Lets Talk FINAL

16
Fiscal Education Network Toolkit LET’S TALK! TAKE AN HOUR TO CHANGE COLORADO’S FUTURE

Transcript of Lets Talk FINAL

Fiscal Education Network Toolkit

LET’STALK!

Take an Hour To CHange Colorado’s FuTure

Fiscal Education Network Toolkit2

Table of ContentsIntroduction .......................................................................................2Making Sense of the State’s Revenue Challenges ...................................3The General Fund ..............................................................................4Compounding Factors to the Structural Problems .......................... 5 — 6How Does Colorado Compare? .....................................................7—9What Are the Options? ..................................................................... 10Nonprofits are Vital to Community Conversations ............................... 10Leadership Challenge .................................................................. 10 —11Steps ........................................................................................ 12—13Strategies ..................................................................................14—15Resources/Figures ......................................................................15-—6

IntroductionColorado’s projected long-term revenues are insufficient to sustain the public services Coloradans have come to expect. Colorado voters have the unique responsibility of deciding how best to balance the public’s desires for both low taxes and robust public services. The purpose of the Fiscal Education Network is to help Coloradans make informed choices about state fiscal policies and public services through community engagement led by a statewide network of nonprofit organizations.

Research conducted by John Creighton on behalf of the Fiscal Education Network has produced an approach to com-munity engagement geared toward “building public will” long term rather than simply “swaying public opinion” as many political campaigns achieve in the short term. The framework presented in this toolkit clarifies the differences between building public will and swaying public opinion, as well as identifying the stages of public thinking people go through before they commit to public action. We need your help and leadership to engage Colorado’s communities in these vital discussions about our state’s future.

3

Help Coloradans Make Sense of the State’s Revenue

Challenges

Colorado faces an unprecedented budget challenge that goes far beyond the typical “taxes versus services” debate that preoccupies any government body. At the ballot box and in countless opinion surveys, Coloradans express consistent support for education, fundamental health care services, public safety, services for seniors, roads, highways and transit. Many Coloradans are concerned that these vital services are underfunded. Majorities of people surveyed oppose more cuts to these public services, yet the costs of mandated, necessary and/or popular services and infrastructure increasingly exceed state revenues.

The challenge is this: Colorado has grown but state revenues haven’t kept pace. Over the past decade…• The population has grown by nearly 20 percent.• The number of registered vehicles on the road has in-

creased by just over 25 percent.• The number of K-12 students has increased 15 percent.• The number of college students in the state has grown by

more than 30 percent.• Medicaid caseloads have doubled.

Yet state revenues available to fund these services are not much more than they were in 2001. General Fund revenues have increased by 7 percent and per capita state spending fell from $2,237 to $2,211 (adjusted for inflation) between 2001 and 2010. Specific revenue sources like Colorado’s

gas tax also haven’t kept up with the state’s growth. Colorado’s gas tax has not increased since 1992 while the state’s population increased by more than 60 percent dur-ing that same time period. In that time period, the popula-tion has grown more than 60 percent. The current value of the gas tax adjusted for inflation is less than half of its value in 1992, according to the Colorado Department of Transportation.

Although revenues are not sufficient to maintain public services at their current levels, the Colorado General As-sembly continues to make cuts including:• K—12 education — $260 million (FY 2010—11), $130

million (FY 2009—10). FY 2010—11 per student funding is $450 less than in 2008-09;

• Child welfare services — $6.7 million;• Human services — 2.3 percent cut; and• Medicaid spending — $138 cut per recipient.

Coloradans have made it clear that we expect state and local governments to fund good schools, maintain roads and bridges, provide fire and police protection, and sup-port the most vulnerable members of our communities. State revenues, however, are not sufficient to meet these expectations in the short term or long term. Colorado’s General Fund revenue in 2010 was nearly the same as 2001.The Independence Institute, a fiscally conservative think-tank in the state, says in its report Citizens’ Budget, “The state’s budget problems arise not just from recent difficult economic times, but originate from structural spending problems that allow recurring crises.” In other words, we face a long-term problem that won’t go away when the recession ends.

