State News 0404 - Entire Issue · graphic design coordinator Susie Bush reprint permissions Mona Lewis Juett (859) 244-8238 publication and advertising sales (800) 800-1910 [email protected]

2 state news april 2004

senior editorJack Penchoffassociate editorLaurie Clewettgraphic design coordinatorSusie Bushreprint permissionsMona Lewis Juett(859) 244-8238publication and advertising sales(800) [email protected](859) [email protected]

headquartersDaniel M. Sprague, Executive Director2760 Research Park Drive P.O. Box 11910Lexington, KY 40578-1910(859) 244-8000

washingtonJim Brown, General Counsel and DirectorHall of the States444 N. Capitol St. N.W., Suite 401Washington, DC 20001(202) 624-5460

easternAlan V. Sokolow, Director40 Broad Street, Suite 2050New York, NY 10004-2315(212) 482-2320

midwesternMichael H. McCabe, Director641 E. Butterfield Road, Suite 401Lombard, IL 60148(630) 810-0210

southernColleen Cousineau, DirectorP.O. Box 98129Atlanta, GA 30359(404) 633-1866

westernKent Briggs, Director1107 9th Street, Suite 650Sacramento, CA 95814(916) 553-4423

education

Tweaking NCLBStates given more time to meet needs

of English-learning students.

by Charlotte Postlewaite

22

leadership

Leavitt Prepared for EPA Three-term governor of Utah, Mike Leavitt, ready

for challenges as EPA administrator.

by Jack Penchoff

15

public safety and justice

Solving the IdentityTheft PuzzleState officials develop comprehensive strategies toreduce risks.

by Chad S. Foster

19

On the cover:Solving the identity theft puzzle.

© Corbis. All Rights Reserved.

Features

the council of state governments www.csg.org 3

4 Inside StoryID Theft: A $50 Billion Crime.by Jack Penchoff

5 ToolboxStates take on offshoring; negative andcostly judicial elections on the rise;California cleans up packaging.

7 State SnapshotsRevenue review.

9 State SourcesA roundup of recent reports andresources for state officials.

14 PerspectiveBudget deficit presents opportunity for reform.by Scott McCallum

30 State TrendsCSG’s task forces will address keyissues at the 2004 Spring Committeeand Task Force Meetings.

35 CSG SpotlightActivities and events by CSG,its affiliates and other associations are highlighted.

39 Conference CalendarMeetings and conference activities ofCSG, affiliates and other associationsare listed.

Departments

27

27 Time for a Change?States and public colleges consider new relationships as state funding continues to decline.

by Eric Kelderman

29 Developing a DefenseStates’ role in protecting critical infrastructures is still emerging.

by Barry Hopkins

public safety and justice

From Prison toPrivate Life

Report highlights best practices, needed reforms tohelp prisoners re-enter their

communities.

by Karen Imas and Elizabeth Nevins

25

We’ve all seen the television commercial: a middleage man slumped in a chair, rattling off the expensiveitems charged on his credit card, including a $1,500leather bustier. The man in the chair, however, is a victimwho is mouthing the products while viewers hear thevoice of an upbeat sounding female.

The commercial does a good job of using humor tohighlight the growing problem of identity theft.

In 2002, the latest year for which figures are available,9.9 million Americans were victims of identity theft, cost-ing them $5 billion and resulting in some $48 billion inlosses to businesses and financial institutions.

This month, Chad Foster, public safety and justice policy analyst at CSG, reportson reasons behind the rise in identity theft and strategies states are using to addressthe problem.

State News this month also offers readers a glimpse at emerging trends and issuesthat will be addressed in two upcoming CSG reports.

Irakli Khodeli, a research assistant at CSG, reports on how a workforce short-age among public health agencies could hamper states’ efforts to prepare for poten-tial bioterrorism attacks. A more comprehensive report on the issue, prepared byCSG and its affiliate, the National Association of State Personnel Executives, will bereleased this spring.

Also set for release this spring is a report on the challenges for state governmentsin dealing with the 600,000 people who will be released from prisons and the 10 mil-lion who will be released from jails.

The Re-Entry Policy Council, a bipartisan coalition of nearly 100 leading electedofficials, policy-makers and practitioners has been studying this issue since 2001.

Karen Imas, publications manager, and Elizabeth Nevins, project coordinatorfor CSG’s Eastern Regional Conference, provide a preview of what the report’s find-ings will cover.

• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• This month, CSG’s flagship magazine underwent an identity change and is now

titled State News. The name change is the culmination of many changes the staff hasmade over the past year with guidance from CSG regions, affiliates and members.Themagazine’s content has been enhanced and made more visually compelling to givereaders a more sweeping view of the emerging issues and challenges our membersface in their efforts to make state government more effective and efficient.

— Jack Penchoff is senior editor of State News, [email protected]

ID Theft: A $50 Billion CrimeBY JACK PENCHOFF


Executive Committee

PresidentGov. Frank H. Murkowski, Alaska

ChairSen. John C. Hottinger, Minn.

President-ElectGov. Ruth Ann Minner, Del.

Chair-ElectAssemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Nev.

Vice PresidentGov. Jim Douglas,Vt.

Vice ChairSenate President Earl Ray Tomblin,W.V.

2004 executive committeeSen. David Adkins, Kan. • Sen. Carolyn Allen,Ariz. • Sen. MannyAragon, N.M. • Jerry Bassett, Legislative Reference Service,Ala. •Treasurer Tim Berry, Ind. • Carl Bianchi, Director, LegislativeServices, Idaho • Sen. Patty Birkholz, Mich. • Rep. Dan Bosley,Mass. • Delegate Anthony Brown, Md. • Sen. Kate Brown, Ore. •Lt. Gov. John Carney Jr., Del. • Rep. Joe Carothers Jr., Ala. • Sen.John Chichester,Va. • Rep. John Connors, Iowa • Sen. Eileen Daily,Conn. • Rep. Bob Damron, Ky. • Sen. Bart Davis, Idaho • Rep.Carol Donovan, Mass. • Sen. Denise Moreno Ducheny, Calif. • Sen.Hugh Farley, N.Y. • Rep. Hector Ferrer-Rios, Puerto Rico • Sen. BillFinkbeiner,Wah. • Gov. David Freudenthal,Wyo. • Sen. LisaGladden, Md. • Senate President John Hainkel Jr., La. • SpeakerSeth Hammett,Ala. • Sen.Toni Nathaniel Harp, Conn. • Sen.TomHatch, Utah • Sen. Douglas Henry,Tenn. • Sen. Linda Higgins,Minn. • Gov. John Hoeven, N.D. • Sen. Kip Holden, La. • CarlHotvedt, Network Technology Services Bureau, Mont. • Gov. MikeHuckabee,Ark. • Rep. Deborah Hudson, Del. • Judge RobertHunter, N.C. • Del. John Hurson, Md. • Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith,Miss. • Rep. Libby Jacobs, Iowa • Ed Jacoby Jr., State EmergencyManagement Office, N.Y. • Rep. Suzanne Jeskewitz,Wis. • Rep.Greg Jolivette, Ohio • Rep. Douglas Jones, Idaho • Lilia Judson,Indiana Division of State Court Administration • Gov. DirkKempthorne, Idaho • Sec. of State Mary Kiffmeyer, Minn. • MichaelKing, Executive Director, Legislative Office for Research Liaison, Pa.• Kurt Knickrehm, Dept. of Human Services,Ark. • Sen. PeterKnudson, Utah • Rep. Kim Koppelman, N.D. • Speaker Pete Kott,Alaska • Treasurer Brian Krolicki, Nev. • Chief Justice JosephLambert, Ky. • Rep. Pete Laney,Texas • Sen.T.D.“Ted” Little,Ala. •Rep.Ward Loyd, Kan. • Selby Lucero, Building Services Division,N.M. • Member Norman MacMillan, Quebec National Assembly •Sen. John Marchi, N.Y. • Sen. Kenneth McClintock, Puerto Rico •Kathleen Alana McGinty,Acting Secretary, Dept. of EnvironmentalProtection, Pa. • Andrew Molloy Jr., Dept. of Criminal JusticeServices,Va. • Sen.Angela Monson, Okla. • Speaker Jimmy Naifeh,Tenn. • Sen. David Nething, N.D. • Lt. Gov. Karl Ohs, Mont. • Sen.Jose Ortiz-Daliot, Puerto Rico • Gov. George Pataki, N.Y. • DennisProuty, Iowa • Sen. Pam Redfield, Neb. • Mary Regel, Director,Bureau of International Development,Wis. • Sen. Pam Resor, Mass.• Rep. Chris Ross, Pa. • Rep. Roger Roy, Del. • Sen. DiAnnaSchimek, Neb. • Assemblyman Robin Schimminger, N.Y. • JeffreySchutt, Dept. of Personnel and Admin., Colo. • Rep. Mary Skinner,Wash. • Patsy Spaw, Sec. of the Senate,Texas • AssemblymanRobert Straniere, N.Y. • Sen. Brian Taniguchi, Hawaii • Sen. RonTeck, Colo. • Sen. Robert Thompson, Pa. • Sen. Donne Trotter, Ill. •Sen. Leticia Van de Putte,Texas • Sec. of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron,N.M. • Gov. Mark Warner,Va. • Jeff Wells, Secretary, Departmentof Labor & Employment, Colo. • Sen. Jeff Wentworth,Texas •Sandra Winston, Executive Director,Arkansas TransitionalEmployment Board

STATE NEWS, 0039-0119,April 2004,Vol. 47, No. 4 —Published monthly with combined issues in June/July andNov./Dec. by The Council of State Governments, 2760 ResearchPark Drive, Lexington, KY 40511-8410. Opinions expressed in thismagazine do not necessarily reflect the policies of The Council ofState Governments nor the views of the editorial staff. Readers’comments are welcome. Subscription rates — In the U.S., $45 peryear. Single issues are available at $6 per copy. POSTMASTER:Send address changes to State News, Sales Department, P.O. Box11910, Lexington, KY 40578-1910.

Advertising — Black and white, two-color and full-coloradvertising available. For complete circulation and advertisinginformation, contact the advertising department at (800) 800-1910. Mailing lists are available for rent upon approval of a sam-ple mailing.

Copyright 2004 by The Council of State Governments.Periodicals postage paid at Lexington, Ky., and at additional mail-ing offices.

insidestory

The Council of State GovernmentsVol. 47, No. 4 April 2004

toolbox

On a snowy day in February, Pennsylvania state Rep. Mike McGeehanheld a press conference across the street from the Earthlink offices inHarrisburg. At the event he and Democratic House Whip Mike Veonannounced legislation to stem the flow of call center jobs overseas.

Earthlink, a Harrisburg area Internet service provider, recentlyannounced it would close its doors and send approximately 400 jobs outof the country. This is part of a pattern, says McGeehan, of U.S. compa-nies exploiting the cheap labor and lower cost of living in countries likeChina and India at the expense of American workers.

McGeehan and Veon’s legislation would: n Prohibit awarding of a state procurement contract for services deliv-

ered outside the United States.

n Specify that all work be performed in the United States during the lifeof the contract or financial penalties could be imposed.

n Require notification by companies that outsource 100 or more jobs outof the country and prohibit them from entering into a procurement con-tract with the commonwealth or a local government for seven years. Itwould also exclude the company from receiving state grants, loans orbonding assistance.

n Require all contractors to file an affidavit affirming that they have intheir files an employment eligibility verification form required by fed-eral law for each individual that will be employed in the performanceof the contract.

Pennsylvania lawmakers are not alone. State legislatures around thecountry are debating similar measures. Most recently, the New JerseySenate State Government Committee approved S494, sponsored by Sen.Shirley Turner, which is designed to prevent companies from fulfillinglucrative state contracts by using cheap foreign labor.

The legislation is an outgrowth of the discovery that a helpline for NewJersey welfare recipients was being staffed by workers in India with fake,American-sounding names.

“Bring them back from Bombay,” Sen. Turner said. “Our workforceneeds our support at a time when the business community is willing to goanywhere to get cheap labor.”

Not everyone is against the offshoringtrend, however. A December 2003 study enti-tled, Creeping Protectionism: An Analysis ofState and Federal Sourcing Legislation by theNational Foundation for American Policyclaims that such legislation is protectionistand anti-competitive.

“In fact, restrictive global sourcing legisla-tion stifles innovation, reduces competitive-ness of U.S. firms, and costs taxpayersmoney,” according to the foundation’sExecutive Director Stuart Anderson.

For a complete copy of the report and a listof state and federal legislation on global out-sourcing, visit www.nfap.net.

Desperate to Keep Jobs,States Take on Offshoring

States with Legislation Pending that Prohibits

Overseas Work on State Contracts:

Legislation Pending



Throughout America’s history, there has been a lingering debateover the best method of selecting state court judges. The dilemmahas been to select judges in a way that is consistent with democrat-ic values, while at the same time insulating the bench from theinfluence of politics and special interests. The debate has come tothe forefront in recent years as judicial elections in a number ofstates have become more costly, contested and negative.

As the judicial branch is increasingly involved in resolvingpressing policy issues, the perception of its power as a politicalinstrument is on the rise. Courts, in turn, have garnered the atten-tion of interest groups hoping to shape various policies on whichthey rule. As a result, many states are experiencing more costlyjudicial contests, primarily for supreme court seats.

In 2000, state supreme court candidates nationwide raised $46million, setting records in 10 of the 20 states holding supremecourt elections that year, and marking a 297 percent increase fromcandidate fundraising during the 1998 races. Candidates’ campaignexpenses in Alabama alone totaled more than $13 million, with 13candidates running for five Supreme Court seats averaging morethan $1 million each.

Judicial Selection Methods in Southern States, a recent reportfrom The Council of State Governments’ Southern Office, exam-ines judicial selection methods in Southern states, various judicialreform measures proposed by legal scholars and practitioners, andrecently adopted reforms. Special attention is paid to case studiesinvolving the increasing costs of judicial elections, means pro-

posed and adopted to depoliticize them, public financing of judi-cial campaigns, campaign conduct and finance oversight, andother related issues.

While each judicial selection method has its merits, they allhave distinct drawbacks. Regardless of the method used, com-pletely removing politics from the process is unlikely. Whetherstates opt to elect judges or appoint them through merit selection,striking a balance to maintain judicial independence and impartial-ity is usually the desired result – and also the most challenging toachieve.

In 2004, a total of 24 judges will be elected to serve on 11Southern state supreme courts. Seven of these judges will beselected by partisan election in Alabama, Louisiana and Texas; 10will be selected via nonpartisan ballot in Arkansas, Georgia,Kentucky, Mississippi and North Carolina; and seven will faceretention elections in Florida, Missouri and Oklahoma. To read the entire report, visit the Southern LegislativeConference’s Web site at www.slcatlanta.org.

Last fall, California became the 19th state to enact legisla-tion to phase out the use of lead, mercury, cadmium and hexa-valent chromium in product packaging. California’s “Toxics inPackaging Prevention Act” is based on model legislation origi-nally drafted by the Source Reduction Council of the Coalitionof Northeastern Governors in 1989.

