The latest state revenue collections announced today provided mixed news:

State revenue collections in February exceeded the official estimate for the first time since December 2008, but fell short of prior year collections for the same month, State Treasurer Scott Meacham announced today.

Preliminary reports show General Revenue Fund collections in February are $220.6 million. That amount is:

• $17.3 million, or 7.3 percent below the prior year; but,
• $0.8 million, or 0.4 percent above the estimate.

February collections were buttressed by $25 million in gross production taxes on oil that were allocated to the General Revenue Fund and by stronger-than-expected income tax collections. After tax refunds, the state took in net income tax collections of $10.7 million in February, whereas the official estimate was for a net loss of $9.1 million in income tax payouts.

Still, the revenue numbers provide far from unambiguous signs that the state’s fiscal situation has turned a corner. Not only were February’s collections 7.3 percent below those of a year ago, they were only 76.1 percent of the average collections for the same month over the five prior years. By this measure, February actually stands as the worst month of the entire downturn, as shown in the table above. On the other hand, a good part of this month’s poor performance compared to prior years was in the “other sources” revenue category, which includes investment earnings and miscellaneous taxes, fees, and charges. General Revenue from “other sources” was a full $23.8 million below the month’s estimate for February and $17.9 million below last year. It’s unclear at this point what accounts for the weakness in this revenue category, but it may relate more to a quirk in the timing of collections and transfers  than actual economic conditions.  Had “other sources” come in at the estimate, February 2010 revenues would have reached 84 percent of the five-year average and provided much clearer evidence of a genuine upswing.

As an indicator of how severe this revenue downturn has been and how long and difficult the recovery is likely to be, this year’s February collections are 30 percent below their peak of four years ago — and lower than any year since at least FY 2001.

Finally, while it is not fully clear whether revenue collections are now recovering, the fact that February’s collections hit the estimate does mean that this year’s General Revenue shortfall may not end up quite as enormous as previously assumed.  The shortfall, which was projected by the Board of Equalization last month to reach $940 million by year’s end, now stands at $863 million, basically unchanged from a month ago. Should the final four months of the fiscal year look like this month, it might actually allow the state to enter the next fiscal year with a small amount of cash left in the bank.

According to the latest U.S. Census figures, 565,000 Oklahomans, or 15.8 percent of the total population, were without health insurance in 2007-2008. The uninsured rate is just under 10 percent for children but over 20 percent for adults ages 18-64.

The Oklahoma Legislature has made several efforts in recent years to chip away at the number of uninsured by expanding eligibility for Insure Oklahoma, a program that provides public subsidies towards the purchase of employer-sponsored coverage for employees of small businesses or a public product for those without access to employer coverage. Eligibility for Insure Oklahoma goes up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level ($44,000 for a family of four) and is available to employees of businesses with up to 250 employees.

Back in 2007, the Oklahoma Legislature passed the All Kids Act (SB 424), that aimed to expand access to health insurance coverage for children in low- and moderate-income working families.  The bill offered subsidized coverage in the Insure Oklahoma program for children 18 years of age or younger with family income between 185 percent of the federal poverty level – the current income threshold for the Medicaid program – and 300 percent .  The bill included an $8 million  set-aside from Insure Oklahoma revenues to help pay for coverage for an estimated 20,000 children. In 2007 and 2008, the Legislature also approved expansions of Insure Oklahomans to new categories of adults, including those with incomes up to 250 percent of poverty, employees of businesses up to 500 employees, and foster parents regardless of the size of their employer.

All that was left to do was for the Oklahoma Health Care Authority secure federal approval for the amendments to the state’s SoonerCare and Insure Oklahoma waivers that would allow for the expanded coverage. How long could that take, right? As it turned out, it wasn’t until this past December, after two-and-a-half long years of negotiations, discussions, revisions, and waits,  that CMS (the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) finally informed OHCA that the amendments had been approved to the applications for both children and adults.

Despite the delays associated with the lengthy approval process, OHCA has indicated that it intends to implement the expansion slowly and gradually.  Beginning in October, enrollment in Insure Oklahoma will be opened to children between 185 and 200 percent of the federal poverty level whose parents are already enrolled in Insure Oklahoma. OHCA estimates that 3,000 children could gain coverage during this initial phase.  No date has been set to open up enrollment for children above 200 percent of poverty or to those with parents not enrolled in Insure Oklahoma. Similarly, OHCA has not set a timeline for expanding enrollment for adults in categories that have now received federal approval for coverage in Insure Oklahoma.

The cautious approach is explained as due to both systems implementation issues and to uncertainty about the ongoing availability of funding to cover the expansion. Insure Oklahoma is funded through a portion of the increased tobacco tax collections approved by voters in 2004. In FY ‘09, OHCA was allocated $45 million for Insure Oklahoma. For several years, the program accumulated large surpluses as enrollment lagged. However, enrollment nearly doubled in 2009; with 30,314 participants as of February 2010, the program is approaching the level where annual revenues will only match expenditures on an ongoing basis. At that point, OHCA anticipates imposing a cap and waiting list on new enrollment.

The agency’s cautious approach to expanding eligibility without additional revenues is understandable, especially given the fraught fiscal outlook for the state as a whole, and the Medicaid program in particular, over the next few years.  The problem is really one only the Legislature can resolve. Expanding coverage to new categories of uninsured children and adults was the right commitment to make. Now it’s time to fund the commitment.

If you’re reading this blog, chances are you’ve got opinions and points of view on some of the major policy issues confronting Oklahoma. What impact is the economic downturn and fiscal crisis having on the organizations you’re involved in and the people you care about? What should we be doing to operate government more effectively and fund services more fairly? What program is working that not enough people are hearing about?

This blog aims to be a forum where Oklahomans can share their perspectives, and we encourage you to contribute to  the conversation by submitting a guest blog post. Think of it as an op-ed with links.  We will help publicize pieces we post to our audiences and encourage you to send out the link to your friends, colleagues and networks.

Here are our blog guidelines:

– We will post entries that make an argument on public policy issues of importance to Oklahomans, whether we agree or disagree with the author’s point of view. However, we reserve the right not to post any blog entry submitted to us.

– Contributions addressing OK Policy’s core policy areas of state budget and taxes,  poverty and wealth creation, health care and social services, or the economy will receive strongest consideration.

– Blog entries should be between 300 and 600 words. They should be original contributions and not pieces that have been published elsewhere.

–  Please provide links for articles or studies referred to in your piece.

– Blog entries should avoid personal attacks and undue partisanship.

