CBHC Mission Statement - CiteSeerX

The Children’s Board of Hillsborough County 1002 E. Palm Avenue – Boardroom

Tampa, FL 33605 Board of Directors’ - Special Meeting

March 22, 2010 – 5:45 p.m.

AGENDA CBHC Board of Directors’ - Special Meeting

March 22, 2010 – 5:45 p.m.

AGENDA

The Children’s Board Mission…

“We promote the well being of children and families across Hillsborough County by Uniting community partners, Investing in innovative opportunities and Leading the county in

best practices so that the whole community can realize its full potential.”

I. CALL TO ORDER V. Goddard A. Quorum Verification B. Review of Agenda II. DISCUSSION ITEMS

A. Status Report on the Mental Health Care/Achieve Management, Inc. D. Dixon Contract

B. Senate Bill 1216 (Attachments 1-13) A. Petrila

III. OPEN AGENDA The Children’s Board of Hillsborough County welcomes comments from the public. Those who wish to address the Board may do so at this time, Open Agenda portion of the meeting. Those addressing the Board should clearly state their full name and affiliation for the official record. IV. OTHER/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT

All meetings are held at The Children’s Board of Hillsborough County 1002 East Palm Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33605

Unless otherwise noticed

Table of Contents

click on title to go to document

1. Chronology of Events SB1216/HB1227

2. Children’s Board Communications Plan

3. Children’s Board Talking points (Key Facts)

4. Florida Children’s Services Council Talking points

5. SB 1216 Committee Substitute

6. SB 1216 Original

7. HB 1227

8. List of Members of Relevant Committees Scheduled

To Consider SB1216/HB 1227

9. The Capital Connection, dated March 19, 2010

10. The Children’s Trust Campaign Report

11. Key Organizational Contacts (State and Local)

12. Key Individual Contacts

13. Letter to Community Stakeholders

14. Florida Statute s125.901

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS SB 1216/ HB 1227

Background: Several bills have been filed for consideration in the 2010 Legislative Session that would affect all Children’s Services Councils. Sen. Joe Negron (R- Palm City) has filed three bills with different House sponsors for each. Sen. Negron represents Martin County and parts of Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Indian River and Palm Beach Counties. He was in the House of Representatives for eight years and won a special election in 2009 to replace retiring Sen. Ken Pruitt. Sen. Negron was selected to be chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee in his first year in the Florida Senate and is a favorite of current and future Senate leadership.

#1: Senate Bill 1216 relating to Children’s Services Councils

Sponsor: Negron (R-Palm City), Co-Sponsors: Baker (R-Eustis),Dean (R-Inverness),

Fasano (R-New Port Richey), Gaetz (R-Destin), Gardiner (R-Orlando), Haridopolos (R-

Melbourne), Richter (R-Naples), Storms (R-Brandon), Thrasher (R-Jacksonville), Wise (R-

Jacksonville)

Date Chamber Action

01/14/10 SENATE Filed

02/03/10 SENATE Referred to Children, Families, and Elder Affairs; Community Affairs; Finance and Tax; Health and Human Services Appropriations (members of these committees are attached)

03/01/10 SENATE On Committee agenda - Children, Families, and Elder Affairs, 03/04/10, 8:00 am, 401 S

03/04/10 SENATE Temporarily postponed by Children, Families, and Elder Affairs

03/15/10 SENATE On Committee agenda - Children, Families, and Elder Affairs, 03/18/10, 1:00 pm, 401 S

03/18/10 SENATE Favorable with Committee Substitute by Children, Families, and Elder Affairs; 6 Yeas, 2 Nays

Companion bill : House Bill 1227

Sponsor: Mayfield (R-Vero Beach); Co-Sponsor: Snyder (R-Stuart)

Date Chamber Action

02/23/10 HOUSE Filed

03/03/10 HOUSE Referred to Military & Local Affairs Policy Committee; Health Care Services Policy Committee; Finance & Tax Council; Economic Development & Community Affairs Policy Council (members of these committees are attached)

HOUSE Now in Military & Local Affairs Policy Committee

Weekly strategy calls started on Friday, February 19 and have continued each Friday since

then. The calls included all CEOs, all lobbyists, some board chairs and CSC policy/

advocacy staff. The calls are the primary communication tools used to review options,

discuss strategy with lobbying team, and decide on next steps. See attached

Communication Plan for details.

In the first committee hearing at the Senate Committee on Children, Families and Elder

Affairs meeting on March 4, five members of the public testified in opposition. These

included Maria Alonso, Chair, The Children’s Trust of Miami-Dade County, Judge Alvarez,

Palm Beach County Juvenile Court Judge, Barbara Allan, a private business person from

Palm Beach County, Mel Jurado, Member, Hillsborough County ELC and Ted Granger,

President, United Way of Florida.

Senators posed many questions, including Sen. Detert, Sen. Justice, Sen. Garcia, and

Sen. Rich. Senator Negron then proposed a ―carve-out‖ for Miami-Dade. Sen. Garcia and

Sen. Rich indicated major problems with this approach, and the committee chair, Se.

Storms suggested that SB 1216 be temporarily postponed. She then declared that the bill

would come back for consideration in week three. During the subsequent weeks, talks

occurred with Sen. Negron and our lobbyists, as well as other Senators on the committee.

CEOs and Board Chairs met with lobbyists in Tallahassee on Tuesday, March 16. Our

lobbyist, Ron Book, and Sen. Negron had a meeting that Tuesday afternoon. Sen. Negron

offered to remove BOCC oversight and additional governing board members in return for

agreement to return to the voters for retention or dissolution of the CSCs, beginning in

2012. After discussion, the CEOs and Board Chairs declined this offer.

The strike-all amendment (attached) was filed on Wednesday, March 17. However, the

required referenda date was changed to 2010 for CSCs established before 1990 (this

would include Martin, St. Lucie, Pinellas, Hillsborough and Okeechobee.) The amendment

also requires that the question of retention or dissolution be submitted to the voters every

six years (the original bill was every eight years.)

At the committee meeting on March 18, five community members spoke to oppose the bill

including businessman and former Children’s Board Chair-- David Kennedy, Board

president from Martin County Boys and Girls Club--Lynn Frank, Broward County School

Board member-- Maureen Binnen, Broward County BOCC Govt. Affairs director, and Ted

Granger, United Way of Florida.

The Senate Committee approved the bill as amended by the strike-all by a vote of 6-2. In

favor were Sen. Storms, Sen. Detert, Sen. Wise, Sen. Diaz de la Portilla, Sen. Garcia, and

Sen. Hill (Democrat from Jacksonville). Sen. Justice and Sen. Rich voted no.

The House companion bill will likely be scheduled for a hearing on Thursday, March 25 in

the House Military and Local Affairs Committee.

Note on Procedure: Rules of the House and Senate require that bills brought to the floor

for a full vote must have been approved by at least one committee. Bills can be withdrawn

from subsequent committees by request of the sponsor and with the agreement of the

Rules Chair and the leadership of the appropriate body.

Bill # 2: Election of members of Governing Boards with millage authority SB 1180 proposes the creation of Section 28 of Article X of the Florida Constitution to require the election of members of governing boards that have the authority to adopt millage rates. If passed, this bill would appear on the ballot in 2010 and would require 60% of the electorate to become part of the Florida Constitution. It has been referred to five committees but has not yet been calendared for consideration. The committees are Environmental Preservation and Conservation; Ethics and Elections; Governmental Oversight and Accountability; Policy & Steering Committee on Ways and Means; and Rules. Rep. Carl Domino (R- Juno Beach) is sponsoring the companion bill-HB 493- which has been referred to four committees: Governmental Affairs Policy Committee; Agriculture & Natural Resources Policy Committee; Finance & Tax Council; Economic Development & Community Affairs Policy Council. HB 493 was considered in a workshop by the House Governmental Affairs Policy Committee on Feb. 17, but no votes were taken. Water management districts spoke against the bill, as did the FCSC. The Florida League of Cities spoke in support of the bill. Bill # 3- Merger and dissolution of Special Districts SB 1568 would revise provisions relating to merger and dissolution procedures for special districts. It requires certain merger and dissolution procedures to include referenda, and provides that such provisions preempt prior special acts. It also provides for a local government to assume the indebtedness of, and receive the title to property owned by, a special district under certain circumstances. This bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Community Affairs, where it passed unanimously on March 9. It is now in Ethics and Elections committee before going to Finance and Tax and the Policy & Steering Committee on Ways and Means. This bill is supported by the Florida Association of Special Districts.

The House companion bill - HB 1095- has been filed by Rep. Mark Pafford (D- West Palm Beach) and was heard by the first committee, Military and Local Affairs, on March 17 where it passed by a vote of 12-2. It is now in the Finance & Tax Council and the Economic Development & Community Affairs Policy Council.

Communication Plan

DRAFT 3-22-10

WHAT AND HOW?

Respond early and respond firmly, but not confrontationally-tone and style are important.

Seek to find and emphasize common ground.

Focus on our strengths--independent, apolitical decision making.

Seek to minimize antagonizing bill sponsors–do not get personal!

Identify friends of bill sponsors – trusted emissaries—who are willing to help.

ACTIONS taken to date:

♦ Local Activities

1. Identify constituencies who might support the proposals such as anti-tax, personal responsibility groups. Identify friends of CSCs within those constituencies.

Engage trusted parties/good emissaries/ opinion leaders. Select partners and their lobbyists in good standing/with good relationships with these

groups. Include members of the faith community.

2. Identify County Commissioners in support and opposition, as well as those who might assist with testimony.

Discuss proposals and concerns with each County Commissioner and staff (in process—meetings held with Sharpe, Beckner, Hagan, Higginbotham, scheduled phone call with Norman, White and Ferlita in process)

Request BOCC resolution opposing bill from Comm. Beckner (3-25-10 Board meeting) Add issue to county legislative package (3-25-10 Board meeting) Communicate with other County leaders (In process)

3. Identify other local leaders and elected officials who would be helpful (See attached list) Tampa Chamber Tampa Bay Partnership Hills. Co. Sheriff Supervisor of Elections Public Defender Judges

State Attorney

4. Enlist staff, Board members, providers and other state / local philanthropic organizations to speak on our behalf. Develop specific points for each audience: business, government, legislative,

other constituencies Talking points for each audience Training for spokespersons?

♦ Legislative Activities

1. Identify potential legislative paths and key legislators (Done—see attached committee lists)

Important committee chairs and members (see attached) Key Legislators – Leadership, members with history of serving on CSCs

2. Organize March board meeting in Tallahassee around political action on Capitol Hill by CEOs and Board Chairs (Done)

3. Seek opportunities for working with House members. (In process)

4. Work with Governor’s office. (In process) Explain apolitical decision making process that is scandal free and impossibility of

August 2010 date for referenda Ask for support from local Gov. office staff

5. Seek support of Florida Association of Counties and other statewide groups (e.g., Healthy Start, Early Learning Coalitions, Boards of statewide provider groups like Children’s Home Society, Big Brothers/ Big Sisters, Boys and Girls Clubs, etc.) In Process

6. Enlist support of Law Enforcement organizations (In Process)

♦ Media/PR

1. FCSC: Engage PR/media firms with track record of success for statewide / Tally effort (done-Core Message contracted)

2. Develop local media strategy for print, radio, electronic newsletters, advocacy alerts, Board member, local committees, etc. (Done)

♦ Legal

1. Obtain formal legal opinion to determine constitutional and statutory concerns (done)

♦ Work Products Completed by FCSC/ CBHC

1. Develop Background Paper (done)

2. Develop Talking Points (done—statewide and CBHC)

3. Develop Draft Op Ed pieces that speak to the value of CSCs and the need for independence (In process)

4. Hold weekly statewide conference calls (Fridays at 11:00 AM)

5. Develop position papers regarding investments in key areas: healthy births, school readiness and success, afterschool, rev max, cost-savings, organizational capacity-building, etc. –in process

SPECIFIC ACTIONS: MID TERM (During Session)

1. Monitor legislation daily; report weekly via Advocacy Alerts/ Capitol Connection

2. Hold frequent conference calls with lobbyists (daily or as needed)

3. Ramp up messaging/ Place op eds in relevant media markets

4. Ask community leaders to testify in committee hearings

5. Identify opportunities for compromise

6. Hold community forums for information sharing with community stakeholders

7. Meet with Board Chairs of each funded provider organization –schedule for early AM or evening

8. Develop materials for all employees of provider organizations

SPECIFIC ACTIONS IF BILL PASSES: LONG TERM (Post Session)

1. Gubernatorial veto

2. Legal Challenge

BACKGROUND:

In October 1988, the citizens of Hillsborough County voted to dedicate a new property tax to serve

the specific needs of children. This mandate led to the creation of the Children’s Board, an

independent special district organized under F.S. 125.901.

Today, the vision of the Children’s Board is that Hillsborough County will be recognized as one of

the top places in the nation to raise children. Our mission is to promote the well-being of children

and families by uniting community partners, investing in innovative opportunities, and leading the

county in best practices—so the whole community can realize its full potential.

Services and supports funded by the Children’s Board constitute the building blocks for healthy

futures for ALL children and families. This investment is unequalled in its return.

KEY FACTS:

1. The Children’s Board costs the average homeowner only $62.50 a year-- $5.20 per month-- less than the cost of one fast food meal.

2. Over the last five years the Children’s Board has generated $139,848,167 in new dollars used to serve Hillsborough County children--a return on investment of $4.39 for every $1 invested.

3. The Children’s Board brings new dollars into our community from Federal, State, corporate and private philanthropic funders.

In 2009, more than $600,000 in new revenue was earned from the federal Medicaid program and reinvested in local case management services.

In 2009, the Children’s Board earned more than $220,000 in new revenue for children’s services through the federal Adoption Assistance program.

8,400 children receive a higher quality of child care because the Children’s Board provides matching funds to the Hillsborough County Early Learning Coalition for quality incentives.

Through our Technical Assistance fund, the Children’s Board builds capacity in grassroots and faith-based organizations. Over three years, grants were made to over 200 small businesses.

The Children’s Board is the only governmental organization in Hillsborough County that can respond to new funding match opportunities on short notice. Since 2008, with match opportunities requiring a response time ranging from one week to one month, the Children’s Board generated $11,264,000 for services to our County’s children and families, a yield of $2.32 for every $1 invested.

Through our Social Enterprise initiative, the Children’s Board helps organizations to identify, develop and implement earned income strategies so that their funding base is more diversified and sustainable. Three examples: DACCO increased client fees and their new food service business nets about $33,000 annually. The Crisis Center has increased earned income from zero to nearly 30% of their budget including the ambulance and nurse examiners program. Success 4 Kids & Families has grown their speaking and consulting business from zero to approximately $100K a year.

4. The Children’s Board invests in prevention and saves State dollars by reducing need for costly programs like foster care or juvenile detention.

The Children’s Board invests in family and kinship support services for more than 7,000 children and their families to prevent child abuse and to divert children away from the formal child welfare system--saving the state approximately $52 M in just one year! Source: HKI

The Children’s Board provides funding to the 13th Judicial Court for innovative services that keep kids out of the juvenile justice system.

Through our maternal and child health services network, young mothers who are at high risk for health complications receive support and education to reduce repeat pregnancies.

The Heart Gallery, a partnership with our community based child welfare agency, Hillsborough Kids, Inc., is a traveling photography exhibit that recruits potential adoptive families for foster children. Over the past five years, families were found for forty percent of participating children. Partnering with local media and the business community, the Gallery generates resources and birthday gifts for children and was the first to feature audio messages along with the professional photos. Many of our innovations are being replicated.

5. The Children’s Board invests in making sure that Hillsborough County children are able to enter school with the skills and good health they need to be successful.

The Children’s Board is a partner with the Dolly Parton Foundation, the United Way, the Tampa Hillsborough Public Library and others to encourage reading by providing a book a month to every baby born until their fifth birthday. Last year, the Imagination Library distributed 124,112 books to families.

Over 1,100 children and their families are served through Family and School Support Teams available to students in elementary schools throughout Hillsborough County.

6. The Children’s Board invests in families and communities.

The Children’s Board served as a tax preparation site for the Hillsborough Prosperity Campaign, and CBHC staff volunteered over 200 hours to assist in the completion of 474 income tax returns for a total of $599,530 in federal taxes returned to Hillsborough County taxpayers. Of these, 135 families qualified for Earned Income Tax Credit ($207,214 returned) and 78 families qualified for the Child Tax Credit ($92,431 returned to taxpayers). In total, the Prosperity Campaign returned over $7 million to Hillsborough County citizens, including $2,705,825 in Earned Income Tax Credit and $979,040 in Child Tax Credits.

Family Support and Resource Centers in Brandon, Town ‘n Country, Ruskin, North Tampa, Central Tampa and Plant City provided services to more than 18,251 individuals. Community volunteers contributed more than 3,803 hours at the Family Support and Resource Centers.

The Children’s Board invests nearly $1.5 million and leverages an additional $1.7 million from other local, state and federal funders through an innovative flexible funding pool called the ASO. Last year, over 4,700 children and more than 19,000

household members received support for basic needs such as housing, food, clothing, and transportation that allowed families to become more self-sufficient.

7. The Children’s Board office building is a neighborhood and community asset.

In 2000 the Children’s Board determined that its office building on Eighth Avenue,

purchased in 1993, was in need of substantial repairs and that the existing space was insufficient to meet community and organizational demands. The Board engaged in a two year planning and community engagement process before settling on the purchase of land and construction of a new office building on Palm Avenue in downtown Tampa in late 2002. At a cost of $3,390,978, the Children’s Board office site and conference center was completed in early 2004 and occupied in May 2004.

The Children’s Board analyzed the costs and benefits of leasing space vs. purchasing/ building space as part of our due diligence responsibilities. Renting space was more costly to taxpayers within six years. That is, had the Children’s Board opted to lease space from 2004 to now at a cost of $19 per square foot ($570,000/year), the costs paid for leasing would have been equal to the amount spent to build the Palm Avenue offices.

The Children’s Board office building is a neighborhood-based learning and conference center for parents, child care providers, youth, educators, elected officials and community members. The Children’s Board features free meeting space, free parking, easy access to public transportation and a central location close to major transportation routes. The facility supports approximately 38,000 visitors annually. Since May 2004, the estimated value of free meeting space to the community is $1,177,800.

CBHC also has a cost sharing tenant partnership with the Early Learning Coalition of Hillsborough County, annually earning $112,444 ($60,444 for rent and $52,000 for administrative services.)

The Children’s Board is home to the Central Tampa Family Support and Resource Center, which serves the local neighborhood, and to a library that is affiliated with the Tampa Hillsborough County Public Library system. The Library and Family Support and Resource Center provide educational opportunities and family activities, all guided by a neighborhood advisory council. Car seat safety, first aid, job skills, tutoring and computer skills are just a few of the educational classes offered. Other activities hosted and supported by the FSRC include the Prosperity Campaign, Toys for Tots and the Imagination library.

The KidzCreate Art Gallery on the first floor of the Children’s Board showcases children’s art and raises awareness about critical issues. The Gallery works with local artists to develop themed art installations. Exhibits also travel to key county buildings, businesses, libraries and other venues

and are viewed by approximately 2,000,000 citizens annually. The Gallery develops partnerships with local businesses to provide art supplies and art therapy experiences for young people.

For more information contact Amy Petrila, Director of Public Policy and Advocacy, at 813-774-1854 or

[email protected].

F L O R I D A C H I L D R E N ’ SS E R V I C E S C O U N C I L

216 South Monroe, Tallahassee, FL 32301 (850) 402-5437 phone (850) 942-5437 fax www.floridacsc.org

The Children’s Trust of Miami-Dade County CSC of Martin County CSC of St. Lucie County Jacksonville Children’s Commission JWB - CSC of Pinellas County CSC of Palm Beach County CSC of Broward County Children’s Board of Hillsborough County

Florida Children’s Services Council SB 1216 Talking Points

CSCs are Approved by the People, Representative of the People • Children’s Services Councils were created for the children by the people. • Citizens wanted and voted to have local, independent bodies that focus on the needs of their

county’s kids – the Children’s Services Councils. • Local voters have been empowered to establish dedicated and stable funding sources set aside

for programs that improve the lives of the children in their area. In counties with a CSC, voters have taken advantage of this right.

• In most CSC counties, the formation of a Children’s Services Council was initiated by community leaders. However, that’s only the beginning of the process.

• To create a Children’s Services Council, the county commission must vote to place it on the ballot. Then the county’s voters must pass a referendum to formally establish the Council.

• The voters and the people they elected to represent them – their county commissioners – are the ones responsible for creating the CSC.

• The people continue to be represented on Children’s Services Council boards, through positions that include elected officials such as county commissioners, school board members and judges.

CSCs are a Local Funding Solution • In these tough economic times, Florida lawmakers are struggling to fund vital programs that serve

Florida’s children, such as VPK and School Readiness. • The state’s budget crisis has forced the Legislature to cut deeply into health and human services

programs, and consider the elimination of entire programs such as Healthy Families. • Local communities with Children’s Services Councils have done the fiscally responsible thing by

creating a local revenue stream to support children’s programs needed in their hometowns. • SB 1216 would jeopardize individual counties’ ability to fund their own local programs for children

and likely increase dependence on state-funded programs. • Losing local dollars that are invested locally will only make a bad funding scenario worse. If SB 1216 Wins, Children Lose • SB 1216 would require five of Florida’s eight Children’s Services Councils to be placed on an

August ballot this year for voters to decide the fate of their local CSC. • Children’s Services Councils do not oppose going to the voters to be reaffirmed. However, going

to ballot with less than six months to educate voters is unreasonable. • Such a short timeframe will cheat voters out of the opportunity to make informed decisions about

investments in their community’s children. • SB 1216 places Children’s Services Councils on a “reauthorization treadmill.” It mandates an

arbitrary timeline that requires CSCs to go back to the voters every six years for reauthorization. • While a voting cycle makes sense for an elected official, it wreaks havoc for publicly funded

organizations like CSCs that must operate with a long-term vision to best meet the needs of the community.

•

216 South Monroe, Tallahassee, FL 32301 (850) 402-5437 phone (850) 942-5437 fax www.floridacsc.org

The Children’s Trust of Miami-Dade County CSC of Martin County CSC of St. Lucie County Jacksonville Children’s Commission JWB - CSC of Pinellas County CSC of Palm Beach County CSC of Broward County Children’s Board of Hillsborough County

If SB 1216 Wins, Children Lose - continued • Repeatedly returning to the ballot diverts resources and energy away from the CSCs’ core

mission of serving children. • This legislation jeopardizes sustained investments in children that voters originally intended when

creating their local Children’s Services Councils. • Just like any other facet of government, it is difficult to function if your very existence is uncertain. • With the long-term viability of a CSC always in question, a county’s health and human services

system remains vulnerable to the politics of the day. CSCs are Accountable to the People • Children’s Services Councils are accountable to the citizens of their county, their governing

boards, their county commissions and the Florida Legislature. • At any time, a county commission or the Legislature can ask voters to decide if they want to keep

their local Council. • This provides local elected leaders, state lawmakers and voters the highest level of control and

authority over Children’s Services Councils. • No other government entity has this many layers of accountability and oversight. • Everything Children’s Services Councils do is in the sunshine – all of their records and meetings

are open to the public, including budgets, financial reports and program information. • The composition of Children’s Services Councils board is dictated by Florida law. • How Children’s Services Councils collect, budget and expend funds are also prescribed by

statute. • Children’s Services Councils submit quarterly financial reports and independent annual audits to

the county. In addition, audits of financial records go to the state each year. • Recently, the people of Miami-Dade County voted overwhelmingly to keep their Children’s

Services Council. Voters in Pinellas and Palm Beach Counties returned to the polls and gave their Councils the ability to increase local tax revenues used to fund children’s programs.

• Broad community support of Children’s Services Councils is a testament to the people’s confidence in and satisfaction with their work.

CSCs are a Proven Return on Investment • Children’s Services Councils take local dollars and invest them locally, all with oversight by local

leaders. • While it is difficult to quantify the value of healthy, safe children, the economic value of Children’s

Service Councils is apparent in their community return on investment -- reduced juvenile crime, better school performance, decreased child abuse and neglect, and reduced infant mortality rates.

• Children’s Services Councils leverage the local dollars they receive to secure millions in federal matching money and private donations.

• The programs funded by Children’s Services Councils create thousands of local jobs, enabling people to work.

Children’s Services Councils are...Children’s Services Councils are...Children’s Services Councils are...Children’s Services Councils are...

