Docstoc

TEAM WHITE PAPER

Document Sample
TEAM WHITE PAPER Powered By Docstoc
					         Shanita Conley, Pre K-12 Education/School Aid/Special Education
                          Jackie Griffin, State Operations
                   Neil Law, Economic Development/Revenue
                           Emely Paez, Higher Education
                  Meghan Smith, Social Services/Child Welfare
                             Casey Wright, Healthcare




1|Page
Synopsis: This report examines the Executive Budget proposed cuts across the board for state
and local agencies in an effort to close the budget deficit gap.

Some of the initiatives being proposed is further across-the-board agency cuts, facility closures,
mergers, consolidations, workforce actions, and shared services recommendations.

These initiatives are said to save more than $1 billion in 2010-11, and move forward the goal of
a more streamlined state government at a time when difficult cuts are required across every area
of state spending to address the state fiscal crisis.

My role as a member of Team InFocus is to research and do an analysis on how the state makes
use of the state General Funds with a focus on the Tax Stabilization Reserve Funds and the State
Rainy Day Funds, as well as the state over all operations, state workforce, local government and
public safety; and offer options that support our values and vision.




2|Page
                    Part B: Analysis of All Options and its Impact on the Budget

Shanita Conley, Pre K-12 Education/School Aid/Special Education

Tables to Support Whole-Part Analysis. This section concentrates on the individual budget
options that are recommended over a two-year period. Total savings and investments are
displayed to support these options, and total expenditures are displayed if these programs are
implemented, stay in existence, or remain funded.

Option                         2010-11 Budget Cost            Savings


                        Decrease School Aid                             $9.24 million
                        Funding

                        Continue Funding to         $ 46.03 Million
                        support special
                        education programs
                        Eliminate Teacher                               $35 million
                        Centers
                        Authorize the State                             $44.7 million
                        Comptroller to Audit
                        School Districts
                        Eliminate STAR                                  $35 million
                        exemption benefit for
                        the homes with value
                        of $1.50 million and
                        above
                        Reject Governor             $ 8 million
                        Paterson’s proposal to
                        end Student Metro
                        Cards
Figure A-1: Logic from Sub-Study A (6 options and their action on the Budget)1


These options are all a part of the gap closing initiative.




Jackie Griffin, State Operations
1
    2010-11 Executive Budget Briefing Book, Governor David Paterson

3|Page
General Fund Balances

The State ended 2008-09 with a General Fund balance of $1.9 billion. The State expects to use
approximately $570 million in available balances to finance operations in 2009-10, resulting in a
projected year-end balance of $1.4 billion on March 31, 2010. Funds reserved by DOB for debt
management purposes may also be spent during the 2009-10 fiscal year, depending on market
conditions.



                 GENERAL FUND ESTIMATED CLOSING BALANCE
                                  (millions of dollars)
                                                 2008-09 2009-10 Change
                                                Results* Enacted
            Projected Year-End Fund Balance     1,948    1,378   (570)

            Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund         1,031       1,031      0
            Rainy Day Reserve Fund                 175         175        0
            Contingency Reserve Fund               21          21         0

            Reserved for Debt Reduction            73          73         0
            Community Projects Fund                145         78         (67)
            Remaining Reserve for 2009-10 Use      340         0          (340)
            2008-09 Timing Related Changes         163         0          (163)

Figure A-1: In support of Sub-Study A showing balances of General Fund for Rainy Day
Fund and Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund to help with closing the gap for SFY 2009-10
budget deficit

Dinapoli, Thomas P. Report on the State Fiscal Year 2010-11 Executive Budget. Executive
Budget. Albany: New York Comptroller, 2010-11.




4|Page
Neil Law, Economic Development/Revenue


                                                                                                                                           2010-11      2011-12
Impose a three percent tax on certain natural gas production                                                                                       0           1
Increases excise tax on cigarettes/tobacco products                                                                                              210         205
Impose an excise tax on syrups or simple syrups, bottled soft
drinks, or powders or base products                                                                                                              465        1000
Enact the Wine Industry and Liquor Store Revitalization Act                                                                                       93          52
Extends the hours of Video Lottery Terminal operation                                                                                             45          45
Eliminate restrictions on the Quick Draw game                                                                                                     33          54
Total Revenue Generated                                                                                                                          846        1357
     Figure A-1: Logic from Sub-Study A that Sums to Create Roles – Total Revenue
                                     Generated
(Values are millions of dollars)

Graphics - The logic from Figure A-1 that concentrates on the budget options in regards to total
savings is displayed in a line graph below.

 1600


 1400


 1200


 1000


  800


                                                                                                                                              2010-11
  600
                                                                                                                                              2011-12

  400


  200


    0
         Impose a three Increases excise Impose an excise Enact the Wine Extends the hours                Eliminate        Total Revenue
          percent tax on          tax on       tax on syrups or    Industry and     of Video Lottery restrictions on the     Generated
        certain natural gas cigarettes/tobacco simple syrups,      Liquor Store         Terminal     Quick Draw game
            production           products         bottled soft   Revitalization Act    operation
                                              drinks, or powders
                                               or base products


                    Figure A-2: Trends in Budget Options for Total Revenue Generated




5|Page
Emely Paez, Higher Education
                                                                         2010-2011    2011-2012
Reduce Support for SUNY Statutory Colleges (Cornell and Alfred
University)                                                                    14.9           18.5
Increase Academic Standards for Continued TAP Award Eligibility                 5.9            8.4
Reduce TAP Awards by $75 across the board                                      16.5           23.6
Establish Default Parity for TAP                                                2.9            4.1
Continuation of Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act   -            -
TOTAL Savings (Millions)                                                       40.2           54.6

 Reduce Support for SUNY Statutory Colleges (Cornell and Alfred
 University)                                                            -             -
 Increase Academic Standards for Continued TAP Award Eligibility        -             -
 Reduce TAP Awards by $75 across the board                              -             -
 Establish Default Parity for TAP                                       -             -
 Continuation of Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act -             -
 TOTAL Expenditures (Millions)
(Above) Figure A-1: Logic from Sub-Study A That Sums to Create Roles – Higher
Education; Generated Savings.

             100
              90
              80
              70
              60
              50
              40
              30
              20                                                   2011-2012
              10
               0                                                   2010-2011




            (Above) Figure A-2: Trends in Budget Options for Total Savings




6|Page
                             Overall expenditures on Higher Education

IV. Summary of Spending (All Funds)
                                                                    Change
                         2009-10         2010-11
    Category                                                Dollar
                     ($ in millions) ($ in millions)                   Percent
                                                         (in millions)
Higher Education 3,278                 3,087             (191)            (5.8)
SUNY                 1,567             1,495             (72)             (4.6)
CUNY*                780               748               (32)             (4.1)
HESC                 931               844               (87)             (9.3)
                                                                2
* Excludes directly appropriated fringe benefit funding




2
 United States. New York State Division of the Budget. 2010-11 Executive Budget Briefing Book. By David A.
Paterson and Robert L. Megna. 19 Jan. 2010. Web. 16 Mar. 2010.
<http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget1011/fy1011littlebook/BriefingBook.pdf>.

7|Page
Meghan Smith, Social Services/Child Welfare




 Figure A-1: Logic From Sub-Study A That Sums to Create Roles - Social Services/Child
           Welfare and Environment and Energy in Savings and Expenditures

Graphics. The logic from Figure A-1 that concentrates on the budget options in regards to total
savings is displayed in a line graph below.




                  Figure A-2: Trends in Budget Options for Total Savings




8|Page
Casey Wright, Healthcare

                                                                       2010-2011   2011-2012
Increase Cigarette Tax                                                 218         211
Establish Syrup Tax                                                    456         970
Medicaid Fraud and Abuse Prevention                                    300         300
Reform Eligibility for Medicaid                                        488         488
Managed Care Consumer Choice                                           163         327
Promote Early Intervention Programs                                    7.2         12
Total Savings (in Millions of Dollars)                                 1632.2      2308
                    Figure A-1: Savings for each health options for two years

                 Total Savings of Options (in millions)

       1200

       1000

        800
                                                                     2010-2011
        600
                                                                     2011-2012
        400

        200

           0
                           Syrup Tax
                    Tax




                                        Intervention
               Cigarette




                                             Promote
                                              Reform
               Increase




                                                  Care
                                            Medicaid
                                           Fraud and




                                            Managed
                                            Medicaid
                            Establish




                                                Abuse




                                                  Early
                                           Consumer
                                        Eligibility for




                      Figure B- Trends in savings per option over two years




                                         Part C: Option by Option Analysis
9|Page
Shanita Conley, Pre K-12 Education/School Aid/Special Education

               Option IF-E-1: Reduce Funding in School Districts across the State

-Estimated savings- 9,024,622

Though our state is in harsh economic times, Education is a major component of our budget and
it needs some cuts to its areas. These cuts will have to be a top-down approach, and a way that
does not sacrifice our mission and values, and still ensuring that our students receive a quality
education.

The Executive Budget recommends a one-time $1.4 billion reduction to certain formula-based
School Aid categories.3 This is comprised of a one-year $2.1 billion Gap Elimination Adjustment
for the 2010-11 school years, partially offset by the use of the remaining $726 million of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Education
Fund award. The reduction is structured so that low-wealth districts will face a smaller
percentage cut than a higher-wealth district. In addition, the GEA is adjusted for student need,
administrative efficiency, and residential tax burden.


     Area                         2009-10 Aid     2010-11
    Albany                            $253,722    235,722
                                       $263,
    Broome                        754             254,992
    Chautauqua                          230,653   224,738
                                         273,
    Dutchess                      456             251,869
    Erie                             1,216,546 1,154,103
    Monroe                              965,297   905,714
    Nassau                              883,877   829,877
    Niagara                             295,932   277,357
    Oneida                              340,104   326,276
    Onondaga                            621,118   583,224
    Orange                              517,999   493,286
    Renssealer                          196,047   186,475
    Rockland                            191,409   177,020
    Saratoga                            211,578   194,880
    Schenectady                         176,646   176,646
    Suffolk                          1,742,040 1,742,040
    Ulster                              186,947   186,947
    Westchester                         629,448   629,448
    New York City                    9,196,573 8,673, 603

3
 Description of 2010-11 Executive Budget Recommendations for Elementary and School Secondary Education-
(Green Book)

10 | P a g e
 Total                           $17,855,936     8,830,614


Figure A-1: School Aid Cuts by District


                Decrease School Aid Funding

 2010-11




 2009-10


           $0       $5,000,000   $10,000,000   $15,000,000   $20,000,000

         Figure A-2: changes in school Aid by districts

Programmatic Analysis:

The importance of making cuts to all school districts is essential to Team InFocus Ideal of Equity.
Equity is the sense of being Equal amongst equal, so it is very counterproductive and unfair to
make the same cuts in wealthy districts that are made in low-income districts. This also
addressed the issue of urban education Reform and the recent concerns of quality of education
for students in urban low-income area. As an advocate for education, we realize the importance
of a quality education, but still reducing school aid is an issue that is necessary as a budget
option.

Team InFocus wants to strive to live up to our theme of a strong and professional state
government, with that said, in order to truly be viewed in that light we must ensure that our
education system is competitive and effective for our most valued resources, our students.

In order to offset the school aid, we will implement new policies that will strengthen the moral
policies and engage the minds of our students.