– We may edit your submission lightly for clarity and grammar. In all cases, we will have you review and approve a final draft of the piece before posting.

– We will run a short disclaimer before guest posts stating that the post reflects the opinions of the author and not of OK Policy.

– Please include a title for your post and brief (20 words maximum) biographical or background information that can appear in the introduction to the post.

– Send your submission in an e-mail or Word document to David Blatt (dblatt@okpolicy.org)

If you’re looking for examples of guest blog articles, click here for one on health care reform or here for one on protecting natural resources.

I hope to hear from you!

As the economic downturn continues to take its toll in Oklahoma and across the nation, how financially prepared are families to deal with extended periods of unemployment and underemployment. Newly-released data (PDF) from CFED that focuses on “asset poverty” confirms that many Oklahomans have little or no financial cushion on which to fall back.

Asset poverty is a measure that establishes a minimum threshold of wealth needed for household security:

A household is asset poor if it has insufficient net worth to support itself at the federal poverty for three months in the absence of income. Asset poor households would not have enough savings or wealth to provide for basic needs during a sudden job loss or a medical emergency.

Their data estimates that over a quarter of Oklahoma households, 28.8 percent, were asset poor in 2006, slightly above the national average of 26.6 percent. Minority households were considerably more likely to have minimal or no assets, with 38.9 percent of Native American households, 43.2 percent of Latinos, and 50.1 percent of Blacks or African-Americans falling below the asset poverty threshold. Younger households, single-parent households, and renters are among the categories most likely to be asset poor. The data also reveal that while a majority of households with income below the poverty level are also asset poor, asset poverty can extend up the income ladder: nearly one in five Oklahoma households with income between $44,801 and $68,800 were estimated to be asset poor.

This data is a supplement to the 2009-2010 Assets and Opportunity Scorecard project, of which OK Policy is a state partner. For all the data, which looks at financial assets, see this page of our website or this page from the CFED website. OK Policy’s recent issue brief,  More Than Just Getting By (PDF), serves as an overview of asset building and identifies policy proposals for expanding opportunity and strengthening Oklahoma’s middle class.

Just when it looked as if the the extended negotiations over how to address FY ‘10 budget shortfalls were finally resolved, a new wrinkle emerged this week.  As a means to protest the continued failure to find supplemental funds for senior nutrition programs in the Department of Human Service, Senate Democrats refused to approve the emergency clause on a bill to transfer $30 million to the Special Cash Fund . Without an emergency clause, the transfer cannot take effect until July 1st, which threatens a whole series of agreements between the House, Senate and Governor intended to put this year’s budget to rest. (Update: an agreement was announced Wednesday afternoon on funding for senior nutrition programs allowing the emergency clauses for the funding bills to be passed).

This latest dispute is likely to further defer lawmakers’ attention from focusing on the challenges in constructing the budget for the year ahead. With less than three months until the Legislature’s scheduled adjournment, this is worrisome. For if this year’s budget situation has been bad, next year’s quite frankly, looks  catastrophic.

Let’s start by reviewing what had been decided for this year. The leadership agreement announced in mid-February called for 3/8ths of the Rainy Day Fund, or $223.7 million, to be used in FY ‘10. Money from the RDF is targeted to the Department of Common Education ($193.7 million in HB 2352) and the Oklahoma Health Care Authority ($30 million in HB 2353).  Leadership has also decided to dig deeper into federal stimulus funds for FY ‘10. Common Education is now set to receive an additional $37.1 million from the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, while an additional $144.6 million of enhanced Medicaid matching funds, or FMAP, made available by the stimulus will go to the Health Care Authority and Department of Human Services (all but $3 million of this amount is to offset a loss in General Revenue, rather than being additional funds). Other additional revenues made available for Fy ‘10 include $38.3 million in gross production taxes,  $30 from the Unclaimed Property Fund (in the disputed bill), and $15.7 million being transferred from the State Transportation Fund.

As can be seen from the Table, the Legislature has now used over $800 million in stimulus funds in the FY ‘10 budget. When the Rainy Day Fund is added in, the amount of non-ongoing revenue being used this year exceeds $1 billion. According to my figures, these non-ongoing revenues will account for some 15  percent of this year’s total state appropriations, which look to be some $6.965 million.

How big of a hole does this leave for next year? The Board of Equalization has certified $5.415 billion in available revenue for FY ‘11. Using the revised FY ‘10 appropriations as the starting point, there is a $1.55 billion revenue gap.

Available non-recurring revenue will close this gap some, but far from entirely. There has already been agreement to use an additional 3/8ths, or $223.7 million, of the Rainy Day Fund in FY ‘11 (This would leave the fund with just under $150 million that is available upon declaration of an emergency). The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, which can only fund Common Education and Higher Education, has a remaining balance of $199 million.  The amount of enhanced FMAP still available is less certain, because it involves multiple agencies and depends on actual expenditures. But the allocation of the additional $145 million in stimulus funds to the FY ‘10 Health Care Authority and DHS budgets significantly worsens the FY ‘11 outlook.  At this point, however, there is likely well under $300 million of remaining enhanced FMAP funds available.  (That number could, however, rise if the enhanced FMAP rate is extended for an additional two quarters as part of the jobs bill currently being considered by Congress).  Along with the remaining State Fiscal Stabilization Funds, we can expect to have under $450 million in stimulus funds for FY ‘11, or $350 million less than in FY ‘10.

The bottom line is that even after Rainy Day Funds and stimulus, there looks to be some $850 million less available revenue next year than this year. That’s equal to 12 percent of total state funding for this year applied across all government agencies. We can’t forget that many state agencies have already absorbed 5 – 7 percent cuts going into FY ‘10 and up to 7.5 percent mid-year cuts, forcing furloughs, lay-offs and closures. We can’t forget that even agencies that have been partially protected by stimulus funds and supplementals have already been forced to reduce payments to health care providers and cut back services to seniors, children with mental illness, and other vulnerable populations.

The Governor in his FY ‘11 Executive budget offered a series of revenue-enhancing proposals that together were estimated to generate over $700 million, including expanded tax collections of remote sales,  additional bonding, and suspension and elimination of tax breaks. Not all the Governor’s ideas are likely to fly. But if and when the final remaining FY ‘10 issues are resolved, it will be urgent to start concentrating really seriously about what revenue options and cost-cutting measures should be on the table for next year to avoid a budgetary apocalypse.

