September 30, 2010 in City

Children’s advocates optimistic about fund

Property tax proposal aimed at dropout rate

• Print
• Email
• Share

Supporters of Spokane’s proposed tax levy aimed at helping children stay in school are confident voters will say yes in November despite competing with multiple state initiatives that, if approved, would also increase taxes.

“We’ve had folks out in the field (going door-to-door), and I think the citizens in our city understand the challenges facing our children,” said Anne Marie Axworthy, a Children’s Investment Fund steering committee member and director of community development at Avista Corp.

“We are talking to them about funding programs that are proven to work if you invest in children at the right level.”

The idea for the Children’s Investment Fund stems from a concern among community leaders, educators and child advocates about Spokane Public Schools’ approximately 29 percent dropout rate. Students who fail to graduate are more likely to end up in jail, add to the strain on social services and are likely to be unemployed, studies show.

Spokane has numerous programs that support children outside of school, but they lack sustainable funding, said Ben Stuckart, director of Communities in Schools and spokesman for the Children’s Investment Fund.

Axworthy added, “schools cannot do it (decrease the dropout rate) alone.”

The six-year levy, called Proposition 1, would raise $5 million annually and would cost property owners in the city of Spokane about 35 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. The money would be used to support early-childhood learning, abuse and neglect prevention and treatment programs, mentoring programs, and before- and after-school activities.

An 11-person oversight committee, made up of representatives from different city zones, minority groups and youth, would decide how to spend the money.

“The community has a huge part in how successful children are in life,” Stuckart said. “Seventy-five percent of a child’s life is spent outside of school. That is why our community must rally around our children and support programs that allow our children to come to school ready to learn and support them during the out-of-school-time hours.”

Spokane voters have a history of approving property tax levies that support children, including a $288 million bond and $50 million levy for Spokane Public Schools approved in 2009.

A poll conducted late last year found voter support for the Children’s Investment Fund: 62 percent were for it, 9 percent were undecided and 29 percent were opposed, a fund spokesman said.

In addition, the Children’s Investment Fund concept has picked up numerous endorsements, including those of Catholic Charities, Avista Corp., the Center for Justice, Spokane Arts Commission, Spokane Education Association, Volunteers of America and, most recently, Greater Spokane Incorporated.

Stuckart said organizers are “excited to have the endorsement of Greater Spokane Incorporated, the area’s only regional chamber of commerce and economic development council. GSI represents over 1,300 local businesses and shows how broad the support for Proposition 1 is.”

One endorsement is missing, however: the Spokane Public Schools board.

“We are not coming out for it or against it,” said Sue Chapin, board president.

Chapin said the organizers “are wonderful people. They are doing great things. They are people I respect.”

But she said the board can’t support organizers’ claim that the Children’s Investment Fund will decrease the current dropout rate by as much as 20 percent in the first six years.

“Our position is that if we endorse it, then we are endorsing that claim,” Chapin said. “It’s too specific.”

But Stuckart defended the fund, saying, “The goal of the fund over the next six-year period is to do as much as is reasonably possible to work with our schools through complementary programs to lower the dropout rate by at least 20 percent, which would be a dropout rate of 23 percent.”

If that doesn’t happen, voters have a chance to reject the levy when it comes up for a vote again in six years.

Other accountability measures include an annual audit and a promise that no more than $250,000 annually will be spent on administration. Plus, said Axworthy, “the nonprofits will be made accountable to show how the money they’ve been given made a difference.”

On Wednesday, the Washington Policy Center issued a report criticizing the establishment of the Children’s Investment Fund. The conservative anti-tax group’s report claims the “cumulative annual dropout rate” is a much-lower 8 percent, and that “it would be impossible to determine whether the new spending from the Children’s Investment Fund made any difference.”

But Stuckart said the policy center is “clearly trying to skew the data.”

