private in rastructure rms protect their pro ts and limit their exposure torisk by designating a wide range o state actions as potential adverse ac-tions, or which they can claim to deserve compensation rom the state.In Cali ornia, the contract or the now bankrupt 122 San Diego South Bay Expressway, gives the private contractor the right to compensation i thestate legislature, CalTrans, any administrative body, or voters create a law in any orm that leads to acquiring part o the road, negatively a ectsthe private contractors rights, or regulates or inter eres with its ability tocollect tolls. It is also entitled to compensation i any o those results arecaused by a court order, decree, or judgment. 123

These clauses are particularly attractive or investors when long periodso time are need

Documents

Putting Texas First