Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on February 21, 2007, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-2008 Department of Human Services (Welfare) budget. This appropriates $4.504 billion in gross spending, compared to $4.468 billion, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006, and $4.454 billion proposed by Gov. Granholm (see Senate Bill 256). Of this, $1.252 billion will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2006-2007 amount of $1.197 billion; $3.107 billion is federal revenue; and $141 million is other from other taxes and fees levied in Michigan. Notably, the budget includes a proposal to outsource to nonprofit organizations some of the foster care and juvenile justice functions the department is responsible for. In addition to increasing program spending less than the governor recommends, each Senate budget would require departments to reduce administrative costs by 1.2 percent

The vote was 22 in favor, 16 opposed and 0 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 261 at Senate Journal 79)

Click here to view bill details.

This will will hurt the State of Michigan. Have we learned nothing fromt he past, privatizing state services hurts the economy, hurts the hard working individuals in the states of michigan and hurts the kids in which we are serving. It is my duty to protect kids and this bill if adopted will destroy our already fragile economy and the kids in which we work for!

Privatizing does not give incentive to REDUCE the number of kids in the program, to solve the underlying problem. For job security, they would keep the numbers UP.

I don't think our young citizens need to be forced to go in a CATHOLIC OR LUTHERAN group. That sounds fishy to me. I am strongly against this legislation. Let's think about this. It sounds flawed and people just trying to save a buck. Senate panel votes to privatize foster care, juvenile justice LANSING, Mich. -- A state Senate subcommittee voted Thursday to privatize more of Michigan's foster care and juvenile justice systems as a way to help balance next year's state budget. Republicans said the proposal would save $36 million in the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, while one Democrat said it would relinquish too much public oversight of critical programs. The Senate Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee voted to send the budget for the Department of Human Services to the full Appropriations Committee. Sen. Martha Scott, D-Highland Park, passed on the vote because of her opposition to privatizing more services. "We're not talking about privatizing government printing or custodial services," she said in a statement. "We're talking about kids, and we can't make mistakes." Subcommittee Chairman Bill Hardiman, R-Kentwood, said privatizing some services would help make government more efficient. "We can no longer afford to simply make small cuts, slowly whittling away state services," he said in a statement. "I realize change is difficult, but it is necessary." Public agencies would continue managing cases where children are living with relatives in unlicensed homes, according to Hardiman's office. Lutheran Social Services, Catholic Social Services and other private agencies would manage the remaining cases, though the state would oversee contracts with those providers. The Senate's proposed budget also would privatize juvenile justice facilities except the maximum-security W.J. Maxey Training School near Whitmore Lake. ___ The DHS budget bill is Senate Bill 232.

Won't it cost the state money when the civil rights groups get ahold of this one and SUE the state? Just because they are kids doesn't mean they don't have rights. Give me a break. Putting them in Catholic and Lutheran programs. Shame on you. Kids might know their rights, but I'll be sure to pass it on to civil rights groups. Some pretty SLICK legislation, here. 2007 Senate Bill 232 (Appropriations: 2007-2008 Department of Human Services (Welfare) budget ) [Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List] [Previous] [Next] Introduced by Sen. Bill Hardiman on February 21, 2007, to provide the “template” or “place holder” for a Senate Republican version of a Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Department of Social Services (Welfare) budget. This bill contains no appropriations, but may be amended at a later date to include them. Note: The governor's proposed budget is contained in Senate Bill 256, and is premised on the legislature adopting a 2 percent tax on services which along with other tax increases and a proposed reduction in business taxes represents a net tax hike of approximately $1 billion. Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on February 21, 2007.

just to save a buck! TRICKY, TRICKY!

Big time.

Not worth the money.

Kids deserve state servies NOT church services.

Bad move, Bill. Hey, that could be his new nickname. Bad Move, Bill.

lol

Day Care should only be provided (and paid for w/ taxpayer dollars) if the Welfare recipient is WORKING! And...if they're working why are they receiving Welfare?

I mean you don't have to put your kid in any church program just get off welfare and keep your kids out of trouble and you won't have to worry about it.I mean if your child is getting in trouble it seems you'd want them in whatever it takes to help them out and get them on the straiught and narrow.I bet half the church whiners on this board are also the same ones who use mission stores,salvation army,food progams at local churches,and ect.

I mean you don't have to put your kid in any church program just get off welfare and keep your kids out of trouble and you won't have to worry about it.I mean if your child is getting in trouble it seems you'd want them in whatever it takes to help them out and get them on the straiught and narrow.I bet half the church whiners on this board are also the same ones who use mission stores,salvation army,food progams at local churches,and ect.

Senator Patterson, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the amendments offered by Senator Scott to Senate Bill No. 232. Senator Patterson's statement is as follows: I concurred with the Governor's position on the earlier vote.