We are following with keen interest legislation introduced this session by Senator Bill Brown that would allow for the issuing of health insurance coverage across state lines. SB 2046, which passed the Senate Retirement and Insurance committee and awaits consideration by the full chamber, is part of a national push to expand access to health insurance by creating inter-state competition. According to a recent New York Times article:

Proponents of the idea say that the tangle of state regulation drives up costs, particularly in states with heavy mandates, and that a quick and easy way to reduce prices would be to allow people in states where insurance is expensive, like New York or Massachusetts, to buy policies in low-cost states like Minnesota.

Senator Brown’s bill explicitly states that “out-of-state insurers shall not be required to offer or provide state-mandated health insurance benefits required by Oklahoma law or regulations in health insurance policies sold to Oklahoma residents.”

Critics warn that exempting insurers from state regulations would gut consumer protections. In a recent op-ed, Jeff Raymond of OKWatchdog.org writes:

States protect policy holders by requiring certain care to be covered, restricting rate increases and accepting applicants. If insurance is sold across state lines, the rules of the state in which the company is located would determine the laws it follows. This guts states’ enforcement powers and their ability to craft legislation to fit their needs.

The example of the financial sector, where credit card companies all relocated to states without usury laws on interest rates, is cited as a cautionary tale for health insurance.

The rationale behind SB 2046 – that state benefit mandates are forcing up the cost of insurance and keeping people from being able to access affordable coverage – is strikingly similar to what was argued last year by proponents of HB 2026, a bill passed by the Legislature that authorized insurance companies to sell insurance to individuals under the age of 40 exempted from state mandates.

There are several apparent fallacies at the heart of both last year’s HB 2026 and this year’s SB 2046. The first is that there is a lack of choice and competition in the state’s insurance industry. That may be true in some states, but in Oklahoma, according to figures supplied by the State Insurance Department, there are 19 companies writing policies in the individual market and over 70 companies active in the group market.

A second fallacy is that insurers are subject to a vast number of onerous mandates. In reality, there are only a dozen or so benefits that must be offered in Oklahoma, and half of those apply only to group coverage or to specific categories of the population, such as children, seniors, or post-partum women.  Most studies have found that the impact of mandates on the cost of coverage is quite minimal.

Finally, there appears to be the assumption that Oklahomans are clamoring for insurance coverage that doesn’t cover such mandated services as child immunizations, diabetes supplies, annual ob-gyn exams, or cancer screenings.  To cite our blog post on HB 2026:

A number of questions come to mind when looking at this list of benefits that could be waived. How much would the cost of insurance actually be lowered for policies that did not include these services? How many prospective parents would actually select a policy that did not provide a guarantee of 48 hours of inpatient care after delivery or children’s vaccines? Would the health of Oklahomans be promoted by allowing young people to select policies that would not cover them for test strips and insulin following the onset of diabetes?

All of this led us to predict last year that the impact of HB 2026 would be minimal: “The reality is that Oklahoma’s individual insurance market is already very flexible, so passage of these proposals would likely not have an earth-shattering impact one way or another.” Indeed, the Insurance Department reports that since HB 2026 took effect last year, not a single insurance company has chosen to file a product exempt from state benefit requirements. We do not know what would happen if the insurance market were to be opened up to out-of-state companies, since SB 2046 differs from HB 2026 in applying to group as well as individual coverage and across all age groups. However, we are fairly certain that those who continue to pitch the sale of insurance products without benefit requirements as a solution to the problem of affordable coverage are barking up the wrong tree.

House Speaker Chris Benge this week was joined by Republican Senator Patrick Anderson and Democratic Senator John Sparks in unveiling a proposal to create a new budgetary reserve fund to help cushion the state from a repeat of the extreme revenue volatility seen in recent years. The proposal, introduced as a committee substitute for the Speaker’s bill HB 3032, is for gross production tax collections exceeding a 3-year moving average to be set aside into an Energy Stabilization Fund. When gross production taxes fall below their 3-year average, revenues would automatically flow back to the General Revenue Fund. In addition, interest from the Fund’s principal would be dedicated to enhanced energy recovery research.

According to a spreadsheet accompanying the Speaker’s press release, had the Energy Stabilization Fund been in effect over the past decade, its balance wold have grown to $909 million by FY ‘09, of which $576 million would have flowed back to the GR Fund this year and next (FY ‘10-11) as collections fell. What’s not clear from the House analysis is what impact an Energy Stabilization Fund would have had on deposits to the Rainy Day Fund over the past decade. This is worth exploring, especially in light of current efforts to increase the cap on the Rainy Day Fund. However, when we recently ran some numbers on a similar proposal, we found that mid-2000s revenue growth was vibrant enough to have allowed for the Rainy Day Fund to be filled up to its 10 percent cap and beyond even with surplus gross production revenues directed to a separate reserve.

The creation of a second reserve fund specifically based on gross production revenues echoes a proposal offered recently by OK Policy as one of our recommendations for reforming our budget and tax system based on lessons from the current downturn.  Our suggestion, which took shape in legislation introduced this session by Senator Kenneth Corn, would have directed gross production revenue growth above 12 percent to a reserve fund, while similarly providing for an automatic transfers from the energy reserve fund back to GR when collections fell below three-year averages.  At the time, we wrote:

Together, increasing the cap on the Rainy Day Fund and creating a specific Gross Production Tax Reserve would greatly increase available reserves heading into a downturn and cushion the magnitude of budget cuts once revenues fall. Increasing the size of our reserve funds would involve accepting more modest spending growth during the peak years of growing revenues. That is a trade-off most Oklahomans are likely to endorse.

HB 3032, which passed the Appropriations and Budget, now goes to the full House. We congratulate the Speaker and his colleagues on promoting this idea, and hope that the next time our economic hits a rough patch, the Energy Stabilization Fund is in place to help avert a full-fledged budget crisis.

Our friends at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) have put out a new paper addressing the acute fiscal crisis facing states across the nation. As shortfalls reach a level where they are seriously compromising the ability of state government to provide core public services, the Center calls for a balanced approach that “ensures that no one segment of residents and businesses bears the brunt of recession-induced deficits.” Their seven components of a balanced approach are:

• Efficiency – focusing on the goals of expenditures and whether there are better ways to reach those goals;
• Using all available resources – employing reserves, rainy day funds, and federal fiscal relief funds responsibly and wisely;
• Scrutinizing all spending, not just what is appropriated through the budget – including programmatic expenditures made in the form of tax breaks;
• Improved collections – aggressively seeking taxes due that are not being paid;
• Tax increases – particularly those that have a more positive impact on the economy than spending cuts;
• Prioritization – making careful decisions based on goals and effectiveness when budgets must be cut; and
• Paying close attention to future impact while fixing today’s problems.

