The Journal of State Government Summer 2000 … › knowledgecenter › docs ›...

The Council of State Governments

The Journal of State Government ■ Summer 2000 ■ Volume 73, Number 3

FOCUSAn in-depth look at headline-making research, reported on by CSG staff

Education Accountability ............................................................................................................ 1

The Economics of Crime ............................................................................................................ 5

FROM THE SOURCEResearchers’ analysis of public-policy issues shaping state legislators’ agendas

Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local OrdinancePublic Policy Institute .............................................................................................................. 8

Family Tax Burden Dips, State Tax Collections GrowThe Tax Foundation .............................................................................................................. 11

RESEARCH ROUNDUPA synopsis of new and noteworthy studies from think tanks, universities, state government agenciesand other research organizations

Juveniles Facing Criminal Sanctions: Three States that Changed the RulesThe U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ......................................... 14

Privatizing Landfills: Market Solutions for Solid-Waste DisposalReason Public Policy Institute ............................................................................................... 15

Child Support Offers Some Protection Against PovertyThe Urban Institute .............................................................................................................. 15

A Tale of Two States: Welfare Reform in Minnesota and WisconsinCenter of the American Experiment .................................................................................... 16

Mentoring School-Age Children: Relationship Development inCommunity-Based and School-Based Programs

Public/Private Ventures ........................................................................................................ 17

PERSPECTIVESPolicy-makers share their experiences with difficult issues confronting states

Passing Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China is Essential for U.S. EconomyNorth Dakota Governor Ed Schafer .................................................................................... 20

AMERICAN SURVEYWhat Americans think

Social SecurityCBS News/New York Times ..............................................................................................22

Comfort Index DeclinesABC News .............................................................................................................................. 23

Spectrum seeks to be an honest observer of the state government arena and a vehicle forexpressing the newest ideas and latest thinking on state policies and institutions. The missionof Spectrum is to provide reliable information and insightful analysis on public-policy issues toanyone whose interest in state government stretches beyond the limited, short-term goals of thestatus quo.

Spectrum seeks to develop common ground among entities and individuals who are interestedin improving state government and to unite practitioners, academics, businesses, the media andothers in a common understanding of the problems and solutions that are unique to the governanceof the American states and territories.

Spectrum StaffDan Sprague: CSG Executive DirectorJulia Nienaber: Manager, Marketing and Public RelationsSusan Haney and Stephanie Potter: Managing EditorsSkip Olson: Graphic Design CoordinatorConnie P. LaVake: Production Systems AdministratorSusan Haney: Reprint Permissions (859) 244-8235Publication Sales Department: (800) 800-1910

ISSN: 1067-8530Copyright 2000The Council of State

Governments

Promoting State Solutions Regionally and NationallyThe Council of State Governments, the multibranch association of the states and U.S. territories,

works with state leaders across the nation and through its regions to put the best ideas and solutionsinto practice. To this end, The Council of State Governments:

• Builds leadership skills to improve decision-making;• Advocates multistate problem-solving and partnerships;• Interprets changing national and international conditions to prepare states for the future; and• Promotes the sovereignty of the states and their role in the American federal system.

Founded in 1933, CSG is an innovative, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization promoting excellencethroughout state government.

CSG is the premier information resource and institutional voice for the state government community.

Council OfficersChair: Deputy Minority Leader Rep. Tom President: Gov. Paul Patton, Ky.Chair: Ryder, Ill. President-Elect: Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, IdahoChair-Elect: Senate President Pro Tempore Vice President: Gov. Parris Glendening, Md.Chair-Elect: Manny M. Aragon, N.M.Vice Chair: Senate President Pro Tem JohnVice Chair: Chichester, Va.

Council OfficesHeadquarters:2760 Research Park DriveP.O. Box 11910Lexington, KY 40578-1910(859) 244-8000Fax: (859) 244-8001E-mail: [email protected]: www.csg.org

Daniel M. Sprague, Executive DirectorBob Silvanik, Deputy Director

Eastern: Alan V. Sokolow, Director5 World Trade Center, Suite 9241New York, NY 10048, (212) 912-0128Fax: (212) 912-0549, E-mail: [email protected]

Spectrum: The Journal of State Government (order #SPECTRUMSUB) is published quarterly by The Councilof State Governments. Annual subscription: $49.99. Single copies: $15. For address change and subscriptionorders, notify: The Council of State Governments, Publications Sales Dept., 2760 Research Park Drive,P.O. Box 11910, Lexington, KY 40578-1910, (800) 800-1910.

Midwestern: Michael H. McCabe, Director641 E. Butterfield Road, Suite 401Lombard, IL 60148, (630) 810-0210Fax: (630) 810-0145, E-mail: [email protected]: Colleen Cousineau, Director3355 Lenox Road, Suite 1050Atlanta, GA 30326, (404) 266-1271Fax: (404) 266-1273, E-mail: [email protected]: Kent Briggs, Director121 Second Street, 4th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 974-6422Fax: (415) 974-1747, E-mail: [email protected], CO: (303) 572-5454, Fax: (303) 572-5499Washington, D.C.: Jim Brown, Director444 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 401Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 624-5460Fax: (202) 624-5452, E-mail: [email protected]

The opinions expressed by authors are their own and do not necessarily reflectopinions or policies of The Council of State Governments.

The Council of state governments 1

Fast Facts . . .

s education reform and in-novation sweep across thecountry, new structures for

school district control and account-ability are being utilized to maintainand increase education performanceand standards. Among state legisla-tures, performance is gauged on fi-nancial management and academicperformance. Consequently, numer-ous school districts across the nationhave been found to be in financialand academic failure. As a result,since 1989 more than 25 interven-tions in school and district operationshave been made around the country.Addressing this issue is a new reportfrom the Reason Foundation entitledBalancing Accountability and Local Con-trol: State Intervention for Financial andAcademic Stability.

In an effort to hold local schooldistricts more accountable, 23 stateshave passed legislation that classifiesdistricts as academically bankruptand/or creates state authority to takecontrol of the district if they fall belowcertain standards.

While the public has demandedthat policymakers do something toaddress this growing problem in pub-lic education, specific methods are of-ten debated. Takeovers are usuallyseen as a last resort, says the report.More often than not, schools are

Education AccountabilityEducators must reorient their roles,methods and strategies and be heldaccountable for their performance inmeeting student educational needs orstate governments may intervene.

by John J. Mountjoy, Western regional coordinator, The Council ofState Governments

placed into the hands of mayors orcity councils, or a school is ‘reconsti-tuted’, the replacement of all teach-ing and administrative staff.

History

Public schools came into existencein the U.S. in the mid- to late-19thcentury. As states moved to guaran-tee publicly funded education, vari-ous state constitutions included pro-visions that called for “thorough andefficient” or “uniform” systems foreducation, says the report. While his-torically states have provided for pub-lic education, it has also been truethat public education has been imple-mented at the local level. Conse-quently, this provides local districts witha great sense of control.

Over 15,000 public-school districtsoperate across the nation. These dis-tricts are responsible for both finan-cial and academic operations. Finan-cially, districts raise revenue througha variety of local taxes, predominantlythrough local property taxes. Schooldistricts also receive monies fromtheir respective state governmentsand the federal government. Thesefederal dollars account for approxi-mately 6 percent of district funding,with the remainder coming equallyfrom local and state sources.

A

Since 1989 morethan 25

interventions inschool and districtoperations have been madearound the country.

Twenty-three stateshave passed

legislation thatclassifies districts asacademically bankrupt and/or creates state authority totake control of the district ifthey fall below certainstandards.

In 1989, NewJersey was the first

state to takeover aschool district because ofacademic bankruptcy.