According to the Chicago tribune, there was a recent study of an all-male African-American
school where 100 percent of all High School students have been accepted into college. Some of
their policies include mentors, and education contracts. We are strongly in favor of these policies
and believe that enacted in New York State schools, it will progress our education system. This
notion is very important, because it shows that not all problems can be fixed by allocating more
funds to schools. We understand that school aid is certainly important, but we are also advocates
of policies to strengthen our educational system on a personal and moral level, rather than just
financially.



11 | P a g e
    Option IF-E-2- Eliminate Funding for Teachers Center


Eliminate Funding for Teacher Centers. Funding for this discretionary grant program, which
offers both online and classroom-based professional development activities for school personnel,
is eliminated. In addition to program revenues, Teacher Centers were funded through the State
Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Other Government Services in 2009-10. This Federal funding has
been redirected to help finance a portion of the State's costs for preschool special education.

2010-11 School Year        2011-12 School Year        2010-11 State Fiscal        2011-12 State Fiscal
Savings                    Savings                    year Savings                Year Savings
        $35 Million                $35 Million              $25 Million                 $35 million

The importance of Teacher Development is certainly important to the minds and experiences of
our students. However, this should not cost the state 35 million dollars. Team InFocus are
advocates for professional development for teachers and the benefit it possesses to the students,
Therefore, we believe that it is necessary to continue the “Teacher-Mentor” program new
teacher’s pair with experienced and experienced and exceptional teachers as their mentors. The
“Teacher-Mentor” is supported by federal 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(AARA) 4, the funding for this program is set at $2 million.

We would also want to implement Teacher and Staff Development days that will be continuous
throughout the year on certain days. This will allow us to have teacher development that would
not cripple our state budget.

In addition for the 2010-11 school year, $490,000 is continued to fund grants for the teachers of
up to $2,500 toward the cost of certification by the National Board of Professional Teaching
standards.

The two programs; Teacher-Mentor and grants for Teachers to obtain Professional Teaching
standards will allow our teachers to reach professional standards, and efficiently address
articulate educational needs, thereby improving our public schools. Option 2, serves as a major
gap-closing initiative. Eliminating the Teacher’s Centers saves the state money, while the

                                                                                                  progra
                                                                                                  ms
Option IF-E-3- Continue Funding to support Special Education Programs                             mentio
                                                                                                  ned
above will supplement in reaching our educational goals.




4
 Description of 2010-11 Executive Budget Recommendations for Elementary and School Secondary Education-
(Green Book)

12 | P a g e
Total Expenditures- $ 47,024,000
In order to continue meet the diverse needs bought forth in our education system we must
continue to support Special Education Programs5. Although, School aid is being cut in all school
districts on a wealth Based System, we must not cut back on the vulnerable student population
who will be deeply affected by these cuts. The same funding should continue to be supported for
these programs in 2010-11. With that said, the special education programs listed below will
continue to be funded by the state education budget.

    1. Aid for Incarcerated Youth- A total of $17.50 million should be continued in support
       for the provision of educational services to youth detained in local correctional facilities.
       Pursuant to the provisions of the laws of 1992, such services may be provided and aided
       during summer sessions as well as the regular school year.

    2. Adult Literacy Education: For 2010-11an appropriation of $4. 29 million is available
       for a program of adult literacy consisting of competitive grants to community grants to
       community-based organizations, literacy volunteer organizations, and two and four-year
       colleges and libraries.

    3. Primary Mental Health Project: A total of $894,000 is continued in 2010-11 for state
       support of school based programs for the early detection and prevention of school
       adjustment and learning problems and learning problems experienced by children in the
       primary grades.

    4. Extended School Day/Violence Prevention: A total of $24.34 million is available to
       fund school-based intervention programs, including the establishing of appropriate before
       and or after school programs.



Special Education Program                              Expenditures 2010-11 (in millions)
Aid for incarcerated youth                             $ 17.50
Adult Literacy Program                                 $ 4.29
Primary mental health project                          $ 894, 000
Violence Prevention program                            $ 24.34
Total                                                  $ 47,024,000




5
  Description of 2010-11 Executive Budget Recommendations for Elementary and School Secondary Education-
(Green Book)

13 | P a g e
Option IF-E-3- Authorize the State Comptroller to audit school districts and BOCES

Five year savings- $17.7 millionThe 2005, The State Legislature enacted a bill that would
authorize the Office of the State Comptroller to audit all School Districts and Boards of
Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) within a 5-year period6. This Legislation was
created in response in response to more than $11 million theft of public finds by senior
administrators at the Roslyn Union Free School District. These audits were completed at 733
school districts and BOCES.

The success of the 2005 school district audit by the OSC (Office of the State Comptroller) is
perfect justification of why this study should be included for the 2010-2016 school years.

*audit conducted across 5 year study

Evidence of fraud in 19 school districts                     $17.7 million
Cost savings and revenue enhancements                        $24 million
Findings of inappropriate payments to Senior                 $ 3 million
administrators

The Office of the State Comptroller also found that some school districts’ budget processes
routinely result in significant annual surpluses. This has resulted in taxpayers routinely paying
higher taxes than necessary and districts accumulating more than $600 million in reserve funds
in excess of the liabilities they would reasonably need to pay in the foreseeable future.

In order to reach true efficiency standards audits are necessary to school districts. Audits would
provide cost savings initiatives, as well as detecting fraud that would damage state funds, that
would have otherwise served a meaningful purpose.

Option IF-E-5- Eliminate STAR Exemption benefit for the homes with the value
of $1.50 million

Under current law, every primary residence, regardless of how much it is worth, is eligible to
receive a STAR exemption benefit. This proposal would eliminate the exemption benefit for
homes valued at $1.5 million and above7.

2010-11 State Savings                                       2011-12 State Savings
$35 million                                                 $30 Million

         The STAR program has much efficiency that goes against our ideals. Team InFocus
believes that in order to become a strong and professional state government, we must adhere to
the ideals of Equity, accountability, efficiency and a focus on revenue. Incidentally, the STAR
program is inefficient as it gives rebates to homeowners who are wealthy, and do not benefit from
the STAR rebate. This money takes funds from the state that could otherwise be used for a
meaningful purpose.

6
    2009 Annual Report; Five years of School District Accountability. Office of the New York State Comptroller
7
    2010-11 Executive Budget Briefing Book, Governor David Paterson

14 | P a g e
          The STAR program is very complicated, as the true findings of numbers to determine the
impact if it was eliminated, has to be evaluated by real property tax services and Real estate
agencies. Therefore before we suggest to completely eliminate STAR our first option is to
eliminate Exemption benefit for homes that are worth over $1.50 million. This small step is the
first to a complete phase out that will come in future budget cycles and research.


  Option IF-E-6- Reject Governor Paterson’s proposal to eliminate student Metro
  Cards
        Students of New York are one of the State’s most valuable research and we should ensure
that their transportation to school will continue to be subsidized with the Student Metro Cards.
Although, the state is facing harsh economic realities, these cuts should not be at the expense of
New York Students and Families. MTA student metro cards do serve a great purpose especially
to low-income families who cannot simply afford to bear the costs of transportation.
In New York City Three in 10 families with children live in poverty, which is about double the
national rate. This cut affects too many people and should remain in the budget.

The changes reduce the savings achieved by the service cuts from approximately $101 million
annually to $93 million, adding $8 million to the approximately $400 million budget shortfall not
yet addressed by cuts, said the MTA8.

2010-11 Budget Savings                                2010-11 Expenditures
$93 Million                                            $8 million

Although this option may seem costly it is well worth it. Team Infocus took in the impact it
would have on the students, and school districts attendance rate. This is an expenditure that is
necessary to meet the needs of our students.

We recognize that this MTA student Metro Card can be costly, so we would recommend
implementing a 10-Trip Student MetroCards. Thereby, reducing costs and allowing MTA costs
to be more efficient.




8
    http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Student-MetroCards-Spared-in-New-MTA-Proposals.html


15 | P a g e
Jackie Griffin, State Operations

                                   Option: IF-SO-1



Fiscal Analysis of Option 1: (State Operations) if the state adopt and implement the current
Deficit Reduction Plan (DRP) which is relying largely on deep cuts across the board which total
to about $2.26 billion which will be taken out of the state’s economy this could result in an
adverse effect to the state’s economy and as a result damage the state and national economic
recovery.

Programmatic Discussion of Option 1: By relying on widespread cuts like the one that are
being proposed would lead to services and programs being diminished. This would mean more
jobs lost and adding to the state’s already high unemployment. During a recession the state need
people working and spending to help stimulate the economy into recovery. During times of fiscal
downturns widespread cuts and raising taxes are usually the first alternatives. But, not
necessarily the most balanced approach of strategies to use.

Promoting efficiency is an ongoing objective which is another option the state could use to
achieve its goals, but at a lower cost by looking at different methods to achieve those goals.
Example: programs that were created to achieve a set goal in earlier years may no longer be
efficient. This is not to say the state will save million of dollars, because is being ran inefficient.
A program that is being eliminated in the name of efficiency may be efficient for some and not
others. Even if the amount of savings is modest it is worth considering.

New York State spends large sums of money on economic development in pursuit of improving
the business environment, and creating jobs by offering subsidies in the form of tax breaks,
direct expenditures, and guaranteed loans to attract businesses to move here from other states and
countries. Most of the spending in this area is not itemized or made public; there are times when
legislators are not aware of how the money is being spent or what state is getting in return. This
is an area were a cost and benefit analysis should be done in the short term and long term to see
if the incentives are working.

There is room for improvement in the collection of unpaid sales taxes by remote sales. The state
is losing billions of dollars from taxes not being collected from catalogue and internet sales. New
York passed the Amazon law in 2008 that addressed this issue. North Carolina and Rhode Island
also passed a similar law in 2009 and as a result businesses have been collecting and remitting
the sale tax for remote sales to those states.

Sales tax discount is another area were the state is losing large sums of revenue because the state
allow retailers to keep a small portion of sales tax collected on each purchase. This is referred to
as a “vendor discount” this was enacted in years past before computers was introduced and it
took a lot of time for retailer to calculate and remit their sales tax. Also the state allows the same
percentage of discount may you be a large retailer (box store) or a mom and pop which is an
advantage for large box stores. The problem with this is its not necessary to give vendor

16 | P a g e
discounts because research show that there are at least twenty states that does not give vendor
discounts.

Lav, Iris J. A Balanced Approach To Closing State Deficits. Research. Washington : Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, 2010.

                                    Option: IF-SO-2


Fiscal Analysis of Option 2: (General Fund) show balances for The State Rainy Day Fund of
175 million for SFY 2008-09 and SFY 2009-10 there was no change to the fund balance, and the
Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund total is $1.031 million for SFY 2008-9 and SFY 2009-10 also
with no change.

Programmatic Discussion of Option 2: Rainy day funds are accumulated during the time when
there is good economic growth. The purpose of these reserves is help states to balance their
budgets with having to use widespread cuts. These resources can be significant support for
getting through our current fiscal year without making $1.8 billion in cut to essential services.
Having these funds give the state time to prepare for a knowledgeable discussion over
expenditures and revenues in 2010-11 state budget. These funds cannot be transferred from one
fund to the next, but the governor can borrow the amount needed from it. Using reserves is a
better choice because it will have a better impact on the state’s economy. Taking into
consideration that New York State has a reserve of approximately $1.5 billion that it can borrow
from, as long as the state expenditures are more than the state’s available revenues.