While the Center’s paper provides some examples of states pursuing each of these approaches, it doesn’t attempt to evaluate each state.  Here is my assessment of Oklahoma’s efforts in each of these domains:

1. Efficiency – The Legislature has devoted considerable attention in recent years to operating government more efficiently, especially in such areas as purchasing and information technology. The Governor’s budget proposes consolidating some 16 agencies as a way to achieve modest cost savings.  However, one area of potential savings discussed by the Center, that of criminal justice reform to reduce the number of non-violent offenders in prison, has been largely neglected in Oklahoma.
2. Using all available resources –  Oklahoma has been willing to allocate stimulus funds and, now, the Rainy Day Fund to mitigate the severity of budget cuts.   However, it needs to be acknowledged that the use of some $1 billion per year of stimulus and Rainy Day Fund money to stay afloat in FY ‘10 and FY ‘11 means that the state may actually face its most severe budget problems in FY ‘12 and FY ‘13.
3. Scrutinizing all spending -  The Center calls for careful scrutiny of tax breaks, which was one of the “Lessons from the Crisis” that OK Policy began to emphasize several months back. Now, elected leaders from both parties have joined the chorus insisting that the budget crisis provides a need and an opportunity to put the brakes on tax breaks.
4. Improved collections –  Governor Henry’s FY ‘11 budget proposed a series of enhanced collection measures as a means of bringing the budget into balance. Some of the Governor’s proposals, including collecting sales tax from Internet and other remote sellers and revising vendor discounts, are specifically endorsed by the Center.
5. Tax increases –  So far, outright tax increases are “the elephant not being let in the room” in Oklahoma as a strategy for balancing the budget. The Center’s brief emphasizes that from an economic standpoint, raising taxes is substantially less harmful than cutting spending. According to the brief, ten states have raised overall revenues by more than 5 percent in 2008 or 2009.
6. Prioritization - The Center notes that some states have formal procedures to determine which programs are most effective that can be used to guide decisions about budget cuts. With a few exceptions, there has not been a formal process for setting priorities in Oklahoma during the downturn. The Legislature and Governor have largely avoided any direct role in deciding what to cut and what to protect, allowing monthly across-the-board budget reductions to take effect automatically and leaving the main responsibility for budgetary decisions to state agencies.
7. Considering the Future – The Center urges states to consider long-term fiscal sustainability by ensuring they can replenish their rainy day funds and by modernizing their tax systems. In Oklahoma, the budget crisis has generated bipartisan support not only for an increase in the cap on the Rainy Day Fund, but also creation of an energy stabilization fund to minimize the volatility of gross production taxes. However, the longer-term challenges of modernizing the tax system to help address the long-term fiscal gap, which can include broadening the sales tax base to include services and adopting combined reporting for multi-state corporations, have remained largely unaddressed.

Unquestionably, the budget crisis has helped put new ideas on the table both in terms of delivering services and generating revenues. Facing revenue shortfalls exceeding $1 billion in FY ‘11 and the foreseeable loss of one-time revenues in the years following, Oklahoma’s ability to steer a balanced course will determine whether we can navigate this crisis without a major shipwreck.

I posted an entry this morning that compared the mid-year budget cuts being absorbed by each of the ten largest state agencies. Unfortunately, the post – which I’ve now deleted -  included outdated information regarding funding for the Departments of Transportation and Common Education. In particular, I was unaware of a bill (HB 2433) that imposed a 7.5 percent cut to ODOT’s appropriation from the State Transportation Fund, and of some additional funding decisions (included in HB 2352) that aim to restore a greater part of the funding cuts to the Department of Education than initially announced. I will re-examine this and post revised numbers once FY ‘10  appropriations bill have made it through the process. I apologize for the error and any confusion or inconvenience it may have caused.

As those who have been following the unfolding state budget crisis know well, part of the response to this year’s massive shortfall in state revenue collections has been monthly across-the-board cuts. Agencies had their  allocations cut by 5 percent from August through November and by 10 percent in the months since. The leadership agreement was for 10 percent cuts to continue for the rest of the year, which averages out to a 7.5 percent funding reduction over the course of the entire year.

So does this mean that all agencies are absorbing an identical 7.5 percent cut in their state appropriations? Not exactly. As can be seen from the Table below, if you look at the ten state agencies with the largest state appropriations, none will actually see its FY ‘10 funding cut by the full 7.5 percent compared to its initial appropriated amount. The cuts range from over 7 percent for several agencies to no cut for the Department of Transportation.

The explanation for this has two parts. The most important factor, as we explained in this post back in August, is that the across-the-board cuts apply only to the General Revenue Fund (GRF), which accounts for $5.144 billion, or 71 percent, of the total initial state FY ‘10 budget of $7.231 billion. With a few exceptions, the agencies that have been cut by less than 7.5 percent are funded in whole or in part from funds other than current year GR. The largest non-GR funding streams are:

• stimulus funds, which make up a substantial portion of funding for the Health Care Authority and smaller amounts for other health and human service agencies, common education and higher education; and
• the HB 1017 Fund, which is dedicated exclusively to education, and which has suffered a slightly smaller shortfall than the GRF.

The Department of Transportation is funded entirely from the State Transportation Fund, which has been unaffected by shortfalls. The Commissioners of Land Office, funded by mineral leasing revenues, has similarly had the good fortune to be spared any mid-year cuts.

The two large agencies funded entirely by current year GR that are facing less than a full 7.5 percent mid-year cut are the Department of Corrections and the Department of Public Safety. They are among a handful of agencies, including common education, higher education, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority, and rehabilitative services, that will receive supplemental funds in FY ‘10 to limit the severity of their budget cuts. Supplementals contained in bills now working their way through the Legislature total some $125 million to minimize GR shortfalls of some $670 million and $50 million to cushion an anticipated $109 million shortfall in the 1017 Fund.

In total, of 78 appropriated state agencies, 53 are facing 7.5 percent mid-year cuts and another five are facing cuts above 7.0 percent. However, since the largest agencies are the ones funded at least in part with non-GR dollars and/or recipients of supplementals, mid-year FY ‘10 cut amounts to 4.4 percent for state government as a whole.

It’s worth noting that the Governor’s FY ‘11 budget proposal uses revised FY ‘10 funding levels as the starting-point for next year’s budget. All agencies would absorb additional cuts of either 0.5 percent or 3.0 percent on top of their FY ‘10 mid-year cuts, except the Commissioners of the Land Office and Department of Transportation, which would continue to remain fully exempt from any reduction in funding.

