WOULD YOU SUPPORT a program developed with years of solid research that puts young children and their parents on the right track for a lifetime of success? What if you could find a dedicated source of funding for that program, paid for by taxes on tobacco products, and the programs had local control and strict oversight?
That's exactly what the successful Five 5 programs have done since Prop. 10 was passed in 1998. Yet these programs seem to be a continual target of legislative raids. In 2000, voters overwhelmingly rejected a measure, funded mostly by tobacco interests, to overturn Prop. 10. Voters are being asked to circumvent it again through Prop. 1D on the May 19 special election ballot.
What Prop. 1D would do is take approximately $1.68 billion in dedicated funding away from established, locally controlled learning, health and family programs for preschoolers and their families and give the money instead to the state legislature to appropriate for non-specified state children's programs.
According to information provided by the Community Commission of Ventura County, "in Ventura County this would result in the loss of as much as $24.4 million over the next five years meant for sustaining current local First 5 Programs for our young children."
Yet, that is ISN'T made clear in the ballot proposition at all, as the video I've linked to above shows.
State Sen. Dave Cox has been trying to take down Prop. 10 for years. The Republican senator, who has seen more than his share of contributions from the tobacco industry, was one of the few GOP votes for the budget back in February, and many believe the run at Prop. 10 funding to help balance the state's budget was inserted to get the termed-out senator's vote.
Cox and others point to nearly $2 billion in county commission fund balances that is seemingly ripe for the taking. But, according to Michael M. Ruane, Executive Director of the Children and Families Commission of Orange County, "About half of the total, cited statewide fund balance is in two counties, Los Angeles and Orange counties. Of the Los Angeles total, over 60 percent is encumbered in a single multi-year program to provide preschool in the county's lowest income communities."
Ruane's letter can be downloaded here:
First 5 commissions are also hoping to use reserves to backfill funding as people quit smoking and tobacco tax revenues decline. Revenues are projected to decline about 3-4 percent each year.
FIRST 5 PROGRAMS are based on established research from many sources which indicate early childhood programs and intervention have long-term and profound impacts on keeping children in their important early formative years interested in learning and on a path to success.
The Ventura Neighborhood for Learning (VNfL) is a focus area for the Ventura Education Partnership and I have personally observed the good work they do. I spoke with VNfL Director Cathy Puccetti, who explained that an analysis she had read stated Prop. 1D would divert up to 65 percent of her program's operating revenues over the next five years.
Local First 5 funds are used for services such as childbirth preparation; parent and infant/toddler classes; preschool programs; summer pre-kindergarten; developmental check-ups; early dental care and education; health insurance access; parenting support and education; and resource and referral services.
"If the children don't get these services now they will need more later," Puccetti said. "We are also trying to get the parents to value education and their role in the family." VNfL's programs are neighborhood-based, and housed primarily in schools serving low-income populations. They are highly utilized by poor, hard-working families, Puccetti said. And some of these children have severe behavior issues that need to be addressed. "We provide services before children meet eligibility requirements for other funding streams."
Puccetti bristles at the often-heard charge that First 5 serves a primarily illegal immigrant population. "Some of our most needy families are not immigrant families," she said.
As tempting a target as preschool programs are to help solve the state's budget crisis, I urge the legislature and the voters to look elsewhere. Cutting off these thoughtful, long-term programs as a means of short-term financial gain is unwise.
"It's hard for people to think proactively," Puccetti said.
But we must try.
Note to my bloggers: We have recently moved the Star blogs to a new server which seems touchy about hyperlinks. If, while posting with a hyperlink, you receive the message that your comment is being held for approval, send me an email and I will fish it out of my spam filter.
Prop 1D does NOT ask you to pay ANY new taxes.
First 5’s have over $2 BILLION in reserve they can use over the next 5 years while they help the rest of California. It's a total misstatement to say that those monies are already committed to certain programs because with one vote their commissions can re-direct those reserves to whatever they choose to. So, who's to be trusted?
Well, IMO, it's not First 5. They are run by Commissioners who vote for budgets that direct cash to their OWN departments and organizations. There are now wild exaggerations about how 1D could affect people: just not so – reserves will be used. Perhaps such claims are why Prop 1D puts an auditor on the Commission to oversee their actions.
If that does not bother you then this should: the First 5 lobbyist has received over $1 MILLION of First 5 funds & about $200K of that went straight to her pension plan - IRS Form 990s say so! Prop 1D stops her from taking any new First 5 funds!
Vote YES on 1D!
Yes, let's look at some First 5 data!
FIRST 5 SPENT $100 MILLION+ on CONSULTANTS
Here’s something to chew on about First 5 (Prop 1D):
Although some expenditure for evaluating programs is required by the First 5 statute, over the last 7 or so years, audited financial statements reveal that First 5 commissions have spent approximately $100 MILLION on evaluation. How can it cost that much?
Well, First 5 evaluation payments go mainly to private consulting firms like Harder and Company, not to children 0 to 5!
Based on audited financial statements and adding a standard 3% for inflation, an analysis shows that in 10 years, they are on course to spend over $300 MILLION on evaluation.
In 15 years, it will top $500 MILLION. In 25 years: $1 BILLION dollars+.
First 5 Commissioners are misspending funds: Proposition 10 was not meant to make the evaluators RICH!
Let's get ourselves out of this budget mess – VOTE YES on 1D!
and more First 5 data:
SO - - - Where’s the beef?
Where is First 5’s significant, quantifiable proof that they have “made a difference”?
How bout here: In Riverside County, analysis shows they spent about $1130 per child, not the $185 per client claimed by the 07/08 evaluation report. IMO, that’s playing with numbers.
And here: In Contra Costa, in FY 04/05, published reports show that First 5 spent nearly $14,000 for each ONE hour class in the Family Centers. It dropped to $3,600 in 06/07, but by God, by what measure is that "successful"? It’s not - THAT IS WASTE!
And… unlike what some will have you think, First 5 has $2 BILLION+ because it took 2 years+ for most of them to do their strategic plan and so they were not allowed to spend the funds coming in until they did. It was NOT due to good planning, it was a FLUKE!
Please do not believe the malarky. Children will not be abused more often should Prop 1D pass. First 5 has billions to ensure that won’t happen.
VOTE YES on 1D!
and more documentation of taxpayer concerns:
SELF DEALING EXPOSED at FIRST 5(s)!??!?
It is against the law for officials to vote on budgets that directly benefit them, which is why some people wonder why First 5 Commissioners have been doing so.
IMO, in part they get away with it cuz there is no strong oversight by county Board of Sups and Grand Juries. In part, IMO, it has been because Prop 10 was vague.
Prop 1D fixes this by adding the county auditor to the Commission.
HOW BAD IS IT? Well, Riverside First 5 recently tossed out its board & restructured their First 5 into a county dept because of self dealing – see their newspaper (www.pe.com).
According to FY 07/08 audited financial statements sent to the CA Auditor-Controllers, Riverside’s Commissioners received 77% of ALL funds directed to programs.
To give Riverside credit, at least they – unlike other First 5’s – COMPLIED with the rules to list “Related Party Transactions”.
When will other First 5’s comply? Having the county auditor on board will make it so!
