The chart below illustrates that both colleges and universities have seen growth in full-time enrollment since FY2000 and declines in per-student funding.

MID LEVEL FUNDING
The community college leadership outlined two critical priorities in the hearing. First, to advance toward the Legislature’s Mid-Level Funding formula that promises to fund community colleges at the mid-point between per student funding at universities and K-12 schools.

To advance in full to Mid-Level Funding the colleges would need an additional $154 million above prior year funding, but the colleges’ final request is to move to ½ that amount- equal to a request of an additional $77 million in FY2013. Neither the Legislative Budget Recommendation nor the Executive Budget Recommendation includes increases in funding for community colleges.

CRITICAL REQUEST: DROPOUT RECOVERY FUNDS
Importantly, the Community College Board also asked the committee to increase the annual appropriation for Dropout Recovery Funds. Dropout Recovery Funds are resources to enhance the delivery of Adult Basic Education and GED courses offered on the 15 community college campuses.

The goal of additional resources is to increase the number and success of students enrolled in GED preparation, increase support services –child care, tutoring, transportation, mentoring- and integrate job skills into GED curriculums.

In total, the Board is asking for $11.5 million to enhance the delivery of ABE/GED programs, promote more students to college-readiness and equip them with the skills they need to enter and succeed in the workforce.

Dropout Recovery Funds represents an opportunity for Mississippi to raise the job skills, college-readiness, and employment outcomes for the 350,000 adults over 25 years old in the state without a high school credential. In an environment where Mississippi still has unemployment above 10%, adults without a high school degree are disproportionately likely to enter periods of unemployment.

Finding the resources to support efforts such as those proposed through Dropout Recovery Funds should be a priority.

Earlier this week, Governor Bryant released his

It will be considered by the legislature in addition to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee’s recommendation and Governor Barbour’s recommendation that was released last Fall.

Bryant’s budget has some good elements as well as some proposals that bring cause for concern.  The key components of Governor Bryant’s recommendation are below:

• Small Increase for Department of Revenue
  Bryant recommends a small $5million increase for the Department of Revenue to fund auditors who will collect more in taxes.  It is estimated that the $5 million increase will bring in over $10 million in revenue owed to the state.  However, even with the increase, the Department is still recommended for funding at a level below even FY 2011 levels.

• Reduced Use of One Time Funds and No New Revenue
  Bryant recommends reduced use of so called “one time” special funds for recurring budget items.  This budgeting recommendation would make budgeting more straightforward.  However, Governor Bryant is opposed to raising taxes and would make up for the reduction in funds with a cuts-only approach.

• Lump Sum Authority and State Personnel Board Waiver
  Bryant recommends that agencies be given “lump sum” appropriations.  Currently, funding is granted with certain amounts provided for specific budget line items, like personnel, travel, equipment , etc.  “Lump Sum” appropriations would allow agencies to move funds across budget categories without legislative approval.   Waiving State Personnel Board protections would allow agency directors to make personnel changes regardless of an employee’s state service status.  State Personnel Board protections promote a public sector work environment free from undue political influence.

• Implement Performance Based Budgeting
  Bryant recommends passage of the Smart Budget Act which would incorporate Performance Based Budgeting.  For more information about Performance Based Budgeting see MEPC’s recent blog series on the subject.

• Keep Medicaid Funding Level Despite Projected Increase in Participants
  Governor Bryant recommends level funding for Medicaid.  However, more participants will likely necessitate either cuts in services provided or cuts to reimbursement rates for providers.

• Cuts for Education
  Governor Bryant recommends a $72.9 million reduction in state funds for the Mississippi Adequate Education Program.  Both Governor Barbour’s and the JLBC budget recommended level funding for MAEP.  None of the budgets recommend full funding for the formula that allocates state funding across the state’s school districts.  Bryant explains the reduction by suggesting that school districts use their own reserve funds to make up for the cut.  School district fund balances are used for cash flow throughout the district’s fiscal year due to irregular funding schedules and for capital expenses.  Furthermore, the amount held by schools districts vary greatly from district to district.  Intending to address this concern, the Governor recommends only $6 million for an emergency loan fund for school districts with inadequate reserves.

While some of Bryant’s recommendations would improve revenue collection and make the budget process more straightforward, many of the recommendations would continue the “cuts-only” approach of the last administration.  A balanced approach that includes new revenue would help the state invest in education and workforce development—both important for the state’s prosperity in the future.

Author: Sara Miller, Senior Policy Analyst

Last week, in part one of our examination of budget reform, we discussed some of the basics of Performance Based Budgeting.  This week, we will outline some concerns about the how Performance Based Budgeting might be implemented.