For a spreadsheet showing revised appropriations and percentage budget cut for each agency, click here (PDF). As always, refer to the main budget and tax page on our website for comprehensive information on the state’s budget situation.

For the second time in less than a month, the Governor and legislative leaders have announced an agreement on how to address the huge shortfalls in this year’s budget caused by declining revenue collections. This second agreement is not much different than the initial January agreement: monthly across-the-board cuts of ten percent of allocations from the General Revenue Fund will continue for the rest of the year, with the extent of cuts to some agencies mitigated by additional funds. This “addendum” to the January deal involves two main components:

• First, it specifies that 3/8ths of the state’s Rainy Day Fund, or $223.5 million, will be used to fill part of the current year shortfall. That still leaves a gap, according to my calculations,  of $235.5 million.  The press release states that the remaining shortfall will be filled “with other state funds and federal stimulus dollars”. The Legislature has begun considering a number of supplemental funding bills that will shed more light on which additional revenues will be tapped;
• Second, in addition to the additional dollars announced in January for Common Education ($54 million plus $50 million to make up for part of the $109 million projected shortfall in the HB 1017 Fund); Higher Education ($25.6 million), the Health Care Authority ($33 milion) and Corrections ($7.2 million), additional funds are being directed to the Department of Public Safety ($ 3 million) and Department of Central Services ($300,000).The House of Representatives immediately issued a press release announcing that the additional dollars for the Department of Public Safety would suffice to avert furloughs for state troopers that had been scheduled to begin in March.

Left unstated in the press releases are the priorities that again failed to make the cut for additional dollars.   The work that the state troopers do in protecting public safety on our highways is extremely important.  But what about the at-risk youth whose gang intervention and prevention programs in Tulsa and Oklahoma City have been eliminated? What about the children with mental health issues who can no longer be treated because the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services has cut 40 children’s inpatient beds in Norman? Or the seniors who are no longer being served daily hot meals because of the $7.2 million in cuts to senior nutrition programs? Or the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault who can no longer receive counseling and education and prevention programs because of cuts? With new revenues off the table, our elected leaders are facing brutal choices in deciding which vital programs and services to rescue and which to let die. But what does it say about our priorities as a state when programs serving the most vulnerable women, children and seniors have, once again, been left behind?

There is definitely something in the air. Over the past several weeks, there has been a heavy flurry of attention paid to the state’s system of tax expenditures, the array of over 450 exemptions, credits, deductions and the like that allow taxes not to be paid when they otherwise would. Yesterday, we released an in-depth issue brief which we titled “Let There Be Light: Making Oklahoma’s Tax Expnditures More Transparent and Accountable.” In our press release, we stated:

While the merits of granting tax preferences can be debated as a matter of principle, the reality is that they are unlikely to be abandoned entirely. There is a chance now to build on important progress made in recent years in increasing disclosure and scrutiny of tax expenditures to really get a handle on which tax breaks are worthwhile and effective, and which are wasteful giveaways.

Just as our issue brief was hitting in-boxes, the Oklahoma Gazette hit the stands with a front-page feature story by Scott Cooper examining several aspects of the total $5.5 billion that the state grants in tax benefits each year . The article features strong quotes from both Republican and Democratic elected officials affirming the need to subject tax breaks to much more careful scrutiny at a time of gaping budget gaps:

“Some of them have outlived their usefulness. Some of them are not creating jobs and need to be eliminated,” said Rep. Jeff Hickman, R-Fairview, chairman of the state House Subcommittee on Revenue and Taxation. “I think there is going to be a desire to do that. A lot of them we inherited and have been on the books for a long time.”…

“That is something that needs to be looked at continuously,” said Rep. Ken Miller, R-Edmond. “Tax credits are not meant to be corporate welfare, but an economic development tool used to produce high-wage jobs and diversify our economy. What we need to do as legislators is make sure that those tax credits continue to meet their intended purpose.”

“The state of Oklahoma, in this sort of backdoor (non-appropriated) method of tax credits and tax exemptions, gives away hundreds of millions of dollars,” said state Treasurer Scott Meacham, a Democrat.

Some elected officials have been willing to target specific credits and exemptions for elimination or suspension. Governor Henry in his budget proposed outright elimination of two investment tax credits intended for rural and small businesses that have grown exponentially in cost and have come under mounting suspicion of possible wrong-doing. The Governor also proposed a one-year suspension of over a dozen income tax credits as part of his strategy for bridging next year’s budget gap. As we noted in our brief (p.4), legislators this session have introduced some 20 bills that would provide for increased disclosure and review of tax expenditures or that would suspend, eliminate, or narrow existing provisions. Meanwhile, Democratic State Senator Tom Adelson this week held a press conference in which he called for the elimination of tax preferences with an estimated fiscal impact of $250 million as a way to help ease budget shortfalls  – earning an immediate rebuke from the Oklahoma Press Association and Tulsa World for suggesting that newspapers and advertising sales lose their tax exemptions.

Will all of this increased attention translate to policy changes that would address the concerns about transparency, accountability and cost of tax expenditures? It’s certain that the defenders of particular tax breaks will fight hard to maintain their preferences, and that the hard work of subjecting credits and exemptions to oversight and evaluation will pose a real challenge for legislators. But the conclusion of Scott Cooper’s Gazette piece provides genuine grounds for hope:

However, because of the harsh economic conditions and the state’s looming budget deficit, change could happen. Miller, who is running for state treasurer, quoted one of his colleagues when saying this economy is like the winter storms Oklahoma recently endured: It caused the removal of tree limbs that needed to be cut down anyway for power to be restored.

“This situation we have now,” Miller said, “provides the political will to actually accomplish some needed changes.”

This morning, the State Board of Equalization will meet to certify the revised FY ‘11 revenue estimates (we’ve posted the certification packet to our website). The February certification is binding on the Legislature as it develops the FY ‘11 budget – the Legislature can appropriate above the February certified estimate only based upon changes in law approved during the current session, not changes in economic conditions.