By The People, For The ChildrenBy The People, For The ChildrenBy The People, For The ChildrenBy The People, For The Children

Accountable and TransparentAccountable and TransparentAccountable and TransparentAccountable and Transparent

A Positive Return on InvestmentA Positive Return on InvestmentA Positive Return on InvestmentA Positive Return on Investment

♦ Established by the voters ♦ Representative of the community ♦ Placed on the ballot by county commissions ♦ Governed by elected officials, gubernatorial appointees, local leaders and state employees

♦ Authorized under law passed by the Florida Legislature ♦ Subject to the same rules and requirements that apply to city and county governments

♦ Operating under Sunshine laws with all meetings, records, budgets, financial reports and annual reports open to the public

♦ Mandated to conduct independent annual audits and submit them to the county and state

♦ Required to submit quarterly financial reports to counties ♦ Operating under multiple levels of scrutiny — the community, CSC board, county and state

♦ Investing local dollars locally ♦ Reducing the rate of juvenile crime, infant mortality, and child abuse and neglect

♦ Improving long-term outcomes for children through investments in early learning/school readiness and afterschool programs

♦ Saving taxpayers’ money by reducing the number of children in state foster care and the juvenile justice system

♦ Leveraging local dollars to secure millions in state and federal matching money and private donations

Children Children Children Children cannot vote. cannot vote. cannot vote. cannot vote. That’s why That’s why That’s why That’s why voters in voters in voters in voters in individual individual individual individual Florida Florida Florida Florida counties have counties have counties have counties have established established established established their owntheir owntheir owntheir own Children's Children's Children's Children's Services Services Services Services Councils Councils Councils Councils ———— independent independent independent independent bodies that bodies that bodies that bodies that oversee oversee oversee oversee dedicated and dedicated and dedicated and dedicated and stable funding stable funding stable funding stable funding for programs for programs for programs for programs that improve that improve that improve that improve the lives of the lives of the lives of the lives of children in the children in the children in the children in the community.community.community.community.

Florida Senate - 2010 CS for SB 1216

By the Committee on Children, Families, and Elder Affairs; and

Senators Negron, Baker, Haridopolos, Richter, Thrasher, Dean,

Gaetz, Wise, Fasano, Gardiner, and Storms

586-03220-10 20101216c1

Page 1 of 2

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

A bill to be entitled 1

An act relating to children’s services; amending s. 2

125.901, F.S.; requiring the governing body of the 3

county to submit to the electorate the question of 4

retention or dissolution of a special taxing district 5

created to provide funding for children’s services; 6

prescribing a schedule for submission of the question 7

to the electorate; providing for the application of 8

the act to certain special districts in existence 9

before and after the act’s effective date; providing 10

an effective date. 11

12

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: 13

14

Section 1. Subsection (4) of section 125.901, Florida 15

Statutes, is amended to read: 16

125.901 Children’s services; independent special district; 17

council; powers, duties, and functions; public records 18

exemption.— 19

(4)(a) Any district created pursuant to the provisions of 20

this section may be dissolved by a special act of the 21

Legislature, or the county governing body may by ordinance 22

dissolve the district subject to the approval of the electorate. 23

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), the governing body of 24

the county shall submit the question of retention or dissolution 25

of the district to the electorate in the August primary election 26

according to the following schedule and every 6 years 27

thereafter: 28

1. For a district for which the most recent referendum by 29

Florida Senate - 2010 CS for SB 1216

586-03220-10 20101216c1

Page 2 of 2


the electorate on its taxing authority was held in 1990 or 30

before......................................................2010. 31


the electorate on its taxing authority was held after 1990 but 33

before 2001.................................................2012. 34


the electorate on its taxing authority was held after 2000 but 36

before 2010.................................................2018. 37

4. For a district whose taxing authority is initially 38

authorized by referendum by the electorate in 2010 or later, 6 39

years after the authorization. 40

41

If any district is dissolved pursuant to the provisions of this 42

subsection, each county must shall first obligate itself to 43

assume the debts, liabilities, contracts, and outstanding 44

obligations of the district within the total millage available 45

to the county governing body for all county and municipal 46

purposes as provided for under s. 9, Art. VII of the State 47

Constitution. Any district may also be dissolved pursuant to the 48

provisions of s. 189.4042. 49

Section 2. Notwithstanding s. 31 of chapter 90-288, Laws of 50

Florida, the revisions made by this act to s. 125.901, Florida 51

Statutes, apply to any special district having taxing authority 52

to provide funding for children’s services, and governed by a 53

council on children’s services, which is in existence on the 54

effective date of this act and to any such district created on 55

or after the effective date of this act. 56

Section 3. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law. 57

Florida Senate - 2010 SB 1216

By Senator Negron

28-00933B-10 20101216__

Page 1 of 16


A bill to be entitled 1

An act relating to children’s services; amending s. 2

125.901, F.S.; revising the membership of councils on 3

children’s services; requiring the governing body of 4

the county to approve the purchase of real estate or 5

the construction of a building by a council on 6

children’s services; requiring a council on children’s 7

services to submit a tentative budget and proposed 8

millage rate to the governing body of the county; 9

requiring the governing body of the county to take 10

public testimony on the council’s tentative budget and 11

proposed millage rate; providing for the governing 12

body of the county to approve the budget before final 13

adoption by a council on children’s services; 14

specifying that millage levied and fixed by a council 15

on children’s services does not count against the 16

millage limit applicable to the county under the State 17

Constitution; requiring the governing body of the 18

county to take public testimony and periodically vote 19

to retain or dissolve a council on children’s 20

services; requiring the electors of a county to 21

periodically vote on whether to retain or dissolve a 22

council on children’s services; requiring a council on 23

children’s services to give priority in the use of 24

funds to the provision of children’s services rather 25

than to the purchase of real estate or the 26

construction of buildings; expressing legislative 27

intent on application of the act; providing an 28

effective date. 29


28-00933B-10 20101216__

Page 2 of 16


30

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: 31

32

Section 1. Section 125.901, Florida Statutes, is amended to 33

read: 34

125.901 Children’s services; independent special district; 35

council; powers, duties, and functions; public records 36

exemption.— 37

(1) Each county may by ordinance create an independent 38

special district, as defined in ss. 189.403(3) and 39

200.001(8)(e), to provide funding for children’s services 40

throughout the county in accordance with this section. The 41

boundaries of such district shall be coterminous with the 42

boundaries of the county. The county governing body must shall 43

obtain approval, by a majority vote of those electors voting on 44

the question, to annually levy ad valorem taxes that may which 45

shall not exceed the maximum millage rate authorized by this 46

section. Any district created pursuant to the provisions of this 47

subsection shall be required to levy and fix millage subject to 48

the provisions of s. 200.065. Once such millage is approved by 49

the electorate, the district may shall not be required to seek 50

approval of the electorate in future years to levy the 51

previously approved millage. 52

(a) The governing board of the district shall be a council 53

on children’s services, which may also be known as a juvenile 54

welfare board or similar name as established in the ordinance by 55

the county governing body. Such council shall consist of 11 10 56

members, including: the superintendent of schools; a local 57

school board member; the district administrator from the 58


28-00933B-10 20101216__

Page 3 of 16


appropriate district of the Department of Children and Family 59

Services, or his or her designee who is a member of the Senior 60

Management Service or of the Selected Exempt Service; two 61

members one member of the county governing body; and the judge 62

assigned to juvenile cases, who shall sit as a voting member of 63

the board, except that the said judge may shall not vote or 64

participate in the setting of ad valorem taxes under this 65

section. If there is more than one judge is assigned to juvenile 66

cases in a county, the chief judge shall designate one of the 67

said juvenile judges to serve on the board. The remaining five 68

members shall be appointed by the Governor, and shall, to the 69

extent possible, represent the demographic diversity of the 70

population of the county. After soliciting recommendations from 71

the public, the county governing body shall submit to the 72

Governor the names of at least three persons for each vacancy 73

occurring among the five members appointed by the Governor, and 74

the Governor shall appoint members to the council from the 75

candidates nominated by the county governing body. The Governor 76

shall make a selection within a 45-day period or request a new 77

list of candidates. All members appointed by the Governor must 78

shall have been residents of the county for the previous 24-79

month period. Such members shall be appointed for 4-year terms, 80

except that the length of the terms of the initial appointees 81

shall be adjusted to stagger the terms. The Governor may remove 82

a member for cause or upon the written petition of the county 83

governing body. If any of the members of the council required to 84

be appointed by the Governor under the provisions of this 85

subsection shall resign, die, or are be removed from office, the 86

vacancy thereby created shall, as soon as practicable, be filled 87


28-00933B-10 20101216__

Page 4 of 16


by appointment by the Governor, using the same method as the 88

original appointment, and such appointment to fill a vacancy 89

shall be for the unexpired term of the person who resigns, dies, 90

or is removed from office. 91

(b) However, any county as defined in s. 125.011(1) may 92

instead have a governing board consisting of 33 members, 93

including: the superintendent of schools; two representatives of 94

public postsecondary education institutions located in the 95

county; the county manager or the equivalent county officer; the 96

district administrator from the appropriate district of the 97

Department of Children and Family Services, or the 98

administrator’s designee who is a member of the Senior 99

Management Service or the Selected Exempt Service; the director 100

of the county health department or the director’s designee; the 101

state attorney for the county or the state attorney’s designee; 102

the chief judge assigned to juvenile cases, or another juvenile 103

judge who is the chief judge’s designee and who shall sit as a 104

voting member of the board, except that the judge may not vote 105

or participate in setting ad valorem taxes under this section; 106

an individual who is selected by the board of the local United 107

Way or its equivalent; a member of a locally recognized faith-108

based coalition, selected by that coalition; a member of the 109

local chamber of commerce, selected by that chamber or, if more 110

than one chamber exists within the county, a person selected by 111

a coalition of the local chambers; a member of the early 112

learning coalition, selected by that coalition; a representative 113

of a labor organization or union active in the county; a member 114

of a local alliance or coalition engaged in cross-system 115

planning for health and social service delivery in the county, 116


28-00933B-10 20101216__

Page 5 of 16


selected by that alliance or coalition; a member of the local 117

Parent-Teachers Association/Parent-Teacher-Student Association, 118

selected by that association; a youth representative selected by 119

the local school system’s student government; a local school 120

board member appointed by the chair of the school board; the 121

mayor of the county or the mayor’s designee; one member of the 122

county governing body, appointed by the chair of that body; a 123

member of the state Legislature who represents residents of the 124

county, selected by the chair of the local legislative 125

delegation; an elected official representing the residents of a 126

municipality in the county, selected by the county municipal 127

league; and four 4 members-at-large, appointed to the council by 128

the majority of sitting council members. The remaining seven 7 129

members shall be appointed by the Governor pursuant to in 130

accordance with procedures set forth in paragraph (a), except 131

that the Governor may remove a member for cause or upon the 132

written petition of the council. Appointments by the Governor 133

must, to the extent reasonably possible, represent the 134

geographic and demographic diversity of the population of the 135

county. Members who are appointed to the council by reason of 136

their position are not subject to the length of terms and limits 137

on consecutive terms as provided in this section. The remaining 138

appointed members of the governing board shall be appointed to 139

serve 2-year terms, except that those members appointed by the 140

Governor shall be appointed to serve 4-year terms, and the youth 141

representative and the legislative delegate shall be appointed 142

to serve 1-year terms. A member may be reappointed.; However, a 143

member may not serve for more than three consecutive terms. A 144

member is eligible to be appointed again after a 2-year hiatus 145


28-00933B-10 20101216__

Page 6 of 16


from the council. 146

(c) This subsection does not prohibit a county from 147

exercising such power as is provided by general or special law 148

to provide children’s services or to create a special district 149

to provide such services. 150

(2)(a) Each council on children’s services shall have all 151

of the following powers and functions: 152

1. To provide and maintain in the county such preventive, 153

developmental, treatment, and rehabilitative services for 154

children as the council determines are needed for the general 155

welfare of the county. 156

2. To provide such other services for all children as the 157

council determines are needed for the general welfare of the 158

county. 159

3. To allocate and provide funds for other agencies in the 160

county which are operated for the benefit of children, if those 161

funds provided they are not under the exclusive jurisdiction of 162

the public school system. 163

4. To collect information and statistical data and to 164

conduct research that which will be helpful to the council and 165

the county in deciding the needs of children in the county. 166

5. To consult and coordinate with other agencies dedicated 167

to the welfare of children to the end that the overlapping of 168

services will be prevented. 169

6. To lease or buy such real estate, equipment, and 170

personal property and to construct such buildings as are needed 171

to execute the foregoing powers and functions, except provided 172

that no such purchases may not shall be made or building done 173

unless paid for with cash on hand or secured by funds deposited 174


28-00933B-10 20101216__

Page 7 of 16


in financial institutions. The governing body of the county must 175

approve by resolution the purchase of real estate or the 176

construction of a building by the council. Nothing in This 177

subparagraph does not shall be construed to authorize a district 178

to issue bonds of any nature, and nor shall a district may not 179

have the power to require the imposition of any bond by the 180

governing body of the county. 181

7. To employ, pay, and provide benefits for any part-time 182

or full-time personnel needed to execute the foregoing powers 183

and functions. 184

(b) Each council on children’s services shall: 185

1. Immediately after the members are appointed, elect a 186

chair and a vice chair from among its members, and elect other 187

officers as deemed necessary by the council. 188

2. Immediately after the members are appointed and officers 189

are elected, identify and assess the needs of the children in 190

the county served by the council and submit to the governing 191

body of each county a written description of: 192

a. The activities, services, and opportunities that will be 193

provided to children. 194

b. The anticipated schedule for providing those activities, 195

services, and opportunities. 196

c. The manner in which children will be served, including a 197

description of arrangements and agreements that which will be 198

made with community organizations, state and local educational 199

agencies, federal agencies, public assistance agencies, the 200

juvenile courts, foster care agencies, and other applicable 201

public and private agencies and organizations. 202

d. The special outreach efforts that will be undertaken to 203


28-00933B-10 20101216__

Page 8 of 16


provide services to at-risk, abused, or neglected children. 204

e. The manner in which the council will seek and provide 205

funding for unmet needs. 206

f. The strategy that which will be used for interagency 207

coordination to maximize existing human and fiscal resources. 208

3. Provide training and orientation to all new members 209

sufficient to allow them to perform their duties. 210

4. Make and adopt bylaws and rules and regulations for the 211

council’s guidance, operation, governance, and maintenance 212

which, provided such rules and regulations are not inconsistent 213

with federal or state laws or county ordinances. 214

5. Provide an annual written report, to be presented no 215

later than January 1, to the governing body of the county. The 216

annual report shall contain, but need not be limited to, the 217

following information: 218

a. Information on the effectiveness of activities, 219

services, and programs offered by the council, including cost-220

effectiveness. 221

b. A detailed anticipated budget for continuation of 222

activities, services, and programs offered by the council, and a 223

list of all sources of requested funding, both public and 224

private. 225

c. Procedures used for early identification of at-risk 226

children who need additional or continued services and methods 227

for ensuring that the additional or continued services are 228

received. 229

d. A description of the degree to which the council’s 230

objectives and activities are consistent with the goals of this 231

section. 232


28-00933B-10 20101216__

Page 9 of 16


e. Detailed information on the various programs, services, 233

and activities available to participants and the degree to which 234

the programs, services, and activities have been successfully 235

used by children. 236

f. Information on programs, services, and activities that 237

should be eliminated; programs, services, and activities that 238

should be continued; and programs, services, and activities that 239

should be added to the basic format of the children’s services 240

council. 241

(c) The council shall maintain minutes of each meeting, 242

including a record of all votes cast, and shall make such 243

minutes available to any interested person. 244

(d) Members of the council shall serve without 245

compensation, but are shall be entitled to receive reimbursement 246

for per diem and travel expenses consistent with the provisions 247

of s. 112.061. 248

(3)(a) The fiscal year of the district shall be the same as 249

that of the county. 250

(b)1. On or before June 15 July 1 of each year, the council 251

on children’s services shall prepare and submit to the governing 252

body of the county a tentative annual written budget of the 253

district’s expected income and expenditures, including a 254

contingency fund. The council shall, in addition, compute and 255

submit to the governing body of the county a proposed millage 256

rate within the voter-approved cap necessary to fund the 257

tentative budget and, prior to adopting a final budget, comply 258

with the provisions of s. 200.065, relating to the method of 259

fixing millage, and shall fix the final millage rate by 260

resolution of the council. The council shall include with the 261


28-00933B-10 20101216__

Page 10 of 16


submissions the council’s rationale for the budget and millage 262

rate, as well as a detailed explanation for any significant 263

changes in the proposed use of funds from the prior year’s 264

approved budget. 265

2.a. Within 20 days after receiving the tentative budget 266

and proposed millage rate from the council, the governing body 267

of the county shall hold a public hearing and receive public 268

testimony on the tentative budget and proposed millage rate. The 269

governing body of the county shall by resolution approve the 270

budget or reject it and direct the council to submit a revised 271

tentative budget within 10 days for approval or rejection by the 272

governing body. The council may not adopt a final budget until 273

the budget has been approved by the governing body. 274

b. The authority under this subparagraph for the governing 275

body of the county to approve the budget of the council does not 276

cause the millage levied and fixed by the council to count 277

toward the maximum millage authorized for all county purposes 278

under s. 9, Art. VII of the State Constitution. 279

3. Before adopting a final budget, the council must comply 280

with the provisions of s. 200.065, relating to the method of 281

fixing millage, and shall fix the final millage rate by 282

resolution of the council. 283

4. The adopted budget and final millage rate shall be 284

certified and delivered to the governing body of the county as 285

soon as possible following the council’s adoption of the final 286

budget and millage rate pursuant to chapter 200. Included in 287

each certified budget shall be the millage rate, adopted by 288

resolution of the council, necessary to be applied to raise the 289

funds budgeted for district operations and expenditures. In no 290


28-00933B-10 20101216__

Page 11 of 16


circumstances, however, shall any district levy millage to 291

exceed a maximum of 0.5 mills of assessed valuation of all 292

properties within the county which are subject to ad valorem 293

county taxes. 294

(c) The adopted budget of the district so certified and 295

delivered to the governing body of the county under paragraph 296

(b) is shall not be subject to change or modification by the 297

governing body of the county or any other authority. 298

(d) All tax money collected under this section, as soon 299

after the collection thereof as is reasonably practicable, shall 300

be paid directly to the council on children’s services by the 301

tax collector of the county, or the clerk of the circuit court 302

if the clerk collects delinquent taxes. 303

(e)1. All moneys received by the council on children’s 304

services shall be deposited in qualified public depositories, as 305

defined in s. 280.02, with separate and distinguishable accounts 306

established specifically for the council and shall be withdrawn 307

only by checks signed by the chair of the council and 308

countersigned by either one other member of the council on 309

children’s services or by a chief executive officer who shall be 310

so authorized by the council. 311

2. Upon entering the duties of office, the chair and the 312

other member of the council or chief executive officer who signs 313

its checks shall each give a surety bond in the sum of at least 314

$1,000 for each $1 million or portion thereof of the council’s 315

annual budget, which bond shall be conditioned that each shall 316

faithfully discharge the duties of his or her office. The 317

premium on such bond may be paid by the district as part of the 318

expense of the council. No other member of the council shall be 319


28-00933B-10 20101216__

Page 12 of 16


required to give bond or other security. 320

3. No Funds of the district may not shall be expended 321

except by check as aforesaid, except for expenditures from a 322

petty cash account, which may shall not at any time exceed $100. 323

All expenditures from petty cash shall be recorded on the books 324

and records of the council on children’s services. No Funds of 325

the council on children’s services, except excepting 326

expenditures from petty cash, may not shall be expended without 327

prior approval of the council, in addition to the budgeting 328

thereof. 329

(f) Within 10 days, exclusive of weekends and legal 330

holidays, after the expiration of each quarter annual period, 331

the council on children’s services shall cause to be prepared 332

and filed with the governing body of the county a financial 333

report that includes which shall include the following: 334

1. The total expenditures of the council for the quarter 335

annual period. 336

2. The total receipts of the council during the quarter 337

annual period. 338

3. A statement of the funds the council has on hand, has 339

invested, or has deposited with qualified public depositories at 340

the end of the quarter annual period. 341

4. The total administrative costs of the council for the 342

quarter annual period. 343

(4)(a) Any district created pursuant to the provisions of 344

this section may be dissolved by a special act of the 345

Legislature, or the county governing body may by ordinance 346

dissolve the district subject to the approval of the electorate. 347

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), beginning in May 2016, 348


28-00933B-10 20101216__

Page 13 of 16


and in May every 8 years thereafter, the governing body of the 349

county shall hear public testimony relating to the effectiveness 350

of the council on children’s services and shall vote by 351

ordinance whether to retain or dissolve the district. Regardless 352

of its decision, the governing body of the county shall submit 353

the question of retention or dissolution of the district to the 354

electors in the August primary election immediately following 355

its decision. If the electorate votes to dissolve the district, 356

the district shall be dissolved. 357

358

If any district is dissolved pursuant to the provisions of this 359

subsection, each county must shall first obligate itself to 360

assume the debts, liabilities, contracts, and outstanding 361

obligations of the district within the total millage available 362

to the county governing body for all county and municipal 363

purposes as provided for under s. 9, Art. VII of the State 364

Constitution. Any district may also be dissolved pursuant to the 365

provisions of s. 189.4042. 366

(5) After or during the first year of operation of the 367

council on children’s services, the governing body of the 368

county, at its option, may fund in whole or in part the budget 369

of the council on children’s services from its own funds. 370

(6) Any district created pursuant to the provisions of this 371

section shall comply with all other statutory requirements of 372

general application which relate to the filing of any financial 373

reports or compliance reports required under part III of chapter 374

218, or any other report or documentation required by law, 375

including the requirements of ss. 189.415, 189.417, and 189.418. 376

(7)(a) Each county may by ordinance create a dependent 377


28-00933B-10 20101216__

Page 14 of 16


special district within the boundaries of the county for the 378

purpose of providing preventive, developmental, treatment, and 379

rehabilitative services for children. The district may is 380

authorized to seek grants from state, federal, and local 381

agencies and to accept donations from public and private sources 382

if, provided that the district complies with the provisions of 383

paragraphs (1)(a) and (2)(b), and provided that the district has 384

a budget that requires approval through an affirmative vote of 385

the governing body of the county or that may be vetoed by the 386

governing body of the county. 387

(b) If the provisions of a county charter relating to the 388

membership of the governing board of a dependent special 389

district conflict with paragraph (1)(a), a county may by 390

ordinance create a dependent special district within the 391

boundaries of the county for the purpose of providing 392

preventive, developmental, treatment, and rehabilitative 393

services for children, and the district may shall be authorized 394

to seek grants from state, federal, and local agencies and to 395

accept donations from public and private sources if, provided 396

that the district complies with the provisions of paragraph 397

(2)(b), and provided that the district has a budget that 398

requires approval through an affirmative vote of the governing 399

body of the county or that may be vetoed by the governing body 400

of the county. 401

(8) It is the intent of the Legislature that the funds 402

collected pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be 403

used to support improvements in children’s services and that 404

such funds may shall not be used as a substitute for existing 405

resources or for resources that would otherwise be available for 406


28-00933B-10 20101216__

Page 15 of 16


children’s services. The council on children’s services shall 407

give priority in the use of funds under this section to the 408

provision of children’s services rather than to the purchase of 409

real estate or the construction of buildings. 410

(9) Two or more councils on children’s services may enter 411

into a cooperative agreement to share administrative costs, 412

including, but not limited to, staff and office space, if a more 413

efficient or effective operation will result. The cooperative 414

agreement shall include provisions on apportioning costs between 415

the councils, keeping separate and distinct financial records 416

for each council, and resolving any conflicts that might arise 417

under the cooperative agreement. 418

(10) Two or more councils on children’s services may enter 419

into a cooperative agreement to seek grants, to accept 420

donations, or to jointly fund programs serving multicounty 421

areas. The cooperative agreement shall include provisions for 422

the adequate accounting of separate and joint funds. 423

(11) Personal identifying information of a child or the 424

parent or guardian of the child, held by a council on children’s 425

services, juvenile welfare board, or other similar entity 426

created under this section or by special law, or held by a 427

service provider or researcher under contract with such entity, 428

is exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State 429

Constitution. This exemption applies to such information held 430

before, on, or after the effective date of this exemption. 431

Section 2. It is the intent of the Legislature that the 432

revisions made by this act to s. 125.901, Florida Statutes, 433

apply to any council on children’s services in existence on the 434

effective date of this act and to any council created on or 435


28-00933B-10 20101216__

Page 16 of 16


after the effective date of this act. It is further the intent 436

of the Legislature that the revisions made by this act to the 437

process by which a council develops a budget for the special 438

district apply to the budget for the 2010-2011 fiscal year of 439

the district. 440

Section 3. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law. 441

Week Three March 19, 2010

Bill Jeopardizes Long-Term Community Investments in Children

Faced with a bill (SB 1216) that would jeopardize the future of Children's Services Councils, the Florida CSC board of directors gathered in Tallahassee this week for their annual Capitol Hill Days. Board members were updated on conversations with bill sponsor Sen. Joe Negron (R-Martin) that attempted to address his concerns about accountability, transparency, and citizen engagement. The board then spent hours deliberating options for a compromise that would make the bill more reasonable. Unfortunately, a compromise could not be reached that would preserve the integrity of CSC governance and keep local children's councils above the political and partisan fray. As a result, Sen. Negron introduced an amendment that would force five of Florida's eight CSCs to be placed on a local ballot this August for voters to determine their fate - less than six months away. In the amended bill, which passed the Children, Family & Elderly Affairs Committee, the five CSCs that would go to ballot in August are JWB-CSC of Pinellas County, CSC of Martin County, Children's Board of Hillsborough County, CSC of St. Lucie, and CSC of Okeechobee County. The amended bill also would require the remaining three CSCs to go to ballot in 2012 (CSC of Palm Beach and CSC of Broward) and in 2018 (The Children's Trust). Sadly, CSCs will have their hands tied in making their case to their communities because they (and other local governments) were prohibited by the Legislature last year from campaigning on any ballot measure (see SB216/ 2009). For CSCs on an August ballot, citizens leading private efforts to educate voters will not be able to lay the groundwork and raise the resources in time. Voters will be cheated out of the opportunity to make an informed decision about investments in their community's children.