Vote YES on 1D!
and the kicker:
$500 MILLION First 5 dollars up in smoke!?!??!
Here’s another thing First 5 has spent TOO MUCH money on:
The Compensation and Retention Encourage Stability initiative, called “CARES”.
According to the 06/07 San Diego First 5 Eval report (p 170), the CARES initiative “originated in response to a major child care crisis… at that time, child care centers… struggled with high turnovers rates and under-qualified staff…”. Amongst other things, it simply paid people to stay in their jobs as childcare workers
According to page 171 – THEY ARE STILL LEAVING and CARES did nothing to change the situation. A closer look:
From 02/03 to 05/06 (the most recent year in the CARES database), First 5 gave people who already had a Master’s degree: 1) a base CARES stipends and/or other compensation, 2) Higher stipends for having a MA or higher, and/or 3) additional stipend bonuses for having an MA or higher. Some people were given up to $5,000 simply for staying employed.
The counties that did so in 1+ years ending 03-06, according to the CARES database, were: Alameda, Contra Costa, Inyo, Humboldt, Marin, Modoc, Mono, Napa, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Sierra, and Sonoma.
There were NO SERVICE REQUIREMENTS! They could take the money and run…
and so says page 171 of San Diego First 5’s 06/07 Eval Report,
THEY ARE DOING JUST THAT: There is a 22% annual turnover rate = a 100%+ turnover rate within 7 years, being generous.
We all know that people with degrees leave low paying jobs.
For some reason CARES had to prove it: CARES paid for people to get AAs & BAs
If you read the SD report, you’ll see data shows that CARES proved that people DO leave once they get more educated!
um… no duh!
So how much has been spent on it? over $500 MILLION!
Vote YES on 1D!
"Yikes," I see you've been posting the exact same comments on many other state blogs. I found yours posted within 5 minutes of putting this entry up. I am wondering if this isn't some sort of automated posting. Do you have links for your information? I am not seeing your data anywhere else.
I suggest you read the independent California Budget Project's analysis of this measure:
http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2009/090413_bb_prop1D.pdf
1D isn't about the First 5 program. 1D, like the rest of the propositions, is about CA's ineffective legislature and their out of control spending.
An alcoholic can't just reduce their drinking and a politician is unable to reduce their spending. Sacramento needs to go COLD TURKEY.
It's time for the voters of CA to stage an intervention. We need to let these self-serving spend-aholics know that there behavior is causing us pain and we're not going to tolerate it anymore.
VOTE NO ON 1D
and while you're at it
VOTE NO ON 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1E
No Marie -
Thanks for asking, but I am not an automated poster. I am just angry that taxpayer money is being used in a way that I feel the voter did not intend and I want to show several examples of just that. I know I risk looking like an automated poster, but it is not that.
My opinion is that it is First 5 that is being deceptive and has been for a long time. $500 million spent mostly on paying people to stay in their jobs is a JOBS program - how much of that went to children 0 to 5 = NONE!
Everything I post has its direct roots in documents. Notice, since you have looked around, that NO ONE has disputed the data that I have posted. That's because it is the TRUTH.
I simply do not have time to go to each site and have a dialogue.
Vote YES on 1D! They've got the money to share.
Hi Marie -
One more thing re links. I think people dislike links in blogs in general and so I've chosen to reference the docs instead of just posting a bunch of links.
That said, I'll post at least some of the links here sometime this week, since you have asked.
Please note that in one case a county recently took down the evaluation documents that I referenced from docs I downloaded last year, so I can only link to the page where they were.
Ok, so you are not a foreign Spambot! That's good to know. :-) But you have set a Making Waves blog record for posting copious amounts of information with lightning speed within 5 minutes of my putting up a post. And you've done that elsewhere, too.
Yes, I do prefer my bloggers leave links. But sometimes the hyperlinks trigger the Spam filter, so if you leave one and it gets held for approval, know that I will go in and approve later.
I don't know much about the commissions you've referenced, but I do know the one in Ventura County does good work and is beyond reproach.
Yikes 123 says:
"I think people dislike links in blogs in general and so I've chosen to reference the docs instead of just posting a bunch of links"
Hmmm......
People like to investigate and confirm fishy information. Posting by 'referencing' the docs is the same as making it up. No way to verify.
"I am just angry that taxpayer money is being used in a way that I feel the voter did not intend"
Wow. Imagine that. A ballot measure that wasn't what it was sold as. Sounds like the current crop (and most every other).
I'm a firm believer in the importance of making INFOMRED decisions in the ballot booth - (READ THE FINE PRINT BEFORE VOTING). Because of that, I have trouble with the government (who can't control it's spending) taking away money from a VOTER APPROVED program. It doesn't matter if the VOTER APPROVED program is efficient or successful at this point. What is important is that once the over-spending legislature gets their claws into that money, they won't let go.
Vote No on 1A-F
Time for Change!
I’m voting yes on 1F, but let me explain;
First as far as the budget goes the effect will be so small as to be negligible.
Second it will likely be declared unconstitutional. The legislature wrote it with that intent.
So what does 1F do? 1F is a referendum on the Governor and Legislator’s performance. A NO-CONFIDENCE vote if you will. It is the voter’s opportunity to tell scumbag politicians everywhere that we have had enough! As the Daley machine in Chicago used to say; Vote early, Vote Often. Let’s have a 99% yes vote on 1F, this is assuming Karen Bass and her staff are voting no.
Vote YES on 1F
And then vote them out at the next election.
Vote NO on 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E
Hi Marie -
on my lunch break...
ok, but the fact is that all the docs are from the First 5 websites and the state First 5 websites, so if you just google it, they should show up, like they did for me.
It has not been hard to get the data. It just took time to read it, do a lot of math, and make phone calls to confirm a couple things -
like how long are the Family Center classes are in Contra Costa County: the answer "about an hour".
You can call them too - here's a phone number: (510) 232-5650
I got it at http://events.contracostatimes.com/san-pablo-ca/venues/show/370502-west-county-first-5-center-l
Did I not say I'll post some links?
it wasn't to be fishy... it's all 100% verifiable.
Just having a calculator and a few online reports does not a thorough analysis make. Many things go into budgets which are not always decipherable to a layperson unless they sit down with a director for explanations.
You say nobody challenges you. Well, now they have.
Welcome to the Making Waves blog, my new friend.
Marie,
Knowing everything you know about First 5, and you having obviously had a sit down with a director since that's the only way YOU could be knowledgeable enough to have posted this blog -
can you say that CARES money did not go to adults to retain them in their jobs or elevate their educational level? Tell us how any CARES money went to something other than adults.
See - for those who have not done the math: that's over $500 MILLION - yessiree - - that's one-half BILLION DOLLARS - that did not go to children 0 to 5 as the legislation intended!
I ask that you go and sit with a First 5 director and come back with a YES or NO answer to that question.
My info came directly from AUDITED financial statements on the state First 5 association webiste - are you going to tell me that state First 5's auditors are lying?
hmmm... go ask a director - LOL!
Like asking the fox guarding the hen house!
Yikes 123 says:
"See - for those who have not done the math: that's over $500 MILLION - yessiree - - that's one-half BILLION DOLLARS - that did not go to children 0 to 5 as the legislation intended!"
So by your logic, we should be handing out $100 bills to children between the ages of 0 to 5?