The cumulative dropout rate represents how many students drop out of one grade during one academic year. The more common figure is called a cohort dropout rate, which takes into account how many students drop out of each high school grade level in a single year and factors in students set to continue the next semester.

Regarding the fund’s spending, Stuckart said, “only programs that have measurable results in keeping kids in school will receive the money.”

Nine comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  IHike4Fun on September 30 at 7:21 a.m.

  This is a real waste of $$. Similar plans have been in operation in Seattle and Portland for 15 years and have had zero effect on the drop out rate. This group wants a serious amount of money and has absolutely no plan in place to monitor if they are successful or not. It’s the same old scam. Give us your money and we will return you no accountability but … ‘it’s for the children’. It’s not for the children. The money is going to them. It is for made up, fake jobs so they can have a guaranteed income with no defined responsibility. Pretty cushy work if you can get it.

  I am definitely voting against this burdensome tax hike and total waste of money.

• 

  Ninch on September 30 at 8:18 a.m.

  Too much generalization regarding effectiveness and not enough authentic research. Measurable data is important but data in itself does not tell us anything. An “oversight” board for spending the money does not guarantee accountability and promotes opinions not facts, i.e. the oversight board will reflect non-scientific unproven viewpoints. (As stated “An 11-person oversight committee, made up of representatives from different city zones, minority groups and youth, would decide how to spend the money.”)

• 

  eagleproducer on September 30 at 9:08 a.m.

  Not another dime for school related measures until the people in District 81’s schools are held accountable for their performance.

  The idea the non-profits will be accountable is a joke too. The programs Stuckart, et. al. are pushing have not worked in Portland or Seattle where they were tried.

  The group/cohort of students who don’t complete high school in this day and age are the same ones who didn’t complete high school in the past. They are lazy, unmotivated, disruptive urchins and I refuse to spend any more of my effort or time helping them if they don’t help themselves. I have plenty of students willing to learn and that will be my focus. Oh, and guess what, those students do it within the same supposedly broken system that those who drop out do.

  It’s not the system, it’s the student and only they can decide education is important to them.

  I’ve seen how the after school program works at the Boys and Girls clubs of Spokane that would be funded with monies from this initiative. Talk about a joke. The program is basically a welfare program for graduates of Gonzaga’s horrible education department.

• 

  austindepaolo on September 30 at 9:36 a.m.

  Schools are only a part of the services that children need to grow up to become functioning, contributing members of society. Children need much more support to develop socially, economically, physically and intellectually. They need access to health care, guidance toward healthy life styles and good parenting. Social services that prevent abuse, neglect, crime, school failure and teen pregnancy are vital. School-age kids and youths need quality after-school and mentoring programs because most parents are working outside the home. Young children need quality child care to nurture their development and help them to be ready in school and in life. Funding from a local Spokane Children’s Investment Fund would support these programs and services.

  In our difficult economic climate, state and local government will continue to dramatically trim budgets. Thus, many services critical for children and families and our city’s future have been scaled back. As a community we have to step up, make the investment, because how we treat our children today is how our children will treat us in the future.

  Accountablility measures that will be used to evaluate program effectiveness are kindergarten readiness for those who attend CIF funded preschools and day cares, school attendance, grades and reduced behavior referrals for those in the after-school and mentoring programs. Although certainly no silver bullet this is a piece of the puzzle towards improving high school graduation rates and college and career readiness.

• 

  gkambs on September 30 at 11:08 a.m.

  NCGRAD: I am not sure what budgets you are talking about that continue to be dramatically trimmed, certainly not DIstrict 81’s.

  According to the OSPI the below numbers are actual District 81 revenues from all sources as published.