The amended bill passed Thursday on a 6-2 vote with yes votes from Sens. Storms (chair), Hill, Diaz de la Portilla, Garcia, Wise, and Detert. Sens. Rich and Justice voted no. The next stop for SB 1216 is the Community Affairs Committee. In the House, a similar bill (HB 1227) by Rep. Debbie Mayfield (R-Indian River) is expected to be heard in the Committee on Military and Community Affairs. Special thanks go to community leaders who testified in opposition to the bill during yesterday's committee meeting: David Kennedy (former Board Chair, Children's Board of Hillsborough County), Lynn Frank (Board Member, Boys & Girls Club in Martin County), Maureen Dinnen (Member, Broward County

TAKE NOTE

Children's Week

April 11-14

Tallahassee

Rally for Afterschool April 20 Washington, DC

One Goal Summer Conference July 21-23 Tampa ---------------------------- St. Lucie CSC Launches "Do You Know" Campaign The St. Lucie CSC has launched a new campaign designed to generate greater awareness of the many ways it serves children in the community. As part of the campaign, a video titled, "Do You Know? Now You Know," was created and placed on You Tube. The video taps into audiences that may recognize a program, such as the Boys & Girls Club, but not know that the St. Lucie CSC provides funds for the program. The video helps viewers connect the CSC to the programs it funds. A special page was also created on the CSC web site to direct viewers to the site

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK-d7YX4htC2G4t1MHNCWj43bOMYbSVYN01pj5hk9uGkSkRucAJNg8jiPKKhKKGTcrYSpFyxLtXXvZgxNUqvVxgr1XCJoRqQxOYq3sUi0g1wOaQY-Rq1Y_gP-iNsyhxxkXlP1WGLXK9SXwRkcrFd8NhfNojkyVF4nTG4zcXm4POP4N092E2N0GHEyuZ-Y2izrh_sI7tluoQpmkSNmX2lRqGRsTQXwwzg88m1uFjtV0K5ig_A4ZyQxBGppcjEVJ3Gb5LLRRlGuN9fvgKdA0nNH5vu

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK9BwsviA0TJeTBvl0bP5zGK9PhIxyDwDBKlmgiDlSu7OdU7lwnRep8WfE9DfqiSUkfNYHBY95MLHBT30OXF3UfBwnjw3xp8QsF_PQWMH5sYr_83FlDcZNzER-S1xW3u2Gpb2ZdAToI6X5ydy32KtBh5FEhUA7VJhOZEFxsTv9wIWmwSoq4prq-hHqq9i9LXRCrIMpBwcFZzLrMFUJhNwIIO

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK_8HXhEYwmjiEOF-7yPIUmb5PzngDNFgLzTvSKu68cjv_MANQOjhj1gTtpcAsqtl_8UbOtmj3yi2m9_UtXd0fp1yTrMpr4oVvc8omUL96z13F7X2tRfUfHQsEwDsT-YirNkVcW6dqUO4f5vHJ85EEy5ExwDgOoK_OTbrA6VgpZ-jGsDxn9ZIH_C9knSgepF_MxPkYLCrZmcGw==

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK-efuw3qDrB4PrOPuNtQ1nkloIfG9wLNR0k2KtbcxF3QKk_VzdhXnT62ID1J4Pr_dSnkEGBYjUVaTa1qwWXGx2Gw-36H8RQvMdu9KFcUGIHVA==

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK-cPtjuSaqYyofrtmsjQAVe2j_-mNa30VmXqf2KC4opB3snslpehk0QNKHWCp17OBBD1IMbFJvmBm0QrARQynXB4jzI6aWed26mVmlTz8PRM594HHgNuJ1S

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK-cPtjuSaqYyofrtmsjQAVe2j_-mNa30VmXqf2KC4opB3snslpehk0QNKHWCp17OBBD1IMbFJvmBm0QrARQynXB4jzI6aWed26mVmlTz8PRM594HHgNuJ1S

School Board), Ted Granger (President, United Way of Florida), Karen Woodall (Coordinator, Coalition for Fair and Comprehensive Tax Reform), and Bobbie Sewell (State Government Relations, Broward County). CALL TO ACTION: SB 1216 now goes to the Senate Community Affairs

Committee. Contact members of the committee to tell them to vote NO on this bad bill. Please also contact members of the House Military & Local Affairs Committee immediately to voice your opposition to this bill. At a time when funding for children's programs is being cut to levels that will endanger thousands of children, the possibility of losing locally invested dollars will make the crisis even worse. This unnecessary

proposal impinges on local communities and could not come at a worse time for state-funded programs that rely on CSC support. Download additional talk points.

Florida CSC Board Convenes for Capitol Hill Days in Tallahassee

In addition to their work on SB 1216, the Florida CSC Board of Directors heard from Dr. Brittany Birken, Director of the AWI Office of Early Learning (OEL), who provided a report on major initiatives underway led by OEL, including development of the Early Learning Information System and the Professional Development initiative. Dr. Birken also updated Florida CSC members on the up-to-the minute status of legislative budget proposals for VPK and School Readiness which are, along with most state programs, very vulnerable to catastrophic reductions. Department of Children and Families Secretary George Sheldon also participated in the meeting to brief the board on recent department accomplishments and ongoing challenges. He too reviewed the grave outlook for funding in the midst of Florida's budget crisis. Both leaders expressed gratitude for the important part CSCs play in assisting their state programs, and lauded the strengthening of the working partnership between CSCs and state agencies in recent years.

OTHER STATE NEWS

Budget is Primary Focus in Week Three

Standing on the brink of a $3-billion budget hole, lawmakers focused on little else this week except cutting costs. Entire state agencies were even offered up for restructuring or dismantling in an effort to reduce expenses. Not surprisingly, very few bills of interest saw movement. In the House, budget committees released more details on allocations for specific programs. Among those hardest hit were VPK and Healthy Start. VPK was reduced approximately $54 million from just a week ago. Budget negotiations are expected to begin much earlier than usual according to leadership. As of this week, here's where the House stands on other issues of interest.

KidCare - Overall increase of $37 million to cover enrollment growth, capitation rate freeze for HK resulting in $10 million savings, and funds dental benefit at $12 per member

Healthy Start -- $4 million cut (eliminates Healthy Start Coalitions)

Healthy Families - Funded at current level

Children's Medical Services -- $3.4 million cut

Community Based Care - Funded at current levels for programs

where additional videos and information about the other CSC funded programs will be posted. View the video. Federal Funding Available for Communities

A federal funding opportunity is being offered to strengthen, through granting organizations, the capacity of community-based organizations to serve low-income communities through innovative and replicable programming. The Corporation for National and Community Service is accepting applications for the Social Innovation Fund. Applications are due by April 8, 2010. The Governor's Commission on Volunteerism and Community Service, Volunteer Florida, invites nonprofit foundations throughout Florida to partner in seeking up to $5 million in funding from the new Social Innovation Fund. More information about this funding opportunity is available at: www.nationalservice.org -------------------------

Capitol Connection is also available online at the FCSC web site.

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK95jBVx3LXMfM2boT4zJSfjeLuoBKOcForOeDOLcmUJpukm_0HybnzG-EjEoH8Upwcfdtr7bLtWmLrWIHh4U9ggV5p_ZFZ6ZJomL02ZNPdldACN799bniDv1g4-6QnfF8mQPs-UXwyFpLEBMKnx15pTfazJEp1lmhB6F8GKtGxsajaTOFu2R-6ysiceGv1ZkvqEHvSO59N3th8JNu1_uCOGMDUqAsbdkhxhOdjy6NP5ND3q2jxSj0_-VN9-D0TbMM4=

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK95jBVx3LXMfM2boT4zJSfjeLuoBKOcForOeDOLcmUJpukm_0HybnzG-EjEoH8Upwcfdtr7bLtWmLrWIHh4U9ggV5p_ZFZ6ZJomL02ZNPdldACN799bniDv1g4-6QnfF8mQPs-UXwyFpLEBMKnx15pTfazJEp1lmhB6F8GKtGxsajaTOFu2R-6ysiceGv1ZkvqEHvSO59N3th8JNu1_uCOGMDUqAsbdkhxhOdjy6NP5ND3q2jxSj0_-VN9-D0TbMM4=

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK8s1misZQiIojOHaf6wO-QyMoreGyZ8TBgATKqfNowxh-NU9zMs1lB2YWQOFsofUJP9N7CmTjDKh3WNs0aF_S3foWpYueYfMGsDLWwDczj2BBROL6hJTtg-couKgAkeOIJK4jRF6XnCwjEJSJoljMM2gySQAsK7Qb_pjq-K2c9u4O9sFMZOlFKGB8ACzsSkey5ggL3NS1lQsy23OEQAc_zsxBgwcFVuqiA=

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK8s1misZQiIojOHaf6wO-QyMoreGyZ8TBgATKqfNowxh-NU9zMs1lB2YWQOFsofUJP9N7CmTjDKh3WNs0aF_S3foWpYueYfMGsDLWwDczj2BBROL6hJTtg-couKgAkeOIJK4jRF6XnCwjEJSJoljMM2gySQAsK7Qb_pjq-K2c9u4O9sFMZOlFKGB8ACzsSkey5ggL3NS1lQsy23OEQAc_zsxBgwcFVuqiA=

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK9za8iS9zMV98-G8CPMbkNwfaQG7yOT4rwZLtSuoSXNtxSC7wr0l2Zrag2wwYKldDj7gCFlzIhcJKLOIHOx89nXY-8L6g9pztb7ms3dyryme2iUb869Hg3M8x_cakffvwPW_7H36xt64g==

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK9za8iS9zMV98-G8CPMbkNwfaQG7yOT4rwZLtSuoSXNtxSC7wr0l2Zrag2wwYKldDj7gCFlzIhcJKLOIHOx89nXY-8L6g9pztb7ms3dyryme2iUb869Hg3M8x_cakffvwPW_7H36xt64g==

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK-Vpgxe73emP02oFLF9lK2QLGARg4HIqWHyEWP8hV-aPwVVkp5uxU-FhTnnX-V1WmIWnRu-c4l8xGWhtbILg1lF3E__AYdTQDGWXGiA2rs63y3SAtle1yjeJPZGCQOWmoc=

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103164164739&s=1068&e=001w9XH_asDQg1cDEAeEobHgi0-YTJ3Ep4j3fKwYEciCUheXVEBSzGU8dYUaPL3tpQAs00UceUYgY5W0spI7i5L0kumBziCPe-ZhTbBMUR2jvBeH6Y1h0tJGGgOz1nRPHetB2lMk77BBiGOQ7JPIYFhYvhSDvNXx76Aa_O_CQ1vw1a78pMqNsJY9bwwD4UuohwdtO5gr_Qp

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=ifqviodab.0.4a7rxkcab.fhv8thcab.17&ts=S0469&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.floridacsc.org%2Fadvocacy%2Fcapitol_connection.php

(some admin cuts)

Child Protection Investigation - Funded at current levels

Independent Living - Reduces stipend from $875 per child to $675

Adoption Maintenance Subsidy -- $12.8 million (replaces non-recurring)

CALLS TO ACTION: A full court press is needed on calls to Representatives

on the House Full Appropriations Council and the Senate Ways and Means Committee regarding VPK funding. Ask legislators not to reduce the "per student" funding amount (Base Student Allocation). See AWI fact sheet. The House Health Care Appropriations Committee proposal would eliminate Healthy Start Coalitions and shift service dollars and responsibilities to the local County Health Departments. The state will save $4 million, but it will lose $32 million annually in additional funds leveraged by Healthy Start Coalitions. Call your Representative and urge them not to make these cuts. See FAHSC alert. Lawmakers Attempt to Gain Control of Medicaid Costs

With Medicaid spending accounting for about half of the state shortfall, the Health and Human Services (HHS) budget committee advanced a plan to move 247,671 Medicaid recipients across 19 counties into HMOs, a shift expected to save the state $28.6 million next year - but close to $100 million annually in future years. Still, with 2.7 million Floridians crowded onto Medicaid rolls now absorbing about one-quarter of all state spending, HHS budget chairman Sen. Durell Peaden conceded that gains from the dramatic effort were less than hoped for once they were reviewed by state analysts. The 19 counties targeted for the HMO move are those that have two or more managed care Medicaid plans already operating and are considered to have the capacity to serve a larger population. Among them are most Central Florida counties, including Orange, Seminole and Osceola, along with Miami-Dade, Hillsborough, Palm Beach and Pinellas counties. Already, about 1 million Florida Medicaid patients are treated through managed care.

EARLY LEARNING

ELC Bills Get Committee References

The Early Learning bill, SB 2014 by Sen. Stephen Wise (R-Duval), which addresses various administrative and governance issues, cleared its first hurdle having been heard, amended and passed unanimously by the Senate Commerce Committee. Now a Committee Substitute, the bill travels on to the Education PreK-12 Committee with 4 amendments including one that directs the Agency for Workforce Innovation to adopt procedures for merging early learning coalitions and for early termination of the terms of coalition members. A similar bill, HB 1203 by Rep Nelson, passed the Pre-K-12 Committee on March 17 with an amendment to address exemptions for the kindergarten readiness rate for children with disabilities. HB 1571 by Rep. Greg Evers (R-Santa Rosa) and SB 2710 by Sen. Mike Bennett (R-Manatee) were filed in both the House and Senate. The bills address administrative issues affecting the early learning coalitions including establishment of standardized procurement and exemption from the Administrative Procedures Act. No action this week.

STATE & LOCAL REVENUES

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK99s33B-UJ3JMCVTzwdHOxJwNDeDYqFbkhfgh9E40y2iQpop3q59mrSpHJusjxKUDZLH7xHtsLqq0w31AOXtWFPOeXCW5b8hw7A4FNkF8E2gpVtIGkIellYWMKQITmI4JM=

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK--1xxLwVkohoc6Qoh5d14v1pvMmVvMFz28fd5fY9l0uYkuJS4Q9AmoA5utp5nc8lC7OGTDE29qGygnypcDq1Wi5Ds270SDkQeMPpiP1MFcKmXOE5cIiPTGgyE5HpdMus7jeyPpOZqxiQ==

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK-QnQfk_jfEFgGIesbl7NF90Lwhw1AGVIrW6_yKqM-o-fJyUZz6mF3thTujhssR-RQ9SNDTywhNdAO1uUrgRy3iRgNpcrhfTcHXRzkXS0x661jYiLDFJpT9EgZCR3nwWyu_OYLVEj4qBc8_Nz7Th6XDJ3YBv7D9bg5lAavVb3hEZ8I_gkA33VVhOF_i3pyGS6XrSmPPUYJLQP2p_jvDp4vYbBuhex21cRAT8rgpKiRYLupQmiAuM4PDDR7R5pwdKZ_GzyrKTMY6efHIv9VPA7_v

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK8uB6BUXbC6lWOmHuwnHdqqTRqitq8veTL5gjeYOPEG5hfztKcJ4goTbdS8CW_m9xQPnX2hxH_VtNQA9QseKv7IabqtGk1UlIzTR3lPU60LZ8MzD4sNDMsYSQxPrMVO6D4QGH6SZqTfJAQyo8x3eGgvZ2vt2LsTgpFu_jAyfqv3XLJ4PQB3ixUhCPou3TuP9H_kUxhgA82N_Q==

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK-GqXcPkqDd3SE4POm03ZJ6b6kkuMvhR-NGyK_wYSDsbakJoZwYNdOuaFag_rGhJOU90L1lGMefjjNzmltt8SAtGob-RbU4YTxkAi2ljgPkRh0zlMiiNqVFewQfWgoj8LBaJJ9Me_z9sE9x9fnYpt_RXhXpzYuKG3zep5oDZBd0BSdXoTP8viIuxRUdUd6nOmRapxrp_mWrWc37jphT97eR9MNivLMRKIj5hG2bBfn_6gwzLVfu19Ye-43is_cHTnOj7S3_H2sAhb7ISxl6XHtE

Property / Annual Assessment / Exemption

SJR 1254 by Mike Fasano (R-Pasco) passed Senate Community Affairs on Wednesday this week on an 11-0 vote. The resolution proposes amendments to the State Constitution to reduce from 10 percent to 5 percent the limitation on annual assessment increases applicable to non-homestead real property, provide an additional homestead exemption for new owners of homestead property and application and limitations with respect thereto. Referred to Community Affairs, Finance & Tax, Education PreK-12 Appropriations, Policy & Steering Committee On Ways & Means, and Rules. Similar Bill, HB 655 by Carl Domino (R- Palm Beach), awaits hearing in Finance & Tax Council. TABOR

SJR 2420 by Sen. Mike Haridopolos (R-Brevard), also known as TABOR, proposes an amendment to the state constitution to limit state and local government tax revenues and, if passed by the electorate, would require voter approval of new taxes and fees. It is scheduled to be heard in the Community Affairs Committee on March 23. No House version has been filed.

CHILD WELFARE

Independent Living

Each year, older foster youth make the difficult transition to independent living. Many of these kids have spent their entire lives in the foster care system drifting from placement to placement. They need strong support - from the state of Florida and our communities - as they move toward adulthood. Unfortunately, HCA 4 passed out of the House Health Care Appropriations Committee on Tuesday with language limiting the Road to Independence Award to an amount "not to exceed amount of $675 per month." This is tantamount to a 50% reduction. In addition, the bill prorates the award in the month the youth turns age 18. Currently the youth gets a full-month subsidy. The most expensive month for a former foster youth is the one in which they strike out on their own. They desperately need funds to assist with utility and housing deposits. Without the strongest level of Road to Independence support, former foster youth could wind up homeless or in prison. We urge the House and Senate to maintain existing levels of support for the Road to Independence Program Transition Services for Youth

HB 627 by Rep. Ari Porth (D-Broward) and SB 1356 by Sen. Stephen Wise (R-Duval), permits the Department of Juvenile Justice to provide transition to adulthood services to youth in DJJ's custody or supervision. Both bills moved forward during the second week of session. HB 627 was unanimously approved by the Public Safety & Domestic Security Committee and now heads to the Full Appropriations Council on Education & Economic Development. No action this week.

HEALTH CARE

Florida KidCare

SB 2082 by Sen. Nan Rich (D-Broward) provides that: children under the age of 1 may participate in the Medikids program; an eligible child who is a lawful immigrant may enroll in the Florida Kidcare Program regardless of the child's date of entry; authorizes Kidcare coverage for temporomandibular joint disease. provides that Medicaid-eligible children are deemed eligible for 12 months of coverage regardless of any change in circumstances, etc. Referred to Health Regulation, Banking & Insurance, Health & Human Services Appropriations, and Way & Means. No action thus far. No action on similar bill,

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK9sZOV71CLtmZR2dQZUIrzql3eLRwr7lnny7srTNbuy1BLX3US4oprxffcGKHo4UKBvtxHT7tM2J-WmsPSiAQadxVlo36Fh1DyDaDGXHJIn7smAVR5olyDKGW11dhkvWvpeO-5f8kqo8iP3FAoqiTb20alsHsXCzr07u5AgAGgt8DsQ7X1jwtzk_v7D8e8LimDl0bIB5FNHrFj92nG6t01wg3QTb7GWAMheKWTSMK-BdgoCbQGa6TCvnG3Fd9Es-SN7XHxVXdUZUOGKDFAQMFH9

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK9JCKpw0eKL2c_eSNcnuNQXCnEBCepjpob7mF24RIA4scYricnZtAcsSs2vChdxR9w3lWwpiQpE789v2OXSEUWnht6aqVoy-hyOUaW0hvumlO1MtbGhQWvObMuoiYzUNgGjmAwHC41kYIZedoKyftWBzTeLvFiPn1uHeXYqisQc7hE0RfKJAhYn3yWPORTySNXsWTHaY2iNQQ==

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK9iaEetb1uf-CMPEIdsi7rjVWZXSMzjugteAlfUqBDBy4loJf1Y4v3rY5Gq0lAybEvDYi3mSvSPDFcBigj6T1EO6l2JqFbWcPB-qsCk2EgFW8fIVAKPNOgOYS-c8tsScKb-OgdxrxPr_cDwke6Cs5UAhhnIhp71KrSAKB9rXJdBIP_ssUpewNsGYd8J30YDjyyxBsa3PN3QReKn16Eb_kX8Y6-rN2TrfttOIed8QOXWPntTtjj0tUG-iw0y5O4sZ2hb1Efa8ejngg9mrlZDxBuirOt0hQsBPCY74ch0RQoJ0ux3HDuA2GvatJHm8HMtNTyLBBRUOsC3WvteXdG4C6nOVfj-CMIywYAj9QIvkuZyHZZrwfrbFJZioz8MYCfIgm-BKnld60Jg2lI7LITDSMbWM3NbMYAKo8Rw_AC5EfcKJ36-5zQVNBQxelBqU-zZgBwiCcBtPdArrGUq5KNLH-eP

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK_0jqEbv27Zbrojjgxfw7hwJ39quuV2zlRqPMhzZXMXK4PkFPtpSCwMpj0vSZblrezjt4ty3j0CPNbWFrjXdx1vC98BG33qDNYLw-dbtbmqc5yDminE3P98UkFmS_Ml74U0YPrhftn82oI_Kge_oebn1-oYh5v-ATlD83OLmVxu948tPdiJYu3q5rft-n4nTvWyJqdPhE1D8Q==

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK9-8LJDEJ-A_hYo5hQw3DjLiWMjG1pHgOjkSqZ0Urv0fjRhe_PkrzDRgLtfDohb0eYaoDhsot7_RvfdGyKMxFMCMdKHzUMyoTnpOIaAy7mN4VM12MZS_6UPUTDaMlX-wl-HkDaXrFW3cPMjMhoFnwUnlWAk1J1ibgX6bdATrUr1GcAANUTsOp5EX40K6Nakq5HqXyYxkxqEmUV1UnV1IyI7N-2dDGb0Xb6MYQpWKlCsRWrVGycyJbXHl60aSWVuOY6jK1IJWCw8VsLWAoUT08e0

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK-sRV086Ppk0CuqHL-8tYb4fZLUQegDgtV5bQU6KreBU55EHpKS_k5rZwFV1r9_w-eIjR-P75wkpOGuzKkbEnAAPTv4aiaW38ICt-ApjfUtfZ5Of74poTZ4XCeq8FVN3pru1CYAW091aXoS3cXJWu_P

HB 1545 by Juan Zapata (R-Miami).

JUVENILE JUSTICE

Bill Would Eliminate Life Sentences for Juveniles

SB 184 would establish parole for adolescent offenders, making it likely that life sentences for juveniles would be eliminated. The measure would establish parole for kids who committed a crime when they were 15 years old or younger and were sentenced to more than 10 years in prison. Approved last week by Senate Criminal Justice Committee, the proposal is next slated for the Senate Criminal and Civil Justice Appropriations Committee. The House companion (HB 23) also passed the Public Safety & Domestic Security Policy Committee, and is now before the House Criminal and Civil Justice Appropriations Committee. There was no action in either house on the proposal this week.

OTHER ISSUES

Booster Seats

SB 316 by Sen. Thad Altman (R-Brevard) would require booster seats, in addition to seat belts, for children aged 4 through 7 and less than 4'9" to protect the child by properly using a crash tested, federally approved child restraint device. It also provides certain exceptions, and redefines the term "motor vehicle" to exclude certain vehicles from such requirements. No action this week. CALL TO ACTION: Please call Reps. Dave Murzin and Dean Cannon to urge

them to allow the bill to move forward in the House.

FEDERAL NEWS

Early Learning Challenge Fund, Child Nutrition

The U.S. Senate has stripped the Early Learning Challenge Fund from the Higher Education bill. Education Committee chairs are talking about other possible vehicles, but it is not clear what the other options might be. The Senate Agriculture committee released the Chairman's Mark of the Child Nutrition Act (markup next week) and it has some positive things, but it does not include opportunities to increase access to preschool CACFP.

This issue of Capitol Connection is brought to you by The Firm, composed of CSC legislative liaisons around the state, and Editor Kriss Vallese. Please contact Firm Chair Diana Ragbeer, Director of Public Policy & Communications with The Children's Trust, at [email protected], Amy Petrila, Director of Public Policy & Advocacy at the Children's Board of Hillsborough County, at [email protected], or Vivian Alarcon, CEO, Florida Children's Services Council, at [email protected] with questions regarding legislative issues in this newsletter.