2 spectrum • summer 2000

Types of Intervention

State TakeoverAccording to the report, states differ in the

criteria and standards used to determine academi-cally bankrupt schools and districts. Districts willusually receive a warning of their shortcomings.Some states provide additional resources to thestruggling school or district in the form of fund-ing or curriculum specialists. For many districts,says the report, these early warning-interventionsare enough to spur positive change in the schools.

In its fullest form, the report says, state-appointedadministrators take over the entire fiscal and edu-cational day-to-day operations, of the district, re-lieving local board members and administratorsof their responsibilities. Approximately a dozenstates and the federal government have actuallytaken the last step of assuming control over theentire operations of a district. Though some ofthese academic bankruptcy laws have existedsince the early 1980s, the first takeover becauseof academic bankruptcy came in 1989 when thestate of New Jersey assumed control of the JerseyCity School District.

Mayoral ControlA variation of the state takeover, according to

the report, is the placement of school-district re-sponsibilities into the hands of the city mayor. Dis-tricts such as Cleveland, Boston, Chicago, and mostrecently Detroit, have ceded control to their re-spective city mayors through legislative action. Insome cases, the mayors sought control of the schools.In others, the mayor accepted responsibility re-luctantly. In either case, the level of authority heldby these mayors differs from city to city. In all cases,however, the main purpose of placing control ofschools in the hands of mayors is to set up clearaccountability for school performance.

By ceding control of school districts to themayors of cities such as Cleveland, Boston andChicago, a certain degree of local control is main-tained in school governance. Interventions thathave involved the local community and that havenot disenfranchised the entire community havetypically been more successful in their efforts thanthose in which local decision making is com-pletely overridden, says the report.

Third Party ControlAccording to the report, another possible in-

tervention strategy that has not been undertakenyet directly by a state, but has been implemented

by an individual school district, is to contract witha third party for the operation and managementof the district. In a unique arrangement, the Cityof Chelsea (Massachusetts) School District en-tered into a ten-year partnership with BostonUniversity to manage the operations of the en-tire school district. The partnership is known asthe Boston University/Chelsea Partnership. Thepartnership took effect June 1989 with the goalsof improving student performance, restructuringcurriculum, increasing professional development,and re-establishing community involvement inthe schools. Based on the progress made, theChelsea School Committee, the local schoolboard to which Boston University is accountable,extended the life of the contract to June 2003.

ReconstitutionA fourth option of intervention into a failing

school or school system is a strategy known asreconstitution. Reconstitution is the practice ofreplacing a school’s entire staff, including theprincipal and the entire instructional staff. Theprocess of reconstitution first started in 1983 inthe San Francisco Unified School District. In anattempt to improve academic performance in ac-cordance with a consent decree, the district re-constituted six separate underachieving schoolsin highly segregated parts of the city. With thereconstitution came an emphasis on recruitingthe best teachers and staff, an infusion of tech-nology, and an emphasis on professional devel-opment. Since San Francisco’s initial experiments,additional cities and states have reconstitutedschools, including Chicago and New York City,and districts in Colorado, Maryland, New York,Illinois, and Kentucky, to name a few.

As an intervention strategy, reformers view re-constitution as a last resort. The method is highlycontroversial among educators, parents, andteacher unions. Proponents argue that reconsti-tution effectively breaks up a school of ineffec-tive teachers and administrators, allowing the in-troduction of a new vision with teachers eager toput that change into place. Opponents counterthat reconstitution introduces further instabilityinto a school that needs anything but instability.

Stability: Financial and Academic

In the majority of state-intervention cases —through state takeover, mayoral control, third-party partnerships, or reconstitution — financial


and management stability was restored within twoyears. New Jersey school districts, Chicago Pub-lic Schools, Chelsea Public Schools, and San Fran-cisco schools experienced turnarounds in finan-cial management style and emphasized sound fi-nancial responsibilities. All in all, state interven-tion has proven to be an effective strategy to over-come waste, inefficiency, and corruption thatoften exists in troubled schools and districts.

While various state interventions have success-fully restored financial and administrative integ-rity to schools and districts, state interventionstrategies have been less successful in turningaround student performance. One such districtin New Jersey that underwent a state takeovercontinues to suffer academically after more thanten years. At the end of 1998, the district hadfailed to meet six of nine performance benchmarksset by the state and district in student achieve-ment. The district’s dropout rate fell to 10 per-cent in 1997-98, meeting its benchmark andmeeting the state standard. After ten years of over-sight, student performance as measured by testscores has fluctuated substantially, making gainsin one year, only to see those gains matched byperformance losses in the following year.

Policy Directions

State interventions have proven to be an effec-tive strategy for establishing sound fiscal manage-ment through better accounting practices, thedecrease of waste and inefficiencies, and theelimination of corrupt-management policies.However, these same state interventions have not

been entirely successful with studentacademic results. To address thisweakness, alternative accountabilityand governance strategies may beneeded to address the academicbankruptcy evident in many dis-tricts. The report offers three suchsuggestions:

Charter ConversionCharter schools are public schools

started by teachers, parents, andcommunity members that are freedfrom most state and local regulationsin exchange for increased accounta-bility. If a charter school does notmeet the standards set forth in itscharter, then the charter-granting

authority can either revoke or not renew theschool’s charter.

Charter schools are held accountable for boththeir financial management and educational re-sults. Typically charters are granted for a five-yearperiod, though the term length varies by states.At the start of the 1999-2000 school year, 36 statesand the District of Columbia had legislation en-abling the creation of charter schools.

For failing schools and districts, converting theschools to charter status may be an effective strate-gy. Each school would design its own curriculumconsistent with school, district, and state goals andobjectives. By eliminating the regulatory natureof traditional public education, charter schoolsare given the flexibility to innovate in curriculum,staffing levels, and scheduling. As public schools,they are open to all students in a nondiscrimina-tory way. By allowing local schools to innovate, inan attempt to better meet the needs of the localchildren, while at the same time holding theschools accountable for their results, educationalprogress is more likely.

Education Management OrganizationsAs a complement to converting to charter-

school status, state officials and districts may alsoconsider public-private partnerships with privateeducation-management organizations (EMOs).Education-management organizations, such asThe Edison Project, Beacon Education Manage-ment, National Heritage Academies, and SchoolFutures Research Foundation, are private compa-nies that specialize in the financial and education-al management of public schools, both traditional

Educators must be held accountable for meeting student education needs.


and charter. These companies vary in size andeducational strategies, as well as by geographiclocation. While most of these companies are for-profit in nature, some, such as School FuturesResearch Foundation, are nonprofit organizations.

Contracting with one or more of these compa-nies offers different educational strategies toteachers and students to address deficiencies.Much like the partnership between Boston Uni-versity (a private, nonprofit organization) andChelsea Public Schools, school contracting typi-cally involves establishing several financial andeducational performance goals set forth for thecontracted organization to attain. Most, if not all,of the current public-private partnerships withEMOs in place across the nation are performance-based in nature. They create clear performancegoals and objectives with options of contract re-vocation or nonrenewal if the district or charter-granting authority is not satisfied with the results.Much like the charter-school conversion strategy,this ability to change school leadership and in-structional practices because of failure to performprovides tremendous accountability to the public(state officials, district administrators and boardmembers, parents, and community members).The primary benefit to the partnership model isthat the local school board remains the primaryagency responsible for the oversight of publiceducation.

Local Option VoucherThe first two alternatives work within the public-

school environment. While both are controversial,so too are many of the existing state-interventionstrategies. A third option that might be offeredto students and parents in failing schools is theoption to go to another school, public or private,that would better meet the needs of the student.The exodus, or threat of exodus, of students toother schools may send powerful signals toschools that the pace of change is too slow or thechanges being made are inadequate. Florida isthe first state that allows students at designatedfailing public schools to receive opportunity schol-arships to attend another school of their choice.