Frank Mauro, Fiscal Policy Institute, and Ron Deutsch, New Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness. A
Better Choice for Addressing New york State's Projected Budget Gaps. Report. Albany: New
Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness, Fiscal Policy Institute, 2010.

Lav, Iris J. A Balanced Approach To Closing State Deficits. Research. Washington : Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, 2010.


                                        Option: IF-SO-3

Fiscal Analysis of Option 3: (State Workforce): New York State has lost 253,000 jobs since
August of 2008, including 23,000 in the state government. There are 850,000 New Yorkers
unemployed double the amount since 2007. Long term unemployment is at record high and the
agreement among economists is that unemployment is expected to stay for another two years.

Programmatic Discussion of Option 3: The governor’s proposed cuts of $1.8 billion out of
state spending would mean $500 million from state agencies, $1.3 billion from local assistance,
which would include $480 million less aid to school districts ($223 million of that to NYC) and
$287 million less to Medicaid for reimbursements to health care providers. By decreasing
spending to Medicaid of this amount in such a short time would result in New York health care
providers losing $747 millions in reimbursements due to in part because the federal government

17 | P a g e
is paying 62% of New York’s Medicaid spending. The governor’s cuts translate into $2.26
billion of direct spending and yearly that sum is about $5.5 billion out of the state’s economy.
That would render tens of thousands of jobs lost in the hospitals, public schools, senior centers,
nursing homes, youth programs and many others as well and the private sector business that do
business with New York State. By making enormous cuts of this magnitude, along with job
losses would seriously slow down the state’s economic recovery.

Testimony of James A. Parrott, Deputy Director and Chief Economist of Fiscal Policy Institue.
"Public Hearing on New York State Budget Oversight Governor's Proposed Deficit Reduction
Plan." New York Senate Finance Committee. New York City: Fiscal Policy Institute, 2009. 2
and 4.

                                   Option: IF-SO-4


Fiscal Analysis of Option 4: (Local Government) the governor’s current Budget Deficit Plan
support deep cuts of $1.3 billion to local government. School districts would lose $480 million in
school aid ($223 million of that include New York City), $287 million less to Medicaid for
reimbursement to health care providers.

Programmatic Discussion of Option 4: implementing a $1.3 billion cut in aid to state local
government would have disastrous effect on programs. Aid would be cut from Medicaid
reimbursements that go to health care providers for services rendered; local school districts
would have to make up for $686 million being cut from there budget, this would mean layoffs in
local school districts across the board. Would the local Health care system able to continue
delivering services without severely reducing the size of their workforce? Cuts of this magnitude
affect a wide range of services being delivered, such as the public health programs, programs for
the elderly and disabled, K-12 education, higher education and state workforces. The governor
maintains a position that deep cuts would “prime” the state for recovery. By taking $2.6 billion
of demand from the state’s economy on such a grand scale would hinder and further slow down
the state’s road to recovery.

With New York unemployment levels at its highest, usually during economic downturns people
look for re-training. The state need to be looking at ways to invest in education at all level,
during great recessions the state need people with excellent skill sets to get back into the
workforce making money and spending money this is the best choice of getting the state out of
the recession.

The state should be looking at its safety net programs, example unemployment; reforming
unemployment insurance is another way to put money in the hands of people during economic
downturns. There will be legitimate arguments about reform, but the fact of the matter is that to
stimulate the economy people need to be working and spending or if they are not working the
use of these safety net programs will put money into the hand of people who will spend it to get
them through this downturn.




18 | P a g e
Nicholas Johnson, Phil Oliff and Erica William. An Upday On State Budget Cuts, Governors
Proposing New Rounds Of Cuts For 2011; At Least 45 States Have Already Imposed Cuts that
Hurt Vunerable Residents. Report. Washington: Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 2010.

Frank Mauro, Fiscal Policy Institute, and Ron Deutsch, New Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness. A
Better Choice for Addressing New york State's Projected Budget Gaps. Report. Albany: New
Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness, Fiscal Policy Institute, 2010.

                                       Option: IF-SO-5

Fiscal Analysis of Option 5: (Public Safety): the public safety agency is responsible for the
protection of New York State residents. It has a yearly budget of $5.0 billion and 40,000 staff
members and many of these employees work at on of the state’s 68 correctional facilities.

Programmatic Discussion for Option 5: spending on prisons and related areas has gotten a lot
of attention in this year’s budget cuts. By doing the usual business of cutting, hiring freezes,
closing some prisons and consolidating others, eliminating programs in the prison population,
decrease health services, these are choices being proposed with having to compromise public
safety. There are different ways of approaching the problem, which would have implications in
both the short term and long term. The state could look at ways of how to reduce recidivism and
rethinking who need to go to prison and for how long. There are a great number of people who
go back to prison because they committed some sort of violation while on probation or parole.
This is a significant cause of cost. There are other states that are working more with people on
the local community level to limit the rate of violations. Some of the research being used is to
eliminate supervision for lower risk people, and reward success. Some states are even
implementing task forces to reconsider mandatory sentencing policies. These policies will
require funding initially, but most are likely to result in budget savings in the near term

Lav, Iris J. A Balanced Approach To Closing State Deficits. Research. Washington : Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, 2010.
.




19 | P a g e
Neil Law, Economic Development/ Revenue

                Option IF-R/ED-1: Impose Taxation on Natural Gas Production

Fiscal Analysis of Option IF-R/ED-1. By imposing a three percent tax on the natural gas
production, drilling companies and contractors will adhere to the law. This taxation will increase
revenue by $1 million in State’s Fiscal Year (SFY) 2011-20129.

                                                                                 2010-11    2011-12
        Impose a three percent tax on certain natural gas production       0                          1
                  Figure A-1: Fiscal Impacts of Option IF-R/ED-1 in millions

Programmatic Discussion of Option IF-R/ED-1. With the drastic increase of drilling for
natural gas in the Marcellus and Utica Shale formation, the three percent tax will generate
additional revenue for the state. Revenue in this option are projected to increase throughout the
following years as more drilling companies will be collecting the natural gas from the shale
formation. The use of natural gas is much cleaner than burning coal and other fuel for sources of
energy in New York State. This option will promote the use of natural gas and decrease NYS’
dependence on foreign oil and other sources of energy that has negative effects on the
environment.

         Option IF-R/ED-2: Increase Excise Tax on Cigarettes and Tobacco Products

Fiscal Analysis of Option IF-R/ED-2. This option would: (1) increase the Article 20 excise tax
on cigarettes by $1.00 per pack, from $2.75 per pack to $3.75 per pack; and (2) require the
collection of a floor tax on cigarettes to prevent tax avoidance.
This part would increase the percentage of the State cigarette excise tax to be deposited into the
Tobacco Control and Insurance Initiatives Pool from 70.63 percent to 75 percent effective June 2,
2010. The revenue from this measure would be allocated to directly support health care.
This measure would increase State revenue by $210 million in SFY 2010-11 and $205 million in
SFY 2011-12 to support health care programs10.

                                                                                 2010-11 2011-12
        Increases excise tax on cigarettes/tobacco products                            210     205
                  Figure A-2: Fiscal Impacts of Option IF-R/ED-2 in millions

Programmatic Discussion of Option IF-R/ED-2. Cigarettes and tobacco products has a direct
correlation to the rising healthcare costs. By increasing the excise tax on these products will not
only increase NYS’ revenue but to deter the purchase of such items. However, those who are
willing to pay for cigarettes and tobacco products will pay the increase excise tax. The revenue
generated from this option will be used to support health care programs.

9
 Senate Finance Committee Staff. “Staff Analysis of the SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget”. NYS Senate, Jan 2010, pg.
141
10
   Senate Finance Committee Staff. “Staff Analysis of the SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget”. NYS Senate, Jan 2010,
pg. 141

20 | P a g e
 Option IF-R/ED-3: Impose Excise Tax on Syrup or Simple Syrups, Bottled Soft Drinks, or
                              Powders or Base Products

Fiscal Analysis of Option IF-R/ED-3. This part would impose an excise tax on syrups or simple
syrups, bottled soft drinks, and powders or base products (“beverage syrups and soft drinks”).
This proposal would impose the excise tax at the following rates on:

• syrups or simple syrups, for which the tax rate would be $7.68 per gallon;

• bottled soft drinks, for which the tax rate would be $1.28 per gallon; and

• powders or base products, for which the tax rate would be $1.28 per gallon of soft drink that is
produced from each package or container by following the manufacturer’s directions.

This excise tax is equivalent to one cent per ounce on syrups and soft drinks. These include
sugar-sweetened beverages that contain more than 10 calories per 8 ounces such as soda, water,
sports drinks, “energy” drinks, colas, fruit or vegetable drinks containing less than 70% natural
fruit or vegetable juice, and bottled coffee or tea. Milk, milk products, milk substitutes, dietary
aids, and infant formula are exempt. This measure would increase revenues by $465 million in
2010-11 and $1 billion in the out-years11.

                                                                                  2010-11     2011-12
        Impose an excise tax on syrups or simple syrups, bottled soft
        drinks, or powders or base products                               465                      1000
                   Figure A-3: Fiscal Impacts of Option IF-R/ED-3 in millions

Programmatic Discussion of Option IF-R/ED-3. With the implementation of this option, it
will decrease health cost across the board as less children and adults will be consuming less of
the products. Environmentally, with the increase excise tax on bottled drinks, consumption of
bottled soft drinks will decrease which inevitably will lower the amount of plastics filling up the
landfills. Schools will less likely pay for the drinks under the excise tax and instead purchase
healthier alternatives of soft drinks.

The companies that will bear the blunt of this option will the companies that manufacture the
drinks as well as the bottling companies. However, this will drive them to produce healthier
products with lower amounts of calories and simple syrup or syrup.




11
  Senate Finance Committee Staff. “Staff Analysis of the SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget”. NYS Senate, Jan 2010,
pg. 141

21 | P a g e
      Option IF-R/ED-4: Enact the Wine Industry and Liquor Store Revitalization Act

Fiscal Analysis of Option IF-R/ED-4. This part would permit the sales of wine in grocery or
drug stores which currently qualify for a beer license and make other changes to the Alcoholic
Beverage Control (ABC) Law to modernize the sale of alcohol.

This part would provide expanded opportunities for liquor stores to sell items complimentary to
their business, allow such stores to install ATM machines on the premises, provide for multiple
licenses, authorize liquor stores to sell to retail establishments licensed for consumption on the
premises and provide for a limitation on the number of licenses issued under ABC Law § 63.
This section also would remove the prohibition against multiple licenses.

This part would create a "medallion" system, through which existing liquor store owners would
be able to auction off their existing licenses to the highest bidder, and sell the one additional
license this section allows them to obtain from the State Liquor Authority (SLA).
This part would also provide for an annual fee of $500 for the licensure of each grocery or drug
stores to sell wine. Any applicant that holds 2 or more grocery or drug store licenses would pay
an annual fee of $1,000. This section would also provides that 10 percent of the new license fees,
up to $1 million would be dedicated to the New York Wine Marketing Program to promote New
York’s wine industry.

This proposal would provide for cooperative agreements so that smaller liquor stores may agree
to jointly purchase larger, more cost effective, quantities than would be possible without
cooperative agreements.

This part would increase State revenue by $93 million in SFY 2010-11 through various franchise
fees, excise taxes, sales tax and license fees. In SFY 2011-12, it is expected that this part would
generate $52 million12.