Fiscal Education Network Toolkit4

40%

9%

9%9% 4% 5%

24%

K-12 Education

Health Care

Higher Education

Corrections

Human Services

Judiciary

Everything Else

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Medicaid…Children’s…

Higher…K-12…

State Park… General Fund

Changes in Demand Since FY 2007-2008

72%

19%

21%7%7%

-5%

$20,000.0

$18,000.0

$16,000.0

$14,000.0

$12,000.0

$10,000.0

$8,000.0

$6,000.0

$4,000.0

$2,000.0

$0.0

Dol

lars

in M

illio

ns

Fiscal Year

11-12

12-13

13-14

14-15 15-16

16-17

17-18

18-1919-

2020

-21 21-22

22-23

23-24

24-25

Other Agencies

SB 228

Big 3

GF & SEF Revenue

The General FundDemand for state services has increased in general, while revenues to fund these services have not kept pace. Since fiscal year 2007—2008, enrollment in and use of state services has increased, in some cases dramatically. The general fund’s purchasing power has decreased 11 percent, adjusted for inflation since 2001. The child poverty rate rose 102 percent in Colorado over a ten—year span from 2001—2011. Yet, the general fund rose only .5 percent (fig. 1) to support vulnerable children and families, including a 2 percent decline in funds for medical services for special needs children over the same time period. In light of Med-icaid and K—12 education forecasts, economists predict corrections, Medicaid, and K—12 education will account for all general fund expenditures by fiscal year 2024—25, leaving services, including higher education, human services, and transportation, unfunded from general fund dollars.

5

Compounding Factors to the Structural ProblemsAging populationColoradans are getting older. By 2025, Colorado’s population of those over the age of 65 is expected to grow to 17 per-cent of the total population. This is an increase of 70 percent. Seniors contribute nearly half the amount of the sales tax base per household than people between the ages of 45 —64 contribute.

Additionally, while seniors represent a small, yet growing population in Colorado, they are significant consumers of public services.

Medicaid Enrollees to Expenditures (FY 2010)

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

59.4%

16.9%

12.1%

7.7%

3.2%0.7%

0.7%2.4%

27.9%

33.0%

13.9%

22.1%

Non CitizensPartial Eligibles

Elderly

Disabled

Adults

Children

Expenditures (2,929,236,158)

“Shifting” K—12 education funding systemHow K —12 education is funded has shifted over the last 20 years. In 1993, the state funded 35 percent of local school expenditures. In 2010, that number grew to 63 percent, due in large part to a decrease in local mill levies, which raise funds for local schools through property taxes. State law requires that the state pay a larger percentage for K—12 education when the local share is reduced, Accord-ing to current projections, this figure is expected to grow to 70 percent by FY 2024—25.

Families must pay more of the cost of higher educationColorado State University estimates that it educates a student for 4 percent less in inflation-adjusted dollars than it did 20 years ago. What has changed is that 20 years ago two-thirds of the cost of a CSU education was paid by the state.

Fiscal Education Network Toolkit6

0

10

20

30

4040%

60%

1983 2012

72%

Family Share (Tuition & Fees)

28%

50

60

70

80

Transportation Needs?Additional Transportation Revenue Required by Level of Service

$380

$31 $57

$276

$50

$131 $203

$461$500

$830

$688

Highway Repairs Bridge Repairs Maintenance TotalLevel of Service

C+ B A

$1380

Mill

ions

$1,400

$1,300

$1,000

$800

$600

$400

$300

$0

Transportation infrastructure continues to deteriorateThe Transportation Department gives Colorado’s current road and bridge conditions a C+ grade. Fifty percent of Colo-rado’s roads and bridges are in good or fair condition. Seven percent are in poor conditions, including 128 bridges that will be unsafe in the next five years.

