Putting Texas First

Putting Texas First A policy primer for elected officials and everyday Texans Edited by David Edmonson and
Katy Vedlitz Copyright 2012 by the Texas First Education Fund Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, with proper citation to the author and the Texas First Education Fund. Special thanks to the policy experts who contributed to this report. Putting Texas First is available online at www.texasfirstfoundation.com Texas First Education Fund 815 Brazos Street, Suite 200 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: 512-401-3041 The Texas First Education Fund is a 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization dedicated to researching public policy matters and public opinion and understanding how Texans consume political and policy news. The Texas First Education Fund is a partner organization of the Texas First Foundation, a 501(c) (4) nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to fostering an honest public dialogue where the truth matters, and advocating for policies that put Texans first.
CONTENTS
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Budget Facts and Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public Education Facts and Figures . . . . . . . . . Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Higher Education Facts and Figures . . . . . . . . Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Health Care Facts and Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environment Facts and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . Civil Justice and Consumer Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . Civil Justice Facts and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criminal Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criminal Justice Facts and Figures . . . . . . . . . Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transportation Facts and Figures. . . . . . . . . . . Labor and the Workforce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Labor and Workforce Facts and Figures . . . . . . Democracy and Voter Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . Democracy Facts and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 3 10 13 20 23 31 33 40 43 52 55 60 61 71 73 84 87 94 95 100
Putting texas First
iii
INTRODUCTION
Jim Dunnam, Senior Fellow, Texas First Foundation
ith court battles over redistricting and voter ID promising to drag on, several lawsuits challenging our state education financing system ongoing, and a lagging economy in many parts of our state, Texas legislators and elected officials at the state and local levels have their work cut out for them in 2012 and beyond. Along with these struggles, however, comes a great opportunity to break the status quo and confront many of the persistent challenges that Texans face. We have the chance now to take Texas in a new direction and make it a place where our children can prosper. The voices and needs of everyday Texans are often lost amid polarizing political rhetoric emanating from both ends of the political spectrum. The Texas First Foundation supports practical state policies that put Texans ahead of partisan interests and ideology. We advocate for policies that make a quality public primary, secondary and higher education available to all Texans. We support the equal rights of all citizens to have their voices heard in the political process and oppose any efforts to restrict those rights. We think that in order to secure our economic future, Texas must begin to make budget investments in priorities like education, water and transportation infrastructure. This means Texas must have a revenue structure that is fair to all taxpayers and avoids preferences based on who has the best lobby team. This means acknowledging and then addressing the current structural deficit. This means re-evaluating our tax structure from top to bottom to ensure a permanent solution that stops the revolving door at the courthouse over state finances. With help from respected policy experts, the Texas First Education Fund has compiled this guide for elected officials and everyday Texans who are looking for a new approach and a new way of thinking about some of the most important issues facing Texans going into the 21st century.
Putting texas First

THE BUDGET
The fundamental job of the Legislature during session is to enact a budget to fund state agencies and programs for the following biennium. Budget writing is an opportunity for lawmakers to establish short- and long-term goals for the state. Former Texas State Representative and Texas First Senior Fellow Jim Dunnam talks about why the Legislature needs to do a better job setting priorities for Texas in our state budget and explains what is at stake if we do not make investments in important state needs like transportation, water and education.
Putting texas First
Putting texas First
MAKING AN INVESTMENT IN TEXAS FUTURE

exas faces a serious budget crisis. The structural deficit (the recurring one which will be back year after year) has reached $10 billion per biennium, and we face billions more in additional debt in order to pay for vital transportation and infrastructure projects, to protect our states water supply, and more. But Texas political climate has become one where the mere mention of government spending can send elected officials into a cold sweat. Self-appointed conservative watchdog groups have wielded heavy influence over Texas political leadership, and the 2010 midterm election brought with it a tide of new adherents pledging no new taxes and no new spending no matter what regardless of reality and the needs of the state. The 82nd Legislature kept their promise and used the political capital they thought they earned to make drastic and destructive cuts to public education and other state spending in the face of an unprecedented $27 billion budget shortfall. Employing timeworn budget and accounting tricks that deferred billions in obligations into the next budget cycle, while accelerating collection of tomorrows revenue today, lawmakers gave the false illusion of balanced books. In addition, roughly $15 billion was hacked from an already austere state budget for the upcoming biennium. These cuts hurt, and the piper will have to be paid by future taxpayers for the short sighted accounting gimmicks. Countless headlines telling of teacher layoffs, increasing college tuition and no money for new road construction around the state prove as much. The problem is not just a new one. Texas has not made real substantive investments in important state programs and projects in many years. Even during times of surplus, it has all gone something like this: the Legislature meets briefly; they cobble together a spending plan with no real long term plan, then hurry out of town; all allowing us to squeak through another two years. Some years are worse than others, but conversations and difficult decisions about the states future and priorities always have to wait.
Putting texas First
Recent budget cuts are only a symptom of the larger problems we face from persistently refusing to invest in our collective futures. Texas ranks near dead last among states in tax revenue and expenditures per capita, and the state of the state is a direct reflection of our taxing and spending priorities.
Recent budget cuts are only a symptom of the larger problems we face from persistently refusing to invest in our collective futures. Texas ranks near dead last among states in tax revenue and expenditures per capita, and the state of the state is a direct reflection of our taxing and spending priorities. No one wants to pay higher taxes, and if our only goal is to be a low tax state, Texas is doing a pretty good job. But the truth is that from education to the environment, from roads to health care, present and future Texans are getting the short end of the stick. At some point, a decade or more of putting off long terms needs will make attempts to change course even more difficult. Simply refusing to address revenue issues means more than you get what you pay for; it also means we are borrowing from future generations of Texans. For example, over the last 10 years lawmakers have chosen to borrow money for road construction, leaving $31 billion to be paid back by future taxpayers over the next 30 years. The largest chunk of the state budget (over 40%) goes to public education. Providing our youth with a quality education is a fundamental necessity for a prosperous future. Not only is it our obligation to make sure all young people have an equal opportunity for a bright future and a quality life, but cultivating a well-educated workforce is the only way to build a strong economy. Many of the problems we face nationally with the debt, unemployment, and the economy can be linked directly to our steady and methodical defunding of public education. Texas cannot continue to prosper while having more of its population without high school diplomas than any other state. Eventually these numbers will take their toll. Yet, state leaders just cut public education funding by $5.4 billion for the next two years. Because there is not enough to go around, funding
6 Putting texas First
imbalances between districts are determining the winners and losers in school accountability ratings. Today our tax structure, reduced funding, and uneven distribution of that money have us back in court with at least five new lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of our school finance system. As these slog their way through the system, millions of students are losing their future. And our future is tied to theirs. The Texas school finance system has been found unconstitutional by the Texas Supreme Court repeatedly over the last two decades. Texas lawmakers need to stop the serial violation of school childrens rights and face up to the tough problems and make the tough choices.
Texas lawmakers need to stop the serial violation of school childrens rights and face up to the tough problems and make the tough choices.
Transportation and infrastructure are other examples of state investments that are long overdue. These infrastructure needs continue to be delayed and deferred, even as the states population and the need for more and better roads increases. Meanwhile, the gas tax has stagnated at 1990s levels, and we are taking on more and more debt to finance road construction. Today, Texans are paying more to service that debt than we pay on new road construction. This is a serious concern if Texas is going to continue to grow and foster a vibrant economy that attracts business and commerce to the state. Furthermore, the ongoing refusal of the Legislature to fund the state water plan is a huge liability. The persistent drought weve experienced over the last year, and can expect to continue, only intensifies the outstanding need for improved water infrastructure to meet state demand into the 21st century. Not only do urban areas need water for development, but the state economy relies heavily on rural communities for farming and agriculture. Everyone seems to agree that the state water plan is needed, and everyone seems to agree the plan will cost more than $50 billion over the next 50 years, yet every session passes without meaningful effort to address this need. Weve had the money in the past to pay for water projPutting texas First 7
ects, but we didnt invest in them. Now with the state in a budget crisis we are not investing either. The vital priorities that will keep Texans safe and prosperous well into the 21st century are not free. The good news is that many state leaders from both ends of the political spectrum are now beginning to tell the truth about the budget and are advocating for increased spending on vital priorities. Even Republican House Speaker Joe Straus admitted that at some point, I think, you cant cut your way to prosperity. Senate Finance Chair Steve Ogden is calling for us to immediately address the school funding crisis. True and established conservatives like Senator Tommy Williams and Senator Bob Deuell are calling for responsible consideration of new revenues to address road construction and other state needs.
THE WAY FORWARD
he first step is to have an honest conversation with the people of Texas about our state budget. Texas is not a pay-as-you-go state anymore. We delay payments, accelerate receipts, and use other tricks to make it look like we have a balanced budget. We rob money from dedicated funds like the Gas Tax, which is supposed to fund road construction, and the Sporting Goods Sales Tax, which is supposed to go to our state parks, to pay for other unrelated budget items. We increase the state debt to pay for the things we want and need now and pass along the bill to future taxpayers. This is deceitful to the people of Texas, and we need to come clean about it. In order to secure the future of our state, we must become responsible and accountable for the choices we make in our state budget. This means we must face the difficult reality that we have to create a stable, growing and broad state revenue system to pay for the needs of our state. We need to pay as we go again and stop passing the bill to future generations. It means cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in wasteful spending on corporate cronyism and recovering billions in tax exemptions the state provides to corporations that are not holding up their end of the deal. It means reforming the poorly performing business margins tax so that
everyone pays their fair share. It involves having an honest conversation with the citizens of this state about what will happen if we choose not to make investments in our future. Long-term ramifications will result from the decisions we have made and continue to make in the state budget. The longer we wait to make critical outlays for everything from education to transportation, current infrastructure further deteriorates, demand grows, and the price tag increases exponentially. With leadership and cooperation from both sides of the aisle, we may just be able to leave Texas better than when we got here and make it a place where our children and grandchildren can prosper.
Putting texas First
BUDGET FACTS AND FIGURES
HOW TEXAS RANKS State government tax collections per capita, 2010: 48th at $1,5671 Total state expenditures per capita, 2009: 47th at $3,6302 Total gross state product, 2010: 2nd at $1,207,494,000,0003 Fiscal year 2012 shortfall as percent of general fund budget: 5th at 20.5%4
DETAILS
Budget cuts from the 82nd Legislative Session:5 $4 billion cut from public schools per-student funding formulas, and $1.4 billion additionally cut from education grant programs.6 $559 million cut from TEXAS Grants (29,000 fewer students) $1.6 billion cut from nursing homes (3% cut in Medicaid reimbursement) 23% cut to total state backed college financial aid (43,258 fewer students benefitting) $800 million (6.1%) cut from colleges and universities
10
Putting texas First
Accounting tricks used to balance the budget during the 82nd Legislative Session: 7 Deferred payments for public schools ($2.3 billion) Tax collection speed ups Fee increases Underfunding Medicaid ($4.8 billion)
$176 million of the Sporting Goods Sales Tax revenue (Fund 64), which is supposed to be earmarked for State Parks, in 2012-2013 has been withheld to balance the state budget.8 Tax exemptions for the natural gas industry totaled $7.4 billion from 2004-2009.9 According to the State Comptroller, the high cost natural gas tax exemption cost the state more than $2.35 billion over the 2010-2011 biennium.10
Putting texas First
11

PUBLIC EDUCATION
Widespread access to quality public education is a key building block for a strong economy and crucial to a prosperous future for our state. In Texas, steady defunding of public education has put that future in jeopardy. Texas already ranks last or near last on education indicators like graduation rates and SAT scores, and recent budget cuts are sure to exacerbate the problem. Education legal and policy expert Holly McIntush gives the landscape of public education in Texas and makes the case for why increased spending translates into better results.
Putting texas First
13
TEXAS PUBLIC EDUCATION AND SCHOOL FINANCE POLICY

Holly McIntush, Associate, Thompson & Horton LLP
exas has set an ambitious and vital goal for its public schools: to ensure that every Texas student finishes high school and graduates prepared to enter college or start a career. Everyone agrees that Texas future depends on our schools meeting this goal. According to the U.S. Department of Education, ninety percent of twenty-first century jobs will require some level of post-secondary education. For twenty plus years, sociologist and demographer Steve Murdock has warned us that Texas must increase the education and income levels of our growing minority population or we will face a dire economic and political future. Recognizing this, the Texas Legislature has mandated that schools offer a more demanding curriculum, that students pass a rigorous set of tests in order to advance to the next grade level or be promoted, and that teachers close the achievement gap separating low-income and minority students from their white, middle-class peers. In other words, Texas schools, students, and teachers are being graded on whether they are meeting this ambitious goal. The problem is this: the Legislature has not given Texas schools, students, or teachers the resources necessary to do so.
For twenty plus years, sociologist and demographer Steve Murdock has warned us that Texas must increase the education and income levels of our growing minority population or we will face a dire economic and political future.
The Curriculum To help prepare students to be college or career ready by the time they graduate, Texas public schools are required to teach an increasingly broad and demanding curriculum. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board worked together to develop College and Career Readiness Standards, which the State Board
Putting texas First
15
of Education then rolled into the mandated curriculum. The curriculum from pre-kindergarten all the way through grade twelve was strengthened and realigned to build toward these standards. Since the 2007-2008 school year, high school students have been automatically enrolled in the recommended or distinguished high school program, rather than the minimum high school program which means they have to take more and tougher classes to graduate. This more advanced track includes the 4x4 requirement: students must take four years each of mathematics, science, social studies and English language arts. Since the 2008-2009 school year, all school districts have been required to offer a minimum of 12 semester credit hours of college credit through dual credit, Advanced Placement, or International Baccalaureate courses. The Testing Requirements Beginning this school year, students will be tested using the State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR). STAAR includes annual exams in grades three through eight, plus a series of end-of-course exams that high school students must pass in order to graduate. The new exams are aligned to the more rigorous curriculum designed by TEA and the Coordinating Board. As a result, the STAAR exam is significantly more difficult than Texas previous standardized test. Not only are the questions themselves more difficult, the total number of questions has increased and, for the first time, the exam includes a time-limit. Also for the first time, the Legislature is requiring schools to factor the results from the exam into the students final classroom grade.11 Beginning next school year, Texas public schools will also be graded on how well students do on the new exam, including whether student performance is steadily improving, how many of their students are ready to enter college without the need for remedial classes, and whether they are making progress on closing the achievement gap. The Achievement Gap Even as the performance of Texas school children on the old test (the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills TAKS) steadily improved, there remained a troubling and persistent achievement gap. For example, at the eighth grade level, while 88% of white students passed the
math TAKS on its first administration, only 76% of Hispanics and 69% of African-American students did so. Only 73% of eighth graders identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged and only 55% of English language learners passed the same test on the first go around. A similar gap exists for every grade level and in every subject. If you look at the numbers for the higher college ready performance level, which is closer to the levels students will be expected to perform to on the STAAR, the problem is even more daunting. In 2010, 70% of white students met the college ready level on the English language arts TAKS, compared to 52% of Hispanics, 51% of African-Americans, 49% of economically disadvantaged students, and 10% of English language learners. When you consider that the higher drop-out rate among poor and minority students means fewer of them even take the exit-level test, you begin to see the extent of the challenge facing Texas public schools and teachers. Because the very populations that are being left behind are those that are growing the most rapidly, what Steve Murdock said in 2003 is still true today: if we dont take positive steps to close the achievement gap, Texas will have a population that not only will be poorer, less well educated, and more in need of numerous forms of state services, but also less able to support such services.12 In other words, the future of Texas is tied to the future of its non-Anglo populations, and how well they do is how well Texas will do.13 The Funding Deficit At the same time Texas schools and students are being held to a much higher standard, their funding has been cut. Funding for Texas schools was cut by $5.4 billion during the 2011 legislative session. Approximately $4 billion of this cut came from the basic per student formulas. The results of these cuts are already being felt in Texas schools. Thousands of teachers have been laid off, causing class sizes to increase. TEA has since received a record number of requests to exceed the state-mandated class size of limit of 22 students. Furthermore, everyone expects the cuts to have an even bigger impact in the second year of the biennium.
Putting texas First
17
At the same time Texas schools and students are being held to a much higher standard, their funding has been cut.
Perhaps most disturbingly, much of the other $1.4 billion in cuts came from special programs aimed at helping to close the achievement gap. Grants for full day pre-kindergarten which is vital to ensuring that poor and minority students start kindergarten ready to learn were eliminated. Funding was reduced significantly for tutoring, credit recovery, and drop-out prevention programs.
The funding cuts have also caused the system to become inequitable and inefficient.
The funding cuts have also caused the system to become inequitable and inefficient. The Legislature has established two distinct funding mechanisms: (1) the target-revenue system, which is arbitrarily tied to the funding levels of 2006-2007; and (2) a formula-based system that has not been updated in decades and does not reflect the actual differences in education costs across districts and student populations. Together, these two mechanisms have created unjustifiable funding differences among school districts. Furthermore, even before last sessions funding cuts, neither mechanism was tied to the actual cost of meeting the accountability standards or helping students become college and career ready. Because both mechanisms are underfunded, the Legislature cannot simply redistribute the money that is currently in the system and level-down on a funds available basis.
18
Putting texas First