Product packaging constitutes a significant portion of thenation’s overall solid waste stream. The Model Toxics inPackaging Legislation is designed to diminish the presence ofhazardous constituents in the solid waste stream by restrictingthe use and presence of heavy metals in packaging and pack-aging components. Reducing the contribution of these metalsto the waste stream will gradually lower their harmful pres-ence in the environment.

The Toxics in Packaging Clearinghouse was formed in 1992to promote the Model Toxics in Packaging Legislation. Theclearinghouse is composed of a states-only voting membershipand an industry/public interest advisory group. State membersare Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island andVermont. Industry members are the American Plastics Council,the Society of Glass and Ceramic Decorators, and the SteelRecycling Institute. In addition to the TPCH member states

and California, the following states have also enacted toxics inpackaging legislation: Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland,Missouri, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

The administrative functions of the TPCH are performed byThe Council of State Governments at its headquarters inLexington, Kentucky. The model legislation and other infor-mation about the clearinghouse can be found on CSG’s Website at www.csg.org (keyword: TPCH).

California Moves to Clean Up Packaging

toolboxNegative and Costly JudicialElections on the Rise


statesnapshots

Revenue Review

From federal government

Insurance trust revenue

Utility and liquor stores

Charges and misc.

Taxes

Corporation income

Individual income

Sales and gross receipts

Property Taxes

State and Local Revenue from All Sources, 2000

State and Local Revenue from All Taxes, 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2003

Other

As you fill out your tax forms this month, you may be surprisedto learn that the percentage of revenue state and local governmentsget from taxes has declined in recent years. States and local govern-ments got 45 percent of their total revenue from taxes in 2000, com-pared to 49 percent in 1980 and 1990.

The second largest source in 2000 was “charges and miscella-neous,” accounting for 19 percent of revenues, compared to 17 per-cent in 1980 and 20 percent in 1990. This category includes chargesimposed for providing current services, such as education, hospitalsand sewerage, or for the sale of products in connection with generalgovernment activities. Miscellaneous revenue includes revenue frominterest earnings and special assessments.

The percentage of state and local revenue from the federal gov-ernment declined from 18 percent in 1980 to 13 percent in 1990 andthen rose to 15 percent in 2000. States received federal funds forpublic welfare, highways, education, health and hospitals, housingand community development, and other purposes.

The amount of money states received from insurance trust rev-enue, such as employee retirement and unemployment compensationsystems, increased from 10 percent in 1980 to 12 percent in 1990 to16 percent in 2000. Revenue from utilities and liquor storesremained steady at 6 percent from 1980 to 1990, then declinedslightly to 5 percent in 2000.

45%

19%

15%

16%

5%

35%

29%

24%

8%4%


Your constituents are grumbling about their morning commuteand you spend more time in traffic than you do with your friends.Do you become an advocate for a) charging peak-hour tolls, b)greatly expanding road capacity, c) greatly expanding publictransit capacity, or d) living with congestion?

The only answer that’s both politically viable and physicallyor financially possible is “d,” according to a policy brief byAnthony Downs of the Brookings Institution.

“Peak-hour traffic congestion in almost all large and growingmetropolitan regions around the world is here to stay,” Downswrites. “In fact, it is almost certain to get worse during at least thenext few decades, mainly because of rising populations andwealth. This will be true no matter what public and private poli-cies are adopted to combat congestion.”

Although it’s all but impossible to eliminate congestion,according to the report, there are several ways to slow its futurerate of increase:n Create High Occupancy Toll lanes.

n Respond more rapidly to traffic-blocking accidents and inci-dents.

n Build more roads in growing areas.

n Install ramp-metering to let vehicles enter expressways grad-ually.

n Use Intelligent Transportation System devices to speed traf-fic flows.

n Create more High Occupancy Vehicle lanes.

n Adopt “parking cash-out” programs that reward employeesfor carpooling or taking mass transit rather than receivingfree parking at work.

n Restrict very low-density peripheral development.

n Cluster high-density housing around transit stops.

n Give regional transportation authorities more power andresources.

n Raise gasoline taxes.

Traffic: Why It’s Getting Worse, What Government Can Do isavailable online at www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb128.htm.

Stuck in Traffic

statesources

The first five years of a child’s life are critical to his develop-ment, and research shows that early childhood education can playa large role in determining a child’s future success – especially forpoor and disadvantaged children.

In light of this fact, many states have stepped in to help parentseducate their infants, recognizing that state-funded preschools canbe a good investment in the long-run.

But, according to a new report by the National Institute forEarly Education Research, states aren’t doing enough. “State pre-school programs are failing the nation’s children,” says The Stateof Preschool: 2003 State Preschool Yearbook.

The yearbook is the first in an annual series evaluating state-funded programs to educate 3- and 4-year-olds. The survey ratesthe programs on access, quality standards and resources.

“Few set high standards and fewer still provide adequate fund-ing. Even the disadvantaged children targeted by most state preschool initiatives are not assured of access to high-quality pro-grams,” the report says. “Most children and their families receiveeven less help.”

Forty states funded 45 state preschool programs in 2001-2002,

with total spending of more than $2.4 billion. Ten states, however,accounted for 83 percent of all spending. “Recognizing that manystates currently do not have the resources to fully fund high-qual-ity preschool, the federal government must make a major newcommitment to investing in prekindergarten programs,” the reportcharged. “This federal effort should be designed not just to supple-ment, but to leverage new state funding.”

The yearbook sets forth three exemplary programs as modelsfor other states. Georgia and Oklahoma both “provide far moreaccess than any other states,” enrolling more than half of their 4-year-olds in state preschool programs. Twenty states, meanwhile,enroll less than 10 percent. New Jersey’s Abbott District has thehighest standards in the nation and is required to provide free pre-school to all 3- and 4-year-olds in 30 of the state’s largest and mostdisadvantaged school districts.

Along with the Abbott District, programs in Arkansas andIllinois also met nine of the survey’s 10 benchmarks for state qual-ity standards.

The State of Preschool is available online at http://nieer.org/yearbook/pdf/yearbook.pdf.

Poor Marks for State Preschools


The nation’s teenage pregnancy rate declined for the 10th yearin a row in 2000, down 2 percent from the previous year, accord-ing to a report by the Alan Guttmacher Institute. The rate of 83.6pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19 represents a 28 percentdecline since teenage pregnancy rates peaked in 1990. (The num-ber of pregnancies includes births, miscarriages and abortions.)

“Declines also took place among all racial and ethnic groupsand in every state,” according to the institute. However, teenagepregnancy rates varied widely by state, ranging from 42 pregnan-cies per 1,000 women in North Dakota to 113 per 1,000 in Nevadaand 128 per 1,000 in the District of Columbia. Arizona,Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas also had high teenage preg-nancy rates, while Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota andMaine had low rates.

“Previous research suggests that both declines in sexual activi-ty and increased use of more effective contraceptives are respon-sible for the continued declines in teenage pregnancy,” the institutesaid in a press release. The release said 25 percent of the declinein teenage pregnancy between 1998 and 1995 was attributable to

decreased sexual activity and 75 percent could be attributed tomore effective use of contraceptives.

The birthrate for teenagers also declined by 2 percent from1999 to 2000, from 48.8 to 47.7 births per 1,000 women aged 15to 19 – a 23 percent drop since the 1991 peak of 61.8 births per1,000 women.

Teenagers’ abortion rate in 2000, 24 per 1,000 women, was 3percent lower than the previous year, marking a 43 percent declinefrom 1986. One-third of teenage pregnancies in 2000 ended inabortion, compared to 46 percent in 1986.

The abortion rate, however, varied widely by state, with 60 per-cent of teenage pregnancies in New Jersey and at least 50 percentof those in New York, Massachusetts and the District of Columbiaending in abortion. In Kentucky and Utah, by contrast, only 13percent ended in abortion. Louisiana, Arkansas and South Dakotaalso had relatively low abortion rates.

U.S. Teenage Pregnancy Statistics: Overall Trends, Trends byRace and Ethnicity, and State-by-State Information is availableonline at www.agi-usa.org/pubs/state_pregnancy_trends.pdf.

Teen Pregnancy,Abortion Rates Continue Decline

As politicians across the country gear up for November’s elec-tions, many are focusing on how to court Hispanic voters.

“If the 2004 campaign thus far is any indication, the Latino vote– representing as many as 9 million voters in November – will beone of the most fiercely contested in this election,” said RaulYzaguirre, president of the National Council of La Raza, an advo-cacy group for Hispanic Americans. “On the one hand, this is wel-comed and long overdue. On the other hand, symbolic gesturesand a narrow focus on so-called ‘Hispanic’ issues like immigrationand bilingual education are not enough,” he said.

To help politicians and policy-makers go beyond the stereotyp-ical issues, NCLR has published a report detailing key issues forthe Hispanic community, policy-specific recommendations, and

advice on how to win over Hispanic voters. “With this report, there is no excuse for candidate ignorance

when it comes to understanding what matters to us,” Yzaguirresaid.

State of Hispanic America 2004: Latino Perspectives on theAmerican Agenda outlines eight key issues: education, health,employment, counterterrorism policies, criminal justice, farm-workers, homeownership and immigration.

The report also focuses on how Latinos can become moreengaged in the political process, as well as the role for private phi-lanthropies and businesses to improve outcomes for Hispanics.

State of Hispanic America 2004 is available online at www.nclr.org/special/harpt2004/ha2004report.pdf.

Beyond Immigration

New, fast-growth companies created about two-thirds of newjobs in the United States between 1993 and 1996, according to theNational Governors Association. As job-creation continues to topstate and federal agendas, economic development experts areincreasingly focusing on the role of entrepreneurs – small, innova-tive new companies – in driving economic growth.

The NGA recently published A Governor’s Guide toStrengthening State Entrepreneurship Policy to provide state pol-icy-makers with strategies and best practices for encouraging thegrowth of entrepreneurial firms.

“Most state economic development efforts continue to beorganized around traditional business retention and incentive-based industry recruitment programs,” according to the guide,including programs to enhance workers’ skills, invest in infra-structure, and create a competitive tax and regulatory climate.

While these types of programs are still necessary, the report

says, states need to do more. “They have become the expectedbase line rather than a competitive advantage. Entrepreneurialismand cluster-based development are essential to moving statesbeyond the lowest common denominator of state economic devel-opment policy.”

The guide offers five strategies to help states achieve a moreentrepreneurial environment:

1) Integrate entrepreneurship into state economic developmentefforts.

2) Use the education system to nurture and encourage futureentrepreneurs.

3) Incubate entrepreneurial companies.4) Invest in diverse sources of risk capital for entrepreneurs and

growth companies. 5) “Get out of the way”through regulatory reform and streamlining.The report is available online at www.nga.org.

Encouraging Entrepreneurs

Disease management/

Provider Pharmacy Benefit Eligibility Managed care case Fraud and Long-term State payments controls reductions cuts** Copays expansions management abuse care***

Alabama

Alaska* X X X

Arizona* X X X X

Arkansas X X X X

California* X X X X X

Colorado X X X X X X X

Connecticut X X X

Delaware X X X

District of Columbia X X

Florida* X X X X X X X

Georgia* X X X X X X

Hawaii* X

Idaho X

Illinois X

Indiana* X X X X X X X X

Iowa* X X X X

Kansas* X X

Kentucky X X X X

Louisiana X X X X X X

Maine* X X X X

Maryland X X X X X

Massachusetts X X X X X X

Michigan X X X X X X

Minnesota X X X X X X

Mississippi X X

Missouri X X X X

Montana X X

Nebraska X X X

Nevada X X X X X X

New Hampshire* X X X X X

New Jersey X X X X X

New Mexico* X X X X X X

New York X X X

North Carolina X X X X X

North Dakota X X

Ohio X X X X X X X

Oklahoma* X X X X

Oregon X X X X X

Pennsylvania X X

Rhode Island X X

South Carolina* X X X X X

South Dakota X

Tennessee X X X

Texas X X X X X X X

Utah* X X X

Vermont X

Virginia X X

Washington* X X X X X X X

West Virginia X X X X X

Wisconsin* X X X X X X X X X

Wyoming* X X X X

Total 39 43 17 18 21 13 19 24 14

Source: States Respond to Fiscal Pressure: A 50-State Update of State Medicaid Spending Growth and Cost Containment Actions, (#7001),The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, January 2004.Notes:* States responding to the December 2003 survey that they took new or additional cost containment action after the beginning of FY 2004.** Eligibility cuts include changes made to application and enrollment procedures.*** Long-term care includes cuts to Home and Community Based Services.This information was reprinted with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.The Kaiser Family Foundation, based in Menlo Park, California, is a nonprofit, independent national health carephilanthropy and is not associated with Kaiser Permanente or Kaiser Industries.

Medicaid Cost Containment Actions Planned in FY 2004statesources



St Paul

statesources

Alabama $1.39 $1.64 + 26¢ 7 7 0

Alaska $1.26 $1.91 + 65¢ 14 3 -11

Arizona $1.17 $1.21 +3¢ 19 22 3

Arkansas $1.28 $1.55 + 27¢ 13 10 -3

California $0.93 $0.76 - 16¢ 38 45 7

Colorado $1.06 $0.78 - 28¢ 26 42 16

Connecticut $0.68 $0.65 - 2¢ 49 49 0

Delaware $0.72 $0.85 + 13¢ 48 41 -7

Florida $1.08 $1.01 - 7¢ 24 33 9

Georgia $1.00 $1.01 + 1¢ 32 32 0

Hawaii $1.14 $1.57 + 43¢ 21 9 -12

Idaho $1.25 $1.31 + 6¢ 16 18 2

Illinois $0.72 $0.77 + 4¢ 47 44 -3

Indiana $0.83 $1.00 + 17¢ 41 34 -7

Iowa $1.05 $1.23 + 18¢ 28 20 -8

Kansas $1.05 $1.13 + 8¢ 27 25 -2

Kentucky $1.20 $1.50 + 29¢ 18 13 -5

Louisiana $1.29 $1.48 + 19¢ 11 14 3

Maine $1.48 $1.34 - 14¢ 4 16 12

Maryland $1.25 $1.22 - 3¢ 15 21 6

Massachusetts $1.01 $0.75 - 27¢ 31 46 15

Michigan $0.83 $0.88 + 6¢ 42 38 -4

Minnesota $0.77 $0.77 - 1¢ 44 43 -1

Mississippi $1.84 $1.89 + 5¢ 2 4 2

Missouri $1.25 $1.34 + 9¢ 17 17 0

Montana $1.46 $1.67 + 21¢ 5 6 1

Nebraska $1.07 $1.19 + 12¢ 25 23 -2

Nevada $0.74 $0.74 0¢ 45 47 2

New Hampshire $0.74 $0.66 - 8¢ 46 48 2

New Jersey $0.66 $0.62 - 3¢ 50 50 0

New Mexico $2.08 $2.37 + 29¢ 1 1 0

New York $0.86 $0.85 - 1¢ 40 40 0

North Carolina $0.95 $1.07 + 13¢ 33 29 -4

North Dakota $1.54 $2.07 + 53¢ 3 2 -1

Ohio $0.94 $1.03 + 9¢ 34 31 -3

Oklahoma $1.30 $1.52 + 22¢ 10 11 1

Oregon $0.94 $0.98 + 4¢ 36 35 -1

Pennsylvania $1.02 $1.09 + 7¢ 30 27 -3

Rhode Island $1.10 $1.08 - 2¢ 23 28 5

South Carolina $1.29 $1.34 + 5¢ 12 15 3

South Dakota $1.31 $1.61 + 30¢ 9 8 -1

Tennessee $1.11 $1.26 + 15¢ 22 19 -3

Texas $0.93 $0.92 0¢ 37 36 -1

Utah $1.17 $1.14 - 3¢ 20 24 4

Vermont $0.94 $1.13 + 19¢ 35 26 -9

Virginia $1.39 $1.50 + 11¢ 8 12 4

Washington $0.89 $0.87 - 2¢ 39 39 0

West Virginia $1.44 $1.82 + 38¢ 6 5 -1

Wisconsin $0.82 $0.88 + 7¢ 43 37 -6

Wyoming $1.02 $1.06 + 4¢ 29 30 1

District of Columbia $5.86 $6.44 + 58¢

Source: Census Bureau;Tax Foundation's "State-by-State Tax Burden Allocation Model."