7

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1959

1965

1973

1983

1993

2003

2013

2023

2033

2039

45.67%

54.33%

Goods Shared

23.29%

76.71%

Services Shared

Personal Consumption Expenditures for Goods and Services as a Share of Total: U.S. History and Forecast

Colorado’s Changing EconomyWhen the state sales tax was implemented we consumed more goods than services, so only goods were taxed. Now we consume more services-tax free. The sales tax base has declined because it applies less to what Coloradans buy more often.

We Pay Less Tax

Gen

eral

Fun

d A

s Sh

are

Tota

l Sta

te

Pers

onal

Inco

me

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

1989 2011

4.4%

4.1%

4.7%4.5%

4.2%

3.5%

3.7%

3.2%

How Does Colorado Compare to Other States?• Combined state and local tax burden =

39 (Tax Foundation)• Best states for retiree taxes = 5

(MSN Money)• Business tax climate = 15

(Tax Foundation)• State tax burden as percentage of

income = 49 (Colorado Legislative Council)

• 2d lowest state sales tax burden (Legislative Council, Colorado Department of Revenue)

Fiscal Education Network Toolkit8

‘92 ’93 ‘94 ’95 ‘96 ’97 ‘98 ’99 ‘00 ’01 ‘02 ’03 ‘04 ’05 ‘06 ’07 ‘08

U.S.

Colorado

$8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00

Colorado’s Commitment to Higher Education Has DeclinedState Tax Funds to Higher Education per $1,000 of Personal Income

Colorado State Taxes per $1,000 of Personal Income Compared to Nation 49 of 50 States

Source: Grapevine, An Annual Compilation of Data on State Tax Appropriations for the Geral Operations of Higher Education Center for the Study of Educationn Policy, Illinois State University

Fiscal Year

9

Spending per $1,000 of Personal Income Colorado v. U.S. Average

Source: Grapevine, An Annual Compilation of Data on State Tax Appropriations for the Geral Operations of Higher Education Center for the Study of Educationn Policy, Illinois State University

Fiscal Education Network Toolkit10

What are the Options?Option

1

Option

2

Option

3

No Policy Changes

Permanently Reduce Public Services

Change the Tax Code

• 19 percent cuts to K—12 education for 13 of next 14 years.

• 90 percent cuts to the following programs after FY 2017 —18.

• Roll back eligibility levels for Medicaid, eliminate some coverage for low-income adults and increase fees.

• Change Medicaid to a public system resembling health savings accounts.

• Shorter school days for younger students.• Cut prison time for non-violent offenders.• Redirect funds from Great Outdoors Colorado to

education.

• Add personal services to the sales tax base.• Levy property taxes for schools with a statewide

mill levy.• Restore four graduated income tax brackets.

— Agriculture

— Local Affairs

— Higher Education

— Natural Resources

— Military and Veterans Affairs

— Public Safety

— Public Health and Environment

— Regulatory Affairs

— Personnel and Administration

— Revenue

This is a leadership challenge for all Coloradans.It is this challenge that prompted Colorado Nonprofit Association to launch the Fiscal Education Network. The Fiscal Education Network consists of nonprofit organiza-tions empowered to lead productive conversations in their local communities. The goal is to increase Coloradans’ awareness of the state’s fiscal challenges and enable Colo-rado voters to exercise their responsibilities as community leaders.

Nonprofits Are Vital to Community ConversationsWhy should this issue matter to Colorado’s nonprofits? When government services are cut, many nonprofits provide services to help fill the gap. Nonprofits are also known as trusted, nonpartisan voices who, through their extensive community-based networks, can engage their neighbors in meaningful civic conversations Under Colorado’s constitution; voters make fundamental fiscal policy decisions. Generating consensus takes neighbor-to-neighbor conversations, which nonprofits are uniquely situated to facilitate.

Helping our fellow Coloradans understand the effects of the state’s revenue challenges is especially important be-cause voters must decide so many issues with far reaching implications. Constitutional measures adopted by voters over the last 30 years have largely determined how state government funds services and programs important to Coloradans think are important.