• First, the standards by which public programs are measured should be crafted with public input and with acknowledgement of the outside factors influencing their results.

By their very nature, state agencies deal with complex problems, often with multiple influencing factors and without easy ways to measure results.

• Second, budgeting decisions should continue to be based primarily on public needs and priorities.

While the budget process is not always smooth, the reason budget decisions are made by our legislature is because they reflect the priorities of the public through representative government.   The most “successful” programs may not be the priority programs or vice versa.  Would one want to cut public safety spending, because the crime rate went up?

• Third, after years of budget cuts, how does one account for the chronic underfunding of programs contributing to an agency’s shortcomings?

Many programs have had year after year of budget cuts.  The Mississippi Adequate Education Program is in line to be underfunded by about $1 Billion since it was last fully funded in 2008.  Responsible implementation of Performance Based Budgeting would take into account lower funding levels and their impact on a program’s performance.

Finally, Performance Based Budgeting, if implemented, should be applied to all state programs, including those administered through the tax code, like economic development tax breaks.

Performance Based Budgeting is designed to judge the effectiveness of programs funded through the appropriations process.  However, tax expenditures and incentives should also be reviewed for their effectiveness.  They are enacted for a public purpose but are not regularly reviewed and in most cases data are not available to the public about how they are used.

Performance Based Budgeting can be used to inform the budget process and to improve budget transparency.  It should not however replace public budget deliberations that take into account the needs and priorities of the people.

In the final post from this three part series, we will look at how Performance Based Budgeting is being used in other states.

Author: Sara Miler, Senior Policy Analyst

The table in this post looks at median wages –or the middle wage- for Mississippi workers at the beginning and end of the decade. All Mississippi wages have been adjusted for inflation and are in 2010 dollars.

Overall, median wages for Mississippi workers changed by $0.32 over the decade from $13.13 in 2000 to $13.45 in 2010. Mississippi’s median wage falls below Southern norms. Wages for different education levels show that increases in educational attainment lead to wage gains particularly for adults that pursue post-secondary education and college.

In 2010, the median wage for men was $14.29 compared to $12.75 for women. The gap between men’s and women’s wages remains; however, it narrowed in Mississippi between 2000 and 2010. In 2000, the median wage for women equaled 71% of men’s wages and by 2010 median wages for women equaled 89% of their male counterparts. While women’s wages advanced over the decade, two economic downturns and job loss in traditionally male-dominated industries like manufacturing contributed to the reverse effect in men’s wages.

In contrast, wage disparities between white and African-American workers have persisted at a similar level for two decades. The median wage for white workers was $15.66 in 2010 while the median wage for African-American workers was $11.02. In 2000 and 2010, wages for African American workers measured approximately 70% white workers.

Over the last decade tuition at community colleges and universities has increased more rapidly than the small change in hourly wages for Mississippi workers.  As a result, the cost of a college education now takes up a larger portion of a family’s income than it did in 2000. The rising cost of college education makes it harder for Mississippians to climb the economic ladder.

Keeping the post-secondary education affordable should remain a priority as the state makes critical decisions through the budgeting process. Mississippi needs a balanced approach that includes raising revenue instead of a cuts only approach that may threaten access to higher education.

The next State of Working Mississippi 2012 blog will feature findings on income and poverty from Chapter 3.

The latest data reveals that Mississippi was one of four states with an unemployment rate still above 10% in December 2011.

Older adults now represent a larger share of Mississippi’s workforce. Throughout the economic downturn in the late 2000s, many Americans delayed retirement to build economic security after suffering financial losses. In 2000, 13.3% of Mississippi workers were age 55 or over. By 2010, 18.7% of Mississippi’s labor force was at least 55 years old. In contrast, younger Mississippians now represent a smaller share of the state’s workforce.

Tomorrow: The SOW 2012 series continues with a closer look at wages by race, gender and educational attainment.

• Inspects changes in critical areas of Mississippi’s economy since 2000 including: jobs, the workforce, wages, income, and state revenue.
• Compares information in these areas with trends nationally and among Mid South states.
• Examines each of these areas through the lens of race, gender and educational attainment.
• Summarizes key takeaways and makes recommendations in each chapter for advancing working Mississippians and their families.

With the beginning of the legislative session and change in executive leadership, there has been renewed talk of state budget reform. Budget reform is necessary to improve the transparency of the process and to increase budget accountability.