THE WAY FORWARD
eve long recognized that the ability of Texas public schools to do their job to, in the words of our Texas Constitution, ensure a general diffusion of knowledge is vital to the functioning of our state. With the growing and changing economy, the Legislature has rightly determined that a general diffusion of knowledge requires Texas students to graduate from high school prepared to enter college or the work force. And so, the Legislature has built a rigorous accountability system designed to measure their progress towards meeting this goal. But our Constitution also says it is the Legislatures duty to make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system so that schools have the ability to achieve a general diffusion of knowledge. In other words, the Legislature must equitably fund districts at a level high enough to allow all Texas public schools to provide a quality education to all students.
The Legislature must provide our schools with equitable, adequate, and suitable funding so that they can continue moving forward toward the goal of preparing every student for college or a career.
By cutting funds to public schools at the same time it is increasing accountability standards, the Legislature has failed in its duty. The Legislature must provide our schools with equitable, adequate, and suitable funding so that they can continue moving forward toward the goal of preparing every student for college or a career.
Putting texas First
19
PUBLIC EDUCATION FACTS AND FIGURES
HOW TEXAS RANKS Pupil-teacher ratio in public elementary and secondary schools in 2009: 23rd at 14.514 Estimated average salary of public school teachers in 2011: 33rd at $48,26115 Average teachers salary as a percent of average annual pay in 2009: 48th at 104.4%16 Percent of population 25 or older with a high school diploma in 2009: 50th at 79.9%17 Public education expenditures per student in 2008-09: 44th at $8,61018 Public education expenditures per student as a percent of the national average in 2008-09: 44th at 83.5%19 Percent of public school fourth graders proficient or better in reading in 2011: 38th at 28%20 Percent of public school eighth graders proficient or better in reading in 2011: 39th at 27%21 Percent of public school fourth graders proficient or better in math in 2011: 28th at 39%22 Percent of public school eighth graders proficient or better in math in 2009: 12th at 40%23
20
Putting texas First
DETAILS
The 2012-13 budget cuts public education funding by $5.4 billion, including a $4 billion cut to the Foundation School Program.24 The 2012-13 budget is the first time in modern history of funding public schools that the state did not fund student population growth. 25 Due to budget cuts, three times as many elementary classrooms have been allowed to exceed the states classsize limit in 2011 compared to 2010. 26 A statewide survey of school districts suggests that 32,000 staff positions have been eliminated due to the 2011 budget cuts, and most districts anticipate additional staff losses next year.27 64.4% of Texas fourth graders are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, compared to the national average of 52%.28
Putting texas First
21

HIGHER EDUCATION
As with public education, maintaining a strong higher education system is crucial to sustaining and growing a robust state economy and ensuring a bright and prosperous future for Texans. Many groups and individuals have put forth proposals for reforming higher education in Texas. Katy Vedlitz discusses the important balance of making higher education more accessible while preserving and improving quality and excellence in our institutions.
Putting texas First
23
HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM MAKING A COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE

Katy Vedlitz, Policy and Program Director, Texas First Foundation
he U.S. system of higher education is revered worldwide. Students from across the globe desperately seek to enter our colleges and universities in order to get the best education to make them, and their home countries, successful, productive and competitive in the global marketplace. The state of Texas contributes significantly to this system of excellence, boasting six major public university systems and several more independent public colleges and universities. Texas A&M University and the University of Texas at Austin, our flagships, both rank in the top twenty public universities in the U.S.29 While the quality of education available at many Texas public universities remains exceptional, questions and concerns have been raised about cost and access to as well as efficiency and productivity within these institutions. As Texas budget troubles continue to loom, some budget writers see our state universities as a place to cut costs. Controversy over some policy groups higher education reform proposals has reached a fever pitch in the Texas A&M and the University of Texas communities. University administrators and faculty have pushed back strongly against efforts to pit research against teaching and to promote efficiency over quality. As these discussions continue, it is very important not to lose sight of the original purpose and incredible benefits of public universities. Sometimes people forget that public higher education is not a fee for service enterprise but, rather, a commitment by the public and their representatives to build the human capital we will need to meet the future demands our world will face. Public higher education is a public good, like health care or roads or a judicial system or K-12 education. It is something we invest in for the future, and it is also a system that gives great return on our investment.
Putting texas First
25
Economic Impact of Universities Universities drive the economy in three major ways. The first and most important way is by teaching and graduating talented students that go on to become productive members of the states workforce, innovating and creating more jobs for subsequent graduates. A highly educated workforce is the backbone of a strong economy. Public universities prepare graduates for careers in businesses, firms, nonprofits, and all levels of government. In these positions, they become the key players in the engines that drive our state, national, and global economies. The second way is by competing for and winning major contracts and research grants. The new money that comes into universities not only produces jobs and income, but it also has a ripple effect throughout communities and the state by way of real estate movement and generated tax revenue. Each dollar invested in higher education produces an estimated $5.50 in economic returns.30 In fiscal year 2010, Texas research institutions brought in $1.9 billion to the state in federal research grants alone.31 When private and other funding sources are included, these institutions spent $3.55 billion on research and development in 2010. Finally, many new technologies, ideas, and discoveries are a result of university research. Researchers work closely with businesses and industries to develop ideas and bring them to the marketplace. Collaboration between universities and the private sector contributes to innovation, economic growth, and job creation.
The challenge for Texas is to foster the development of more Tier One schools and continue a high level of quality, performance and cost efficiency while educating the coming generations of our growing and changing population.
Texas has four nationally recognized, or Tier One, research institutions, that drive the research and innovation that energizes the state economy. These include the University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M
University, the University of Houston, and Rice University. Seven other Texas universities are designated as emerging research universities, on the road to achieving the Tier One designation. The challenge for Texas is to foster the development of more Tier One schools and continue a high level of quality, performance and cost efficiency while educating the coming generations of our growing and changing population. Cost Saving and Efficiency Much of the debate over higher education reform stems from allegations by some groups that there is widespread inefficiency in university budgets and a lack of productivity or commitment to teaching among the faculty of public colleges and universities. By and large, these allegations are unfounded and do nothing but damage the reputation of our best schools and top quality faculty. Many Texas universities, particularly the flagships, are already some of the most efficient in their class in terms of cost vs. graduation rates.32 While graduation rates certainly have room for improvement, and many universities are working to improve them, universities in Texas are an excellent value when compared to those in other states. Growing enrollment numbers, and the tens of thousands more students who seek admission to our flagships, prove that. The state can do more to improve graduation rates and efficiency by ensuring that all students graduating from Texas high schools are prepared to succeed in college and by making sure that students have access to financial aid and other resources that make timely graduation possible. We cannot go backward by cutting budgets and salaries, reducing the value of research and faculty who perform research, or reducing the skill level and expertise of our university faculty. These specially-trained faculty members are crucial to maintaining the quality of our major universities and play a strong role in securing the economic future of our citizens and state.
Putting texas First
27
State Budget Cuts and Tuition In 2003, the Texas Legislature deregulated tuition at public universities, allowing individual governing boards to set tuition rates at their respective schools. Deregulation effectively allowed the Legislature to slash state funding for higher education while disconnecting itself from the resulting burdens placed on universities, students, and their families. State funding for public universities has steadily declined when adjusted for inflation and enrollment growth over the last several years.33 The 2011 legislative session was especially brutal for higher education, with drastic reductions to state-backed financial aid and significant cuts to university budgets.34 Universities increasingly are forced to make up for budget gaps by raising tuition and fees, cutting faculty and other staff, increasing class sizes, cutting programs, and reducing student scholarships. Tuition at public universities has nearly doubled since 2003.
In order to ensure that a quality college education remains affordable and accessible for all students, the state needs to make a renewed investment in public universities and student financial aid.
While Texas universities are still keeping their heads above water despite significant funding cuts, the long-term outlook does not bode well if tuition rates continue to escalate as the major source of school revenue. The state has a vested interest in making college affordable for students. In order to ensure that a quality college education remains affordable and accessible for all students, the state needs to make a renewed investment in public universities and student financial aid.
28
Putting texas First

THE WAY FORWARD
exas has a great tradition of excellence in higher education. Unfortunately, the tone of the debate surrounding higher education reform has become overly critical, skeptical, and judgmental. This is not fair to universities, nor is it a productive way to ensure that all Texans have an opportunity to receive a high quality college education.
The state must find more ways to invest in universities and student financial aid and reverse the trend of decreased state support of higher education.
Recent meetings of the Texas Legislatures new Joint Oversight Committee on Higher Education have been very encouraging. We are hopeful that future discussions will lead to productive, meaningful reforms during the 83rd Legislative Session. We offer the following recommendations to help guide the dialogue and see that Texas universities continue to excel well into the 21st century: 1. The Legislature must consider ways to fix the states broken tax structures, streamline revenue, and eliminate tax loopholes and inequalities in order to bring revenues in line with the needs of the state. This includes revamping the underperforming business margins tax to repair the states recurring structural deficit. The state must find more ways to invest in universities and student financial aid and reverse the trend of decreased state support of higher education. Increasing revenues and boosting state support for higher education could allow for an end to tuition deregulation, bringing tuition costs and increases back under legislative and voter control. 2. The Legislature should consider allowing universities to issue more tuition revenue bonds. During challenging economic times, bonds can be
Putting texas First
29
a good way for schools to invest in important infrastructure projects and at a minimal cost to the state. 3. Lawmakers must reverse cuts to elementary and secondary public education so that children have the educational foundation they need to succeed in college. Special consideration should be given to adequately funding Advanced Placement and other college readiness programs, which prepare students for college-level coursework at a relatively low cost. 4. Lawmakers should be wary of any one-size-fits-all approach to higher education reform. When considering ways increase efficiency and improve graduation rates, the Legislature should carefully study and weigh how policies will affect teaching and research quality at individual universities, particularly the Tier One and upcoming Tier One schools.
30
Putting texas First
HIGHER EDUCATION FACTS AND FIGURES
HOW TEXAS RANKS Percent of population 25 and older with a bachelors degree or more in 2009: 30th at 25.5%35 Six-year graduation rate of bachelors students: 34th at 48.5%36 Average in-state student costs at public institutions of higher education in 2010: 23rd at $13,76437 Enrollment rate in institutions of higher education in 2007: 43rd at 552 students per 1,000 population 18 to 24 years old38 Average SAT score: 47th at 144639
DETAILS
State general revenue appropriations to higher education totaled $12.2 billion for the 2012-13 biennium, a 6.1 percent decrease from $13.0 billion in the 2010-11 biennium.40 Legislative appropriations as a share of universities total funding sources decreased from 30% in 2004 to just 22% in 2011.41 In the 2011 legislative session, Texas eliminated financial aid for over 43,000 students, including 29,000 incoming students who will not be able to get a TEXAS Grant.42 From Fall 2006 to Fall 2010, enrollment in higher education in Texas grew from 1,199,814 to 1,445,157 a 17% increase in just four years.43
31
Putting texas First
By 2040, Texas will have about two million more children under 18, and one million more adults age 18 to 24 the traditional college age population than in 200044 An estimated 31% of Texas high school graduates going on to college are not prepared for college coursework.45 Between 2003 and 2010, tuition and fees at public universities increased by 83%, and with recent budget cuts, many universities are planning another round of tuition increases.46 Texas A&M University and the University of Texas at Austin are both ranked in the top 25 out of the 100 schools on Kiplingers 2011 Best Values in Public Colleges.47
32
Putting texas First

HEALTH CARE
Health care is one of the most daunting policy issues challenging lawmakers at the state and federal level, but it is also one of the most important. The Center for Public Policy Priorities Associate Director, Anne Dunkelberg, provides a comprehensive overview of some of the major issues in health care facing Texans and how the state can move forward to ensure that all Texans have access to quality care and the opportunity to lead a healthy life.
Putting texas First
33
STRONG MEDICINE FOR A HEALTHY TEXAS