Can you say training? Can you say keeping good people hired? Many corporate and government entities provide tuition reimbursment as well as retention bonuses. It seems to me to be standard operatiing procedures.
It also seems to me that you have some sort of ax to grind with the First 5 folks. The trouble is that the VOTERS approved this program and now the GOVERNMENT wants to take away the money. Bottom line is that the legislature needs to learn how spend ONLY what it has and NOT raid other VOTER APPROVED programs for their shortfalls.
"Yikes," I am co-president of an all-volunteer non-profit foundation which raises money for our local school district. The Ventura Neighborhood for Learning is one of our focus areas and we raise money for their programs, too. In addition to that, my daughter interned with them one summer as an assistant teacher (unpaid). I know a lot about their wonderful programs here in Ventura.
My experience with public entities and their budgets is such that unless you sit down with someone involved in the program and go through financial records and ask questions you never really get the whole picture. I write about public policy all the time and I never assume anything.
Undoubtedly some First 5 program somewhere has not crossed a T or dotted an I. Maybe they've run a program you don't think is worthwhile.
But that's not worth taking down an entire established statewide program with local control and handing 2/3 of its funding off to legislators to appropriate in an unknown way.
This series of ballot propositions was thrown together in a rather desperate way to get Republicans to vote for a budget. The whole process is dysfunctional. I think we can at least agree on that.
Following the proposition in Lakin’s headline;
1A - Atrocious
1B - Bullsh!t
1C - Con Job
1D - Deceptive
1E - Erroneous
1F - Fraud
Vote NO on 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E
Vote YES on 1F, Tell Sacramento we have NO CONFIDENCE in them.
And then vote them out in 2010.
I repeat - the voters did not intend that First 5 would spend:
1. $500+ million+ on ADULTS - none of which went to 0 to 5! that's one-half BILLION dollars - does anyone hear a SUCKING SOUND?
2. $100+ million on "eval" > > > $1 billion for consultants by 25 years out!
3. $1 million that went to a lobbyist - was that even legal? First 5 Exec Dirs make up the Bds of Directors approving these funds going to the lobbyist.
4. Self Dealing? Well, it was proven to be so in Riverside, and Tulare's paper is linking how much is going from the Commission votes into the Commissioner's orgs... Why are First 5's not complying with the audit requirements to list "Related Party Transactions"? - So that you won't know that they are voting themselvees the monies in the budgets.
Sumptin just STINKS here people! Do I hear the sound of Investigation Necessary?
yep - think I hear that sound... pretty loud and clear!
and...if you think I am a novice about how government works, you might wish to re-think that assumption.
Yikes 123 says:
"I repeat - the voters did not intend that First 5 would spend:" (list of issues)
The voters approved the measure. Now that the state is looking for excess money, the state is eyeing this program because apparently they HAVEN'T OVERSPENT their funds. Imagine that, a state run program with a BUDGET SURPLUS. And here you are complaining about how they do business. Seems like what ever it is that they are doing, they are doing it right to have a $2 Billion surplus that the state government wants to steal.
Have you done this much research on other voter approved measures that aren't doing what was promised?
hey JohnDoe -
Prop 1D is not about what I have or have not done - I'm not on the ballot
It's 100% about what First 5 has documentably done such that taxpayers should not trust THEM as responsible fiduciary stewards of those funds.... and IMO - they are NOT to be trusted!
To be 100% crystal clear: First 5 did not "prudently save these funds" - they were forced to: a) not allowed to spend until they had a strategic plan, and b) they had to spend in accordance with the strategic plan adopted - which required them to spread the money out over several years.
That is the ONLY reason why, IMO, the Commissioners have not dumped more of the funds into their OWN orgs and depts already.
First 5's widely knew CARES was not working but they collectively threw about $100 MIL per year at it. That, my friends, is not "doing it right"...
Having $2 Billion in the bank was a total FLUKE! Do not be fooled by the rhetoric!
Voters have a right to do more to a badly worded Prop 10 that just put lipstick on the pig - Prop 1D will not affect their budgets - they have the reserve to make up the difference - no one's claiming that they do not, if you've not noticed.
Prop 1D puts an auditor on the Commission to oversee their actions. Perhaps the Commissioners will no longer be able to "self deal" by approving budgets that direct the majority of program funds to themselves. Prop 1D does not allow the lobbyist to get any more funds. No one has disagreed with that as a bad thing.
So, First 5 can share. They are imprudent in their spending habits and they will not miss a dime over the 5 years, particularly if they finally shut off the CARES spigot.
and THAT's what taxpayers should give a hooee about in this one situation!
Here are SOME (not all) links, but if you care enough about what I am saying, one way or the other, you'll do the math and more research yourself to see if what I have said is correct.
I am fully aware that Marie's request may in some way be a request to get me to put out links so that some concerted effort by First 5 related people can be done to discredit my math. I wish to say that I am not AT ALL concerned about that. My math is accurate and I already know there is more info I could have highlighted to further illustrate poor mgmt adn questionnable activities.
so - and, as I said before, at least one county pulled their data since when I downloaded it, but I'll put their page anyway:
The database info about CARES is at:
http://cares.edgateway.net/cs/cares/print/docs/cares/home.htm
First 5 State Fiscal Audits:
http://www.ccfc.ca.gov/commission/fiscal.asp
San Diego eval reports:
http://www.first5sandiego.org/evaluation-reports
Contra Costa eval reports (where they were):
http://www.firstfivecc.org/index.php?page=evaluation-reports
Riverside 07/08 audit financial report
http://www.rccfc.org/documents/Annual%20Audit%20FY07-08.pdf
Tulare's article on Commissioners getting money
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090421/NEWS01/904210313&s=d&page=1#pluckcomments
Riverside's newspapers articles on First 5 self dealing and restructuring:
1) http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/editorials/stories/PE_Oped_Opinion_S_op_16_ed_mental2.3b9f822.html
2) http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_firstfive18.387c2df.html
that should be enough to get you all started on a thoughtful analysis of where funds are going and how little proof of efficacy has been provided to the taxpayer.
just FYI -
as promised, I submitted to this blog a set of First 5 links from which I analyzed information. Marie said that there might be a delay but that she would approve that posting. I sent it this morning sometime around 9 AM.
Yikes
Some First 5's, including Los Angeles, have passed resolutions or otherwise come out against Prop 1D which is very likely AGAINST THE LAW!
Questions arise about Sherry Novick, the $1 MIL+ First 5 Assn lobbyist:
1. She is paid with First 5 county funds. Prop 10 was “for kids 0 to 5”. So, to lawyers, is it legal? Ms. Novick's staff are the No on Proposition 1D campaign. Same staff are First 5 Assn staff paid for by First 5 funds – legal?
2. Since she is the paid lobbyist, is it not illegal to campaign as First 5's agent, via article she co-wrote with Mr. Selix, being First 5’s rep in articles, & writing a letter (04/17) to SFChron against Prop 1D but NOT disclosing that she is First 5 lobbyist?
3. Prop 1D would cut off Ms. Novick from receiving further funds. So: clear conflict of interest here? Should her Board have asked her to “recuse” herself on this issue? Hmm...well, Board is ALL First 5 Exec Dir’s (per IRS Form 990s), so probably not.