Adjusted Federal Expenditures Per Dollar of Taxes by StateFiscal Years 1992 and 2002

10-YearExpenditures per Dollar of Taxes Change in Ranking

spending per Change in FY 1992 FY 2002 Dollar of Tax FY 1992 FY 2002 Ranking



ambling expansion, minimum wage,same sex marriage …

Once individual legislative battles openon the myriad of issues confronting theLegislature, there is a tendency to losesight of the overall game plan necessaryfor the state to move forward.

As governor of Wisconsin, I outlinedseveral key issues imperative to our economic well-being. Whileoften lost in the rhetoric of a campaign, they remain importantfor the economic success of our state.

These issues have played out or are being played out in otherstates with varying degrees of success. Those states that are ableto map a strategy and then adhere to it are themost likely to succeed. States that take a short-sighted view can survive a political cycle, but aredoomed economically in the long run.

As with many challenges, the state fiscal crisisprovides an opportunity for structural reform.

To deal with a state budget in deficit, thereare two options: raise the revenue or incomestream, or cut spending. Most states, includingWisconsin, have used a combination of those two.A further source of revenue, federal dollars, hasseen a significant increase under the Bush admin-istration as a means of helping states balance theirbudgets.

Still, we need to step back and focus on longer range solu-tions. We need to use this time to make a quantum change in theway government operates.

First, all states need to control spending. Rather than the time-honored tradition of measuring a political commitment to pro-grams in terms of spending increases, government must look atthe return for dollars spent. Much like in the private sector, thereis a growing demand to have a measurable cost/benefit analysis.

Areas driving state budgets are health care, including themedical assistance programs, corrections and education. Variousreforms, particularly in education, are making the roundsthroughout the country, with debatable levels of success. But thefact that new options are allowed to occur, including thoseallowing greater input from the private sector and greaterinvolvement by parents, is a step forward. The debate can nowtake place on outcomes.

There is also a legitimate debate as to the level of taxation wecan afford. Some public officials are openly calling for taxincreases, new taxes, or the less politically charged “revenueenhancers.” This is the wrong direction in my opinion.Nevertheless, done openly, it is a fair debate in the public arena.

In Wisconsin, this debate should allow us to focus on ourtax burden compared that of other states. We remain a veryhigh tax state. As governor, my goal was to put us in a morecompetitive position regarding taxes. I wanted Wisconsin to

become an average tax state befitting our average per capitaincome as a population.

That is why I proposed a tax freeze. The idea was defeatedduring my stint as governor and again after I left office.Thankfully, it is not dead. The Legislature passed such a freeze,only to have it vetoed. But this issue will come back.

It is important to keep this choice in the public debate. It cutsto the core of the level of taxation Wisconsin citizens want. Itmoves the debate to an even more democratic local level. Withthe freeze, tax increases are allowed through public referendumby those who pay.

Revenue growth for any government entity should comethrough economic growth. Particularly in Wisconsin, we must

focus on raising our per capita income. We mustcreate a climate that nurtures new, high-payingjobs. This is the only way we can prevent a down-ward spiral toward becoming a low-end servicestate. That is why my “Build Wisconsin” program is an

important blueprint for our future. To his credit,Governor Doyle has taken some of the componentsand renamed it “Grow Wisconsin.” The name is notimportant; what’s important is implementing a plan.An important part of Build Wisconsin, and a sig-

nificant step in any government reform, is an effortto move various levels of government towardgreater cooperation.

Remember, the real key to reform is to get more from govern-ment while spending less, to have a higher level of productivity,while reducing the cost to taxpayers. In short, government needsto do what the private sector must do every day to survive:become more efficient.

Greater efficiency comes about when services are looked atfrom the perspective of the consumer – the citizen served – asopposed to the perspective of the government entity running them.

Shared revenues are dollars collected at the state level andreturned to local government. These revenues provide an oppor-tunity to create greater cooperation among our many units ofgovernment. While this idea should be reviewed in every state, itis especially important in a state like Wisconsin, which has farmore units of government than most.

Shared services – from fire protection to sanitation, policeprotection to recreation – simply means greater efficiency, betterservice, lower cost and the best return for taxes spent.

Not only can these basic steps be taken throughout our coun-try, they must be taken. The time for action is now. A growingeconomy will remove the pressure to reform the system itself,and politicians will comfortably return to the tax-and-spend yes-terdays of a system rapidly losing touch with the taxpayer.

— Scott McCallum was governor of Wisconsin from February 2001to January 2003.

Budget Deficit Presents Opportunity for ReformBy Scott McCallum

G

perspective

ike Leavitt stepped down asgovernor of Utah in Nov-ember and walked right in toone of the most controversialjobs in Washington, D.C.

As the nation’s 10th EPAadministrator, Leavitt toldState News he had no illu-sions about what was in storefor him when he arrived inWashington.

Assailed by environmen-tal groups for not doing enough to protect the environment, andquestioned by some industries for doing too much, the post ofEPA administrator has been a balancing act between competinginterests since William Ruckelshaus was appointed the nation’sfirst environmental chief by President Nixon in December 1970.

“That’s not going to change,” said Leavitt. “It’s part of the con-struct and we have to navigate in that.”

A popular three-term governor, Leavitt championed states’rights in his 11 years as Utah’s chief executive. In 1996 he servedas president of The Council of State Governments. He also servedas chair of the National Governors Association, Western Gov-ernors Association, and the Republican Governors Association.

During an interview with State Government News in 1996,Leavitt said it is up to the states to restore confidence in government.

“People feel that government a long ways away from the peo-ple is not to be trusted and not accountable,” he said.

Leavitt did not leave that philosophy behind in Salt Lake City.The environment, Leavitt said in February, fits the basic federalsystem because it is a multistate issue.

“We need national standards, with neighborhood solutions,”he said.

It didn’t take Leavitt long to put his philosophy into action.

M

LeavittReadyfor EPA

Three-term governor of Utah,Mike Leavitt, readyfor challenges as EPAadministrator

By Jack Penchoff

Sensitive to State Issues“I was administrator for two weeks when I had to send a letter

to 31 governors that they were not in compliance with ozone andfine particulate emission regulations,” said Leavitt. “As a gover-nor, I knew what that meant. It’s like putting a sign around a com-munity that says, ‘Don’t invest here.’ ”

Many of the 506 counties cited by the EPA for noncompliance,said Leavitt, had unhealthful air because they lay downwind fromcoal-burning power plants in other counties and in some casesother states.

Leavitt also knew that the states would need help meeting theair quality rules they were violating.

“It’s unfair to give states regulations without the proper tools tosolve problems,” he said. “They can take all of the cars off theroads and close all the factories and still not be in compliance withinterstate quality rules.”

The solution Leavitt proposed was a set of rules that put theproblem-solving in the hands of the states and the utility compa-nies that own most of the nation’s coal-burning power plants.

“The key is to reward results,not programs,” Leavitt said.

Using the cap-and-trade modelthat was successful in reducingacid rain in the Northeast, theEPA is proposing to set the stan-dards, but leave it up to the statesand power plants to determinehow the standards will be met.

“If the states and plants aresuccessful, they will meet therequirements. If they exceed requirements, they will be rewardedwith clean air credits. Those who don’t meet the requirements willhave to buy clean air credits,” said Leavitt.

In December, the new administrator introduced two proposalsdesigned to reduce air-polluting emissions from power plants,using the cap-and-trade model.

One proposal targets a reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions by70 percent and nitrogen oxides by 65 percent.

The other, more controversial proposal, known as the UtilityMercury Reductions Rule, calls for a 70 percent reduction of mer-cury emissions following full implementation by 2018.

The proposed rules, said Leavitt, provide power plants incen-tives to comply with requirements.

“And they provide states more control and flexibility in devel-oping their own plans to meet national standards,” he said.

The mercury reduction proposal has drawn the most fire fromenvironmental groups who contend that the emissions require-ments are not as stringent as a finding by the Clinton administra-tion EPA in 2000.

The electric utility industry, however, counters that there is nopollution control equipment specifically designed to reduce mer-cury emissions. According to the Edison Electric Institute, a tradeassociation of electric utilities, 40 percent of the mercury emis-sions from power plants are reduced by the same equipment thatreduces sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

Collaboration ImportantThe cap-and-trade model satisfies Leavitt’s underlying princi-

ple that collaboration is important in environmental protection.

In a speech to EPA employees in December, Leavitt saidimprovement in the environment will never be accomplished “underthe slow, expensive and conflict-intense processes of the past.”

He also believes in “markets before mandates.” It’s the impov-erished countries in the world where there’s the greatest lack ofenvironmental protection.

“Environmental improvements stimulate the economy,” saidLeavitt. But, he adds, those improvements have to balance goodintentions with the ability to pay for them.

“Collaboration does not eliminate litigation,” he told EPAemployees, “but it can minimize it.”

One piece of litigation that hasn’t been eliminated is a challengeto changes in the New Source Review permitting program thatregulates installation of pollution control technology in powerplants and other industrial facilities.

A coalition of 14 states, the District of Columbia and six localCalifornia pollution control boards won a delay in enforcingthose changes in December when the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe District of Columbia agreed that the proposed rules couldcause irreparable harm to the environment if an injunction wasn’t granted.

Supporting the EPA changes, however, are 11 other states that


s governor, these complex dilemmas andthe nature of the task are not new to me,”

— Mike Leavitt, EPA Administrator “A

favor the increased flexibility they would have in enforcing theClean Air Act with the regulation changes.

A final court ruling on the conflict is not expected until 2005.Meanwhile, Leavitt vows to enforce the old rule pending a

final outcome in the case. In January, the federal governmentsued an eastern Kentucky power cooperative for expanding twoof its plants in violation of the older rules that the EPA is tryingto change.

Contentious ConfirmationLeavitt became the center of con-

troversy at EPA before he evenassumed his new duties. During con-tentious Senate confirmation hearings,lawmakers critical of the Bush admin-istration’s environmental policies usedthe nomination process to voice theirunhappiness.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton ofNew York was particularly vocalabout EPA reports released after theSeptember 11 attacks on New YorkCity. Her complaints led to an agree-ment in which the EPA promised moreindoor air quality testing in LowerManhattan and a review of the clean-up by government and nongovern-ment experts.

Other holds on Leavitt’s nominationwere placed, and then removed, bySens. Frank R. Lautenberg of NewJersey and Barbara Boxer of Californiaand three candidates for the Democraticpresidential nomination: Sens. JohnKerry of Massachusetts, John Edwardsof North Carolina and Joseph Lieber-man of Connecticut.

Leavitt also had to withstand verbalbarbs during the process.

“You’ve got a lot of guts taking thisjob because you’re in a big hole to startwith,” said Sen. Harry Reid, a NevadaDemocrat.

But his supporters were equally dem-onstrative.

“President Bush and Mike Leavitt will lead us into a new era ofenvironmental protection,” Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma saidduring Capitol Hill hearings.

In the end, Leavitt was confirmed by the full Senate 88-8.

Environmental Policy PervasiveLeavitt said he is sensitive to why environmental policy is a

lightning rod for debate.“It deals in issues very personal to people: their relationship to

the earth reflects their values and aspirations. It touches so manyaspects of society,” he said.

It’s that wide-ranging reach of environmental policy that attract-ed Leavitt to the job when President Bush asked him to take it.

“A unique quality of the EPA is that it regulates the other feder-al departments. It impacts not just state, local and private agencies,but all our colleagues at the federal level. Environmental policy isa pervasive part of our world,” he said. “Energy policy is reallyenvironmental policy. Transportation, in a large measure, is envi-ronmental policy. Economic, social and international policies –environment questions are wrapped all through those. I’m in a labwhere I see it played out every day.”

Dealing with the broad span of policy issues at the state level,Leavitt believes, will help him address the challenges of his newpost. “As governor, these complex dilemmas and the nature of thetask are not new to me.”

Nor is the nature of the federal bureaucracy a concern,despite a warning from Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, who dur-ing the confirmation hearings told Leavitt, “There’s somewhatlonger knives out here in Washington than in the capital city ofyour home state.”

But the new EPA administrator is undaunted by the nation’scapital.

“I checked and during my 11 years as governor, I averaged 16trips a year to Washington, averaging two days a trip,” he said.“This is a fascinating place to serve but I’m not unaware of thecomplexities, nor am I oblivious to the difficulties.”

— Jack Penchoff is senior editor of State News magazine.

n

Michael O. Leavitt Nov. 6, 2003 – present

n

Marianne L. Horinko (acting) July 12, 2003 – Nov. 5, 2003

n

Linda J. Fisher (acting) June 28, 2003 – July 11, 2003

n

Christine Todd Whitman Jan. 31, 2001 – June 27, 2003

n

W. Michael McCabe (acting) Jan. 20, 2001 – Jan. 30, 2001

n

Carol M. Browner Jan. 22, 1993 – Jan. 19, 2001

n

William K. Reilly Feb. 6, 1989 – Jan. 20, 1993

n

John Moore (acting) Jan. 21, 1989 – Feb. 5, 1989

n

Lee M.Thomas Feb. 8, 1985 – Jan. 20, 1989

n

Lee M.Thomas (acting) Jan. 4, 1985 – Feb. 7, 1985

n

William D. Ruckelshaus May 5, 1983 – Jan. 4, 1985

n

Lee Verstandig (acting) March 10, 1983 – May 17, 1983

n

Anne M. Gorsuch [Burford] May 20, 1981 – March 9, 1983

n

Walter Barber, Jr. (acting) Jan. 26, 1981 – May 19, 1981

n

Steve Jellinek (acting) Jan. 21, 1981 – Jan. 25, 1981

n

Douglas M. Costle March 7, 1977 – Jan. 20, 1981

n

John Quarles, Jr. (acting) Jan. 21, 1977 – March 6, 1977

n

Russell E.Train Sept. 13, 1973 – Jan. 20, 1977

n

Robert Fri (acting) April 30, 1973 – Sept. 12, 1973

n

William D. Ruckelshaus Dec. 4, 1970 – April 30, 1973

U.S. EPA Administrators


tate public health agencies have been struggling with a workforceshortage for more than a decade. But the issue came under a newspotlight after the September 11 terrorist attacks, when investiga-tions revealed deficiencies in the nation’s bioterrorism prepared-ness and response capacity at the state and local levels.

