While the legal tussle between the governor and the state controller has been the most visible budget battle in recent days, another skirmish has been brewing beneath the threats of a lowered minimum wage and Superior Court proceedings. This lesser-known fight is still mostly saber rattling for now—and will likely remain so until California’s budget is finally passed—but the folks doing the rattling hope that their sound and fury will stave off a threat before political war truly breaks out on the way to the ballot in November.
The opposing forces? On one side of the dividing line is the Legislative Analyst’s Office, which in July offered up a modicum of budget-woe remedy by recommending that the Legislature give voters a chance to repeal “autopilot” funding for after-school programs, put in place by voters through Proposition 49 in 2002. The State Legislature’s Budget Conference Committee, made up of members of the California State Senate and Assembly, adopted language for just such a budget trailer bill, but the governor and Legislature have been slow to approve it. Secretary of State Debra Bowen had reportedly marked Aug. 16 as the deadline for getting a budget reform measure on the ballot—but, as the current budget wrangling illustrates, deadlines don’t always mean much.
On the other side are providers of those after-school programs, who stand to lose what was intended to be a guaranteed source of funds—totaling hundreds of millions of dollars throughout the state—to be put toward providing “safe and educationally enriching alternatives for students from kindergarten through high school during non-school hours.”
The conflict sprang up mainly from Proposition 49’s rigidity. The money earmarked for after-school programs is locked in, no matter what financial travails plague the state. When the proposition was first proposed, opposition centered on the inflexible guarantee of cash, even in the face of environmental crisis, heath care failures, and public safety problems.
Proponents cited the benefits of after-school programs: less gang activity, fewer kids doing drugs, lowered juvenile incarceration, improved grades and test scores, and the ultimate tax savings we would all reap in the long run from not having to pay as much for prisons, punishment, and remedial education.
Those same arguments are also at the center of the current mounting tensions. Legislators want more money freed up so they can shift dollars around as necessary to get the budget off their tables. And fans of the funds are arguing that if Californians don’t pay now in the form of tutoring and healthy activities for kids, the hell to pay on the horizon will be populated with more delinquents who will, presumably, not make future budgets any easier to deal with.
With some nudging from after-school advocates and groups like the League of California Afterschool Providers, organizations and individuals who believe in the power of the programs are making their stance on the budget trailer bill known. They’re signing statements of opposition, sending opinion pieces to newspapers, and hoping to become so large and credible a force as to stop the repeal attempt before it gets much further.
Steven Amick, executive director of League of California Afterschool Providers, said that it’s not unusual for after-school programs to be held hostage by the Legislature at this time of the year, when the budget is being hashed out. The smart money is on the trailer bill not making it out of Sacramento, he said. But the likelihood of it ending up on the ballot, he cautioned, directly correlates to the credible threat the after-school community can muster up.
Sue Daniels, chief professional officer of the Boys & Girls Club of North San Luis Obispo County, has added her voice to cry—and her organization doesn’t even benefit from Proposition 49 funds. The club currently offers a variety of programs, from gymnastics to ceramics to volleyball to a mandatory homework hour, but is working on a grant application to tap into Proposition 49 money. Daniels wants to be sure their efforts are worth the energy. She sent letters to everyone recommended by the Boys & Girls Clubs California Alliance—from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to Senate President pro tem Don Perata—and called this a scary time for all providers, who are facing increasing competitiveness for fewer funds.
“What I worry about more than anything is where will all these kids go if they don’t have after-school activities?” she said. The alliance also encouraged writing letters of support for an alternative proposal that would allow the state to tap into unused Proposition 49 money and gain the power to suspend funding under “dire budget circumstances.”
In Santa Maria, at least 1,100 kids would be stuck without their after-school activities if Proposition 49 went away. That’s the number of kids signed up for the After School Education and Safety Program offered through the Santa Maria-Bonita School District. It’s funded by a $1.7 million grant obtained through Proposition 49 and was designed to help working parents who can’t afford after-school child care. There are about 80 students enrolled at each campus, said district spokesperson Maggie White, and a waiting list to get in.
“For a lot of these families, this is a godsend,” White said.
The district works in cooperation with the Boys & Girls Club, the YMCA, and the Santa Maria Parks and Recreation Department to provide after-school activities at every campus in the district, according to district spokesperson Maggie White.
“It would be unfortunate to see that funding disappear,” White said. “We call it child care, but it’s really much more than that.”
But funding isn’t the only issue worrying providers. Jenifer Rhynes, CEO of San Luis Obispo County YMCA, explained that Proposition 49—which essentially creates what she called “arranged marriages” between schools and partnering program providers such as hers—allows for stability. Without the guaranteed revenue flow and, theoretically, forced to make cuts, after-school providers stand to lose capital investments, momentum, and staffers. Rhynes added that displaced workers take with them all of the time and energy the group spent training them. Plus, a loss of guaranteed funds would squash long-term planning.
“New legislation suggests creating instability in the funding … even though we have proven outcomes,” Rhynes said, citing improved test scores, improved school attendance, and improved behavior on the playground—less bullying, in other words.
San Luis Obispo County YMCA operates Proposition 49-funded programs in Carissa Plains, Cambria, and Grover Beach. The after-school programs, Rhynes said, offer great supervision, a safe place for children to congregate, positive activities, mentoring, and more. A three-pronged strategy aims to help kids—many of whom have no other adult supervision for hours after their school day ends—with academics, enrichment (cooking, sewing, karate, etc.), and recreation. In theory, if they’re learning math skills and playing chess, they’re not out vandalizing cars and experimenting with drugs—and they’ll be less likely to choose destructive behavior in the future.
“If you don’t have a positive alternative, you create an alternative for yourself,” Rhynes said, “and, generally speaking, it’s not as positive.”
That image, one of a young hoodlum turned away from a healthy creative outlet and instead picking up a can of spray paint or a joint, may be Proposition 49’s ultimate salvation. Even if legislators win the battle by getting a repeal on the ballot, the ultimate war would hinge, once again, on California voters and the groups who try to sway them.
“No agency out there,” said League of California Afterschool Providers’ Amick, “would put any money behind any organized effort to pass this initiative.”
Contact Executive Editor Ryan Miller at rmiller@santamariasun.com. Sports Editor Sarah Thien contributed to this report.
This article appears in Aug 21-28, 2008.