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK_M2rznDpotLFqE9nL3_qkJmi4ZnAGzOUU1Ku_xb6IM_tG2rzU7YledR0CYoxiLAEf7F7xT8GZvz3EBYgN1NJtVisicpby4mIE6d4HwsZwyv8y-42ly3TN_gm9k_jHSCS0CuXtGFD71wXcVUuOdbM45p16VUFRE15Q6srV8lkEDQ8_hPRWdl74yR0jP4OplN7x53dL9NvlSKteAI1ZKJWw2455OsUXPy4X69znW2vcnAxoSkXH9nGUhLIEehmznKWVL5Xo3_CHkug==

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK_NodbaF-4MVQwZCLCAU-hdUOAKUA02Hd7300WdgH39NE5yXbBught58xNOdoSEg8IN7jVHDSRrjcHv95NGxDWT7qRf-dMgv0LrVgWhx2fTn9pmX-BP9-70uEL1yP6S26iv6gqlKZCKkisxKiSTJ4BbbacMsi23wA9gWZBoOzf_7-xs3jhfd4ZBVR1gWAufiODzmrGaxU964Q==

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103211708584&s=17&e=001vwuLLtc7MK9RJKVGqThvp4HfDqpJhoH1dCdQ3XYrvsnyIdjhWIpIi9gm098bdPpNjrAYC5_1U-m5nWJDCbVDGlNbNF4MbhimLVKt_-lnv9CP0zcoPegs6KLqRyOqTEurVZ6fB-R_-BAszJkMKQoq3s3XOt0RNrNo1GIRm1aLYwubWXLarsW5RkPa4OgmFso8R4ELUDw5lmhS_iYT64hzwFdmuzXYD335Urp7_FH80gHp37jmQwz9wTd4AD-KOvqbwNSRMceUpM9AVo5umBy6WA==

mailto:[email protected]



How The Children’s Trust persuaded the 2.4 million residents of Florida’slargest county to tax themselves during an economic downturn

The Billion-Dollar Bet On A Community’s Future

By Martin Merzer

Preface

This report – and the children’s programs that serve as its centerpiece – would not be possible without the support and leadership

of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, which has forged a path for children’s advocates in Miami-Dade County, the state of Florida and

beyond. The W.K. Kellogg Foundation and its partners in Florida - The Early Childhood Initiative Foundation, the University of Florida’s

Lastinger Center for Learning, Miami-Dade Public Schools, The Children’s Trust, the Early Learning Coalition and United Way’s Center

for Excellence in Early Education – have worked collaboratively to improve the well-being and learning of children through the

SPARK Initiative (Supporting Partnerships to Assure Ready Kids) and the Early Childhood Learning Labs Initiative.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary..………………………………………………………………………….. 2

Introduction…………..………………………………………………………………………… 3

Applying Lessons Painfully Learned………………………………………………….…….. 5

What Was At Stake……………………………………………………………………….….. 7

And So It Begins/The Strategy Takes Shape………………………………………….….. 9

Building A War Chest/Managing A Budget……………………………………………....... 13

The Campaign Begins Firing on All Cylinders…………………………………………….. 15

Ballot wording…………………………………………………………………………… 15

Specifi c approaches to each group…………………………………………………… 16

Advertising………………………………..……………………………………………… 17

Neutralizing opposition/damage control…………………………………………….… 18

Field operations/grassroots efforts……………………………………………………. 20

Triumph………………………………………………………………………………………… 21

Appendix I: Portland, Oregon……………………………………………………………….. 23

Appendix II: Seattle, Washington…………………………………………………………… 31

1The Billion-Dollar Bet On A Community’s Future

Executive Summary

In August 2008, The Children’s Trust of Miami-Dade County confronted and overcame a profound threat to

its existence. Under a “sunset” provision included in an original 2002 ballot initiative, The Trust would disappear

unless voters reauthorized it.

If that happened – if The Trust vanished – hundreds of high-quality health, educational and safety programs

that serve hundreds of thousands of children would have evaporated. At least $100 million of annual services

would be lost forever – more than $1 billion during the next 10 years alone.

The challenge was enormous. Children’s advocates were compelled to persuade voters to tax themselves

during an intensifying economic collapse – and forever. Nevertheless, a group led by David Lawrence Jr.,

chairman of The Children’s Trust and a former publisher of The Miami Herald, shouldered the task.

This study examines and analyzes the planning and implementation of that campaign.

The report is divided into six main sections that survey the history of The Trust and its previous campaigns,

the current scope of its work, and the creation, development and execution of the 2008 eff ort. It also includes,

in two appendices, looks at similar eff orts in Portland, Ore., and in Seattle, Wash. The study found that Lawrence

nearly single-handedly raised $1.64 million – enough to support a full-bore, multi-faceted electoral campaign.

That campaign was mapped by Sergio Bendixen, a nationally known political strategist who was instrumental in

helping Lawrence pass The Trust’s original ballot initiative in 2002. Key roles also were played by their campaign

manager, Susan Vodicka, and by Modesto Abety, The Trust’s president and chief executive offi cer, among others.

The campaign was designed to be non-partisan and comprehensive, conducted in English, Spanish and

Creole, though diff erent tactics were employed for each of the county’s three main racial and ethnic groups.

It was critically important to make clear that The Trust served all children in the community – and, in addition,

after fi ve years of operation, with a vast variety of benefi cial, high-quality programs. And the campaign had to

be as pure and untouched by scandal as The Trust itself had been.

Bendixen, as is his style, commissioned numerous opinion surveys. The results were used to spotlight

potential areas of resistance and mold individual messages for each voter bloc.

To win black votes, campaign strategists enlisted black-oriented radio stations and the county’s wide,

infl uential network of black church leaders. To win Hispanic votes, strategists enlisted Hispanic radio

personalities with suffi cient infl uence to off set deeply rooted Hispanic resistance to new taxes. To win non-

Hispanic white votes, the campaign employed carefully produced, precisely placed television commercials,

including a particularly eff ective spot that featured Lawrence speaking passionately about The Trust and the

children it serves.

In addition, the campaign worked diligently to neutralize potential opposition, and it developed a muscular

grassroots operation that drove extremely high percentages of targeted voter blocs to the polls.

The result: The Trust won 85.44 percent of the vote – including 97 percent of the votes cast by blacks, 85

percent of non-Hispanic white votes, and 77 percent of the Hispanic vote. All of these people voted to tax

themselves in perpetuity on behalf of the county’s children.

In accomplishing this, The Children’s Trust employed strategies, tactics and techniques that can be replicated

by children’s advocates throughout the nation.

The full report, which follows, describes and analyzes the details of those eff orts.

2 The Billion-Dollar Bet On A Community’s Future


How The Children’s Trust persuaded the 2.4 million residents of Florida’slargest county to tax themselves during an economic downturn

The Billion-Dollar Bet On A Community’s Future

By Martin Merzer“There are a lot of people – I know them and so do you – trying to do work that helps, that can turn it around, that can make things better, that can save lives…. And in this, though it would not occur to them, they are heroic.”

It’s 2:45 p.m. on a school day and 16 children who

achieved their educational goals weave themselves

into life vests and clamber into a boat, bound for

their reward: a short cruise to the mud fl ats of

Biscayne Bay and the Stiltsville community of historic

houses. Nearby, a giggling gaggle of kids race each

other – and a few counselors – in kayaks. In a room

overlooking this, a dozen youngsters labor over

computerized math and reading exercises, each

accompanied by a tutor. They and several thousand

others are served by Shake-A-Leg Miami, which off ers

recreational, educational and social opportunities to

children with physical, developmental and economic

challenges. Twenty-two percent of its budget comes

from The Children’s Trust. Without that money, “this

program would not exist in this form,” says Education

Director Ashley Sullivan.

Three miles away, on the 10th fl oor of an offi ce

building, seven people sit at telephones and

computer terminals. Joaquim Fernandes takes a call.

“211 Children’s Trust Helpline,” he says in Spanish.

The caller is in Miami Beach. Her baby needs food.

Fernandes punches “nutrition” into his computer,

along with an address. One hundred and 14 possible

referrals appear, including one for the Healthy Start

program. Between October 2007 and September

2008, the helpline handled 51,569 calls in English,

Spanish and Creole. Nearly 10,000 calls involved

child or adolescent health care, including calls about

suicidal thoughts and other mental health issues.

More than 10,000 involved after-school care and other

family-life issues. More than 10,000 involved food,

shelter and other basic needs. The helpline is fully

funded by The Children’s Trust. “Cries for help,” says

Maria del Rosario Soto, the 211 program manager.

“That’s all we hear here.”

That same day, a 13-year-old boy named Franklin

walks into Room 4 at Jose de Diego Middle School,

deep in Miami’s inner city. The room is now a medical

clinic, part of a rapidly expanding network called

Health Connect In Our Schools. Two cots, one scale,

two desks, a supply cabinet, a few posters. Franklin

has a headache and an ear ache. Maria Caridad,

a registered nurse, tends to him. Nearly all of the

program’s funding comes from The Children’s Trust. A

visitor asks Franklin: “Have you heard of The Children’s

Trust?” Franklin says, “Yes.” Visitor: “What do you know

about it?” Franklin: “They take care of kids.”

That, they do. None of this would be possible

without The Children’s Trust.

The Trust serves hundreds of thousands of kids in

Florida’s Miami-Dade County by funding, in full or

in part, nearly 300 health, educational and safety

programs. It created all of this in less than six years.

And, in August 2008, it confronted and overcame a

truly existential threat.

In doing so, it secured its future – and enhanced

and amplifi ed the future prospects of Miami-Dade’s

children. Their health. Their safety. Their educational

and recreational opportunities.

Forever.

The Children’s Trust also widened

the trail it already had been blazing

for a movement on the brink of going

national. Clearly worthy of study for

the audacious scope and diversity of the programs it

has created and/or funds on behalf of kids, The Trust

also now serves as a model for achieving another

seemingly impossible goal: persuading citizens to tax

themselves in support of these programs.

In a nutshell, here is why:

Under a “sunset” provision The Children’s Trust

voluntarily included in its enabling ballot initiative

of 2002, the organization would disappear in 2008

unless voters reauthorized it. That vote was scheduled

for Aug. 26, 2008. As it turned out, the timing could

hardly have been worse.

The national economy was tanking, with the dual

– Writer Peggy Noonan, 2008

Introduction

local bulwarks of tourism and real estate development

in particular peril. Anti-tax sentiment raged from coast

to coast and found considerable support in the Miami

area. Several similar initiatives – mostly notably, the

so-called “latte tax” in Seattle – had failed miserably in

recent years.

In addition, Miami-Dade County is not a particularly

homogenous and serene place, to put it mildly. Its

2.4 million residents include more than 1.4 million

Hispanic people from a great variety of nations,

more than 400,000 African-American and other black

people from many backgrounds and places, including

considerable numbers from Haiti, more than 400,000

non-Hispanic white people,

also with varied backgrounds,

and thousands of people from

other national origins and

cultures.

The place is crowded. It

is politically diverse and

sometimes extreme. It often is

tense.

And yet, at this time and

in this place, The Children’s

Trust launched a full-bore,

multi-faceted, Obama-

esque campaign that raised

$1.64 million from 686

contributors and persuaded an

overwhelming number of voters to tax themselves –

in perpetuity – on behalf of its programs. For children.

The tax, assessed at a rate that costs the owner of

a median-assessed home less than $60 a year, will

produce around $100 million every year. That’s about

$1 billion over the next 10 years alone. For children.

The contributions to this campaign, by the way,

were not tax deductible. They ranged from $10 to

$110,000.

“It’s pretty extraordinary,” said Greg Taylor, vice

president of programs at the W.K. Kellogg Foundation,

which commissioned this study. “No question about

it. One of the reasons we want to capture information

about how they did this is that it was such an

extraordinary eff ort.

“It supports or verifi es what I believe is a tenet

of the Kellogg Foundation – to do something

like this requires amazing leadership and also a

comprehensive communications and engagement

strategy.”

That leadership was provided by David Lawrence

Jr., chairman of The Children’s Trust, former publisher

of The Miami Herald and, by all accounts, the single

most important fi gure in the creation of The Trust,

the development of its programs, the campaign to

preserve it, and – now – the eff ort to build a national

movement based on it.

“We have 797,000 children in Florida without health

insurance [125,000 of those in Miami-Dade] and 18.8

percent of all the children in this country without

health insurance,” Lawrence said. “My God, we’re

surely a better people than that. Any country that can

spend $400 million a day to bring democracy to Iraq

probably can do better by its own children.”

To be sure, other U.S. counties or cities have

enjoyed some success with similar

campaigns on behalf of their

children, but none approached

the scope of The Children’s Trust’s

electoral eff ort – or the portfolio of

programs that eff ort was launched

to preserve.

“It can be done, but it can’t be

done if you don’t have certain

things in place,” said Dr. Ruby

Takanishi, president of the

Foundation for Child Development

in New York City. “The day after the

vote, I told Dave that there should

be a case study that describes how

he did it.”

What follows is that case study, one that examines

and illuminates the planning and execution of this

remarkable ballot initiative. This report, presented in

sections and accompanied by several appendices,

is intended to serve as a “lessons learned” model for

others throughout the United States.

“I think that what was done here could be done in

any American community,” Lawrence said.

Those who work with or for Lawrence know him as a

force of nature, a man of uncommon intensity, which

is a nice way of saying that he can get under your skin,

though virtually always for a cause that is right and

good, even noble. Generally speaking, it is a cliché to

say that someone doesn’t take ‘No’ for an answer. It is

not a cliché to say that about Dave Lawrence.

“I got a note the other day from someone in

Baltimore, who said, ‘Gee, this is really extraordinary

what you did there, but we could never do that in

Baltimore,’ ” Lawrence said.

Now, his voice rises.

“Don’t give me that,” he said. “If you can do it in

Miami, you can do it anywhere.” ■


Applying Lessons Painfully Learned

“You had to make the case that it was about the entire community.”

– David Lawrence

The triumph that arrived in August 2008 did not

occur spontaneously or in the absence of previous

hardships. The fi rst lessons to be drawn from The

Children’s Trust stretch back over two decades and,

like many of the best lessons in life, some are derived

from setbacks.

In September 1988, then-State Attorney Janet Reno

(later to become U.S. attorney general) and others

led a campaign to establish a Juvenile Welfare Board

that would serve Miami-Dade’s most disadvantaged

children. The eff ort was based on a Florida law that

allows any county to establish a dedicated funding

source for children, if the citizenry votes for it.

The initial concept passed by a 2-1 margin. No

problem. How could you vote against kids? Two

months later, however, those same voters turned

around and rejected a measure, again by a 2-1 margin,

to actually fund the board with a half-mill (50 cents

per $1,000 valuation) property tax.

First lesson: Most people support children’s programs in theory, but getting them to pay for these programs is a much more diffi cult matter.

Ultimately, the county commission stepped up

and established a Children’s Services Council, but

with almost no government funding. A few grants,

however, permitted the group to conduct research,

produce some reports, develop a few modest

programs and an advocacy agenda that began

to build a constituency for children, according to

Modesto (Mo) Abety, who headed the council.

And there it stood for 12 years, until Dave Lawrence

and others took a renewed interest. The hard-driving

publisher of The Miami Herald since 1989, Lawrence

was unfamiliar with the challenges of early education

until then-Gov. Lawton Chiles recruited him in 1996

to serve on the Governor’s Commission on Education

and, then, to chair its school readiness task force.

What Lawrence learned shocked him.

“I’m a full graduate of public schools, but we’re now

in a signifi cantly diff erent world,” he said recently,

recalling his initial impressions. “We’ve let go of a lot of

the fundamentals.

“In the last 25 years in this country, we’ve taken

away great gobs of art, gym, music, recess – believe

it or not – and school nurses. And unless the private

sector gets involved in this – some of it funding, but

principally advocacy – we’re doomed to simply wither

away on these sorts of fundamentals.”

And more…

“I didn’t realize that one out of every 10 children

in the United States is a child with a special

need. It could be a neurologically based learning

disability. It could be many, many other things.

Most neurologically based learning disabilities are

discovered at age 8 or 9. How tragic that is. If you

could discover it at, say, age 4, what a diff erence you

would make in that child’s life.”

And still more…

Nationally, one-third of entering kindergarten

students cannot pay attention in class. Studies show

that 88 of every 100 children who have trouble

reading in the fi rst grade will still have trouble in the

fourth grade. Sure enough, 32 percent of Florida’s

fourth graders did not meet minimum reading

profi ciency standards as recently as in 2007.

Experts say that $1 wisely invested in high-quality

early education programs can save at least $7 in

money that won’t have to be spent for remediation,

law enforcement, prisons, etc. (Some experts see

much higher savings, as much as $17 later for every $1

spent now.)

It all resonated with Lawrence. Truth be known, he

always had a tendency to tilt at windmills and here

was a cause as worthy as any.

“I’d never even heard of the subject of school

readiness,” he said. “I’m the father of fi ve, the

grandfather of several, but it doesn’t connect at all

to me until I end up doing this assignment, get head

over heels involved in it, get truly energized and

excited about it, and ultimately decide in 1998 that I’ll

retire in the beginning of 1999 and work full time on

this.”

So, at the age of 56, Lawrence did. And typically,

he followed several paths at once. A multi-faceted

movement soon emerged, one

that focused on Miami-Dade

County and, in several key

elements, the entire state.

Beginning with signifi cant and

still-sustained fi nancial support

from Dr. Jane and Gerald Katcher,

a public-spirited Miami couple,

Lawrence in early 1999 founded




The Early Childhood Initiative Foundation. Supported

by private funding, the foundation served – and still

serves – as the cornerstone of his plan to turn Miami-

Dade and Florida into national test labs for early

childhood education and “universal school readiness.”

Another lesson: That “universal” part is absolutely crucial, at least in South Florida and likely in many other communities. Lawrence and others believed that the 1988 initiative (on which only $30,000 was spent) failed, at least in part, because it focused almost entirely on disadvantaged kids. From now on, the focus would be on all children, especially those up to age 5.

After all, every child deserves high quality health

care, educational opportunities, after-school

programs, and devoted nurturing.

“It wasn’t about those children, whoever those

children might be, and that’s a fact that’s central to

my philosophy,” Lawrence said. “The same principles

that raised my fi ve children are the same principles

that raise anyone’s children, while realizing that some

children in some families need more assistance than

other children.”

Though sincere and noble, the philosophy obviously

serves as an advantage when voters are asked to

reach into their pockets or otherwise support new

programs. This was clearly demonstrated twice within

two months in 2002.

In both cases, Lawrence played a central role.

First, on Sept. 10, 2002, Miami-Dade voters approved

creation of The Children’s Trust and, at the same

time, assented to the same half-mill property tax levy

they had rejected in 1988. The margin: again 2-1,

but this time in favor. The concept had been created

by Lawrence and Abety, who was still serving as

executive director of the Children’s Services Council,

with assistance from many other children’s advocates.

“The Children’s Trust really grew out of concepts that

Mo and I had together,” Lawrence said. The actual

campaign was engineered by Lawrence and political

consultant Sergio Bendixen, and it served as the

model for the 2008 renewal-versus-sunset campaign

that we will look at in close detail later in this study.

At the same time, Lawrence and Alex Penelas,

then-mayor of Miami-Dade County, were organizing

an audacious eff ort to thwart an apathetic state

legislature and create a statewide pre-kindergarten

program for all 4-year-olds.

Raising $1.84 million, they launched a petition

campaign in early 2002, navigated the treacherous

legal waters of proposed amendments to the state

constitution, and ultimately gathered 722,000

signatures.

On Nov. 5, 2002, 59.2 percent of Floridians voted

to approve state-paid, voluntary universal pre-K

education beginning in 2005. Now, just six years

after that vote, more than half of Florida’s 4-year-olds

attend state-funded pre-K programs.

A penetrating study of the pre-K Florida campaign,

written by Jim Hampton, a former editor of The Miami

Herald, is available here and is highly recommended:

www.teachmorelovemore.com/docs/HowFloridasVotersEnactedUPK.pdf

Meanwhile, seven other Florida counties (of the 67

counties in the state) had been taking advantage of

the Florida law that allows voters to establish new,

dedicated funding sources for children. Each operates

a little diff erently than the others, but they all fund

children’s programs and collectively serve about two-

thirds of the state’s population.

Nationally, a variety of county and city governments

or other entities fund special programs for children,

but few – if any – of those programs approach the

magnitude of the eff ort underway in Miami-Dade

County and supported by The Children’s Trust.

In early 2008, program manager Kelley Pasatta of

Chicago Metropolis 2020, a civic organization that

promotes long-term planning for the Chicago area,

conducted a study that was based on work performed

by the University of Chicago. It found that many ballot

initiatives around the country required the dedication

of some existing revenues to children’s programs.

Relatively few authorized new funding streams,

particularly in the form of property or sales taxes.

In November 2008, for instance, voters in Oakland,

Calif., narrowly supported Kids First! Two, an initiative

that extends a previous program and requires the

dedication of 2.5 percent of total city revenues to

youth activities – delivering about $11 million per

year.

But ballot issues that mandate additional funding

have yielded mixed results.

Residents of Portland, Ore., voted in strong numbers

in November 2008 to renew a modest property tax

that will generate about $14 million for children

programs for each of the next fi ve years.

To the north, however, Seattle voters soundly

rejected the so-called “latte tax” in 2003. It would have

cost some coff ee drinkers an extra dime per cup,

with the money going to kids. Still, Seattle residents

continue to fund children’s programs through a

property tax imposed in 1990 and most recently

reapproved in 2004. (Closer looks at the experiences

in Portland and Seattle are available as Appendix I and

Appendix II.)

Pasatta notes another complication for many


areas, though it does not aff ect Florida. Not every

state allows citizens to place issues on the ballot. A

state by state map and list can be found here: www.iandrinstitute.org/statewide_i&r.htm

“There are far fewer examples of funding streams

established in states without the ability to add

propositions and measures to their ballots,” she said.

“In Illinois and Chicago, one of the challenges we

face is that we need to go through the state General

Assembly or the City Council to get any sort of new

initiative approved,” she said. “It isn’t simply a matter

of getting the voters to back a measure, which

makes it even more challenging in the current fi scal

environment. States and cities are broke.”

And so, a movement was underway, but times were

tough and a great test was on the horizon, rushing

toward Miami-Dade and its children. The children’s

programs in those seven other Florida counties had

been approved in perpetuity. Miami-Dade’s had not.

The vote was scheduled for Aug. 26, 2008. It was all

or nothing. The Children’s Trust and all it had created

and all it meant would be approved forever. Or it

would disappear entirely.

Mo Abety, now The Trust’s president and chief

executive offi cer: “The money would have run out. It

would have been gone. It would have been over.”

Dave Lawrence, now 66: “Lose this and the honest

answer is, I wouldn’t be alive the next time people

try it.” ■


What Was At Stake

“If this were to disappear, it would have been such a blow to our community, to the children.”

– Dr. Judith Schaechter, The Children’s Trust health committee

It is diffi cult to overstate the importance of The

Children’s Trust to the county and its children.

Health care, day care, after-school programs, literacy

programs, the 211 hotline, youth violence and

substance abuse prevention. On and on and on.

In short order, The Trust had become ingrained

in the very texture of Miami-Dade’s life. A full list of

programs can be found here:

www.thechildrenstrust.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16&Itemid=19

“What was at stake in the August initiative was the

future of kids in Miami-Dade County,” Abety said.

“And the hope that what we’re building here is a real

movement for children.”

The Trust spent more than $15 million in 2008 alone

on behalf of children with special needs. More than

50,000 kids participated in after-school and summer

programs. More than 90,000 kids were seen in The

Trust’s in-school health clinics.

When it comes to child health, the need is

particularly manifest: According to a recent report by

The Trust, 19 percent of the county’s 571,400 children

below the age of 18 are in less than very good health.

One in three do not see a dentist regularly. One in fi ve

infants are not properly immunized. Eighteen percent

of 6- to 11-year-olds and 24 percent of 12- to 17-year-

olds are overweight. Ten to 15 percent of all children

never eat fruits or vegetables.

Take just that one

program – Health

Connect, which provides

pre- and post-natal

health care for infants

and their mothers,

installs health teams

in public schools, and

sponsors community-

based health services.

When many readers of this report were students,

school nurses were nearly universal. Times have

changed. Budgets have tightened. Priorities have

shifted. And now, through much of this nation,

particularly in inner cities and rural areas where the

needs are most intense, school nurses cannot be

found.

But that is not the case in Miami-Dade County, not

any longer.

The Trust’s Health Connect network already has

placed health teams – nurses, nurse practitioners and

social workers – in 165 of Miami-Dade’s 350 public

schools, and it aspires to bring that program to every

public school in the county.

“When we were going to school, there weren’t

health teams in schools, there were nurses in schools,”

said Dr. Judith Schaechter, a pediatrician who chairs

The Trust’s health committee and is a driving force


What Was At Stake

behind Health Connect. “The fi eld of pediatrics and

our society have changed so much that we need

health teams in schools now, which include social

workers.”

But at every level, government agencies ignore the

obvious need and the obvious benefi t.

“It’s sad what it says about education,” Schaechter

said. “In education, we keep ripping things apart.

While we used to be communities that took care of

our own, we stopped doing that.

“The question really is a very deep one: What does it

say about our society when we don’t pay for what we

say is a right – quality education for all of our children

– and when we don’t take care of our most vulnerable,

which are our children?”

Schaechter was asked to describe the situation

before The Trust came along.

“Children needed glasses and couldn’t aff ord them.

Children who couldn’t concentrate because they had

itchy skin and couldn’t see a doctor about it, or were

not able to go to school and were failing out because

they kept getting asthma attacks and no one could

educate them about how to prevent that. That’s

where we found ourselves.

“And The Children’s Trust stepped in to help. We

were able to implement this vision of taking care of all

children in our county.”

At one point during the 2008 campaign to

reauthorize The Trust, she recalled, teachers, parents

and students fi lled a meeting room. Having seen what

was possible, what could be done to improve kids’

health, the thought of losing it again was crushing.

“Please don’t take this away,” they said during the

meeting. “This is the only health care we can get.”

For an outside view of another program, let’s turn

for a moment to Ashley Stevens Kehoe, a Miami

resident whose 9-year-old daughter, Zemia, attended

the Miami Children’s Theater Creative Camp’s summer

program, largely funded by The Trust.

“When Zemia started camp six weeks ago, she had

no formal training in theater or dance,” Kehoe wrote

in an e-mail to The Trust. “She was somewhat shy and

intimidated to speak to adults she did not know.

“I can see the beautiful transformation that has

happened in just the six weeks since she began at

Miami Children’s Theater…. I thank you with the

deepest and most sincere gratitude for funding

programs like Creative Camps, and for the scholarship

that has allowed my child to be in sheer delight day

after day.”

And all of this represents just a fraction of The

Children’s Trust’s programs and activities, just a

fraction of what was at stake in August 2008.

“It would have been a tragic loss for this community,”

said Diana Ragbeer, The Trust’s director of public

policy and communications who took a six-week

leave of absence to work on the campaign.

“Every other day, I run into somebody who’s a part of

our programs. Sometimes, you’re sitting in a restaurant

and somebody will see a card on the table or see your

pin and come up and tell you what a diff erence you

made to them.

“We really are on the right side of the angels.” ■


And So It Begins / The Strategy Takes Shape

“Sometimes you can do something beautiful, and The Children’s Trust campaign of 2008 was a beautiful thing”.

– Campaign strategist Sergio Bendixen

Chastened by the experiences of the late 1980s and

by the prevailing economic and political realities, The

Children’s Trust’s leaders and their supporters were

under no illusions in 2008. Reauthorizing The Trust

would require a comprehensive, sustained, well-

endowed eff ort – one that would cut across the grain

of the anti-tax sentiment sweeping the nation, the

state and the region.

“This is very, very hard to do,” Lawrence said. “It’s

a tax and it’s not really a happy time for taxes in

America. The economy was moving into shambles

and we’re asking people, ‘How

about doing this and it might

not even benefi t your children

specifi cally, but it might benefi t

the community overall.’ “

Sergio Bendixen, the nationally

known campaign strategist who

served as Lawrence’s closest

partner in the political eff ort,

said the challenge seemed

enormous.

“Most people would have said,

‘Mission impossible,’ especially

in a community where in a

primary, the majority of the

electorate was going to be

Hispanic or Cuban-American

voters, who almost never

support tax increases, with

the notable exception of

2002, when they supported the

Children’s Trust but by a small margin,” said Bendixen, a

veteran campaign specialist, a pioneer of multilingual

polling and president of Bendixen and Associates of

Coral Gables, Fl.

“Cuban-Americans have rejected every other tax

increase that ever came before them,” he said. “So it

looked like it was going to be a diffi cult campaign at

the very beginning.”

The Trust’s fi les show that Lawrence, Bendixen and

others began mapping their strategy more than two

years in advance of the August 2008 referendum.

In fact, to some extent, the campaign already was

underway on Sept. 13, 2006, when Lawrence asked a

Children’s Trust staff er to determine the median and

average assessed values of Miami-Dade homes and

what The Trust’s levy would cost those owners.

“This helps me considerably as I go about ‘making

the case’ for The Trust,” Lawrence wrote that day in a

“Some Help, Please” e-mail.

From that day forward, the referendum steadily

gained ground as Lawrence’s top priority.

“I’m always nervous,” Lawrence said. “Getting this

reauthorized was a really big deal, because it goes

away, it’s gone, if we don’t.”

A few fundamental strands

of the strategy swiftly occurred

to Lawrence and Bendixen.

Much of this was based on the

careful, penetrating, repetitive

polling that marks any Sergio

Bendixen campaign.

Though somewhat obvious,

especially in retrospect, these

insights serve as vital tips for

anyone attempting to replicate

the eff ort:

■ As had been the case in

2002, it was critically important

to make clear that The Trust

served all children in the

community – and, now, after

fi ve years of operation, with a

vast variety of benefi cial, high-

quality programs.

“The unifying concept, the overall

message, was that The Children’s Trust has

done work that was of importance to the

community,” Bendixen said. “The research

made it clear that as long as people were

informed about what The Children’s Trust is

and what it has accomplished, they felt the

money was well spent.”

■ Scheduling the vote during a primary or other

non-general election can be a smart strategic

move. The reason: Voters who participate in

primaries tend to be particularly civic-minded

and, thus, more likely to support these kinds of

initiatives.

Sergio Benixen



■ A tax is a tax, but some are less painful than

others. Thus, the modest individual cost of the

levy – less than $60 per year for the owner of a

median-priced home – had to be emphasized.

■ The campaign had to be broadly based, run

in the county’s three dominant languages

– English, Spanish and Creole – and utterly

nonpartisan. “This wasn’t about Republicans

or Democrats,” Lawrence said. “And this wasn’t

about one ethnic or racial or national origin

vis-à-vis another group.”

■ It also had to be multi-faceted – advertising,

community outreach and media relations.

It also included a surprisingly energetic

grassroots component that eventually

produced thousands of volunteers and

300,000 get-out-the-vote e-mails.

■ A comprehensive campaign conducted in

three languages and in a media-intensive

market would be expensive, requiring a

muscular fund-raising eff ort. The initial goal:

$1.1 million. The fi nal fund-raising tally:

$1,646,765.

■ But Bendixen and Susan Vodicka, the

campaign manager he selected to run day-to-

day operations and tactical oversight, knew

that there was no need to reach and win over

every single eligible voter, especially for a

vote that would be held as part of a primary

election. They just needed to reach the voters

mostly likely to participate in the election in

question, and that meant they could conserve

some funds.

For example:

“We purchased a list of voters who always vote

in a fall primary,” Vodicka said. “We didn’t waste

money or time on people who don’t vote in

fall primaries frequently.”

■ Potential foes had to be identifi ed and

neutralized, preferably through a better

understanding of the sheer value of The Trust’s

programs.

■ The campaign had to be as pure and

untouched by scandal as The Trust itself had

been. Thus far, none of The Trust’s hundreds

of programs had been tattooed by bad

publicity. Even The Miami Herald, a newspaper

that had won numerous Pulitzer Prizes and

other awards for its investigations of local

corruption, seemed impressed. “The Trust has

avoided even the hint of impropriety,” The

Herald reported as the 2008 campaign was

underway.

“That was crucial,” Bendixen said. “That was

part of our message, because in Miami-Dade

County, and I’m sure it’s the case in many parts

of the country, programs run by government

usually have the reputation of being either

ineffi cient or dishonest, and that was not the

case with The Trust.”

Known as the leading pollster of the Hispanic

community for Democratic candidates, Bendixen and

Associates was one of six polling fi rms considered

by Lawrence for his fi rst Trust campaign in 2002.

Lawrence’s polling budget back then was $30,000,

but Sergio Bendixen had another idea. He would

do it – and more – for free, as a contribution to his

community.

“He didn’t get a penny the fi rst time,” Lawrence said.

“This time, I said to him, ‘This isn’t right. This isn’t fair. I

want to pay you.’ He said, with a big smile, ‘You can’t

aff ord me.’ “

In the end, Bendixen billed the campaign $275,000

for his company’s 2008 polling services, but most staff

time, rent and other costs were donated. Bendixen’s

time alone, 100 days at his usual rate of $2,500 a day,

accounted for the majority of the $378,000 that was

written off as an in-kind contribution.

Why?“We all have to do something for our community,”

Bendixen said. “Politics and campaigns in Miami have

been very good to Sergio Bendixen and it’s about

time that Sergio Bendixen did something back for

the community and show people that politics can do

good.”

It is not possible to exaggerate Bendixen’s

importance to the eff ort, another lesson emphasized

by Lawrence. His message: Find yourself a professional

campaign strategist and manager, and give him or her

freedom to manage the campaign.

“I think it’s important to know that he called every

strategic shot in the campaign,” Lawrence said of

Bendixen. “I would push back and I would even win a

few times, but basically my job was to raise the money

and to raise the allies. His was to decide what was the

wisest use of those dollars.”

This is important, Lawrence said, because, whether

you like it or not, you are running a political campaign

– with all of the bells and whistles, challenges and

potential pitfalls that entails.

“This campaign was not won because people love

children,” Lawrence said. “If it were won in that fashion,

then it would have been won in 1988. It was won

because it was a disciplined political campaign.”

That discipline was enforced by Lawrence, Bendixen

and Vodicka, who had worked with Bendixen on a


variety of campaigns and other projects intermittently

since 1972.

By the beginning of 2007, a voluntary one-year

sabbatical had recharged Vodicka’s internal batteries,

and she was eager to join Lawrence’s new eff ort. On

Monday, Jan. 8, 2007, the fi rst working day of the fi rst

full week of the new year, Vodicka sent Lawrence an

exploratory e-mail.

“When you are ready to begin assembling a

staff for your campaign organization, I would like

the opportunity to be considered for one of the

organizational positions,” she wrote. “It suits my skills,

experience and desire to participate in something

important in our community.”

Seven minutes later, Lawrence responded. With

a budget to manage, he was coy. He told Vodicka

that he already was at work raising money for the

campaign, but Bendixen was the

man she should contact.

In truth, Lawrence was

pleased. He and Vodicka had

worked together during the

1994 Presidential Summit of the

Americas in Miami. No one else

was seriously considered. The

result ratifi ed the decision.

“What a team – Susan and Sergio,” said Ana Sejeck,

Lawrence’s top aide and chief operating offi cer at his

Early Childhood Initiative Foundation. “She fi nishes his

sentences. They knew each other. They understand

each other. They can fi gure out what’s going on just

by the temperature in the room.”

Vodicka was hired as of March 1, 2007, as campaign

manager and executive director of the Children’s

Trust Political Committee, the entity that offi cially was

running the campaign. An independent contractor,

she was paid $5,000 a month for part-time work

through May 2008 and then $10,000 a month for

full-time work during the last three months of the

campaign.

“I’ve lived here a long time now and I don’t have to

have children to know how important this is for our

community,” Vodicka said. “The beauty, specifi cally, of

The Children’s Trust is that it’s an opportunity for the

people living here to take care of our children. I don’t

want to live someplace where we don’t take care of

our children.

“I believed there was a good story to tell. Rather

than having a political candidate that was fl awed, we

had a cause that was noble. And I believed that from

the beginning.”

Even before she came aboard, momentum was

beginning to build – and organization and discipline

were evident.

A Feb. 6, 2007, meeting among Lawrence, Abety,

Bendixen and members of their staff s yielded a

two-page memo listing fi ve key elements requiring

action, most with deadlines attached. (It was only the

beginning. By April 2008, strategic meetings would

end with as many as 37 unresolved items requiring

immediate action.)

The fi ve elements identifi ed in the February 2007

memo:

■ The generation of fi ve lists of contacts,

including board members of every

organization funded by The Trust and parents

of children who had benefi ted from Trust

programs.

■ Orders to begin submitting reports each time

a Trust representative spoke to a community

group or any other group. Each summary

was to include: name of speaker, name of

organization, date, and comments relating to

audience reaction.

■ The collection of every media article ever

written about The Trust and creation of a

complete list of media contacts.

■ Development of a “Unifi ed Children’s Trust

Message.” Bendixen wrote: “It is of the utmost

priority to develop a unifi ed message for The

Children’s Trust. This ‘discipline on paper’ will

help for all speaking engagements and [for]

any other questions that those involved with

The Trust may be confronted with throughout

the campaign.”

Asked later about the content of that

message, Bendixen said: “It had to be a

message that basically made every family

and every voter in Miami feel that they would

benefi t. That in the future there might be

reason for them to use The Children’s Trust for

the benefi t of their families or their children,

notwithstanding how much money they had

or their position in the community.”

■ The planning of meetings with The Trust’s

board of directors “to begin the development

of a team that will assist The Children’s Trust

campaign.”

That last item was particularly sensitive. Again, the

campaign was of a political nature, and The Trust is

funded with public money. That can be a combustible

combination if not handled carefully.

Abety, his staff and The Trust’s board of directors

could be called upon for factual assistance and, under

some circumstances, for advice, but for the most part,

they had to recuse themselves from the nuts and

bolts of the campaign.

Susan Vodicka




“What we

didn’t want was

the perception

and the real

possibility that

we might be

accused of using

public funding

to fi nance

a political

campaign,” Abety

said. “And so,

my participating

was very arm’s distance and we continued to focus on

administering The Children’s Trust. I was called upon

for advice occasionally and would meet with folks

when necessary after the work day was over.”

Importantly, this concern also extended to the

contractors who ran programs dependent on Trust

money. Lawrence, a veteran newspaperman who

knew the damage that could be infl icted by negative

coverage, hammered away at that point relentlessly,

often directly with his staff and with contractors.

“I am trying to make sure – even bend over

backwards – to make sure that no one can say that

I or anyone else connected with The Trust leaned

on any provider to contribute to the campaign for

reauthorization,” Lawrence wrote to Bill de la Sierra,

president of an early education program called

Kidworks USA.

Lawrence copied Abety, Vodicka and Bendixen

into the e-mail, and added this sentence to it: “I do

not want those who work for Mo involved in the

campaign. They need to concentrate on services to

children and families.”

And so, the strategic framework and the campaign

hierarchy were coming into place.

Now, somehow, Lawrence would have to raise the

money to pay for it. ■

Modesto Abety


The original fund-raising goal of $1.1 million includ-

ed $50,000 for a bedrock “where do we stand” poll and

$50,000 for Vodicka’s salary in 2007, and $1 million to

run the rest of the campaign. That seemed suffi cient

– and suffi ciently diffi cult, given the environment for

fund-raising – when compared to the $743,000 that

had been raised for the 2002 eff ort.

But then, three circumstances compelled reconsid-

eration.

First, in just six years, early voting had taken hold

in Florida (and many other places). That extended the

prime campaign season from four weeks to at least

six weeks, requiring proportionally more money to be

spent.

Secondly, the economy was darkening, adding to

the challenge of persuading voters to tax themselves.

In addition, to Bendixen’s surprise, Vodicka already

was seeing signs that she could build a wide and

deep army of grassroots volunteers, motivated by a

desire to help children.

In the age of the Internet and mass media, Bendix-

en had come to see little value in volunteer networks

– at least for most conventional campaigns. But his

own campaign for The Children’s Trust was the fi rst

of two exceptions to that rule in 2008. (The second,

of course, turned out to be the Barack Obama cam-

paign.)

“Was I wrong when it came to this campaign,”

Bendixen said. “We were a lot more aggressive about

energizing what we might call the advocates, the ac-

tivists, the people who provided services for children.

Thousands of people were mobilized.”

But that cost money, too, and more than $165,000

would be needed to adequately support this army of

children’s advocates.

In the end, around $1 million was spent on televi-

sion, radio and newspaper advertising alone. Polling

cost $275,000. Consultants and grassroots campaigns

added hundreds of thousands of dollars to the bud-

get.

So, the fund-raising bar was raised to $1.6 million,

even as Lawrence already was hard at work on that

front, an eff ort that began in early 2006 and persisted

through the summer of 2008.

Surely, the reader will think, fund-raising of this

magnitude was a team eff ort. Surely, David Lawrence

simply led the team.

No, not really. Every document in the fi les, every

account by those close to the campaign, leads to the

conclusion that Lawrence raised $1,646,765 from 686

donors virtually by himself.

“Dave takes it on as a missionary,” Sejeck said. “It was

a tough time to raise $1.6 million, which is what he

raised singlehandedly – I promise you.”

How does one do this over a period of more than

two years? By being obsessively organized and relent-

less. By delivering speech after speech. By following

up every chance encounter with a phone or e-mail

solicitation. By following up the follow-ups with ad-

ditional calls or e-mails, on a regular, clockwork basis.

“Money-raising is a very personal business,” Law-

rence said. “And lots of time, perhaps a majority of the

time, you don’t get money the fi rst time. It’s cultiva-

tion. It’s building a relationship. It’s looking people in

the eye. You don’t raise money generally by writing

letters – it’s personal contact.

“I always felt that I could sit down with anyone in

the world. Give them enough time, and why should

they refuse me a meeting? There may be a little bit of

chutzpah in it, but that’s what happens.”

He set his sights on pretty much everyone, but

especially on the big hitters in the community, hoping

to reap large contributions from corporations and

prominent, wealthy individuals.

Major six-fi gure or fi ve-fi gure contributions came

from Healthcare Atlantic and its chairman, Mike

Fernandez; Lennar Corp. and its president, Stuart

Miller; AT&T Florida and its president, Marshall Criser III;

philanthropists Kirk Landon and Dan Lewis; developer

Jorge Perez; retired savings and loan executive Charles

Stuzin, and many others.

Lawrence worked hard to embrace all political

persuasions, ensuring that the campaign remained

obsessively non-partisan. Hence, contributors in-

cluded well-known and generally anti-tax Republicans

such as Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio and U.S.

Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and the brothers Lincoln

and Mario Diaz-Balart.

Contributions ranging from $110,000 to $10,000

came from 53 of the 686 benefactors and accounted

Building A War Chest / Managing A Budget

“Dave is relentless. He’s a machine for fund-raising.”—Ana Sejeck, chief operating offi cer of The Early Childhood Initiative Foundation

Building A War Chest / Managing A Budget


for about $450,000 of the total, a signifi cant harvest.

In some cases, one visit, followed by a phone call or

e-mail, did the trick. But, in many instances, these

solicitations required ongoing Herculean eff orts.

The correspondence with AT&T Florida, for instance,

spanned many months, fi nally culminating in August

2007. It featured dozens of e-mails among Lawrence,

Criser, lawyers, accountants, tax experts and adminis-

trative assistants.

Lawrence also took advantage, in a good sense, of

a relationship he already had developed with local

professional basketball star Alonzo Mourning and his

wife, Tracy.

The 6-foot, 10-inch “Zo“ and the somewhat shorter

Lawrence had gotten to know each other during

the 2002 campaign, when Tracy Mourning became

interested in The Trust. Mourning ended up contribut-

ing $10,000 to that fi rst campaign. Now, during the

summer of 2006,

Lawrence met the

Mournings for lunch

in Coconut Grove.

He asked them for

$25,000 to support

the renewal vote.

Alonzo Mourning

hesitated a moment,

and then said: “Make

it $50,000.”

Lawrence: “I

almost have a tear

in my eye and I

am humbled and

inspired.”

Mourning: “Please

don’t say that. It is we

who are humbled

and inspired.”

So, those eff orts proved successful, though that

was not always the case with others.

A lengthy series of solicitations to entertainment

heavyweights Gloria and Emilio Estefan hit the rocks

over the couple’s policy of not contributing to “politi-

cal” campaigns.

“This is deeply disappointing. Truly painful,” Law-

rence wrote to Frank Amadeo, an aide to the mu-

sic stars, who was serving as an intermediary. “The

Children’s Trust can only continue its good work if we

have a campaign to do so….

“Last time the Estefans gave $5,000 to the cam-

paign. This is not a ‘political campaign’ in the sense of

the usual politics. It is for a community asset that will

be able to invest at least $85 million every year into

early intervention and prevention. What could be

more important?”

Still, setbacks like those were rare, even though

Lawrence juggled dozens of these major fund-raising

attempts simultaneously.

He kept track of them through what he called a

“bring-up” fi le that reminded him when it was time to

remind someone about the promise of a forthcom-

ing contribution. Any new promise or suggestion of

a contribution – generated through a speech or a

chance meeting in a restaurant or theater – also trig-

gered a dated “BU” entry in the bring-up fi le.

“If you say, ‘Call me in two weeks, to the minute it

will be two weeks,’ ” Sejeck said. “If you say, ‘I can’t give

you that much, but I can give you some now and

some later.’ Fine, and when later comes, we’re there.

He is the most organized human I know, truly.”

The checks, by the way, were made out to The

Children’s Trust

Political Com-

mittee and Law-

rence asked that

they be mailed

to his home,

rather than to

his offi ce at the

Early Childhood

Initiative Foun-

dation “so I keep

my ‘political life’

separate from

my nonprofi t

work.”

Another les-

son: Be aware of

every rule and

regulation, every

fi ling deadline. A few tardy campaign treasury reports

to state elections offi cials cost the campaign $16,700

in fi nes.

So, in conclusion, fund-raising on this scope can be

done, if one is suffi ciently focused and willing to de-

vote long hours. But, in the end, how does Lawrence

feel about repeatedly asking for money? Did he grow

anxious before a crucial meeting? Did he dread it?

“I never met anybody who said, ‘Boy, I really love to

raise money,’ ” Lawrence said. “So I don’t love to raise

money, but there is an exhilaration about it. How can

I not be exhilarated when Alonzo and Tracy Mourning

are saying, ‘Make it 50?’ ” ■

Alonzo and Tracy Mourning


The stage had been set for nearly two years. Now,

as 2008 began, many trains were moving down the

track, pretty much at the same time.

Lawrence still was raising money, consulting with

staff ers at The Trust, meeting with people who ran

programs funded by The Trust, delivering scores of

speeches at local churches and synagogues and

meeting halls, aligning allies in local government,

and putting out brushfi res ignited by potential op-

ponents. Bendixen was working on general strategy

and conducting poll after poll, looking for approaches

that would work best, searching for pockets of voter

resistance. Vodicka, on board since March 2007, in-

tensifi ed her eff orts and started mapping her tactical

framework.

Ballot wording

They also began devoting considerable attention

to a key issue often not suffi ciently considered by

organizers of ballot-initiative campaigns – the actual

wording of the ballot question. This can be crucial. For

one thing, many election offi ces enforce strict limits

on the number and content of the words that can be

used. For another, the precise wording of the question

can elevate – or diminish – support for it.

Research by Vodicka, aided by attorney Alicia Apfel,

determined in early January 2008 that the question’s

title had to be limited to 15 words, the body of the

question could not exceed 75 words and it was legally

prudent to count hyphenated words as two words.

All this took on great importance over the follow-

ing weeks and months as the proposed question

was written, edited, tested, rewritten and submitted

to county offi cials. Keep in mind that, in Miami-Dade

County, this issue is magnifi ed by a

factor of three because every-

thing written in English must be

translated – with complete

accuracy and no

chance of misun-

derstanding – into

Spanish and Creole.

On January 18,

Vodicka worked up

a “Schedule for De-

velopment of Ballot Language” that included 12 steps,

a cost estimate and contact information at the county

attorney’s offi ce.

Using the ballot question of 2002 as a template,

she, Bendixen and Lawrence had two versions of a

2008 question ready for testing by telephone survey.

The two versions, each similar but with a slightly dif-

ferent focus and sequence of selling points:

Option A:

Shall The Children’s Trust, the independent special

district for children’s services, be renewed to:

Fund improvements to children’s health,

development and safety such as:

- Programs to reduce violence and keep

children safe;

- After-school and summer programs;

- Programs to improve the educational quality

of child care;

- Health care teams for public schools;

Promote parental and community responsibility

for children;

Continue the annual ad valorem tax not to exceed

one-half (1/2) mill?

Option B:

Shall The Children’s Trust, the independent special

district for children’s services, be renewed to:

Fund improvements to children’s health,

development and safety such as:

- Programs that improve the lives of children

and families;

- Programs to reduce violence and keep

children safe;

- After-school and summer programs;

- Health care teams for public schools;

Promote parental and community responsibility

for children;

Continue the annual ad valorem tax levy not to

exceed one-half (1/2) mill?

The Campaign Begins Firing On All Cylinders

“It started out as a jackhammer. ” – Campaign Manager Susan Vodicka



Bendixen and his fi rm conducted 500 telephone

interviews between March 19 and 27, some in English,

some in Spanish. Forty-four percent of the respon-

dents were registered Democrats, 44 percent were

Republicans and 12 percent were independents. The

margin of error was 4 percentage points. It was the

third signifi cant voter survey since July 2007.

Both options tested well, but Option A yielded a 66

percent approval rate versus 61 percent for Option B.

In the end, Option A prevailed and made it to the

ballot with only cosmetic tweaks in wording and

punctuation.

Two other interesting fi ndings of that March survey:

71 percent of the respondents identifi ed “helping chil-

dren” as their main reason for voting “Yes,” compared

with 15 percent who said the programs were “neces-

sary and important,” and only 8 percent who approved

because they were aware of The Trust’s programs.

In addition, one-in-fi ve “No” voters said taxes already

were too high.

The apparent “brand-name” defi ciency and concern

about taxes spotlighted hurdles that the subsequent

advertising campaign attempted to overcome.

But that ballot-language survey was only one com-

ponent of a vigorous and ongoing campaign of voter

research.

Bendixen’s staff and others produced detailed

analyses of those who vote regularly during primary

elections, of the local Haitian-American community,

and of other categories of voters.

In addition to several major, countywide surveys

in the months leading up to the vote, the campaign

leadership also ran a daily tracking study during the

fi nal month of the campaign.

Specifi c approaches to each group

Bendixen’s polling obviously found considerable

support for The Trust, but it also revealed a worrisome

fact. About 40 percent of the respondents had heard

of The Children’s Trust, but only 10 percent thought it

had touched their families.

“They were voting not only for a tax increase, but

for an institution that didn’t really have an impact on

their individual lives,” Bendixen said.

This informed the work of Bendixen and Vodicka

as they tailored their strategy – which, in reality, were

three diff erent strategies. “This is Miami, so you had to

have three very diff erent strategies for the three major

ethnic groups that make up Miami.” Bendixen said.

The black community

The March survey found that blacks tended to

support The Trust by higher percentages than Hispan-

ics or non-Hispanic whites, but black participation in

elections – most especially primary elections – tended

to be low.

The strategy: Launch an intense campaign to

inform black voters, both African American and those

from Caribbean nations, about what was at stake and

then get them to the polls. The tactical plan: Enlist

black-oriented radio stations and the county’s wide,

infl uential network of black church leaders, especially

Bishop Victor T. Curry, senior pastor of the New Birth

Baptist Church, local president of the NAACP, and a

long-time ally of Dave Lawrence.

Curry and other black leaders, including Darryl

Reeves, a former state representative, brought scores

of black churches into the fold.

“Through his [Curry’s] lead-

ership, at least 100 of the most

important churches in Miami

became mini-headquarters

for The Children’s Trust in their

neighborhoods,” Bendixen

said. “Almost every Sunday,

there was some element of

The Children’s Trust that they

discussed with their parishioners.

The bumper stickers, the yard signs, a lot of materials

went through the churches.”

Curry said he aligned with Lawrence and the cam-

paign because “I believe The Children’s Trust has so

much integrity. It’s just all about the children.

“I normally don’t endorse candidates or campaigns,

but this one – I wanted to throw my full weight be-

hind it,” Curry said. “It’s an opportunity to help chil-

dren.”

Knowing the importance of personal contact, Curry

drafted a widely known local public relations and mar-

keting consultant, Da-Venya Armstrong, to build the

network of churches and coordinate other ground-

level eff orts in the community.

“It was her job to galvanize and then mobilize the

churches and the faith community,” Curry said. “She

was able to bring the pastors together in meetings

and luncheons, and then rally everyone to do some-

thing we’ve never done before – and that was to get

the community to vote in record numbers during a

primary.”

In fact, predominantly black precincts turned out

at a rate nearly twice that of predominantly Hispanic

or non-Hispanic white precincts. “Never happened

before, may never happen again,” Bendixen said. “That

Bishop Victor T. Curry

had a lot to do with the fact that we reached so deep

into the community, through the churches, through

the radio stations, and through a wonderful group of

organizers who worked their precincts in such a ter-

rifi c way.”

The Hispanic community

The strategy: Off set an inherent and particularly

strong reluctance to shoulder additional taxes. The

tactical plan: Enlist popular Hispanic radio personali-

ties.

“In the Hispanic community, our organizing base

was the radio stations – the Spanish-radio listener,

who is the heavy primary voter,” Bendixen said. “Many

radio announcers went to the comedores, the din-

ing halls, to the Meals on Wheels programs, to senior

homes in the Hispanic community, where, in a sense,

the Republican-conservative point of view is sold to

them by these radio personalities. By being able to re-

cruit them early on, convince them that The Children’s

Trust was something worthwhile to be supporting, we

basically neutralized what could have been the most

anti-tax group in the community.”

One major example of leadership in the Hispanic

community came from Claudia Puig, the daughter

of a Cuban patriot executed by Fidel Castro’s regime.

Puig runs Univision’s four powerful Spanish-language

stations in the Miami area, and – accompanied by

Lawrence and campaign consultant Freddy Balsera

– she led a staff meeting at which she emphasized her

commitment to the success of The Trust’s campaign.

“She was instrumental,” Bendixen said. “She really

opened the door for us at her radio stations.”

The non-Hispanic white community

The strategy: Again off set anti-tax sentiment, and

emphasize the universality of The Trust’s programs.

The tactical plan: Reach these through carefully pro-

duced, precisely placed television commercials.

“It was clear from all our research that they would

very much react to television advertising and to cred-

ible spokespeople,” Bendixen said. “And that is where

David Lawrence, the editorial support of The Miami

Herald, the print campaign that showed that we had

ideological support for The Children’s Trust, not only

from the liberals and the Democrats but also from the

conservatives and the Republicans, allowed us to get

the 84-85 percent support that we did from non-His-

panic white voters.”

Advertising

As one would imagine, the advertising element

was seen as crucial and not just when it came to tele-

vision and not just when it came to building non-His-

panic white support. Television, radio, print, Internet.

All came into play, and the region’s demographic

diversity was a touchstone.

The campaign budgeted $718,000 for television

commercials, $237,000 for radio commercials, $60,000

for newspaper ads, and $45,000 for direct mail.

Bendixen and Lawrence agreed that the campaign

– in its entirety – should keep a low profi le until just

six weeks or so before the August 26 vote. The think-

ing: Why give any opponents who might emerge

more time than that to mount a counter-campaign?

When it fi nally came to buying time and space with

those precious funds, Lawrence and Vodicka engaged

media representatives in frequent, ongoing negotia-

tions aimed at getting the most for their money.

Neither was reluctant to exploit the relative righ-

teousness of a children’s campaign or their previous

relationships or contacts within the media. Lawrence,

for instance, sometimes squeezed former colleagues

(and employees) at The Miami Herald for more favor-

able rates and placement.

“Alex: I really need your help on this,” Lawrence

wrote on July 8, 2008, to Alexandra Villoch, the

Herald’s senior vice president of advertising and mar-

keting, with a copy going to publisher David Lands-

berg, now sitting in Lawrence’s former offi ce. “How

can it be that if we scatter 11 ads through August it is

more expensive than consecutive days? Moreover, the

Children’s Trust is just hugely crucial to the future of

our community…”

The actual ads and commercials were designed to

be simple, plain-spoken and eff ective.

“We were going for the gut in people,” Vodicka

said. “‘This has worked well. This is something we can

establish in perpetuity. You can trust this organization.

It is completely independent of county government,

state government, the federal government. You’ve

done a wonderful thing in this community. Now, let’s

keep it going.’

“We’re going for the heart fi rst, and the head sec-

ond,” she said.

On the print side, the campaign developed a series

of three endorsement ads. Each pictured eight diff er-

ent respected community leaders of all demographic

stripes: former Gov. Jeb Bush, school superintendent

Dr. Rudy Crew, Bishop Curry, Lawrence, Alonzo and

Tracy Mourning, Gloria and Emilio Estefan (no money

from them, but they agreed to lend their endorse-





ments), and so on. The headline: “Miami-Dade is

united for The Children’s Trust.” The tagline: “Join our

co-chairs and vote yes on August 26th.”

On the television side, Bendixen encountered

another surprise. A full-production-value commercial

featuring the Mournings played nicely but didn’t seem

to move the approval numbers his surveys were track-

ing.

Then, they tried one that simply showed Lawrence

sitting on a chair, looking slightly off camera and talk-

ing about The Children’s Trust.

“There hasn’t been a whiff of scandal about a single

nickel spent by the Trust…,” Lawrence said on camera.

“Trust is the basic issue in our community, and we’ve

not abused the trust that people gave us. We kept our

word.”

And…boom.

“Two days later those numbers were jumping,” Ben-

dixen said. ”We had been stuck at 48, 48, 47, 46, 48. We

were in the 60s after three or four days. And every day

it would go a little higher.”

Vodicka called it a “turning point.”

“We were concerned about our numbers,” she said.

“I don’t believe we ever believed we would lose at that

point in June and July, but we were concerned that

our numbers should be up a little higher than they

were.

“We could see that it [the Lawrence commercial]

was resonating with that older, solid voter, who was

defi nitely going to vote, and they just went, ‘Aha, I

know this man. I knew this man for all these years and

I believe what he’s telling me. I think he’s honest.’ “

They also used TV spots featuring Bishop Curry,

local Haitian-American radio personality Piman Bouk,

former Miami Mayor Maurice Ferré, and others.

A few days before the vote, now a little concerned

about the Hispanic vote,

the campaign added a

commercial that featured

Jeb Bush. Though not a

Hispanic, Bush spoke fl u-

ent Spanish and enjoyed

enormous popularity in

the Hispanic community.

“That was the other

major jump,” Bendixen

said. “We put him up

in Spanish. We had the

Hispanics at 55, 54, 56 for

too long. Then he went on. Seventies.”

And where did Bendixen run all of these commer-

cials? Only one place, and it – again – was determined

by voter research.

“News, news, news,” he said. “The one common

denominator of heavy primary voters is that they

watch news. We never bought the Olympics. We

never bought prime time television. This wasn’t the

kind of campaign where you spend $1 million a week

on television.”

All of this was augmented by direct mailings (in-

cluding a “Dear Voter” letter from Lawrence), a web-

site (with solicitations for volunteers and donations),

bumper stickers, buttons, palm cards, lawn signs and

the other, usual paraphernalia of a major electoral

campaign.

Neutralizing opposition/damage controlVirtually no campaign proceeds without a few

bumps and unanticipated problems, and The Chil-

dren’s Trust campaign of 2008 had its share. Here are a

few examples, off ered in the order of their occurrence

– and as learning experiences for others:

■ March 2007 – Lawrence began working on Bush,

the former governor, seeking his fi nancial sup-

port and public endorsement. Bush, however, ex-

pressed particular interest in program outcomes

and accountability, a hallmark of his gubernato-

rial administration.

Paraphrasing, Lawrence remembers Bush telling

him: I’m in favor, I’m not going to oppose, but

truthfully, I worry that this is a liberal thing – giv-

ing away money with no controls.

Rising to the challenge, Lawrence responded

with three lengthy letters during the next three

weeks. Each laid out in exquisite detail results al-

ready achieved and the steps taken by The Trust

to create and maintain rigorous standards. At one

point, Lawrence forwarded a list of programs that

had their funding removed. “We want our funded

partners to succeed and we see it as partly our

failure if they don’t,” Lawrence wrote. “We monitor

closely and send outside contracted CPA fi rms to

do fi scal audits annually.”

Bush, as previously mentioned, ended up ap-

pearing in The Trust’s television and print ads,

and he also made a campaign contribution.

The lesson: Big fi sh are worth the eff ort it takes

to catch them.

■ May 2007 – An infl uential Miami-Dade commis-

sioner, Joe Martinez, began expressing concern

over a “fund balance” of about $100 million that

The Trust had accumulated. Was The Trust hoard-

ing public money instead of spending it as prom-

ised?

Absolutely not, Abety explained in a letter swift-

ly sent to Martinez, other county commissioners

and the county mayor. The Trust’s fi ve-year plan

always envisioned the slow but steady “ramp-

Former Gov. Jeb Bush



up” of some programs, an alternative greatly

preferred to an overly swift, careless approach.

“These reserves will be depleted, as intended,

during the fi nal two years of The Trust’s fi ve-year

plan, and be eliminated by the end of FY 2008,”

Abety wrote.

The lesson: Respond quickly and fully to ques-

tions from public offi cials and others, especially

when the queries involve funding.

■ June 2007 – “A very irate voter” called Abety and

complained that, by funding some programs

aimed at gay, lesbian and transgender youths,

The Trust was “promoting homosexuality to

children.” The caller vowed to lobby church-goers

and other friends to oppose renewal.

Abety asked Emily Cardenas, The Trust’s senior

communications manager, to craft descriptions

that better explain the needs of these programs.

“We’re not apologizing for funding these pro-

grams,” he told Cardenas in an e-mail. “The needs

of this population speak to the need. We merely

want to explain this better.”

The lesson: Again, respond quickly and affi rma-

tively to perceived dangers.

■ November 2007 – Somehow, some way, a batch

of red Children’s Trust volunteer shirts ended up

for sale at a Uno Dollar Store in Miami’s Little Ha-

vana neighborhood. The store proudly advertised

the shirts’ availability in its front window: “Sale,

Limited Quantities: $1.”

This was a problem. For one thing, the shirts

cost The Trust $3 each. For another, they were

given only to individual volunteers. That raised

the possibility that dozens of shirts had been

stolen, a breach not only of security but of The

Trust’s hard-won reputation for careful manage-

ment of its resources.

“It raises all kinds of questions regarding other

equipment, recreational supplies, etc., that

should be used by the kids in these programs,”

Abety wrote in an e-mail to Pablo Canton, who

runs the city’s one-stop Neighborhood Enhance-

ment Team in Little Havana. “As you know, The

Children’s Trust comes up for a vote of re-autho-

rization by the voters in August of 2008. If there

is any misappropriation of the public dollars en-

trusted to us, we want it stopped and the people

involved brought to justice.”

Police offi cers ultimately seized the shirts.

The lesson: No threat to the organization’s repu-

tation is too minor to deal with, especially during

an authorization campaign.

■ January 2008 – Four anonymous, critical com-

ments posted on The Miami Herald’s website in

response to a generally favorable article about

The Trust attracted Vodicka’s attention. She e-

mailed the comments – illogical, incendiary and

grammatically challenged, as is usually the case

with such postings – to Lawrence.

“This underscores for me Sergio’s wisdom in

staying under the radar as much as possible until

we get much closer to the election,” Lawrence

responded.

The lesson: Maintain a low profi le for as long as

possible but stay alert for any signs of trouble,

especially on the Internet, which can provide

strong leading indicators of trends.

■ Trouble also can come from inside, and with the

best of intentions. Trust staff ers and, especially,

managers of programs funded by The Trust have

vested interests in winning re-approval. They

become anxious and they want to help, but

sometimes they need to be chilled down a bit.

“People need to be reassured that the cam-

paign is going well,” Vodicka said. “Sometimes,

they need to understand why they’re not being

asked to help.”

She and Bendixen said that Lawrence provided

a real service to them by off ering himself as a

human shield and by sponsoring frequent meet-

ings with groups of well-meaning critics and

observers from inside the organization.

“In organizing people and leading people, I’ve

found that the more information people have,

the better they perform, the better they behave,”

Vodicka said. “Uninformed people get frightened

that something important is happening without

them or that something is being mishandled and

somehow it’s going to be bad for them. So, every

few months, we’d bring everyone together and

update them on how we are proceeding.”

Said Bendixen: “We had only one thing to worry

about – win. If one of the activists or one of the

board members or one of the fund-raisers did

not like what we were doing, he [Lawrence] took

care of them and he protected us from having

to deal with all the people who think they know

how to do it better.”

The lesson: Campaign managers appreciate the

spirit of cooperation, but campaigns must be left

to the professionals.

■ The most potentially serious problem involved

said pass this along, pass this along,” Vodicka said.

“And I could see my own e-mails coming back to

me. It truly was viral.”



Ragbeer: “It had all the levels – the grassroots com-

ponent, the advertising component, the faith-based

component, the strategizing that was daily.

“Sergio Bendixen was seeking to elevate the cam-

paign every week. He talked about wanting to come

out of meetings with a new idea every week,” she said.

“So, if we were polling at 54 percent or 58 percent,

what do we need to do to get it to 68 percent, 78 per-

cent and so forth. Sergio was always seeking to add

components that would drive up the level of success.

“It was a whirlwind, and I loved every minute of it.”

And it worked. All of it.

Field operations/grassroots efforts

The fi nal piece of the puzzle was crafted by Diana

Ragbeer, The Trust’s director of public policy who took

a leave of absence to run the grassroots campaign as

director of fi eld operations. She started just before July

4, about six weeks before the election, and she started

quick and hard.

“It seemed like a short period of time,” Ragbeer said.

“We did the learning curve in a very vertical manner.”

She called it “a cradle-to-grave operation.” It in-

volved locating offi ce space, training and hiring 10

fi eld captains (each of whom recruited 20 precinct

captains), developing a volunteer base, building an

infrastructure that included computers, cell phones,

and producing collateral campaign material such as

bumper stickers and yard signs.

“All of the things that would energize the campaign

and create some excitement about it,” Ragbeer said.

She also had to staff 20 early voting sites for two

weeks before Election Day. That meant 80 people

every day, two shifts of four hours each, including

weekends. And she was

responsible for running the

telephone banks and send-

ing volunteers to commu-

nity events.

Ragbeer and Vodicka

prepared training materials

for the volunteers – tele-

phone scripts, approaches

to use during door-to-door

canvassing.

Ragbeer’s personnel fl ow chart looks like it was

crafted at the Pentagon. Her Election Day precinct

personnel assignment sheet runs for 26 pages and

lists 390 names, just a portion of her full roster of 641

Election Day volunteers.

Vodicka, meanwhile, sent out weekly blasts of

get-out-the-vote e-mails. They were forwarded. And

forwarded. And forwarded. Hundreds of thousands

of them fl ying through cyberspace, all within a single

county.

“My message always said pass this along, pass this

along,” Vodicka said. “And I could see my own e-mails

coming back to me. It truly was viral.”

Ragbeer: “It had all the levels – the grassroots com-

ponent, the advertising component, the faith-based

component, the strategizing that was daily.

“Sergio Bendixen was seeking to elevate the cam-

paign every week. He talked about wanting to come

out of meetings with a new idea every week,” she said.

“So, if we were polling at 54 percent or 58 percent,

what do we need to do to get it to 68 percent, 78 per-

cent and so forth. Sergio was always seeking to add

components that would drive up the level of success.

“It was a whirlwind, and I loved every minute of it.”

And it worked. All of it. ■

Diana Ragbeer


Triumph

“How blessed we are by this wonderful news”. – Dave Lawrence, Aug. 26, 2008

And so, the people voted, and the votes were counted. And this was the result:

Yes: 151,203 85.44 percent No: 25,774 14.56 percent

Offi cial Miami-Dade County Precinct Map (Areas shaded in brown and described as “tie” actually produced no votes at all)

Seventy-seven percent of Hispanic voters voted to

fund The Children’s Trust in perpetuity, along with 85

percent of non-Hispanic white voters and a remark-

able 97 percent of black voters. Those margins prob-

ably would have been even more lopsided if not for

the back-of-the-ballot problem, which undoubtedly

explained many of the 12,000 under votes – ballots

that did not include any vote on The Trust.

But no matter. It was an impressive, sweeping,

satisfying triumph. Lawrence and his forces lost in only

one of Miami-Dade’s 764 precincts. Did Lawrence look

into that? Of course.

“I know it’s North Palm Baptist Church,” he said.

“I know it’s in extreme northwestern Miami-Dade

County. I know there are 70 registered voters. I know

that we were outvoted 6-2. So I know exactly what

happened in that district. If it had a tiny bit more im-

portance, I would do more work in that area.”

Ana Sejeck: “That one precinct will haunt Dave for

the rest of his life.”

That’s probably true, but it’s a small price to pay,

and Lawrence knew it then and he knows it now.

“This is an extraordinary evening in all of our lives,”

he told a crowd of supporters during his victory

speech that night. “Voters, in overwhelming numbers

from every corner of our community, have given a

great gift to the children of this generation and gen-

erations to come….

“Let us not be defi ned only by the boundaries

of our own community. Right now, leaders in other

Florida counties, among them Monroe and Volusia

and Collier, are contemplating establishing their own

Children’s Trusts. This very day, we gave them a signal

that, even in tough economic times, this can be done.”

Triumph


Now, with the passage of a bit of time, those feelings

have only deepened. There is simply no reason, Law-

rence and his teammates say, why committed people

in other communities across the nation cannot dupli-

cate this achievement.

Bendixen:

“This may be the new issue of American politics.

It may be that in the 21st century, we’re able to build

political coalitions based on support for programs that

help children and families. We may not all agree on

our foreign policy, we may not all agree on economic

policy, we may not all agree on the environment or

even immigration, but I think when it comes to doing

everything that we can to help children and families,

there is a very strong consensus in the country and one

that generates a lot of energy among regular people.

“Hopefully, campaigns like the one that we ran in Mi-

ami – the percentage of people who voted for it, which

raised some eyebrows – will put children’s issues on the

front stage of American politics.”

Sejeck:

“To see other communities coming to us and saying,

if you could do it in Miami, you could do it anywhere.

That’s the biggest testament to the work.”

Lawrence:

“I hear now from all sorts of people in the children’s

community. I think people really do want to believe

that good things can happen and be inspired. And

amidst everything else, isn’t it reaffi rming about human

beings and human nature that 85 plus percent of the

people voted for a tax in a tough economic time?

“This is what I have lived my whole life for, with a

sense that if you do good things and tell people as

close to the truth as you can get and are willing to be

fair, they’re willing to do things.” ■

Martin Merzer, formerly The Miami Herald’s senior writer,

recently retired after a 35-year career at the newspaper

and at The Associated Press.


A strong leader, a modest tax, another victory for children

By Martin MerzerThe timing was identical, the objectives very similar, the play-

book interestingly – and coincidentally – familiar.

In 2002, as The Children’s Trust of Miami-Dade County was

planning and winning its enabling ballot initiative in the

nation’s southeast corner, supporters of the Portland Children’s

Investment Fund were planning and winning their fi rst ballot

initiative in the nation’s northwest corner.

Moreover, both groups were required to repeat the feat in

2008, and both succeeded, again employing similar tactics,

this time to counteract economic turbulence and deepening

anti-tax sentiment.

The experiences and lessons shared by children’s advocates

in Portland tend to verify and amplify those absorbed by

children’s advocates in the Miami area. Thus, they serve as ad-

ditional guidance for anyone aiming to replicate these accom-

plishments.

“We were looking at the state and federal governments

always jerking us around when it came to how much funding

was available for children, so we began asking, ‘How about

the notion of more local control over funding?,’ ” said Dan

Saltzman, a Portland city commissioner who championed the

fund and made its creation a centerpiece of his re-election

campaign in 2002.

“And we decided to ask our own voters if they were willing

to tax themselves more.”

The answer was yes, but before we dive into details, a quick

summary of similarities and diff erences between the two en-

terprises might prove helpful.

Tips From Oregon

• Survey the community to assess needs

• Seek allies in the business community, the media and elsewhere

• Raise suffi cient funds and plot a multi-pronged, professionally run campaign

• Test ballot language with voters

• Develop a memorable brand name

• Build transparency and accountability into the program

• Promote benefi ts to all voters

Appendix I

Portland, Oregon

Appendix I


Similarities:

■ Strong leaders with high public visibility and

unquestioned credibility: Saltzman in Portland,

David Lawrence Jr. in Miami-Dade County.

■ Modest, seemingly insignifi cant levies: about

40 cents per $1,000 of assessed property value

in Portland, 50 cents per $1,000 in Miami-Dade

– promoted in both places as equaling about

$60 per year for a typical homeowner.

■ A full range of programs that concentrate on

early childhood health and education, after-

school and mentoring activities, child abuse/

youth violence prevention and intervention.

■ Authorization campaigns run with the same

mind-set and precision employed in successful

electoral campaigns, including eff ective fund-

raising and marketing eff orts and development

of wide community support.

■ Vigorous oversight of funding decisions,

combined with exacting quality controls and

evaluation standards.

Diff erences:

■ Portland’s program concentrates on disadvan-

taged children; Miami-Dade’s strives to reach all

children, while focusing more dollars on at-risk

children.

■ Portland’s tax generates about $14 million a

year to help support 66 programs that serve

16,000 children; Miami-Dade’s generates about

$100 million a year for nearly 300 programs

that serve hundreds of thousands of children.

■ Portland’s fund helps support already proven

programs; Miami-Dade’s fund can and some-

times does support newly created programs.

■ Portland’s program is funded and managed

by a branch of city government, and the city

council and county commission retain some

degree of oversight; Miami-Dade’s program is

run by an “independent special taxing dis-

trict,” separate from the county or any city and

divorced from the oversight of those govern-

ments.

■ Under state law, voters must reauthorize the

Portland Children’s Investment Fund every fi ve

years – they did so in November 2008 and will

vote again in 2013; The Children’s Trust faced its

only fi ve-year sunset vote in August 2008, suc-

cessfully winning reauthorization and achiev-

ing permanence in the community. “That’s nice

– they’re home free,” Saltzman said. “Why didn’t

we think of that?”

As in Miami-Dade, the campaign to improve the

lives of children in Portland was grounded in grow-

ing awareness of a profound need. It was nurtured

by diverse elements of the community. And it was

relentlessly advocated by an impassioned individual

– Saltzman, assisted by equally committed partners.

“It’s been manifestly clear for a very long time

that we don’t give kids the tools they need to thrive,

particularly as the world has been changing,” said

Jeff Cogen, Saltzman’s former chief of staff who now

serves as a commissioner of Multnomah County,

which encompasses Portland. “It’s crazy – we know in

the long term, not only is it good for the kids, it saves

us money. I just found it incredibly frustrating that we

weren’t doing much about that.”

So, as the 2002 election approached. Saltzman

and Cogen gave it a try.

They decided to leverage two serendipitous events:

In 2001, a local crime commission – aligned with the

Chamber of Commerce – issued a report concluding

that the best way to reduce crime was to invest in kids

so they don’t get into trouble to begin with, and local

newspaper columnist David Sarasohn wrote a piece

urging local leaders to emulate an early childhood

program underway in San Francisco.

That tilled ground already rich in nutrients for the

planting of progressive programs. Without doubt,

Portland off ered Saltzman, Cogen and their support-

ers advantages not enjoyed by children’s advocates in

Miami-Dade or some other places.

Most notable among those advantages: Residents

of Oregon in general and Portland in particular tend

to be progressive thinkers, more willing than most to

consider innovative solutions to vexing challenges.

Oregon, for instance, is the only state to require that

all elections be conducted by mail (though voters can

return ballots to county drop sites). The result: perpet-

ually high turnout and, thus far, no sweeping electoral

scandals.

In addition, residents are particularly sensitive to

the environment, relatively well-mannered (jaywalk-

ing is so rare in Portland that it appears to be a capital

crime), and generous when called upon to support

charitable endeavors.


Appendix I

Cogen, who was raised in the Miami area, calls Port-

land “the little blue bubble that we have here.”

“People here are very nice, they’re very polite,

they’re very orderly,” he said. “There’s a general sense

that collectively we still have the capacity to address

our problems. Having been brought up in Florida and

living in California before I came here, I know that’s

not necessarily the broad sense in those places.”

Saltzman and Cogen were determined to create the

Portland Children’s Investment Fund as a branch of

city government, one of the key factors that diff erenti-

ate it from The Children’s Trust in Miami-Dade. Call it a

demonstration project.

“To me, it’s important that it be government’s job,”

Cogen said. “A big piece of what it’s about is helping

kids, giving resources to kids.

“But to me, it’s also about creating a model that

helps show government how to operate in an effi -

cient and innovative way, but also shows the commu-

nity that government is well positioned to deal with

these huge challenges that we face.”

Reminded that many governments elsewhere ex-

hibit little interest in children’s programs, Cogen said:

“Well, that’s too bad.”

But opposition still had to be confronted in Portland

– not in the general public, but within the local politi-

cal community.

Rather than deal with the complexities of getting

a referendum on the ballot, Saltzman and Cogen

availed themselves of another option – asking the

fi ve-member city council (the mayor and four com-

missioners) to refer the measure to the electorate.

They needed three solid votes. It was a tough fi ght.

“Though every politician you will ever meet tells

you that kids are their highest priority, and though the

mayor said kids were her highest priority, the mayor

did not want it to go to the ballot and another com-

missioner didn’t want it to go to the ballot,” Cogen

said. “Not because they didn’t like kids – ‘the timing

wasn’t right’ and they had other priorities, other agen-

das.”

Saltzman and Cogen ultimately prevailed, in part by

rallying support from the Chamber of Commerce and

other elements of the business community and from

children’s rights organizations.

“Kids don’t advocate for themselves,” Cogen said.

“What we were able to bring to the table that hadn’t

been there before was organized, active adult lobby-

ing on behalf of kids.”

Now came the electoral campaign for what became

known as the Portland’s Children’s Levy. To Saltzman,

the approach was clear. As in Miami-Dade, supporters

would launch a full-bore political campaign on behalf

of kids – complete with an accomplished strategist,

an aggressive fund-raising eff ort, a strategic marketing

plan.

“That is essential,” Saltzman said. “We were sophis-

ticated about it from the start. This is a campaign,

especially the fi rst time around. You have a lot more of

people’s inherent skepticism to overcome. I believe if

you’re going to do something, you have to do it right.”

It is instructive to note that there was no contact

between the forces in Portland and Miami-Dade; each

group, acting on its own, developed virtually identical

approaches.

In Portland, Saltzman turned to Mark Wiener, a

prominent political consultant who has managed

elective campaigns for Saltzman and Cogen and

many others.

“He’s the brains behind it all,” Saltzman said of Wie-

ner and his political skills.

To a large extent, Wiener (his fi rm is called “Winning

Mark”) is to Portland as political consultant Sergio

Bendixen is to Miami-Dade, much as Saltzman is to

the Portland Children’s Investment Fund as Lawrence

is to The Children’s Trust of Miami-Dade.

“I do a lot of campaigns of all stripes, but the kids’

stuff is closest to my heart,” Wiener said.

As Wiener began working on strategy, Saltzman

– seemingly channeling Lawrence – launched himself

into the fund-raising universe, making countless calls,

sending a stream of e-mails, speaking to community

group after community group. For the 2002 cam-

paign, he raised about $350,000, a signifi cant amount

for a city-wide election.

Strategically, supporters found themselves chal-

lenged by economic hardship.

“The fi rst time, we were doing this in the middle of

a really bad recession, but it was worse for us than in

2008 because we were further along the cycle,” Cogen

said. “Unemployment approached 8 percent when we

were on the ballot.

“This was a new program, so one of the challenges

was, when governments are making massive cuts to

existing programs, how do we convince people that a

new program is a good idea?”

Another problem: In Portland, only about 18 percent

of all households have a school-age child. “So, you can’t

rely just on parents to pass something like this,” Cogen

said. “You have to have a broader message that answers,

‘What’s in it for me?’ “

The solution: Focus not only on the kids, but also

on the benefi ts to all voters. Among other things,

supporters stressed the long-term fi nancial benefi ts

of helping children now and preventing them from

becoming burdens on society later.


Appendix I

“The message at the core was ‘our kids need our

help’ and not only does it help them, but it helps you

because it saves money,” Cogen said.

“We found there are two groups of people out

there – people who cared about kids and people

who didn’t give a shit. And people who cared about

kids were not necessarily a majority, so in order to get

everyone on board, you had to show them that it was

a good investment in the community.”

That’s where Wiener came in. He kept the approach

and the message simple and focused.

“The basic strategy was to have a well-funded cam-

paign that delivered the message through paid voter

contact,” Wiener said.

And his message: “The Children’s Levy is a way

that we can make children a higher priority. It funds

proven programs in the specifi c areas of child abuse,

early childhood education and helping kids succeed

in school while keeping them safe. The levy is also ac-

countable to voters.”

Wiener’s media and outreach strategies were

equally focused.

“Our principal medium was direct mail, but we also

used a certain amount of broadcast and cable TV,” he

said.

“Don’t try to pass one of these things on the cheap,”

Wiener advises. “To have a reasonable expectation

of success, you must have an adequately-funded

campaign that includes polling and probably focus

groups, paid voter contact that includes at least fi ve

pieces of targeted direct mail and probably some

electronic media – TV and-or radio – and a fi eld cam-

paign that activates the various child advocacy and

provider groups that either care about it or stand to

receive funding from the measure.”

He also recalled another challenge related to the

media, one that others will confront in the future:

skeptical editorial environments.

“The editorial boards were sympathetic to help-

ing children, but were very concerned that this was a

considerable reach beyond the mission of city gov-

ernment,” Wiener said. “We worked very hard with the

most important editorial board, The Oregonian, and

turned what would have likely been a ‘No’ recommen-

dation into a very compelling endorsement.”

Two important facets of the plan that particularly

appealed to editorial writers and voters:

■ A 5 percent cap on the fund’s administrative ex-

penses. “That was very much about assuring people

that these were dollars that would go to helping

kids rather than hiring bureaucrats,” Cogen said.

■ A vow that money would not go to unproven or

otherwise experimental programs. (Portland’s aff ec-

tion for progressive solutions apparently was not

unlimited.)

“People want an investment program that works,”

Saltzman said. “There are lots of places that can

fund pilot programs or demonstration projects, but

that’s not what we’re about.”

The vote on what was called Measure 26-33 was set

for November 2002. (The text of the measure, along

with explanatory information that was available to

voters, can be found at the end of this report.)

It was a squeaker: The initiative was approved by a

51.5 to 48.5 margin.

Now, as in Miami-Dade, the clock began ticking.

Proponents knew they had to earn re-approval in

fi ve years or so. That meant demonstrating that the

money was being used properly and productively.

By city ordinance, an Allocation Committee was

created to distribute the funds. It decided to de-

vote about 40 percent to early childhood health

and education, 40 percent to mentoring and other

after-school programs, and 20 percent to child abuse

prevention and intervention. (That currently is being

changed to 33 percent for early childhood, 20 percent

for after-school, 20 percent for child-abuse prevention,

13.5 percent for mentoring, and 13.5 percent for foster

care.)

Funding recommendations must be approved

by the Allocation Committee, which is chaired by

Saltzman and includes representatives of the city, the

county and the business community. They also must

be approved by the city council and county commis-

sion, though that is largely a rubber-stamp process.

Working swiftly but carefully, the fund’s small staff

– then consisting of one full-time employee and

three part-timers – vetted and recommended pro-

grams. Now, fi ve years later, those programs off er a

wide range of services in many ways similar to those

funded in Miami-Dade, though on a smaller scale.

The objectives are simple: To assure that children

arrive at school ready to learn, provide safe and

constructive after-school alternatives for kids, and to

prevent child abuse, neglect and family violence.

Take, for instance, the after-school program at

Portland’s Humboldt Elementary, a place that serves

a community so economically depressed that 96 per-

cent of the students qualify for free or reduced-price

lunches.

On one afternoon in late 2008, several students

could be found enjoying a program run by the

Ethos Music Center and supported by the Portland


Appendix I

Children’s Investment Fund. The Ethos program was

established in 1998 in response to budget cuts that

curtailed music education in the city’s public schools.

In one room, guitar teacher Graham Nystrom was

working with two young students, Bradford and

Brenda. They practiced note-writing and elemental

guitar playing. They took turns programming an

electronic percussion machine. They recorded several

songs, including one they had written.

Here, at Humboldt School, we are real smart,

we are not fools.

Here, at Humboldt School, I’ve got good grades

and friends, too.

Here, at Humboldt School, we are so cool,

we’re really cool.

Here at Humboldt School, we got good rhythm

and rhyme, too.

“This is my dream job,” said Amy Vanacore, Ethos’

outreach director. “Without these programs, a lot of

these kids would completely lose the capacity to learn

about music.”

Socially, the programs are of obvious value, but

they can exist below many radar screens. From the

standpoint of cultivating ongoing support, that value

must be demonstrated on a regular basis.

Toward that end, the fund’s staff – now consisting

of only four part-timers – produced explanatory and

promotional mailers that were distributed every other

year to all Portland households. In alternate years, the

fund took out ads in local newspapers.

“The basic message was, ‘Hey, remember us,’ “ said

Mary Gay Broderick, a former newspaper reporter who

serves as the fund’s part-time communications and

outreach director.

And so, as the 2008 reauthorization vote drew near,

Saltzman, Cogen, Wiener, Broderick and others began

planning their strategy.

“This time, we had fi ve years of experience under

our belt and we wanted to highlight the 66 programs

we have out there,” Saltzman said.

He also was aided by wider support in the social-

welfare community – namely managers and employ-

ees of those 66 programs that partly depended on

the fund and were not shy about lobbying voters on

behalf of it.

Despite all of that, as is often the case in politics, a

modest initial campaign inevitably morphed into a

more expansive re-election/renewal campaign.

Saltzman raised about $600,000 this time, nearly

double the 2002 fi gure. That fund-raising prowess in-

spired a local weekly newspaper, the Portland Tribune,

to dub Saltzman, “The Big Daddy Warbucks of City

Hall.”

Once again, Wiener handled top-line strategy,

though he hired campaign manager Emerald Bogue

to run the day-to-day operation. A fast-talking, hard-

working, extraordinarily sharp 28-year-old, Bogue had

not previously run an electoral campaign but she was

a veteran union organizer.

She and Wiener crafted a carefully targeted, multi-

phased campaign that built on the 2002 eff ort,

though with an adjusted focus and with enhanced

reliance on data-crunching, grassroots organization

and the Internet.

“We found that if people understood what the

levy did, they supported it,” Bogue said. “So we had to

make sure they understood it.”

Saltzman, a hands-on type of guy (“He’s obsessed,”

Bogue said, “but I’ve never seen anyone work harder”)

kept in close touch with the campaign but turned

much of it over to Wiener and Bogue.

“You need to have certifi ably smart campaign

people,” Saltzman said. “Get a good strategist. Get a

good campaign manager. And do it in an informed

manner starting with a baseline poll. And you have to

raise money and that is something people are loathe

to do.”

The initial poll was designed to help strategists

achieve three goals: defi ne the message, determine

the degree of diffi culty of winning re-approval, and

determine whom to target. It found that the tax

polled well – 59 percent seemed to support it – but

when you subtracted the 5 percent margin of error,

that left things a little too close for comfort.

“We would like to sound a note of caution here,”

the pollsters, Lisa Grove and Ben Patinkin of Grover

Insight, wrote in a Feb. 11, 2008, briefi ng document.

“While we start in what seems to be a good position

with the electorate, we may be fi ghting a current this

year that we have little control over. Other recent poll-

ing conducted in Multnomah County, the state and

the region has detected a real concern about rising

household costs and the economy.”

Bottom line: More support had to be generated.

“We decided we didn’t need to target Democrats

[because they already tended to support the levy] and

we weren’t going to bother with Republicans,” Bogue

said. “So we had to target the unaffi liated.”

One concern that surfaced during the “baseline”

poll will be familiar to counterparts in Miami-Dade:

Despite previous outreach eff orts, few voters could

identify the Portland Children’s Investment Fund or

describe what it did.


Appendix I

“Branding is key, and it turned out that hundreds

of thousands of people didn’t know who the hell we

were,” Broderick said.

The campaign would have to repeatedly contact

voters and remind them about the fund’s existence

and value. Before long, references to the Portland

Children’s Investment Fund – a mouthful – fell away,

replaced by references to the Portland Children’s

Levy, which is the name of the tax and is more widely

recognized.

Broderick and others in the group knew of no or-

ganized opposition in 2008, but the ballot was going

to be crowded with other initiatives, which was one

problem, and – once again – the economy was tank-

ing, which was another.

Broderick recalled working a phone bank one

Sunday evening a few weeks before the election and

growing alarmed. “It was a bit depressing to hear

folks say they can’t aff ord $5 a month,” she said. “The

economy was our opposition.”

Given the branding issue, the crowded ballot and

the bleak economy, supporters of what became

known as Measure 26-94 organized a multi-faceted

campaign to win re-approval of the levy and the fund.

(The text of the measure, along with explanatory

information that was available to voters, can be found

at the end of this report.)

The fi rst time, in 2002, the core strategy was to illus-

trate the sheer necessity of the levy and the programs

it would fund. Bogue: “This is something that matters,

and we want you to vote for it.”

Now, more than fi ve years later, the core strategy

was adjusted. Bogue: “The need is still evident, but

look at our track record. If you vote ‘No,’ we’ll lose all of

this.”

Said Wiener: “The core approach for the 2008 cam-

paign wasn’t very diff erent than the fi rst one. The main

diff erence was that we had a very successful track

record to reference, along with good stories to tell.”

And so, the overarching slogan: “Vote Yes for

Portland’s Children.”

They bought television spots, billboards, bus bench

ads, and four or fi ve massive mailings, including one

that focused on the plight of children during econom-

ic downturns. Its headline: “Tough times are toughest

on them.”

Interestingly, polling revealed that, despite the

deteriorating economy, many voters did not favor a

lower tax. They liked things pretty much as they were.

The result: “We put the word ‘renew’ in every ad, every

mailing, everything we could think of,” Bogue said.

They launched neighborhood canvassing, tele-

phone and speaker-circuit eff orts. They gathered

endorsements from nearly 200 local companies and

organizations and hundreds of local residents.

And they concentrated a great deal of eff ort on the

Internet, building MySpace and Facebook pages and

buying fewer newspaper ads and additional ads on

blogs and other web pages. “No one reads newspa-

pers anymore,” Bogue said.

She and her two-member part-time staff also

created a dedicated campaign website that told the

fund’s story and central theme – Because Portland

Cares About Kids – in clear, affi rmative language. You

can examine it here: www.childrenslevy.com

Enlisting student volunteers and taking out some

ads in college newspapers, they concentrated a great

deal of eff ort on younger voters, knowing that many

would turn out for the Obama-McCain presidential

race. In addition, younger voters were less likely to be

property owners, thus more likely to vote for a prop-

erty tax.

Raising the consciousness of young, fi rst-time vot-

ers was crucial for another reason: As luck would have

it, the levy issue was positioned at the very end of a

long ballot, and supporters would have to go hunting

for it. (This was another point of connection between

Portland and Miami-Dade, where that 2008 ballot

question was the only issue to be positioned on the

fl ip side of paper ballots.)

And Bogue, a self-admitted data-collecting ma-

chine who now carries a fi ve-inch thick loose-leaf

book fi lled with campaign-related data bases and

planning documents (a template for similar cam-

paigns elsewhere), tried a grab bag of innovative

techniques.

Among them:

■ Yard-sign canvassing – setting loose scores of vol-

unteers assigned to sweet talk homeowners into

planting campaign yard signs on their properties.

“We gave them street names and said, ‘Godspeed

to you,’ ” Bogue said.

■ Persuading directors of levy-funded programs

and other supporters to send get-out-the-vote

e-mails to their entire address books. Health care

provider Kaiser Permanente, alone, passed the

word to 8,000 local residents.

■ Never missing an opportunity. The campaign

even paid for and included its logo on a news-

paper ad that featured Saltzman’s annual holiday

greeting to Jewish voters. The ad’s headline:

“Happy Rosh Hashanah.” The ad’s tagline: “Vote Yes

for Portland’s Children.”


Appendix I

■ Asking one children’s program, which encourages

kids to read, to distribute thousands of campaign-

themed bookmarks. “That cost us exactly $60 at

Kinko’s,” Bogue said.

All of that contributed, but in the end, what mat-

tered most was the fund’s sheer good work and – cru-

cially – its credibility and squeaky clean image.

“Like the diligent student at the back of the class, it’s

not showy or fl ashy,” The Oregonian, the area’s major

paper, wrote in an editorial that endorsed re-approval.

“No drama. No wisecracks. It just keeps doing the

work and doing it well…

“If you could meet every child served by the

children’s levy – roughly 16,000 kids each year – the

vote on renewing it would be easy. The Children’s

Investment Fund would have you at ‘hello.’ “

And it did. Measure 26-94 passed by an overwhelm-

ing 72 percent to 28 percent margin. The fund will

survive for at least another fi ve years. Its good work

will continue.

“I think Portland voters have proven that, although

these are tough times and concerns about jobs and

mortgage payments are on people’s minds, they rec-

ognize a good long-term investment in the city’s kids,”

Saltzman told The Oregonian on Election Night.

Asked a month later about his advice for other

communities, Saltzman said:

“If you want to tackle some of the most pressing is-

sues, child-development and child-abuse issues, if you

want to do that locally, you have to fi gure out a way to

fund them locally.”

Said Bogue: “If you organize this right, you can

spread it anywhere. This is something that can totally

be duplicated elsewhere.”

Text of Measure 26-33 – Portland, Oregon, General Election of November 2002

CAPTION: Five-year levy for Children’s Investment

Fund.

QUESTION: Shall Portland support early childhood,

after-school, child abuse programs; fi ve-year levy

$0.4026 per $1,000 assessed value beginning in 2003?

This measure may cause property taxes to increase

more than three percent.

Explanatory information:Measure would fi nance Portland Children’s Investment

Fund to support proven programs designed to help

children arrive at school ready to learn, provide safe

and constructive after school alternatives for kids, and

prevent child abuse and neglect and family violence.

This Children’s Investment Fund can only be used for:

Child abuse prevention and intervention, which ad-

dresses juvenile crime, school failure, drug and alcohol

abuse and homeless youth.

Early childhood programs which make child care

more aff ordable and prepare children for success in

school.

After-school and mentoring programs that promote

academic achievement, reduce the number of ju-

veniles victimized by crime and increase graduation

rates.

Accountability measures include:

Programs must be cost eff ective and have a proven

record of success.

Investment fund will be subject to annual audits.

Administrative costs cannot exceed 5%.

Levy produces an estimated $50 million over 5 years,

averaging $10 million per year. Levy is $0.4026 per

$1,000 of assessed property value. A home valued at

$150,000 pays $5.03 per month, $60.39 per year.

Text of Measure 26-94 – Portland, Oregon, General Election of November 2008

CAPTION: Renew fi ve-year levy for Children’s Invest-

ment Fund

QUESTION: Shall Portland continue supporting child

abuse prevention, foster children, early childhood,

after-school programs, renewing fi ve-year levy start-

ing 2009?

This Measure may cause property taxes to increase by

more than three percent.

Explanatory information: Measure would continue fi nancing the Children’s In-

vestment Fund to support proven programs designed

to help children arrive at school ready to learn, pro-

vide safe and constructive after- school alternatives for

kids, help foster children and prevent child abuse and

neglect and family violence.


Appendix I

This Children’s Investment Fund can only be used for:

Child abuse prevention and intervention: address-

ing juvenile crime, school failure, drug and alcohol

abuse and homeless youth.

Early childhood programs: making child care more

aff ordable and preparing children for success in

school.

■ After-school, summer and mentoring pro-grams : promoting academic achievement,

reducing the number of juveniles victimized by

crime and increasing graduation rates.

■ Children in foster care programs: helping

foster children succeed who have been abused

and neglected.

Accountability measures include:

■ Programs funded must be cost eff ective and

have a proven record of success.

■ Investment fund subject to oversight by a citi-

zen committee.

■ Investment fund subject to annual audits.

■ Administrative costs cannot exceed 5%.

Levy is $0.4026 per $1,000 of assessed property value,

and produces an estimated $14 million per year for

5 years. ■

The Billion-Dollar Bet On A Community’s Future 3131

One instructive triumph for children, one instructive defeat

By Martin MerzerThis is a tale of one city and two initiatives on behalf of

children.

The fi rst eff ort was spearheaded by an energetic, charismatic

local fi gure who made children’s welfare the centerpiece of his

mayoral candidacy. The proposal was clear. Its cost was modest

and widely dispersed. Its campaign was carefully planned and

strategically executed.

Known as the Family and Education Levy, it was passed by

57 percent of the voters in 1990, renewed by 65 percent of

the voters in 1997, and renewed again by 62 percent of the

voters in 2004. It now funnels about $16.6 million a year into

programs intended to ensure that children are ready to learn,

perform to state testing standards, and graduate from high

school.

“Without the levy, we would have seen a faster downward

spiral in our educational system, leaving the children of this

community in peril,” said Norman B. Rice, who made Seattle’s

struggling public education system the focus of a 1989 elec-

toral campaign that he ultimately won, becoming the city’s

fi rst – and thus far only – black mayor.

The other initiative was sponsored in 2003 by a non-profi t

institute with a relatively low profi le. Its purpose – to provide

pre-kindergarten programs for low-income families and

improve wages for child care workers – seemed noble but re-

dundant, given the long-approved Family and Education Levy.

Its cost also was modest, nearly inconsequential, but fell on

one segment of the population, a segment served by power-

ful local business interests. Its campaign was outmaneuvered,

underfunded and poorly timed.

Tips From Oregon

• Involve the business community

• Sharply focus your goals

• Involve unions, if present

• Include accountability standards

• Control the media message

Appendix II


Appendix II

Known formally as Initiative 77 or the Early Learning

and Care Campaign, the proposal soon was dubbed

the “latte tax.”

The reason: It would add 10 cents to every espres-

so drink. Lattes, cappuccinos, Americanos, macchiatos.

Hot or cold. In Seattle, the corporate base of Starbucks

and ancestral home of the nation’s ever-growing fi xa-

tion on all things coff ee.

Widely mocked, the latte tax was ground into fi ne

powder, rejected by 68 percent of the voters in Sep-

tember 2003.

“As soon as the frame shifted from early learning to

‘this silly latte tax,’ we were done,” said John Burbank,

executive director of the Economic Opportunity Insti-

tute, which sponsored the latte tax.

Often, more can be learned from defeats than from

triumphs, but before we examine the campaign for

the latte tax, a brief look at the Family and Education

Levy is in order – for lessons also can be found there.

The levy was conceived, developed, approved and

implemented through a pattern of events that now

is becoming familiar to us: A determined local leader,

concerned about the welfare of the area’s children

and the condition of the public education system,

organized a group of like-minded citizens, con-

ducted community meetings and voter surveys, and

launched a carefully planned ballot initiative that won

wide public support.

In this case, that leader was Rice, a prominent local

fi gure with a varied background that provided access

to many elements of the community. Before becom-

ing mayor, he had served as a television and radio

reporter, in executive positions at the Urban League,

other community groups and a local bank, and as a

city councilman.