Senators Cherry and Scott, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 232 and moved that the statements they made during the discussion of the bill be printed as their reasons for voting "no." The motion prevailed. Senator Cherry's statement is as follows: I rise to voice my opposition to Senate Bill No. 232. There are so many reasons I'm voting "no." I don't know that I'll be able to talk about all of them. But the first is that privatization does not work. Privatization hasn't worked in other areas of government, and I don't think we should continue this experiment on children. There are examples across the board of the state contracting out work that has cost the state more money. Michigan experimented with a privatized prison in Baldwin. The result was the most expensive per-prisoner cost in the state. The 1997 privatization of the state's liquor distribution system cost taxpayers between $6 million and $15 million in lost revenue in that year alone. As a privatization pilot program, a three-year contract for road maintenance was awarded to ABC, even though its bid was nearly 30 percent higher than the MDOT engineering estimate. After that project failed to provide savings to the state, the contract was extended for another three years. A Senate Fiscal Agency report now indicates that the state paid ABC nearly twice what it would have cost had MDOT employees done the work. Production of the Michigan Natural Resources magazine was outsourced in a so-called revenue-generating contract. A private firm was supposed to pay the state $10,000 a month and maintain the magazine circulation at 100,000. The firm did not keep up its payments to the state, and the magazine circulation dropped dramatically and then shut down altogether. The private sector does not have a magic wand to reduce costs. Not every venture in this world is profitable, not monetarily, but that does not mean it is not worth doing. If we are considering this dangerous route, perhaps we would be better served to address the lack of revenue that is causing this debate. These companies are out to make a profit, and they will only put the children they are supposed to be protecting first if they make money doing so. That's not how I want my state making decisions about the welfare of children. In addition, this budget cuts childcare in this state dramatically, as was discussed by another Senator, and as we saw in the amendments that have occurred on General Orders, we've cut an additional $11 million at a time when we are also saying that counties will be restored. We are fooling ourselves and fooling county government. I think they will catch on. Once again, this is a budget that, as I said earlier, we have given away our responsibility to determine where cuts should be made. If you want to make cuts, you should be able to say where you want those cuts to be made. This budget does not do that. It is not a good budget for children. It's not a good budget for the state of Michigan, and I urge my colleagues to vote "no."

Senator Scott's statement is as follows: As the minority vice chair of the DHS subcommittee, I want say that I appreciate the good working relationship that the chair and I have had over the years. I admire and respect his commitment to his position as chair of this important committee. However, I rise to challenge the privatization of this budget bill. While its intent is cost savings, Senate Bill No. 232 would also come with a high cost. These foster care workers interact directly with more than 18,000 foster care children in the system. Our No. 1 goal is to give foster children the most stable living and learning environment possible. To change that person the child has come to trust or to change the school or to change the bed that the child sleeps in at night disrupts the life of the child significantly. Imagine how you would have felt at age 6 or 8 or 12 if you were taken from your parents and put in a stranger's home. You would have to adjust to a whole new family structure. You may have to go to a new school and make all new friends. Now imagine that. Just as you became comfortable in this new situation, someone deemed it more cost effective to move you again. It's another new home with another new family and yet another new school--maybe even apart from your brother and sister. Once or twice is traumatic, but five or six times can be devastating. How would it affect your school performance, your social skills, or your trust in adults or authority? This is the hidden cost of privatization. As we've seen in the recent past, children's lives are on the line. I recently witnessed a sign at a Capitol protest against this bill that said, "Children are more than money." This is not the time to experiment with untested and unproven strategies and fixes. Let us rather find solutions to improve the existing system that is already in place. This is neither the place nor the time to experiment, especially when the failure is the result in the lives of our precious children, our most vulnerable citizens.

Senator Gleason's statement is as follows: I served eight years on the Genesee County Board of Commissioners and I noticed that many obligations were passed down from the state of Michigan to the county. When I look at this math here today regarding this legislation, it looks like the possibility or the reality upon further review that we could be passing on to counties over a $10 million obligation where they would have oversight of the privatization of these facilities. It's troublesome enough when families have to deal with family members who have reached a stage in their lives where they are looking out and reaching out for a helping hand, and yet, we as a state will turn this obligation and the care of these Michigan citizens over to a private concern. If the state of Michigan is going to put a priority on our citizenship, we should put it on our most vulnerable citizens; those who will be affected by the privatization are such citizens. I would ask for a concurrence vote of "yes" in regard to this amendment. Two clear issues rise in this amendment and this legislation that we are trying to remedy with this amendment. One is the vulnerability of our youth and those who already have a compromised life and should rely on the state of Michigan for support; and also, again, the financial obligation that we're going to pass on to a lower level of government. There really isn't a state savings because we are going to be affecting the taxpayers. Whether it is a state obligation or a county obligation, there are still Michigan citizens who will take on the responsibility with their tax dollars. I ask for support of this amendment by the membership of the Senate.