Vote YES on 1D!
here's a more recent Riverside First 5 story done by Julia Glick on just how BAD the SELF DEALING by Commissioners is:
http://www.pe.com/localnews/politics/stories/PE_News_Local_S_grant17.451f0f1.html
Wow it got quiet around here...
Definition of COLLUSION
from Business Dictionary dot com:
"Improper secret agreement between two or more entities, to defraud or deprive others of their property or rightful share..."
IMO, in this context it means: when First 5 Commissioners do a "You know the drill. Vote in unison (on the budget or whatever else it might be)... if you don't, the funds will stop coming (to you)."
I wonder exactly how many Commissions actually open up the bidding for the funds - or is it just by approving the budget that funds automatically go to the Commissioners? RFPs anyone?
Sorry, Yikes, I've been busy and have not had a chance to check out your links. Will comment shortly.
yooo - hoooo where did Marie go?
Anyway - a guy on another blog got me thinking I might look into the FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION...
lo and behold on the page called ENFORCEMENT, it lists what constitutes a violation, and to my layman's mind, it seems as though perhaps Ms. Novick, her First 5 Assn board, and any First 5 Commission who came out with a position or wrote an editorial or what not, probably broke a law or two here.
hmmm... I ask you all: is that a surprise given that they seem to be inured to the notion of being under some public or government oversight?
see what you think: http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.html?id=42
Yo Marie!
I'm feeling neglected here.
I submitted another post to you a couple days ago for moderation since it had links in it. Is that happening?
I know you say you are busy, but it is clear that you've had time to post 2-3 more blog topics since you've claimed this to be so, so
I'm of course disappointed in that you have not done what you said you would do.
Vote YES on 1D!
Yikes
I've finally found time to look over your links and do not see any evidence of gross malfeasance system wide. Just the opposite, it appears they are managing their money wisely as indicated by the reserves.
You have an instance where commissioners should have perhaps recused themselves because their agencies had the appearance of a conflict of interest, but nothing egregious. And a commission had an instance where it appeared they were doing a bit of campaigning against the measure.
Still not worth taking down an entire system of early childhood programs that are working.
Your measure is trailing in the polls.
Also I see no evidence anywhere that Sherry Novick is a paid lobbyist or received that kind of money for lobbying. But I do see you posting that on the blogosphere statewide. She's listed everywhere as Sherry Novick, the executive director of First 5 California Children and Families Commission.
Until you can provide me substantive evidence of this I will remain unconvinced of any of your charges. This is a bad measure and should be defeated.
and you Marie, have just shown to anyone who has done any substantial research on First 5 perhaps why even more questions need to be raised.
Not that I think you will take me up on this, but I will happily send you by email the Form 990s that show that Sherry Novick is paid for by the counties, since you seem not able to look those up.
To the other issues, you may wish to be mired in your own belief system. About that one can probably do nothing. That makes my facts no less the facts, the truth no less the truth.
IMO, I think you all know that the thing may be best characterized as a house of cards... that it may just take one card pulled, one or two more Commissions exposed by a grand jury or two, one or two reporters to dig, and not very deep, before the general public gets wind of the problems and demand change.
Good luck! Denial is not just a river in Egypt, as they say...
OK, "Yikes," I'll converse with you here rather than on Melissa's S.F. blog. I assume you found us both through our California Friends listing on Calitics.
Here's the link to the evaluation of our Ventura County programs:
http://www.first5ventura.org/sites/default/files/Eval0607.pdf
I don't understand you. You complain that I wasn't paying attention to you. Now I'm conversing with you on two blogs and you complain?
nope not complaining anymore since you finally responded to my "complaining", and yes, on two blogs
have been reading your ventura report... there are some issues already to be sure. I will be comparing it with the ventura audited financials. If it is not easy to compare - there, but itself, is part of the First 5 problems with transparency: one should be able to compare the eval report with the financial report - the average taxpayer should be able to do taht comparison... so we'll see.
Yo Marie -
taking the weekend to do another project for the most part, but p. 26 and p. 53 of your eval report are already on my "oh my gosh!" list.
til next week
YIKES!
It was a very favorable report and there is no page 53. My daughter was an assistant teacher in the transition to kindergarten program (unpaid summer internship). She saw real progress. Perhaps I can get her to come on here and tell you what she experienced. It was VERY positive.
All your cybersleuthing cannot replace visiting these programs and seeing for yourself.
It is losing in the polls, anyway. This discussion is now moot.
Yes there is - I gave you the PDF pages number - 3-38 is p 53 and 3-11 is p 26.
So you think I am worried about Prop 1D losing?
You've missed the entire point here then. I know it's going to lose. I've known that since the NO folks came out on both sides of the aisles last month.
So, why would I bother continuing?
Because I really am doing what I told you I wish to do: expose issues about First 5 to the voters, and doing so using published documents.
What happens if 1D loses?
well, that means they go back to the drawing board on where to get money, and guess what, now - hopefully - some people will ask some harder questions about First 5 and be even more willing to fight for amending Prop 10 - adding the auditor, getting rid of CARES, perhaps asking First 5 to use up that $2 billion+ reserve.
I'm in this for the long haul; doing what's right, "making a real difference in the lives of children".
Also - and I really have to get to my fam this weekend, so I won't be able to respond to your response, but I've come up with an idea.
This is my personal opinion again - and this idea only came out of chatting with you and Melissa, Marie so I must thank you both:
I think any non profit who feels that their local First 5 gave money to the Commissioners instead of to them should consider filing a complaint with their local Grand Jury and ask them to investigate.
Grand Juries exist to deal with just this kind of situation: let them investigate.
Anyone who complains about ANYTHING is 100% protected from community retaliation as it is totally confidential.
Have a good weekend!
YIKES
Hey Marie – I did this analysis yesterday, but finally got a minute to edit and post it – look forward to reading your response next week. I’m a bad typist, if you’ve not noticed – also the San Diego Eval report was ‘06/07 not ‘07/08 – total brain fart on my part. Apologies for that
SO
Let’s talk about First 5 and RACE.
I have read that people think too much First 5 money goes to Latinos. I’m not as interested in simply waving that sort of flag as I am in looking at the magnitude of how much they have UNDERSERVED other groups, particularly African Americans, relative to their population in each county.
It seems to me the political argument for First 5 is that they are supposed to reach the underserved. I can not think of a group that may have been more “underserved” by government programs than African American children. So are they reaching those kids?
Let’s look at Santa Barbara First 5’s 06/07 Evaluation Report. On page 27, it gives us Table 2.4, and in that table it says that First 5 served 40,289 children 0 to 5 for that year.
But guess how many African American kids were served? ONLY 56 !
In percentages, that is 0.14% or 14/100 of 1%, not even one percent.
Well, you might try to tell us that African Americans only comprise 2.3% of Santa Barbara’s 400,335 population according to municipedia dot com (~9,273 people), so that does not seem so bad… (US Census data).
But even at 2.3%, it means that of the 40,289 kids served that year, one would expect that 926 African American kids would have been provided services – that’s 2.3%.
So, that’s about 870 fewer kids than one would expect, meaning only about 6% of the expected number of African American kids were served if they comprise 2.3% of the population. Another way to say it is that about 16 times fewer African American kids were served than one would expect given the percent of African Americans in the county.
