CPPP & TPPF: What do these Texas public policy think tanks really stand for?

When we hear the word "think tank" we might picture a well-oiled machine whose analysts take in policy, churn it around, digest it, and spit out ideas and solutions that we, as members of the general public are to then process ourselves. However, think tanks can be as different as apples and oranges when it comes to what issues they focus on and how policy information is assessed and disseminated.

CPPP: Center for Public Policy Priorities
http://www.cppp.org/index.php

CPPP is a "…is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) policy institute committed to improving public policies to better the economic and social conditions of low- and moderate-income Texans."[i]  The 17-member staff achieves its goals through "independent research, policy analysis and development, public education, advocacy, coalition-building and technical assistance,"  and has identified six major policy areas.[ii]  "Enhancing child-well being and child protection" is one of them.[iii]

It is clear that researching, monitoring, and speaking out about the state of child welfare in Texas is a key priority and function of the CPPP.  In a legislative session defined by a gaping $27 billion shortfall, preserving funding for essential child welfare programs and services is at the forefront of CPPP's agenda.

Please see links to Jen's articles for recent child-welfare related CPPP publications.

·        http://slippingthroughthecracksintexas.blogspot.com/2011/03/return-to-dark-days.html

·        http://slippingthroughthecracksintexas.blogspot.com/2011/03/putting-families-on-chopping-block.html 

TPPF: Texas Public Policy Foundation
http://www.texaspolicy.com/index.php

TPPF is also a nonprofit 501(c)(3) policy research institute.  The mission of the TPPF is "… to promote and defend liberty, personal responsibility, and free enterprise in Texas and the nation by educating and affecting policymakers and the Texas public policy debate with academically sound research and outreach."[iv]  Unlike the CPPP, TPPF is a larger organization, whose 26 staff members complete their analyses through eight different policy centers.

"Child welfare" or "child protection" are not specifically listed topics housed within a policy center.  Instead, potential child welfare related issues are interspersed throughout the various centers at TPPF.  Examples include CHIP (Center for Health Care Policy), juvenile probation (Center for Effective Justice), and school funding (Center for Education Policy).  Child welfare is not a policy priority for the TPPF.

Links to recent child welfare related TPPF publications:[v]

·        TANF Policy Brief: http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2011-TANF-CHC.pdf

·        Early Childhood Education Policy Brief: http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2011-EarlyChildhoodEducation-CEP.pdf

·        "Using the Children: Grotesque health care politics in Texas": http://www.texaspolicy.com/commentaries_single.php?report_id=1450

Bottom Line:

CPPP processes policy through the lens of what is important to low and moderate income Texans.  Child welfare is a clearly identified legislative goal.  TPPF focuses on the " the need for conservative, free-market-based solutions" and child welfare is not an explicitly stated part of the TPPF research agenda. 

Rebecca Lengnick-Hall

MSSW & MPA Candidate

University of Texas at Austin

3/21/2011

---

[i] http://www.cppp.org/about/about_us.php

[ii] http://www.cppp.org/about/whatwedo.php

[iii] http://www.cppp.org/about/whatwedo.php

[iv] http://www.texaspolicy.com/about_tppf.php             

[v] http://www.texaspolicy.com/publications.php

A Return to the Dark Days

A February 3, 2011, testimony from the Center for Public Priorities (CPP)[1] succinctly outlines the major effects of SB1. Already ranked third for the lowest rate of child abuse and neglect prevention in the nation, decreased funding will allow for fewer than 3,000 families in the state of Texas to receive services.

Although payments to foster families currently only cover 83% of costs, SB1 proposes an additional 5% cut. As an intern in the foster and adoption program at The Settlement Home for Children in Austin, I have witnessed first hand the difficulty of recruiting qualified individuals and families to serve as foster placement homes. A reduction in reimbursements will make this process even more difficult, resulting in fewer foster homes. With the progress that Texas has made in recent years, the thought of a deficit of foster families is truly saddening.

The report also states that the positions of 112 family-based protective service caseworkers will be terminated. DFPS estimates that this would raise the caseloads of the remaining workers by 33%. As with all cuts to vital services, this will create a domino effect of increased turnover which will raise the number of cases assigned to each worker, necessitating longer work weeks and causing more turnover.

As a participant in the Child Welfare Education Collaboration (CWEC) Title IV-E program, I am slated to begin work at CPS in the spring of 2012. Because of this, I am taking this data particularly personally. However, the idea that CPS would be forced to return to the “…days when children were regularly sleeping in caseworker offices because no foster homes were available” (CPP, 2011) should horrify everyone. Even the cold-hearted can realize that this will surely have negative effects on the health of these children and the functioning of the agency, again costing the state more in the long-run.

Jennifer Copeland

MSSW Candidate

University of Texas at Austin
3/18/2011

---

[1] http://www.cppp.org/files/4/SB1_SenateTestimony_Feb1_short.pdf

Putting Families on the Chopping Block

Texas legislators are faced with a budget shortfall of up to $27 billion. To solve this problem, legislators have proposed bills cutting funds in many sectors of the budget, particularly in social services. An article entitled “Upside Down Child Protection,” released on February 2, 2011, by the Center for Public Priorities,[1] details one such cut that could possibly be made to Child Protective Services (CPS). The budget bill would chop 30% or $51 million, the equivalent of more than 24,000 children, from family-based protective services.

Family-based protective services provides an array of services in order to keep children in their homes and out of the foster system. This can include subsidized daycare, funding to kinship caregivers, and/or treatment and educational services for parents. Keeping the child in the home offers stability and the opportunity for continuance in relationships with siblings, friends, and other family members.

A shift from family-based services to increased foster care does not make fiscal sense. In 2009, the average amount spent on a child in-home was a mere 3% of what is spent annually on a child in foster care. Blocked from receiving vital services, many of the children who would otherwise remain in-home or with relatives will be placed into foster care. Assuming a low estimate of 30%, this will cost the state of Texas an additional $14 million dollars on top of the funds that would have been spent on family-based protective services.

With a looming budget shortfall, there is no argument that cuts must be made. However, these cuts should be made in a manner that will not undermine the purpose of the agency being affected, nor create a future burden of larger debt and an increased demand for costly services within the state.

Jennifer Copeland

MSSW Candidate

University of Texas at Austin
3/18/2011

---

[1] http://www.cppp.org/research.php?aid=1035&cid=4