As expected, the revised certification is more optimistic than December’s initial certification -  but only slightly. The Legislature will have $120.4 million more to appropriate in FY ‘11 than under the initial estimate. In addition, the shortfall in current year revenue collections is now projected to be some $53 million less than in December. The improvement is due almost entirely to expectations of significantly higher natural gas and oil revenues over the next 17 months. General Revenue collections from natural gas and oil are now expected to total $822 million over FY ‘10 and FY ‘11, compared to just $577 million when the initial forecasts were made. But, there appears to be no expectation that stronger energy prices will boost the overall state economy.  In fact, in line with last month’s disappointing revenue collections, projections for revenues from the sales tax, corporate income tax, and individual income tax are all slightly lower over the remainder of FY ‘10 and FY ‘11 than when the initial estimates were delivered eight weeks ago.

Notwithstanding the additional $173 million in available revenues for FY ‘10 and FY ‘11, the Legislature is still staring at gaping budget holes.  Even with budget cuts equal to 10 percent for the remainder of this fiscal year, there is a shortfall of $515 million in the FY ‘10 budget that must be filled. The Governor and legislative leaders continue to disagree over how much of that amount should be taken from the Rainy Day Fund rather than other sources.

Then there is a gap of over $1.5 billion between the agreed-to FY ‘10 budget ($6.967 billion) and the amount of certified revenue available for appropriation in FY ‘11 ($5.415 billion) . The Governor proposed bridging that gap by adding 0.5 to 3 percent to this year’s budget cuts, using most of the remaining Rainy Day Fund balances and stimulus funds, and adopting an assortment of revenue-enhancing measures and cost-savings totaling some $780 million that may or may not materialize. Even if the width of the gap has been shortened, finding a way across the budget chasm without perishing remains a staggering challenge.

Earlier this year, we put out an issue brief and blog post that identified the need for better budget forecasting as one of the lessons that should be learned from the state’s current budget woes to avoid crises of similar magnitude in the future. Rep. Ryan Kiesel has introduced legislation, HB 2796, that incorporates some of our suggestions. Rep. Kiesel put out a press release explaining his legislation:

OKLAHOMA CITY (February 11, 2010) The budget crisis now affecting virtually every area of Oklahoma state government would have been easier to deal with if a financial early-warning had been issued, and state Rep. Ryan Kiesel has authored a bill that would provide for such alerts.

The proposal, House Bill 2796, requires that a revised estimate of expected revenues be prepared and sent within 30 days to the governor and both houses of the legislature, whenever a revenue shortfall is declared by the director of the Office of State Finance, or when that office reduces agency funding due to a shortfall. The requirement would apply whenever such a revenue shortfall occurs prior to the last day of the tenth month of a fiscal year.

“It is far preferable, and a lot less painful for Oklahoma citizens, to make cuts in the budget of an office or agency when there are seven or eight months remaining in the fiscal year, as opposed to three or four months,” said Kiesel, D-Seminole. “It doesn’t make sense to wait until halfway through the fiscal year to begin thinking about budget adjustments if new information is available indicating revenue problems ahead. The longer we wait to make needed cuts, the more drastic and painful the effects of those cuts tend to be.”

Kiesel likened revenue forecasting to weather forecasting: knowing there is bad weather ahead doesn’t hold off the storm, but it helps us avoid its worst effects by letting us know whether and when we should plan a picnic or bring an umbrella.

This year, an earlier forecast of the revenue problem would have given the legislature and executive branch more options and greater latitude to reduce the hardships resulting from budget cuts.

There are also benefits to knowing when good times are ahead, but rather than a picnic, legislators may plan for a bridge project, more aid to local communities struggling with infrastructure problems, or rebuilding our now rapidly declining Rainy Day Fund.

Currently, there is no procedure to provide a revised estimate until the Board of Equalization meets in late-December to make its initial certification of the next year’s revenue.

There is an annual economic forecast prepared by the Office of State Finance, but as David Blatt of the Oklahoma Policy Institute noted in a recent article, “it is not sufficiently documented, widely circulated, or incorporated into budget planning by the governor, legislature or state agencies.”

Kiesel’s bill also creates an Oklahoma Revenue Forecasting Board, which would assist the Office of State Finance and the Oklahoma Tax Commission in the preparation of revenue estimates. Its membership would be composed of the director of the Office of State Finance, the directors of the fiscal staff for both the Oklahoma House of Representatives and the State Senate, a member of the Oklahoma Tax Commission, and one economist each from the faculty of the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University.

“This proposal utilizes people who are already employed by the state, so we would not be creating new positions or adding to the cost of government,” Kiesel said.

We hope that the bill, which has been referred to the House Appropriations Committee, gets a hearing and makes its way through the legislative process.

From time to time, we use the OK Policy blog to post submissions we receive from Oklahomans who have interesting perspectives on important policy issues for the state. This entry is from Jeff Alderman, M.D., an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Oklahoma School of Community Medicine in Tulsa. The opinions stated below are not necessarily the opinions of OK Policy, its staff, or its board. This blog is a venue to help promote the discussion of ideas from various points of view and we invite your comments and contributions. To see our guidelines for blog submissions, click here.

Remember the book It Takes a Village? That was the title of then-first Lady Hillary Clinton’s 1996 work, in which she examines how a child’s well-being can be positively shaped by individuals and groups residing outside of traditional nuclear families.  While the book generally enjoyed good reviews and sales, some found Mrs. Clinton’s approach ‘over simplistic,’ and the issue of the ghostwriter Barbara Feinman became fodder for more than a few anti-Clinton conservatives.

Even though ‘Village’ was published 14 years ago, I think the book makes a strong argument relevant to our situation today. By that I mean meaningful health care reform cannot take place in a silo. To truly improve the health of our nation, we must examine and reshape policies that affect health care behavior, such as education and infrastructure.

To dive deeper into this subject, take a look at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s 2009 report: ‘Commission to Build a Healthier America’.  After surveying more than 174,000 adults, the Commission found that education was a ‘tipping point’ for improving health care outcomes. The more education people had, the more likely they were to report better health, regardless of race or ethnicity. The Commission even posts a ‘State-by State Education and Health Calculator’ on their website. RWJ researchers predicted that if just 12% more Oklahomans attended ‘some college’, 896 unnecessary deaths could be averted.  At the same time, the Commission made many more recommendations, including:

• Create public-private partnerships to open and sustain full-service grocery stores in communities without access to healthful foods.
• Require all schools (K-12) to include time for all children to be physically active every day.
• Ensure that all children have high-quality early developmental support (child care, education and other services).
• Develop a “health impact” rating for housing and infrastructure projects that reflects the projected effects on community health.

