Published:
December 3, 2004
Publication:
[1]
Hartford Courant
By:
Op Ed by Thomas Ritter
[2]
Click here for the original article
When I was speaker of the House, I asked our nonpartisan staff to determine how much of our state budget was made up of items that would be considered preventive.
Because of the complexities of our budget process, it took almost a year to compile that report. The results were astounding - less than 2 percent of our budget goes to preventive programs.
We can do better. With a new legislative session around the corner, it is time to rethink our basic assumptions and create a preventive framework that:
1. Invests in the front end to decrease the long-term costs of prison, school failure, illness, student retention and special education.
2. Builds on the work of the State Prevention Council, created by the legislature in 2001 to identify key strategies and programs that promote health, education and strong families.
3. Enhances our state investment in proven programs that demonstrate cost-effectiveness.
It pays to invest in the front end. School readiness programs that serve more than 6,000 children ages 3 and 4 in 18 school districts saved significant tax dollars in decreased retention. A study of Bridgeport students who attended quality preschools shows fewer children repeating first grade, saving taxpayers more than $113,000. The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis has found that early childhood investments have a higher rate of return than spending on venture capital bonds, with public returns as high as 12 percent and combined public and private returns of 16 percent.
We can build on the work of the State Prevention Council, which has identified more than 90 programs that promote health, learning and parenting skills. Investment in pre-literacy skills and oral language development begins with well-trained teachers and programs that improve parenting skills. A child who cannot read by third grade will not catch up. At least one state, Indiana, uses the reading achievement levels of students in the third grade as a basis for projecting the number of future prison beds needed!
For example, professional visits to the homes of first-time parents can help new mothers and fathers develop parenting skills. In one study, high-risk families who received prenatal and home visitation services were 80 percent less likely to abuse or neglect their children. Home visitation costs about $3,000 per family. The cost of a child placed in foster care can be triple that amount.
After-school programs are another proven investment. Nearly half of all juvenile crime occurs in the after-school hours. Research found that students in after-school programs were more likely to stay in school, improve academically and benefit socially from the experience. The non-preventive alternatives, such as locking up more youths in the Connecticut Juvenile Training School at a staggering cost, are not fiscally sound. There are now 84 youths incarcerated, at a cost of $500,000 each. Do the math - a total "investment" of $42 million!
We should fund more and better child care for working families. The Department of Labor reports that the major reason for losing a job is lack of child care, yet the only program in Connecticut that helps low-income families pay for child care was cut by almost 40 percent, leaving 11,000 families without options. The state will end up paying for homeless shelters, more prisons and the cost of child neglect.
Change is not easy, but change is necessary if we are to meet our dual goals of giving all youngsters a chance and getting our budget under control. One way is for the legislature to earmark a percentage of its budget for preventive issues - let's say, 10 percent for the next biennial budget. Rather than being an increase in spending, legislators would have to offset the cost by reductions in the so-called "maintenance" side of the budget. The legislature has coped with cuts in its maintenance budget before, most notably when President Reagan bundled many federal programs into block grants, giving the states more authority to spend but less money. In Connecticut, state groups worked with each other to absorb the cuts rather than fighting for a share.
Obviously, tough decisions will need to be made, but unless the state begins a structural change toward prevention, we will be shortchanging our future and saddling future taxpayers with ever-swelling deficits.
Thomas D. Ritter, now a lawyer in Hartford, is a former Democratic speaker of the House.
[1]: http://www.ctnow.com
[2]: http://www.ctnow.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-ritter1203.artdec03,0,5571977.story