 |
En español: Proposición
49:
Programas para antes y
después de la jornada
escolar, y subvenciones
estatales |
This article originally appeared in the September-October 2002 issue
of the Children's Advocate, published by Action Alliance for Children.
Special election coverage
Proposition 49
Before and After School Programs, State Grants
By Meeta Malhi
This measure, initiated by Arnold Schwarzenegger, would increase
state funding for before- and after-school programs from the current $85
million a year to $550 million a year-but only if state revenues increase.
The measure would guarantee continuous annual funding for before -and-after
school programs, with first priority for programs currently receiving
state funds and next priority for grants of $50 million to $75 million,
available to any school. If funds are short, priority would go to schools
serving low-income students. Funding under this measure would start in
the 2004-2005 school year, but only if state revenues increase by at least
$1.5 billion over the amount guaranteed to schools.
Return to top
Arguments for
Fight Crime Invest in Kids California is helping to lead the campaign
for Prop. 49 "because it invests in fighting crime from the front
end," says State Director Maryann O'Sullivan. Supporters say:
- Research shows that after-school programs cut crime, gang participation,
and drug use and increase school success.
- These results mean this measure would actually save taxpayers money.
- Because funding comes from growth in state revenue, dollars going
to other government programs will not be cut to pay for after-school
programs, and new taxes will not be required.
Supporters include: Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California (510-836-2050),
Children's Advocacy Institute, California PTA, California Teacher's Association,
California Medical Association, California Business Roundtable, Howard
Jarvis Taxpayer's Association, California District Attorneys Association
Return to top
Arguments against
After-school programs are "the kind of program we generally support,"
says League of Women Voters Legislative Advocate Trudy Schafer, "but
this initiative prevents budget-makers from having the kind of flexibility
they need to provide for all children's services, like health, family,
support, and child care." Opponents say:
- It's not sound budgeting to guarantee a specific dollar amount regardless
of other state budget needs, especially since the Legislative Analyst
predicts years of deficits.
- The "trigger," a $1.5 billion increase, is too small and
doesn't account for inflation and population increase.
- With special protection from budget cuts, guaranteed funding for this
program would make it necessary to cut other essential programs during
economic downturns.
Opponent: League of Women Voters (916-442-7215)
Return to top
|