That last point about how infrastructure impacts health care is extremely timely. As RWJ was releasing their report, Drexel University researcher Amy Auchincloss, PhD was putting the final touches on her study about neighborhood resources and health outcomes. Reporting in the Archives of Internal Medicine, Dr. Auchincloss and her colleagues found that “people who live in neighborhoods with safe sidewalks, ample parks, good public transportation and ready access to fresh fruits and vegetables are 38 percent less likely to develop diabetes than others” The group examined over 2000 adults in Baltimore, the Bronx and Forsyth County, North Carolina. After two years of study, Dr. Auchincloss concluded “altering our environments so that healthier behaviors and lifestyles can be easily chosen may be one of the key steps in arresting and reversing epidemics, like obesity and Type 2 diabetes.”

To ‘fix’ health care, the president, congress and relevant policymakers need to consider ‘reform’ in broader terms. Comprehensive health care reform must occur simultaneously with other efforts to improve human services – such as education, infrastructure and business development.  Offering products like health insurance exchanges and reducing Medicare waste are steps in the right direction. But to impact real change, we need to raise many standards in our society.  And government cannot fix these problems alone – efforts must come from the community, potentially through public-private partnerships. But no matter what happens, fixing health care in America will take more than sweeping policy changes. It will take a village.

A stark indicator of the extent of Oklahoma’s job losses over the past year is the state’s Unemployment Insurance (UI) Trust Fund account. Going into 2009, the Trust Fund enjoyed a very healthy balance of $824 million. Now, twelve months later, the balance has fallen by 40 percent to $489 million. In 2009, the OESC (Oklahoma Employment Security Commission) paid out $559 million in regular UI  benefits, an all-time record and almost four times the amount paid in 2007.

While its balance is clearly dropping rapidly, there are reasons to feel relatively optimistic about the health of Oklahoma’s UI Trust Fund. As this recent Tulsa World article explained, a report by the investigative journalism organization ProPublica rated Oklahoma’s Trust Fund solvent and not in danger of running out of funds to pay benefits over the course of the downturn. By contrast, 25 states have already run out of funds and been forced to borrow from the federal government, while another nine states are likely headed for depletion within six months, according to ProPublica’s analysis.

The optimism assessment for Oklahoma is due both to the Fund’s current balance and to Oklahoma law which provides for a self-correcting funding mechanism known as conditional factors. Conditional factors serve automatically to raise employer UI contributions and to reduce worker benefits when the Fund’s balance drops.  Oklahoma is not in conditional factors in 2010, but according to the OESC staffer I spoke with, in 2011 we are likely to be in the highest or most severe conditional factor, Condition D.  This table explains how employer contributions and worker benefits change in different conditions.This shift into conditional factors in 2011 will have a genuine impact on businesses faced with higher taxes and the unemployed facing reduced benefits.  At the same time, if the state economy is recovering as expected in 2011, there will be fewer unemployed workers affected and businesses will be better able to absorb the increase in UI payments than had these changes taken effect this year.

It’s worth pointing out that Oklahoma avoided shifting into conditional factors in 2010, with the downturn still at or near its peak, in large part because the Legislature last session passed legislation that made the state eligible for an additional $75.9 million in federal dollars for unemployment benefits. As we discussed in this issue brief, these funds were part of last year’s federal Recovery Act and were contingent on Oklahoma approving modest and worthwhile eligibility expansions for Unemployment Insurance that allow the program to serve more part-time workers and workers laid off due to compelling family circumstances. Some states balked at adopting the changes required by Congress to be eligible for the funds, but after some hesitation by the Legislature, Oklahoma got on board by passing SB 1175. The state received its full $75.9 million unemployment modernization payment in late June, bolstering the Trust Fund’s balance enough to avert triggering conditional factors this year.

With high levels of unemployment expected to persist at least through 2010, keeping unemployment benefits flowing to workers unable to find work should remain a priority. Ensuring that extended federal UI benefits are kept in place is one of the urgent goals of the jobs bill currently before Congress, along with continuing to allow laid-off workers to reatin their health insurance. But whatever Congress decides to do, Oklahomans can feel reassured that the state’s funding system for those without jobs is working as intended.

We may never have expected to see the day when the announcement that monthly revenue collections had come in 16.7 percent below the prior year and 20.8 percent below the certified estimate would be taken as good news. But after the pummeling that revenue collections have suffered over the past 12 months,Treasurer Scott Meacham may be forgiven for putting a positive spin on January collections that were announced Tuesday:

Meacham said January’s numbers are somewhat encouraging, even though they remain below prior year collections and the official estimate.

“We’re not out of the woods yet, but we are seeing some positive movement,” he said.

Unfortunately, we can’t share the Treasurer’s optimism. It is true that compared to the last 12 months, January’s collections came up considerably less short compared to prior year numbers and to the certified estimate. But the improved performance compared to the same month last year (January 2009) reflects that we are now a full year into the revenue downturn, which means that comparisons are to a deflated base.  Meanwhile, the improved performance compared to the estimate is largely due to gross production tax estimates for January being only $12.8 million, compared to an average estimate for the first six months of the year of $54 million. If January’s gross production tax revenues had been estimated at the same amount as December’s estimate ($45.4 million), January’s collections would have been 27 percent below the estimate, along the lines of previous months.

In order to control for some of these factors, we pulled together the data comparing monthly revenue collections for each of the past 19 months to the average collections for the same month over the five previous years.

January’s collections of $410.4 million were just 77.0 percent of the average of $531.2 million over the five years between FY ‘04 – FY ‘09. By this measure, January actually stands as the second worst month of the downturn behind only September 2009 (76.5 percent), faring slightly worse than the three prior months.

There is no single definitive way to interpret these numbers. But all who were holding their breath in hopes that January’s collections would provide a clear signal that the long-awaited revenue recovery is now clearly underway must keep waiting to exhale.

Just before the start of the Legislative session, Governor Henry announced that he had reached an agreement with Speaker Benge and President Pro Tem Coffee on the FY ‘10 budget.  Faced with projected mid-year revenue shortfalls of slightly more than $800 million, the leaders agreed that agency appropriations from the General Revenue Fund would continue to be cut by 10 percent for the remaining months of the year, with supplemental funding made available to certain agencies (Common Ed, Higher Ed, Health Care Authority, Corrections and Rehab Services) to mitigate the extent of cuts.

However, as we noted at the time, the announcement left a key question unanswered:

Given projected shortfalls of $809 million and cuts of $295.5 million, the question that still needs to be sorted out is where exactly the $513.5 million in additional revenue needed to bring the FY ‘10 budget into balance will come from.