The federal budget for fiscal year 2004 allocated $940 millionfor state and local public health departments to improve their labo-

ratory capacity, epidemiology, disease surveillance, professional training and com-munication infrastructure. Despite these funding initiatives, a recentCSG/National Association of State Personnel Executives survey of humanresource directors in state public health departments revealed that states currently

face a wide range of public health workforce issues. The workforce shortage is most noticeable among

public health nurses. Out of 37 responding states, 30identified nursing as the field that will be most

affected by worker shortages in the future. Butnursing is not the only field affected. Thereare also current or emerging shortages ofepidemiologists in 15 states, laboratoryworkers in 11 states and environmentalhealth specialists in 11 states.

The public health workforce is aging.CSG found that in 32 states responding to

the question, the average age of public healthemployees is almost 47 years. On average, in

29 states that responded, about 24 percent of thepublic health workforce is eligible for retirement,

ranging from 5 percent in New Mexico to 45.9 per-cent in Nebraska. In addition to the workers who are

approaching retirement, states must contend with an annual employ-ee turnover rate that averages almost 14 percent in the 27 states that responded.

Among the 37 states that responded to the survey, several trends are emergingin the approaches to workforce recruitment and retention. Ten states reported thatthey are considering higher pay and benefits to recruit and retain workers.Unfortunately, tight state budgets do not always allow for salary increases.

As an alternative measure, 14 states promote incentives designed to advancethe competencies of their public workforce, such as work-study arrangements,professional training, distance learning opportunities and loan repayment andscholarship programs. Four states focus on enhancing leadership capacity oftheir public health managers through leadership training institutes. And fourstates offer telecommuting and other flexible scheduling opportunities to theirpublic health employees.

Seven states use recruiting strategies that promote public health careers athigh schools and on college campuses. Five states reported using informationtechnology and the Web to expand their outreach and optimize their marketingmethods. Four states have established special task forces to deal with publichealth worker shortages.


Public Health Agencies FaceWorkforce Shortage By Irakli Khodeli

Out of 37 responding states,

30 identified nursing as the fieldthat will be most

affected.

S

Continued on Page 38

trendsalert


ow much can you spend in two days? One Massachusetts man chargedroughly $18,000 last fall at stores such as Home Depot, Pier 1 Imports,Banana Republic and Wal-Mart, but he didn’t pay a dime. Instead, aMassachusetts state legislator – a victim of identity theft – received theexorbitant bill.

Identity theft is the fastest growing white-collar crime and has beenthe number one crime re-ported to the Federal TradeCommission for the past

four years. According to a 2003 survey by the commis-sion, 9.9 million Americans were victims of identity theftin 2002, resulting in losses of roughly $48 billion forbusinesses and financial institutions and $5 billion in out-of-pocket expenses for the victims.

Today, states are wrestling with ways to reduce the riskof identity theft, to better identify possible cases of thecrime, and to more effectively investigate and prosecutethe record number of cases. States are also searching forimproved methods to restore a victim’s identity and cred-it, which can be a long and frustrating process.

However, the problem of identity theft extends beyondstate borders and policies, to private sector practices andthe personal habits of individuals. Consequently, statestrategies to address the problem are increasingly multi-disciplinary, involving a mix of government and businesspractices and public awareness campaigns.

HState officials develop comprehensive strategies to reduce risks

By Chad Foster

Solving the

Identify TheftPuzzle

9.9 millionAmericans were

victims of identitytheft in 2002


Scope of the ProblemThe Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003 defines

identity theft as a fraud committed using the identifying informa-tion of another person, such as a Social Security number, date ofbirth, address, credit card number or other financial information.

According to the FTC, 85 percent of all victims in 2002 report-ed financial misuse. The remaining 15 percent, 1.5 million people,reported use of their personal information for nonfinancial purpos-es. For example, a criminal may use someone else’s identity toobtain a government document or to mislead law enforcementwhen stopped or arrested for a crime.

Recent spikes in the number of identity theft cases may beslightly misleading since accurate methods to identify and reportthe crime did not exist before 1997. Many cases in the 1980s and1990s likely went unreported. In 1997, the FTC created theConsumer Sentinel, a secure investigative tool and complaint data-base. The commission also established an Identity Theft Hotlineand Web site soon after to improve information gathering.

Although part of the dramatic rise may be the result ofincreased reporting, cultural trends suggest that identity theft is onthe rise. The popularity of the Internet and its interconnectedness,the ease and frequency of online financial transactions, and grow-ing reliance on credit cards all contribute to the problem.

Other factors include the availability of personal information ondocuments such as driver’s licenses, birth and death certificates,and financial documents; the ease of obtaining this information inphysical or cyber form; a lack of sanctions and deterrence by gov-ernment; and the low priority placed on identity theft cases by thelaw enforcement community.

Identity theft perpetrators are increasingly preying on the elder-ly, mainly because of their higher lines of credit, greater homeequity, and abundance of financial resources compared to youngerpopulations. According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, thenumber of incidents of identity theft among people over the age of60 increased from 1,821 in 2000 to 5,802 in 2001. This trend isespecially alarming given the record number of people expected toretire in the next decade.

According to the FTC,85 percent of all

victims in 2002 reported financial misuse

“Although part of the dramatic rise may be the result of increased reporting, cultural

trends suggest that identity theft is on the rise.The popularity of the Internet

and its interconnectedness, the ease and frequency of online financial

transactions, and growing reliance on credit cards all contribute to the problem.”


Another troubling trend is the theft of personal informationfrom people who have died. According to the National Associationfor Public Health Statistics and Information Systems, approxi-mately 2.3 million deaths are processed a year. Financial institu-tions often are not immediately notified when a customer dies andwill keep an active credit file open for up to 10 years without activ-ity. Unless a friend or family member notifies the financial institu-tion, the current process is lengthy and paper-based. States musttransmit death information to the Social Security Administration,which then notifies the financial institutions.

Identity thieves can easily obtain information about thedeceased through obituaries, death certificates or the Internet.Many such cases involve family members who try to steal SocialSecurity checks and other retirement benefits.

Who is Responsible?Nearly every public agency, branch of government, business and

citizen has a role in addressing identity theft. However, many stategovernments are taking the lead to address this growing problem.

As the flurry of legislative activity last year showed, state policy-makers are establishing identity theft as a priority: 22 states adopt-ed identity theft legislation in 2003. Most policy changes focusedon the following aspects:

n

Defining the crime of identity theft and related offenses.

n

Assigning penalties

n

Reporting procedures for victims.

n

Victims’ restitution.

n

Empowering law enforcement agencies.

n

Freezing credit reports and alerting credit agencies.

n

Controlling the use of personal information and the elec-tronic media.

Along with crafting policies to prevent identity theft, state prac-titioners also play a large role in address-ing the crime once it occurs. State andlocal law enforcement agencies are play-ing heightened roles in reporting possiblecases and tracking identity theft trends.The crime is also becoming a greater pri-ority for investigative agencies and stateand local prosecutors, especially giventhe greater authority and additional toolsprovided through the legislative process.

In addition, state motor vehicle andvital record administrators handle per-sonal information on a regular basis.State-issued driver’s licenses not onlygrant driving privileges, they are alsoused to board airplanes, open bankaccounts and apply for credit. Statemotor vehicle administrators, therefore,have an important responsibility to veri-fy applicants’ identities. However, statesoften do not have the resources to check

applicants’ Social Security numbers to ensure they are valid. Inaddition, law enforcement and financial institutions often fail toidentify invalid driver’s licenses because of a lack of uniformityamong states and lack of education as to what constitutes a validlicense.

Similarly, states are responsible for maintaining vital recordsand statistics, including official records on live births, deaths,fetal deaths, marriages, divorces and adoptions. The death certifi-cate function is especially prone to error and mismanagementgiven the complexities and the number of people involved,including funeral directors, physicians, medical examiners, coro-ners, hospitals, medical records professionals, and vital recordsand statistics officials.

Businesses and citizens also play important roles in protectingand managing personal information. Financial institutions andbusinesses that sell products maintain control over sensitive infor-mation such as Social Security numbers, dates of birth, homeaddresses and credit card information. Likewise, citizens have aresponsibility to safeguard their own personal information.

Future Focus for State GovernmentsAs states form strategies to address identity theft, they should

focus on the following areas: 1. Empower law enforcement. State and local law enforce-

ment officials need the authority and tools to identify, investi-gate and prosecute identity theft cases. Illinois and Louisianarecently took legislative steps to address this issue. Illinois H.B.2188, signed into law by Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2003, pro-vides citizens with an avenue to initiate a law enforcementinvestigation by contacting the local law enforcement agencythat has jurisdiction over their residence. Similarly, LouisianaS.B. 1031, signed into law by former Gov. Mike Foster in 2003,requires the state to include training on identity theft in the cur-ricula for the training of peace officers.

Further, states should promote the use of the nationalConsumer Sentinel program by their law enforcement agencies.Maintained by the FTC, the program is a central, secure com-plaint database and provides law enforcement agencies acrossthe country with immediate access to consumer fraud-relatedcomplaints. This information allows law enforcement personnelto identify trends at the local, regional and national levels.

2. Focus resources on the elderly. Given that the elderly aremuch more vulnerable to identity theft, states should considerdedicating greater attention and resources to assisting this pop-ulation. Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, for example,recently began an initiative entitled “MI Identity” that involvesvisits to adult care facilities to conduct interviews with residentsand free credit checks to determine if they are victims of identi-ty theft.

3. Implement electronic death registration systems. Althougheach state requires death records to be registered within a specif-ic time period, many death certificates contain inaccurate entriesor are not completed until months after the death occurred, andmany coroner cases take weeks or even months to resolve.

Continued on Page 34

he No Child Left Behind Act’stesting requirements for Eng-lish Language Learners havetroubled many educators fromthe beginning, and perhapswere a major catalyst for somestates to face losing federalfunds by threatening to opt outof the provisions in the two-

year-old federal legislation. In February, however, U.S. Secretary of Education

Rod Paige responded to some of those complaints byannouncing policy changes in testing and reporting theprogress of ELLs. According to Paige, the departmentwould add two new elements of flexibility, effectiveimmediately, that would help states and their schoolsmeet the needs of students who are learning English andavoid penalties for not making adequate yearly progress.

Calling the changes a “win-win” situation for bothstudents and schools, Paige said, “Our new policy pro-

vides a much needed one-year transition for our schools.It allows schools to substitute an assessment of Englishlanguage proficiency, if they so choose, for the assess-ment of reading competency during a student’s first yearin U.S. public schools.” He said that this English lan-guage proficiency test would not count toward the ade-quate yearly progress goals for the school, but that students who take the test would continue to counttoward the 95 percent participation rate for their sub-group. Under NCLB, in order to show adequate yearlyprogress, schools must test at least 95 percent of the var-ious subgroups of children, including students with dis-abilities and those with limited English proficiency.

“We want to make sure these children are countedand a part of the assessment system. This change allowsschools one more year to prepare these students to learnin English,” he said.

The second change is more technical. It addressescomplaints from states about how schools classify stu-dents who have made progress in learning English.

TStates given more time to meet needs of English-learning students

By Charlotte Postlewaite

Tweaking NCLB


Paige acknowledged that the law made itdifficult to show gains for ELL studentsand to show gains in proficiency becauseof the constantly changing classificationof those students.

States had complained that once ELLstudents became proficient, they wereremoved from the subgroup of limitedEnglish proficiency students. Thus, therewas no way to credit states for success inhelping those students.

Although the changes are a welcomeshift in policy for states, some educationadvocates and policy-makers said thechanges are a good start, but they will notbe enough if states are to hold steady totheir commitment to comply with allaspects of NCLB.

DemographicsRecent demographic shifts help explain

the mixed reaction to Paige’s announce-ment.

For one thing, the U.S. Census Bureauannounced last year that Hispanics are nowthe largest minority group in the country,surpassing the number of blacks.

This year, Florida reported that for thefirst time, ethnic minorities outnumberwhites in public schools, with Hispanicsshowing the most growth. And accordingto the National Center for EducationStatistics, the number of five to 24-year-olds who spoke a language other thanEnglish at home more than doubledbetween 1979 and 1999.

Among those young people who spoke alanguage other than English at home in1999, one-third spoke English with difficul-ty, according to the NCES report, whichalso noted that Spanish is the language mostfrequently spoken among those who speak alanguage other than English at home.

Virginia Del. James H. Dillard II, a for-mer school administrator, said the changesin the ELL policy were a good start, butnot enough. “We’re still getting a lot ofstonewalling and platitudes,” he said.

Dillard said he told the undersecretaryof the U.S. Education Department,Eugene W. Hickok, states weren’t givenenough guidance in implementing the1,100-page, four-inch thick No Child LeftBehind Act, which is accompanied by afour-inch thick copy of regulations. Theaccommodations that were supposed tohelp the states, said Dillard, were a dispro-portionately thin quarter-inch thick.

“I told Secretary Hickok that if states

were not reacting as they are, the USDOEwould still be doing nothing,” Dillard said.“I quite frankly think this is going to takelegislation which they want to avoid; theydon’t want this bill to go back to Congressbecause they are afraid they’ll makechanges that they don’t like. Our feeling isthat unless some changes are made the billwill simply implode of its own weight.”

Ross Wiener, executive policy directorwith Education Trust, a nonprofit organiza-tion that advocates raising academicachievement for K-12 and college students,said the changes announced by Paige “bringmore clarity and common sense to the rules

regarding limited-English proficient stu-dents and, consequently, represent impor-tant progress.

“The shame of it is that it took the depart-ment more than two years to offer such asimple, common-sense solution to a prob-lem that has been bedeviling implementa-tion efforts from the beginning,” he said.

The National Council of La Raza, anadvocacy group for Hispanics, issued astatement that applauded the announce-ment on the one hand while also raisingquestions about what effects the policychange will have on narrowing the ach-ievement gap for Hispanic and otherEnglish Language Learners.

“The National Council of La Raza isencouraged that the administration is will-ing to revisit NCLB and seek changes tomake it an effective tool for improving ELLstudent outcomes. While it is unclear that

these changes will achieve that, we arehopeful that this is the beginning of a sub-stantive dialogue on policies needed toincrease the achievement of the nation’s5.5 million ELL students,” the pressrelease said.

The National Education Associationpraised the Education Department’s regula-tory changes for English LanguageLearners but called for more common senseon this and similar No Child Left Behindissues that have caused confusion amongstates and local school districts. DanKaufman, a spokesman for NEA, told TheCouncil of State Governments that NEA’s

“Great Public Schools for Every Child Act”provides model legislation that puts much-needed improvements in place for the feder-al law.