Report Conclusions

States have employed various intervention strate-gies to address financial and educational bank-ruptcy in public-school districts and schools. Theresults of these intervention strategies are ambigu-ous, says the report. Each of the four interventions

surveyed varies in implementation and, consequent-ly, in effectiveness. From a financial-managementstandpoint, most of the different interventionstrategies tend to be successful. Fiscal soundnessreturned to most districts within two years ofintervention.

However, these intervention strategies have notconsistently turned around academic results.Some districts have demonstrated upward trendsin student performance in relatively short peri-ods of time (three to five years). However, it isdifficult to discern the causal reasons for theseupward trends. School districts often undergoseveral reform strategies at once, some of whichmay show effects as much as five years after theirinception in the district. Thus, a combination ofprograms beyond state interventions may haveinfluenced student performance.

None of the various state-intervention strate-gies should be seen as panaceas. Even in thosedistricts deemed successful, student performanceoften still lags behind national and state averagesand falls below state performance standards.Many districts remain under state interventionfor several years, while some districts have expe-rienced state intervention for over a decade.

This failure to improve while under state di-rection raises important questions. How long isan appropriate time within which to expect re-sults after an intervention? And once the stateassumes control of a school or district, who holdsthe state accountable for results?

Because the progress of change is often slow,and the results from these intervention strategiesare mixed, other strategies should be consideredto address the academic stagnation evident in somany failing districts. The use of charter schools,the utilization of public-private partnerships foreducation-service provision, and the provision ofchoices for students to attend schools outside ofthe failing system should be considered.

Each of these options adds accountability tothe public education system. At the same time,these strategies provide different options avail-able to teachers, students, parents, and districtand state administrators. And educators mustreorient their roles, methods, and strategies sothat they are consistent with the goal of improvingstudent performance. Above all, they must beheld accountable for their own performance inmeeting student educational needs. Without ac-countability, we will continue to struggle with fail-ing schools and inadequate means to improve them.


Fast Facts . . .

olls identify crime as thenumber one public con-cern. Crime also brings tre-

mendous costs not factored into offi-cial measures of well being, and it is afavorite subject of political campaignpromises. However, the public seemslargely unaware that crime respondsto economic conditions and incen-tives and that the results of a substan-tial body of work by economists haveimportant implications for publicpolicy.

Economist Zsolt Becsi introducesthe economics and crime literatureby describing a simple supply-and-

The Economics of CrimeSoutheastern states do not conform tothe economic model of crime.

by Chester Hicks, Midwestern regional coordinator, The Council ofState Governments

demand crime model in which crimi-nals supply crime, the public demandsprotection from crime, and the gov-ernment provides public protection.He uses the model to show how crimeresponds to a variety of demographicand economic factors and also whatresults to expect from public policyproposals.

Using state data from 1971 to 1994,the article outlines broad regionaldifferences and trends in the patternsof crime in the United States. Stateswere grouped into eight standardregions defined by the Bureau of Eco-nomic Analysis: New England, the

P

Crime responds to various economic conditions and incentives.

Under 1998law, inmates

convicted of violentcrimes must serve 85percent of their prisonsentences, which willrequire most to spend moretime behind bars.

In the 1990’s,despite

increasingimprisonment rates,Southeastern states haveseen distinct worsening incrime rates relative to otherregions.

Kentuckypassed HB533

requiring non-violentfelons to serve their time incounty jails andimplementing communityservice related projects.


Mideast, the Great Lakes, the Plains, the South-east, the Southwest, the Rocky Mountains and theFar West.

Becsi subjects the data to a more in-depth treat-ment using an approach that estimates the effectsof demographic and economic variables oncrime. The results mirror some found by othersbut also highlight serious issues that may concernpolicy makers. Generally, the demographic andeconomic variables, such as unemployment andpersonal income, explain crime rather well, andestimates for the most part conform to the eco-nomic model of crime.

Five other public policy variables are consid-ered, with expenditure variables measured as ashare of personal income. The first two variables,welfare and education, can be measured as positivedeterrents to crime. Welfare expenditures, ac-cording to Becsi, might be thought of as reducingthe pain from unemployment and thus reducingthe necessity of criminal activity. Education spend-ing increases the “opportunity costs” of crime,first by keeping youths off the streets, raising theirearnings potential, as well as giving them tools toevaluate the costs of crime realistically.

Three other variables: the number of prison-ers, police employment and public spending onpolice protection are used to measure public de-terrents to crime. A state’s population share ofprisoners or convicts can be thought of as an in-dicator of the penalties of being caught and theexpected cost of crime. Police employment andpublic expenditures on police protection eachmeasure public efforts to reduce crime and raisethe expected cost to criminals.

Becsi roughly characterized states in New Eng-land as having high incomes and welfare ex-penditures but low prison population and policeexpenditures. Except for the high incomes, theopposite was true for the Far West, having highprison populations, police expenditures andemployment. Both the Southeast and Southwest

generally had lower incomes, low welfare expen-ditures and large prison populations. During theearly 1990s, the Southeast, in particular, increasedits prison population and police spending fromprevious years.

This fact is reflected in such Southeastern stateslike Kentucky, where according to a recent articlein the Courier Journal newspaper, overcrowdingin state prisons was a huge issue prior to 1992.That year, the state corrections department be-gan moving many of its non-violent felons intocounty jails to free up space. Since then, countyjail construction in Kentucky has been growing

to a point to where there are not enoughprisoners for the beds available. Thefewer number of prison inmates is due,in part, to the enactment of the 1998Crime Bill.

Under this 1998 law, inmates convictedof violent crimes must serve 85 percentof their prison sentences, which will re-quire most to spend more time behindbars. To stem overcrowding, judges were

encouraged to sentence non-violent criminals to“alternative sentences” such as home-incarcera-tion with electronic monitoring. According to FBIstatistics, violent crime in Kentucky declined by20 percent in the late 1990s. Therefore, inmatenumbers have flattened out for the first time inmany years. Becsi observes that imprisonmentrates are strongly related to the reduction ofcrime, except for murder, which is weakly signifi-cant. A 10 percent increase in the prison popula-tion is estimated to be associated with a 0.5 per-cent to 1.9 percent reduction in crimes.

Becsi did not examine; however, recidivismrates in his analysis. Some believe, rehabilitationprograms are thought to help reduce recidivismin state and local prisons. Amy E. Dougherty, whosits on Kentucky’s Criminal Justice Commission,believes that county jails don’t have strong reha-bilitation programs in place, leading to higherrates of repeat offenders. “There’s an incredibleamount of idleness” for inmates, she says. “I thinkit’s really problematic.”

Overall, Becsi’s analysis suggests that for somestates, high crime rates reflect relatively high un-employment rates and low expected earningsfrom legitimate work for some segments of thepopulation. “The unemployment rate measuresreduced legitimate earnings opportunities thatare particularly important for the population seg-

“The game plan here is not to get more people inprison. The game plan here is to try toreduce crime.”

— Kentucky Rep. Robert D. WilkeyD-Franklin


ment most at risk for engaging in criminal activi-ties,” Becsi says. Analysis of the effects of unem-ployment on crime indicates that unemploymentinsurance, which alleviates the costs of unemploy-ment might have some effects in amelioratingcrime.

In addition, public welfare spending was asso-ciated with a reduction in auto theft and murderrates, two of the crime variables in the study thathad the least amount of measurement error. Pub-lic spending on primary and secondary education;however, proved to be an insignificant factor to-wards reducing crime when a more inclusivemeasure of education that included postsecon-dary education expenditures was used in thestudy.