Speaker Benge was quoted at the time as saying that the agreement would leave over half the $597 million in the state Rainy Day Fund unspent in FY ‘10. However, when the Governor’s budget was released last week, it included $485.6 million from the Rainy Day Fund – or over 80 percent of the total balance – to make up for shortfalls in the FY ‘10 budget. The remainder of the FY ‘10 shortfall (which is likely closer to $545 million in total) would be filled with surplus oil revenues and transfers from agency balances.

When asked about this, Speaker Benge downplayed the discrepancy:

“I don’t think it’s an agreement breaker,” Benge said. “We can continue forward. We will use (federal) stimulus money for the balance. I think it will work out just fine.”

To my mind, what this uncertainty reveals is that this year’s budget cannot be fully resolved until there is a deal on next year’s budget.  The budget negotiators are looking at a total pool of potentially available funds – including state tax revenues, federal stimulus dollars, reserve funds, and possible new revenues from other sources – that need to be stretched to cover the remaining months of FY ‘10 and all of FY ‘11.  Revenue decisions will also be closely linked to decisions about how deeply to cut agency budgets in FY ‘11. Until  the whole picture is drawn at least in outline, it doesn’t seem like there can be agreement on the size of each of the parts or how they fit together.

Yup, it’s for sure going to be a bumpy ride.

The January-February issue of the Atlantic Monthly magazine features an excellent cover article by editor James Fallow weighing the question of whether America has entered a period of terminal decline. On the one hand, he suggests that the nation’s crucial comparative advantages, above all an unparalleled system of research universities and openness to talented immigrants from around the world, remain strong. He also believes that the U.S. can respond to challenges such as job losses, military threats, and globalization. Where he is far more pessimistic concerns the country’s rigid and unresponsive political system.  He writes:

What I have been calling “going to hell” really means a failure to adapt: increasing difficulty in focusing on issues beyond the immediate news cycle, and an increasing gap between the real challenges and opportunities of the time and our attention, resources, and best efforts.

One of the prime examples he quotes of the apparent inability to acknowledge and respond to pressing issues involves the declining state of  the nation’s physical infrastructure. It’s worth quoting him at length:

The American Society of Civil Engineers prepares a “report card” on the state of America’s infrastructure—roads, bridges, dams, etc. In the latest version, the overall “GPA” for the United States was D, and the cost of bringing all systems up to adequacy was estimated at $2.2 trillion over the next five years, or twice as much as is now budgeted by all levels of government. In 1988, the comparable study gave an overall grade of C, with many items getting B’s. Now, the very highest grade was for solid-waste systems, at C+, or “mediocre.” Roads, dams, hazardous-waste systems, school buildings, and public drinking water all received a D or D–. The average dam in the United States is 50 years old. “More than 26%, or one in four, of the nation’s bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete,” according to the latest report. Improving existing bridges would cost about $17 billion per year, or about twice as much as currently budgeted. Worn-out water systems leak away 20 gallons of fresh water per day for every American; replacing systems that are nearing the end of their useful life would cost $11 billion more annually than all levels of government now plan to spend. “Engineers don’t usually put things dramatically, but the alarm about infrastructure is real,” Stephen Flynn, of the Center for National Policy, told me. “Our forebears invested billions in these systems when they were relatively much poorer than we are. We won’t even pay to maintain them for our own use, let alone have anything to pass to our grandchildren.”

The decline of our public infrastructure – the roads and bridges, sewage systems, school buildings, etc. – threatens not just our material well-being, but our public health and security as well. As Fallows notes, the deterioration of our public structures stems from our growing unwillingness to raise the public dollars needed for basic maintenance and upkeep.  Whether we succeed in preserving a stable and functioning society hinges on if our political system proves able and willing to make the hard choices needed to pay for ongoing investment in our public structures.

Two years ago, Oklahoma Policy Institute was launched to provide timely and credible analysis of state policy issues that would help educate the state’s residents and guide public policy decisions.  We formed OK Policy to respond to the need for a results-oriented, analysis-driven organization that would gather data, develop proposals, and mobilize stakeholders to advance policies aimed at promoting fiscal responsibility, reducing poverty, and expanding economic opportunity.

The OK Policy board and executive team have spent some time over the past two months measuring our success against our goals.  As we review our accomplishments of the last two years, there is a great deal of which we are proud.  Through our issue briefs and fact sheets, public presentations, blog and other communications, we believe that we have established ourselves as a credible source of information and analysis in this state for a diverse set of audiences – from legislators and editorial boards to engaged advocates and ordinary Oklahomans attentive to policy debates. However, we have concluded that in the state’s current economic and legislative climate, our organization’s best use is to focus on policy analysis and research to help inform the public debate.  As a result, we have concluded that we will need to make changes to our organizational structure and our mission.

Over the last six weeks, Matt Guillory has been winding down his involvement with OK Policy. His last day with Oklahoma Policy Institute was January 29th. We are grateful to Matt for the hard work and vision he brought to getting us off the ground, and are very pleased that he will remain involved in our mission of helping position Oklahoma for success.

I have now assumed the position of OK Policy’s director, working from Tulsa with administrative and research assistance. We will continue to operate as a 501(c)(3) organization with a strong and committed Board of Directors.

Moving forward, we will focus our energies and resources on our core strength of providing information and analysis to a broad public audience on issues related primarily to state fiscal policy, as well as selected topics involving poverty and economic opportunity. Whereas in the past we have attempted, in part, to directly promote legislative change through advocacy and coalition-building, we will now concentrate more strictly on generating information and ideas that can be used by diverse constituencies in policy discussion and debates.

By narrowing our focus to what we do best, we feel OK Policy can be more effective and efficient with our available resources.  We will also seek to conduct project-based research for organizations and businesses on a contract basis as a way to provide our expertise to various groups and help elevate the public debate by combining efforts with organizations and sponsors whose public policy goals align with those of OK Policy.

Our commitment to continuing as an organization is based on the conviction expressed by many of you that our work as a source of trustworthy information and a voice for those of limited means is important to Oklahoma, especially during these times of economic hardships and fiscal disruptions. If you believe that what we do is valuable, we hope you will be willing to support OK Policy financially. You can click here to make a tax-deductible donation online through our secure server or send a check to Oklahoma Policy Institute, PO Box 14347, Tulsa, OK 74159-1347. If there are projects on which we may be able to partner, or if you’d like to contribute to our work through a guest blog submission or other efforts, please send me an e-mail (dblatt@okpolicy.org) or call me at (918) 794-3944.

Thanks for your continued interest in and support for OK Policy. I hope you’ll continue to follow us on the next stages of the journey!