Fiscal Education Network OverviewThe Fiscal Education Network provides Colorado non-profits with information about the state’s long-term fiscal challenges and the tools to encourage community and value based discussion of these issues. This effort is co-ordinated with Colorado Reform Roundtable, a coalition of businesses, nonprofits, and labor unions interested in fiscal reform.

Through the Fiscal Education Network, Colorado Non-profit Association provides information, materials and resources to nonprofits about the state’s fiscal challenges and how these challenges impact the nonprofit sector and our communities. These materials will be educational and

11

Awareness Options Choice/Action

responsibilities as citizens. The political class engages people as consumers of government. The operational question is how can government serve people’s indi-vidual needs? This perspective absolves individuals of any responsibilities — except for going to the ballot box to express their satisfaction, or lack of it, for elected officials based on how their personal needs are met. However, research shows that most people, given the opportunity, want to exercise their role as responsible citizens and think about government in the role of long-term planner in the service of the represented community. This is the role that problem solvers embrace. Shifting the conversation from people’s individual needs toward the needs of the community is often as simple as changing the questions asked.

Drawing upon research about productive civic dialogue, the Fiscal Education Network developed a framework for conversations that reconcile values and build pub-lic will and consensus. Unlike a campaign to change public opinion on an issue in the short term, public will-building progresses through stages of awareness, op-tions, and choice/action. Public will building results from value-based discussions. People become aware when they perceive a threat to their values. When people consider options, they are trying to determine how to balance their values. Most importantly, people make decisions based on values and then back those decisions with facts and data, not the other way around.

Public Opinion Public Will

• Protect or sway small percentage at margin

• Short term; high intensity• Narrow issues; drive home a single

message• Appeal to people’s preconceived view• Mass media

• Move people through stages of public thinking

• Longer term• Broader narrative; encourage discourse• Engage people as citizens who hold

responsibilities• Grassroots conversations

designed to assist nonprofits in engaging their constitu-encies and neighbors in awareness discussions and the consideration of options.

A key element of this initiative is changing the tone and focus of conversations about government and how tax dol-lars are spent. Much of the debate is based on a consumer viewpoint, “What’s in it for me?” We expect that a $1 spent on a government service will be returned exactly as a $1 worth of services to us personally. Yet, many services provide benefit to communities as a whole or to disad-vantaged populations and do not personally benefit the taxpayer.

We value what government provides such as education, public safety and transportation infrastructure, yet we also lack confidence in the government’s ability to spend tax dollars wisely on such services without waste, fraud and abuse. To reconcile these conflicts, we must move from a consumer perspective and toward one based on our

“This is a lead-ership challenge

for all Coloradans.”

Fiscal Education Network Toolkit12

Account for People’s Ambivalence About GovernmentColoradans are not convinced that they have a good gov-ernment right now. But they do want to maintain a high quality of life, which makes our state a great place to live, work, play and raise families. They understand government plays a role in providing services and infrastructure to maintain our quality of life and hold a relatively nuanced stance on the need for government to provide vital ser-vices and the necessity of taxes to pay for them. Problem solvers account for their frustrations but find ways to set them aside in order to seek resolve the challenges. Colo-radans need spaces in which they can move beyond their frustrations and begin to learn about and examine the challenges facing the state.

Focus on the Big Picture, Rather Than Narrowly Defined Issues and PersonalitiesPolitical rhetoric often focuses on narrow, short term issues, the needs of specific interest groups and manufac-tures “bad guys” who must be “put in their place.” Problem solvers focus on the big picture and look at how issues are connected to the long term. In Colorado, people need to consider — big-picture questions: What are the vital services and infrastructure or public structures needed to maintain quality of life? And how do we fund these ser-vices and infrastructure in a way that is fair to all?

STEP 1

STEP 2

Coloradans want state government to maintain vital services. They must think like problem solvers and focus on the big picture. They must exercise their role as responsible citizens and have conversations about the needs of their community.