In the 1990’s the nation saw crime fall dramati-cally in almost all categories. However Southeast-ern states saw a distinct worsening in crime ratesrelative to other regions. Although high impris-

onment rates significantly reduced crime in otherregions of the country, for the Southeastern region,increasing imprisonment rates did not offset thecrime-increasing effects of welfare reductionscombined with other demographic and economicchanges.

Recently, Kentucky passed a law requiring non-violent felons to serve their time in county jails.The bill, HB 533, also requires jailers to write a policythat administers prisoners working on community-service related projects. According to State Rep.Robert D. Wilkey, D-Franklin, one of the bill’ssponsors, the projects can be litter pick-ups orother maintenance duties benefiting the county.“That’s a form of rehabilitation that gives inmateswork experience that can help them get jobs whenthey get out,” said Wilkey.

“The game plan here is not to get more peoplein prison,” he said. “The game plan here is to tryto reduce crime.”


cross the United States, communitiesare struggling to meet the nation’sgrowing and changing housing needs.

Three factors — changing demographics, chang-ing economics, and changing community goals— have converged to make innovative solutionsto housing issues a policy necessity.

Changing Demographics

American families are growing in number butshrinking in size. People are living longer, morepeople are staying single longer, and marriedcouples are having fewer children. The housingstock has not kept up with this change in familydemographics. In some communities, the needfor housing, especially for people with specialphysical and financial needs, has become acute.Underused space in single-family houses is one

Accessory Dwelling Units: ModelState Act and Local OrdinanceA 2000 Public Policy Institute examines the benefits ofADUs for cities, what prevents ADUs from beingdeveloped, and presents model legislation for state andlocal governments to promote ADU development.

by Sean O’Leary, intern, States Information Center, The Council ofState Governments

of the nation’s largest untapped housing re-sources.

Changing Economics

Not only is family size changing, but so are theeconomic circumstances of families. As the popu-lation ages, many older people find themselvesliving in their family homes alone. They may needadditional income to pay for health care services,cover home maintenance costs, or make mort-gage payments. Others may want a family mem-ber or a caretaker to live nearby, while maintain-ing privacy for both parties.

Changing Community Goals

Many communities have recognized the needto stabilize or increase population densities incertain areas in order to maintain the existingpublic infrastructure, services and tax base. Inaddition, many communities have sought to con-centrate population density in specific areas inorder to encourage public transit service and re-duce urban sprawl. These communities do not,however, necessarily want their single-familyneighborhoods to become structurally moredense.

Accessory Dwelling Units

One approach to meeting these needs is to al-low or even encourage the development of ac-cessory dwelling units (ADUs). ADUs are con-structed as either apartments or cottages. ADUs

A

Accessory Dwelling Units are usually constructed as eitherapartments or cottages.


Fast Facts . . .offer the potential for assisting olderhomeowners and others in maintain-ing their independence while increas-ing the supply of affordable rentalhousing within a community. Incomefrom an ADU can offset rising prop-erty taxes, maintenance and repaircosts and other housing expenses thatare often a burden for older home-owners. ADUs can also make it easierfor households with children to af-ford the housing they need.

ADUs are not a widely availablehousing option in the United States.Local zoning ordinances that pro-hibit ADUs or make it difficult forhomeowners to create them are theprincipal obstacle. These ordinancesnow limit the expansion and modifi-cation options of homeowners andprevent communities from makingeffective use of their current housingstock to meet the changing needs offamilies.

Model State Act on AccessoryDwelling Units

The model state act sets the termsfor what communities can and can-not do in regulating ADUs via localordinances. It consists of five sections:1) The general provisions establish asstate policy the encouragement ofADUs in a manner that enhances resi-dential neighborhoods. 2) The regu-latory authority authorizes localitiesto adopt ADU ordinances and speci-fies the powers they may exercise inregulating ADUs. 3) The limitingregulating authority prohibits locali-

ties from regulating ADUs in waysthat violate the intent of the act. 4)The default provisions establish pro-cedures and standards for obtaininga permit to create an ADU if a local-ity does not adopt an ADU ordinance.And 5) the state’s role in ADU poli-cies presents the option of giving thestate a stronger role in encouragingADUs.

Model Local Ordinance onAccessory Dwelling Units

The model local ordi-nance is designed to imple-ment the policies of themodel state ADU act. Theordinance includes: 1) Thegeneral provisions establish

that the purpose of the ordinance isto promote and encourage the cre-ation of legal ADUs in a manner thatenhances residential neighborhoods.2) The permits sections informhomeowners of the steps they musttake to obtain, keep valid and renewan ADU permit and specify what typesof proposed ADUs—apartments, at-tached or detached cottages—are eli-gible for permits in various zoningdistricts. And 3) the standards specifythe requirements that a homeowner’sapplication must meet before a per-mit to build or create an ADU is ap-proved.

The model local ADU ordinancepresents options for dealing with keyADU issues. The options acknowl-edge that conditions vary in differentcommunities. They are evaluated “op-timal,” “favorable” and “minimal”based on their potential to increasethe availability of ADUs in a commu-nity. Sorting among these provisionswill allow policymakers and commu-nity members to draft ordinances thatreflect their desires and concerns.

Underused space in single-family houses isone of the nation’s largest untapped housingresources.

Threefactors —

changing demographics,changing economics, andchanging community goals— have converged to makeinnovative solutions tohousing issues a policynecessity.

Income fromaccessory

dwelling units (ADUs) canoffset rising property taxes,maintenance and repaircosts and other housingexpenses.

The modelstate act

sets the terms for whatcommunities can andcannot do in regulatingADU’s via local ordinances

Presented annually to an organizationmaking outstanding contributions

to responsible conduct in publicservice.

Nominations, including self-nominations, are due October20, 2000. Nominations shouldinclude a one-page summary ofthe group’s accomplishments, afive-page narrative explainingthe nomination, and a ten-page

appendix including recommendationsor press clippings. Organizations with evidence ofprograms benefiting the general public are eligible.

See www.csg.org/other resources/press releasesfor details.

CSG Co-Sponsors thePublic Integrity Award

Sponsored By:The Council of State GovernmentsInternational City/County

Management AssociationAmerican Society for Public Administration

Submit to:Public Integrity Award Committee

c/o A.S.P.A.1120 G Street, NW, #700Washington, D.C. 20005


Fast Facts . . .

hile state taxes grow, thefamily tax burden ap-pears to be declining. A

study titled “The Tax Burden of theMedian American Family” confirmsthat even after adjusting for inflation,the American family’s recent prosper-ity has resulted in higher taxes. The$26,759 total tax burden that a mediantwo-earner family paid in 1998 is thehighest ever. Federal, state and localtaxes claimed 39.0 percent of a mediantwo-income family’s total income($68,605) down from 40.9 percent in1997 and down from the historicalhigh of 41.5 percent in 1996. Themedian one-income family’s tax bur-den was 37.6 percent of its 1998 in-

Family Tax Burden Dips,State Tax Collections GrowState taxes up — family tax burdendown. Will Internet sales lead to thereversal of this trend?

come ($36,579), down from a highof 38.6 percent in 1997.

State and local taxes combinedtook 8.8 percent of the two-earnerfamily’s income in 1975, but 23 yearslater that share had grown to 13.1percent. For the one-earner family,state and local taxes make up an evenlarger share of the total tax burdenand have been growing even faster.In 1975, state/local taxes took 9.4percent of family income, but in 1998they took 15.0 percent.