One proposed reform includes Performance Based Budgeting. Performance Based Budgeting reforms aim to use data about the effectiveness of programs to inform budget decisions. Performance Based Budgeting can accomplish some of these goals. Budgeting is complicated, however, and any reform should be made with care.
In this three-part blog series on Performance Based Budgeting, we will delve into those issues.  In part one we will go over a few basics about Performance Based Budgeting.

• Performance Based Budget reforms seek to collect and evaluate performance data on programs and use that data to inform funding decisions.  There are a wide range of budget reforms that can fall under a performance based budgeting system.

• According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, twenty five states use some kind of performance budgeting.  Mississippi currently collects some performance information that is reported by state agencies to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee annually on their agency budget request.

• Last year, the State Senate passed the Mississippi Smart Budget Act (SB 2301) that would have implemented some performance based budgeting reforms.  However, the bill was not passed in the House.  It is likely that a similar bill will be introduced during this legislative session.

The next blog post in this series will explore some challenges to the implementation of effective Performance Based Budgeting and some concepts/questions that should be considered if it is to be implemented in a constructive manner.

Read my opinion piece on this in the Hattiesburg American.

Budget Reform with Performance Based Budgeting, Part Two

Author: Sara Miller, Senior Policy Analyst

Below are 4 key points made by State Economist Dr. Darrin Webb during the Legislative Economic Briefing at the Capitol on January 19^th.

1. Mississippi’s overall employment is not projected to reach 2000 levels until 2016. The state still has 55,000 fewer jobs than it did at the employment peak in February 2008.
2. Many communities continue to experience challenges after the recession. Forty-six Mississippi counties lost jobs from 2010 to 2011.
3. Mississippi’s General Fund collections are still down after the recession, and state revenue will not pass FY2008 levels for several years.
4. Federal expenditures represent 1 out of every 3 dollars of Mississippi’s economy.

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SLOW GROWTH IN MISSISSIPPI

Dr. Webb placed particular emphasis on a number of reasons why the state is projected to have slower growth than the nation in coming years. The first was the state’s larger than average share of resources coming from federal dollars. Federal expenditures are not likely to increase substantially in the years ahead and could face cuts. Mississippi’s economy will be influenced by the lack of federal growth more than other states.

Additionally, human capital was mentioned as another weakness that will affect the state’s growth and competitiveness. Without the further development of a skilled and healthy working population, Mississippi’s ability to maintain and attract businesses will be hindered.

PATHWAYS TO RAISING ECONOMIC GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY

The information provided today raises the urgency to pursue policies that increase growth and build adequate state revenue. Investing in pathways to increase educational attainment remains critical at all levels of the education spectrum.

Equally pressing is the need to consider a balanced approach that includes raising revenue instead of a cuts only approach to ensure that Mississippi has the resources needed to enhance the delivery of education from workforce training to secondary schools and post-secondary institutions.

LEGISLATIVE ECONOMIC BRIEFING (printable pdf)

Estimated Cost
The cost of a State EITC in Mississippi depends upon the percent of the federal EITC selected for the credit.  Most states’ EITC provide benefits as a set percentage of what the federal program pays.  The table below includes the estimated cost of a state EITC in Mississippi.

Who Is Eligible, and For How Much?
In the 2011 tax year, over 26 million working families and individuals received the federal EITC—including 404,394 Mississippians.  The amount of the EITC depends on a recipient’s income, marital status, and number of children (See figure below).  Each tier of benefits rises with earned income until it reaches a maximum level and then begins to phase out at higher income levels.   For example, the highest credit amount of $5,751 is for married filers with three or more children and a household income between $13,000 and $21,000, while the highest credit amount for married filers with one child is $3,094.

Encouraging and Rewarding Work
The EITC is designed to promote and reward work.  Only families with at least one member in the workforce are eligible for the credit.  Starting with the first dollar, a worker’s EITC grows with each additional dollar of earnings until the credit reaches the maximum value.  The amount of the credit rises as income increases until it reaches a maximum amount and then begins to phase out at higher income levels.  This “phasing out” effect ensures that a family does not lose its EITC benefit based on a single dollar of income.   Research has shown that most families use the EITC to pay for necessities, home repairs, maintaining/replacing vehicles needed to commute to work, and obtaining additional education or training to boost their employability and earning power.¹

Our next post will discuss additional benefits of a state EITC and address policy specific recommendations for making our state’s income tax system more equitable.

The federal EITC is the nation’s most effective anti-poverty program for working families.¹ It is designed to encourage and reward work as well as offset federal payroll and income taxes.  In 2009, it lifted 6.5 million people above the federal poverty line—including 3.3 million children, nationally. Additionally, the federal EITC is refundable, meaning that if it exceeds a low wage worker’s income tax liability, the IRS will refund the balance.