How To Talk About State and Community PrioritiesColoradans, like people across the nation, say they are frustrated with politics and government. They are not convinced that government, as it is now, is good. But, Coloradans do want to maintain a quality of life that makes our state a great place to live, work, play, and raise children. They understand government plays a role in providing services and infrastructure to maintain our quality of life and hold a relatively nuanced stance on the need for government to provide vital services.

Research suggests that messaging and language play an important role in engaging people on public issues. But how people are engaged in discussion about public issues is generally more important than a particular message or the specific language used. In order to build public will for action, people need time and space to step out of the context of their daily affairs and focus on what the community needs to sustain a high quality of life. When people are given the opportunity to look at issues as prob-lem solvers with shared responsibilities for the matter, they are more likely to voice support long-term policy solutions.

Engage People as Problem SolversColorado needs a robust public conversation on the rev-enue challenges facing the state in the short term. Colora-dans have made clear that they expect state and local gov-ernments to maintain vital services and infrastructure. But, state revenues do not exist to meet these expectations. So, Coloradans must decide what to do. A key to help Colora-dans think about the revenue challenges facing the state is to help people approach these issues like problem solvers. Here are five keys to help people think this way.

“Values trump data when it

comes to decision-making.”

13

Citizens engaged in problem solving wrestle with ques-tions such as:• What makes this community a good place to live for

everyone who is here?• How do we balance the needs and priorities of different

people and groups?

Efforts to educate the public about policy issues often bombard people with facts. There is an underlying atti-tude of, “If people just understood better ...” But research shows that trying to help people “get the facts straight” may strengthen their adherence to their current understanding of the issue. Research shows that values trump data when it comes to decision making. People make decisions consciously and unconsciously based on their values and then use data to support their choice. Trying to change values or teach new ones is extremely difficult and may feel threatening to the per-son. Instead, research suggests, people are more likely to engage as problem solvers when they are able to connect an issue to their existing core values. Coloradans have demonstrated at the ballot box that they value vital govern-ment services and infrastructure. Coloradans also express a desire to be reasonable, act as good stewards and ensure that local communities can make their own choices. By appealing to these values, we can create an entry point for people to want to learn about the revenue challenges facing Colorado and consider these issues as problem solvers.

Focus on Possibilities Not Just Bad NewsGroups seeking to engage people on public issues often convey “bad news” to people. Here are all the problems that exist. An overemphasis on bad news can paralyze people because it does not lead them toward identifying problems and producing productive solutions. Problem solvers acknowledge challenges that must be addressed or barriers that must be overcome. But communications and education should emphasize what is possible and how people can help bring about change. Rather than get-ting mired in debate about whether taxes are too high or too low, people in Colorado need opportunities to work through possible solutions. Coloradans have a unique responsibility compared to people living in many other states. Colorado voters must decide how much revenue to provide the state and how to provide those revenues. The possibilities for solving problems rest with Coloradans.

Engage People as Citizens Not ConsumersThe political class engages people as consumers of gov-ernment. The operational question is how can government serve people’s individual needs? This perspective absolves individuals of any responsibilities — except for going to the ballot box to express their satisfaction, or lack of it, for elected officials based on how their personal needs are met. However, research shows that most people, given the opportunity, want to exercise their role as responsible citizens and think about government in the role of long term planner in the service of the represented community. This is the role that problem solvers embrace. Shifting the conversation from people’s individual needs toward the needs of the community is often as simple as changing the questions we ask.

STEP 3

STEP 5

STEP 4

Fiscal Education Network Toolkit14

Assess Your StrategiesDo you engage people as problem solvers?Use this set of questions to consider how well you engage people as problem solvers with your current communica-tions and education strategies, messages and products. These questions are based on the work of several national research and communications organizations.

How do you account for people’s ambivalence about government?

Try to avoid• Messages and materials suggesting people should feel

guilty because of Colorado’s lack of funding for govern-ment programs.

• Stories, messages and materials that inadvertently rein-force people’s negative perceptions of government.

Strive to• Acknowledge people’s frustrations with government and

politics?

• Recast people’s frustrations as aspirations?