Now, there is some, but probably not a lot, of error in that measurement, because it may be that the percent of kids 0 to 5 in Santa Barbara could be a bit more OR could be a bit less – generally, it’s not that far off though from the total number.
But, for those that would criticize just using the 2.3%, we’ll take 33% off that assumption and pretend that for 0 to 5, African American kids are only 1.5% of the population.
If we do this adjustment, one would expect then that 1.5% of 40,289 kids would result in 604 African American kids being served by First 5 Santa Barbara. Those 56 kids served then are only 9% of the number you would expect to have been served. In other words, about 10 times fewer African American kids were served than one would expect at 1.5%.
Either way, I think that’s SERIOUSLY unfair. I think that if other larger groups saw that their children were underserved on the order of 10-16 times, heads would likely have rolled already.
Um, have you ever been in Santa Barbara? For the most part, you aren't poor if you live there. I'm guessing the African American population there is largely not in need of First Five's services.
I think it's sort of interesting how you just automatically assume African Americans in Santa Barbara are poor and need social services, though. But I won't go into the implications of that assumption.
Now if you are talking inner-city L.A., that's a different story. And, as I posted above, a lot of the reserve fund for L.A. County is tied up for preschool programs there.
Hey, I have a question for you: I know you've been posting on blogs all over the state. Have any other blog moderators (besides Melissa in S.F. and I) challenged you? Just curious. And how did you find mine?
Hi Marie –
First, it was posted on Melissa’s site that I “retired”… Not true!
If I have you right, and I think I do, you essentially claimed that 'it’s Santa Barbara and the African Americans who live there must be rich because First 5 would not exclude a group that way, and therefore Yikes, you are off base'.
My response: I think you are again misleading people about First 5.
To paraphrase the article from the SF Chronicle (linked to below), the counties have wide discretion in how they spend funds.
Rich kids as well as poor kids can be served equally. There is NO income line required by law. It is the Commissions alone who get to decide if they are going to serve the groups equally according to race or other criteria.
My point is that the county Commissions, IMO, have an obligation to reach out to the whole community and the African Americans should have been served at much higher rates - period. It’s unconscionable that they were not - period.
Hmmm…I wonder who is on Santa Barbara’s First 5 board.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/19/MNQ91065OQ.DTL&type=printable
Look Marie, re: your continuing questions about how many blogs I am on and where did I first find you, etc…
With all due respect, and I respect you a great deal for continuing this dialogue with me, I am not going to answer all that.
While I can understand some level of curiosity, I fail to see how it is relevant to our conversation.
and by the way, why are you running around seeing where I have been?
Isn’t this discussion enough for you?
Just curious. What happened was I Googled a few lines of your original post and I found it replicated all over the blogosphere on dozens of sites.
You likely have Google Alerts programmed on an "as it happens" basis to tell you when someone writes about Prop. 1D. Then you have your blog posts ready to go. You found my site within 5 minutes of my original post, which is impressive.
I'm always interested in how people are communicating about political issues.
On Santa Barbara: these programs do indeed target underprivelged populations.
Real Yikes here
(by the way, the “Yikes retired” comment was done by a very good friend who disagrees with me on this topic and thought it would be funny to use my computer when I went to the bathroom to “take me out”, as he put it):
First, anything I might post about Ventura will have to wait until next week. I want to give it the kind of time I gave other analyses because I think I owe you that much Marie.
But - this is the problem I have with what just transpired on the Santa Barbara exchange .
You first go to their defense and then when I show you data from San Francisco that supports why I am asking the question in the first place, you say but Santa Barbara focuses on the “underprivileged”.
But after I read the San Francisco article again, I find myself wondering
what does “underprivileged” or poor mean in some counties?
Does it mean that programs are designed to reach big groups of “underprivileged” located in one spot so that data can be captured easily?
If virtually all the programs are targeted to the Latino population, is the program work done in Spanish?
Would an African American be comfortable in some of these programs? Certainly one would not expect them to converse in Spanish generally speaking.
See, even though I am mainly an analyst, I tend to ask deeper questions and I simply have come to the point where I do not believe what First 5 connected people who have a vested interest in continuing to receive funds tell me about “how I should see things”. I am not a politico, but when I can find so many published, verifiable examples of questionable practices, as a taxpayer and voter, I feel a civic conscience to ask questions.
The issue here, in my opinion, is that there is a clear pattern of questionable activities that are spread throughout the First 5 system that benefits a few and within that few, it seems to me, I believe are far too frequently the Commissioners.
I know you’ve said, “well that was just Santa Barbara – look at LA”. Well if I had only looked at LA, would I not be making the same research “mistake” as you think I did by only looking at SB? Yes you are right, if I had the time (and money) to do a complete analysis of all of them perhaps there would be some that spent more on African Americans than others, but the point is that there is a clear pattern: perhaps in one place it could be racism, in another it perhaps could be self dealing or collusion, and in all of them, IMO the problem is the $500 million + spent on CARES, the $100 million + they spent on evaluation and that many of them are not revealing Related Party Transaction contracts that are given to Commissioners’ organizations.
I feel it’s a systemic issue, but I am not a person who is willing to post comments without having a specific public document that I can present to you or others that backs up my observations. The fact is that not all of the counties give enough specific information for me to make conclusions – and Ventura may end up being one of them if I cannot link the evaluation report to the financial report.
But to be clear, being transparent is the ONLY reason why certain counties have received more attention from me than have others. In some ways, they are being called out because they provide transparent information, and maybe that may not seem fair to San Diego, for instance, but they did the right thing: they showed the taxpayer exactly how much they spent, on what, and how many were served.
I appreciate that and I thank them and the other counties who have posted their evaluation reports. It is the right thing to do. This dialogue is the right dialogue to have. Fixing something that’s broke is the right thing to do.
Here's a new story for you Marie -
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/may/24/1m24first5231910-first-5s-fund-focus-county-attent/
I'll be in touch!
Yikes
hey Marie -
hope things are good for you these days.
I am just getting some time to do the Ventura review as promised to you, and so I went to Ventura First 5's site, and lo and behold, no financial report. I did a search on audit and financial, and there ya go - nada.
They do offer the statewide First 5 report, but as often the case, there is little transparency going on in terms of what got spent and where.
You knew this though a couple weeks ago, so what gives. An evaluation report is generally done by a firm that wants a contract renewal, so, IMO, they are always slanted.
I'll try to post some comments in the next couple days on what I think of Ventura's eval report should there really be any concrete data to go by. on first pass, there was little but fluff.
Hi Marie - here is part 1 of analyzing Ventura's Eval Report
To be fair, I think that Ventura’s evaluators were straightforward about the research problems they encountered, but it is clear that they feel they can make few if any conclusions about the data because data collection problems are so totally pervasive and, as such, they only were able to assess data collected on 33% of the kids served, and it appears on only 5% of kids served on a pre/post test basis.
First 5 has been going for about 8 years, but the evaluators clearly believe that data prior to 05/06 is basically useless, so the taxpayer is unlikely to ever know if any impact has been achieved in Ventura County thus far.