                                                                                  2010-11 2011-12
        Enact the Wine Industry and Liquor Store Revitalization Act                      93      52
                  Figure A-4: Fiscal Impacts of Option IF-R/ED-4 in millions

Programmatic Discussion of Option IF-R/ED-4. This option is appealing with the amount of
revenue it will generate for NYS. However, allowing grocery stores and supermarkets to sell
alcohol will increase their business and in turn improving our economic development. On top of
the increase in sales, the purchases of licenses from grocery stores, supermarkets, etc will ensure
that the businesses are conducting their operations in accordance with regulations. Also with the
amount of alcohol that is available at supermarkets, strict regulations will be enforced to ensure
children under-age do not purchase alcohol.
One negative externality is the number of drunk drivers and driving-related accidents may
increase with the implementation of this option. To mitigate this risk, we must look to increase
police patrols throughout NYS to ensure drivers who are over the limit, are under arrest.

12
  Senate Finance Committee Staff. “Staff Analysis of the SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget”. NYS Senate, Jan 2010,
pg. 147

22 | P a g e
           Option IF-R/ED-5: Extend Hours of Video Lottery Terminal Operations

Fiscal Analysis of Option IF-R/ED-5. This part would remove the sunset date of the Video
Lottery Gaming (“VLG”) Program; amend the Tax Law to allow the VLG hours of operations to
be prescribed by the Division of the Lottery (Lottery); and correct the amount of VLG revenue to
be retained by the Lottery for operation, administration and procurement purposes at a certain
track. Elimination of hour restrictions would generate an additional $45 million in revenue in
SFY 2010-11 and annually to support education13.

                                                                                   2010-11 2011-12
        Extends the hours of Video Lottery Terminal operation                             45      46
                  Figure A-5: Fiscal Impacts of Option IF-R/ED-5 in millions

Programmatic Discussion of Option IF-R/ED-5. Implementation of this option will remove
time restrictions on the Video Lottery Gaming Program (VLG) and also give the Division of the
Lottery authority over their hours of operations. One possible negative externality is the increase
number of people with gambling issues. In order to mitigate that, Division of the Lottery will
also be in charge of ensuring hotlines are available to help those who are in need.

               Option IF-R/ED-6: Eliminate Restrictions on the Quick Draw Game

Fiscal Analysis of Option IF-R/ED-6. This part would make the authority of the Division of the
Lottery (Lottery) to operate the Quick Draw game permanent and would eliminate the current
restrictions on the game’s hours of operation and on locations that can operate the game. It is
currently due to expire on May 31, 2010. The elimination of game restrictions would generate an
additional $33 million in SFY 2010-11 and $54 million annually thereafter to support
education14.

                                                                                   2010-11 2011-12
        Eliminate restrictions on the Quick Draw game                                     33      54
                   Figure A-6: Fiscal Impacts of Option IF-R/ED-6 in millions

Programmatic Discussion of Option IF-R/ED-6. Similar to Option IF-R/ED-5, implementation
of this option will be easy but with the possible negative externality, mitigations must be
emplace to ensure that this will not oppose InFocus’ values and overall end state.




13
   Senate Finance Committee Staff. “Staff Analysis of the SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget”. NYS Senate, Jan 2010,
pg. 145
14
   Senate Finance Committee Staff. “Staff Analysis of the SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget”. NYS Senate, Jan 2010,
pg. 145

23 | P a g e
Emely Paez, Higher Education

               Option: IF-HE-1: Reduce Support for SUNY Statutory Colleges

Fiscal Analysis of Option 1. State support is provided through SUNY to five statutory colleges,
the college of Ceramics at Alfred University, and four at Cornell University. In addition, the
State provides support for Cornell’s grant mission. The Executive Budget reduces this support by
$14.9 million SPY ($18.5 million AFY). After this reduction, $83 million would be provided for
Cornell’s statutory colleges, $49 million for Cornell land Grant and $8.7 million for the college
of Ceramics. 15

 Increase Academic Standards for Continued TAP Award Eligibility
                                                                                   Savings         Expenditures
                                                                  2010-2011                  5.9
                                                                  2011-2012                  8.4
                         Figure A-3: Fiscal Impact of Option 1 in Millions.

Programmatic Discussion of Option 1. In efforts to reduce our current deficit, it is essential
properly distribute the allocation of funds. Currently, New York State provides ongoing funding
to statutory colleges and/or contract colleges. These units are workings of independent and
private universities, in which fulfill a continuing objective – providing specific educational state
desires. Although cuts to any educational program are deemed irrational, in order to rebuild our
economy and develop economic growth, the InFocus team has decided to reduce funding
distributed to statutory colleges. According to the Cornell University “The last campaign added
$631 million to the endowment, and its effects have been far-reaching. New funds committed in
that campaign nearly doubled the endowment per student and provided permanent support for
118 endowed faculty positions and 1,175 endowed scholarships.”16 (Note: Data excludes state
funds.)

Universities like Cornell have already developed the financial resources through many of these
endowments. It has been proven that statutory colleges are well off and have the allocate
resources from their alumni body and/or endowments, endorsements and from private and public
companies. New York State, however, will still continue to provide partial funding to these
Colleges in efforts to further develop the initiatives and research that was initially intended. The
generated savings from this option will save NYS a total of $14 million.

                             Option: IF-HE-2: TAP Eligibility Increase

Fiscal Analysis of Option 2. The Executive Budget would increase minimum academic
standards for non-remedial students to maintain TAP eligibility. Such students would be required

15
  United States. New York State Division of the Budget. 2010-11 Executive Budget Briefing Book. By
David A. Paterson and Robert L. Megna. 19 Jan. 2010. Web. 16 Mar. 2010.
<http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget1011/fy1011littlebook/BriefingBook.pdf>.
16
     http://www.campaign.cornell.edu/endowment.cfm

24 | P a g e
to earn at least 15 credits and 1.8 Grade Point Average after two semesters of study. This
proposal would promote improves academic performance and on-time graduation. Current
standards to maintain unchanged for remedial students. In efforts to brings forth this requirement;
students in High School will be required to attend College Bound Initiative programs – provided
by the schools guidance counselor – in order to properly educate high school students on the
importance of exceeding in college. These programs will be seen mainly throughout at-risk
communities and areas where students are likely to be eligible for TAP. 17

 Reduce Support for SUNY Statutory Colleges (Cornell and Alfred
 University)
                                                                             Savings    Expenditures
                                                                   2010-2011       14.9
                                                                   2011-2012       18.5
                          Figure A-4: Fiscal Impact of Option 2 in Millions.

Programmatic Discussion of Option 2. Tuition Assistance Program also known as TAP is state
provided funding through the Higher Education Services Corporation (HESC). This option will
raise academic standards to the SUNY and CUNY students that are eligible for the TAP. New
York State is only as strong as our weakest links. In efforts to embrace our states leadership and
uplift the underrepresented groups – their preparedness’ for college during their high school
experiences – will put forth their best efforts while in college, New York State needs to adapt the
Upward Bound Program18 and use this program with preferential treatment. Currently, New
York State is provided Federal funding for the program, allocated effectively. By effectively
allocating these funds, New York State would be able to generate state revenue. This revenue
will be seen with the contribution of these underrepresented groups in our state’s economy; they
will give back by giving back to the workforce, and paying taxes. According to the Fiscal Policy
Institute Analysis on unemployment rates, it was found that New York State Unemployment
rates were higher amongst uneducated workers. (As shown in Appendix 1) With high school
students that are well educated with the reality of college, NYS will be able to improve their
overall performance (academically and socially) and propose on-time graduation rates.

In having a strong, effective and efficient government, our role as public analyst is to consider
any loop holes can be presented before or after an option is implemented. By carefully
monitoring the TAP funds, the team InFocus will look at other underlying significant programs.
Overall, by raising the standards on eligibility for the TAP funding New York State will generate
$33 Million in savings.

17
  United States. New York State Division of the Budget. 2010-11 Executive Budget Briefing Book. By
David A. Paterson and Robert L. Megna. 19 Jan. 2010. Web. 16 Mar. 2010.
<http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget1011/fy1011littlebook/BriefingBook.pdf>.
18
  Upward Bound provides fundamental support to participants in their preparation for college entrance. The
program provides opportunities for participants to succeed in their precollege performance and ultimately in their
higher education pursuits. Upward Bound serves: high school students from low-income families; and high school
students from families in which neither parent holds a bachelor's degree. The goal of Upward Bound is to increase
the rate at which participants complete secondary education and enroll in and graduate from institutions of
postsecondary education. (ED.gov)

25 | P a g e
                   Option: IF-HE-3: TAP Funding Reductions Across the Board

Fiscal Analysis of Option 3. The Executive Budget reduces all TAP awards by $75.

 Reduce TAP Awards by $75 across the board
                                                                               Savings    Expenditures
                                                                   2010-2011         16.5
                                                                   2011-2012         23.6
                          Figure A-5: Fiscal Impact of Option 3 in Millions.

Programmatic Discussion of Option 3. Although we are all facing extremely curtail economic
hardships – an across the board reduction of the Tuition Assistance Program of $75 will not be a
dramatic change. This option will ultimately have a generated savings of $40.1 Million.

                                Option: IF-HE -4: Students in Default

Fiscal Analysis of Option 4. Currently, students in default on loans guaranteed by HESC are
ineligible to receive TAP payments, but students in default on loans guaranteed by organizations
other than HESC retain TAP eligibility. The Executive Budget provides that all students in
default on statutory New York State of Federal loans would be ineligible for TAP awards,
regardless of the guarantor.

 Establish Default Parity for TAP
                                                                               Savings         Expenditures
                                                                   2010-2011             2.9
                                                                   2011-2012             4.1
                          Figure A-6: Fiscal Impact of Option 4 in Millions.

Programmatic Discussion of Option 4. The Higher Education Services Corporation (HESC)
guarantees federal student and parent loans, administers the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP)
and other state-specific grants and scholarships, and administers the New York Higher Education
Loan Program (NYHELPs). HESC also offers loan management services and provides guidance
for college planning. 19 In efforts to efficiently monitor the outflow and inflow of the loans;
students who fail to make payments and fall within the default, will be denied eligibility for
future TAP funds.


                Option: IF-HE-5: Against Proposed Reforms on Higher Education

Fiscal Analysis of Option 5. Reforming Higher Education- In efforts to move with the times,
and improve upon ineffective existing programs- investments funds, time and effort should be
put forth for the Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act. This would end the


19
     http://www.hesc.com/content.nsf

26 | P a g e
broken system of tuition rate setting and better predictability of future increases in tuition. These
responsibilities will be placed upon SUNY and CUNY respective board of trustees.

 Continuation of Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act
                                                                                     Savings       Expenditures
                                                                    2010-2011
                                                                    2011-2012
                           Figure A-7: Fiscal Impact of Option 5 in Millions.

Programmatic Discussion of Option 5. In bringing forth new reforms and changes to the
SUNY and CUNY systems, the ultimate goal is to make things work in an accountable and
transparent way. With efforts to reform our state schools there is a clear big picture – there is
very little revenue, very little investment and too much regulations. In efforts of moving with the
times, and finding new mechanism and new program initiatives in making New York State
higher educational school work more effectively there is a dreadful need for change.