Soon after his election in 1989, Rice sponsored an

Education Summit that attracted more than 800 par-

ticipants and drew attention to the needs of the area’s

children and to a public school system that was being

bled of resources and left desperate for fi nancial sup-

port. Participants recommended a special emphasis

on services that ensured children and youth are safe,

healthy and ready to learn.

A subsequent survey detected voter support for a

modest property tax increase. A group called Families

First was formed to launch a 1990 campaign on behalf

of what became known as the Families and Education

Levy.

That group raised only about $200,000 for direct

marketing and advertising eff orts, but the campaign

benefi ted from Rice’s popularity and from the intense

support of his offi ce, other city departments and

much of the business community.

It also benefi ted from the nature of Seattle’s citizens.

To some extent like those in Portland, Seattle residents

tend to support initiatives they understand to be

worthy. In 2008 alone, they agreed to tax themselves

through special levies for transportation, city parks,

and redevelopment of the Pikes Place market and

tourism area.

“We are civic-minded and liberal,” said Bea Kelleigh,

director of the city’s Early Learning and Family Support

Division. “Seattle’s a diff erent place. We have a very

engaged population here.”

No major opposition formed, and the education

initiative won easy approval, raising $69.2 million over

the next seven years.

This is particularly notable, given that Seattle’s

youth population is relatively small. Only about 17

percent of the population is under 18, compared

to about 25 percent nationally, according to Gerard

“Sid” Sidorowicz, acting director of the city’s Offi ce for

Education.

“Yet, people recognize the value of this investment,”

Sidorowicz said.

Programs and services funded by the levy include

early childhood development, school-based student

and family services, comprehensive student health

services, and after-school/out-of-school activities.

These eff orts serve all children, though special em-

phasis is placed on reducing the achievement gap

suff ered by disadvantaged kids.

The levy must be re-approved every seven years

and has been, despite limited opposition that arose

in 2004, sparked by a near doubling of the millage

rate to .39 for every $1,000 of assessed property value.

Now, the levy is projected to raise about $116 million

between 2005 and 2012 or about $16.6 million per

year.

In contrast to The Children’s Trust in Florida’s Miami-

Dade County, which administers about $100 million

of tax money every year with little offi cial scrutiny

(and, thus far, without a single blemish on its record),

Seattle’s levy is tightly linked to the city and to the

public school system.


Appendix II


Appendix II

The program is overseen by the city’s Department

of Neighborhoods, a unit of the Seattle’s Offi ce for

Education. In addition, a Levy Oversight Committee

– a seven-member panel of elected offi cials, citizens

and school district offi cers – directs the use of levy

funds, setting desired outcomes and accountability

standards.

Another contrast: Programs sponsored by The

Children’s Trust are entirely separate from public

school programs. In Seattle, some funds support exist-

ing city and school-based programs, though a portion

of the levy is used to launch and support new pro-

grams and services. The original idea was to free the

school board’s funds for other educational purposes,

but it often didn’t work out that way. Rather than aug-

ment school board funding, the levy’s proceeds some-

times merely replace money diverted elsewhere.

This is a particular point of contention for Burbank,

organizer of the latte tax, and for others with a some-

what sour view of government eff orts and the Seattle

business community’s motives.

“The Families and Education Levy is a prime ex-

ample of building a bureaucracy and not solving a

problem,” Burbank said. “It’s not systemic at all. It’s just

sort of continuing a funding basis for what is essen-

tially Seattle city services.

“The levy is not an early learning initiative. The

mayor may want to make it look like it is, but it ain’t.”

Still, supporters say, the Families and Education

Levy and the programs it supports are doing good

work, have won plaudits from early-education experts

and are embraced locally with great pride.

“What the levy was meant to do, fi rst and para-

mount, was generate a renewed interest in this city

and its citizens in education, reminding them that

they have a role to play,” said Rice, who later served as

president of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle

and now is the distinguished practitioner-in-residence

at the University of Washington’s Evans School of

Public Aff airs.

How popular is the levy and its programs? During

the 2004 renewal eff ort, supporters placed virtually

no media advertising or spent much money on other

standard campaign tactics. For the most part, they

simply enlisted the support of newspaper editorial

boards and other opinion leaders.

“The early polling showed we had very broad sup-

port, so we took kind of a back seat,” Sidorowicz said.

“We said, ‘As long as things are working well, there’s no

need to put on a strong eff ort.’ ”

Alas, Burbanks and a few other early-education

advocates believed that the city should do more, and

thus was born the proposed latte tax.

The tax was conceived in 2002 by Burbank and his

Economic Opportunity Institute as a way to provide

additional funds specifi cally for early-childhood

projects: pre-school programs, improved training and

wages for child-care workers, and subsidies so low-in-

come families could aff ord child care.

“A lot of people in the child care community really

don’t understand that if you talk about child care

quality, you have to talk about child care teachers and

child care providers, and so you have to talk about

compensation and professionalism,” said Burbank,

whose institute is largely supported by labor unions.

“If you avoid that conversation, you will not be able to

obtain any kind of high-quality early childhood educa-

tion.

The idea seemed worthy, early polling seemed

promising, and the issue was set for a vote in Sep-

tember 2003, but the proposal soon ran into major

problems, some of the institute’s own making. Many

of the strategies and techniques that marked success-

ful campaigns for children elsewhere were missing or

violated this time around:

■ To many voters in Seattle, the proposal seemed

redundant and unnecessary. They already had

approved the Families and Education Levy on

behalf of kids, and supporters of the latte tax

had trouble distinguishing their purpose from

the levy’s purpose.

“I never was a latte tax person,” said Rice, the

former mayor. “It just wasn’t well thought out. I

can’t even remember what it was supposed to

pay for.”

■ Support that was expected from aff ected parties

such as groups of child care workers did not

materialize.

“We just didn’t have the horses,” Burbank said.

“I thought that if we had an initiative like this, it

would catalyze the child care workers to mobi-

lize, and that didn’t happen.

“The workers don’t see themselves as political

actors. They’re passive and depressed in some

ways. They get paid shitty wages and they didn’t

have much of an organization to move them

along.”

■ The tax itself seemed a little…loopy.


Appendix II

It would have added 10 cents to virtually all

hot and cold espresso-type drinks sold in the

city. (For the uninitiated, espresso is a concen-

trated coff ee beverage brewed by forcing very

hot water under high pressure through coff ee

that has been ground to a powder-like consis-

tency – rather then dripping hot water through

ground coff ee beans. Espresso is the key com-

ponent of lattes, cappuccinos and most of those

other fancy drinks sold by Starbucks and similar

outlets.)

National and a few international media outlets

carried somewhat arch reports about the pro-

posal and comedians had a fi eld day, poking fun

at those wacky, liberal coff ee lovers of the Pacifi c

Northwest.

■ Clarity was not achieved on an element as basic

as how much the tax would raise. Supporters

claimed $7 million to $10 million a year; op-

ponents estimated no more than $1.5 million a

year; an analysis sponsored by the City Council

came up with $3 million a year, maybe. It all

depended on a wide range of variables concern-

ing per-capita consumption of the drinks that

would be taxed.

■ Coff ee beans, drip coff ee and any business with

less than $50,000 in annual sales would have

been exempt from the tax, but opposition im-

mediately mushroomed throughout the busi-

ness community.

Starbucks, the Washington Restaurant Associa-

tion, the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce

and more than 125 others formed a group call-

ing itself JOLT (Joined to Oppose the Latte Tax)

to campaign against the proposal.

To see coverage of the latte tax by

The Daily Show with comedian

Jon Stewart, go to this link:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/

index.jhtml?videoId=112379&title=Too

-Little-Too-Latte


Appendix II

They said the tax was unfair (aff ecting only one

portion of the community – high-end coff ee

drinkers) and would be diffi cult to administer,

with many coff ee outlets, including restaurants,

department stores and even hospitals, hav-

ing no way to easily distinguish revenue from

espresso-based products.

■ These opponents had plenty of time to mount

their attack. In Miami-Dade, David Lawrence Jr.

and other leaders of The Children’s Trust kept

their campaign eff orts low-key and under the

radar until just a few months before the vote

and at a time that seemed strategically right – a

policy crafted to keep opposition from forming

too quickly and solidly.

In Seattle, it didn’t happen that way. Burbank

concedes that he was outmaneuvered by city offi cials

and the business community, with the vote getting

delayed from November 2002 until September 2003.

Prominent stories about Burbank’s latte tax appeared

in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer as early as July 2002,

giving opposition more than a year to coalesce.

“You can say they stumbled right at the gate,”

Sidorowicz said. “They were open for ridicule right

away. And the lack of clarity about what the levy

would do really hurt them.”

Kelleigh: “The business community was strong

against it. I thought it was a nonstarter. You can’t get

things done in Washington state without the business

community.

As the September 2003 election approached, the

depth of that opposition overwhelmed Burbank, his

small band of supporters and his anemic resources.

“The issue was pretty much dead,” Burbank said.

Still, his institute, also supported by foundations

and private donors, contributed $51,000 to the Early

Learning and Care Campaign, which raised a total

of only $144,811. JOLT spent $172,007 fi ghting the

proposal, according to fi lings at the city’s Ethics and

Elections Commission.

But the campaign was, at best, half-hearted. No

television, radio or newspaper advertising. No com-

munity organizing, in the modern sense. No campaign

manager.

“Maybe we did one or two pieces of mail, but it was

pretty pathetic,” Burbank said.

Opponents, on the other hand, planted lawn signs

saying “No I-77 Espresso Tax” and organized media-

savvy performance-art events, including one in which

be-wigged protestors tossed symbolic bags of “coff ee”

(actually balloons) into the harbor.

Heaving aroused well-fi nanced and powerful oppo-

nents, unable to make a clear case for the proposal’s

need, Burbank’s latte tax lost by greater than a 2-1

margin.

Burbank is a little bitter – but also candid and help-

ful – as he reviews the painful episode.

About his fellow residents: “Seattleites like to think

of themselves as liberals. They would have voted on a

tax for cigarettes – no problem. But you touch their $3

espresso drinks and, ‘My God, a 10-cent tax!’ The fact is,

it was an act of selfi shness on their part.”

About the local business community: “When push

comes to shove, the business community is interested

in philanthropic stuff that makes them look good, but

not systemic programs that create the foundation for

high-quality early learning. They are not interested in

some components of social democracy, such as early

learning. Anything that disrupts or challenges current

relationships of power is something they’re not going

to be happy about.”

About the current state of aff airs: “The real problem

is that this is a public good that is not funded publicly.

I don’t know how you make that change. We’re taken

some strides in the last 10 years in terms of public

consciousness, but frankly, there is no dedicated fund-

ing source for early learning, which is what this would

have been. And frankly, I think a lot of it [the Family

and Education Levy] is show. It’s not really boots-on-

the-ground, actual funding.”

Others diff er, and on the more affi rmative side,

Sidorowicz, Kelleigh and others already are plan-

ning their 2011 levy-renewal eff ort. They expect the

campaign to be low-key, driven primarily by data that

demonstrates the levy’s benefi cial eff ects on Seattle’s

children.

“We’re beginning more evaluations of what we’ve

accomplished,” Sidorowicz said. “We’re at the point

now where I think we’re pretty stabilized in the pro-

grams we’re running. There should just be improve-

ments now.” ■

Bet On Your Community’s FutureBet On Your Community’s Future

The Billion-Dollar Bet On A Community’s FutureA collaboration among: The W.K. Kellogg Foundation, The Early Childhood Initiative Foundation,

University of Florida’s Lastinger Center for Learning and The Children’s Trust.

For further information, contact:

David Lawrence Jr. or Ana Sejeck

The Early Childhood Initiative Foundation

3250 SW Third Ave.

Miami, FL 33129

305-646-7229/305-646-7231

[email protected]

[email protected]

KEY ORGANIZATIONS—State and Local Rev 3-22-10

Organization

Key Contact

Assn of ELCs and ELAC

Dave McGerald, Alisa Ghazvini, Harry Duncanson

ELCs in respective counties

Dave McGerald, Hillsborough ELC Board members

United Way of FL./ United Way of Tampa Bay

Ted Granger Diana Baker Stephen Ponzillo and members of UWTB Public Policy Committee

Children’s Forum

Phyllis Kalifeh

Assn of Healthy Start Coalitions and Healthy Start Coalition of Hillsborough County

Jane Murphy and local board members

Florida Coalition for Children

Mike Cusick, Debbie Mortham

Hillsborough Kids, Inc. Jeff Rainey and HKI Board members

Florida Chamber

Tony Carvajal

Tampa Chamber Bob Rohrlack (Pres.), Rafaela Amador-Carlisle (VP Public Policy)

Florida Association of Counties

Chris Holley, Heather Wildermuth

Hillsborough BOCC

Commissioners, Edith Stewart, Brandon Wagner, Tom Papin, Manus O’Donnell, Dave Rogoff

Florida Association of Special Districts

Terry Lewis

Florida Philanthropic Network

Katie Ensign

Funders’ Forum members Eileen Boyle (Allegany Foundation), Maggie Osborn (Conn Foundation), other members

Florida Afterschool Network

Larry Pintacuda, Linda Lanier

Florida CHAIN Linda Merrill

Florida TaxWatch

Dominic Calabro

Hospital Districts/ Florida Safety Net Assocation

Tony Carvalho

Florida Association of Supervisors of Elections

Ron Labasky

Hillsborough Supervisor of Elections Earl Lennard, Craig Latimer

Florida Alcohol and Drug Abuse Association/ Florida Council on Behavioral Health Care Central Florida Behavioral Health Network

Mark Fontaine Bob Sharpe Linda McKinnon

University of South Florida

Judy Genshaft, Kathy Betancourt

Tampa General Jan Gorrie -lobbyist

Large CBHC Funded Providers: Mental Health Care, Inc. DACCO Big Brothers/ Big Sisters The Crisis Center The Child Abuse Council Early Childhood Association Early Childhood Council Healthy Start Coalition Catholic Charities Success 4 Kids and Families

Julian Rice (Larry Overton-lobbyist) Mary Lyn Ulrey (Jan Gorrie-lobbyist) Stephen Koch David Braughton Paul D’Agostino, Brian McEwen Suzanne Gellens Steve Martaus Jane Murphy (Brian Jogerst-lobbyist) Sheila Lopez Clara Reynolds

Florida Association of School Boards Wayne Blanton

Florida Association of District School Superintendents

Bill Montford

Tampa Children’s Museum Al Najaar, Heidi Shimberg, Board members

Hillsborough County Public Schools Mary Ellen Elia, School Readiness staff, Connie Milito

Florida Sheriffs Association

Hillsborough County Sheriff David Gee, Jennifer Hock, Rob Bullara

Tampa Police Dept., Plant City PD, Temple Terrace PD

Media organizations: Senior editors of both Tribune and Times,

Brighthouse; CBS Outdoors, WTSP TV 10; Tampa Bay Parenting, Latin and African American media and leadership. WTMP,WFLA radio and NPR USF radio.

1

Key Individual Contacts Revised 3-22-1-

FLORIDA LEGISLATURE: HOUSE

All Local House Members Will Weatherford Anitere Flores Dorothy Hukill Janet Long Dean Cannon David Rivera Ed Homan Ellyn Bogdanoff Bill Galvano Ron Saunders Rich Glorioso Adam Hasner

Representing Hillsborough County Ed Policy Chair & Speaker Designate Appropriations – PreK Chair Local Affairs Chair Local Affairs Vice Chair Speaker Designate (pitch substantial loss of revenue) Chair – Full Appropriations – Health Care Health Care Policy Chair Finance & Tax Chair Rules Chair – supporter of children’s issues Democratic leader Full Appropriations on Education & Economic Devel. Rules – Majority Leader

Amy –talking points given 3-3 Amy -talking points given to aide on 2-17 and 3-18 Diana Sam Bell JWB Ron Book Diana Amy P-discussed personally/ talking points w/ staff 2-17-10 Broward /Palm Beach Amy -talking points given 2-17-10 Diana Amy discussed/ left talking points 2-17-10 and 3-18-10 Palm Beach CSC personal meeting 3-17-10

2

SENATE

Joe Negron Jeff Atwater Rudy Garcia John Thrasher Nan Rich Ronda Storms Alex Villalobos J.D. Alexander Victor Crist Arthenia Joyner

Sponsor Senate President Ways & Means / Ed-PreK Ways & Means / Ed-PreK Child Ad / Democratic Leader Children & Families Chair Rules Chair Appropriations Chair Criminal Justice Appropriations Hillsborough senator

Ron Book Broward/ Palm Beach personal meetings held in Feb. and 3-17-10 with FCSC Diana Linda Lanier –Jax Kids Broward/ Dade CSCs Amy –talking points provided in January and Feb.; letter and personal meeting 3-17 Miami-Dade David Lawrence – Publix Amy –talking points provided 1-20 and 2-17; response letter & personal meeting 3-17 Amy—talking points 3-17

OTHER CONTACTS

David Coburn Terry Walsh and Carol Preston Bob Brown-Barrios Jim Kallinger

Senate Rules Staff Staff Director for Senate Children and Families Comm. Gov. Budget Staff – Children & Families

Sam Bell Sam Bell Sam Bell Vivian

3

Michelle Todd Sandy Murman Jack Latvala Provider Groups BOCC

Chief Child Advocate Special Asst. to Gov. Crist Former Representative Former Senator Nonprofits that receive CSC money BOCC members/ County Staff/ County lobbyists

Amy / Luanne 2-24-10 Amy/ Luanne Deborah Prewitt Local Boards Luanne, Amy and Don

Jane Tombs, Lynn Ramsey, David and Liz Kennedy, many others

Local opinion leaders CBHC Board, Staff

March 22, 2010

Representative <first name><last name>

<Capitol Address>

Tallahassee, FL

Dear Representative <Name>:

At a time when lawmakers are struggling to fund vital programs for Florida’s children, a bill (HB

1227) is being considered in the House Military and Local Affairs Policy Committee this week that

would devastate a local funding solution that has worked well for children for more than 60 years –

Children’s Services Councils. I urge you to vote ―No‖ on HB 1227 sponsored by Rep. Debbie

Mayfield (SB 1216 by Sen. Joe Negron). It is a solution looking for a problem.

On its face, the bill appears well intentioned. It would require Florida’s eight Children’s Services

Councils with taxing authority to regularly go back to referendum in their respective counties for

reaffirmation by the electorate. What has not been made clear is that these eight Children’s

Services Councils were already approved by the voters once before, and some even twice.

Furthermore, current law already allows a county commission or the state legislature to place a

Children’s Services Council on the ballot at any time for reconsideration. What does this bill really

improve?

Children’s Services Councils are an example of government that works. In fact, they are a good

state partner because they invest in front-end programs that reduce reliance on more costly state-

funded programs down the line, such as juvenile justice and foster care. Children’s Services

Councils also leverage local dollars to draw down federal funds directly into their communities.

Being on a ―referendum treadmill‖ distracts Councils from their core mission of making strategic

investments in children.

Lastly, Children’s Services Councils are accountable to the voters in their communities. They

operate under Sunshine Laws just like other government organizations. All meetings, budgets and

program information are open to the public. The boards are representative of the communities they

serve with a combination of elected officials, gubernatorial appointees, and state representatives.

No other government organization has as many layers of accountability and oversight.

The voters in CSC communities have spoken. They want sustained investments in children in their

community managed by an organization that rises above the political and partisan fray. Florida law

gives them that now in FS 125.901. Why mess with success?

Respectfully,

1 4

This is the law under which the CBHC has always operated and continues to

operate.

FL ST s 125.901

West's F.S.A. ' 125.901

WEST'S FLORIDA STATUTES ANNOTATED

COPR. 8 WEST 1990 No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works

TITLE XI. COUNTY ORGANIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL

RELATIONS

CHAPTER 125. COUNTY GOVERNMENT

PART V. JUVENILE WELFARE SERVICES

125.901. County juvenile welfare services; independent special district; powers,

duties, and functions of governing body

(1) Each county may by ordinance create an independent special district to provide

juvenile welfare services throughout the county in accordance with this act. The

boundaries of such district shall be coterminous with the boundaries of the county.

(2) The governing board of the district shall be a board of juvenile welfare consisting

of ten members, including: the superintendent of schools, a local school board

member, the district administrator from the appropriate district of the Department of

Health and Rehabilitative Services or his designee, one member of the board of county

commissioners, and the judge assigned to juvenile cases who shall sit as a voting

member of the board, except that said judge shall not vote or participate in the setting

of ad valorem taxes under this section. In the event there is more than one judge

assigned to juvenile cases in a county, the chief judge shall designate one of said

juvenile judges to serve on the board. The other five members of the board shall be

appointed by the Governor and shall serve for terms of 4 years each. If any of the

members of the board required to be appointed by the Governor under the provisions

of this act shall resign, die, or be removed from office, the vacancy thereby created

shall, as soon as practicable, be filled by appointment by the Governor, and such

appointment to fill a vacancy shall be for the unexpired term of the person who resigns,

2 4

dies, or is removed from office. Attachment 14

(3)(a) Each board of juvenile welfare shall have the following powers and duties:

1. To provide and maintain in the county such child guidance, psychological, or

psychiatric clinics for juveniles as the board determines are needed for the general

welfare of the county.

2. To provide for the care of dependent juveniles and to provide such other services

for all juveniles as the board determines are needed for the general welfare of the

county.

3. To allocate and provide funds for other agencies in the county which are operated

for the benefit of juveniles, provided they are not under the exclusive jurisdiction of the

public school system.

4. To collect information and statistical data which will be helpful to the board in

deciding the needs of juveniles in the county.

5. To consult with other agencies dedicated to the welfare of juveniles to the end that

the overlapping of services will be prevented.

6. To lease or buy such real estate, equipment, and personal property and to construct

such buildings as are needed to execute the foregoing powers and duties, provided that

no such purchases shall be made or building done except for cash with funds on hand.

7. To employ and pay, on a part-time or full-time basis, personnel needed to execute

the foregoing powers and duties.

(b) Books of account shall be kept by the board or its clerical assistants, and the fiscal

affairs of the board shall be exclusively audited by state auditors as they are assigned

from time to time to audit the affairs of the county officials.

(4)(a) The fiscal year of the district shall be the same as that of the county.

(b) On or before July 1 of each year, the board of juvenile welfare shall prepare and

adopt an annual written budget of its expected income and expenditures, including a

contingency fund. The written budget shall be certified and delivered to the board of

3 4

county commissioners on or before July 1 of each year. Included in each certified

budget shall be an estimate of the millage rate necessary to be applied to raise the funds

budgeted for expenditures, which millage rate shall not exceed a maximum of 50 cents

for each $1,000 of assessed valuation of all properties within the county which are

subject to county taxes.

(c) The budget of the board of juvenile welfare so certified and delivered to the board

of county commissioners shall not be subject to change or modification by the board of

county commissioners or any other authority.

(d) In order to provide funds for the board of juvenile welfare, the district may levy ad

valorem taxes annually on all taxable property in the county in an amount not to exceed

one-half mill, provided that the authority to levy such taxes has been approved by a

majority vote of the electors of the district voting in an election called by the board of

county commissioners for such purpose. The tax shall be assessed, levied, and

collected in the same manner and at the same times provided by law for the levy,

collection, and enforcement of collection of county taxes. All tax money collected

under this act, as soon after the collection thereof as is reasonably practicable, shall be

paid directly to the board of juvenile welfare by the tax collector of the county, or the

clerk of the circuit court if he collects delinquent taxes. The moneys so received by the

board of juvenile welfare shall be deposited in a special bank account and shall be

withdrawn only by checks signed by the chairman of the board and countersigned by

one other member of the board of juvenile welfare who shall be so authorized by the

board. The chairman and the other member of the board who signs its checks shall

each give a surety bond in the sum of $1,000, which bond shall be conditioned that

each shall faithfully discharge the duties of his office. No other member of the board

shall be required to give bond or other security. No funds of the board of juvenile

welfare shall be expended except by check as aforesaid, except expenditures from a

petty cash account which shall not at any time exceed $25. All expenditures from petty

cash shall be recorded on the books and records of the board of juvenile welfare. No

funds of the board of juvenile welfare, excepting expenditures from petty cash, shall be

expended without prior approval of the board, in addition to the budgeting thereof.

(e) Within 10 days after the expiration of each quarter annual period, the board of

juvenile welfare shall cause to be prepared and filed with the board of county

commissioners a financial report which shall include the following:

1. The total expenditures of the board for the quarter annual period.

4 4

2. The total receipts of the board during the quarter annual period.

3. A statement of the funds the board has on hand or in banks at the end of the quarter

annual period.

(5) After the first year of operation of the board of juvenile welfare, the board of

county commissioners may, at its option, fund the budget of the board of juvenile

welfare from its own funds.

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

1990 Main Volume Historical and Statutory Notes

Derivation:

Laws 1989, c. 89-379, ' 26.

Laws 1986, c. 86-197, '' 1 to 5.

Laws 1989, c. 89-379, ' 26, eff. July 6, 1989, in subsec. (2), increased the

membership of the board from nine to ten, allowed designees of district administrators

to serve on the board, and inserted the provisions relating to judges assigned to juvenile

cases.

END OF DOCUMENT

Documents

CBHC Mission Statement - CiteSeerX