Payroll taxes have also climbedsharply. Although the rate has notincreased since 1990, the amount ofincome subject to the tax has in-creased so rapidly that the median

W

The $26,759 total taxburden that a mediantwo-earner family

paid in 1998 is the highestever.

In 1998, federal, stateand local taxesclaimed 39.0 percent

of a median two-incomefamily’s total income.

In 1998, the medianone-income family’stax burden was 37.6

percent of its income.

In 1975, state/localtaxes took 9.4percent of family

income, but in 1998 theytook 15.0 percent.

The fastest growingcategory of statecollections between

fiscal year 1997 and 1998was estate and gift taxcollections (17.4 percent).

In 1998, state/local taxes took 15.0 percent of a family’s income.


DistributionTotal General Individual Corporate Motor All

($Thousands) Sales & Use Income Income Fuels Licenses OtherAll States $474,990,564 32.9% 33.9% 6.5% 6.0% 6.2% 14.4%Alabama $5,734,128 27.4% 31.3% 4.3% 8.5% 7.6% 21.0%Alaska 1,186,235 0.0 0.0 23.2 2.9 8.0 65.9Arizona 6,949,270 43.9 26.8 7.6 7.7 3.4 10.7Arkansas 4,056,582 37.3 34.3 6.2 8.6 5.9 7.7California 67,713,433 31.5 41.0 8.3 4.2 4.6 10.4Colorado 5,898,349 26.0 48.9 4.6 8.5 4.7 7.4Connecticut 9,393,604 32.3 36.3 5.7 6.1 3.8 15.9Delaware 1,981,473 0.0 38.4 10.4 5.0 32.8 13.5Florida 22,513,115 57.4 0.0 5.6 6.6 6.4 23.9Georgia 11,589,495 34.5 45.9 6.4 4.8 3.4 5.0Hawaii 3,176,246 44.9 34.1 1.9 2.3 2.9 13.8Idaho 2,057,378 31.7 37.9 5.7 10.1 9.5 5.1Illinois 19,771,284 28.3 35.3 9.9 6.6 6.1 13.7Indiana 9,747,426 32.5 41.7 9.5 6.6 2.2 7.5Iowa 4,802,531 31.8 38.3 4.1 6.8 9.4 9.6Kansas 4,647,921 34.8 37.5 6.6 6.9 4.6 9.6Kentucky 7,115,149 27.8 34.0 4.7 5.8 6.3 21.4Louisiana 6,082,026 32.6 23.9 5.9 8.7 7.5 21.4Maine 2,369,820 35.1 38.2 4.5 6.6 5.0 10.5Maryland 9,190,482 23.5 45.0 4.1 7.4 3.8 16.1Massachusetts 14,488,496 20.4 55.4 9.4 4.3 3.1 7.4Michigan 21,692,742 34.9 31.3 10.9 4.8 5.1 13.0Minnesota 11,503,928 28.2 41.3 6.5 4.8 7.6 11.5Mississippi 4,343,435 46.8 19.5 5.6 8.9 6.9 12.2Missouri 8,222,326 32.0 41.0 4.4 8.1 7.0 7.6Montana 1,331,895 0.0 35.3 6.8 13.4 11.5 33.1Nebraska 2,633,216 34.9 37.0 5.4 10.1 6.4 6.2Nevada 3,228,206 54.9 0.0 0.0 7.7 10.4 27.0New Hampshire 1,008,518 0.0 6.1 23.4 11.4 12.4 46.6New Jersey 15,604,971 30.5 35.8 7.5 3.1 4.8 18.2New Mexico 3,574,537 40.7 22.4 5.0 6.7 5.3 19.9New York 36,154,533 21.1 50.6 8.7 1.4 2.7 15.7North Carolina 13,869,426 23.6 44.2 7.2 8.0 6.1 10.9North Dakota 1,078,375 28.7 16.5 7.7 9.8 7.4 30.0Ohio 17,642,836 31.4 39.5 4.3 7.5 8.3 9.0Oklahoma 5,300,829 25.1 35.6 4.2 6.7 14.1 14.4Oregon 4,999,097 0.0 68.8 5.6 7.6 10.1 7.9Pennsylvania 20,629,483 30.6 29.2 7.6 3.9 10.6 18.1Rhode Island 1,783,913 29.5 41.2 3.9 7.0 4.9 13.4South Carolina 5,683,148 38.1 36.7 3.8 6.0 7.1 8.4South Dakota 833,662 53.1 0.0 4.6 13.6 12.6 16.1Tennessee 6,996,120 57.6 2.3 8.7 10.8 9.4 11.3Texas 24,629,000 50.6 0.0 0.0 10.2 14.3 24.8Utah 3,457,649 36.9 39.8 5.6 8.9 4.3 4.6Vermont 957,656 20.3 38.2 4.8 5.9 6.8 24.0Virginia 10,542,966 21.1 51.3 4.2 7.2 4.3 11.9Washington 11,806,170 58.5 0.0 0.0 6.0 4.5 31.0West Virginia 3,011,990 28.4 28.8 7.4 7.7 5.3 22.5Wisconsin 11,149,754 27.3 45.3 6.1 7.6 5.7 8.0Wyoming 855,716 39.2 0.0 0.0 5.3 9.2 46.2Notes: Does not include the District of Columbia. Based on quarterly data.

Source: Tax Foundation, based on data from the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census.

State Tax Collections and Distribution by Source (Fiscal Year 1998)

family’s growing wages have not been able tocatch up with the cap. In 1998, the combinedrate was 15.3 percent (employer and employeeeach paid 7.65 percent) on wages and salaries upto $68,400 for Social Security, Disability Insuranceand Medicare.

After adjusting inflation, state governments’ taxcollections have grown faster than their taxpay-ers’ personal income by 0.35 percent annuallyover the last ten years. In fiscal year 1998, the trendaccelerated as collections outgrew growth in per-sonal income by 1.4 percent.

The fastest growing category of state collectionsbetween fiscal year 1997 and 1998 was estate andgift tax collections (17.4 percent). Individual in-come taxes rose at 11.1 percent clip, and “othertaxes” including amusement sales, pari-mutuelsales, documentary and stock transfer taxes andmany other sales taxes were up 9.8 percent.

The eight states that lowered their individualincome tax rates were Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii,Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio, Oklahoma andRhode Island.

The three staples of state finance in 1998 con-tinued to be individual income taxes (33.9 per-cent of revenue), general sales and use taxes (32.9percent), and a combination of business and ex-cise taxes, including corporate income taxes (6.5percent), motor fuels taxes (6.0 percent) and li-censes (6.2 percent).

Four states — Massachusetts, New York, Or-egon and Virginia — relied on personal incometaxes for over half of their tax collections in 1998.On the other end of the spectrum, seven states —Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas,Washington and Wyoming — collected no per-

sonal income taxes from their residents. (Ten-nessee and New Hampshire only collected indi-vidual income taxes on dividends and interests).

Many state policy makers are worried about theInternet’s effect on sales tax revenue, but catalogand cross border shopping pose exactly the sameproblem, and states have learned to live with it.Nevertheless, the explosive growth of the Internethas them nervous, especially in states that relyheavily on sales taxes: Florida, Nevada, SouthDakota, Tennessee, Texas and Washington deriveover half of their state tax collections from salestaxes. Five states — Alaska, Delaware, Montana,New Hampshire and Oregon — have no sales tax.

Nationwide the average per capita collectionwas $1769 and the average amount of tax col-lected per $1000 of personal income was $68.39.Both varied substantially from state to state. Thehighest per capita tax collections in 1998 were inConnecticut ($2872), followed by Delaware($2679) and Hawaii ($2669). New Hampshireranked fiftieth ($855).

Ranked by taxes collected per $1000 of per-sonal income, New Mexico was first ($105.10),followed by Hawaii ($102.82) and Delaware($91.73). South Dakota ($52.21), Texas ($51.63)and New Hampshire ($30.03) rounded out thebottom of the list at forty-eighth, forty-ninth andfiftieth, respectively, with New Hampshire collect-ing less than a third of the amount collected byNew Mexico.

States without income taxes did not necessar-ily rank as the least taxing states. Washingtonranked eighth in per capita collections ($2091)and twentieth in collections per $1000 of personalincome ($76.62).


Visit CSG on StatesNewswww.csg.org

Visit CSG on StatesNewswww.csg.org


A synopsis of new and noteworthy studies from thinktanks, universities, state government agencies andother research organizationscompiled by Chester Hicks, Midwestern regional coordinator, Daniel J. Hofmann,research associate, and David Moss, student intern, The Council of State Governments

Juveniles Facing Criminal Sanctions: Three States thatChanged the RulesThe U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Over the last decade, juvenile justice has in-creasingly become a more significant issue for thestates. In fact, from 1992 to 1997, 47 stateschanged their laws pertaining to juvenile justicein some way.

This report, Juveniles Facing Criminal Sanctions:Three States that Changed the Rules, examines theimplementation of three specific approaches tojuvenile justice reform, the lessons learned fromthese attempts and analysis of legislative activity.The states, Wisconsin, Minnesota and New Mexico,were chosen because of their significance and theidea that they closely represent national trends.

The major component of reform in Wisconsinwas related to the exclusion of a particular agegroup from the juvenile court system. Followinga provision effective January 1996 that all persons17 years and older are no longer under the juris-diction of the juvenile court, the number ofyouths eligible for the juvenile court was reducedby 12 percent.

After three years under the reformed system,most realize that two of the policymakers’ threegoals have been successfully met. Nearly every-one agrees that the adult criminal correctionssystem held 17-year-olds accountable althoughsome argue that it came at the expense of those17-year-olds committing less serious offenses be-cause the system is ill-equipped to handle thesesituations properly. Secondly, the reform madeWisconsin more congruent with neighboringstates with respect to the age of adult criminalresponsibility. Finally, the new system has notshifted resources as easily to the younger populationas was planned due to unintended consequences.

Under a 1993 provision, New Mexico attemptsto address older juvenile offenders who commitserious crimes with the possibility of adult cor-

rectional punishment. The law gives juvenilecourt judges the choice of imposing juvenile orcriminal sanctions on felony offenders betweenthe ages of 14 and 17. It also excludes all 15 to 17-year-olds charged with first-degree murder fromthe juvenile court’s jurisdiction. The state seemssatisfied with the reformed system mainly due tothe discretion that can be used with each indi-vidual case. One negative from the system is theabsence of an established strategy for juvenilecorrectional programming.

Minnesota’s 1994 reforms created a new cate-gory of juvenile offenders called extended juris-diction juveniles. Under their system, juvenilescommitting repeat or serious offenses are giventhe chance to be served under the juvenile courtsystem with impending criminal sanctions if theyreoffend. Those associated with the new systemin Minnesota generally regard it as successfulbecause it provides resources and a legal tool,criminal sanctions, that were otherwise unavail-able. The legislation has shifted toward gettingtough and focused on strengthening the com-munity by linking young persons with jobs andmentors and forming private sector partnerships.

The complete study produced many lessons forthose considering a push to legislate reforms ofthe juvenile justice systems. This list includes: adisconnect exists between legislative intent andactual implementation of new laws, blended sen-tencing encourages plea bargaining and expandsjudicial and prosecutorial discretion, and ex-panded sentencing laws require new resourcesand interventions.

— U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention

(800) 638-8736www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org


Privatizing Landfills: Market Solutionsfor Solid-Waste DisposalReason Public Policy Institute

Local governments face challenges with themanagement of existing landfills and with findinglocations for new facilities. The response by manygovernments has been to privatize their landfills.In fact, publicly owned landfills have declined bynearly 20 percent over the last 16 years. The rea-sons for this trend include managing liabilities,improving efficiency, cutting costs or debt andimproving access to capital and accountability.

Privatizing Landfills: Market Solutions for Solid-waste Disposal is a report that attempts to helppublic officials understand the privatization optionsand policy issues by presenting various objections,a number of case studies of landfill privatizationand a short how-to guide for privatization.

Five options exist for local governments relatedto landfills. These options are (1) government own-ership and operation, (2) cooperative agreementsbetween public and private entities, (3) governmentownership and public operation, (4) contractingwith the private sector and (5) relying on merchantfacilities. Each option carries specific advantagesand disadvantages that must be considered; there-fore, every situation must be evaluated individu-ally to determine the best course of action.

This report outlines reasons that governmentsshould privatize landfills. First, private servicestend to be more efficient because they are gener-ally absent of political pressure, and private firmsmust maintain sufficient service in order to securefuture government contracts. Additionally, priva-tizing landfills makes it possible for local govern-ments to reduce debt based on the fact that costsare reduced because of potential competition.The local government can also shift operational,environmental and capital risks to a private firm

under the privatization structure.As with most potential government action,

there are objections to consider. The primarysource of objection to the privatization of gov-ernment services is from public employee unionsbecause of their concerns over employee layoffs.Also, suspicion of the market and of contractorsexists among citizens that fear a decrease in thequality of service. Despite these and other con-cerns, the report concedes that privatization is apolicy tool and will not alleviate problems; ratherit can improve the management of landfills.

Also in the report are a few examples of localgovernments that have successfully transitionedto privatized landfills and methodology thathelped each thrive. Indianapolis, Indiana recentlyreduced the volume of the city’s waste deliveredto the landfill by 90 percent by privatizing theservice. Government officials stress the impor-tance of education and inclusiveness throughoutthe process to foster success.

Landfill markets are shifting toward megafillsthat can handle waste from regional areas andlocal governments are ill prepared with politicaland financial capital to form such landfills.Privatization offers local governments the oppor-tunity to achieve this goal because private firmshave necessary capital, they are not subject topublic-sector procurement constraints and theycan be held accountable. While privatization isnot perfect for every situation, it offers some lo-cal governments the chance to be customers andshop for the best value in waste management.

— Reason Public Policy Institute(310) 391-2245

www.rppi.org

Child Support Offers Some Protection Against PovertyThe Urban Institute — New Federalism

Nearly one-third of America’s children are be-ing raised with at least one parent living outsidethe household, which represents roughly 23 mil-

lion children as of 1997. These children are fourtimes as likely to be poor than those living withboth biological parents. Moreover, 70 percent of


A Tale of Two States: Welfare Reform inMinnesota and WisconsinCenter of the American Experiment — American Experiment Report

In August of 1996 Congress enacted historiclegislation that called for the reform of the fed-eral welfare system, which included the abolitionof Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Fol-lowing extensive research, Congress found thatdisastrous trends had appeared under the program.For example, the number of children receivingbenefits had tripled, likewise the illegitimate birthrate nearly tripled.

As part of the federal reform measures, theresponsibility of developing and executing aworthwhile system of assistance to families in needwas delegated to the states. A Tale of Two States: Wel-

fare Reform in Minnesota and Wisconsin, summarizesthe effectiveness of two welfare reform systemsthat were created under similar circumstances,both geographically and statistically.

Wisconsin began working to solve their welfareproblems with Learnfare under newly electedGovernor Tommy Thompson in 1987. By theearly 1990’s several reforms and pilot programswere in place leading to the implementation ofWisconsin Works, or W-2 in late 1996. This pro-gram was initiated with two premises: (1) nearlyeveryone is able to work and (2) only work pays.W-2 uses a four-step employment ladder to tran-

poor children eligible for child support were notreceiving it in 1996.

This report, Child Support Offers Some ProtectionAgainst Poverty, explores many general aspects ofchild support and its effect on families that receiveit by relying on research done by the NationalSurvey of America’s Families. Also included inthe discussion is state-specific data generated byNSAF for thirteen select states.

The study introduces information regardingthe generosity of nonresident parents with theirtime and money. Only one-half of all childrenwith a nonresident parent had received any fi-nancial support within the past twelve months,and 25 percent had no contact with the nonresi-dent parent at all. Evident from the data is thefact that a higher percentage of nonresidentfathers supply financial support to their childrenthan nonresident mothers. Conversely, 47 per-cent of nonresident mothers had weekly contactwith their children in the past twelve months, asopposed to only 30 percent of fathers.

When averaged across all children, child sup-port makes up only 2 percent of family income;however, this financial support is important tofamilies that receive it. In fact, for children with anonresident parent that receive support, it makesup about 16 percent of their family income. Fur-thermore, when poor children receive child sup-port, it accounts for an average of 26 percent ofthe family income, and 35 percent of the family

income for poor children not on welfare.Although families with income in excess of 300

percent of the poverty threshold are most likelyto receive child support, it is helping to curb pov-erty among children. The estimate is that childsupport reduces the poverty gap for children inAmerica by $2.5 billion or 8 percent.

With respect to the thirteen states selected fora closer look, significant discrepancies appearedin the amount of child support paid. For example,California reported only 14 percent of parentsliving elsewhere paid the full amount due, whileWisconsin led the way with 30 percent of suchparents in compliance. More than half of thestates surveyed reported within 3 percent of thenational average of 22 percent. The differencesby state reveal that many factors, including childsupport enforcement greatly affect the amountof child support paid.

The data suggests that improvements havebeen made, and that great challenges still lieahead. Child support is a major source of incomefor poor children, but only 29 percent of eligiblepoor children actually receive it. The primarychallenge for child support enforcers is gettingfinancial support for poor children from non-resident parents that are predominantly poorthemselves.

— The Urban Institute(202) 261-5687www.urban.org


sition intergenerational welfare recipients intogainful and self-sufficient employment.

The success of the reforms, mainly W-2, hasbeen remarkable. As of June 1999, the welfareroles in Wisconsin had been cut by 92 percentover a twelve-year span. Additionally, Wisconsin’schild poverty rate is less than half the nationalaverage at 11 percent.

Unfortunately, similar circumstances have notborn to similar results in Minnesota. In April 1997,Minnesota signed their welfare reform programinto law that closely mirrored a relatively unsuc-cessful pilot program that was instituted threeyears earlier. The program, the Minnesota FamilyInvestment Program, has attracted thousands ofmigrant welfare recipients from neighboringstates and has been markedly less successful thanW-2 for significant reasons.

The foundation of MFIP is the most significantdifference between the programs. Under MFIP,work is encouraged; rather than required. “Workactivities” are mandated, but failure to comply

results in only a 30 percent reduction of cashbenefits. Conversely, MFIP offers substantiallymore in cash benefits than most other states. Theircash benefits exceed those available in Illinois andIndiana by 41 and 85 percent respectively.

Another point of difference between the twostates’ welfare programs is in relation to teenageand out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Wisconsin offersno cash assistance to minor parents and there isno cash incentive for any parent to bear addi-tional children, while Minnesota provides cashbenefits to all mothers regardless of age and thestate increases the amount of cash assistance forevery child that is born.

The result for Minnesota is not a complete bust,but a relative one. Welfare roles in Minnesotadropped by 30 percent from 1992 to 1999; how-ever, included in that is a mere 3.6 percent de-cline from 1997 to 1999.

— Center of the American Experiment(612) 338-3605www.amexp.org

Mentoring School-Age Children: RelationshipDevelopment in Community-Based andSchool-Based ProgramsPublic/Private Ventures

Youth mentoring programs are popping upthroughout the states as a result of their wide-spread success. These programs have shown well-documented success in several areas includingyouths’ grades and school attendance. To exam-ine the scope and effectiveness of these programs,Public/Private Ventures developed a two-partinvestigation.

Mentoring School-Age Children: Relationship Devel-opment in Community-Based and School-Based Pro-grams is the report summarizing the second halfof their work, and it explores the experiences anddevelopment of the two main factions of one-on-one mentoring programs: community-based andschool-based programs.

Although the two types of programs are quitesimilar, there are some differences mentioned inthe report. School-based mentors spend muchmore time on academics during their meetingswith mentees, while community-based programs

involve more social activities for the pair. School-based mentoring programs are significantly lessexpensive due to the fact that they only provideabout half of the mentor/mentee contact hoursthat their counterparts do.

Because male mentors are in high demand,school-based programs, which are in supervisedlocations, offer the advantage of requiring a lessrestrictive mentor selection process. Cross-gen-der mentor/mentee matches that are prohibitedunder community-based programs are possibleunder the school-based system. However, due tothe academic focus of school-based programsmentors are unable to form as close of a relation-ship with the mentees as community-based mentors.

Despite the organizational and structural dif-ferences, the report states that eight of the ninepreordained relationship-building factors werelisted as important for both of the two types ofmentoring programs. Under the mentoring pro-


grams, engaging in social and academic activitiesis a critical component of bonding relationshipsbetween mentor and mentee. In fact, engagingin social activities together was listed by the men-tors as the most important relationship buildingfactor under the mentor/mentee program. Addi-tionally, of no surprise were the findings that thenumber of hours spent together contributes toenhanced relationships among the pairs, and adevelopmental approach to mentoring that al-lows the mentee to help make decisions is bene-ficial as well.

Also helpful is pre-match and post-match train-ing for mentors in order to help them be moreeffective. Quality mentor screening is importantunder both systems, but the findings did indicatethat quality post-match training could compen-sate for less than spectacular screening. Finally,

careful attention to matching mentors andmentees is a crucial part of the process. Surpris-ingly, matching individuals according to genderor ethnicity is not as important as matching themon the basis of similar interests.

A well-implemented community-based men-toring program provides youths with a plethoraof benefits, some of which are not possible underschool-based programs. To this end, school-basedprograms are a great complement to the moretraditional model with similarly positive results.School-based programs are especially beneficialin attracting volunteers, keeping program costslow and serving youth with school-related needs.

— Public/Private Ventures(215) 557-4400

www.ppv.org

Access thousands of reports onlineCSG’s State Archives Research Service online database is

easy-to-use and fully searchable, and it will help you findarticles, reports and publications on critical state governmentissues fast. STARS contains thousands of resources including50-state survey data, in-depth analyses of innovative stategovernment programs and full-text versions of every reportand publication produced by CSG from 1992 to the present.

An annual subscription to STARS with unlimited access is$300. A CSG Associate member subscription is $150. Registerthrough CSG’s Web site at www.csg.org or call toll-free (800)800-1910.

The Council of State GovernmentsP.O. Box 11910Lexington, KY 40578-1910(859) 244-8000Fax (859) 244-8001


his spring, I traveled to China as partof a Presidential Delegation led by Sec-retary of Agriculture Dan Glickman. Rep-

resenting a rural state that has been devastated byrecent downturns in agriculture, I have long-sup-ported establishing permanent normal trading re-lations for provincial reasons.

However, after visiting this emerging nationand having dozens of meetings, conversations andobservations with leaders and average citizens, Ibelieve that passing Permanent Normal Trade Re-lations (PNTR) is imperative not only for U.S.trade purposes, but for improving the religiousfreedom, living and working conditions of 1.2billion Chinese citizens.

Most of the people we talked to during ourtrip believe that the failure of Congress to passPNTR would send a strong and wrong signal toChinese leaders. Most significantly, it will confirmthe position promoted by the old hard-line com-munists that the U.S. is unreliable and not to betrusted. And it would undermine the senior reform-ers who are taking great personal and professionalrisk to support more open, democratic ways.

One of the most moving experiences of thetrip was our meeting with Bishop Jin, head of theCatholic Diocese in Shanghai. He is 85 years oldand speaks five languages fluently. In 1955, hewas convicted of subversion of the governmentand remained in prison until 1982. Still, today,Bishop Jin seems happy and shows no signs ofbitterness. His country demands “country first,”but his priorities are different. He lives his lifefor his God, his country, then his diocese, in thatorder.

Even at his age, Bishop Jin says we must take along, not short view, in striving for world peace.The U.S. would be wise to follow the sage adviceof Bishop Jin. He strongly supports PNTR forChina because he believes exposure to other ways

Passing Permanent Normal TradeRelations for China is Essentialfor U.S. Economyby North Dakota Governor Ed Schafer

of life helps Chinesepeople yearn for more.He believes people willeventually drive the po-litical and economicchanges in China.

Since his release fromprison in 1982, hisdream has been tosee a united CatholicChurch with peoplecommitted to social im-provement. I think heis seeing the start of it.About 5,000 people partake in four different ser-vices each Sunday in his church. He points outthat before the cultural revolution, China hadabout one million Christians. Today, that num-ber is estimated to be 20 million and growing.

During our travels, I was impressed with thecommitment Chinese leaders have already madeto improve infrastructure and provide a safety netfor people through food programs, health careand housing. This is not a corrupt country whereleaders are stealing money and pillaging the coun-try. Real investments are being made in China toimprove the quality of life for citizens.

But positive changes do not come without somenegative consequences. As China has moved froma planned economy to a more market-driveneconomy over the last 10 years, 1.2 million peoplehave been laid off from state-owned enterprisesin Shanghai alone. The mayor set up a workforce-training center and nearly one million of thesepeople are back at work. Shanghai is also invest-ing 3 percent of its revenues in environmentalclean up.

Of course as the governor of a rural state, I amparticularly interested in what trade with Chinameans for the agricultural economy. Agriculture

T

North Dakota Gov.Ed Schafer


is North Dakota’s number one industry and dur-ing down times, our citizens suffer statewide.Easier access to this huge market is very impor-tant to my state, and many others.

Under this agreement, China’s agriculturaltariffs would fall on average from 31 percent to14 percent for U.S. priority agricultural exports.China would also liberalize its purchase of bulkagricultural commodities like wheat and corn byallowing more imports under a low tariff ratequota. Wheat exports would rise from the 1998level of 2 million metric tons to 9.6 million met-ric tons by the year 2004.

The U.S. benefits significantly because thisagreement opens China’s previously closed mar-ket, while China simply maintains the access tothe U.S. market that it has had for about 20 years.It is essentially a one-way trade agreement — allthe concessions are from the Chinese.

And contrary to the opinions promoted by biglabor organizations, opening up the Chinesemarket will not result in a massive loss of jobs inthe U.S. The opposite is a more likely situation.Without PNTR, U.S. companies wanting to pur-

sue the Chinese market would be forced to openfactories in China to avoid tariffs and make theirproducts competitive in the mainland market-place.

As an example, Kodak currently produces digi-tal cameras in Rochester, N.Y., and exports themto China. They pay a 17 percent value-added taxon products upon entry and a 47 percent tariff!The PNTR agreement removes the tariff and putsKodak in a much better position to compete. Ifthe agreement isn’t ratified, Kodak will have nochoice but to build a manufacturing facility inChina to compete, thus threatening the jobs inNew York.

Concerns about freedom of religion and hu-man rights are legitimate. However, having hadthe opportunity to personally visit with reformleaders, business owners, blue-collar workers, andreligious leaders, I am convinced that China ismoving in the right direction. The United Statesshould help lift up China by getting involved inthe business growth and societal improvements.The progress may be slow, but it is imperative wesupport the changes that are already taking place.

We want your PERSPECTIVEThe Council of State Governments would like to hear aboutyour experiences with the difficult public policy issuesaffecting state government. Information exchange betweenpolicy-makers has always been a goal for Spectrum. We arecontinuing this tradition by offering “Perspectives.” This is aforum for sharing your ideas and recommendations on keypolicy issues with other state officials.

Submissions should be no longer than 1,000 words. Pleaseinclude address, telephone number and photo. Send two hard copies to:

Managing Editor, SpectrumThe Council of State Governments2760 Research Park Drive, P.O. Box 11910Lexington, KY 40578-1910

If you have questions, call Stephanie Potter at CSG (859) 244-8115 or [email protected].


What Americans thinkSocial SecurityA survey by the CBS News/New York Times

Social Security and Medicare remain amongthe top issues that Americans want the govern-ment to deal with, according to the latest CSBNews/New York Times Poll. Although the publicremains dubious as to whether Social Security willprovide for them when they retire, there’s greateroptimism than just one year ago. And Americansmay finally be willing to discuss options for re-vamping the system. While a majority of Americanssupport individual risk-taking, by a margin of morethan two to one the public is opposed to the idea

of permitting the government to invest the SocialSecurity trust fund in the stock market.

Social Security has been, and continues to be,an issue that is important to Americans. Eight per-cent name this problem as the top priority forgovernment. It is pressing for those age 65 andover, 20 percent of whom say they want the gov-ernment to address the issue first as well as theyounger population whom have little faith in thegovernment money meeting their needs.

• Will Social Security Have Money For You?Total 45 and under Over 45

Yes 41% 30% 54%No 45% 66% 20%

• Individuals Investing Social Security FundsTotal 45 and under Over 45

Good idea 51% 62% 38%Bad idea 45% 34% 58%

• Government Investing Social SecurityTrust Fund

Total 45 and under Over 45Good idea 27% 31% 23%Bad idea 69% 66% 72%

• Do You Believe the Individual Retiree ShouldAccept the Entire Risk of the Investment?

89% ................................................................Yes8% ............................................................... No

• Is It Possible To Cut Taxes While StillPreserving Medicare And Social Security?

Yes NoTotal 58% 34%Democrats 51%Republicans 65%


• Consumer Confidence Since December 1985Today Highest Lowest Average

National Economy 73% 80% 7% 40%

Personal Finances 65% 70% 42% 57%

Buying Climate 47% 57% 20% 38%

What Americans thinkComfort Index DeclinesA survey by the ABC News

Consumer confidence is declining and is at itslowest level since November. The decline is mainlydriven by an erosion of the buying climate. Whileconfidence is still high by historical standards,ratings of the buying climate have declined as oil

prices and interest rates have steadily risen.But Americans’ ratings of their personal finances

and the national economy remain high. Sixty-fivepercent rate their own finances positively and 73percent say the economy is in good shape.

Inside this issue of Spectrum . . .

• Education accountability

• The economics of crime

• Juveniles facing criminal sanctions

• Privatizing landfills

• Child support offers some protection against poverty

Spectrum: The Journal of State GovernmentThe Council of State GovernmentsP.O. Box 11910Lexington, KY 40578-1910

Nonprofit OrganizationU.S. Postage

PAIDLexington, KY 40578

Permit No. 355

The Journal of State Government Summer 2000 … › knowledgecenter › docs ›...

Documents

Transcript of The Journal of State Government Summer 2000 … › knowledgecenter › docs ›...