           “New York institutions are constrained by over-regulation on tuition pricing and
           insufficient state aid. For example, SUNY Albany and SUNY Binghamton have 17% to
           120% less revenue than peer institutions (public research universities without medical
           schools). Too frequently, the only alternative for campuses has been to increase fees.
           However, since most fees are not covered by the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP),
           increased fees pose a serious threat to access. Community Colleges, which have some
           tuition pricing flexibility, have been forced to raise tuition when the State and county
           sponsors fail to fulfill their obligation for revenue contributions. Such increases
           especially if unpredictable or excessive, also threaten access, by hurting middle-class
           students and their families who earn too much for TAP but too little to afford high tuition
           and fees.” 20

        New York State is in clear need of reforms and social changes – generally – yet focusing
specifically on Higher Education, the efforts brought about by Governor David Paterson’s
proposal will bring forth a new fresh way to re-evaluate the success of our public higher
education.




20
     http://www.hecommission.state.ny.us/report/CHE_Final-Report_200806.pdf


27 | P a g e
Meghan Smith, Social Service/ Child Welfare

      Option IF-SS-1: Authorize State to Administer Supplemental Security Income

Fiscal Analysis of Option 1. The Federal Social Security Administration administers the New
York State SSI program, and each check that is issued for the state is charged a fee of $10.45,
which results in a cost of $84 million in 2010-2011. Although there is an investment of
$574,000 in 2010-2011, and $11 million in 2011-2012, the state will save $60 million annually
after the state SSI program is implemented.21




                          Figure A-3: Fiscal Impact of Option in Millions.

Programmatic Discussion of Option 1. Administering SSI through the state will have a
positive outcome if implemented carefully. A case example will be used to discuss the
efficiency of a state administered SSI program, which can be used as a model for the New York
State SSI program.

The Department of Social Services in Virginia offers the Auxiliary Grant Program (AG). It is
recognized as “a financial assistance program that provides supplemental income to low income
individuals who are aged, blind, or disabled and might reside in assisted living facilities (ALF),
or adult foster care homes (AFCH).”22 Supplementary income is important, because it gives
individuals the opportunity to be lifted out poverty. Also, people who qualify for SSI become
eligible for Medicaid, which is health insurance for lower income people.

The opportunity to establish individual eligibility criteria is a benefit of administering SSI
through the state. In Virginia’s case, not only does the state include people who are mandated to
receive SSI, individuals who qualify for SSI in every other area, but have extra income, are
included as well.23 This allows more opportunity for those who are excluded from SSI, usually
due to income. It is also a more equal approach, because individuals have a better chance of
becoming an SSI recipient, being that the eligibility requirements are not as strict. However, it is
important to understand that SSI is a federally mandated program, and therefore, any state that
administers their own SSI program must also follow the federal eligibility requirements.

An additional benefit of administering a state SSI program is that workers can pay closer
attention to payments in previous months that need to be corrected due to under or over


21
   United States. New York State Division of the Budget. 2010-11 Executive Budget Briefing Book. By David A.
Paterson and Robert L. Megna. 19 Jan. 2010. Web. 16 Mar. 2010.
<http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget1011/fy1011littlebook/BriefingBook.pdf>.
22
   Virginia Department of Social Services. Jun. 2006. Commonwealth of Virginia. 10 Mar. 2010
<http://www.dss.virginia.gov/files/division/dfs/as/auxillary_grants/manual/ag_chapter_a.pdf>.
23
     Ibid.


28 | P a g e
payments, also known as reconciliation.24 This allows the system to be fair, efficient, and
accountable, because SSI recipients are being paid exactly as they should be paid.

Funding is an important aspect to state administered SSI as well. AG’s properly organized
funding process is a reason that the program is able to stay in existence. The AG is financed
through state and local funding where the state provides 80% of the funds, and local funds the
other 20%. These funds are approved responsibly. The General Assembly authorizes state funds,
and the “governing body of each locality” authorizes local funds.25 This shows how funding is
appropriately addressed in order for a state run SSI program to exist. Another positive feature of
AG is an organized computer system known as Med Pend. It is used “to track AG applications
and provide management reports” that help employees develop available data by entering
applications as pending, approved, denied, redetermination, or closed.26 This provides an
organized approach to the application process by allowing the system to be updated in an
efficient way.

On behalf of administering SSI through the state, Elizabeth Berlin, Executive Deputy
Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, says,
“While state administration of this program will certainly require additional expenditures for
implementation, eligibility, determination, systems development, fair hearings, and
integrity…the program results in long-term fiscal savings for the state.”27 Eliminating the fee
charged to the state and implementing the program at the state level cuts costs efficiently. Vast
amounts of money will be saved for the state that will provide funding for other areas that need
greater attention.

        Option IF-SS-2: Authorize Court to Permit Electronic Testimony in Family Court

Fiscal Analysis of Option 2 (State Operations). This option coincides with reducing costs
associated with attrition, supplies, travel, equipment, and contracted services. If these cost-
reducing actions are implemented, there will be a savings of $23 million in 2010-1011, and $18
million in 2011-2012.28 This is a total savings of $41 million.




24
     Ibid.
25
     Ibid.
26
     Ibid.

27
  Berlin, Linda R. "Testimony Before the Joint Fiscal Committees of the NYS Legislature." New York
State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance. 10 Feb. 2010. Web. 1 Mar. 2010.
<http://www.otda.state.ny.us/main/testimony/2010-02-10-Joint-Fiscal-Committee-Testimony.pdf>.
28
     2010-11 Executive Budget Briefing Book.


29 | P a g e
                           Figure A-4: Fiscal Impact of Option 2 in Millions.

Programmatic Discussion of Option 2. In order to alleviate some of these costs, alternative
approaches must be implemented. The Legal Aid Society discusses options that will enhance
electronic court testimonies by the youth, witnesses, respondents, etc., and reduce costs in travel
at the same time.

Authorizing the court to permit electronic testimony is efficient as it allows individuals to take
part in family court cases who might not otherwise be able to, and it enables family courts to
establish better decisions as a result of more carefully constructed records from previous court
proceedings. However, electronic court testimonies have the likelihood to intervene with due
process, and a person’s capability to decide “to what extent” he or she will participate in family
court proceedings.29 Due to these complications, the Legal Aid Society has proposed the
following modifications: a person who is interested in appearing or testifying in a family court
hearing, must be made by the sole decision of the lawyer representing that person, and some sort
of visual such as video is provided. Providing a visual will maintain the courts’ ability to
observe the procedure properly, and ensure that the person involved is identified.30 The
standards proposed by Legal Aid increase government accountability by assuring that due
process is served in regards to electronic testimony.

If these adjustments are applied to this option, the authorization of electronic testimony, if agreed
to by the court, will be implemented responsibly. The process will be organized in a way that is
clear and coherent, allowing the government to operate in a more, fair, efficient and effective
way. Not only are travel expenses and time reduced, but environment is also protected since less
vehicles are used that cause air pollution and the need for paper is reduced because testimonies
are electronic.

        Option IF-SS-3: Collect Past Due Local Costs for the State Juvenile Justice System

Fiscal Analysis of Option 3 (Local Governments). Under Article V11 legislation, the Office
of Children and Family Services (OCFS) is permitted to stop payments to local social services
districts where child welfare, foster care, adoption, and detention programs who have failed to
pay their portion (50%) of expenses that are related to managing youth facilities. If this option is
chosen, a total of $36 million will be saved: $27 million in 2010-2011, and $9 million in 2011-
2012.31

29
  Steckler, Tamara A., and Adriene L. Holder. "Testimony of the Legal Aid Society on the 2010-2011
Executive Budget." New York State Senate. Drupal, 10 Feb. 2010. Web. 5 Mar. 2010.
<http://www.nysenate.gov/files/pdfs/Human%20Services%20C%20Feb%2010%202010.pdf>.
30
     Ibid.
31
     2010-11 Executive Budget Briefing Book.


30 | P a g e
                        Figure A-5: Fiscal Impact of Option 3 in Millions.




Programmatic Discussion of Option 3. In order to collect the costs that local social services
districts owe, the Commissioner of the OCFS is authorized by the director of the budget to
institute a per diem rate for all offices regarding the juvenile justice system, or divided rates for
those offices that require different costs for specific programs. The reimbursement is intended for
the “care, supervision, and maintenance” of the juvenile justice system, and enforces payments to
the state through OCFS. The funds will be directly deposited into a “special revenue fund”
identified as the Youth Facility Per Diem Account.32 Collection of funds for the per diem
account allows the state to invest in a facility that will provide services for the greater welfare of
children. This option is relevant because the state is acting responsibly by establishing a way to
obtain funds that are past due in order to provide more money for the state.

In addition, if the social services district does not pay the reimbursement within sixty days of
obtaining the bill, the state is authorized to intercept payments that are due to the local districts.
These funds will be transferred to the Youth Facility Per Diem Account.33 This action is a way
to help social services districts use their money more wisely, recognizing that payments are
enforced, and budgeting within the district must be reorganized in order to provide quality
services. (See Appendix E.1, an example to enhance financial stability is displayed. The
Children’s Aid Society keeps track of all operating expenses and income through tables).

Additional benefits of this option are as follows:
    The government is given a chance to observe the money in local social services programs
       more closely. For example, funds are protected from those workers who try to steal
       money.
    A chance to collect unpaid taxes.
    The opportunity to see if the funds are distributed effectively such as strong case
       management, to maintain the efficiency of child service programs.

Although social services districts will lose funds if they fail to pay costs, it is still the state’s
responsibility to collect past debt to serve higher priority necessities.

               Option IF-SS-4: Eliminate Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program

Fiscal Analysis of Option 4 (Grants to Local Governments). In order to achieve complete
restoration of this program, the legislature has proposed $997,700 to support the Child Care

32
  United States. New York State Division of the Budget. 2010-11 New York State Executive Budget:
Education, Labor and Family Assistance, Article VII Legislation. By David A. Paterson. 19 Jan. 2010.
Web. 16 Mar. 2010.
<http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget1011/fy1011artVIIbills/ELFA_ArticleVII.pdf>.
33
     Ibid.


31 | P a g e
Block Grant that provides childcare programs and services. An additional $1,001,000 from the
funding of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and a federal subsidy of $100,000 will be
added to KGAP. The intention of this subsidy is to create more opportunities to help children be
removed from foster care. The total expenditure equals to $2, 098, 700.34 If this program is
eliminated, New York State will save almost $2.1 million.




                      Figure A-6: Fiscal Impact of Option 4 in Millions.

Programmatic Discussion of Option 4. Although kinship foster care is increasing, and is a safe
approach to keep children connected to their relatives, flaws exist within this system that prevent
it from being successful as it should be. For example, some families do not comply with the
rules of the child welfare system that are related to kinship care placement, and becoming a
foster care parent is somewhat stressful, making the process more difficult. In addition, the
differences between non-foster kinship care and kinship foster care are confusing to local
districts and agencies. Other disadvantages include that the relative does not receive foster care
payments, being exposed to family permanency court hearings, and adhering to additional
guidelines from the court.35 A program such as KGAP should not be implemented until the
appropriate adjustments are made to navigate the needs of the child and relative in a responsible
manner.

According to Sheila Harrigan, Executive Director of the New York Public Welfare Association,
KGAP must be funded through “the same federal, state, and local share formulas that support
adoption,” not through the Foster Care Block Grant. In Harrington’s opinion, the KGAP is not a
type of foster care. It is a “permanent alternative to adoption.” Although Harrigan agrees with
the idea of kinship care, she believes that the state must provide its share of funding to maintain a
system of well-established policies. Flaws within KGAP prevent this from happening. Local
governments carry the burden of funding responsibilities due to lack of funding from the state.
Miscommunication exists by neglecting to clarify that the local Department of Social Services
must decide if kinship placement is the best choice of the child, and there is only six months to
decide on the best option for the child.36 These flaws must be corrected in order for KGAP to
34
  United States. New York State Assembly. Statistical and Narrative Summary of the Executive Budget.
By New York State Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. Jan. 2010. Web. 8 Mar. 2010.
<http://assembly.state.ny.us/Reports/WAM/2010Yellow/>.
35
  Lynch, Jane. "State Wide Assessment Instrument." New York State Office of Temporary and Disability
Assistance. 2 May 2008. Web. 4 Mar. 2010.
<http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/main/cfsr/2008statewideassessment.pdf>.
36
  Harrigan, Sheila. "Testimony on the SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget for Human Services." New York
State Senate. Drupal, 23 Feb. 2010. Web. 2 Mar. 2010.
<http://www.nysenate.gov/files/pdfs/Addendum%20to%20Human%20Services%20Budget%20Hearing
%202010.PDF>.


32 | P a g e
exist successfully. For example, New York City’s Statewide Permanency Planning Team
recently implemented a Kinship Subcommittee that examines the barriers of kinship care, and
applies conflict resolution.37 However, a committee must be established first before
implementing kinship care in order to analyze and prevent some of the barriers that might occur
in such a program.

If KGAP is eliminated, the New York State will save about $2.1 million, which will serve other
higher priority needs including more employment opportunities for the state workforce. (See
Appendix E.2 for increasing levels of kinship care in the New York State).


                      Option IF-EE-5: Eliminate Grape Genomics Lab Funding

Fiscal Analysis of Option 5. $10 million of capital funding is set aside for the structuring of a
grape laboratory that concentrates on research for grapes. However, the funding for this
laboratory has never been used for the actual project. The cost of this project is estimated to be
more than $35 million when completed. If the funds for this project are eliminated, $2.5 million
will be saved in 2010-2011, and $5 million will be saved in 2011-2010, which totals to $7.5
million.38




                           Figure A-7: Fiscal Impact of Option 5 in Millions.

Programmatic Discussion of Option 5. Although grape genomics is viewed as an interesting
topic, the state cannot afford an extra $10 million that is not being used. Another issue with this
project is that sponsors have failed to attain federal and other priority funds to finish the project.
The construction of the grape laboratory can be achieved through the use of continuing public
and private laboratories.39 Removing funds from the laboratory is not serious, considering that
the wine and grape industry has proved its success and purpose in the economy. For example,
The New York Wine & Grape Research Foundation is a nonprofit organization that was
established by state legislation in 1985 during a time of economic downfall in the industry. This
organization has been successful in supporting grape growers, grape juice producers, and
wineries by improving partnership between the public and private sectors.40 This is a fair
proposal considering that a small population is impacted as opposed to other recommended cuts
that effect several aspects of the environment including conservation programs, state parks,
agriculture, etc.
37
     Lynch.
38
     2010-11 Executive Budget Briefing Book.
39
     Ibid.
40
  "Press Release: $3.76 Billion Generated for New York's Economy by the New York Grape, Grape Juice and Wine
Industries." Wine Business.com. Wine Communications Group, 12 Jan. 2010. Web. 15 Mar. 2010.
<http://www.winebusiness.com/news/?go=getarticle&cms_preview=true&dataid=70457>.


33 | P a g e
To prevent this project from being neglected, there are other research organizations that are
successfully run, and have the resources to provide a grape genomics laboratory as well. For
example, the College of Agricultural Sciences offers the Lake Erie Regional Grape Research and
Extension Center, which is located “along the Lake Erie Coastline in Pennsylvania and New
York.”41 This might provide beneficial research for grape genomics including examining
different areas of grape disease management, and is properly funded to provide for such a
laboratory. The center is funded by grape sales. A Welch’s corporation buys grapes that are free
from disease, and “wine grapes are sold to the local winery.”42 (See Appendix E.3 for an
example of a disease management trial on grapes).

The elimination of grape genomics lab funding is a responsible and efficient way of saving
money because it allows the state to concentrate on other areas that are in need of greater
economic development, most importantly employment.

                   Option IF-EE-6: Reimburse the State for Snowmobile Expenses

Fiscal Analysis of Option 6 (All Other Significant Changes by Program Area). This option
will save the state $1 million in 2010-2011, and $1 million in 2011-2012, which results in a total
savings of $2 million. These savings will be transferred from the Snowmobile Account to the
General Fund. The $1 million reimbursed for each year is smaller than the amount that the state
is able to access legally.43




                           Figure A-8: Fiscal Impact of Option 6 in Millions.

Programmatic Discussion of Option 6. The purpose of this option is to reimburse the state for
costs regarding the actions that are necessary to supervise snowmobile users. For example, the
state carries out many costly tasks that support snowmobile users such as maintenance of parks,
parking areas that are meant for the purposes of trailheads, and forest rangers, conservation
officers, and park police who help the snowmobile community with emergency and safety
services when necessary.44 As discussed, maintaining the parks to provide for snowmobile users
is very costly, and includes grading, which requires expensive landscaping equipment, tree
cutting to clear the trails, rock removal in order to prevent safety hazards, and drainage to avoid
erosion and washout.45 These are just some of jobs that are required to provide for a small
41
  The Lake Erie Regional Grape Research & Extension Center. Penn State Departments and Colleges, 21 Mar.
2008. Web. 12 Mar. 2010. <http://research.cas.psu.edu/Erie/background.htm>.
42
     Ibid.
43
     2010-11 Executive Budget Briefing Book.
44
     Ibid.

45
  New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Nov. 2009. Web. 8 Mar. 2010.
<http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/snowmangguid.pdf>.

34 | P a g e
amount of people. The state must be reimbursed for snowmobile expenses because the impact is
positive. Less maintenance of trails, wildlife protection, and not as much air and noise pollution
are beneficial results, a significant reason being that less roads and trails are used.

This option is a fair and efficient way to save money because, the fewest amounts of people are
being affected, thereby showing that the state is acting responsibly to attain higher priority goals.
Although snowmobile users will be unhappy, money will still be provided and other trails will be
open for recreational use.




35 | P a g e
Casey Wright, Healthcare

                      Option IF-H-1: Increase the cigarette tax by $1 per pack

                                 IF-H-2       2010-2011      2011-2012
                                Cigarette       $218           $211
                                   Tax         Million        Million
                         Figure A-1: Fiscal Impact of Option 1 in Millions.

This proposed option is to increase the cigarette excise tax by $1.00 per pack. The tax will
increase from $2.75 to $3.75 per pack. This recommended increase will create revenues of
$218,000,000 for the State in 2010-2011 and $211,000,000 in 2011-2012. The revenue collected
from this tax will be invested into the Health Care Reform Act, which will then allocate the
funds to the State’s health care programs. 46

Programmatic Analysis of Option IF-H-1:

This proposed tax is intended to lower the long-term health care costs that New Yorkers will face
if they continue smoking. Smoking has caused over 400,000 deaths a year (25,000 of those
deaths were New Yorkers). The $1 increase in tax is estimated to decrease cigarette use by 14%.
47



Studies have also found that the $1 increase in cigarette tax will help over 100,000 children who
begin to smoke, and will encourage more than 50,000 adults to stop smoking. This negative
relationship between the price in cigarettes and consumption can be seen in Figure C.48




46
     New York. Department of Budget. 2010-2011 Executive Budget Briefing Book. New York State, Jan.
          2010. Web. 20 Mar. 2010.
          <http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget1011/fy1011littlebook/index.html>
47
     Ibid.
48
     Ibid.

36 | P a g e
                          Figure C- Trends of Consumption compared to Price
This proposed option of an increase in cigarettes supports our group’s values of equity,
efficiency, accountability, and a focus on revenue by closing the gap in our state’s budget
problem. It will also have no effect on the state’s workforce, because the gap is closed without
cutting the workforce. Our goal of having a strong, efficient, professional state government can
be met by using this option.

                               Option IF-H-2: Establish a Syrup Excise Tax

                                 IF-H-2        2010-2011   2011-2012
                                 Syrup           $456      $970
                                 Tax             million   million
                           Figure A-2: Fiscal Impact of Option 2 in Millions.

This proposed tax on syrup will be an excise tax on beverage syrups and soft drinks. The
proposed tax rate will be a $7.68 per gallon for beverage syrups, a $1.28 per gallon for bottled
drinks, and will come to a one cent per ounce increase for the soft drinks. The proposed option
will produce revenues of $456,000,000 in 2010-2011 and $970,000,00 in 2011-2012. Revenue
created from this tax will be allocated to the Health Care Reform Act and will be spent on the
State’s health care spending. 49

Programmatic Analysis for Option IF-H-2:

Studies have shown that one and every four New Yorkers are obese. As a result, New York
spends over 7.6 billion on adult obesity-related health problems. Obesity causes Type 2 Diabetes,
heart disease, high cholesterol and other health risks. 50

A New England Journal states that a one-cent per ounce tax on soft drinks could help reduce
consumption of soft drinks by 10%.51 This proposed tax should be implemented to promote a
healthier New York, and to help reduce health care costs that the State will need to fund through
Medicaid costs.

This option will have no effect on the state’s workforce and the proposed tax will create an
increasing amount of revenue for the State in an efficient manner. As mentioned earlier, all funds
created from this tax will be allocated to other health care costs from the State. This option will
help drive down the costs of health care programs in New York State without cutting programs
and laying off employees.




49
      2010-11 Executive Budget Briefing Book
50
     Ibid.
51
     2010-2011 Executive Budget Briefing Book

37 | P a g e
                        Option IF-H-3: Medicaid Fraud and Abuse Prevention

                               IF-H-2       2010-2011     2011-2012
                                  Medicaid
                                  Fraud and       $300       $300
                                  Abuse           million    million
                                  Prevention
                          Figure A-3: Fiscal Impact of Option 3 in Millions.

The proposed option of Medicaid fraud and abuse prevention will create a savings of
$300,000,000 in 2010-2011 and in 2011-2012 for the New York State due to the collection of
fraud recoveries.52

Programmatic Analysis of Option IF-H-3. This option will require the state’s Office of
Medicaid Inspector General to set higher targets for fraud and abuse recoveries in the 2010-11
fiscal year. In a 2005 NY Times article, retired chief state investigator of Medicaid fraud and
abuse in New York City James Mehmet, claimed that about 40% of all Medicaid claims are
“questionable,” which would add to about $18 billion a year wasted. 53

The state has continually increased the resources used by the Office of the Medicaid Inspector
General to identify fraud and abuse in New York State, such as an increase in staff and a
computer system upgrade. In May of 2009, the New York State Medicaid fraud unit was voted
the nation’s best by the U.S Department of Health and Human Services after the unit recovered
more than $263 million in 2008. 54

To reach the goal of the collection of 300 million dollars in fraud and abuse recoveries, there are
several programmatic changes that will need to occur to ensure that this goal is reached:
    Increase penalties for offenders who commit Medicaid fraud
    Identify individuals and providers who are disqualified from the Medicaid program and
        prohibit them from billing for Medicaid services
    Work with the Office of the Welfare Inspector General and the Department of Labor.
        This collaboration of services will ensure greater efficiency in efforts to find benefit
        frauds
    Audit tax returns and document citizenships to help ensure proper eligibility55



52
     Ibid.

53
   Levy, Clifford J., and Michael Luo. "New York Medicaid Fraud May Reach Into Billions." Nytimes.com.
         The New York Times, 18 July 2005. Web. 20 Mar. 2010.
         <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/nyregion/18medicaid.html?pagewanted=1
54
   Cuomo's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit Named Best in the Country by United States Department of
         Health and Human Services. Office of the Attorney General. State of New York, 6 May 2009.
         Web. 20 Mar. 2010. <http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2009/may/may6b_09.html>.
55
     2010-2011 Executive Budget Briefing Book

38 | P a g e
All of these options will help ensure that Medicaid programs in New York State are efficient,
equitable and accountable. This option will have no effect on the personal working in the
Medicaid fraud unit.

                           Option IF-H-4: Reform Eligibility for Medicaid

                              IF-H-2      2010-2011     2011-2012
                              Reform
                              Eligibility $488          $488
                              for         Million       Million
                              Medicaid
                          Figure A-4: Fiscal Impact of Option 4 in Millions.

This option of reforming the eligibility for Medicaid in New York will create savings up to
$488,000,000 in 2010-2011 and a savings of $488,000,000 in 2011-12. The $488 million comes
from two main components: close eligibility loopholes for certain services, ($454 million) and
tighten eligibility screenings ($34 million).56

Programmatic Analysis of Option IF-H-4. Close Eligibility Loopholes for certain services:
New York is one of the few states that allow non-poor individuals to lower their assets to
become eligible for Medicaid. Some individuals do this by moving assets away to other family
members. This wrongful action of moving assets cannot be caught for home care services since
there is no 60-month “look-back period on an individual applying for care. A “look-back”
period must be implemented in all areas of the application of Medicaid in New York State to
ensure equity and accountability to the program.57

Tighten Eligibility Screenings:
In the 2009-10 State Budget there was an elimination of the eligibility requirements for county-
conducted interviews, finger imaging and asset tests for Medicaid applicants. This elimination of
eligibility requirements creates a lack of accountability in the system and caused over 30,000
people in New York City alone to be wrongly enrolled into the Medicaid system.58




56
     McMahon, E. J., and Josh Barro. Blueprint for a Better Budget: A Plan of Action for New York State.
        Rep. Empire Center for New York State Policy, 4 Jan. 2010. Web. 20 Mar. 2010.
        <http://www.empirecenter.org/Reports/2010/01/blueprint2010410.cfm>.
57
     McMahon

58
     New York State Senator. Hugh T. Farley. Sen. Farley Says Tougher Medicaid Fraud Effort Needed.
          Nysenate.gov. Huge T. Farley, 8 Mar. 2010. Web. 19 Mar. 2010.
          <http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/sen-farley-says-tougher-medicaid-fraud-effort-
          needed>.

39 | P a g e
If the state would restore the eligibility requirements of interviews, finger imaging and asset tests,
the state would save at least $34 million a year.59 Not only will this option save the state money,
it will also restore accountability and equity to the Medicaid program in New York State.


                         Option IF-H-5: Managed Care Consumer Choice

                             IF-H-2      2010-2011     2011-2012
                             Managed
                             Care        $163          $327
                             Consumer million          million
                             Choice
                         Figure A-5: Fiscal Impact of Option 5 in Millions.

This option creates a state-shared Medicaid savings of at least $163,000,000 the first year of
implementation in 2010-2011. Once the option is fully implemented in 2011-12, the state will
save at least $327,000,000. 60

Programmatic Analysis of option IF-H-5. This option is based off of the pilot tested program
in Florida, which motivates health care recipients to get preventive and primary care. The
program has two essential parts: Choice Counseling and Enhanced Benefit Reward activities.

Choice Counseling:
To ensure that the recipient picks the Medicaid health plan that works for them, a Choice
Counselor will help assist the individual in picking a plan that works for their lifestyle. The
counselors do not work for any health plans and simply give the information that is needed to be
the right plan.61

Enhanced Benefit Reward Program:
Recipients who participate in the programs “Healthy Behaviors” will earn points towards their
Enhanced Benefit Reward Program. Healthy Behaviors are actions that will improve your health
such as mammograms, adult exams, colorectal screening, alcohol/ drug treatment, weight loss
programs, etc. The points earned from participating in “healthy behaviors” can be used to buy
health related items at pharmacies that take Medicaid.62




59
     McMahon
60
     Ibid.

61
     “Florida's Medicaid Reform Choice Counseling General Information." Welcome to Florida's Medicaid
           Reform Choice Counseling Website. Florida's Agency for Health Care Administration. Web. 23
           Mar. 2010. <http://www.flmedicaidreform.com/english/generalInfo.html>.
62
     Ibid.

40 | P a g e
An independent analysis of the Florida program was done to see the effect on the pilot program.
The analysis found that spending in counties that used the program were 22 percent lower than
other counties who did not use the pilot program. The study found that enrollees in the program
were $26 lower in the first two years of the pilot programs compared to the control counties who
were $150 higher. 63

                                               Pilot Test Counties    Control Counties
               Pre-Reform Period               $809                   $683
               Reform Period                   $783                   $833
               Reform minus Pre-Reform         $-26                   $150
Figure D- Cost per Enrollees by Pilot Program and Controlled Counties

                       Option IF-H-6: Promote Early Intervention Programs

                             IF-H-6       2010-2011    2011-2012
                             Promote
                             Early        $7.2         $12
                             Intervention million       million
                             Programs
                         Figure A-6: Fiscal Impact of Option 6 in Millions.

This option of promoting the Early Intervention (EI) Program will create savings up to
$7,200,000 million for the State in 2010-11, and will save the State $12,000,000 million in 2011-
12. 64

The RAND Corporation issued a study in 2006 that stated early childhood intervention programs
save money. The study says that for every $1 spent on an early intervention program the
economic benefits can be as much as $17. 65

Programmatic Analysis of option IF-H-6. New York’s Early Intervention (EI) program
provides multiple support and therapeutic services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and to
their families. By promoting early intervention the State will reduce costs by identifying
problems early and will be able to manage them to reduce the need for more costly health care in
the future. 66


63
     Harman, Jeffrey S., and R. P. Duncan. An Analysis of Medicaid Expenditures Before and After
         Implementation of Florida’s Medicaid Reform Pilot Demonstration. Rep. The Department of
         Health Services Research, Management and Policy, June 2009. Web. 20 Mar. 2010.
64
     McMahon

65
  Rand Corporation. Rand Study Says Childhood Intervention Programs Save Money and          Benefit
Children, Families and Society. Rand.org. Rand Corporation, 12 Jan. 2006 Web. 21 Mar. 2010.
<http://www.rand.org/news/press.06/01.12.html>.
66
     Benjamin, Georges C. "Proven Savings from Prevention, Early Intervention." Washington Post.

41 | P a g e
The study also reports that programs like New York State’s EI program will keep children out of
expensive special education programs and will reduce the number of students who fail, which
will save the State money.67

This option will help promote healthy children through New York State and prevent the state
from spending money on future health care expenses, which will support an efficient early
intervention program. Also, there will not be an effect on current Early Intervention Programs
and there will be no job loss for the State.




             Washingtonpost.com, 21 July 2009. Web. 21 Mar. 2010.
             <http://views.washingtonpost.com/healthcarerx/panelists/2009/07/costs-benjamin.html>.
67
     Ibid.

42 | P a g e
                                     Part D: References

                                       Shanita Conley

Description of New York State Executive Budget Recommendations for Elementary and
       Secondary Education. Albany: Education Unit, NY State Division Of The Budget, 2010.
       Print.

Executive Budget 2010-11 Briefing Book. Rep. Albany: NY State Division of the Budget, 2010.
       Print.

Making the Grade: Five Years of School Accountability. Rep. Albany: OSC, 2010. Print.
NBC New York: Student MetroCards Cuts Postponed in MTA Budget. NBC, 19 Mar. 2010. Web.
      20 Mar. 2010. <http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Student-MetroCards-
      Spared-in-New-MTA-Proposals.html>.

                                          Jackie Grifffin
Budget:2010-2011, New York State Department of.
http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget1011/financialPlan/1011_FinPlanSummary2.html.
January 2010-2011. 19 March 2010 <www.nys.gov/governor2010>.

Dinapoli, Thomas P. Report on the State Fiscal Year 2010-11 Executive Budget. Executive
Budget. Albany: New York Comptroller, 2010-11.

Frank Mauro, Fiscal Policy Institute, and Ron Deutsch, New Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness. A
Better Choice for Addressing New york State's Projected Budget Gaps. Report. Albany: New
Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness, Fiscal Policy Institute, 2010.
Institute, Fiscal Policy. www.fiscalpolicy.org. 21 October 2009. 14 March 2010
<www.fiscalpolicy.org>.

Lav, Iris J. A Balanced Approach To Closing State Deficits. Research. Washington : Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, 2010.
New York's Underinvestment in Public Higher Education, Fiscal Policy Institute.
www.fiscalplicy.org/underinvestmetnpublichighered. January 2009. 17 March 2010
<www.fiscalpolicy.org>.

Nicholas Johnson, Phil Oliff and Erica William. An Upday On State Budget Cuts, Governors
Proposing New Rounds Of Cuts For 2011; At Least 45 States Have Already Imposed Cuts that
Hurt Vunerable Residents. Report. Washington: Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 2010.
Testimony of James A. Parrott, Deputy Director and Chief Economist of Fiscal Policy Institue.
"Public Hearing on New York State Budget Oversight Governor's Proposed Deficit Reduction
Plan." New York Senate Finance Committee. New York City: Fiscal Policy Institute, 2009. 2
and 4.
www.ny.gov/governor. January 2010. 16 March 2010
<http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/budgetFP/0910summary/0910enacted_summary7.html>.

43 | P a g e
                                    Neil Law
        Senate Finance Committee Staff. “Staff Analysis of the SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget”.
NYS Senate, Jan 2010. Web,
<http://www.nysenate.gov/files/pdfs/Senate%20Finance%202010%20Blue%20Book.pdf>

                                      Emely Paez
        United States. New York State Division of the Budget. 2010-11 Executive Budget
Briefing Book. By David A. Paterson and Robert L. Megna. 19 Jan. 2010. Web. 16 Mar. 2010.
<http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget1011/fy1011littlebook/BriefingBook.pdf>.

http://www.campaign.cornell.edu/endowment.cfm

http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget1011/fy1011littlebook/HigherEducation.html

http://www.hecommission.state.ny.us/report/CHE_Final-Report_200806.pdf

                             Meghan Smith
       Berlin, Linda R. "Testimony Before the Joint Fiscal Committees of the NYS
Legislature." New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance. 10 Feb. 2010. Web.
1 Mar. 2010. <http://www.otda.state.ny.us/main/testimony/2010-02-10-Joint-Fiscal-Committee-
Testimony.pdf>.

        "Financial Report." The Children's Aid Society. 30 June 2009. Web. 13 Mar. 2010.
<http://annual-report.childrensaidsociety.org/financials/financial-report>.

        Harrigan, Sheila. "Testimony on the SFY 2010-11 Executive Budget for Human
Services." New York State Senate. Drupal, 23 Feb. 2010. Web. 2 Mar. 2010.
<http://www.nysenate.gov/files/pdfs/Addendum%20to%20Human%20Services%20Budget%20
Hearing%202010.PDF>.

        The Lake Erie Regional Grape Research & Extension Center. Penn State Departments
and Colleges, 21 Mar. 2008. Web. 12 Mar. 2010.
<http://research.cas.psu.edu/Erie/background.htm>.

        Lynch, Jane. "State Wide Assessment Instrument." New York State Office of Temporary
and Disability Assistance. 2 May 2008. Web. 4 Mar. 2010.
<http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/main/cfsr/2008statewideassessment.pdf>.

     New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Nov. 2009. Web. 8 Mar. 2010.
<http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/snowmangguid.pdf>.

        "Press Release: $3.76 Billion Generated for New York's Economy by the New York
Grape, Grape Juice and Wine Industries." Wine Business.com. Wine Communications Group, 12
Jan. 2010. Web. 15 Mar. 2010.
<http://www.winebusiness.com/news/?go=getarticle&cms_preview=true&dataid=70457>.



44 | P a g e
        Steckler, Tamara A., and Adriene L. Holder. "Testimony of the Legal Aid Society on the
2010-2011 Executive Budget." New York State Senate. Drupal, 10 Feb. 2010. Web. 5 Mar. 2010.
<http://www.nysenate.gov/files/pdfs/Human%20Services%20C%20Feb%2010%202010.pdf>.

        Travis, James W. "Integrated Disease and Insect Management in Organic Grape
Production Systems." The Lake Erie Regional Grape Research & Extension Center. Penn State
Departments and Colleges, 2008. Web. 12 Mar. 2010.
<http://research.cas.psu.edu/Erie/OrganicGrape08.pdf>.

       United States. New York State Assembly. Statistical and Narrative Summary of the
Executive Budget. By New York State Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. Jan. 2010.
Web. 8 Mar. 2010. <http://assembly.state.ny.us/Reports/WAM/2010Yellow/>.

        United States. New York State Division of the Budget. 2010-11 Executive Budget
Briefing Book. By David A. Paterson and Robert L. Megna. 19 Jan. 2010. Web. 16 Mar. 2010.
<http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget1011/fy1011littlebook/BriefingBook.pdf>.

        United States. New York State Division of the Budget. 2010-11 New York State
Executive Budget: Education, Labor and Family Assistance, Article VII Legislation. By David A.
Paterson. 19 Jan. 2010. Web. 16 Mar. 2010.
<http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget1011/fy1011artVIIbills/ELFA_ArticleVII.pdf>.

        Virginia Department of Social Services. Jun. 2006. Commonwealth of Virginia. 10 Mar.
2010
<http://www.dss.virginia.gov/files/division/dfs/as/auxillary_grants/manual/ag_chapter_a.pdf>.

                                   Casey Wright
Benjamin, Georges C. "Proven Savings from Prevention, Early Intervention." Washington Post.
      Washingtonpost.com, 21 July 2009. Web. 21 Mar. 2010.
      <http://views.washingtonpost.com/healthcarerx/panelists/2009/07/costs-benjamin.html>.

Cuomo's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit Named Best in the Country by United States Department
      of Health and Human Services. Office of the Attorney General. State of New York, 6
      May 2009. Web. 20 Mar. 2010.
      <http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2009/may/may6b_09.html>.

“Florida's Medicaid Reform Choice Counseling General Information." Welcome to Florida's
       Medicaid Reform Choice Counseling Website. Florida's Agency for Health Care
       Administration. Web. 23 Mar. 2010.
       <http://www.flmedicaidreform.com/english/generalInfo.html>.

Harman, Jeffrey S., and R. P. Duncan. An Analysis of Medicaid Expenditures Before and After
      Implementation of Florida’s Medicaid Reform Pilot Demonstration. Rep. The
      Department of Health Services Research, Management and Policy, June 2009. Web. 20
      Mar. 2010.
      <http://mre.phhp.ufl.edu/publications/An%20Analysis%20of%20Medicaid%20Expendit

45 | P a g e
        ures%20Before%20and%20After%20Implementation%20of%20Floridas%20Medicaid%
        20Reform%20Pilot%20Demonstration.pdf>.

Levy, Clifford J., and Michael Luo. "New York Medicaid Fraud May Reach Into Billions."
       Nytimes.com. The New York Times, 18 July 2005. Web. 20 Mar. 2010.
       <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/nyregion/18medicaid.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3>.

McMahon, E. J., and Josh Barro. Blueprint for a Better Budget: A Plan of Action for New York
     State. Rep. Empire Center for New York State Policy, 4 Jan. 2010. Web. 20 Mar. 2010.
     <http://www.empirecenter.org/Reports/2010/01/blueprint2010410.cfm>.


New York. Department of Budget. 2010-2011 Executive Budget Briefing Book. New York State,
     Jan. 2010. Web. 20 Mar. 2010.
     http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget1011/fy1011littlebook/index.html

New York State Senator. Dean G. Skelos. Senate Republicans Propose Budget Cutting Measures.
     Nysenate.gov. Dean G. Skelos, 14 Oct. 2009. Web. 21 Mar. 2010.
     <http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/senate-republicans-propose-budget-cutting-
     measures>.

New York State Senator. Hugh T. Farley. Sen. Farley Says Tougher Medicaid Fraud Effort
     Needed. Nysenate.gov. Huge T. Farley, 8 Mar. 2010. Web. 19 Mar. 2010.
     <http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/sen-farley-says-tougher-medicaid-fraud-effort-
     needed>.

Rand Corporation. Rand Study Says Childhood Intervention Programs Save Money and Benefit
Children, Families and Society. Rand.org. Rand Corporation, 12 Jan. 2006. Web. 21 Mar. 2010.
<http://www.rand.org/news/press.06/01.12.html>.




46 | P a g e
                                  Part E: Appendices

Appendix 1:
Shanita Conley
                             School Aid Cuts by District
 2,000,000
 1,800,000
 1,600,000
 1,400,000
 1,200,000
 1,000,000
   800,000                                                   2009-10 Aid

   600,000                                                   2010-11 Aid
   400,000
   200,000
         0




       School Aid Cuts in NYC
                      New York City
 9,300,000
 9,200,000
 9,100,000
 9,000,000
 8,900,000
 8,800,000                                   New York City

 8,700,000
 8,600,000
 8,500,000
 8,400,000
               2009-10 Aid   2010-11 Aid




47 | P a g e
                                          Appendix 2

Appendix 2: New York State FY 2008-09 Budget Cuts
Jackie Griffin

In order to close the deficit, Governor David Paterson has carried out several
rounds of budget cuts since assuming office last year. In responding to the fiscal
crisis, Governor Paterson has implemented several revenue generation actions,
cuts, and transfers amounting to over $2 billion in savings for the 2008-09 fiscal
year approximately $1.5 billion for fiscal year 2009-10.




48 | P a g e
Appendix 2: New York State FY 2008-09
Budget Cuts (Cont’d)




49 | P a g e
Appendix 3:
Neil Law




50 | P a g e
Appendix 4
Emely Paez




51 | P a g e
Appendix 5:

 Option IF-SS-3 (Financial Report)68




(1)
  Operating expenses exclude capital purchases in of $929,000 in FY 2009 and $3.1
million in FY 2008. World Trade Center-related expenses are excluded from FY 2008,
the last year of the program. Net assets (pending final audit) are $223 million and include
restricted and unrestricted reserves, endowment funds, Society-owned buildings and
other miscellaneous assets. Depreciation expenses are included.
(2)
      Includes pledge income.




68
  "Financial Report." The Children's Aid Society. 30 June 2009. Web. 13 Mar. 2010. <http://annual-
report.childrensaidsociety.org/financials/financial-report>.

52 | P a g e
Option IF-SS-4
Measures of Effectiveness69

                      Percentage of Children Placed in Kinship Foster Care



Statewide                             30.9%                    29.8%         39.3%



Rest of State                         17.9%                    15.9%         24.0%



New York City                          3.8%                     5.2%         6.2%



Year                                   2002                     2004         2006
Data Source: NYS Data Warehouse




69
     Lynch.


53 | P a g e
Option IF-EE-5

Table 1. Percent Control of Black Rot on fruit of Concord grape by solo programs of allowed
materials. Numbers in parenthesis (x) denote number of applications made during fruit
susceptibility period (immediate pre bloom to end of program).70


                                                            Disease        Spray             %
Treatment and rate/A (# applications)                       Pressure       Interval          Control
Champion WP 4 lb + lime 8 lb (4)                             High           10-12 days         63
Champion WP 2 lb + lime 4 lb (4)                             High           10-12 days         49
Champion WP 2 lb + lime 4 lb (2, 4)                          Low            7-8 days           78, 81
Champion WP 2 lb + lime 4 lb + NuFilm P 8 oz (4)             Low            7-8 days           88
Champion WP 2 lb + lime 4 lb + Yucca Ag Aide 16 fl oz (4)    High           10-12 days         48
Citrex 0.1 % (4)                                             High           10-12 days         8
Cueva 2 % (1), then 1 % (3)                                  Low            7-8 days           45
Cueva 4 % (1), then 2 % (3)                                  Low            7-8 days           44
Cueva 1 % (6)                                                High           6-8 days           39
Kocide 3000 0.75 lb + lime 1.5 lb (4) - no longer organic    Low            7-8 days           67
Kocide 3000 1.75 lb + lime 3.5 lb (4) - no longer organic    Low            7-8 days           75
EF400 0.25 % (4)                                             High           10-12 days         0
GC-3 1 % (4)                                                 High           10-12 days         0
GC-3 1 % + Yucca Ag Aide 16 fl oz (4)                        High           10-12 days         0
Lime Sulfur 0.5 % (4)                                        High           10-12 days         18
Lime Sulfur 0.5 % + Yucca Ag Aide 16 fl oz (4)               High           10-12 days         6
Milstop 2.5 lb (4)                                           High           10-12 days         0
Milstop 2.5 lb (1), then 5 lb (5)                            High           6-8 days           0
Neptune’s Harvest 5 % (5)                                    High           6-8 days           0
NuFilm P 8 oz (4)                                            Low            7-8 days           33
Serenade AS 1 % + Yucca Ag Aide 16 fl oz (4)                 High           10-12 days         0
Serenade AS 1 % + NuFilm P 0.12 % (6)                        High            6-8 days          0
Yucca Ag Aide 16 fl oz (4)                                   High           10-12 days         0
Yucca Ag Aide 32 fl oz (4)                                   High           10-12 days         1
Yucca Ag Aide 0.5 % (6)                                      High            6-8 days          0




70
  Travis, James W. "Integrated Disease and Insect Management in Organic Grape Production Systems." The Lake
Erie Regional Grape Research & Extension Center. Penn State Departments and Colleges, 2008. Web. 12 Mar.
2010. <http://research.cas.psu.edu/Erie/OrganicGrape08.pdf>.

54 | P a g e
Appendix 6:

Casey Wright

E.1 Appendix for Option IF-H-1




E.2 Appendix for option IF-H-4 and IF-H-5




                                            71




71
     McMahon

55 | P a g e
E.3 Appendix for option IF-H-5




This table is from the report based on the pilot tested Medicaid program in Florida, “An Analysis of
Medicaid Expenditures Before and After Implementation of Florida’s Medicaid Reform Pilot
Demonstration” This table shows the full results of the study, what was in my paper was an edited version
of this table. MEG 1 are individuals with eligibility based on Supplemental Social Income, MEG 2
includes children and families with eligibility through TANF. PMPM stands for the Medicaid program’s
per member per month expenditures.


E.4 Appendix for option IF-H-6




56 | P a g e
                         72




72
     Rand Corporation.

57 | P a g e

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:2
posted:4/15/2012
language:
pages:57