Anne Dunkelberg, Associate Director, Center for Public Policy Priorities
exas faces big challenges to the health of our people and to their access to health care. These problems mirror those of the country at large, though in some instances our troubles are more extreme. Because the list of issues that affect Texans health and their ability to get care is long and tightly intertwined, the progress can be slow and the work hard. Still, real gains have been made in the last decade and real progress is both achievable and worth the effort. Obesity
Research confirms what those of us who grew up in the 1960s or before already suspected: that Texans eat vastly more high-fat, high-salt, high-sugar foods today than was true back when there were no fast food restaurants and even soda pop came in 6.5 ounce bottles.
Obesity-related health issues are not worst in Texas among the states but are plenty bad. Our growing Hispanic population (nearly 38% of Texans in 2010) has higher rates of chronic illnesses like diabetes that are linked to obesity, so much is at stake for the health of our population. Of course, contemporary American food habits and exercise trends are a big factor. Research confirms what those of us who grew up in the 1960s or before already suspected: that Texans eat vastly more high-fat, high-salt, highsugar foods today than was true back when there were no fast food restaurants and even soda pop came in 6.5 ounce bottles. Unhealthy foods today are cheap, plentiful, engineered to appeal to instinctive human appetites, and available in places where healthy wholesome fresh foods are missing. Changing patterns of consumption that are so pleasurable and commerce that are so profitable will likely require the kind of multi-year and multi-faceted change that reduced smoking over the last half a cenPutting texas First 35
tury, as both consumers and the economic powers involved resist rapid changes. Lack of access to safe and pleasant places to exercise, or to healthy foods and groceries in urban and rural food deserts contribute to the obesity problem. These barriers to a healthy lifestyle owe more to city planning shortcomings than to cultural or ethnic differences. Achievable, community-level changes across Texas can help ensure that low- and moderateincome Texans can eat right affordably and get regular exercise safely. Provider Shortages Health care provider shortages in Texas are among some of the worst in the country, and not simply in our large rural areas. Even Texas largest cities lack adequate supplies of certain kinds of care, and increasingly there are shortages across the state of doctors willing to see seniors on Medicare or children on Medicaid. With nearly one in three Texas working-age adults (ages 19-64) uninsured, the urgent need to grow the health care workforce in anticipation of more Texans gaining coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA, the 2010 national health reform law) is as serious here as anywhere in the U.S. But while the federal ACA has invested hundreds of millions in health training, Texas 2012-2013 state budget made deep cuts in programs training new health professionals. Health Care Affordability Financial barriers to care hamper solutions to Texas most basic health care challenges. Our uninsured rate one in four Texans is the nations highest, with some of the lowest rates of job-linked health benefits in the U.S., higher-than-average insurance premiums due to cost-shifting from the uninsured, and almost no state insurance rate regulation. Limits on Texas Medicaid coverage of working poor parents and significant numbers of immigrants who cannot use Medicaid or CHIP add to the uninsured pool. The huge number of uninsured undermines Texas ability to attack health challenges e.g., how best to provide community mental health services, improve prenatal care, reduce teen pregnancies, reduce obesity and diabetes and promote healthy lifestyles because
36
Putting texas First
financial barriers stop so many Texans from accessing the services and programs designed to address these issues.
Our uninsured rate one in four Texans is the nations highest, with some of the lowest rates of job-linked health benefits in the U.S., higher-thanaverage insurance premiums due to cost-shifting from the uninsured, and almost no state insurance rate regulation.
Affordable care for individual Texans and affordable systems of care for the state and nation are also interwoven. Our state illustrates the limitations of purely market-driven health care: that despite a phenomenally profitable and competitive health care and health insurance Texas marketplace, we still have the worst access to care in country. In reality, no nation or state provides access to decent minimum standard of affordable health care one that calls for a fair-share contribution but still protects citizens facing health crises from financial ruin unless the citizens prioritize establishing a system to ensure that access goal. Health care security unfortunately is not a natural by-product of a highly successful health care industry, nor does it necessarily result even where there are strong efforts to control costs and improve health care quality. Creating a system for financial access to good affordable care at all incomes was a central goal of the ACAs health reform, but most elected officials in Texas and the U.S. who oppose the ACA do not share or support that goal. Reform opponents generally advocate in a general way for reductions in health care spending, and some even support eliminating the guarantee of minimum care provided to seniors today through Medicare. This reflects a deep divide in vision of what Texas and America should be. Health Spending and Cost Containment Even with more than 6 million Texans and nearly 50 million people nationwide lacking access to decent care, our state and country still face a
Putting texas First 37
critical need to control the growth in health care spending as a bedrock component of addressing Americas long-term deficit and debt. The two big goals are (1) total health care spending that does not grow faster than general inflation or growth in the economy, and (2) public health programs that are actuarially sound, so that the dollars coming in cover or exceed spending going out. Over the last 30 years, Medicare per-person costs have inflated fastest, but care for the privately insured and Medicaid followed closely, and neck and neck. We cant get health care costs under control by looking just to Medicaid or Medicare reforms. We must work to re-direct our entire health system away from runaway growth and reckless spending. This presents a challenge every bit as big as weaning Americans from fast food. One mans smarter purchasing like only paying for things if they really work and improve health outcomes is another mans rationing or interfering with my doctors judgment. And, no matter how good the evidence for quality and effectiveness-related change, every health care business sector resists costs containment. Public Sector Role
In 2011 the average family premium for job-based health benefits was $15,073, which was nearly one-third of the median Texas household income of $48,615.
In addition, to provide access to decent care for all at an affordable price, a significant public-sector role has to be included. Without public financing of a sliding-scale system, low- and moderate-income Texans would only have limited or substandard care, because even average Texas family incomes are not high enough to support the average cost of family coverage to happen to make decent minimum standard of care available; in 2011 the average family premium for job-based health benefits was $15,073, which was nearly one-third of the median Texas household income of $48,615.
Making sure our health care system is sustainable requires attention to both spending controls and revenues. This means that Texans must choose between stepping up and addressing the fiscal needs of our public health care sector, or abandoning the promise of a decent modern standard of medical care for the majority of Americans. At home in Texas, we have to deal with the structural deficit (revenue shortage) that state legislative budget officials on both sides of the aisle now acknowledge creates an ongoing shortage of at least $10 billion every time the Legislature tries to write a two-year budget. Our broken revenue system means Texas cannot support its public schools, let alone educate the new doctors and nurses we need. The parallel federal challenge is to find a balance between sound revenue collection and cost containment and across the entire health care system. We must meet this challenge, unless we are willing to leave the majority of average Americans without access to the standards of modern medical science the U.S. has so proudly led the world in developing.
THE WAY FORWARD
he prescription for Texas is strong medicine: the courage to demand change from the many economic sectors that benefit today from health care overspending and from unhealthy eating. This also calls for a strong measure of self-discipline from us all as citizens: to be willing to understand that affordable health care requires us to take care of our own health, to be thrifty and smart consumers, and to each pay our fair share both in taxes and at the doctors office or drug store. If a majority of Texans can agree that our American dream is not only worth keeping alive, but also that real equality of opportunity must include access to decent affordable health care, then the hard work ahead is well worth doing and we will reap the benefits in a more prosperous future for our children and our state.
Putting texas First
39
HEALTH CARE FACTS AND FIGURES
HOW TEXAS RANKS Percent of overweight/obese children: 19th at 32.2%48 Percent of overweight/obese adults: 10th at 66.5%49 Percent of population uninsured: 1st at 26%50 Percent of children uninsured: 1st at 18%51 Physicians per 10,000 population: 41st at 21.552 Registered nurses per 100,000 population: 42nd at 70153 Nurse practitioners per 100,000 population: 47th at 3454 Dentists per 10,000 population: 43rd at 4.655 Percent of households with food insecurity in 2009: 2nd at 17.4%56 Average monthly benefit per participant in Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) special nutrition program in 2010: 50th at $26.8657 Teen Pregnancy Rate: 4th in 2005 at 88 pregnancies per 1,000 teen girls age 15-1958
40
Putting texas First
DETAILS
In 2008, only 58% of Texas births obtained prenatal care in the first trimester.59 In 2009, 23% of Texans were living in poverty. 32% of children were living in poverty.60 In 2009, about 17% of the nonelderly population in the United States were uninsured. In Texas, that figure was 26%.61 Average family health insurance premiums in Texas were $14,526 in 2010, higher than the national average of $13,871.62 In 2011, the national average family health premium jumped by 9%, to $15,073.63
Putting texas First
41

ENVIRONMENT
Drought, wildfires, rolling blackouts, pollution and water shortages are only a few of the environmental challenges that Texas is facing and will continue to face over the next several years. David Weinberg, Executive Director of the Texas League of Conservation Voters, gives an overview of some of the key issues that policymakers will grapple with this year and beyond.
Putting texas First
43
TEXAS AND THE ENVIRONMENT: KEY ISSUES DRIVING PUBLIC POLICY IN 2012
David Weinberg, Executive Director, Texas League of Conservation Voters
012 will be a rocky road for environmental policy in Texas, with the state facing critical environmental challenges involving contentious issues related to water, electric reliability, and jobs. These issues will drive public policy debate in 2012 and into the 2013 state legislative session. Looking back at 2011, state lawmakers seemed to recognize the need for greater environmental regulation, highlighted by the passage of a mandatory disclosure law for hydraulic fracturing fluids, as well as market reforms that will enable more use of energy efficiency and renewable energy. Positive legislation also passed the Texas Legislature in the areas of water conservation and recycling. Fewer regulatory rollbacks gained traction than expected. However, state legislative gains were largely offset by a state budget that delivered some of the most perilous cuts to conservation and the environment in the history of our state. To highlight one egregious shortcoming, the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife announced at the end of 2011 that they were making an appeal to the public to help close a $4.6 million dollar hole in the state parks systems budget. Successful clean-air programs also suffered. Water, Drought & Wildfires 2011 was the kind of record year that we hope never to see again. Drought and wildfires have taken a multi-billion dollar toll in direct and indirect costs to Texans, our communities and businesses, as well as to the environment. Climatologists and meteorologists expect the drought to last through at least the summer of 2012, and perhaps far longer. The drought, in turn, has been the perfect storm for a wildfire season that also broke record books by scorching more than 3.9 million acres in the past year. As disastrous as the drought was during 2011, a continuation of these conditions, along with the consistent failure of state leaders to address underlying issues, places us at grave risk.
As disastrous as the drought was during 2011, a continuation of these conditions, along with the consistent failure of state leaders to address underlying issues, places us at grave risk.
How the state deals with these immediate impacts and long-term challenges of the drought, including dwindling water supplies and agricultural losses, is on a priority list of interim charges items for the legislature to study between sessions set out by Lt. Governor David Dewhurst64 and House Speaker Joe Straus.65 A wide range of charges touch on the drought and wildfire prevention aimed at mitigating the skyrocketing costs of these two natural disasters on our state. It appears that everything from funding for volunteer firefighters to desalination as a solution to our water shortage woes is on the table for further review and consideration. Green Jobs and Electric Reliability 2012 will be a critical year for power generation in Texas, with a variety of factors combining to create a real capacity crunch and a need for new ideas. New U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) public-health regulations regarding mercury, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide, as well as market conditions lowering the price and production cost of alternative energy sources like wind and natural gas, may lead to the retirement of some of Texas older, dirtier coal fired plants. The drought also may affect the ability of these and other water-hungry fossil-fuel plants to operate. These factors, along with laws passed in the last state legislative session may help state leaders forge a path toward a meaningful expansion of renewable energy and energy efficiency programs in Texas. In particular, the Public Utility Commission (PUC), through rulemaking and policy changes, should encourage the expansion of energy efficiency programs, as well as availability of renewable energy on the Texas grid. An emphasis on energy efficiency will reduce demands on the grid and save consumers money, all while creating good-paying green jobs. The states construction of new power lines to West Texas is helping improve transmission
capacity and should expand the potential for large-scale wind and solar projects in the state.
An emphasis on energy efficiency will reduce demands on the grid and save consumers money, all while creating good-paying green jobs.
Self-regulated power providers, including municipal and rural cooperatives, will also play a major role in Texas green energy future: San Antonios CPS Energy and Austins Austin Energy made public commitments to contract for hundreds of new megawatts of wind and solar generating capacity. These are the sorts of positive steps forward that can place Texas on a path toward widespread adoption of renewable energy and create new jobs in the green energy sector. Hydraulic Fracturing Hydraulic fracturing, the controversial practice of using pressure to extract oil and gas from deep shale formations, remains one of the most debated environmental issues both in Texas and nationwide. The Texas Legislature made headlines in 2011 when Texas became the first state to pass a mandatory hydraulic fracturing fluid disclosure law. The Texas Railroad Commission moved quickly on adopting a rule for the new law, which became final in December of 2011. The Texas Legislature also authorized increased air monitoring in the heavily-populated Barnett Shale region in and around Fort Worth, and the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality is set to start air monitoring in the gas and oil rich Eagle Ford region of south Texas in early 2012. Nationally, the EPA is continuing a comprehensive study on hydraulic fracturing. The EPA will release initial study results in a 2012 report and an additional report at the end of 2014. In the U.S. Congress, the FRAC Act was reintroduced in 2011. This bill would have ended the exemption from the Clean Water Act for oil and gas drilling passed in a 2005 energy
Putting texas First
47
bill. The bill did not pass, but legislation on hydraulic fracturing is likely to be seen again in Congress in 2012. Environmental Protection Agency Rulemaking Federal EPA rules and regulations guide and shape much of our states environmental policy. Politics continues to drive the public debate on many EPA rules, with science and the health of Texans (in particular pregnant women, infants, and the elderly) often taking a backseat. Unfortunately this is bad news for Texans: beyond the health impacts, turning the regulatory process into a political football creates an environment in which companies are unwilling to invest new capital. Following is a review of some of the most impactful federal environmental rulemaking affecting Texans: Cross-State Air Pollution Rule The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) would impose caps on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide that drift across state borders. It applies to Texas and 26 eastern states, regulating pollution from sulfur dioxide, which leads to acid rain, and nitrogen oxide, a component of groundlevel ozone, which is a leading contributor to smog and global warming; both emissions are known public health hazards.
Texas consumes more electricity and uses more coal than any other state, which, according to the EPA, accounts for 98 percent of sulfur dioxide and 92 percent of nitrogen oxide released into the air by power plants.
Texas consumes more electricity and uses more coal than any other state, which, according to the EPA, accounts for 98 percent of sulfur dioxide and 92 percent of nitrogen oxide released into the air by power plants. The fight over CSAPR implementation and its long-term impact on Texas and surrounding states, however, is far from decided. A Texas lawsuit
against the EPA was filed September 20, 2011, and on December 30, 2011, the court stayed the EPA rule. Maximum Available Control Technology (Mercury/Power Plants) In March 2011, the EPA released standards aimed at limiting emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from industrial boilers, most notably found at power plants, chemical plants, refineries and paper mills. By controlling these plants pollution through a MACT (Maximum Available Control Technology) rule, EPAs air toxics safeguard will protect Americans from breathing arsenic, lead, acid gases and mercury. Even in small amounts, MACT pollutants can be life threatening and are linked to cancer, birth defects and brain damage.
Even in small amounts, MACT pollutants can be life threatening and are linked to cancer, birth defects and brain damage.
The positive health benefits, reduction in health care costs and job creation driven by a switch to cleaner technologies and energy sources would certainly offset the compliance costs of the rule. Yet, the rules opponents argue that it would put one-fifth of the nations coal-fired electric generational capacity into retirement. As more of these facilities are converted to natural gas, as renewable energy gains broader adoption, and as coal facilities are shuttered for other reasons, the oppositions argument appears far less salient.66 Ozone Rule The ozone rule proposed by the EPA, which is also stalled, would help Texas meet and maintain national standards for ground level ozone and fine particle pollution (smog) which affects the health of thousands of Americans. The ozone rule would tighten requirements for pollution from a broad range of sources, including vehicles. This proposal has been
Putting texas First
49
delayed by heated industry lobbying that pushed the Obama administration to postpone a review of the rule until 2013.
The ozone rule is especially important to air quality in Texas due to the fact that more than 20 counties in Texas, including the cities of Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth, have ozone levels that health scientists have determined threaten human well-being, and were designated for non-attainment for EPAs health based standards for ozone pollution.
The ozone rule is especially important to air quality in Texas due to the fact that more than 20 counties in Texas, including the cities of Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth, have ozone levels that health scientists have determined threaten human well-being, and were designated for nonattainment for EPAs health based standards for ozone pollution. While the Clean Air Act standard in existence today is helping to keep the air healthier for Texans and bring many counties into attainment, improved standards would accelerate and expand the number of counties coming into attainment while also reducing ground level particle pollution, too. Keystone XL Pipeline A robust debate continues from 2011 on whether the United States should allow the construction of an oil pipeline to bring Canadian tar sands to U.S. refineries. The proposed pipeline would traverse sensitive lands, waterways and public spaces across Canada and the U.S., including the Ogallala Aquifer here in Texas all the way up to the Dakotas. Every major U.S. environmental organization opposes this proposed $7 billion project, because squeezing oil out of tar sand is a wasteful and dirty process. To get a single barrel of oil from tar sand, you must process between two to four tons of tar sand with two to four barrels of water. The massive pits required to develop tar sand destroys forests and wildlife and leaves a massive blight on the landscape, especially in the boreal forest
ENVIRONMENT FACTS AND FIGURES
HOW TEXAS RANKS Fossil fuel emissions in 2009: 1st at 630,500,000 tons of CO267 Total pollution released in 2009: 2nd at 189,779,393 pounds of toxins68 Percent of electricity generated through renewable sources in 2008: 28th at 4.6%69 Average monthly electric bill for residential customers in 2009: 4th at $14170 Average monthly electric bill for commercial customers in 2009: 14th at $66571 Per capita energy expenditures in 2008: 5th at $6,80372
DETAILS
The Bastrop Fire that burned in summer 2011 was the most destructive fire in Texas history, destroying over 1,500 homes.73 According to Texas A&M University, the drought caused a record $5.2 billion in agricultural losses alone.74 In 2011, Texas suffered through the second hottest summer in the history of the United States an average of 86.7F from June through August.75 In 2011, Texas experienced the worst single-year drought in the history of the state.76
Putting texas First
52
A relatively unseen impact of the drought, groundwater levels in much of Texas have fallen to the lowest levels in more than 60 years.77
Putting texas First
53

CIVIL JUSTICE AND CONSUMER RIGHTS
Consumer safeguards that protect the public have come under attack in recent years, and Texans access to the civil justice system has been compromised by special interests and industry protections that limit corporate liability. Alex Winslow, Executive Director of the citizen watchdog group Texas Watch, gives an overview of some of the blows to civil justice that have been dealt over the last decade.
Putting texas First
55
56
Putting texas First
CORPORATE IMMUNITY HURTS TEXAS FAMILIES

Alex Winslow, Executive Director, Texas Watch
he civil justice system was designed by our Founders to ensure public accountability for civil harms. The constitutions of both the United States and Texas guarantee access to the courts, as well as a trial by jury, in civil disputes. Without access to the civil justice system, individuals lose the ability to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable for needless death, injury, or financial devastation.
Without access to the civil justice system, individuals lose the ability to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable for needless death, injury, or financial devastation.
Over the last decade, however, Texas politicians and lobbyists have enacted a series of devastating legal changes that severely restrict the rights of individuals, families, and small business owners. These changes have made Texas a more dangerous place in which the value of accountability has been discarded. Below are some of the most dangerous and far-reaching changes enacted over the last decade: Arbitrary Damage Limits: Texas has imposed an arbitrary, one-size-fitsall restriction on what a patient can recover from a negligent physicians liability insurance company. This effectively deprives many patients and their families of due process without fulfilling the promise to improve access to care for rural and under-served communities or to reduce the cost of care for families and taxpayers. Nursing Homes: Texas allows nursing homes to go bare and forgo liability insurance coverage altogether. Additionally, the Texas Supreme Court determined that virtually any claim against a nursing home even spider bites and sexual assault is considered medical negligence, giving
nursing home operators even greater protections against accountability. Texas ranks second-to-last in nursing home staffing ratios and a quarter of all nursing home facilities in Texas have the nations worst quality rating.
Texas ranks second-to-last in nursing home staffing ratios and a quarter of all nursing home facilities in Texas have the nations worst quality rating.
Dangerous Products: Despite their claims to support local control, Texas politicians force state courts to defer to unelected, unaccountable federal bureaucrats to determine the safety of a product. If a product meets federal guidelines it is assumed to be safe. This deprives state judges and juries of their ability to independently determine the safety of a particular product. Asbestos Poisoning: Texas has placed severe restrictions on workers who have been poisoned by exposure to asbestos by imposing impairment criteria that exceed those established by medical authorities and placing stringent filing requirements on sickened workers. Winners Pay: In Texas, if plaintiffs reject a defendants settlement offer so that they can make their case before a jury of their peers, the plaintiff could be forced to pay a defendants legal costs even if he or she wins in court. In other words, a plaintiff could bring a valid claim that is approved by a judge, have a jury rule in his or her favor and award damages only to be forced to pay the wrongdoers legal costs, erasing the entire judgment in the process. Windstorm Insurance: After Hurricane Ike, the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association (TWIA), the states windstorm insurer of last resort, was caught allegedly engaging in unfair claims handling practices. Rather than crack down on the insurance provider, lawmakers restricted the legal rights of policyholders by removing key penalties for wrongdoing by TWIA. Additionally, the legislature stripped judges and juries of their power, giving it to an unelected expert panel, required policyholders
58
Putting texas First
to pay extra to retain their full constitutional rights, and forced claimants into a Byzantine claims process.
THE WAY FORWARD
exas lawmakers must begin the process of making the constitutional promise of open access to our courts a reality by enacting real legal reforms that protect families and small business owners. This would give Texans the opportunity to have their disputes resolved by an impartial jury of their peers. This would restore meaningful public accountability for wrongdoers who cause needless harm to individuals, which will deter corporate misconduct and make our state safer.
Putting texas First
59
CIVIL JUSTICE FACTS AND FIGURES
HOW TEXAS RANKS Average premium for homeowners insurance in 2009: 1st at $1,51178 Average premium for auto insurance in 2009: 11th at $1,02279 Homeownership rate in 2008: 45th at 65.5%80 Income inequality between the rich and the poor: 9th81 Income inequality between the rich and the middle class: 5th82
DETAILS
The average annual cost of Texans homeowner insurance policies, $1,511, is almost double the national average of $880.83 Low- and moderate-income Texas families bear a disproportionate share of state and local taxes. Texas has the fifth most regressive state and local tax system of the 50 states.84 Since Texas instituted its medical liability limits in 2003, the number of payments made on behalf of Texas doctors to compensate patients for medical errors fell more than 50 percent between 2003 and 2010, and the value of those payments fell by nearly 65 percent.85
60
Putting texas First

CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Criminal justice policy in Texas, like the rest of the United States, is making a shift away from incarceration to other alternatives like rehabilitation and crime prevention. Ana Yez-Correa, Executive Director of the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, discusses the history of criminal justice in Texas, the challenges we face, and the right path forward to make sure that our justice system is safe, fair and efficient.
Putting texas First
61
TEXAS CRIMINAL JUSTICE LANDSCAPE

Ana Yez-Correa, Executive Director, Texas Criminal Justice Coalition
exas has made great strides in efforts to improve its criminal justice system; however, we have far to go to truly see a system that is just, effective, accountable, cost-efficient, and humane. With 1 in 22 Texans currently under some form of supervision,86 taxpayers are spending billions of dollars on incarceration every year. We must re-examine where we can improve the system so we can achieve a stronger return on our investment. Why Does Criminal Justice Reform Matter? Texas historic tough-on-crime mentality with its corresponding failure to fully invest in diversions/treatment programming for individuals over the long term has resulted in a criminal justice system that is deficient in several critical areas, leading to the following: Substandard indigent defense and wrongful convictions Continued weaknesses in court and conviction practices lead to unequal sentencing and fill jail and prison beds. In large part, this is caused by Texas indigent defense finance structure, under which individual counties shoulder approximately 85% of the costs related to meeting the constitutional requirement to provide indigent defense services.87
More than half of all inmates in Texas jails (totaling approximately 70,000 per day) have not yet been convicted of a crime.
An ongoing lack of support for public defenders offices or other defense delivery options leaves defendants sitting in jail awaiting trial. More than half of all inmates in Texas jails (totaling approximately 70,000 per day) have not yet been convicted of a
Putting texas First
63
crime.88 Public defender offices can significantly reduce the numoffices significantly ber of days between defendants arrest and trial, helping them more promptly return to their obligations in the community.89 The state has a responsibility to the victims of crime, as well as to individuals convicted of those crimes, to do everything within its means to ensure that innocent individuals are not sent to prison. Yet more than 40 men have had their convictions overturned in Texas as a result of DNA testing on evidence from the case, having collectively spent more than 500 years in prison for crimes that they did not commit.90 More than 84% of wrongful convictions in Texas are due to eyewitness misidentification.91 The over-criminalization of low-level offenses Outdated practices, including race-based policing, as well as the criminalization of nonviolent individuals (including noncitizens), drive up arrests for low-level offenses and significantly contribute to prison and jail overcrowding.
State-level facilities: Approximately 48% of individuals incarcerated in Texas adult prisons and state jails are there for nonviolent offenses.92 These 73,000 nonviolent individuals are costing taxpayers more than $3.7 million daily.93
At an average per-inmate cost of $45 per day, counties are spending drastic portions of their budgets on the confinement of oftentimes low-risk, nonviolent individuals.
Local county jails: With nearly 70,000 individuals incarcerated in Texas 245 county jails every day more than 10,000 of which are misdemeanants94 Texas has six of the 50 largest national jail populations.95 At an average per-inmate cost of $45 per day,96 counties are spending drastic portions of
64
Putting texas First
their budgets on the confinement of oftentimes low-risk, nonviolent individuals. Corresponding lack of pre- and post-conviction diversions Texas corrections and probation agencies are consolidated, with one pot of money biannually allocated to address the discrete agencies mission and activities. Currently, hard incarceration accounts for more than 88% of the states spending in this area (more than $6 billion), while only 12% is allocated to diversions97 that are proven to be more cost-efficient98 and programmatically effective.99 A re-entry system that fails to support returning individuals The re-entry process must begin inside jail and prison facilities. However, the lack of evidence-based risk/needs assessments, a corresponding lack of programs/services, and poor conditions of confinement within state and county facilities each fail to adequately prepare individuals for their reintegration into Texas communities. Annually, over 70,000 people leave Texas prisons,100 while a million individuals cycle through local jails.101 Various barriers and restrictions prevent the successful re-entry of many of these people into the community, including housing, employment, benefits and assistance, education, medical and mental health services, and community involvement. Without assistance for those exiting confinement, rates of re-offending remain high102 along with associated enforcement and re-incarceration costs. Texas parole system poses its own problems, as it is under-staffed and under-funded. Backlogs with programming and housing availability also cause parole to become a bottleneck for those otherwise eligible for release. And the parole systems oversight agencies the Parole Division and Parole Board often assign conflicting release terms to parolees, increasing their opportunity for revocation.
Putting texas First
65
Recent History of Criminal Justice Reform in Texas Texas criminal justice system has gone through major periods of change throughout the past decade, with tough-on-crime strategies slowly being replaced by more smart-on-crime alternatives. However, periodic budget crises have forced legislators hands, causing cuts to critical treatment and diversion funds that are imperative in creating an infrastructure focused on saving taxpayers money, increasing public safety, and boosting the strength of our communities. From 2003 to 2011, 73 new reforms positively changed the course of Texas criminal justice and re-entry systems, resulting in massive taxpayer savings and an 18% drop in crime rate between 2003 and 2010.103 We are now seeing a greater emphasis on indigent defense delivery, fewer probation/parole revocations, fewer persons sentenced to prison, higher parole approval rates, and historic advances in re-entry. In 2007, according to the Legislative Budget Board, Texas faced a projected prison population increase of up to 17,000 inmates by 2012 if Texas pace of incarceration continued. Rather than agree to spend $2.63 billion over five years on new prison construction and operations,104 policymakers worked collaboratively to reinvest a fraction of this amount $241 million in probation, parole, and treatment beds.105 Despite a $27 billion budget shortfall, several new policies enacted during the 82nd Legislative Session will strengthen Texas families and communities while saving taxpayers millions of dollars, including through the preservation of diversion and treatment programming as well as new alternatives to incarceration. Specifically, we saw reforms in the following key areas: Indigent defense and innocence: creation of new Texas Indigent Defense Commission to develop standards and policies for indigent defendants at the trial, appeal, and post-conviction stages; improved witness identification procedures; and greater postconviction DNA testing availability.
66
Putting texas First
Sentencing and efficiency: allowance of diligent participation credits for state jail felons who complete self-improvement, work, or vocational programs. Probation: allowance of self-improvement programming incentives for probationers; creation of a permissive incentive-based funding program through which counties set goals to reduce the number of nonviolent prison commitments. Re-entry: requirement that judges disclose to criminal defendants, prior to being placed on deferred adjudication community supervision, their later right to petition the court for an order of nondisclosure; expansion of opportunities for an expunction of ones criminal record.
2012-2013 Budget Cuts Despite these legislative achievements, the states massive budget shortfall did result in fewer dollars to some rehabilitative and treatment areas, as policy-makers corrections priority largely continued to favor prisons and hard incarceration. First, a $100 million reduction in allocations to the correction systems medical provider (University of Texas Medical Branch), without corresponding strategies to lower the patient population, risks higher long-term medical costs for those unable to be treated in a preventative or timely matter, and potential costly lawsuits against the state for failing to provide a constitutional level of care. Cuts to frontline mental health service providers are similarly alarming given the high percentage of individuals who cycle through prisons and jails with mental health diagnoses, and given the considerable taxpayer dollars spent warehousing these individuals as they await an open bed at a state hospital.106
Loss of staff and course offerings will result in fewer GED certifications and post-secondary opportunities, and higher potential recidivism rates.
Putting texas First
67
Policy-makers also reduced the budget for in-prison educational and vocational programming by nearly 30%, with a projected 16,750 individuals losing their seats in Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) classrooms as a result of the cuts.107 Loss of staff and course offerings will result in fewer GED certifications and post-secondary opportunities, and higher potential recidivism rates. Furthermore, overall staffing cuts at TDCJ were drastic: with 2,000 fewer full-time personnel, but no largescale strategies to significantly reduce prison populations, remaining staff and inmates alike face greater safety and security risks, with associated potential staff retention problems for TDCJ administrators in the coming biennium.
THE WAY FORWARD
ll stakeholders must work to identify and promote safe, responsible alternatives to incarceration that counter the states wasteful confinement policies and practices. We must collectively strive for strategies that will minimize the entry points into the juvenile and criminal justice systems, as well as address the root causes of criminal behavior both of which will lessen the devastating impact that many of our state policies and practices have on families, and help people become and stay law abiding, productive community members. Public safety and immigration: We must advocate for best practices in law enforcement, seeking to equip community members and law enforcement with the tools to work together to implement effective, public safety-focused, value-driven police services. Indigent defense and innocence: We must advocate for systemic change to better ensure that indigent defendants are both informed of their right to request counsel and are granted timely appointment of counsel that serves their best interests. Regarding innocence, we must seek strengthened innocence-focused policies and practices through measures that will impart more fairness, procedural safeguards, and efficiency for both criminal defendants and the wrongfully imprisoned.
Putting texas First
68
Sentencing and efficiency: Advocates must promote the adoption of programs/practices that use risk-reduction strategies to identify and address individuals criminal behavior. We must also promote the full utilization of mechanisms that safely reduce the length of stay for incarcerated individuals. Furthermore, we must advocate for practices that strengthen safety, accountability, transparency, and efficiency within the criminal justice system, including through policies that address poor conditions of confinement. Diversions: Through educational outreach at the county and state levels, advocates must vocalize the critical need for increased resources to implement and improve community-based diversion programs and treatment options for substance abuse and mental health problems. Advocates must also push policy-makers to continually re-invest cost savings realized under alternative-toincarceration policies and practices in diversion programs and risk-reduction programming/services.
Per-day prison costs to the state total $50.79 per individual, whereas probation only totals $1.30 and parole totals $3.74. Put another way, the cost of 10 days in prison is equal nearly 13 months on probation or 5 months on parole.
Probation and parole: Sustaining the states probation and parole revocation rates as some of the lowest in the country is key to eliminating the future need for prison and jail construction and saving millions in day-to-day incarceration costs. Per-day prison costs to the state total $50.79 per individual, whereas probation only totals $1.30 and parole totals $3.74.108 Put another way, the cost of 10 days in prison is equal nearly 13 months on probation or 5 months on parole.
Putting texas First
69
Re-Entry: We must ensure that corrections facilities provide sufficient access to treatment and programming tailored towards a successful re-entry. Furthermore, returning individuals must be connected with available information and services necessary to successfully re-enter Texas communities, while community-based re-entry providers must be sufficiently resourced to provide necessary assistance to the returning population.
70
Putting texas First
CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACTS AND FIGURES
HOW TEXAS RANKS Crime rate in 2009: 2nd at 4,506.4 crimes per 100,000 population109 State prisoner imprisonment rate in 2009: 5th at 648 state prisoners per 100,000 population110 Total executions since 1976: 1st at 476111 Per capita state and local government expenditures for police protection in 2008: 34th at $231112 Per capita state and local government expenditures for judicial and legal services in 2008: 40th at $90113 State Mental Health Agency per-capita expenditures: 51st114 Total number of exonerations (including DNA exonerations): 3rd at 78115
DETAILS
One in 22 Texans are under some form of supervision in the states criminal justice system.116 During fiscal year 2010, the 72,909 nonviolent individuals on hand in state prisons and state jails alone cost taxpayers more than $3.6 million daily.117 More than 40 men have had their convictions overturned in Texas as a result of DNA testing on evidence from the case, having collectively spent more than 500 years in prison for crimes that they did not commit.118
71
Putting texas First

TRANSPORTATION
Two of the most fundamental issues in state transportation policy include how the state pays for roads and who owns them. Melissa Cubria, Advocate for the Texas Public Interest Research Group, analyzes the issues surrounding toll roads and road privatization. An op-ed by former Rep. Jim Dunnam gives a glimpse into the status of transportation funding as the state piles on more and more debt to pay for infrastructure needs.
Putting texas First
73
74
Putting texas First
THE HIDDEN COSTS OF ROAD PRIVATIZATION

Melissa Cubria, Advocate, Texas Public Interest Research Group
When infrastructure is privatized (or corporatized), the decisions about its size, shape and placement are driven by market demand. The private partners are interested in elements of infrastructure that can yield the longest and strongest streams of privately capturable revenue not the ones that yield the largest public benefits.119 A Worrisome Trend
t is easy to see why many states are turning to privatized infrastructure in order to repair, build, modernize, and operate highways and other public assets. Cash-strapped states and cities are drawn by up-front payments or the potential to move costs off budget by substituting private user fees rather than taxes. They may also see privatization as a way to shift future financial risks to private contractors.
The common terms of road privatization deals restrict the publics ability to act on its own behalf, force the state to pay privatization companies when those companies claim they would have reaped more revenue if not for state actions, and reduce the publics right to know information about how public functions are performed and how public dollars are spent.
In Texas, proposals for private toll roads have come under much criticism, prompting heated debates with most public attention paid to soaring toll rates, seizures of ranch land through eminent domain, and concerns about foreign corporations owning vital Texas roads. Largely neglected from these debates has been a discussion about the long-term effects of standard provisions of privatization contracts. The common terms of road privatization deals restrict the publics ability to act on its own behalf, force the state to pay privatization companies when those companies
claim they would have reaped more revenue if not for state actions, and reduce the publics right to know information about how public functions are performed and how public dollars are spent. Non-Compete Clauses Eliminating competition would seem to undermine a basic argument for privatized roads that ongoing choice between competing products in the free market will spur better performance and reduce costs. However, investors in a particular privatization project are looking for profit, not competition. They seek to avoid competition, especially if the project will last for many years, because the threat of competition makes their future revenues less certain. For that reason, investors often demand non-compete clauses which, for instance, can restrict the publics ability to build or upgrade transportation infrastructure near existing private roadways if the states structure will compete with the toll revenue on the existing private toll road. The fact that in Texas private toll road contracts last as long as 52 years means that they create a state-sanctioned monopoly rather than competition among private companies. Private investors additionally seek to use non-compete clauses to eliminate potential competition from the public sector. For example, the contract for SH 130 Segments 5 & 6 in Central Texas includes a non-compete provision that requires that the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) pay Cintra-Zachry for lost profits if state projects reduce toll traffic, such as from the widening or construction of competing roads. Texas lawmakers were concerned to learn about the non-compete provision in the deal for SH 130 Segments 5 & 6 and held hearings and legislative study groups to examine the road privatization projects closely. In 2007, Texas lawmakers ultimately revoked the states ability to enter into private toll road deals known in Texas as Comprehensive Development Agreements (CDAs). Several projects already in the works were exempt from what is known as the moratorium bill (SB 792). A partial ban on non-compete clauses was also included in the moratorium legislation, along with several other provisions governing the terms of the deals.120 Unfortunately, the partial ban on non-compete provisions did not ad76 Putting texas First
equately protect the public because Texas lawmakers granted private toll road investors another way to secure their future profits. Compensation Provisions and Adverse Actions Rather than outright forbidding the public from promoting competition, road privatization contracts in Texas can instead stipulate that the public must pay steep compensation for the companys loss of profits. According to contractual provisions in the CDA for the North Tarrant Express, competing transportation facilities may be built at any time by anyone including TxDOT. However, TxDOT must compensate NTE Mobility Partners if the state builds additional lanes within the right of way of the project that reduce the private partners revenues or increase their costs.121 This compensation would add significantly to the cost of construction, limiting funds for other public projects. As an added cost, the exact level of these future payments may be subject to dispute and lawsuits. Private infrastructure firms protect their profits and limit their exposure to risk by designating a wide range of state actions as potential adverse actions, for which they can claim to deserve compensation from the state. In California, the contract for the now bankrupt122 San Diego South Bay Expressway, gives the private contractor the right to compensation if the state legislature, CalTrans, any administrative body, or voters create a law in any form that leads to acquiring part of the road, negatively affects the private contractors rights, or regulates or interferes with its ability to collect tolls. It is also entitled to compensation if any of those results are caused by a court order, decree, or judgment.123 These clauses are particularly attractive for investors when long periods of time are needed to recoup costs and become commercially viable. It is understandable why an investor entering into a multi-decade contract with a government would want to limit the states power to alter the terms of the agreement or existing opportunities for making a profit by using its powers to legislate or adjudicate. However, these provisions effectively grant private firms governmental powers without adequate levels of public scrutiny or accountability to voters. They elevate private contractors to a quasi-governmental status, giving them power over new laws, judicial decisions, propositions voted on by the public, and other
government actions that a contractor claims will affect toll roads and revenues through the life of the contract.124
Compensation clauses force officials to view decisions related to these types of situations, which have a direct impact on the public interest, through the lens of what might impair a private operators profits.
Many compensation events would otherwise be normal governmental functions intended to advance the publics interests through upkeep of infrastructure or public safety needs. Examples include inspecting the quality of the roadbed or responding to emergencies. Compensation clauses force officials to view decisions related to these types of situations, which have a direct impact on the public interest, through the lens of what might impair a private operators profits. Public officials must consider the contractual constraints much the way an injured person should check their provider health care contract before seeking medical action. Even basic maintenance can create situations under which a government entity owes compensation to private contractors. Lack of Transparency Given the profound implications of road privatization, no deal should be approved if the public lacks meaningful opportunities to review, question and comment upon it. Public transparency helps check that private and political interests do not enrich themselves at public expense and that proper procedures are followed. The public needs to have both raw information and also analysis written in language they can understand about the value of a proposed contract, which depends on forecasts for income, expenses, and other factors. Transparency should continue even after a deal is signed to show how much toll and other revenue a company receives, how much it is investing in future repairs, and how much is being charged for compensation events.
78
Putting texas First
Texas legislation does not require transparency in private toll road projects, such as making proposals available to affected communities in an understandable manner. Despite the fact that private road contracts can last 52 years, there is no way for the public or even most state officials in Texas to verify, review or comment on the revenue predictions in order to ensure the public is getting a good deal. In fact, Texas law stipulates that many important terms of private toll road contracts such as revenue predictions may not be released to the public until after the contract has been finalized and the public has been locked into the deal. The states refusal to provide information has typically been justified on the basis that private road builders and operators regard their own analysis and proposals as proprietary business secrets. The publics interest in preventing a bad deal and bad implementation of a deal should trump the interest to retain these proprietary secrets. Excluding the public from negotiations makes it easier for the process to become dictated by the interests of private contractors. Public officials representing the citizens of Texas in these negotiations may be more concerned with simply sealing the deal than whether or not the deal is in the best interest of Texas taxpayers. After all, many of the problems that will emerge from a bad deal will not occur for many years, at which point the officials involved in the original negotiations may no longer serve in the public sector and the many long-term consequences the public will find themselves burdened by will never be traced to their failings. Public officials can only effectively demand adequate information and negotiate successfully on the publics behalf if rules mandate that information must be publicly disclosed and the negotiation process is structured to serve the citizens.
THE WAY FORWARD
ransportation policy should be made according to what is best for the public, not to meet the demands of special interests. Non-compete clauses and mandated compensation for adverse action events in privatization agreements give private contractors control over public decisions that would otherwise be made by public officials that are subject to public
oversight, disclosure, and accountability none of which fully apply to private contractors.125 Although public officials approving these agreements may seek to serve the public by developing new transportation assets, the private toll road contracts can instead hinder the ability of the state to respond to public needs for generations. State and local governments must weigh the numerous long-term risks of bad road privatization deals against the potential upsides. Texas officials must ensure that the needs of the citizens of Texas come first. They must insist on the strongest possible public protections to protect public assets, ensure that transportation policy remains in the hands of the public, and negotiate all privatization deals with the utmost transparency. Once the public has been given full information and the opportunity to weigh in, state officials must move to engage in truly open and honest dialogue about the long-term effects of privatization deals before leaving the consequences to their grandchildren.
80
Putting texas First
TRANSPORTATION DEBT, OUR LEGACY TO FUTURE TEXANS

