CACFS and the May 19th Special Election

Sunny Hills Services is a member-agency of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services (the Alliance), a statewide association over 130 private nonprofits that serve children and families. The Alliance has advocated on behalf of California's most vulnerable children and families and the organizations that serve them for over 60 years. They provides legislative and regulatory advocacy on a wide range of key policy issues, representing member agencies to the Office of the Governor, the State Legislature, and all relevant state government departments and agencies.

In the State of California May 19^th special election, there are two propositions that directly impact the member agencies of the Alliance. Propositions 1D and 1E were covered this week in the San Francisco Chronicle (http://tinyurl.com/Chronicle1E and http://tinyurl.com/Chronicle1D) and those articles provide some overview of the propositions. Essentially, Proposition 1E redirects $226 million of funds previously earmarked for new mental health programs to be used as part of the state match for existing mental health services for children. Proposition 1E redirects $340 million of Proposition 10/First Five funds to the state general fund, along with an additional $268 million annually for five years. This would be used to help fund the state’s share of core children’s services including foster care.

Although at a glance this may appear to be a compromise and a solution, last Friday the Alliance board of directors voted to oppose Propositions 1D and 1E in the upcoming May 19^th special election. According to a statement put out by the Alliance, some of the principle reasons for this opposition are:

1. Precedent: In redirecting these dollars to the state general fund, the governor and legislature are setting a precedent for redirection of funding from voter-approved initiatives to the state general fund any time a state budget crisis is declared.

2. Defeat may not impact state share of cost for entitlements: The state is obligated to pay its share of costs for foster care and EPSDT services because they are federal entitlements to eligible children. Without the funds from Propositions 1D and 1E, the state could reduce foster care rates or lower the SMA for Medi-Cal services, but the state may not reduce the percentage of its share of cost.

3. Impact on children and families: While it is unclear the impact redirection of Proposition 63 funds would have on current full service partnerships and other county specific mental health services for children, the impact of loss of Proposition 10 funds on local early childhood services would be devastating. Programs and services would be cut at a time when they are most needed.

4. Advocacy groups are opposed to both propositions: Virtually all other advocacy groups supporting mental health and children’s services have come out in opposition to Propositions 1D and 1E; in fact, the coalitions opposing the initiatives have joined forces to fight the ballot measures.

As CEO of a member agency of the CaliforniaAlliance of Child and Family Services, I invite you to use this information and support or oppose the propositions as you feel necessary and believe appropriate.