“NEA thinks the policy changes for spe-cial ed and now for LEP (Limited EnglishProficiency) testing are good, but they arejust the tip of the iceberg,” Kaufman said.“I think they will have to do significantlymore for people to say they can work withthis legislation. Right now, they’re takingbaby steps but they are steps in the rightdirection.”

After High SchoolThe post-secondary future for many

Hispanic students and those in otherminority groups hangs in the balance asquestions about equal educational oppor-tunity and access are raised at the state andfederal levels.


One of the most controversial issues isthe debate over whether undocumentedimmigrant college students, many ofwhom came to the United States as infantsor young children, should be eligible forin-state tuition at public colleges and uni-versities.

Without a reasonable goal to pursue afterhigh school, advocates for the higher educa-tion reform say, many immigrant studentswill not see a need to complete high schoolif they cannot afford to attend college.

State and federal policy-makers struggleto define where American education policyshould stand on the immigration issue. If

federal law and the K-12 public schoolswant to provide equal opportunities for thenation’s elementary, middle and high schoolundocumented students, for example, whatare states and the federal government doingto ensure that those opportunities carry overinto post-secondary pursuits? Some say thedoor of opportunity slams shut at the thresh-old to college.

According to Josh Bernstein, director ofpolicy at the National Immigration LawCenter, seven states have passed legislationallowing undocumented immigrant stu-dents to attend college at in-state tuition

rates. Texas was the first, followed byCalifornia, Utah, New York, Washington,Illinois and Oklahoma. In Wisconsin andMaryland, a similar measure was app-roved in the legislature, but was derailedby a governor’s veto.

Federal LegislationAt the federal level, Congress continues

to debate the post-secondary future ofimmigrant students through two proposedbills that would allow undocumented immi-grant students to attend their state universi-ties at in-state tuition rates.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah has introducedThe Development, Relief, andEducation for Alien Minors Act,or DREAM. In the House, U.S.Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah hasintroduced a similar bill known asthe Student Adjust-ment Act.With revisions to the bills duringthis shortened session ofCongress, Bernstein believes thelegislation has a chance of passingif opponents do not keep it fromreaching the floor of Congress.

Opponents contend the billswould use taxpayer money toreward illegal behavior. Othercritics charge that the bills arebeing used as a political tool toappeal to immigrant voters.

Supporters argue that DREAMprovides educational opportuni-ties for children who did notchoose to enter the United Statesillegally.

“Even if it wasn’t in the inter-est of these kids, it’s so much inthe interest of us all as taxpayersto be encouraging these kids inevery way we can, includingwith financial incentives, to goto school because of the divi-

dends we reap,” Bernstein said.Opponents of the DREAM Act or in-statetuition for undocumented immigrants, hesaid, argue that taxpayers shouldn’t bearthe expense of putting undocumentedimmigrant students through college.

“But college is such a good investmentfor taxpayers. It’s been proven conclusivelythat taxpayers in just a few short years makeback their investment and after that, it’sgravy. Years and years of reduced criminaljustice costs, reduced social service costs,and increased taxes through personalincome are good arguments for passing this

act,” he said. “If you look down the road 10or 15 years, this will be a huge bonanza fortaxpayers. It’s the kind of outlay that paysback huge dividends in society.”

The immigration debate is also a moralone, said Bernstein.

“It’s just the right thing to do. We have todraw a line in the sand and treat peoplebased on their own actions, efforts and abil-ities and not based on decisions their par-ents or others have made. That’s a bedrockAmerican principle. And it is the crux ofwhat underlies Brown versus the Board ofEducation.”

States DebateThe post-secondary future of undocu-

mented students is being debated beyondthe halls of the U.S. Capitol. In Virginia, forexample, a federal judge ruled that Vir-ginia’s colleges and universities may denyadmission to illegal immigrants – a rulingthat experts said was the first of its kind inthe nation.

And for the second year in a row, Kansaslawmakers have debated higher educationissues for immigrants seeking post-second-ary educational opportunities.

Kansas state Sen. Steve Morris toldCSG that this year as well as last, legisla-tors who support in-state tuition rates forundocumented students have been con-fronted by opponents who feel threatenedby the influx of immigrants. “They feelresentment, I think,” Morris said. “Theyare feeling threatened because they’returning into the minority instead ofremaining in the majority.”

According to the U.S. Census Bureau,while the statewide population in Kansasincreased 8.5 percent between 1990 and2000, the Hispanic population during thatdecade more than doubled from 93,670 to188,252. In 1990, Hispanics represented3.8 percent of the state’s population. In2000, Hispanics were 8.5 percent of thepopulation.

Morris told CSG that the Garden CitySchool District, the largest in his district,has done a good job developing educa-tional policies for immigrants. Even so,he said, the increasing numbers representnew challenges for local schools.“Thelast three or four kindergarten classeshave been 70 to 75 percent Hispanic,”Morris said. He is concerned that manyof those students will not be in the grad-uation lines when they reach high school.

Continued on page 38


Report highlights best practices, needed reforms to help prisoners re-enter their communities

By Karen Imas and Elizabeth Nevins

his year, more than 600,000 people will bereleased from prison in the United Statesand there will be 10 million releases fromjails across the country.

This issue presents enormous challenges, especially for the communitiesthat receive the majority of people released from prison and jail. All toofrequently these communities are ill-equipped to deal with the challengesthese populations pose.

In his State of the Union Address, President Bush proposed a four-year, $300 million initiative to reduce recidivism and the societal costsof reincarceration by helping inmates re-enter into their communities.The president’s initiative seeks to harness the resources and experienceof faith-based and community organizations to help returning inmatescontribute to society.

“America is the land of second chances – and when the gates of theprison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life,” he said.

Re-Entry Policy CouncilThe Re-Entry Policy Council has been exploring this subject since 2001,

when a resolution to establish the group was passed at The Council of StateGovernments’ Spring Meeting in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The RPC is anunprecedented, bipartisan coalition of nearly 100 leading elected officials,policy-makers and practitioners working in state and local government, aswell as national and community-based organizations.

In a report to be released in April, the council will present detailed recommendations for overcoming these challenges and effecting the safe,successful transition of inmates back to their communities. The compre-hensive document addresses virtually every aspect of re-entry from themoment a person walks through the door of a correctional facility until he

T

FromPrison toPrivate Life


completes any period of communitysupervision. The report includesresearch highlights, policy statements,specific recommendations and exam-ples of innovative re-entry programsand projects nationwide.

“Community safety and budgetcrunches make it essential for us tore-think how we prepare prisoners tore-enter the community and how wesupervise them once they are there,”said New York Assemblyman Jeff-rion L. Aubry, chair of the AssemblyCorrection Committee and of theCSG/ERC Criminal Justice Board of Directors. “Working on re-entrymeans finding a way for peoplereleased to the community to suc-ceed, while allocating sufficient pub-lic safety resources to ensure theaccurate identification and adequatesupervision of those people releasedfrom prison or jail who are particu-larly dangerous.”

The RPC report responds, in part,to concerns that the nation’s correc-tions facilities, already operating pastfull capacity, are especially over-whelmed by the high re-incarcerationrates of largely nonviolent, low-riskoffenders for parole or probation vio-lations

“Close coordination between coun-ty jails, state agencies, and housing,health and employment providers inour communities is fundamental tostopping that cycle and allowing our correc-tions system to focus on keeping the mostdangerous criminals locked up,” said TimRyan, president of the American JailAssociation and chief of the Orange CountyCorrections Department.

The council’s three advisory groups –Public Safety and Restorative Activities,Supportive Health and Housing, andWorkforce Development and Employment

Opportunities – each met twice to generateand discuss recommendations to include inthe report. In November 2003, the threegroups came together to exchange questionsand ideas across disciplines and to give finalcomments on a draft of the report.

“It is paramount that we ensure thatthose incarcerated have the tools necessaryto succeed after they rejoin society. I lookforward to working with the council inorder to highlight and facilitate innovative

programs around the country,” saidU.S. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kan-sas, the keynote speaker at the Nov-ember meeting.

Project partners – including suchdiverse organizations as CSG affiliatethe American Probation and ParoleAssociation, the National Associationof Workforce Boards, and the UrbanInstitute – provided leadership in formulating and drafting the consen-sus-based report. The partners willcontinue to work on disseminatingthe report and educating policy-mak-ers, the media and the public about re-entry issues.

The Re-Entry Policy Council’sefforts are coordinated to build onand magnify the efforts of othernational organizations and the federalgovernment. Recently, the Depart-ment of Justice established theSerious Violent Offender Re-EntryInitiative. “We’re pleased the Re-Entry Policy Council has been part ofthat initiative,” said U.S. AttorneyGeneral John Ashcroft. “We appreci-ate the leadership from the council onre-entry issues and look forward tocontinuing to work with the councilon this critical public safety issue.”

The Re-Entry Policy Council reportis funded through grants from severalprivate foundations and from the U.S.Departments of Justice, Labor, andHealth and Human Services.

For more information on the Re-EntryPolicy Council and the report, please visitwww.csgeast.org/crimreentry.asp or http://reentrypolicy.org.

— Karen Imas is publications manager andElizabeth Nevins is project coordinator ofcriminal justice programs for The Councilof State Governments Eastern RegionalConference.

The following facts regarding thestate prisoners released each yearhighlight the difficulties state andlocal communities face:

n

One out of four was incarcerated for a violentoffense.

n

One out of two has been convicted of a violent offensein his lifetime.

n

Three out of four have a substance abuse problem.

n

Two out of three will be rearrested within three years.

n

One out of two will return toprison for either a new crimeor a parole violation.

n

55 percent have minor children, half of whom areunder 10 years of age.

State Prisoners Released into theCommunity

hree years of budget battlinghas caused some state govern-ments and their public col-leges and universities to con-sider severing ties.

The combined wallop ofrecession-driven budget cuts to higher educa-tion, swelling enrollment and escalating tuitionfees has prompted state policy-makers and edu-cators to begin eyeing changes in states’ tradi-tional support for higher education. At least fivestates are considering proposals to begin wean-ing public universities from state control.

The furthest reaching proposals – in Coloradoand South Carolina – would privatize public uni-versities and colleges: freeing the state fromfinancing the fast-rising costs of higher educa-tion and allowing colleges and universities to settheir own tuition rates.

“Given our state’s budget situation, there arejust too many colleges and universities to sup-port,” said Will Folks, a spokesman for Gov.Mark Sanford of South Carolina.

In Virginia and Wisconsin, state lawmakers

and college educators are looking at giving pub-lic colleges more autonomy but perhaps lessstate funding. In Washington, lawmakers areconsidering a contract with public universi-ties that would impose less state oversightand a steady stream of funding inexchange for specific performancegoals, such as graduation rates.

While no states yet have taken thedrastic step of severing ties to theirpublic institutions of higher learning,educators worry that such changeswould put the cost of public highereducation further out of reach for poorand disadvantaged students.

Without state support, once-publiccolleges would raise tuition to private-school levels, creating a two-tiered educa-tional system, predicts F. King Alexander,president of Murray State University inKentucky. Alexander has written about the roleof state and federal funding and testified beforeCongress on the issue.

While no states yet havetaken the drastic step of sev-

ering ties to their public institutions of higher learning,

educators worry that suchchanges would put the cost of

public higher education further out of reach for poor

and disadvantaged students.


Time for a Change?States and public colleges consider new relationships

By Eric Kelderman

T


“High-quality, affordable public educa-tion will no longer be in reach of themasses,” Alexander said. “All of the kidswill end up at institutions that cannot privatize.”

Altogether, states cut money for highereducation by 4.5 percent in fiscal year2004 and about 1 percent the previousyear, according to a report by theAmerican Association of State Collegesand Universities. Higher education fund-ing did increase by 4.5 percent in fiscalyear 2002, but half of the states cut thatincrease mid-year.

Higher education suffers more duringeconomic downturns because lawmakersprotect elementary and secondary educa-tion, welfare and health care programs intheir budgets, wrote researcher WilliamZumeta, professor of public affairs and edu-cation at the University of Washington.

South Carolina, which has 33 state-sup-ported colleges and universities at 79 cam-puses, cut higher education funds by nearly20 percent for the fiscal year that began inJuly 2003. The state cut 7.4 percent fromhigher education the previous year. The governor has offered his state’s publicfour-year colleges and universities theoption of becoming fully private institu-tions, mostly to ease the state’s budget bur-den. No South Carolina colleges have takenup Sanford’s offer so far.

Sanford argues that the changes wouldhelp institutions save money by eliminat-ing unnecessary programs and administra-tion. “It would also free the state to devotefunds to other critical education needs inSouth Carolina,” he said in a press release. Sanford also has proposed creating astrong board of regents to manage the uni-versity system, wresting control from theLegislature and an advisory commission.

The Colorado Legislature is consider-ing a similarly far-reaching proposal fromits majority GOP leadership to end statefunding for colleges and universities. Statemoney would instead be given directly tostudents to reimburse them for tuition ateither public or private colleges.

Colorado University President BetsyHoffman has testified in favor of the bill,which is also supported by Gov. BillOwens. Universities are supporting the pro-posal because it would give them the free-dom to raise tuition, said Joan Ringel,spokeswoman for the Colorado Comm-ission on Higher Education. Tuition in

Colorado is currently capped by the state’sconstitutional amendment limiting statespending increases.

Colorado cut higher education funds bynearly 28 percent this year. But because ofthe constitutional cap, the state’s collegescould not use tuition to make up shortfallsin state funding as other colleges and uni-versities do.

Tuition is a more reliable source ofincome than the state budget, said DeboraMerle, higher education advisor to Gov.Gary Locke of Washington. Locke has triedseveral times to give public colleges anduniversities freedom to set tuition, but hehas not gotten any proposals through theLegislature, which now must approvetuition increases, Merle said.

This year, Locke is proposing that thestate write “performance contracts” withpublic colleges and universities. The state

would guarantee a certain yearly increase,in exchange for public colleges and univer-sities meeting standards for graduationrates, among other things. But his proposalalso would give public colleges more flexi-bility in managing their campuses.

The Virginia Legislature likely willspend the summer studying a proposal bythe University of Virginia, Virginia TechUniversity and the College of William andMary to manage their own affairs. “Underthe new model, the state would limit itsfinancial contributions to the universitiesto less than would traditionally be expect-ed,” states a summary of the proposal bythe University of Virginia. “In exchange,the universities would no longer be sub-

ject to some state personnel, procurementand capitol-project regulations.”

The University of Wisconsin’s Board ofRegents also is studying its relationship tothe state and considering seeking greaterauthority to set tuitions to make up for loststate funding, said Linda Weimer, vice pres-ident of university relations at theUniversity of Wisconsin. The state’s Boardof Regents currently can propose tuitionrates, but they must be approved by theLegislature, she said.

The trend toward loosening state reinsover public colleges and universities istroubling to many in higher education,especially as the demands for an educatedworkforce are increasing. The EducationalTesting Service estimates that there will bea shortage of 14 million college-educatedworkers by 2020.

The push for privatization also will havethe effect of pushing costs onto the federalgovernment, Alexander of Murray Statepredicted. As tuition rises, students who dogo to college will rely more on federal stu-dent aid, he said.

“The problem is, nobody wants to payfor it,” Alexander said. “The political poweris now in the hands of the retiring babyboomers who have little interest in keepingthe cost of college affordable,” he said.“They don’t care about tuition. They wantto reduce their tax burden.”

— Eric Kelderman is a staff writer forStateline.org, where this article originallyappeared.


fter the terroristattacks of Sept. 11,the concept of “crit-ical infrastructure”took on new mean-ing and received anew level of atten-tion. More than two

years later, states and the federal govern-ment are still ironing out the details of howto work together with local governmentsand with the private sector to protect thenation’s infrastructure.

The USA Patriot Act defines criticalinfrastructure as “systems and assets,whether physical or virtual, so vital to theU.S. that the incapacity or destruction ofsuch systems and assets would have a debil-itating impact on security, national econom-ic security, national public health or safety,or any combination of these matters.”

The National Strategy for the PhysicalProtection of Critical Infrastructures andKey Assets, released in February 2003,defines specific sectors as critical infra-structures under the guidelines of the USAPatriot Act. These sectors include agricul-ture and food, water, public health, emer-gency services, the defense industrial base,government, telecommunications/informa-tion systems, energy, transportation, bank-ing and finance, the chemical industry, andpostal and shipping.

The United States’ critical infrastructuresare a highly diverse, interdependent mix of

facilities and networks. Failure in one infra-structure can cascade to cause disruption orfailure in others, and the consequences forstates and the public can be massive.

Protecting critical infrastructure is acomplex mission that involves a broadrange of functions performed throughoutgovernment and the private sector. Althoughgovernments own and operate some ofthese facilities, most are controlled by theprivate sector. Much of the expertiserequired to plan for and ensure the protec-tion of critical infrastructures, therefore, liesoutside of the federal government, includ-ing much of the knowledge about whatneeds to be protected. In effect, responsibil-ity for defending critical infrastructures isshifted down to state and local governmentsand private sector stakeholders.

Because infrastructure protection en-compasses such a broad scope, it is foolishto think we can fully protect everything;therefore our strategy must also includenational preparedness and response. Thiscombined focus – critical infrastructure pro-tection and incident response – encompass-es activities related to national defense, lawenforcement, transportation, emergencymanagement, food safety, public health,information technology and other areas. Forcritical infrastructure protection efforts tocome even close to being successful, feder-al, state and local governments and privateindustry have specific roles and functionsthat must be integrated.

For critical infrastructure protection efforts to come even close to being successful,federal, state and local governments and private industry have specific roles and functions that must be integrated.

Developing a DefenseStates’ role in protecting critical infrastructures is still emerging

By Barry Hopkins

New Regulations Raise QuestionsIn February, the Department of Home-

land Security issued new regulations thatwill allow the federal government to col-lect sensitive data about physical andcyber infrastructure while allowing thisinformation to remain secret. While nodoubt this data will prove vital in efforts toprotect our nation’s critical infrastructure,questions remain about how it will beshared with states and how states will fitinto future critical infrastructure protec-tion efforts.

The new regulations launched theProtected Critical Infrastructure Infor-mation program, which, according toDepartment of Homeland Security, willallow the government to protect the propri-etary data of private sector companies,thereby facilitating their voluntary partici-pation in protecting infrastructure.

The information will be exempt from theFreedom of Information Act and will not beaccessible by state and local governmentsfor litigation purposes. This raises concernsthat companies could submit false informa-tion to states to escape prosecution andinvestigation of their activities.

More importantly, however, from thestandpoint of homeland security, it raisesquestions about whether or not state offi-cials will have access to this informationand what role they will play in future pro-tection efforts.

The Council of State Governmentsrecently published a State Official’s Guideto Critical Infrastructure Protection. Acc-ording to the guide, state responses to criti-cal infrastructure protection have so farbeen somewhat limited, in part because ofthe lack of information sharing among vari-ous levels of government and the privatesector. Other factors include the fact thatinfrastructure protection is still a relativelynew concept, a tendency to focus more onresponding to events than preventing them,and state budget problems.

The guide outlines the challenges associ-ated with protecting the various sectors,what states are currently doing, and strate-gies states can take to improve their criticalinfrastructure protection efforts.

To order a copy of the guide, visit ouronline store at www.csg.org (keyword:store) or call (800) 800-1910.

— Barry Hopkins is chief infrastructurepolicy analyst at The Council of StateGovernments.

A

States and their local school districtsare experiencing a phenomenal growthin the number of obese children andadolescents. As national coverage of thetrend has grown in the past year, finger-pointing has also increased, with healthadvocates blaming a lack of state regu-lations or legislation that could improveschool nutrition education and physicalactivity for students. Predictions of thelong-term cost of physical inactivityand poor nutrition policy for today’syouth make this one of the sleepinggiants facing state health, education andfiscal policy-makers.

RTI International and The Centers forDisease Control and Prevention releaseda study in January estimating that U.S.medical expenditures attributable to obe-sity reached $75 billion in 2003 and thattaxpayers financed about half of thesecosts through Medicare and Medicaid.The American Diabetes Associationreports that the prevalence of diabetes among people under 20 yearsof age is increasing, with about 151,000 young people sufferingfrom the disease.

Some state legislators have introduced legislation to improvethe health of school age children through nutritional regulations orby requiring physical activity. At the same time, state fiscal con-straints and education budget cuts have forced local school dis-tricts to rely on money from food and beverage contracts – such asthose for fast food and soft drinks – that support school programs

and provide nondiscretionaryfunding.

Policy-makers throughoutthe country continue to grap-ple with this problem as theyseek to develop and imple-ment policies and programs.At least three states have com-missioned task forces to lookfor solutions and to make rec-ommendations about commu-nity health practices, schoolphysical activity and nutritioneducation. State and local offi-cials find themselves walkinga fine line as they balance thedesire for local control withstate responsibility and con-

cern about future expenses related to physical inactivity and poornutritional policy. Can the states provide guidance and support forcommunity and school district efforts to help curb a future healthcrisis and to improve the quality of life for their residents?

One win-win solution being introduced across the countryincreases demand for local agricultural products as it educates stu-dents about the source of their food. Schools nationwide are learn-ing the benefits and challenges of buying food directly from localfarmers and integrating these products into healthy school lunch

Childhood Obesity


tate leaders from around the country willgather in St. Paul, Minnesota April 15-18 foran in-depth look at key trends and policyissues during CSG’s 2004 Spring Committeeand Task Force Meetings.

CSG offers state policy-makers a diverseand detailed look at the issues facing statestoday – from school nutrition and child-hood obesity to what the new Medicaredrug bill means for states; from lake

restoration and preservation to dealing with drug abuse andmethamphetamine in rural areas. Join state policy-makers andnational experts from around the country in these discussionsas we look at current implications and potential solutions tothese and other public policy areas.

Key

Sstatetrends


Preserving and Restoring Lakes

Issues

Lakes are one of our nation’s most precious natural resources.They supply a large portion of our drinking water, provide criticalhabitat support, furnish water for industry and agriculture, andserve important aesthetic and recreational functions.

In their 2000 biennial water quality reports to the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, states assessed approximately43 percent of the nation’s 40.6 million acres of lakes. They report-ed that roughly 55 percent of the assessed lake acres have goodwater quality that fully supports all designated uses such as swim-ming, fishing or drinking. Of this 55 percent, however, 8 percentwas classified as good but threatened for one or more uses. Statesrated the remaining 45 percent of assessed lake acres as impairedfor one or more designated uses.

According to the 2000 National Water Quality InventoryReport, excess nutrients are the leading cause of impairment inassessed lake acres. Metals ranked as the second most commonpollutant, primarily due to the detection of mercury in fish tissuesamples, and siltation or sedimentation ranked third. As for theleading sources of lake impairment, agriculture was listed fore-most, followed by hydrologic modifications (such as dredging,dam construction, and flow regulation and modifications), urbanrunoff and storm sewers, nonpoint sources, atmospheric deposi-tion, municipal point sources, and land disposal.

With almost half of our nation’s assessed lake acres partially ornot able to support one or more uses, the topic takes on signifi-cance for state environmental policy-makers.

During CSG’s 2004 National Committee and Task ForceMeetings in St. Paul, Minnesota, the Environmental Task ForcePolicy Meeting on April 16 will feature presentations by theKansas Water Office and the Kansas Biological Survey on innova-tive solutions for lake degradation and the evolving use of public-private partnerships, as well as a presentation by the MinnesotaPollution Control Agency on trends in Minnesota lake conditionsand management. On April 17, the Minneapolis Park andRecreation Board, with resource expertise from the MinnesotaPollution Control Agency, will conduct a study tour of the Chain ofLakes surrounding Minneapolis. The tour will focus on case stud-ies of lakes that have experienced degradation from a variety ofsources, including urban encroachment and storm water, and willhighlight projects that have addressed water quality degradation.

Meeting and field study participants will come away with a bet-ter understanding of the problems confronting our nation’s lakes,as well as some innovative protection and restoration techniques.

— Barbara Foster, associate director for environmental policy,[email protected]

and snack menus. The Farm to Cafeteria or Farm to School pro-grams range from school gardens that supply salad bars to lunchmenus that feature local items, but the goals remain the same:students learn about the role of healthy foods in their diet, whilelocal producers gain new markets and communities supportlocal businesses.

CSG’s Agriculture and Rural Development Task Force andEducation Policy Group will host a panel of national experts onApril 15 to discuss trends in childhood and adolescent obesity.

With an eye toward identifying the most promising policies andprograms, the forum will showcase perspectives and solutionsfrom state policy-makers, physical education and nutrition advo-cates, farm-to-school programs, and the federal government.Speakers will discuss the issues surrounding this trend as well asstrategies states can use to address the issue.

— Charlotte Postlewaite, chief education policy analyst, [email protected]; Carolyn Orr, chief agriculture and rural policyanalyst, [email protected]

CSG Task ForcesConsider EmergingTrends

On December 8, 2003, President Bush signed into law the mostfar-reaching expansion of health care coverage since the Medicareand Medicaid programs were created. The Medicare PrescriptionDrug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, also knownas MMA, adds prescription drug coverage for the nation’s 40 mil-lion seniors and disabled individuals enrolled in Medicare. Thelaw contains a host of provisions that will have an enormousimpact on state health care programs as well as state budgets.

The Medicare drug law provides for phasing in two basicbenefits.

Interim Drug CardTo give the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

time to set up the new prescription drug benefit, Medicare will firstestablish a prescription drug discount card that will become avail-able in May 2004. The prescription drug discount card program isaimed at providing interim relief to Medicare beneficiaries by pro-viding them with access to discounted drug prices of up to 15 to25 percent off regular retail drug prices.

The drug cards will be administered through private contractorsapproved by HHS. The enrollment fee is set at no more than $30.Low-income beneficiaries will receive additional assistance.Medicare will pay low-income individuals’ enrollment fee, anddrug cards will have a $600 credit on the card that can be appliedto their drug costs.

New Medicare Part DOn January 1, 2006, the new Medicare Part D will go into effect,allowing Medicare beneficiaries access to a new prescription drugbenefit. Private health plans will be given an unprecedented newrole in providing benefits under Medicare. Thus, Medicare bene-ficiaries will face three choices regarding Medicare Part D drugcoverage:

n

enroll in a stand-alone prescription drug plan as a supplementto regular Medicare Parts A and B;

n

enroll in a Medicare Advantage health plan that covers allhealth care services, including prescription drugs;

n

forgo Part D prescription drug coverage and access other drugcoverage, such as that offered by employers to their retirees,or remain uninsured.

Standard BenefitThe new Medicare Part D benefit will have a $35 annual pre-

mium, a $250 deductible, and 75 percent coinsurance for up to$2,250 of drug costs. Above $2,250, beneficiaries will have to payout-of-pocket for additional drug purchases until they reach$3,600 in spending. Beyond $3,600 in spending, the law providesfor catastrophic coverage with nominal co-payments per prescrip-tion of $2 for generic and $5 or 5 percent of the cost of brand namedrugs, whichever is greater. The gap between $2,250 and $3,600,often referred to as the “doughnut hole,” was one of the law’s more

controversial features, but one that enabledit to stay within the $400 billion price tagset aside to pay for the new benefit.

Low-Income ProvisionsThe standard benefit applies to individuals

with higher incomes. People with incomesbelow 150 percent of the federal povertylevel will receive additional assistanceunder the law. (The federal poverty level, orFPL, is currently $8,980 for a single person

and $12,120 for a couple). There is no “doughnut hole” forMedicare beneficiaries with incomes below 150 percent of the fed-eral poverty level. Medicare will cover the full drug costs for insti-tutionalized enrollees without any cost-sharing requirements. Thebenefit will be structured as follows for different income levels:

n

Individuals below 100 percent FPL will have co-payments of$1 for generics and $3 for brand name drugs with no premi-ums or deductible.

n

Individuals below 135 percent FPL will have $2 co-paymentsfor generics and $5 co-payments for brand name drugs withno premiums or deductible; individuals must have less than$6,000 in assets and couples must have less than $9,000 inassets to be eligible for this benefit.

n

Individuals below 150 percent FPL will have a $50deductible, a sliding scale premium, and 15 percent coinsur-ance up to the catastrophic limit, with $2 and $5 co-paymentsthereafter; individuals must have assets of less than $10,000for singles/$12,000 for couples to qualify for this benefit.

Implications for StatesThe most important change for states is that the new Medicare

Part D will assume responsibility for dual eligibles – the low-income seniors and the disabled enrolled in both Medicare andMedicaid. This will relieve states of some of their rising Medicaidprescription drug costs. State Medicaid programs provided drugcoverage to more than 6 million dual eligibles in 2002 at a percapita cost of $918 in state spending, according to a report byBrian Bruen and John Holahan for the Kaiser Commission onMedicaid and the Uninsured.


The Medicare Modernization Act

verall, the Congressional Budget Officeestimated that the new law will resultin states spending $1.2 billion morein Medicaid between 2004 and 2006.O

statetrends


‘Meth’ InfectionThere is an unprecedented level of methamphetamine produc-

tion and abuse nationwide, making it one of the leading publicsafety, justice, health and rural policy issues facing the states. The2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse found that 9.6million Americans have tried meth at least one time and theNational Drug Intelligence Center reports that 58 percent of locallaw enforcement considers the availability of the drug in theircommunities to range from medium to high.

The production and use of methamphetamine has a far-reachingimpact on communities, and states ultimately pay for the strainplaced on local hospitals, law enforcement, prisons, family andsocial services, schools and courts. A study by the National Centeron Addiction and Substance Abuse found that more than 13 per-cent of state budgets deal with substance abuse, and more than 90percent of those funds go to dealing with the aftermath, not pre-venting or treating it.

Rural communities are especially vulnerable to the effects ofmeth, and they most often lack the resources to address the prob-lem. In fact, drug-related crimes in rural areas increased by 10.5percent from 1997 to 2002. Rural communities make good loca-tions to produce methamphetamine because anhydrous ammonia,which is used as fertilizer, is readily available, and because thetoxic fumes produced during the manufacturing process are lessobvious than in more crowded urban areas.

The problem is compounded in rural areas because of the lackof drug treatment options that are available to metropolitan com-munities, and rural communities have a difficult time attractingand keeping drug counselors.

State officials throughout the country are trying to deal with thisproblem by developing and implementing policies and programs.For example, many states are limiting access to common ingredi-ents; training law enforcement officers to deal with the toxicchemicals; targeting youth for drug prevention efforts; andstrengthening drug courts. But are these initiatives working?

CSG’s Public Safety and Justice Task Force and theAgriculture and Rural Policy Task Force will host a panel ofnational experts on April 16 to discuss the rural drug trend withan eye toward promising policies and programs. This session,titled “The ‘Meth’ Infection – Charting State Strategies,” willshowcase perspectives and solutions from state policy-makers,public safety and health and human service officials, lawenforcement and the federal government. Speakers will discussthe issues around this emerging problem as well as strategiesstates can implement to address it.

— Chad Foster, public safety and justice policy analyst,[email protected]; Carolyn Orr, chief agriculture and rural policyanalyst, [email protected]

While the transfer of dual eligibles to Medicare sounds like afiscal boon to states, a number of the law’s provisions mean thatstates may spend more in the short term. States are required toassist with determining who qualifies for Part D low-income assis-tance under the new law. States will have to hire or retrain staff,modify computer systems and make other changes to accommo-date this requirement.

In addition, the law requires that Medicaid savings on dual eli-gibles’drug costs be paid to Medicare. Officially termed as a “statecontribution” but more generally known as the clawback provi-sion, this portion of the law in essence levies a federal tax on stateMedicaid spending. Based on a complex formula of the number ofdual eligibles, their drug costs and other factors, states must paythe federal government 90 percent of what they would have con-

tributed to covering this population under Medicaid. This percent-age decreases gradually over the next 10 years to 75 percent in2015, meaning that states may see more savings as time goes on.

States will also have to provide data to HHS monthly regardingtheir enrollment and per capita spending for dual eligibles. HHSwill use the data to calculate state contribution payments and tohelp with eligibility determinations for the drug discount cards.

Overall, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that thenew law will result in states spending $1.2 billion more inMedicaid between 2004 and 2006. However, the office estimatesthat state Medicaid spending will eventually decrease by $17.2 bil-lion, but nearly 80 percent of these savings will come between2010 and 2013. However, some state analysts are skeptical of anysubstantial savings for states. A lot can happen in 10 years with thefederal budget.

On April 16, CSG’s Health Capacity Task Force will examinethe Medicare Modernization Act. Presenters will discuss the law’sbasic provisions, how it affects states, and how state leaders canhelp their constituents understand this complex new law andwhat’s in it for them.

— Trudi Matthews, associate director of health policy,[email protected]


Identity Theft – Continued from page 21

In automating the death registration processes, states can help toprevent identity theft by shortening the time to notify the SocialSecurity Administration and financial institutions. “Implemen-tation of the electronic death registration system will tremendous-ly improve accuracy and timeliness of death notification to thestates and financial institutions,” said Kenneth Bean, executivedirector of the National Association for Public Health Statisticsand Information Systems. Currently, only five states have such asystem in place.

4. Continue to safeguard Social Security numbers and otherpersonal information. State agencies should minimize the use ofSocial Security numbers. States should implement added layers ofprotection for paper and electronic personal information such asSocial Security numbers, dates of birth, home addresses and phonenumbers.

5. Review motor vehicle policies and documents. State vehicleadministrators should check applicants’ Social Security numbersagainst the national Social Security data bank to ensure they arevalid. Also, adopting minimum uniform standards for state-issueddriver’s licenses would improve law enforcement officials’ abilityto identify fraudulent cards and identifications.

6. Collaborate on the interstate issues. According to aWisconsin Professional Police Association article by formerAttorney General Jim Doyle, “obtaining records and pursuingoffenders requires increased cooperation among law enforcementagencies and prosecutors in different counties and states.” Stateinvestigative and prosecutorial agencies need to develop andimplement multistate agreements and protocols to effectivelywork across state borders on identity theft cases. Additionally,many businesses operate in several states, requiring them to try toadhere to multiple sets of standards and business practices, whichcan be difficult. When drafting and promulgating new laws, statesneed to consider the practical implications for businesses.

7. Implement public awareness campaigns. Most citizens todayare familiar with the identity theft issue because of television com-mercials sponsored by credit card and banking institutions. Stategovernments should use this publicity as a springboard forimproved outreach and education for citizens. Through differentmedia venues, states can communicate the importance of the issueand recommend personal protective measures.

8. Share solutions. Given the urgency of the identity theft prob-lem, states are feverishly inventing new and effective ways to prevent and respond to the growing issue. A clearinghouse of inno-vative solutions and means to communicate practices across statelines would streamline the states’ efforts.

The openness created by the Internet, the rising frequency ofcredit card transactions, and general carelessness regarding per-sonal information make identity theft a daunting challenge forgovernment officials. It will require more than a single piece oflegislation to deter future identity thieves and to change lawenforcement priorities, business practices, and citizens’ habits.

Many states are taking the lead in addressing the problem, butit will surely take a team effort by all layers of government, busi-nesses and citizens to curb this growing crime trend.

— Chad Foster is a public safety and justice policy analyst at TheCouncil of State Governments.

Two recent federal statutes directly address identity theft: theIdentity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 and theFair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003.

The Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998was the first major policy initiative by the federal government toaddress the crime.The act:

n

Makes identity theft a federal crime with penalties of up to15 years imprisonment and a maximum fine of $250,000.

n

Establishes that the person whose identity was stolen is thetrue victim.

n

Allows for the identity theft victim to seek restitution ifthere is a conviction.

n

Empowers federal, state and local law enforcement agen-cies with the authority to address identity theft crimes.

n

Establishes the Federal Trade Commission as a centralagency to act as a clearinghouse for complaints, referralsand resources for assistance for victims of identity theft.

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003 pro-vides added layers of protection for consumers against identitytheft. Specifically, the act:

n

Provides citizens with a free copy of their credit report toreview for unauthorized activity.

n

Requires merchants to leave all but the last five digits of acredit card number off store receipts.

n

Creates a national alert system for fraud that is activated byone consumer phone call.

n

Requires regulators to devise a list of red flag indicators ofidentity theft.

n

Requires lenders and credit agencies to take action beforecases of identity theft cause major damage.

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox recently launched anidentity theft campaign for 2004 to seek and prosecute identitythieves who target vulnerable adults. The initiative, named “MIIdentity,” involves visits to adult care facilities to conduct inter-views with residents and free credit checks to determine if theyare victims of identity theft.

The campaign will also train local law enforcement onreporting and investigative techniques and provide consumerswith additional information on ways to protect against thecrime. For more information on Michigan’s initiatives, visitwww.michigan.gov/ag.

Innovations Spotlight:

MI Identity

Federal Policy

Initiatives


More than 100 state officials from six CSG/ERC states andtwo Eastern Canadian provinces, as well as private sectorguests, helped celebrate ERC’s new home at an open housereception on February 6. Guests also toured the new officespace at 40 Broad Street in Lower Manhattan.

New York Assemblyman Robin Schimminger and New YorkSen. Carl Marcellino, both past ERC chairs, were joined byMichael Elmendorf, director of intergovernmental relationsand special assistant to Gov. Pataki, in delivering remarks con-gratulating ERC on its permanent space and commending theorganization for its dedication to remaining in LowerManhattan.

“I would like to congratulate CSG/ERC and hope for its con-tinued success in the new location,” said Sen. Marcellino.

Assemblyman Schimminger said, “I applaud CSG for itsdedication to New York state and the city. The organization’srole in revitalizing the area is vital.”

Several prominent guests from Canada were present includ-

ing the Honorable Michael Bissonet, president of the QuebecNational Assembly; MLA Bev Harrison, speaker of the NewBrunswick Legislative Assembly; and the Honorable MichelRobitaille, director of the General Quebec Government Housein New York. Also present was Ambassador Andrew Li-YanHsia, director-general of the Taipei Economic and CulturalOffice in New York.

“The governor and the state are grateful for the commitmentthat ERC has shown to Lower Manhattan, which is now avibrant and energized area,” said Elmendorf.

Staff members from the Midwestern Office of The Council ofState Governments have been traveling to the region’s state capi-tals over the past few months as part of the organization’s annualvisits with state leaders. The visits are made to introduce legisla-tors to the services provided by CSG Midwest and to update themon ongoing initiatives of the nonprofit, nonpartisan organization.

The state visits also give lawmakers the chance to offer ideasand suggestions on how the Midwestern office can improveservices. For more information, contact CSG Midwest at (630)810-0210.

State Officials Join CSG/ERC for Open House

Midwestern State Visits

Mental Health Courts MeetingRepresentatives from the 37 grantee courts of the Bureau of

Justice Assistance Mental Health Courts Program met in Januaryin Cincinnati, Ohio in the first ever national meeting of mentalhealth court practitioners. CSG/ERC, coordinator of theConsensus Project and technical assistance provider for the BJAMental Health Courts Program, organized the meeting.

There were featured presentations from distinguished panelistsincluding U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland of Ohio; Mike Hogan, chair ofthe President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health anddirector of the Ohio Department of Mental Health; and JudgePatrick Morris of the San Bernardino County Mental HealthCourt in California.

Much of the conference was spent in facilitated discussions,where grantees shared their experiences and discussed commonchallenges and strategies related to mental health court design andimplementation. Highlights included a roundtable discussionamong sitting mental health court judges and a discussion among allof the attendees on the essential elements of a mental health court.

“The conference addressed a broad range of practical issuesincluding effective program evaluation, cross-training and fund-ing and sustainability. We left the conference better prepared tocontinue planning our local mental health court,” said attendeeBrenda Desmond. Desmond is standing master of District CourtDepartment 3, Missoula County Court in Montana.

For more information, please visit www.consensusproject.org.

csgspotlight

Domingo Herraiz, deputy director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance,Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, addresses themental health court grantees.

Sen. Carl Marcellino (N.Y.), Assemblyman Robin Schimminger (N.Y.)and Michael Elmendorf of Governor Pataki’s office at the ERC openhouse.

ww

w.csg.org

For the latest news and inform

ation...

CSG/ERC officers recently sent letters to feder-al officials advocating for several issues on theregion’s behalf. The letters addressed three issues:The Low-Income Home Energy AssistanceProgram, funding for rail, and transportation reau-thorization.

The Low-Income Home Energy AssistanceProgram (LIHEAP) plays a vital role in theNortheast states in helping poor families paytheir winter heating bills. But the states in theregion are rapidly depleting their LIHEAP allo-cation for FY 2004. The ERC states serve closeto 1.2 million of the 4.5 million families receiv-ing LIHEAP assistance.

The officers of CSG/ERC wrote to PresidentBush requesting that he release the $100 million inemergency LIHEAP funds provided in the fiscal2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill. “The release ofemergency LIHEAP funds will ensure our stateshave resources available to help some of the mostvulnerable families in the region stay warm thiswinter, including the elderly, families with youngchildren and the disabled.”

In another letter, to Sens. Frist and Daschle, theCSG/ERC executive officers and transportation

chairs urged the Senate to include a rail title in thetransportation reauthorization bill. The title wouldprovide a dedicated source of federal funding –separate and distinct from the Highway Trust Fund– for the significant freight and intercity passengerrail needs across the nation. “Only a truly inter-modal federal surface transportation policy thatincludes funding for highways, transit and rail willallow our states to take a comprehensive approachto improving our transportation network,” the let-ter said.

Also concerning transportation reauthorization,CSG/ERC executive officers wrote to U.S. Rep.Don Young, chairman of the House Transportationand Infrastructure Committee, commending himon his efforts “to strengthen the nation’s economythrough a vibrant, national transportation system.”The overwhelming majority of the HouseTransportation and Infrastructure Committee hassupported “The Transportation Equity Act – ALegacy for Users” or TEA-LU (HR 3550), whichhas a total spending of $375 billion. The commit-tee has met opposition from the administration andHouse GOP leaders over its proposals to raise thefederal gasoline tax.

CSG/ERC Advocacy Correspondence

CSG hosted an Executive Briefing on Innova-tions in Prescription Drug Purchasing in Februaryto discuss the new frontiers in prescription drugcost containment. State government leaders fromaround the country were invited to learn aboutinnovative models being used in the states and toparticipate in discussion groups to brainstorm andshare ideas. Topics addressed included:

n

pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs);

n

preferred drug lists (PDLs) and use ofgenerics;

n

interagency and multistate purchasing col-laborations;

n

Medicaid waivers; and

n

supplemental rebates.

In his keynote address, Dan Mendelson, presi-dent of The Health Strategies Consultancy and for-mer associate director for health at the Office ofManagement and Budget, provided a recap of stateactivity in 2003 and discussed what will comenext. He noted that PDLs played a major role in

state prescription drug cost containment efforts.Fifteen states implemented PDLs with supplemen-tal rebates, 11 implemented PDLs without supple-mental rebates, and an additional 15 states author-ized or announced their intention to develop a PDL.

Deirdre Duzor, co-leader of the MedicaidPharmacy Team at the Centers for Medicare &Medicaid Services (CMS), provided an overviewof the Medicare drug legislation approved late lastyear and how it will affect states. For the Medicaredrug card, available in May, states are required toprovide CMS with needed data to help verify eli-gibility. When the Medicare Part D program goesinto effect in 2006, states will need to assist thoseelderly individuals who currently qualify for drugcoverage under Medicaid (dual eligibles) enroll inthe program and make eligibility determinationsfor low-income premium and cost-sharing subsi-dies and provide that information to CMS. Formore information about this or other CSG healthpolicy group activities, please contact JennySewell, health policy analyst, at (859) 244-8154 [email protected].

Prescription Drug Purchasing Briefing


The February 2004 Winter Meeting of theNational Lieutenant Governors Associationhad historically high attendance from lieu-tenant governors and the private, associationand union sectors. Thirty lieutenant governorsfrom every region of the country acted on fourpolicy resolutions and tabled one for possibleaction in July.

NLGA passed two resolutions regarding themilitary. One resolution encouraged states topass military relief funds as introduced by lieu-tenant governors in Illinois, South Carolina andCalifornia. The members also passed a resolu-tion supporting the National Guard in meetingits dual state and federal obligations and roles.

A third resolution strongly encourageddiabetes coverage in health plans in the statesand territories. The fourth resolution encour-aged exploration by states of effective public-private partnerships at this time of budget crisis to determine areas where constituentsmay benefit.

The members tabled a resolution asking fora ban on reimportation of pharmaceutical drugsfrom Canada. This resolution may be consid-ered at the upcoming Annual Meeting.

The Winter Meeting participants heardbriefings on reimportation of drugs, theNational Guard and military affairs, com-merce, tourism and natural gas. U.S. Sen. MaryLandrieu of Louisiana and U.S. Rep. JoAnnEmerson of Missouri addressed the group.NLGA members also met with U.S. Secretaryof Commerce Don Evans in the ExecutiveOffice Building overlooking the White House.California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante sharedwith his colleagues observations on the officeof lieutenant governor following his run forgovernor in the historic California gubernatori-al recall election.

NLGA selected sites for meetings through2006. The group will meet July 7-10, 2004, inBig Sky, Montana. The policy resolution filingdeadline will be approximately June 6, 2004.Policy resolutions must have two lieutenantgovernor co-sponsors. At least one sponsormust be present at the meeting to handle theresolution. The 2005 Winter Meeting will beheld in February in Washington, D.C. FutureAnnual Meetings include: Waikiki Beach,Hawaii, in July of 2005 and New Orleans insummer 2006. Details can be found atwww.nlga.us.

NLGA Pushes Policy In December 2003, three Western legislators, nominated by CSG-WEST, were

selected to participate in prestigious international fellowship programs. Theseselections reflect a growing trend of international engagement by legislators fromthe Western region.

Oregon Senate Democratic Leader Kate Brown and Arizona Senate MajorityLeader Tim Bee will both chair delegations from their states at the 2004“Governing in the Global Age” fellowship program hosted by The Elliot School ofInternational Affairs at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Eachyear the Elliot School brings together teams of leaders from eight states to partici-pate in a three-day program to meet with senior foreign policy leaders. While there,leaders examine how international affairs affect their states in such important areasas economic development, education, immigration and tax policy.

In addition, the German Marshall Fund of the United States selected CaliforniaAssemblywoman Cindy Montanez as an American Marshall Memorial Fellow.The program is designed to identify young leaders in American commerce, cultureand politics. The program exposes these young leaders to the political and cultur-al institutions of the European Union through a three-week exchange program. Asa Marshall Fellow, Assemblywoman Montanez will travel to three European cap-itals as part of a delegation of other American fellows and exchange views on awide range of issues relating to U.S. relations with Europe.

As trade, immigration, and other emerging issues blur the distinction betweenlocal and global, CSG-WEST will continue to assist Western legislators in meetingthe challenges of the global age through a wide range of programs.

Western Legislators Selected For Fellowships

North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven has been named chairman of the MidwesternGovernors’ Conference, a nonprofit bipartisan organization of 13 states that bringstogether top state leaders to work cooperatively on public policy issues importantto the Midwest. He will serve as chairman for one year.

As chair of the organization, Hoeven will lead the efforts of his fellowMidwestern governors as they address key issues impacting the region, includingeducation, regional economic development, agriculture, transportation and sub-stance abuse.

“Our states have unique opportunities and challenges, and we also have muchin common,” Hoeven said. “We will continue to work together on mutual intereststo address the needs of the region and move our efforts forward.”

Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois has been named vice chair. In addition toIllinois and North Dakota, the other states in the MGC are Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota andWisconsin.

Gov. Hoeven Leads Midwestern Governors

csgspotlight

Sen. Kate BrownSen. Tim Bee Assem. Cindy Montanez


While these approaches offer viablesolutions to the problem, not every statecan successfully implement every strate-gy. For this reason, the survey also askedstates to identify the keys to solving orpreventing a human capital crisis in statehealth agencies. Sixteen states identifiedincreasing pay and benefits as a key tosolving the worker shortage. Better mar-keting of public health careers to stu-dents in medical fields and otherprospective employees was the secondmost common solution, identified byeight states. Five states noted that theability to adjust pay scales quickly toattract and retain employees when themarket shrinks for particular occupation-al categories would help the state’srecruiting efforts. Eleven state public health agencies consideredpartnering with various professional educational institutions todesign public health programs and curricula. Seven states report-ed professional training for the current public health workforceas a key to solving a retention problem.

State and local public health infrastructure is the first line ofdefense against a bioterrorist attack, and an adequate supply ofcompetent health professionals is a vital component of this infra-structure. The survey indicates that states are working on newapproaches to public health workforce recruitment and retentionin order to maintain a high capacity for health emergency pre-paredness and response. The benefits of improved state and local

public health infrastructure are not limited to the protectionagainst bioterrorism; they include a better response to more com-mon public health crises, such as West Nile virus, SARS andinfluenza.

TrendsAlert: Public Health Care Worker Shortage exploresthe trends in public health worker shortages in more detail, andprovides a wider overview of public health infrastructures in thestates. The report will be available at www.csg.org (keyword:public health worker shortage).

— Irakli Khodeli is a research assistant at The Council of StateGovernments.

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

NM GA FL HI SD NJ MN ID CO VT KY MD IN LA SC * AR TX PA MI IL WA RI MT CT AK KS WV NY NE

NE

NY

WV

KSAK

CT

MT

RI

WA

ILMI

PATXAR

*SCLA INMD

KYVT

CO

ID

MN

NJ

SDHI

FLGA

NM

* = National Average

Public Health Employees Eligible for Retirement

“Like the rest of the nation, Garden Citymust improve the graduation rate for itsHispanic student population,” Morris said.

In North Carolina and surroundingSouthern states, rural communities havewitnessed increased numbers of Hispanicfamilies settling in to work at the poultryand furniture industries as well as in urbanareas at minimum-wage, low-skilled jobs.The influx of adult workers during the past10 years has increased the need for ELLprograms for their children. States vary,however, in terms of their legislative provi-sions and funding for ELL programs,according to an immigration specialist withSERVE, an education organization thatadvocates improved educational opportuni-ties in the Southeast.

“In the SERVE region, which includesFlorida, Georgia, North Carolina, SouthCarolina, Alabama and Mississippi, thestates of Florida, Georgia, and NorthCarolina seem to offer the most legislativeguidance and funding on the state level,”

said Stephanie Humphries, author of aSERVE study on immigration issues in theSoutheast.

Some plans are the result of court deci-sions. “Districts in Florida, for example,submit Limited English Proficiency educa-tion plans to the state Department ofEducation for review, the result of theLULAC et al. v. State Board of Educationconsent decree,” she said.

Humphries, who is a program specialistfor reading and school improvement inSERVE’s Greensboro, North Carolinaoffice, said districts in the other SERVEstates primarily pursue federal funding andmust comply with federal guidelines. “Too,there is often some crossover between fed-eral and state programs,” she said. “Forexample, although most funding forAlabama’s ELL programs may comethrough Title III, the state earmarks fundsfor at-risk students. As a result, some ELLprograms may receive state monies if theyserve ELLs who are at-risk.”

Humphries said no specific instructionalmodel for ELLs is mandated on the federallevel. “This doesn't mean that parametersaren't in place,” she said. “Title VI of TheCivil Rights Act of 1964, Title III of the NoChild Left Behind and court decisions suchas Lau v. Nichols and Castañeda v. Pickardhave clarified that programs for ELLs mustbe based on sound educational theory, ade-quately supported so that the programs havea realistic chance of success, and periodical-ly evaluated and revised. So, the goals are inplace, but states and districts decide howbest to meet them.”

The issues of English LanguageLearners and in-state tuition for undocu-mented students are just two parts of thecomplex problems state legislatures facein trying to narrow the achievement gapfor all minorities.

— Charlotte Postlewaite is chief educationpolicy analyst at The Council of StateGovernments.

Tweaking NCLB Continued from page 24

Workforce Shortage Continued from page 28


This calendar lists meetings as designated by CSG’s Annual Meeting Committee.For details of a meeting, call the number listed. “CSG/” denotes affiliate organiza-tions of CSG.Visit www.csg.org for updates and more extensive listings.

Other meetings have value to state officials. Purchase a meeting listing by calling1 (800) 800-1910 or by e-mailing [email protected] your meetings to thou-sands in the state government market through an advertisement, a Web listing, or abanner ad in In the News, CSG’s weekly electronic newsletter. Get your free sub-scription to In the News at www.csg.org.

April 2004

April 15-18 CSG’s Spring Committee and Task Force Meetings — St. Paul, MN— Radisson Riverfront Hotel. Contact Wanda Hines at (859) 244-8103 or [email protected]

April 28-30 CSG/State International Development Organizations:Trade Pro-fessional Training Course — Washington, D.C. — Holiday Inn onthe Hill. Contact Chris Whatley at (202) 624-5460 [email protected]

May 2004

May 1-5 CSG/NASTD—Telecommunications & Technology ProfessionalsServing State Government: Eastern Region Seminar — Pittsburgh,PA — Hilton Pittsburgh. Contact Karen Britton at (859) 244-8187 [email protected]

May 3-7 CSG/USEPA: The EMAP Symposium 2004: Integrated Monitoringand Assessment for Effective Water Quality Management —Newport, RI. Contact Amanda Mays at (859) 244-8236 [email protected]

May 15-18 CSG/NASTD Midwestern Region Seminar—Springfield, IL—HiltonSpringfield. Contact Karen Britton at (859) 244-8187 [email protected]

May 17-19 CSG/National Youth Court Center: Implementing and EnhancingYouth Court Programs — Philadelphia, PA. Contact the NYCC at(859) 244-8193 or [email protected]

May 23-26 CSG/National Association of State Treasurers and College SavingsPlans Network Annual Conference — Norfolk, VA — WatersideMarriott. Contact Adnee Hamilton at (859) 244-8174 or [email protected] or visit www.nast.net

June 2004

June 5-9 CSG/NASTD Western Region Seminar — Bismarck, ND — BestWestern Ramkota Hotel Bismarck. Contact Karen Britton at (859)244-8187 or [email protected]

June 6-10 CSG Environmental Policy Group — Watersheds: Growth, Land Useand Opportunity — Valparaiso, IN — Valparaiso University. ContactRon Scott at (859) 244-8031 or [email protected]

June 19-23 CSG/NASTD Southern Region Summer Seminar — Charleston, SC— Charleston Place. Contact Karen Britton at (859) 244-8187 [email protected]

June 26-30 CSG/National Association of State Facilities Administrators 17thAnnual Conference & Resource Expo — Norfolk, VA — NorfolkWaterside Marriott. Contact Marcia Stone at (859) 244-8181 [email protected]

June 26-July 1 CSG Henry Toll Fellowship Program — Lexington, KY — HiltonSuites Lexington Green. Contact Amanda Mays at (859) 244-8236 [email protected]

July 2004

July 7-11 CSG/National Lieutenant Governors Association Annual Meeting— Big Sky, MT — Big Sky Resort. Contact Julia Hurst at (859) 244-8111 or [email protected]

July 11-14 CSG/Midwestern Legislative Conference 59th Annual Meeting —Des Moines, IA — Marriott. Contact Mike McCabe at (630) 810-0210 or [email protected]

July 12-14 CSG/National Youth Court Center: Implementing and EnhancingYouth Court Programs — Louisville, KY. Contact the NYCC at (859)244-8193 or [email protected]

July 17-19 National Governors Association Annual Meeting — Seattle,WA —Hotel TBA. Contact Susan Dotchin at (202) 624-5327 or [email protected]

July 19-23 National Conference of State Legislatures Annual Meeting — SaltLake City, UT — Hotel TBA

July 24-28 CSG/National Association of Government Labor Officials SummerConference — Philadelphia, PA — Hyatt Regency Philadelphia at Penn’s Landing. Contact Melinda Glazer at (202) 624-5460 [email protected]

July 25-28 CSG/American Probation and Parole Association 29th AnnualTraining Institute — Orlando, FL — Orlando Marriott World Center.Contact Kris Chappell at (859) 244-8204 or visit www.appa-net.org

July 30-Aug. 3 CSG/Midwestern Legislative Conference 10th Annual BowhayInstitute for Legislative Leadership Development — Madison,WI —Fluno Center for Executive Education. Contact Laura Tomaka at (630)810-0210 or [email protected] or visit www.csgmidwest.org

July 31-Aug. 4 CSG/National Association of State Personnel Executives AnnualMeeting — Biloxi, MS — Beau Rivage Resort. Contact Leslie Scott at(859) 244-8182 or [email protected]

August 2004

Aug. 6-8 CSG/National Association of State Election Directors AnnualConference — Salem, OR — The Benson Hotel. Contact MelindaGlazer at (202) 624-5460 or [email protected]

Aug. 8-11 CSG/Eastern Regional Conference Annual Meeting — Springfield,MA — Sheraton. Contact Pamela Stanley at (212) 912-0128 [email protected]

Aug. 14-18 CSG/Southern Legislative Conference Annual Meeting — LittleRock, AR — The Peabody Little Rock and the Doubletree Hotel.Contact Nai Vienthongsuk at (404) 633-1866 or [email protected] or visitwww.slcatlanta.org

Aug. 21-26 CSG/NASTD Annual Conference — Providence, RI — WestinProvidence & RI Convention Center. Contact Karen Britton at (859)244-8187 or [email protected]

Aug. 22-25 CSG/NAST Northeastern State Treasurers and National Assoc-iation of Unclaimed Property Administrators Annual Conference— Boston, MA — Westin Copley Place. Contact Adnee Hamilton at(859) 244-8174 or ahamilton@ csg.org or visit www.nast.net

September 2004

Sept. 11-15 CSG/National Emergency Management Association Annual Confer-ence — New York, NY — Hotel TBA.Visit www.nemaweb.org

Sept. 12-14 CSG/Southern Governors’ Association Annual Meeting —Richmond,VA — Hotel TBA. Contact Liz Purdy at (202) 624-5897 [email protected]

Sept. 12-15 CSG/NAST Western and Midwestern State Treasurers Conference— Grand Teton,WY — Jackson Lake Lodge.Contact Adnee Hamiltonat (859) 244-8174 or [email protected] or visit www.nast.net

Sept. 25-29 CSG Annual State Trends and Leadership Forum — Anchorage,AK— Egan Convention Center. Visit www.csg.org or contact WandaHines (859) 244-8103 or [email protected]

Sept. 25-29 CSG-WEST Annual Meeting — Anchorage,AK — Hilton AnchorageHotel. Contact Cheryl Duvauchelle at (916) 553-4423 or [email protected]

Sept. 27-29 CSG/National Youth Court Center: Implementing and EnhancingYouth Court Programs — Portland, OR. Contact the NYCC at(859) 244-8193 or [email protected]

December 2004

Dec. 4-7 CSG/National Association of State Treasurers Treasury Manage-ment Conference — Scottsdale, AZ — Doubletree Paradise Valley.Contact Adnee Hamilton at (859) 244-8174 or [email protected] visit www.nast.net

Dec. 7-10 CSG/CSG-WEST Western Legislative Academy — ColoradoSprings, CO. Contact Cheryl Duvauchelle at (916) 553-4423 or [email protected]

conferencecalender

Documents

State News 0404 - Entire Issue · graphic design coordinator Susie Bush reprint permissions Mona Lewis Juett (859) 244-8238 publication and advertising sales (800) 800-1910 [email protected]