I will provide A LOT more quotes in the next few posts to illustrate the problems, but I clearly want to say that Ventura First 5’s lack of posting their audited financial report makes this analysis less complete than I would wish. A detailed financial statement showing what was spent where should be posted so that taxpayers can see what is going on.
First, the evaluators themselves made the following recommendations on page ix, and none of them are pretty:
• Revisit and update the existing First 5 Ventura County Evaluation Plan.
• Devote resources to support future evaluation efforts that include non-GEMS process/outcome data collection activities.
• Implement procedures to facilitate greater data monitoring throughout the year.
• Encourage programs to include outcomes data as part of their quarterly reports.
• Establish data collection standards for program staff.
Though in many cases, granted, there were high ratings for perceived satisfaction and a sense of improvement about things like literacy and reading to kids, but they were self-ratings and the conclusions are radically undermined by the following issues, as quoted [bracketed comments are mine]:
Page 2-1: “In the current evaluation report, FY 04-05 data are not included in comparative analyses because of their lack of reliability.”
Page 2-2: “For those who receive less-intense services, no unique identifier is assigned and demographic data are not collected for each individual. Demographic data are not collected for each individual receiving less-intense services.”
Page 3-4: “Compared to the 0-5 population across Ventura County (as estimated by the U.S. Census 2000#, Latino children are overrepresented while other racial/ethnic groups are underrepresented.” [Surprise? I’ll get into this later, but only about 31 African American kids out of 10,000+ total were served in a way that permitted any data collection.]
Page 3-11: A lack of consistent data collection “made it impossible to summarize service events across the County.” Further, “sorting” of services had not been conducted in the past, and in previous reports, the evaluation relied on reporting activities or aspects of a program’s services without being able to identify how many participants received like services that shared similar objectives.” [but isn’t this a requirement for proper eval?]
To cut to the chase, for those who do not have a lot of time to get into the later posts, here we have the summary of it all. On page 3-46, we have Table 25. Desired Outcomes, Indicators, and Related Data by Strategy Area.
Table 25 seems intended to directly link the outcome information to the Commission’s strategies. It says ”In the 2005-2010 Strategic Plan, desired outcomes with corresponding indicators were included so that First 5 Ventura County Commissioners could assess the impact of their funding priorities.”
So what does the table tell us – well first it covers the conclusions made by the evaluators, but for these specific Commission created outcomes - and there are only 3 of them, it also boldly tells us this:
• For the strategy called “Early Learning” and the outcome called “Children have access to early intervention for identified special needs”, the table says that the data system GEMS “does not provide this data at this time”
•
• For the entire strategy called “Family Strengthening”, the table says “Currently, no definition or measure has been identified to evaluate family functioning”
•
• For the Health strategy, the outcome “Children have access to a regular doctor and dentist for preventive care and treatment of chronic medical conditions”, the table says “Data regarding medical or dental home are not collected at this time”
•
• For the other goal in the Health strategy "Children have access to developmental screenings as early as possible", the table says “Data are not collected at this time to track whether repeated screenings took place”
So what’s up with this? What are they doing with all that money?
Marie, you invited me to take a deep look at it and I did. You said that it was a report that you and Ventura could be proud of and that, to paraphrase, it proved that Ventura was not like the other First 5’s. I’ll post more quotes soon that dig deeper into the report, but so far, Marie, I could not disagree with you more on your conclusions about it.
The report does indeed show some high percentage of satisfactions and increased reading to kids, but the way First 5 collected that information and because the groups that were evaluated pre and post service were such a small percentage of the total kids served (538/10,387 = only 5% evaluated), most taxpayers should have real problems with agreeing with your perspective of the report.
More soon – hope you respond.
Hi Marie, here is the second set of quotes from the Ventura 06/07 Evaluation Report that I feel support my belief that there are BIG problems with the way First 5’s spend evaluation dollars and that the taxpayer should be concerned.
FIRST:
Maybe this question the evaluators asked tells us just about everything we need to know about how well Ventura is doing:
Page 3-44: “How successful are First 5 Ventura County funded programs in providing high quality, accessible and integrated services?”
The answer: “Current data collection activities do not directly address this evaluation question.”
> > > Ummm – ok, but then what’s the point?
SECOND:
from the appendix A and the text:
“In FY 06-07, GEMS software was installed at the 39 funded programs, representing
approximately 100 data entry users among the 39 First 5 Ventura County funded programs.
BUT
“only “Thirty-two of the 39 funded programs in FY 06-07 submitted data sets for this fiscal year.” and “Some outcome measures were designed for data collection after receiving services (post-service)…”
> > > WHO gets to create research questions after the fact? Why did only 82% fill out the data collection – weren’t they getting paid to do that?
THIRD:
Page 3-21: “In FY 06-07, there were 25 infant/toddlers in two funded programs for whom there were both pre-test and post-test data available. For children three years and older, there were 513 completed pre-test and post-test forms from 11 programs (10 programs were reported to have a full-year preschool while the 11th program provided an intensive preschool for at least three months during the year).
> > > ok, so that’s 538 kids out of the total of 10,387 kids served for whom there is before and after measurement available. That is only 5% of the kids served. How can we conclude ANYTHING from this evaluation report at all – except – that they have wasted tax dollars.
FOURTH:
Further: how some of this breaks out race-wise is that they admit ONLY 0.90% of the kids served were AFRICAN AMERICAN out of the 3487 total for whom they had complete data sets.
That’s 31 African American kids for whom they tracked info – how is that fair people? So what if they are a small percent of the total population in Ventura – even a 5th grader could tell you that something is wrong with that number – check out Santa Barbara County for more of this unfairness.
FIFTH:
Mini DRDP and DRDP-R Pages 3-22 to 3-29
Comments first: Even though some evaluation makes sense for government service programs, it does NOT need to cost $100 million plus.
The entire study is completely tainted because the teachers are doing the assessments. The teachers have a vested interest in showing improvement. The question for anyone evaluating such a program is – do improvements in results impact teacher performance ratings? If so, the results lack internal and external validity, as it is said in social research circles, i.e. they are invalid, or in other words, how likely is it that those results would be the same ones found by an outside observer? Even if “it’s done that way everywhere”, what they did here is considered BAD research methodology.
BUT DRDP is revisited later in the report on page 3-43 and the evaluators tell us: “It is unclear whether the mini-DRDP is still an equivalent measure to the DRDP-R (the mini-DRDP is based on items from the original DRDP, not the DRDP-R). In addition, there is no way to compare improvements seen after summer intensive preschool to improvements seen after a year of preschool, nor is there a way to determine if the long-term benefits of each program are equivalent.”
> > > Okay, so to me that last part that means “don’t try to see if anything has already happened because past results are not comparable and we will never know what happened”.
end of Part 2
Ok, Marie here’s my final set of posts on First 5 Ventura’s 06/07 Evaluation Report
FIRST:
Page 3-26: Why not call out on of the most interesting statistics on the page: Table 16, states that 66.8% of parents responded to the question “Do you think that what this program did to get you and your child ready for Kindergarten was…”MORE THAN NEEDED”. Right, exactly, most participants felt that too much was done, but there is NO discussion about that.
Now, before you come back with – see that program worked – the point here also is that any county education office could add this specific component to their work for far less money than having those funds run through First 5… and I believe that many of them do – the DRDP exists independently of First 5.
SECOND:
Page 3-30: “As noted in the previous annual report, the questionnaire may not be sensitive enough to measure change.”
> > > okay so that means “do not assume that anything actually changed”
THIRD:
Page 3-31: “Though this measure is a good indicator of provider satisfaction with training and professional development services, there are no outcome data available to indicate in what ways the provider’s behavior has changed or how they had used new knowledge gained.”
> > > Note that the evaluators specifically footnoted that they did not include CARES data – WHY?
Also, this statement BY THE EVALUATORS shows what I am pointing out about how self-reports of satisfaction do not mean much – that they are FLUFF: self-reported satisfaction is not considered a strong research conclusion that SOMETHING ACTUALLY CHANGED or IMPROVED!
Who says so? Ventura’s evaluators.
FOURTH:
Page 3-35:
“Parent Education. A number of funded programs provide parent education, though only two programs collected pre- and post-service surveys from participants in order to assess their level of knowledge about parenting and the methods that they commonly use for discipline… responses to the parent education surveys and results presented here may not be representative of all family members who benefited from parent education services. In addition, small sample sizes limit our ability to reliably detect changes over time, and findings based on these data should be interpreted with caution.”
> > > okay so that means “our results are not reliable”
FIFTH:
Page 3-38:
“Nutrition Education and Assessments. Classes on nutrition for young children were provided to family members to help promote healthy child development. A pre-/post-service survey was collected by Moorpark/Simi Valley Neighborhood for Learning, one agency that provided this service. One post-service survey item also assessed the overall impact of the class on families. In FY 06-07, 162 matched pre-service and post-service surveys were available for analysis.
It is not clear whether the program that employed this measure has a nutrition education
curriculum that addresses those topics represented by the survey items. Because this measure
is not curriculum-specific, and there are no requirements for First 5 Ventura County programs to
address particular nutrition topics, this survey may not be measuring outcomes related to unique
program services. It may be important to revise this instrument, or to develop a new outcome
measure designed to test changes in knowledge and behavior that are expected from the
current nutrition education programs.”
> > > okay so that means “we can’t say that what First 5 did actually caused these results”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ok, Marie – that’s all the time I am willing to spend on it.
But I rest my case: Ventura First 5 has just as many, if not more problems as do other First 5’s and the taxpayers (and lawmakers) have a right to know about it and do more than just put lipstick on the pig.
Happy Memorial Day!
Yikes
Hey Marie -
Here's something I posted at the new conversation started about San Diego First 5 at the SDUT newspaper website. I think it's relevant to our discussion here:
The First 5 county commissions were required to have a strategic plan. It took most of them a few years to get that done, which by itself is a big question mark. That process resulted in not spending funds for some years, so it is a misstatement to say that they PLANNED it from the gitgo to have reserves - they did not.
It was a FLUKE that they ended up with a reserve and to tell the public that it was all some genius kind of thinking that went on is where there is some lack of truth telling. Now, once they created their plans, they have to spend within the plans and that is why most still have a lot of reserve. Will it counter the reduction in revenues? Sure, but it WAS NOT PLANNED, it was a glitch.
But thank you for bringing up planning, because, IMO, that's where the conflict of interest by the board members is initiated. If you allow the Commissioners to do the strategic planning such that only their organization fits the requirements to receive the funding, isn't that collusion and self-dealing?
Even if they decide to focus on just a few areas, do they regularly open the strategic planning and the budget up to receive RFPs (requests for proposals) by private firms or non profits? With tax dollars, I think they should.
In the alternative, if they are just going to give most of the money to the county, why not turn all the First 5s into county departments and get rid of the conflict of interest issues entirely. Some of them are county departments anyway and if that were done at least the county auditor would be in charge of their books and there would be some real oversight of their management.
NEWSFLASH (for those who want yet more documentation):
Contra Costa’s First 5 Commission has blown nearly $2 MILLION of its pension value!
From their 06/01/09 Agenda (on their website):
http://www.firstfivecc.org/index.php?page=commission-info
“Update on the pension UAAL
… staff have met with First 5’s actuarial consultant to review the results of a recent study estimating First 5’s assets within the CCCERA retirement fund. The study was commissioned in anticipation of considering whether First should move its retirement to CALPERS. The study found that, based on CCCERA’s standard calculations, First 5’s assets are calculated in the negative range. “
Yes folks - they said Contra Costa's PENSION ASSETS ARE NEGATIVE NUMBERS!
So, people, looking at Contra Costa’s latest audit report (07/08 from their website) to get a point of comparison, it shows that this First 5 Commission contributed, for the past three fiscal years, a total of $949,920 to its employee pension plan, with an annual growth rate of 18%.
If you go back for another 4 years to probably when this First 5 started to have some number of staff, and assume just a 15% growth in the contribution over the 4 years, the expected total of contributions for FY 00/01 through FY 07/08 would be about $1,775,000 in total pension contributions.
So, here are my questions:
1. WHERE exactly did nearly $2 MILLION dollars go?
IMO, even if the stock market was down 50%, then you could expect that pension value to maybe be about $1 million, which is still ridiculous, but it being in negative territory reflects a level of investing ineptitude. Who should be held responsible for that? Well, it should be the Board's Finance Committee.
Note that the agency will have to make up the $1.7 million first just to get back to ZERO, and then come up with a lot more to cover its legal obligation. So the real need to cover their future obligations is probably more like $3 - 4 million just to get to a point of stability.
Do they intend to take this money from the funds directed to kids? It bothers me and shouldn’t that bother those who believe that First 5’s are doing such great work, like Marie Lakin at the Making Waves blog at the Ventura Star? Because this First 5 will have to take the money from somewhere and it does not grow on trees. So, IMO, it would not be the taxpayers taking money away from First 5’s, it would be inept management and/or investors; how is that more ok? To me it is not.
2. Will Contra Costa’s next audit report for FY 08/09 actually print that they are in negative pension value land? Are they going to try to fudge the study’s assumptions so that it does not look so bad by the time the fiscal year ends?
IMO, even if it were just $1 million (when it’s clear it’s more like $3 million minimum), that amount is easily material and significant from an accounting perspective. As the agenda also says, their 09/10 budget is to be about $17 million – so even just using the $1 million number shows the problem is greater than 5% of their budget - and in accounting circles - that means it is significant and/or material. It’s not probably very disputable, so I do not think it can be hidden by just showing the annual pension contribution expense – it’s really just too large and so I believe their auditor will make them disclose it and perhaps issue a finding.
Again, folks, IMO something’s wrong here; public documents clearly show it.
p.s. while I was digging, I happened to notice Note 9 of the audit, which stated that Contra Costa has a lease obligation of nearly $1 million. Okay, can someone please explain to me this size of lease? Maybe they should downsize and put some of that money in the pension. Should they have a pension? Well, I think that could be another post.
Here is MORE about how African American children are underserved by First 5.
From Orange County’s CFCOC's Annual Report to the State Commission: 2007-2008 (link in next post)
In 07/08, of the 115,865 children for whom ethnicity breakouts were provided, only 1,066 were African Americans.
That is 0.92% or 92/100 of 1%.
From the Center for Demographic Research (vol 7, no 1 March 2002) using census data in its Orange County Profiles, African American children make up 1.8% of the children ages 0-17 in the OC. So one should expect that about 1.8% or at least 2,086 African American children should have been served.
Perhaps not as ridiculous as the others, but people, what we have here is a pattern:
Santa Barbara: 56 out of ~40,000+
Ventura (documented): 31 out of ~10,000+
Orange: 1066 out of ~115,000+
In total, of the approximately $55,000,000 received per year in Prop 10 funds in these three counties, of the 165,000 children, only 1,153 African American kids were served.
Though of course some programs cost more than others, for the sake of simple intuitive understanding, and ballpark speaking, about how much did they spend per child (including admin and evaluation costs)?
Prop 10 revenues / approx # kids served = estimated average cost per child served
Santa Barbara $ 5.7 million/40,000 ~$ 140 per child
Ventura $10.7 million/10,000 ~$1,000 per child
Orange $40.2 million/115,000 ~$ 350 per child
And so about how much went to serving African American kids?
Santa Barbara $ 140 per child x 56 = $ 7,840
Ventura $1,000 per child x 31 = $ 31,000
Orange $ 350 per child x 1066 = $373,100
In other words, only about $410,000 of about $55 million went to serving African American kids.
That is only 74/100 of 1% or 0.74% of the money.
THAT STINKS!
(Note that I know Orange actually spent about $9 million more by taking funds from their reserves, but this kept it simple, and actually the picture would be worse if I had included that money – i.e. it already radically stinks without my having to splice and dice further).
Orange County’s CFCOC's Annual Report to the State Commission: 2007-2008 located at
http://www.occhildrenandfamilies.org/Outcomes.aspx
FIRST 5 Retirement Plans, part 2
(reminder part 1: Contra Costa County First 5 blew nearly $2 million in pension contributions):
First, I believe every organization should be required to allow employees to contribute to a retirement plan – just my POV.
The question when we look at First 5 Commissions is what type of retirement SHOULD they have, and are any of the rest of them in the same mess as Contra Costa or is this an isolated case?
Keeping aside the current debate on CA state worker pensions for the purpose of this post, the old argument has been that the public should not care a whole lot – after all, they are a government agency, their staff is assumed to be paid less than the private sector, and so one would think a traditional government pension is appropriate
HOWEVER, First 5 representatives (and Marie Lakin) especially made the point that the reason the First 5 reserves exist (and should be protected) is that First 5 expects an ongoing reduction in revenues.
And so I would not be a fiscal analyst worth my salt if I did not ask the obvious questions:
Do they all have traditional pensions? If it’s true that revenues will continuously diminish to First 5s, then WHY would any of them even think to institute a traditional pension plan? Why not a defined contribution plan like a 401(k) or a 403(b)?
The reason I ask is that traditional government pension plans assume an ongoing INCREASE in (tax) revenues over time to fund future retiree need – and First 5s admittedly do not use a tax growth assumption for future income. In fact, they complain that taxpayers should not reallocate their funds because they face a highly reduced income future.
So, if First 5 did all the wise planning First 5 representatives and others claim they did, then one should be able to assume that First 5s know they will use up a big percentage of reserves to pay increasing pension costs. Is that what taxpayers intended?
And, for the ones that have traditional pensions, if First 5 folks can not show that they included increasing pension contributions in their strategic planning, how can anyone claim that all First 5s have been “prudent” or “wise” planners? I do not think they can.
ALSO, once the reserves are gone and they have established programs in place, how are they going to pay the increasing pension costs? In a nut shell, will there be meaningful levels of funding for the kids 20 years out? I mean, that was the claim about preserving the reserves, was it not?
Finally, in San Diego a couple of years ago, the folks with a stake in the public employee pensions sued their employers for underfunding the assets.
It seems to me that First 5 employees also have the right to sue for that too and maybe, even as we speak, the Contra Costa employees are already in the position to do that. Does anyone think they would not eventually do so?
And what about the other First 5 Commissions with pensions – Do they have negative pension assets?
- to be continued -
FIRST 5 Retirement Plans, part 3
Now, if you are still with me on this, IMO, Contra Costa First 5 is just one example of questionable oversight but information from Riverside First 5 tells us that Contra Costa is not an isolated case.
Riverside’s audit report tells us that $955,152 was spent over the past three years to fund the employee’s pensions, $332,218, $332,781, and $290,153, respectively. Yikes! That’s a lot of oreo cookies!
But thankfully, not all First 5s have pensions. According to their audits:
Kern County provides a deferred compensation program for its First 5 employees, managed by CALPERS, and contributes up to 15% of an employees pay. This method restricts the exposure of the county to increased retirement costs, and so their expenses for the last two years were $108,825 and $84,709.
See the difference? It’s certainly not the $600,000-ish level of Riverside and Contra Costa – it’s about half that.
Santa Clara County also has a defined contribution plan under IRS code 401(a), which requires but limits their retirement plan exposure to just 7% of wages. Contributions for the past two year were $221,868 and $192,103.
What is good about these defined contribution retirement plans is that 1) costs less, 2) all of the money that goes in belongs to the employees and 3) money won’t come out of future First 5 funds.
To compare these counties for FY 07/08
$ Revenues
$ Retirement
% Ret/Revs
Pensions
Riverside
$28,903,864
$332,218
1.1%
ContraCosta
$11,948,760
$365,671
3.1%
DefContrs
SantaClara
$25,184,935
$221,868
0.9%
Kern
$11,986,507
$108,825
0.9%
I think the data speaks for itself. The pension plans cost twice as much as the defined contribution plans, and there is no $1.7 million+ that would ever need to be made up with the defined contribution plans if lost through bad investing or oversight.
Also, note that since the pensions can lose all of their contributed money as Contra Costa County First 5 has documentably disclosed, Riverside could go negative too and if they choose to just fill the cup again with tax dollars, it’s possible that both counties could go negative again… In sum, we have the potential for a vicious circle. Where is the money to fix that sort of scenario going to come from? From the kids.
And - if the First 5 is a county department - does keeping the First 5 pension plan not require cost shifting pension costs to other departments? Doesn’t someone think the unionized workers might have a problem with that cost shifting at some point? Then what? Lawsuits from the unionized folks?
So, how to stop it? (and this may apply to other govt pensions too)
Turn off cost increasing and uncontrollable pension liabilities and convert First 5 employees with earned pension credit to a defined contribution scenario. IMO, it’s absolutely irresponsible for agencies who KNOW that their future funding is going to be reduced to have a traditional pension plan.
.
* * * FIRST 5 NEWSFLASH * * *
SAN DIEGO COMMISSIONER gets caught self dealing and miraculously resigns:
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jun/03/1n3first5234537-member-first-5-commission-steps-do/?metro
* * * FIRST 5 NEWSFLASH * * *
RIVERSIDE commission turned into county department to get rid of built-in conflict of interests of Commissioners:
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_firstfive03.4475aa0.html
.
* * * FIRST 5 NEWSFLASH * * *
SAN DIEGO COMMISSION full of deeper conflict of interest problems see article:
Deeper conflicts emerge in First 5 funding
Groups tied to advisers see millions in grants
By Jeff McDonald, Union-Tribune Staff Writer
2:00 a.m. June 4, 2009