ith all our attention focused on the federal debt that is being piled on in Washington, it is easy to ignore our own state debt crisis here in Texas. Texas debt is increasing at a rate that rivals the federal governments, yet no one seems to know it. We have heard how our new Texas budget cuts more than $5 billion from our schools and students, but not about our ballooning state debt. Before Rick Perry became governor, Texas was a pay-as-you-go state for roads, meaning we used current gas tax receipts to pay for new road construction. Our forefathers set up a system where transportation needs were paid for then and now, not by passing the buck to future generations. Under Gov. Perry, all that changed. Starting in 2001, Texas started borrowing money for new road construction, pushing that cost onto future taxpayers. In just a decade, this debt has grown from zero to $11.9 billion. With interest payments, future taxpayers and our children will need 20 years and $21.1 billion to pay off that debt. There is even more about to be borrowed. In all, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has authority to borrow $17.3 billion, with a 30-year payoff of $31.1 billion, further shifting the burden to our children. To make matters worse, new transportation debt is being secured by general state revenue, not just the gas tax. The exact same taxes we use to pay for public education, state universities and health care are now being diverted to make bond and interest payments on this debt. Imagine what future Texans could do without being saddled with $14 billion in interest payments over the next generation. They might not have to take money out of their public schools or health care. They might even have a real tax cut some day. This debt is as potentially crushing on the future of Texas as the federal debt is for our United States. Texas borrowing has gotten so bad that we are now spending more annually on debt service than we are paying for
Putting texas First
81
new roads. According to TxDOTs latest figures, we will spend $1.72 billion on debt payments over the next two years, compared to $1.28 billion for new roads. Just like Washington, Austin is borrowing and spending away our future.
According to TxDOTs latest figures, we will spend $1.72 billion on debt payments over the next two years, compared to $1.28 billion for new roads. Just like Washington, Austin is borrowing and spending away our future.
Texas should have never gotten away from the pay-as-you-go system for roads. Our tax system is inefficient and broken. Instead of fixing our broken revenue structure, changing the 20-year-old gas tax methodology, or closing tax loopholes, nearly all of our future infrastructure needs are to be funded by borrowing from the future generation of Texans. With infrastructure needs only expected to grow, TxDOT continuing to issue bonds is unsustainable. Soon, all funds will be needed just to service the debt and pay interest, leaving nothing for future needs. In fact, bond rating agencies are already looking negatively upon toll road debt in the states, so even that favored option of Perrys will be gone. Texas political leadership likes to flaunt our balanced budget and admonish the federal government for its lack thereof. But those leaders are living in a giant glass house and deceiving Texans. The balance in Texas budget is achieved largely through accounting tricks and debt, both of which shift the burden to future taxpayers. Genuine equalization between revenue and spending levels is nowhere near the truth about Texas budget. Todays successful Texas politicians shout, No new taxes, then cut public education and health care for children, use accounting tricks to delay bills and advance receipts, then pat themselves on the back for balancing the budget. In the meantime, they quietly saddle future generations with billions in new debt obligations. Their borrowing means our children will pay nearly double tomorrow for what they are unwilling to pay for
our needs today. Our parents did not do that to us, and we should be ashamed for betraying that legacy. Texas needs roads, and we also need education. We have to have an honest conversation about how we can balance these needs without extreme cuts and without simply putting it all off for others to deal with.
Putting texas First
83
TRANSPORTATION FACTS AND FIGURES
HOW TEXAS RANKS Per capita federal highway funding in 2010: 30th at $128126 Toll road miles in 2008: 2nd at 308 miles127 Vehicle-miles of travel in 2008: 2nd at 235 billion miles128 Highway fatality rate in 2008: 16th at 1.44 fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles of travel129 Average travel time to work in 2009: 16th at 24.6 minutes130 Percent of commuters who drive alone to work in 2009: 21st at 79.6%131 Average miles per gallon in 2008: 44th at 14.8 miles per gallon132
DETAILS
Traffic delays in Austin cost the average traveler 38 hours in delays in 2010. In Dallas-Ft. Worth and Houston, those delays were 45 and 57 hours, respectively.133 By 2035, general cargo tonnage at Texas seaports is expected to grow by nearly 63 percent to nearly 866 million tons134 The average urban Texas commuter spends an extra 32 hours in traffic each year 60 percent more than a decade ago.135
84
Putting texas First
In 2007, the cost of annual travel delay and extra fuel consumed in stop-and-go traffic by Texans was $6.7 billion the equivalent of a congestion tax that averages $570 per commuter each year.136 In the 2012-2013 budget, TxDOT must pay $1.7 billion for debt service but is only allocated $1.3 billion for new construction on roads.137 The current $17.3 billion bond debt authorized under TxDOT will ultimately cost $31.1 billion over 30 years to repay.138
Putting texas First
85

LABOR AND THE WORKFORCE
A state economy is only as strong as the people it relies on to do the work of producing quality goods and services. Rick Levy, the Texas AFL-CIOs Legal and Education Director, discusses the importance of policies that promote work in Texas and how the state can show respect for workers and their families.
Putting texas First
87
88
Putting texas First
TAKING THE HIGH ROAD

Rick Levy, Legal and Education Director, Texas AFL-CIO
ork connects us all.
Work allows us to be productive, to make a contribution to our society, to support ourselves and our families. There is powerful dignity in work, no matter how grandiose or menial the task at hand. It is this fundamental respect for work and working families that lays at the heart of the mission of the labor movement in Texas. Our legislative agenda is informed by a simple inquiry: does a proposal reflect respect for work, does it promote dignity for workers, and does it improve the lives of working families? State government should choose to do all it can to help Texas develop a high road economic development vision and provide the tools needed to meet that vision. We reject the low road strategy that this state has too often followed that promotes low wages, minimal regulation, weakened unions and government handouts to corporate friends as the key to economic competitiveness. The danger of participation in that type of competition in a global environment is that we might win, and the society that we create will surely not reflect the values we hold dear.
The cornerstone to a successful economic future is to invest in our people and our resources.
The cornerstone to a successful economic future is to invest in our people and our resources. First, we must adequately invest in a first class educational system. This is the single most important thing we can do to secure our economic future. Our children are our most precious and valuable resource, and if we shortchange them today, we will forfeit any claim to greatness as a society or as a state. This means making sure public and higher education funding meet the needs of all students, not just those fortunate enough to be born in certain zip codes. It means reviewing all of the special-interest tax breaks and
stopping the giveaway of billions of dollars in handouts to corporations, when those handouts accomplish little more than enriching a very few at the expense of the many. It means making sure our teachers have the resources to teach effectively and compensation that reflects the value we place in their task. A high road economy also recognizes we have an obligation to ensure that older workers have the means to retire and live with some measure of comfort and dignity. Yet, the pension and retirement system for public employees and the Social Security system that provides a safety net for almost all workers are under attack across this country and here in Texas. We must resist efforts by those seeking to undermine our pensions to vilify public employees, many of whom are not even eligible for Social Security, and many of whom have themselves contributed a large portion of the pension system from their earning. We should resist with all our might any attempts to weaken our pension system. Our state government should have the ability to efficiently and effectively carry out its mission in meeting the needs of the citizenry. Staffing levels must be adequate to protect our most vulnerable people, in the case of Child Protective Services, state schools, and other agencies to whom we entrust this mission. And as a long line of debacles involving benefit eligibility determinations, state computing resources, private prisons and disaster recovery services has shown, we must stop reckless privatization schemes that promise savings and competence to the taxpaying public and instead deliver corruption, secrecy and ineptitude. Our experience with privatization suggests that it is investment in and empowerment of our public employee workforce that will truly serve the people. Affordable, quality health care is another issue that lies at the very core of our mission. In our hearts, do we not all believe that a parent should absolutely have the ability to obtain quality medical care, including preventative care, for his or her child? Yet, Texas leads the nation in children not covered by insurance and medical expenses are still one of the leading causes of bankruptcy. We support programs, such as CHIP and Medicaid, that expand medical insurance coverage to all Texans.
90
Putting texas First

THE WAY FORWARD
e support a strong workers compensation system, so that workers who are hurt at work are able to continue to support their families, get the care they need and transition effectively back to work. It is an outrage that Texas remains the only state in the country that doesnt require employers to provide workers compensation insurance. Approximately one third of Texas workers are outside the protection of the workers compensation system. Thus, many workers are left on their own to fend for themselves at this most vulnerable time. We support mandatory workers compensation for all workers, and at the very least, that those employers who dont participate at least be required to report what happens when workers are hurt in their employ. In addition, benefits for the most seriously injured workers have declined in recent years and failed to keep up with the need, a situation that must be corrected in the next legislative session.
Approximately one third of Texas workers are outside the protection of the workers compensation system. Thus, many workers are left on their own to fend for themselves at this most vulnerable time.
Similarly, we support a strong, financially solvent unemployment insurance system for workers who lose their job through no fault of their own. We support efforts to reform the system to remove artificial and outdated barriers to workers accessing benefits barriers left over as vestiges of the old economy. Part time workers should be able to participate in the system. We should utilize the latest technology to allow for more accurate calculation of benefits through measures like the Alternative Base Period, and we should adequately fund the system so as to avoid huge costs of borrowing money and bond fees and interest when times are tough.
Putting texas First
91
We support policies that promote safety in the workplace. This includes ensuring access to the courts to hold accountable those who fail to meet their responsibilities. It also includes licensing and registration requirements for key trades that implicate the public safety, such as electricians, fire sprinkler technicians, plumbers, sheet metal workers and others. We support the right of working families to participate in the political process. We oppose measures that seek to limit the ability of ordinary citizens to vote, such as voter ID. We reject efforts to cynically and unilaterally impose restrictions on organizations of workers to advocate for worker-friendly policies. These efforts to weaken unions are really aimed at the political power of working people and should be rejected. Similarly, hundreds of thousands of public workers across Texas have no rights to come together and collectively bargain. We support efforts to extend these basic rights to all Texans, regardless of whether they work in the public or private sector. Finally, government spends its money in many different ways with many different purposes. We believe that when we spend the taxpayers money, we should ensure that expenditure benefits the taxpayers. We support efforts to require that when possible, goods and services purchased with taxpayer money be spent on goods made or services provided in Texas, or certainly the U.S. We spend billions of state dollars each year. Why shouldnt that money be leveraged to create jobs in this state? If we subsidize, for example, the purchase of wind turbines for clean energy, we should make sure those turbines are built here. Virtually every other country contains such requirements. Texas should too.
Every decision we make in the legislative process is reflective of our values. The passage of bills, the setting of budget priorities, the confirmation of appointees to important administrative posts all say something about who we are.
92
Putting texas First
Every decision we make in the legislative process is reflective of our values. The passage of bills, the setting of budget priorities, the confirmation of appointees to important administrative posts all say something about who we are. The labor movement in Texas will tirelessly advocate in that process for lawmakers to make decisions that foster dignity and respect for those who work for a living. By investing in our future, by valuing work and the people who perform that work, by choosing the high road, Texas lawmakers can be true allies in that effort.
Putting texas First
93
LABOR AND WORKFORCE FACTS AND FIGURES
HOW TEXAS RANKS Percent of workers represented by union: 41st at 6.7%139 Unemployment rate: 23rd at 8.5%140 Percent in poverty: 5th at 23%141 Percent of senior citizens living in poverty in 2009: 7th at 11.8%142 Per capita state and local government expenditures for public welfare programs in 2008: 46th at $934143 Workplace fatalities: 1st at 456144 Percent of minimum wage workers: 1st at 9.5%145 Workers comp coverage: 50th at 75.6%146 Average credit score: 49th at 667147
DETAILS
In 2010, Texas had the second largest economy in the U.S., with a gross domestic product of $1.207 trillion148
94
Putting texas First

DEMOCRACY AND VOTER PARTICIPATION
In recent years, the two most impactful policy debates on democracy and voting rights have been the recurring dispute over so-called Voter ID laws and continual wrangling and legal battles over drawing and re-drawing Texas election maps. State Representative Marc Veasey reflects here on the threat of Voter ID legislation to citizens fundamental right to vote.
Putting texas First
95
VOTER ID LEGISLATION THREATENS VOTING RIGHTS

Marc Veasey, State Representative, House District 95
he right to vote is what makes Americans, regardless of race or wealth, equals in making the engines of our democracy run. With few exceptions, every American adult is presumed to have the right to make his or her voice heard at the ballot box and thus influence government policy. Ever since womens suffrage in 1920 and the passing of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, United States voting laws have done a great job making elections in our country free and accessible to all citizens. However, this record of progress is now in danger as elected officials across the country, including Texas, are pushing new laws that would weaken the voting rights of minorities, women, the elderly, and those who are economically disadvantaged. Texas Voter ID bill, passed during the most recent legislative session, threatens to undo years of hard work and progress on voting rights issues in Texas.
Texas Voter ID bill, passed during the most recent legislative session, unless blocked by federal courts or the Department of Justice, threatens to undo years of hard work and progress on voting rights issues in Texas.
Texas Voter ID bill requires that each voter present a valid, unexpired, or recently expired form of photo identification. The only forms of identification that qualify are: a Texas drivers license; Texas identification card; passport; military ID; citizenship certificate with a photo; a concealed handgun license; or an election identification certificate, a new form of ID that will be issued solely for purposes of voting. Without one of these forms of identification, an otherwise eligible voter will only be permitted to vote provisionally, and that vote will only be counted if the voter later returns with one of the above forms of ID. The supposed purpose of the bill is to prevent voter fraud in the form of voter impersonation. However, despite the fact that Texas Attorney
General Greg Abbott expended over $1 million over a two-year period in order to seek out and prosecute instances of voter impersonation, he was unable to find even one case of voter fraud based on voter impersonation. Given the fact that all parties acknowledge that no evidence of voter impersonation has been presented, claims that this legislation would protect voting rights seems misguided at best, and a cynical misrepresentation at worst. The consequence of the Voter ID law is that it will be more difficult for eligible citizens who do not already have one of the required forms of identification to vote. Unfortunately, minorities, the elderly, women, and the poor are significantly more likely to lack valid photo identification. The arguments that Voter ID legislation does not create a burden on these voters are weak. Some supporters have claimed that because photo identification is required to fly a plane, cash a check, or rent a movie at Blockbuster (all untrue and invalid points), that therefore it is not unduly burdensome to require photo ID to vote. However, this argument ignores the fact that despite these requirements, thousands of Texas still lack a photo ID. Regardless, these other activities constitute privileges, not rights. The right to vote is fundamental, and should not be restricted for any reason. The state acknowledges that over 605,000 registered Texas voters do not have photo identification and will have to obtain such identification in order to continue to vote. However, they argue that this does not create a burden, because the Voter ID bill provides for a free election identification certificate, issued by DPS, for any voter who cannot afford the fee for a Texas drivers license or personal identification card. First, this argument ignores the time and cost of travel to obtain such identification. DPS is acknowledged to be underfunded and understaffed, resulting in long lines and wait times, and DPS offices are not accessible for all Texans some Texas towns are up to 100 miles away from the nearest DPS office. Further, the free election certificate covers only the cost of the ID itself. In order to obtain the ID, you must present identification such as a birth certificate, which is only available for an additional fee. Clearly there is no such thing as a free ID under this legislation.
98
Putting texas First
Voter ID legislation creates a system in which many voters will have to overcome a significant burden in order to exercise their right to vote. Its implementation will undo years of Texas progress away from its disenfranchisement of minorities prior to the Voting Rights Act. We must all remain vigilant and be ready to recognize and fight against Voter ID laws and other similar legislation that would prevent minorities and other groups from exercising their constitutionally protected right to vote.
Putting texas First
99
DEMOCRACY FACTS AND FIGURES
HOW TEXAS RANKS Percent of eligible voters reported as registered in 2008: 43rd at 67.3%149 Percent of eligible population reported as voting in 2008: 45th at 56.1%150 Percent of registered population reported as voting in 2008: 47th at 83.3%151 Voter turnout in the 2010 midterm election: 50th at 32.9% of eligible voters152
DETAILS
605,576 registered voters in Texas currently do not possess a valid ID that would comply with the new voter ID law.153 89% of the 20.9% population growth in Texas over the last ten years were minorities.154 Despite the minority population growth, the Texas Legislatures enacted redistricting map for the House of Representatives drew only one new African-American opportunity district and eliminated one Latino opportunity district.155
100
Putting texas First
ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS Melissa Cubria, Advocate, Texas Public Interest Research Group Melissa Cubria is the lead advocate and media liaison for the Texas Public Interest Research Group (TexPIRG) and its sister organization the Texas Public Interest Research Group (TexPIRG) Education Fund. She conducts research and public policy analysis on consumer issues and is a leading expert on road privatization and transportation issues. Other areas of focus and expertise include health care, eminent domain and predatory lending. Prior to joining TexPIRG and TexPIRG Education Fund, Ms. Cubria worked as a health policy advocate for the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law. Learn more about TexPIRG at www.texpirg.org Anne Dunkelberg, Associate Director, Center for Public Policy Priorities Anne Dunkelberg joined the center in 1994. She is one of the states leading experts in policy and budget issues relating to health care access. In 2007, she was named Consumer Advocate of the Year by Families USA in Washington, D.C. Before coming to the center, she served as Program Director for Acute Care in the Texas Medicaid Directors Office and spent six years with the Texas Research League, where she authored numerous reports on Texas health and human services issues and tracked state health and human services budget issues. She earned dual degrees from The University of Texas at Austin a Bachelor of Arts in 1979 and a Master of Public Affairs from the LBJ School of Public Affairs in 1988. Learn more about CPPP at www.cppp.org Jim Dunnam, Senior Fellow, Texas First Foundation Jim Dunnam, a native of Waco, Texas, is a practicing attorney, a former member of the Texas House, and Senior Fellow at the Texas First Foundation. Jim was first elected in 1996 and served for 14 years as a State Representative. In 2003, his colleagues elected him as House Democratic Leader, and he served four consecutive terms in that capacity. During his time in House, Dunnam developed an expertise in legislative proPutting texas First 101
cedure and strategy, use of federal funds by the state, and public education, among other issues. After leaving office in January 2011, Jim helped found the Texas First Foundation, a non-partisan, non-profit public policy foundation dedicated to shaping the future of Texas through honest public dialogue and commonsense policy solutions. Learn more about the Texas First Foundation at www.texasfirstfoundation.com David Edmonson, Senior Policy Analyst, Texas Senate David Edmonson is a senior policy analyst in the Texas Senate, having worked for members who represent El Paso and Houston. During his tenure, David crafted Texas on the Brink, a fifty-state analysis of where Texas ranks in various quality of life metrics, and ASARCO in El Paso, an historic analysis of a smelters impact on the border city. David received his Bachelors degree in Political Science from the University of Houston and his Doctorate of Jurisprudence from the University of Texas School of Law. Rick Levy, Legal and Education Director, Texas AFL-CIO Rick Levy has represented working people in the courtroom, in administrative proceedings and before the Texas legislature for the past 27 years. Since 1990, Rick has served the Texas AFL-CIO as its Legal and Education Director. He is also a partner in the Austin law firm of Deats, Durst, Owen and Levy, representing workers and their unions across the state. Rick was born in St. Louis, Missouri and is married to Lynn Rubinett with whom he has three children. Despite the prevailing conservative political winds in Texas and an often hostile world of Astros and Rangers fans, Rick has remained steadfast and true to the pursuit of workplace justice and to the St. Louis Baseball Cardinals. Learn more about the Texas AFL-CIO at www.texasaflcio.org. Holly McIntush, Associate, Thompson & Horton LLP Holly McIntush is an associate at Thompson & Horton LLP, where she works with David Thompson and Philip Fraissinet to represent plaintiff school districts in the current round of school finance litigation. Before attending NYU Law, Holly spent four years as the Legislative Director
for Representative Scott Hochberg, one of the leading education policy experts in the Texas House. She is proud to be a product of the Texas public school system. Marc Veasey, State Representative, HD-95 Marc Veasey was born and raised in Fort Worth, Texas and graduated from Texas Wesleyan University. He was elected to represent Texas House District 95 in 2004, and has earned a reputation of working hard to be responsive and accessible to his constituents. Rep. Veasey is a member of the Elections; Redistricting; and Pensions, Investments, and Financial Services Committees. He and his wife, Tonya, live in Fort Worth, and have one son, Adam Clayton Veasey. Katy Vedlitz, Policy and Program Director, Texas First Foundation Katy Vedlitz previously worked in Washington, DC as a legislative representative for Planned Parenthood, where she advocated for policies to improve womens health and increase access to family planning services. Prior to that she spent several years on Capitol Hill, most recently as a legislative assistant for Rep. Chet Edwards handling healthcare, budget, tax, and education issues. Katy recently earned her Masters in Public Administration from the Bush School at Texas A&M. David Weinberg, Executive Director, Texas League of Conservation Voters The Texas League of Conservation Voters is a statewide environmental organization which works to preserve and enhance the quality of life of Texans by making conservation a top priority with Texas elected officials, political candidates and voters. Prior to his position at TLCV, David worked in environmental advocacy and state politics in New York State. In environmental advocacy, he held positions with Consumers Union and the New York Public Interest Research Group. In state politics, David was Chief of Staff for New York State Representative Linda Rosenthal. He holds a Masters of Public Administration from Syracuse University and a Bachelors Degree in Politics from Earlham College. Learn more about TLCV at www.tlcv.org
Alex Winslow, Executive Director, Texas Watch Alex Winslow is executive director of Texas Watch, a non-partisan citizen advocacy organization dedicated to ensuring that corporations and insurance companies are accountable to their customers. Alex appeared in the acclaimed HBO documentary Hot Coffee and is frequently quoted by local, state, and national media as a consumer expert on civil justice and insurance matters. He has been selected as a Next Generation Leader by the Texas Democracy Foundation and has served as a consumer liaison to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Learn more about Texas Watch at www.texaswatch.org Ana Yez-Correa, Executive Director, Texas Criminal Justice Coalition Since 2005, Ana has served as the Executive Director of the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition. She has successfully fostered relationships among a wide range of coalition partners, criminal justice and juvenile justice practitioners, law enforcement groups, civil rights organizations, and other community members, allowing TCJC to promote policies and practices that serve all facets of society. Ms. Yez-Correa has earned a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice and a Masters Degree in Public Administration; she also holds a Ph.D. in Policy and Planning in Education Administration, focusing her dissertation on the school-to-prison pipeline. Learn more about TCJC at www.criminaljusticecoalition.org
104
Putting texas First
ENDNOTES
1
7 8
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 20
21 22
23
Calculations by Kaiser Family Foundation based on U.S. Census Bureau, State Government Tax Collections: 2010, http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/; and U.S. Census Bureau, National and State Population Estimates, http://2010.census. gov/2010census/data/ Calculations by Kaiser Family Foundation based on National Association of State Budget Officers, 2009 State Expenditure Report, 2010, http://nasbo.org/LinkClick.aspx?file ticket=bvy1STxIKxA%3d&tabid=107&mid=570&forcedownload=true; and U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Population Estimates by State, July 1, 2009 Population, http://www.census. gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, released June 7, 2011, http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.htm Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, States Continue to Feel Recessions Impact, Table 1, June 17, 2011, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=711 Legislative Budget Board, Texas State Budget 2012-13 Biennium, http://www.lbb.state. tx.us/Bill_82/GAA.pdf. Moak, Casey and Associates, Defining the Funding Cut of the 82nd Legislative Session, http://moakcasey.com/articles/viewarticledoc.aspx/defining%20the%20funding%20cut%20 of%20the%2082nd%20legislative%20session.pdf?AID=2632&DID=2600 Senate Bill 1, 82(1) http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/pdf/ba821/sb0001.pdf#navpanes=0 Diversion of Money Leaves TPWD Needing Help, http://www.gosanangelo.com/ news/2011/dec/10/diversion-of-money-leaves-tpwd-needing-help/ Legislative Budget Board, Overview of Natural Gas Tax Structures, http://www.lbb.state. tx.us/Other_Pubs/Natural%20Gas%20Tax%20Overview.pdf According to unpublished data from the State Comptroller provided to the Legislature. the 15% requirement was waived for the first school year of STAARs implementation: http://www.texastribune.org/texas-education/public-education/texas-education-agency-delaysstaars-15-percent-ru/ Steve H. Murdock, et al., the new texas Challenge, PoPulation Change, and the Future oF texas 224 (2003). Steve Murdock, quoted in Jade Boyd, , http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp? MODE=VIEW&ID=15688&SnID=1215174726. US Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Public Elementary and Secondary School Student Enrollment and Staff, http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo. asp?pubid=2010347 National Education Association, Rankings and Estimates, http://www.nea.org/ home/30896.htm Kathleen OLeary Morgan and Scott Morgan, editors, State Rankings 2011, CQ Press, Washington, DC: 2011; using data from National Education Association, Rankings and Estimates, http://www.nea.org/home/30896.htm; and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, http://www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey, http://www.census.gov/acs/www/index.html National Education Association, State Rankings 2010, Table H-9, http://www.nea.org/ assets/docs/HE/NEA_Rankings_and_Estimates010711.pdf Ibid U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Nations Report Card: Reading 2011, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard Ibid U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Nations Report Card: Math 2011, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard Ibid
Putting texas First
105
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Legislative Budget Board, Texas State Budget 2012-13 Biennium, http://www.lbb.state. tx.us/Bill_82/GAA.pdf. Politifact, Wendy Davis says Texas not funding enrollment growth in public schools for the first time, June 3, 2011, http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/jun/03/wendydavis/wendy-davis-says-texas-not-funding-enrollment-grow. Terrence Stutz, Waivers to Texas class size law triple, thanks to funding cuts, Dallas Morning-News, November 25, 2011. Texas AFT, Texas AFT Legislative Hotline, November 2, 2011, http://texasaftblog.com/ hotline/?p=1388. New York Times, Rates of Increase in Subsidized Lunches, November 30, 2011, http:// www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/11/30/us/rates-of-increase-in-subsidized-lunches. html?ref=education, citing U.S. Department of Education. U.S. News and World Report. 2012 Best Colleges: Top Public Schools. http://colleges. usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/top-public Strayhorn, C. K. 2005. Office of the Comptroller Special Report: The Impact of the State Higher Education System on the Texas Economy. http://www.window.state.tx.us/ specialrpt/highered05/highered05.pdf Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. June 2011. Closing the Gaps Progress Report 2011. http://thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/2357.PDF?CFID=23017874&CFTOK EN=75562072 Musick, M. 2011. Analysis of Efficiency and Graduation Rates at the University of Texas at Austin and Other Public Research Universities in the United States. Texas State University. 2011. Texas State University Funding Sources. http://www.fss. txstate.edu/about/funding.html Legislative Budget Board. 2011. HB 1 Conference Report. http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/ Bill_82/4_Conference/prtHB1_Conference_2011_SIG_Engross.pdf U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey, http://www.census.gov/acs/www/index.html National Center for Educational Statistics. IPEDS Graduation Rate Survey, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/?level=nation& mode=graph&state=0&submeasure=27 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2010, NCES 2011-015, April 2011, http://nces.ed.gov/ pubs2011/2011015.pdf Kathleen OLeary Morgan and Scott Morgan, editors, State Rankings 2011, CQ Press, Washington, DC: 2011; using data from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2009 (NCES 2010-013, April 2010), http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09 College Board, 2011 SAT Trends Report, http://professionals.collegeboard.com/ profdownload/SAT_Trends_Report_9_12_2011.pdf Legislative Budget Board, Statewide Summaries, General Revenue Funds Statewide Summary, 2010-11 and 2012-13 Biennia, http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Bill_82/Statewide%20 Summaries.pdf. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Sources and Uses, 2004-2011. http://www. thecb.state.tx.us/index.cfm?objectid=5026C14D-FD20-B6E6-9AA684EC8FFB08D8 Legislative Budget Board, Texas State Budget 2012-13 Biennium, http://www.lbb.state. tx.us/Bill_82/GAA.pdf. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Texas Higher Education Data, Enrollment Statewide, http://www.txhighereddata.org/Quick/EnrollmentLong.pdf. Texas State Data Center and Office of the State Demographer, Texas Population Projection Program: 2008 Population Projections, June 2009, Table 2. Politifact Truth-O-Meter. April 2011. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/ apr/09/donna-howard/state-rep-donna-howard-says-50-percent-students-wh/
106
Putting texas First
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61 62
63
64
65
66
67
68
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Tuition Deregulation, http://www.thecb. state.tx.us//Reports/PDF/2266.PDF?CFID=23017874&CFTOKEN=75562072 Kiplingers Best Values in Public Colleges, 2011 http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/colleges/ index.php?state_code%5B%5D=TX&id%5B%5D=none&table=public#colleges Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative, 2007 National Survey of Childrens Health, Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health website, www.nschdata.org Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Data, 2010. Available at: http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/list.asp?cat=OB&yr=2010&qk ey=4409&state=All Urban Institute and Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured estimates based on the Census Bureaus March 2009 and 2010 Current Population Survey (CPS: Annual Social and Economic Supplements) Urban Institute and Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured estimates based on the Census Bureaus March 2009 and 2010 Current Population Survey (CPS: Annual Social and Economic Supplements) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Health, United States, 2010 (Table 106). Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus10.pdf Kaiser Family Foundation calculations based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics, State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2009, available at http://www.bls. gov/data/#employment; and U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 U.S. Census, http://2010.census. gov/2010census/data/ Kaiser Family Foundation calculations based on The 2011 Pearson Report, The American Journal for Nurse Practitioners, NP Communications LLC. The complete state-by-state NP legislation/regulation summary and analysis is available at www.webnponline.com and U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Data, http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Health, United States, 2010 (Table 109). Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus10.pdf U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2009, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR108 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, WIC Program, http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/ The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 50 State and National Comparisons: Teen Pregnancy Rate, http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/state-data/statecomparisions.asp?id=3&sID=18 Texas Department of State Health Services, Health Facts Profile 2008, March 2011, http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/chs/cfs/2008/2008-Health-Facts-Profiles-for-Texas/ Kaiser Family Foundation, Texas Kaiser State Health Facts, http://www.statehealthfacts. org/profileglance.jsp?rgn=45&rgn=1 Ibid Kaiser Family Foundation, Texas Kaiser State Health Facts, http://www.statehealthfacts. org/profileind.jsp?ind=271&cat=5&rgn=45&cmprgn=1 Kaiser Health News, Costs Of Premiums For Employer-Provided Health Insurance Jump, http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/daily-reports/2011/september/28/insurance-premium-costs. aspx Select Interim Charges on Drought and Wildfire Preparedness. http://www.senate.state.tx.us/ assets/pdf/Senate_Drought_Wildfire_Select_Charges_2011.pdf nd Legislature Interim Charges. http://www.house.state.tx.us/_media/pdf/interim-charges82nd.pdf Will the Lights Stay On in Texas and New England, http://green.blogs.nytimes. com/2011/11/28/will-the-lights-stay-on-in-texas-and-new-england/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, State Energy CO2 Emissions, http://www.epa. gov/statelocalclimate/resources/state_energyco2inv.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Information Management, 2009 Toxics Release Inventory, http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer
Putting texas First
107
69
70
71 72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82 83
84
85
86
87
88 89
90
91
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Renewable Energy Trends, 2008, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/rentrends. html U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Electric Sales, Revenue, and Average Price 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/esr_sum.html Ibid Kathleen OLeary Morgan and Scott Morgan, editors, State Rankings 2011, CQ Press, Washington, DC: 2011; using data from U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, State Energy Data 2008: Prices and Expenditures, http://www.eia.doe. gov/emeu/states/_seds.html U.S. Department of Commerce, National Climatic Data Center, Billion Dollar U.S. Weather/Climate Disasters, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html. Texas A&M Agrilife, Texas agricultural drought losses reach record $5.2 billion, http:// agrilife.org/today/2011/08/17/texas-agricultural-drought-losses-reach-record-5-2-billion-2/ Dr. John Nielson-Gammon, Watching Those Records Fall, Houston Chronicle, December 4, 2011, http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/12/watching-those-records-fall/. Dr. John Nielson-Gammon, The 2011 Texas Drought, http://atmo.tamu.edu/osc/library/ osc_pubs/2011_drought.pdf NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASAs Grace Helps Monitor U.S. Drought, November 30, 2011, http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-365. Dallas Morning News, Texas homeowners pay highest insurance premiums for second year in a row, http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20120109-texas-homeowners-payhighest-insurance-premiums-for-second-year-in-a-row.ece Dallas Morning News, Auto insurance rates in Texas climbing, http://www.dallasnews. com/news/state/headlines/20120129-auto-insurance-rates-in-texas-climbing.ece U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Vacancies and Home Ownership, Table 958, http://www. census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0958.pdf Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Economic Policy Institute, Pulling Apart: A State By State Analysis of Income Trends, 2008, http://www.cbpp.org/files/4-9-08sfp-fact-tx. pdf Ibid Dallas Morning News, Texas homeowners pay highest insurance premiums for second year in a row, http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20120109-texas-homeowners-payhighest-insurance-premiums-for-second-year-in-a-row.ece Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy, Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax System in All 50 States, 3rd Edition (2009), www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf Public Citizen, A Failed Experiment, October 12, 2011, http://www.citizen.org/a-failedexperiment-report Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), Statistical Report Fiscal Year 2010, pgs. 1, 4, 6; as of August 31, 2010. Specifically, 154,795 individuals are incarcerated (including in prison, state jail, and in a SAFP facility); 419,920 are on probation; and 81,101 are on parole. Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense, Programs, Processes, and Technology: An Overview of Discretionary Grants Funded by the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense, May 4, 2010, pg. 2. Texas Commission on Jail Standards (TCJS), Texas County Jail Population, November 1, 2011; as of November 1, 2011, the total population was 66,743 individuals; 36,628 (55%) fell into the pretrial categories. Texas Fair Defense Project, Benefits of a Public Defender Office: Increasing Accountability and Cost Effectiveness in Harris Countys Indigent Defense System, September 2009, pg. 12. The Justice Project, http://www.thejusticeproject.org/texas/texas-wrongful-convictions/.
108
Putting texas First
TDCJ, Statistical Report Fiscal Year 2010, pg. 1; 151,449 total individuals were in in prisons and state jails by the conclusion of the 2010 Fiscal Year; 73,069 were confined for nonviolent offenses (property, drug, other). 93 Legislative Budget Board (LBB), Criminal Justice Uniform Cost Report: Fiscal Years 2008-2010, January 2011, pg. 6; using FY 2010 prison inmate costs-per-day. 94 TCJS, Texas County Jail Population; as of November 1, 2011, the total population was 66,743 individuals; 10,350 (15.5%) fell into the misdemeanant categories. 95 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jail Inmates at Midyear 2009Statistical Tables, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, June 2010, Table 9, pgs. 12-13. 96 Brandon Wood, Assistant Director, Texas Commission on Jail Standards, in email correspondence to Molly Totman, Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, December 17, 2009. 97 Prisons account for 88.1 percent of the 2010-11 budget attributable to adult corrections, including operating and debt service costs. From Marc Levin, Texas Criminal Justice Reform: Lower Crime, Lower Cost, Center for Effective Justice Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2010, pg. 2. 98 According to data from the Legislative Budget Boards Criminal Justice Uniform Cost Report: Fiscal Years 2008-2010, Texas is spending an average of $18,538 per year on each prisoner (pg. 6), while community supervision (pg. 11) along with substance abuse outpatient treatment programs (pg. 12) cost the state an average of $3,227 making treatment and supervision nearly 6 times less costly than incarceration. 99 Judge Marion F. Edwards, Reduce Recidivism in DUI Off enders: Add a CognitiveBehavioral Program Component, 2006, pg. 3; treatment combined with cognitive skills programming can decrease criminal behavior by 44%, while incarceration can increase an individuals inclination towards criminal activity by .07%. 100 TDCJ, Statistical Report Fiscal Year 2010, pg. 44. 101 Texas Department of Criminal Justice, H.B. 1711 Implementation Report, Submitted to Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House, Senate Criminal Justice & House Corrections Committees, September 1, 2010, pg. 4. 102 Legislative Budget Board, Statewide Criminal Justice Recidivism and Revocation Rates, January 2011, pgs. 35, 36 (see Rearrest Rates). 103 The Federal Bureau of Investigation, ; http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr. 104 These beds would have cost $1.13 billion to build based on a $65,000 per bed construction cost and another $1.50 billion to operate over five years based on the $47.50 per day operating cost in 2008. From Marc Levin, , pg. 1. 105 The Pew Center on the States, Issue Brief: Prison Count 2010, Revised April 2010, pgs. 3-4. 106 Kristi Nix, Budget cuts mean fewer medical workers to treat Texas mentally-ill inmates, 107 Aziza Musa, Prison education struggles amid cuts: With 25 percent less funding, inmates may have fewer options, December 3, 2011. 108 LBB, , pgs. 6, 10, 11; using FY 2010 costs-per-day. 109 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States 2009, Uniform Crime reports, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm 110 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prison Statistics, Prisoners in 2009, December 2010, NCJ 231675, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov 111 Death Penalty Information Center, Number of Executions by State and Region Since 1976, updated on October 28, 2011, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/number-executionsstate-and-region-1976 112 Kathleen OLeary Morgan and Scott Morgan, editors, State Rankings 2011, CQ Press, Washington, DC: 2011; using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Governments Division, 2008 State and Local Government Finances, http://www.census.gov/govs/ estimate/index.html 113 Ibid
92
Putting texas First
109
Kaiser Family Foundation State Health Facts, State Mental Health Agency (SMHA), Per Capita Mental Health Services Expenditures, FY2009, http://www.statehealthfacts.org/ comparemaptable.jsp?ind=278&cat=5&sub=149&sort=a&rgnhl=45 115 Texas Tribune, On the Records: Texas Exonerations, http://www.texastribune.org/ texas-dept-criminal-justice/texas-department-of-criminal-justice/records-texas-recordexonerations/ 116 Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, Promote policies that will deter criminal behavior rather than focusing on criminal enhancements, 2011, http://www.criminaljusticecoalition.org/ files/userfiles/Re-thinking_Criminal_Enhancements_Fact_Sheet.pdf 117 Ibid 118 The Justice Project, Texas Wrongful Convictions; http://www.thejusticeproject.org/texas/ texas-wrongful-convictions/. 119 Elliott D. Sclar, The Political-Economics of Private Infrastructure Finance: The New Sub Prime, Paper Prepared for Annual Meeting Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Crystal City, VA: 2009. 120 See Senate Bill 792, Sec. 371.103. PROHIBITION AGAINST LIMITING OR PROHIBITING CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. 121 Maribel P. Chavez, P.E., Public Hearing Presentation by NTE Partners, 17 April 2009, available at ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/ftw/nte_presentation.pdf. 122 Steve Schmidt, Toll Road Operator Files for Chapter 11 South Bay Expressway Use below Forecast, San Diego Union-Tribune, 23 March 2010. 123 Fed. Highway Admin., Agreement Review: South Bay Expressway (SR 125), Sept. 2005, . Quoted in Ellen Dannin, Crumbling Infrastructure, Crumbling Democracy: Infrastructure Privatization Contracts and Their Effects on State and Local Governance, 6, no. 1 (Winter 2011)(6 Nw. J.L. & Soc. Policy 47): note 98 at 58. 124 Dannin, supra, at 65. 125 Dannin, supra, . 126 Kathleen OLeary Morgan and Scott Morgan, editors, State Rankings 2011, CQ Press, Washington, DC: 2011; using data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal-aid Highway Fund Apportionments, http://www.fhwa. dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009 127 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, State Transportation Statistics 2010, http://www.bts.gov/publications/state_transportation_ statistics 128 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2008, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008 129 Kathleen OLeary Morgan and Scott Morgan, editors, State Rankings 2011, CQ Press, Washington, DC: 2011; using data from U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts Speeding, http://www. nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa 130 U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2009 American Community Survey, http://www.census. gov/acs/www 131 U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2009 American Community Survey, http://www.census. gov/acs/www 132 Kathleen OLeary Morgan and Scott Morgan, editors, State Rankings 2011, CQ Press, Washington, DC: 2011; using data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2008, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ policyinformation/statistics/2008 133 Texas Transportation Institute, 2010 Urban Mobility Report, http://mobility.tamu.edu/ ums/report/ 134 Cambridge Systematics, Texas Waterborne Freight Corridor Study, Phase I Final Report, prepared for the Texas Department of Transportation, January 2010 135 Texas Department of Transportation, Strategic Plan 2011-2015, at 13, July 2, 2010, ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/sppm/strategic_plan2011.pdf.
114
110
Putting texas First
Texas Department of Transportation, Strategic Plan 2011-2015, at 13, July 2, 2010, ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/sppm/strategic_plan2011.pdf. 137 Legislative Budget Board, Texas State Budget 2012-13 Biennium, http://www.lbb.state. tx.us/Bill_82/GAA.pdf. 138 Jim Dunnam, What about the debt our own state is quietly building, http://www. trtcmobility.org/upload/08-03-11%20DMN%20-%20Jim%20Dunnam%20-%20What%20 about%20the%20debt%20our%20own%20state%20is%20quielty%20building.pdf 139 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Annual Union Membership data, Table 5: Union Affiliation of Employed Wage and Salary Workers by State, January 2011. Available at: http://www.bls. gov/news.release/union2.toc.htm 140 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force data, Table 3: Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and selected area, seasonally adjusted, October 2011. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.t03.htm 141 Urban Institute and Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured estimates based on the Census Bureaus March 2009 and 2010 Current Population Survey (CPS: Annual Social and Economic Supplements) 142 U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey, http://www.census.gov/acs/www 143 Kathleen OLeary Morgan and Scott Morgan, editors, State Rankings 2011, CQ Press, Washington, DC: 2011; using datate from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Governments Division, 2008 State and Local Government Finances, http://www.census.gov/govs/ estimate/index.html 144 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Fatal occupational injuries by State and event or exposure, 2010, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t05.htm 145 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Minimum Wage Workers in Texas 2010 http://www.bls.gov/ ro6/fax/minwage_tx.htm 146 Corporation for Enterprise Development, Workers Compensation Coverage, http:// scorecard2009.cfed.org/business.php?page=workers_comp_coverage 147 MSN Money, Your Credit Rating, http://money.msn.com/credit-rating/compare-yourcredit-score.aspx 148 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Gross Domestic Product by State, June 2011, http://www.bea.gov/regional/gdpmap/GDPMap.aspx. 149 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Voting and Registration, Table 4a, http://www.census.gov/ hhes/www/socdemo/voting/index.html 150 ibid 151 ibid 152 Nonprofit Vote, America Goes to the Polls 2010: A Report on Voter Turnout in the 2010 Election, http://www.nonprofitvote.org/voter-turnout-2010.html 153 Texas Secretary of State, letter to the Department of Justice, https://docs.google.com/ gview?url=http://d2o6nd3dubbyr6.cloudfront.net/media/documents/October_4_2011_ Additional_Information_Response_on_SB_14.doc&chrome=true 154 Texas Tribune report analyzing 2010 Census data: http://www.texastribune.org/texascounties-and-demographics/census/minorities-drove-texas-growth-census-figures-show/ 155 Texas First Foundation Redistricting Analysis, http://www.texasfirstfoundation.com/about/ policy/
136
Putting texas First
111

Putting Texas First

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Putting Texas First

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Putting Texas First A policy primer for elected officials and everyday Texans Edited by David Edmonson and

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

MAKING AN INVESTMENT IN TEXAS FUTURE

Putting texas First

THE WAY FORWARD

Putting texas First

BUDGET FACTS AND FIGURES

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

TEXAS PUBLIC EDUCATION AND SCHOOL FINANCE POLICY

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

PUBLIC EDUCATION FACTS AND FIGURES

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM MAKING A COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

HIGHER EDUCATION FACTS AND FIGURES

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

STRONG MEDICINE FOR A HEALTHY TEXAS

Putting texas First

THE WAY FORWARD

Putting texas First

HEALTH CARE FACTS AND FIGURES

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

ENVIRONMENT FACTS AND FIGURES

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

CORPORATE IMMUNITY HURTS TEXAS FAMILIES

Putting texas First

THE WAY FORWARD

Putting texas First

CIVIL JUSTICE FACTS AND FIGURES

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

TEXAS CRIMINAL JUSTICE LANDSCAPE

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

THE WAY FORWARD

Putting texas First

Putting texas First

CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACTS AND FIGURES