Senator Hardiman's first statement is as follows: I rise to oppose the amendment. While I can appreciate the Senator's passion for children, I also have a passion for children. This bill will address a few things. One thing it will not do is it will not move kids from their foster homes. That is not part of this bill. It's the foster care workers who will change, but the change will bring about a few things: One, performance-based contracting which will help to improve quality; two, the use of national accrediting standards which will also help to assure quality which DHS is not accredited; third, it will draw more federal dollars which will help us to provide more services for more children. It's important that we move forward, so we do not continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. This bill will do that. It is compassionate in the way that it addresses the issues, and I believe it improves quality. I would ask for the body to turn down this amendment which would undo privatization. One more comment, we are already privatized in this state. My bill would provide more privatization for better quality and less cost. Senator Hardiman's second statement is as follows: I appreciate the Senator from the 2nd District and her sentiments on this issue. The Governor proposed reducing the billable hours as we have it reflected in the bill, and adopting the Scott amendment would add additional costs. I would ask that the body concur with the Governor's amendment on this item and defeat the Scott amendment. Senator Hardiman's third statement is as follows: I rise to oppose the amendment. The bill that is before you does provide for improved quality of service. I've already talked about national accreditation; I've already talked about performance-based contracting. We are already contracting the private organizations for these services. This only increases that. The argument that we're giving away our responsibility does not hold water. Finally, I'm looking at a document that shows some of the increased costs for public services, the rates that were published just very recently: a rise for Maxey Training School from $413 per day to $553 per day. You do the math, 365 days a year. Yes, we do want to provide excellent service. We're already doing that through using a variety of private providers, but we're doing that at a lower cost. I ask for the body to defeat this amendment. Senator Hardiman's fourth statement is as follows: I certainly appreciate the debate because this is a very important topic. I ask that my previous remarks and these remarks be printed in the Journal. My previous remarks spoke to the quality issues which this bill addresses. It's about quality and it's about improving the system for children. It is not about trying to be the same thing and end up with the same results. I've already made my statements, and I simply ask for this body to approve this bill and let us move our system forward in providing for children and families.

Senator Scott, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the conference report to Senate Bill No.232 and moved that the statement she made during the discussion of the bill be printed as her reasons for voting "no." The motion prevailed. Senator Scott's statement is as follows: I rise in opposition to this bill. It was just given to us at the last minute. I had no prior knowledge of this bill and I'm not sure that I've got the answers that I was looking for at the conference committee and I am concerned that we are privatizing. We're saying that we're saving money and that we're adding more, but I don't know where these people are going to be placed or will they be placed and the closing of these 80 beds at Maxey Training School and, yes, these are our most vulnerable citizens and that's why I am concerned about this budget. As you know, I always talk about the least of thee, so I want to make sure that I am doing the best for the least of thee. I am sure that we've had some privatization in that, but I'm not so sure if we are to privatize this amount at this time. I am going to be voting against this bill, but I do commend those who have worked on it, because they have worked on it for a long time, but unfortunately I was just there in conference and not a part of the discussions. I was not satisfied with all of the answers that I got on the questions I asked earlier so I will be voting against this bill.

Senator Hardiman's statement is as follows: I'm very pleased to present this conference committee report for the Department of Human Services budget for FY2008. It meets the target agreement of $1.3 billion GFGP and it achieves significant reform within the department with respect to foster care, adoption, and juvenile justice. Mr.President, first of all, the budget protects the vulnerable. No cuts to programs such as Child Protective Services and licensing, watching over vulnerable children and families. Secondly, the budget partners with those on assistance to help them move towards independence, no cuts to our welfare to work programs that we improved one year ago. In fact, the JET program has been expanded. Third, this budget provides new resources we need to move children out of the foster care system and into permanent families more quickly. We've waiting too long to take action, long enough to be brought into federal court. This bill will add adoption specialists to help reduce that backlog. Fourth, this budget restores funding which has been threatened by federal cutbacks in programs ranging from county friends of the court to domestic violence prevention to indigent burial to community based programs like our community action agencies and parenting county councils. Senate Bill No.232 makes the difference between these programs surviving or sinking. Next this budget continues the work of the Legislature in addressing core issues through funding of marriage and fatherhood programs. This budget does all of this, but more importantly, it reforms this department and refocuses the department. This budget means drawing on the resources of our community-based partners in foster care and adoption services and juvenile justices. Let me just give you an example, certainly in this budget the Maxie Training School has been affected. The medium security, there will be 80 positions that will be taking out the staffing for those, but there will have opportunity to move in other positions that have been created within this budget, other very needed positions to help license foster care homes, to help move harder to place children into adoption, to work in the local offices of DHS, to help reduce those very high staff to client ratios up to 500-to-1. We have used the money wisely. I ask for the body's approval of this conference committee report and I thank you for the time and would be happy to address questions later on.

Rep. Sheen, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: These budgets were based on income tax, sales tax and increased fees. I could not vote to increase taxes on Michigan's citizens or job providers at a time when so many have either lost jobs, faced failing businesses and otherwise tightened their belts and made cuts in their own budgets. Why should government be held at a different standard than everyone else in the state? Holding government harmless is elitist, disingenuous, and wrong. You did not send me to Lansing to preserve government spending to the detriment of its citizens and its job providers. The income tax increase of 12% (from 3.9% to 4.35%) and spreading a 6 % sales tax on many services and business-to-business transactions on top of all the other taxes does not benefit the state's economy or its citizens in any way. However, it does take more money out of people's paychecks and increase the cost of living. It drives up the cost of doing business and drives out more employers, increasing unemployment and making Michigan's problems worse. We might as well put a red flashing light at the state line warning businesses not to come here."