  1997-98 - 202,116,986 (thats 202 million)
  1998-99 - 209,473,987
  1999-00 - 225,780,975
  2000-01 - 238,525,165
  2001-02 - 250,898,105
  2002-03 - 261,631,642
  2003-04 - 257,687,365
  2004-05 - 258,685,433
  2005-06 - 269,637,475
  2006-07 - 279,056,483
  2007-08 - 293,121,275
  2008-09 - 308,207,350

  While enrollment went down -8.65% in the above time frame, 32,055 students in 1997 to 29,282 in the 2008-09 school year. Revenues increased 52.49% or 106 million
  http://www.k12.wa.us/safs/reports.asp interesting is the 52% increase in revenues, as some administrators have seen that much of an increase in pay in the last 5 years. For instance Staci Vesneske’s actual compensation

  2008-09 base salary $123,374.00
  Other salary $13,366.00
  Total salary $142,996.00

  Insurance benefits $15,235.00
  MandBen $18,096.00
  Total other benefits $33,331.00

  Total salary and
  benefits 2008-09, $176,327.00

  A 54% increase in 5 years. Her total salary and benefits 2004-05, $114,402.00

  According to the Spokesman Review: “Spokane Public Schools grants rose from $2.6 million during the 2008-09 to $17.3 million so far in 2009-10”

  So I think the “we need more money for the kids” argument is a joke. They have the money it’s just not get to the classroom according to the leaders of the Washington Policy Center. http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Ch5Education.pfd

  Our state Legislature has NEVER reduced the amount of money it gives to schools nor has the federal government. Everybody’s throwing money at school District 81 to no avail. I just cant believe adding another 30 million by starting another taxpayer funded agency will do any good. Although I applaud Mr. Stuckart’s efforts I think he could do a much better job by reallocating the 300 plus million District 81 gets yearly. I would be the 1st to vote for him for District 81 Superintendent, especially since he does not have the endorsement of the school board as mentioned in the above story. So I have to vote no for more taxes but yes for Mr. Stuckart for District 81 Superintendent.

• 

  ChefGus/ John Olsen on September 30 at 11:27 a.m.

  Well… I have been a volunteer with Communities in Schools for a year and a half of so… and there are many many of us out here… and we do NOT get paid…or underwritten in any way…

  What I can say with assurance is that the lack of results in retention of students through graduation is a big problem… both while they are in school, and worse when they become drop outs and become homeless or drifters in our cities. One single underlying theme of many of the homeless, and jail population is an inability to read and write. Many are functional illiterates, and there are many studies that show the level of involvement and performance of a student in the first few grades becomes the template or pattern for the rest of their school life.

  The thrust of this money being spent will be to leverage the community resources to make it possible for a young person to concentrate and work from a level playing field in the early grades.

  The problems are complex and nation wide… but our complexities are local… and our solution likely will best come locally. I have bones to pick with the School Board, and money spent on Administration… and for not having been forthright in showing us their truth.

  This group of Citizen volunteers is taking action to create a better environment for children to learn… and the long term benefits are huge if we can thus reduce our homeless population and criminal incarceration.

  Spending an additional $ 75.00 a year to “insure your house value” feels and seems to me to be similar to changing the oil and filter in your car. The old commercial for STP was Pay for this now, or pay Much more later. John

• 

  Coffee on September 30 at 11:33 a.m.

  This is not going to work. Vote NO

• 

  austindepaolo on September 30 at 11:38 p.m.

  gkambs the budgets I’m referring to are those of social service agencies and some state agencies that provide afterschool, preschool and child abuse and neglect prevention services. The money from the Spokane Children’s Investment Fund does not go to schools. It would or could (it will be a competitive process) go toward recruiting and training mentors at Big Brothers Big Sisters who currently don’t have the resources right now to match all the kids in need or to the Vaness Behann Crisis Nursery that turned down 100s of families last year because of limited capacity and resources.

  Incidentally, the value of our modest house on the north side has gone up more that 100% in the last decade as has our income. Your example regarding the school dist revenues does raise some important questions though.

• 

  drwonderful on October 05 at 4:09 p.m.

  Another waste of taxpayer money. Vote no on this one!