• Lead with the vital services and infrastructure Coloradans say they value.

How do you frame issues?Try to avoid• Messages and materials that focus on narrow issues and/

or caricatures of “bad guys?”

• Messages & materials that lead people to focus on short term-problems in isolation?

Strive to• Frame challenges in the context of the vital services and

infrastructure Coloradans say are important?

• Put short term problems in the context of long-term conditions and systems needed to maintain a high qual-ity of life?

What are the underlying questions in your messaging?Try to avoid• Messages that lead people to focus on individual, con-

sumer oriented demands.

• Emphasizing people’s personal problems and what gov-ernment should do to resolve these problems.

Strive to• Help people think through ways to balance different

people’s priorities.

• Show the interdependence between individual initiative and government action.

How do you connect issues to people’s emotions & values?Try to avoid• Messages and stories that tend to illicit people’s angers,

frustrations and fears.

• Leading people to focus on private values such as personal finances.

Strive to• Help people tap into their aspirations and sense of

possibility.

• Help people focus on ways to realize public values such as fairness for all concerned.

Given your assessment of your communi-cations strategies, messages and materials, consider these questions:• What are you doing well to engage people as problem

solvers?

• What could you do more, better or differently?

• How will you adjust your strategies, messages and materials in the future?

“Focus on the challenge not

the solutions.”

15

Tips for Effective “Building Awareness” ConversationsConsider these ideas to help get started:• Begin with people who are ready to talk in places where

they already gather. Small groups are often better than large.

• Set the stage for conversation – ground rules, safe space, communicate the need to understand the challenge.

• Invite a guest speaker to provide the fiscal information if you’re not comfortable playing that role.

• Ask those who are ready to talk about solutions to help build awareness instead – taking the conversation to solutions does not help enlist those who are becoming aware.

• Ask those who are ready to “do something” to help ex-pand the conversation. Build out in “concentric circles.”

Things to keep in mind when leading conversations:• Start with people’s values. Tell a story or give a hypo-

thetical example that touches on things people value about their community.

• Focus on the challenge not solutions. Help people un-derstand that Colorado has a structural budget problem. Don’t race to solutions.

• Use data to illuminate the challenge. People can be overwhelmed by too much data. Use just enough to help people understand the challenge.

• Acknowledge people’s skepticism; make room for am-bivalence. Let people ask questions. Don’t be defensive if people question the data.

• Tell stories – or ask people to tell stories – to make is-sues real. Stories are what help people connect data to their daily lives.

Fiscal Education Network Toolkit16

Resources• BackstreetBudgeter.com by Engaged Public —

www.backseatbudgeter.com

• Bell Policy Center — www.bellpolicy.org

• Boom or Bust Colorado — www.boomorbustcolorado.com

• Center for Colorado’s Economic Future (DU) — www.du.edu/economicfuture

• Colorado Department of Higher Education — http://highered.colorado.gov

• Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute — www.cclponline.org/fiscal_policy

• Colorado Tax Tracks — www.colorado.gov/taxtracks

• Independence Institute’s Citizens’ Budget — http://tax.i2i.org/citizens-budget

• University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs — www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/SPA

Figures1. Governor Hickenlooper FY 2012-2013 Proposed Budget

to JBC

2. Bell Policy Center calculations based on data from the Colorado Legislative Joint Budget Committee’s FY 2011-12 Companion Budget Package Summery to Senate Bill 11-209 (the Long Bill Narrative), prepared by Joint Budget Committee Staff, April 5, 2011.

3. University of Denver; Center for Colorado’s Economic Future

4. University of Denver; Center for Colorado’s Economic Future

5. Bell Policy Center

6. Colorado Department of Transportation

7. Calculated by Bell Policy Center based on gross Gener-al Fund revenues reported in Legislative Council docu-ments, and state personal income data reported by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

8. Grapevine, An Annual Compilation of Data on State Tax Appropriations for the General Operation of Higher Education Center for the Study of Education Policy, Il-linois State University.

9. Legislative Council

10. Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute