Building Community for a Stronger Texas: Texas Impact's Legislative Agenda 2011
Since 1973, Texas Impact has represented the religious social concerns of Texas’ interfaith community at the Texas Capitol. Faith groups including Christian denominational bodies, Jewish and Muslim social action groups, interfaith service networks, ministerial alliances, and local congregations depend on Texas Impact to make sure that the shared religious values of freedom, justice, and economic opportunity for all God’s children are part of Texas’ legislative deliberations.
Texas has made progress toward justice in the past generation, but we have a long way to go.
Texas has focused on promoting an economic climate that provides jobs, goods and services to meet human needs, but many Texans are left out and left behind. After years of shortsighted budgeting, Texas is struggling more than ever to maintain core public functions. And now, political polarization and an increasingly acrimonious rhetorical environment threaten to stifle robust discussion of the serious policy issues facing our state.
It’s time for a new approach.
Texas faith communities know that government is vital, but for public programs to be effective we need partnerships—between local communities and state programs, between concerned individuals and institutions, and between for-profit service providers and the charitable community. One of the best ways Texas can prepare for the future is to build working partnerships and ensure we are moving forward on a strong foundation, with an ethic of shared responsibility and a spirit of true community.
Texas Impact’s 2011 legislative agenda focuses on building community through four key principles:
Support Those Who Serve by adopting policies that increase the capacity of faith and community-based organizations to meet local needs.
Remove Roadblocks to Stability by providing information and targeted support to individuals and families.
Let the Sun Shine In by increasing transparency and public participation in state operations.
Make Programs Work Properly by increasing coordination, planning and evaluation.
The 82nd Texas Legislature faces serious challenges. Many Texans question whether there is any opportunity for progress in the near term around core needs like education, public safety, health care, and infrastructure.
Texas faith communities affirm that progress is always possible.
Good things can happen in 2011—it’s every Texan’s responsibility to ensure that they do.
Legislative Principles for a Stronger Community
Issue Areas:
- Implement a strong community-based enrollment program for public benefits
- Provide strong health insurance consumer assistance
- Improve usability of the state’s websites
- Stop diversion of energy assistance funds for low-income Texans
- Promote energy efficiency for charities to maximize local resources
- Strengthen Texas’ clean energy goals
- Coordinate energy efficiency and weatherization programs
- Enforce pollution prevention laws to protect Texans’ health
- Enact state budget transparency, accountability, and public participation reforms
- Enact revenue reforms to meet future needs
- Improve law enforcement transparency and set goals for the Texas Fusion Center
- Enact innocence protection reforms
- Establish a task force to examine Texas’ progress in community-oriented policing
-
Support local food initiatives like urban agriculture
-
Expand the Summer Food Service Program
-
Ease SNAP (Food Stamps) eligibility restrictions
-
Provide accountability for anti-obesity programs
Faith and Community-Based Initiative
- Level the playing field for small nonprofits, improve coordination of state programs with the nonprofit sector, and fund the Renewing Our Communities Account
- Resist bureaucratic immigration policies that result in employment, housing and other discrimination
- Don’t burden Texas’ essential public safety systems with immigration law enforcement
- Close the predatory lending loophole
Implement a strong community-based enrollment program for public benefits
Provide strong health insurance consumer assistance
Improve usability of the state’s websites
Stop diversion of energy assistance funds for low-income Texans
Implement a strong community-based enrollment program for public benefits
While there are many policy questions surrounding the scope and direction of public assistance programs, most people agree that existing programs should operate smoothly and provide reliable service to the Texans they are intended to benefit. Successful implementation of assistance programs such as CHIP, Medicaid and SNAP depends on an effective enrollment system. Local faith and community-based organizations can be a valuable part of such an enrollment system.
In the past, many Texans have not received assistance even though they were eligible, in part because of complex and inefficient enrollment processes. For example, about 63 percent of eligible Texans participate in the SNAP (Food Stamps) program and about 75 percent of eligible Texas children participate in Medicaid and CHIP, in both cases participation rates below the national average. Need will intensify in the future as additional Texans become eligible for various kinds of health insurance assistance through the Affordable Care Act.
The Texas Health and Human Services Commission has made great strides in improving its enrollment and eligibility processes, but the most revolutionary change will be when the agency rolls out its enhanced web-based application, which will move Texas from its antiquated, paper-based system to a modern, online application that is accessible from anywhere at any time. This system will increase productivity for state employees, but even more important, it will improve service to Texans who need help.
One of the most exciting aspects of the new web-based application system will be the new opportunity it provides for local faith and community-based organizations to assist those they serve to access public programs. While local volunteers will never take the place of state employees, their participation will provide valuable assistance both to their clients and the smooth and efficient operation of state programs. Local volunteers will not be able to determine eligibility for individuals, but they can ensure that applications for assistance are completed correctly, that questions are answered quickly and correctly, and that applicants understand paperwork and other requirements for enrollment.
The legislature should take steps to ensure that Texas gets the maximum benefit from the new web-based system. These steps include:
1. Providing a framework for volunteers to receive adequate training and certification, so that applicants can be confident they are receiving competent help.
2. Clarifying the limits of liability for individuals who provide assistance with the online system and for the organizations housing those volunteers.
Provide strong health insurance consumer assistance
Texas has one of the highest uninsured rates in the nation, with one in four Texans lacking coverage. There are many factors affecting Texas’ high uninsured rate, including factors beyond the state’s control. However, there are key actions the legislature can take to maximize the possibility that Texans will acquire health insurance.
With the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, employers and individuals in Texas, as in all states, will enjoy increased incentives to participate in the health insurance market. For example:
• Small Employer Tax Credits
To help small businesses shoulder the burden of providing health insurance coverage to their employees, the federal government is offering tax credits to certain small businesses who offer coverage. About 4 million small businesses throughout the country will benefit from this provision, including an estimated 223,000 Texas businesses.
• Prohibit “Rescission” (retroactive cancellation of health insurance)
Effective September 23, 2010, all insurance plans will be prohibited from rescinding, or cancelling, insurance policies when individuals get sick, except in proven cases of fraud.
• Pre-existing Condition Insurance Program
The Affordable Care Act sets up an insurance pool for uninsured adults (over age 19) who have pre-existing medical conditions, The Affordable Care Act also prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. The newly designed federal insurance pool, known as the Pre-Existing Conditions Insurance Plan (PCIP), allows previously uninsured individuals to obtain insurance and pay premium rates equal to standard market rates. By 2014, insurance companies will no longer be able to refuse coverage to those who have historically been considered un-insurable.
• Coverage for Young Adults
Beginning on September 23, 2010, insurance companies are required to permit children who do not have insurance through their employer to stay on their parents' insurance until they turn 26. This applies to all plans in the individual market, new employer plans, and existing employer plans, and applies to both unmarried and married children.
• Provide Free Preventive Care
New insurance plans begun on or after September 23, 2010, are required to include recommended preventative services without payment of a deductible, co-payment or coinsurance. For many Americans, this provision will allow access to important screenings and treatments that might have previously been cost-prohibitive.
It is in Texas’ best economic, public health and humanitarian interests to encourage Texans to take advantage of all the insurance information, products and assistance available to them. In the past, many Texans have gone without health insurance because basic information and consumer assistance were unavailable. Procedural issues such as delays, backlogs and erroneous denials have also prevented individuals and families from securing insurance.
Now is an opportune time for Texas to set ambitious goals for consumer health insurance assistance. The Texas Department of Insurance has received funding to implement a consumer assistance program under the ACA. At the same time, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission is undertaking improvements to its eligibility determination system. Sunset review of the Texas Department of Information Resources offers the opportunity to consider how well designed online systems can support consumer choice and efficient program administration.
To ensure that Texans get the best benefit of all the health insurance options available to them in the private and public sectors, legislators should take the following steps:
1. Insist on a consumer assistance system that helps personnel to direct applicants to services and programs that they are eligible for and that would best serve their needs. This approach would allow agencies to share appropriate information during the application process, and would thus streamline the process of applying for social service assistance in order to provide the quickest, most efficient and most cost effective services to Texans.
2. Require that systems that help Texans purchase and enroll in private or public health insurance coverage be culturally inclusive, consumer friendly, and fully integrated to eliminate delays or coverage gaps. This will almost certainly require partnerships between state agencies, non-profits and other organizations that understand the insurance and community landscape and can provide outreach, information, and assistance to Texans in a linguistically and culturally appropriate manner.
3. Enact legislation to enable the Texas Department of Insurance and the Texas Health and Human Services Commission to fulfill their consumer protection duties under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This includes providing that these agencies maintain adequate staffing and funding so that they can effectively carry out their mission as it relates to serving and protecting Texas insurance consumers.
Improve usability of the state’s websites
Increasingly, the public utilizes the internet as a first point of contact and information gathering, as they seek to obtain services or information on a daily basis. National survey results from the Pew Internet and American Life Project shows that 79 percent of American adults use the internet, with high penetration (over 70 percent) among blacks and Hispanics. The same survey reported that around 67 percent of adults use the internet to visit local, state, or federal websites, which is a higher number than those who make travel reservations online or utilize social networking websites.
For state agencies, the internet can provide a way to extend often-limited staff resources. For the public, the internet can offer 24-hour service and convenience in activities ranging from making reservations at state parks and renewing drivers’ licenses to applying for public assistance and searching for employment. However, without thoughtful planning and attention to issues of “usability,” increased reliance on the internet for key programs and services can also lead to confusion and exacerbate disparities. Government websites are also key in providing transparency and accountability for spending and program implementation.
According to the Texas Government Code, the Texas Department of Information Resources exists to coordinate and direct the use of information resources technologies by state agencies and to provide as soon as possible the most cost-effective and useful retrieval and exchange of information within and among the various agencies and branches of state government and from the agencies and branches of state government to the residents of this state and their elected representatives.
The federal Interagency Committee on Government Information maintains a list of recommendations for government websites. These recommendations range from maintenance and accuracy, to standards for plain language and consistency, simplification, accuracy, and unification of information. These standards are listed and maintained at USA.gov. Also on this website is a listing of best practices of state governments in establishing and maintaining usable websites. The list highlights states with best practices in website usability, so that their various features can be compared side-by-side. For example, Arizona and Alabama have both rolled their state websites into user-friendly ‘.gov’ sites, combining user services with other pertinent information under one hub.
To ensure that Texas state government websites meet Texans’ needs, legislators should adopt the following strategies:
1. Require the Texas Department of Information Resources to adopt rules, guidelines and templates regarding the identification of key information each state agency shall place on the home page to its website, the standardization of web page locations and headings for key information each state agency is required to post on its web site, and the development of user-centered design involving state agencies’ web sites.
2. Direct DIR to establish a workgroup made up of internet users and state agency staff members representing a spectrum of internet users including low income consumers, the disabled community, individuals who act as navigators of state services for others, users who represent professionals or other individuals involved in proceedings before the agency, and professionals or other individuals who use state agency data for research and reports.
3. Require state agencies to make available on their websites all of their state business including all filings, reports, publications, and archived documents received by or produced by or for the agencies.
4. Require state agencies to make electronic services available for all forms, filings, and other interactions between state agencies and the public, and move away from paper and fax communication as this is neither the most cost effective nor most efficient method of communication.
5. Require DIR to develop and implement a user survey to be randomly conducted on agency websites on an annual basis for the purpose of measuring and benchmarking transparency on agency web sites.
6. Establish a committee on Emerging and Changing Technology to ensure state government’s communication with its citizens is done using media commensurate with emerging electronic technologies.
Stop diversion of energy assistance funds for low-income Texans
Millions of Texans are in poverty or low income, and thus would benefit greatly from a discount to their energy bills. A Weatherization Assistance Program eligible Texas household could pay as much as 12 percent of their annual income for home energy costs, while for a non-eligible household, that percentage would be much lower, at under 4 percent. The percentage of Texans in poverty is consistently rising, with Census reports placing the estimate at 17.1 percent of Texans and 24.3 percent of Texas children living in poverty, compared to 14.3 and 20 percent, respectively, of the U.S. population.
The System Benefit Fund (SBF) was originally created in 1999 as part of Texas’ electric utility deregulation, and is a trust fund administered by the Public Utility Commission to help low-income Texans with their electricity bills through discounts, weatherization programs, and educational outreach. This utility assistance program, along with other statewide programs, helps to decrease energy costs for all Texas consumers by decreasing energy demand in the state and minimizing the shared burden of uncompensated energy bills. In addition, weatherization creates healthier living environments, and makes homes more affordable. The program targets the elderly, families with young children, and others whose health makes them more susceptible to the state’s temperature extremes. According to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, on average, there are over 14,000 households on weatherization waiting lists statewide.
Unfortunately, since 2003 much of the fund balance in the SBF has been diverted and used to balance other areas of the state budget, rather than providing the direct aid to Texas families that ratepayers believe they are supporting. The SBF is financed through a maximum charge of 65¢ per megawatt hour of electricity, or about $9.75 annually for a typical Texas residential electric customer. According to the Legislative Budget Board, the estimated balance in the SBF during BY 2010-2011 was $257.8 million. The System Benefit Account’s earmarked Low-Income Discount Program was appropriated $119.6 million in fiscal year 2010 and $132.3 million in fiscal year 2011, and provides a discount of up to 17 percent on electric bills during the months of May through September to low-income customers.
To improve assistance to needy Texans and improve transparency and accountability in state budgeting, the legislature should convert the SBF to a dedicated account that can only be used for its statutory purpose: helping low-income, elderly, disabled and critically ill Texans with electricity bills through the hot summer months and offering weatherization assistance to make their homes more energy-efficient.
Promote energy efficiency for charities to maximize local resources
Strengthen Texas’ clean energy goals
Coordinate energy efficiency and weatherization programs
Enforce pollution prevention laws to protect Texans’ health
Promote energy efficiency for charities to maximize local resources
While there are numerous incentives for residential and commercial consumers to undertake energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, the most potent incentives are not available to the nonprofit sector, including houses of worship. Because they do not pay taxes, religious facilities cannot benefit from the tax-based incentives that are the foundation of most energy efficiency and renewable energy opportunities.
Houses of worship are significant energy users. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, if America’s more than 370,000 houses of worship cut energy use by 10 percent…
• Nearly $315 million would be saved for congregations’ missions and other priorities.
• More than 1.8 billion kWh of electricity would be available without additional cost and pollution.
• More than 1.3 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions would be prevented, equivalent to the emissions of about 240,000 cars, or to planting nearly 300,000 acres of trees.
Congregations face more challenges than other small commercial energy users in financing efficiency and renewable projects. In addition to their inability to leverage tax credits, congregations do not have easy access to capital to make the upfront investment in efficiency that will generate savings in the long run. Many congregations that would most benefit from efficiency and the related savings are small and their members are not wealthy, so generating the upfront costs through donations is challenging.
Yet houses of worship are among the most strategic areas for investment in energy efficiency for several reasons. First, as the EPA notes, they are significant energy users, and often have unique features such as vaulted ceilings, large expanses of glass, and antiquated heating and cooling systems that exacerbate their demand on the grid. Second, and even more important, houses of worship provide benefit to the larger community through mission and service. At a time when state programs are cutting back, local communities will look to faith groups to increase their services. Saving the average small business money on their electric bill increases profits, but saving congregations money on their electric bills increases the resources available for ministries such as food assistance, low-income childcare, support for individuals suffering with addiction, and more. Finally, houses of worship are visible symbols in their communities and help to influence public perception—energy efficiency and renewable improvements in congregational facilities educate congregation members and others and encourage individual action.
The State Energy Conservation Office (SECO) administers a low-interest loan program, LOAN Star. Under current law, SECO may only lend LOAN Star funds to governmental entities. Some other states with similar loan programs have made those programs available to nonprofits. LOAN Star funds could be used to leverage other energy efficiency programs congregations can access such as TDU programs and loan programs administered by denominations.
To promote energy efficiency in houses of worship, the legislature should authorize SECO to allocate a portion of LOAN Star funds to a loan program or other incentive program for congregations, and direct SECO to develop such a program in collaboration with other agencies and interested parties.
Strengthen Texas’ clean energy goals
Texas has been a leader in the development of renewable energy in larger part thanks to the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that the legislature established in 1999. The RPS set a target for production of electricity from clean, safe, renewable sources such as wind and solar. The RPS has served as a model for other states and has helped Texas become the number one wind power generator in the U.S.
The RPS proved to be such a successful incentive for renewable power development that Texas achieved its goal ahead of schedule. The original RPS established a goal of 2,000 megawatts of renewable power by 2009. That goal was revised in 2005, to 5,880 megawatts by 2015, which has already been achieved.
For Texas to remain a renewable energy leader, our renewable power goal should grow along with demand for electricity. The legislature should change the RPS measurement from megawatts of installed capacity to a percentage of overall generation within a target year, so that the RPS can keep pace with increasing electric demand in Texas.
Coordinate energy efficiency and weatherization programs
Energy efficiency allows us to use less energy while getting the same results. Increasing energy efficiency saves consumers money on electric bills, decreases the overall load on the grid during peak hours when energy is the most expensive to produce, and reduces air pollution emissions from power plants.
Texans benefit from a number of energy efficiency programs, some operated by state agencies and some provided by utility companies. Texas requires the state’s nine investor-owned transmission and distribution utilities (TDUs) to offset 20 percent of their expected growth in demand for electricity through energy efficiency initiatives. Energy efficiency programs in Texas are funded primarily through assessments on utility ratepayers and federal funds; virtually no state general revenue is allocated for energy efficiency.
Although the state has robust energy efficiency goals and a variety of programs to meet those goals, the programs are uncoordinated and inefficient. Programs are scattered across several state agencies: the State Energy Conservation Office (SECO) implements efficiency in government buildings; the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) administers the federally funded low-income weatherization program; the Public Utility Commission oversees the mandated programs of the TDUs; municipal and cooperative electric companies are responsible for their own programs; and building code implementation involves SECO, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and the Energy Systems Laboratory at Texas A&M University.
Housing energy efficiency responsibilities in more than one state agency is not necessarily poor policy, but currently it is leading to fragmentation, duplication and inefficient use of scarce resources. A perfect case in point is the low-income weatherization assistance program funded through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. The Act provided more than $325 million to Texas for weatherization, but Texas had no structure in place to ensure that the weatherization program coordinated with locally available efficiency programs or benefitted from the expertise of other efforts targeting low-income communities. The TDUs’ hard-to-reach customer standard offer programs and SECO's Housing Partnership Program would have been valuable complements to TDHCA’s weatherization program.
In addition to lack of coordination, Texas’ efficiency programs currently suffer from inadequate measurement and evaluation tools. Some policymakers and consumers lack confidence that energy efficiency delivers all the savings it promises because data on savings—in energy, dollars, and harmful emissions—is not readily available, easily understandable, and sufficiently credible.
The need for objective data showing real results is particularly important because the TDUs’ efficiency programs are funded through fees assessed on ratepayers. It is appropriate for ratepayers to invest in efficiency strategies that will ultimately reduce the need for new electric generation and save consumers money. Although this strategy is an effective way to generate funds to make efficiency improvements, however, it is regressive since all ratepayers pay the same fee each month, regardless of income, energy use, or expected eventual savings from system-wide efficiency.
To ensure that Texans reap the maximum benefit from the state’s energy efficiency programs, the legislature should take the following steps:
1. Create an energy efficiency coordinating council to implement a statewide plan and coordinate the efficiency work of agencies and other interested parties.
2. Create a one-stop shop for residential and commercial consumers to navigate the array of market-based efficiency programs.
3. Establish a framework for more robust measurement and evaluation of energy efficiency outcomes that factors in societal costs such as health impacts of air pollution.
4. Ensure that low-income Texans are not asked to shoulder disproportionate burden for programs that benefit all consumers.
Enforce pollution prevention laws to protect Texans’ health
Texas’ pollution prevention laws are necessary to protect Texans’ health and safeguard our natural resources. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality acts to prevent pollution through its permitting and enforcement processes. The agency is responsible for issuing permits to businesses that expect to produce pollution, setting parameters for the amount, type and duration of the permitted pollution. If a business oversteps its permission to pollute, TCEQ is responsible for imposing fines or otherwise acting to curtail the out-of-bounds activity.
TCEQ faces conflicting pressures in carrying out its pollution prevention activities. While the agency’s responsibilities and programs address human health and environmental concerns, its decisions are essentially economic, with consequences for jobs, profits and products that Texans depend on.
To ensure that TCEQ can protect human health and Texas’ natural resources effectively, the legislature should take the following steps:
1. Give TCEQ a statutory mission statement clarifying that protection of public health and the environment is its top priority.
2. Clarify in law that TCEQ has discretion to deny permits when it is in the public interest.
3. Require TCEQ to exercise its authority to consider cumulative impacts of proposed new or expanded permits.
4. Give TCEQ the authority to issue multiple fines for multiple pollutants released in a single event.
5. Direct TCEQ to set penalties that accurately reflect the harm done to public health and the environment.
6. Direct TCEQ to expand the public’s opportunity to participate in agency decisions.
Enact state budget transparency, accountability, and public participation reforms
Enact revenue reforms to meet future needs
Enact state budget transparency, accountability, and public participation reforms
The budget is a primary moral document of the state. It describes our truest priorities: the Constitution and statutes say what we wish we would do; the budget says what we will do.
Texas’ current budget crisis reflects not only the economic realities of the moment, but the erosion of our state’s budget processes over a period of several legislative sessions. Lack of transparency, masking of systemic problems with short-term fixes, and artificial limits on public participation all have contributed to an environment of distrust and a pervasive perception of scarcity that generates discord and hampers decision-making.
Saddest of all, the failure of the state’s budget processes leaves many Texans skeptical of legislators’ ability to deliver effective programs and services, and doubtful of the value of government. Taxpayers are resentful of being required to bear financial responsibility for decisions in which they feel powerless or uninformed.
The legislature should reform and restore Texas’ budget processes by increasing the accountability of state leaders most responsible for the state’s fiscal and budget decisions; requiring most phases of the budget development process to be carried out in view of the public; and encouraging public participation by adopting longer timeframes for key points in the budget process. Specifically, the legislature should require the following:
1. Require all documents related to the budget to be published on the LBB website in manipulable formats.
2. Require all meetings and documents associated with the development of the LBB base budget to be accessible to the public during the budget development process, including staff-level meetings and work papers.
3. Require the Conference Committee report on the budget and related summaries and comparison documents to lay out in public for at least five days.
4. Require the Comptroller of Public Accounts to issue updated revenue estimates quarterly.
5. Require the Legislative Budget Board to hold quarterly physical meetings to receive the Comptroller’s revenue estimate, review budget issues, and take public testimony.
Enact revenue reforms to meet future needs
In the 82nd Legislature, Texas will face between a $10 and $25 billion revenue shortfall. This means that the state has between $10 and $25 billion less than it needs to maintain current services. In the current biennium, state agencies, universities and courts have had to cut their budgets by 7.5 percent and more cuts are expected in the upcoming biennium. However, Texas already ranks 50th among the states in per capita expenditures. Any cuts to our already weak social services will only hurt vulnerable Texans, while cuts to education will jeopardize Texas’ future economic prosperity as well as shortchanging the next generation.
Texas’ tax structure is out-dated and provides insufficient revenue for our growing needs. Texas’ primary tax is the state sales tax, which brings in about 25 percent of all revenue and funds more than half of the state’s general operating budget. However, there are many problems with heavy reliance on a sales tax. First, sales taxes are more sensitive to economic fluctuations than are other taxes. This is particularly evident during the current recession, as sales taxes collections for FY 2010 were down about 6 percent from expected4. Also, sales taxes were first adopted in Texas when the economy was more dependent upon manufacturing and goods. Now, Texas’ economy is more heavily dependent on the service sector, which is not subject to a sales tax. Therefore, the sales tax is not as strong as it once was. Finally, the sales tax is regressive, disproportionately burdening low-income Texans.
In addition to the long-term structural insufficiency of Texas’ sale tax-based revenue model, changes to the franchise tax and property tax cuts in 2006 created a new “structural deficit” in which the state is obligated to provide funding to local school districts at a level that has been shown to be unsustainable even in more prosperous years. The property tax, while less regressive than the sales tax, still disproportionately impacts low-income Texans.
Texas tax revenue is not sufficient to fund the state’s current commitments. Legislators can only make so many reductions in funding before the fundamental landscape of infrastructure, public safety, education and health care are altered substantively. The state’s growing population only intensifies need: Texas has added 4 million people since 20003.
To meet Texas’ future needs, legislators should undertake serious revenue reform that eliminates and “structural deficits” and other ongoing mismatches in anticipated revenues and obligations that would threaten core state programs in future years.
Improve law enforcement transparency and set goals for the Texas Fusion Center
Enact innocence protection reforms
Establish a task force to examine Texas’ progress in community-oriented policing
Improve law enforcement transparency and set goals for the Texas Fusion Center
The Texas Fusion Center is the centerpiece in establishing and managing statewide intelligence capability. Like fusion centers in other states and regional jurisdictions in Texas, the state fusion center facilitates the sharing of law enforcement intelligence between jurisdictions at the local, state and federal level. The Texas Department of Public Safety established the Texas Fusion Center in 2003 with state funds, using existing personnel and facilities, with additional personnel supplemented through agreements with other local, state, and federal agencies.
Because of the Fusion Center’s prominent position in Texas’ law enforcement intelligence infrastructure, it is imperative that the Fusion Center be addressed more prominently in the state’s appropriations, auditing, and Sunset processes.
Currently, the Fusion Center has no specific performance measures or line item designation in the state budget. Performance measures exist to allow an agency to show that its various components are utilizing their appropriated funds in the most efficient and effective manner possible. A clear appropriation line item and concrete performance measures for the fusion center would help solidify the value of the unit to the State, would allow for more transparent funding of the Department of Public Safety, and would provide an accountability source for the fusion center.
With increased reliance on intelligence sharing among law enforcement agencies and the “pre-emptive law enforcement” environment created by post-September 11 homeland security policies, standards for civil liberties protections are at risk of being jeopardized. Fusion centers in Texas and around the nation have misused or abused intelligence data, putting civilians in danger of being profiled or discriminated against for religious or social affiliations. Because of the danger of such occurrences, law enforcement and public safety entities of this magnitude require open discussion and the implementation of robust oversight and accountability standards.
Community-based oversight of the fusion center could diminish the risk of this kind of poor outcome by bringing a measure of transparency and accountability to the fusion center outside the realm of the established law enforcement structure. Community support is a vital component of achieving a sound national security environment, and committees that oversee the fusion centers and the Department of Public Safety should be expanded to include elements of community participation.
By coordinating citizens and law enforcement and public safety officials, a policy oversight council would serve as an effective audit body, helping to ensure that Texas’ intelligence architecture maintains compliance with both state and federal statute.
To bring accountability and transparency to the Texas Fusion Center, the legislature should:
1. Direct DPS, in cooperation with the Legislative Budget Board, to provide the fusion center a unique line item in the General Appropriations Act, and also to delineate clear, meaningful performance measures for the fusion center’s operations.
2. Direct DPS to establish a citizen advisory committee to monitor the fusion center’s operations. The committee should include important standards of diversity including racial, economic, geographic, religious and political.
Enact innocence protection reforms
Texas accounts for more than 50 percent of executions in the United States. Capital convictions, however, are slowing dramatically. Statewide, only about 50 inmates have been sentenced to death since the passage of life without parole as a sentencing option in 2005. In contrast, from September 2001 to September 2005, 90 individuals were sentenced to death. Undoubtedly, this added sentencing option has had some effect, but a more important factor is the awareness of jurors of the flaws in our criminal justice system brought to light by the string of exonerations occurring over the past decade.
Forty-two Texans have been exonerated after proving their innocence by post-conviction DNA testing of evidence. These special “actual innocence” proceedings are not the overturning of a sentence on appeal. Rather, they place the burden on the litigant (post-conviction he is no longer a defendant) to show by clear and convincing evidence that is new and was unavailable at the time of trial that he is “actually innocent.” The advent of DNA technology created this unique opportunity to examine our criminal justice system. However, even today, the vast majority of convictions come from trials in which DNA evidence does not exist. Given that many trials today are conducted under exactly the same conditions that these exonerated cases, it is statistically certain, although an unknowable number, that innocent people sit behind bars. For this reason, it is imperative that the state not squander this once in a generation opportunity to objectively reevaluate criminal justice procedures.
During the 81st Legislative Session, the Legislature passed HB 498, which establishes the Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions. The Advisory Panel was named after the first Texan to be posthumously exonerated of a crime through DNA testing. The Advisory Panel was directed to advise the Task Force on Indigent Defense in preparing a study regarding the causes of wrongful convictions and to make recommendations to prevent future wrongful convictions. The Advisory Panel addressed eyewitness identification procedures, the recording of custodial interrogations, open discovery policies, post-conviction procedures, and the feasibility of creating an innocence commission to investigate wrongful convictions.
Texas owes its citizens a duty to protect them by using the best criminal justice procedures possible to convict the guilty and protect the innocent from wrongful conviction and execution. To increase the accuracy of convictions in capital and non-capital trials, the legislature should:
1. Create an Innocence Commission to coordinate the work of innocence projects that receive state funding and utilize their expertise to inform annual reports that are presented to executive and legislative policy makers as well as solicit input from other innocence projects, interested bar associations, judicial entities, law enforcement agencies, prosecutor associations and advocacy organizations.
2. Reform eyewitness identification procedures by requiring the Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas (LEMIT) to work with scientific experts in eyewitness research to develop a model policy and training materials regarding the administration of photo and live lineups. The legislature should then require all law enforcement agencies to adopt and comply with the model policy, and allow evidence of compliance or noncompliance with the model policy to be admissible in court.
3. Adopt a mandatory electronic recording policy for custodial interrogations in felony crimes.
4. Adopt a mandatory statewide discovery policy that requires electronic or photocopy access to materials.
5. Amend Post-Conviction Proceedings to allow for a Chapter 11 writ of habeas corpus based on changing scientific evidence and amend Chapter 64 to allow for a motion for post-conviction DNA testing of any previously untested biological evidence or evidence tested using older, less accurate methods.
Establish a task force to examine Texas’ progress in community-oriented policing
Community-Oriented Policing is a philosophy of policing that involves strategic engagement between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve. An engaged law enforcement can create partnerships with the individuals, organizations, and establishments they serve in order to create real solutions to problems and develop strategic and effective solutions to crime.
For the past few decades, intelligence-led policing strategies have been adopted into traditional law enforcement practice. Intelligence-led policing investigation methods call for strategic and targeted analysis and future-oriented problem and risk management. As this style of policing becomes commonplace around the state, it will become increasingly important for law enforcement agencies to maintain citizen accountability and careful, measured citizen engagement.
While security concerns fuel changes in law enforcement and public safety philosophies at the state and local level, these changes should be carried out only after an open discussion and the implementation of robust oversight and accountability standards.
Texas received COPS Hiring Recovery Program funding from the Department of Justice as part of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Stimulus funds. The state of Texas received 31 grants to cities and law enforcement entities, and was awarded $36,898,579 in total, with individual grant awards ranging from $114,000 to $10 million. As a result of these grants, 193 new jobs were created and 3 jobs were kept from being eliminated around the state. These funds were directed to locations in need, and with recognized community policing activities. As a follow up to the CHRP, lawmakers should do analysis to measure the effectiveness of CHRP and recommend that similar procedures be replicated in municipalities across the state.
Lawmakers should require local law enforcement entities to create cultural competencies and find ways to seek understanding and build trust across barriers of language, race, or creed, in order to ensure that all Texans are being policed fairly, and do not face discrimination from their law enforcement body.
To allow Texans to participate in protecting their homes, their neighbors, and their communities, lawmakers should encourage law enforcement departments to establish citizen oversight panels and opportunities for public forums, community engagement activities, and openness of records and methodology.
Texas lawmakers should strengthen and support this all-important public safety strategy by ensuring that patterns of funding and authority are clearly delineated and allow law enforcement entities who partner with community individuals and entities to maximize their crime-fighting resources.
Support local food initiatives like urban agriculture
Expand the Summer Food Service Program
Ease SNAP (Food Stamps) eligibility restrictions
Provide accountability for anti-obesity programs
Support local food initiatives like urban agriculture
Community gardens and other forms of urban food production provide potent strategies for encouraging local economic development and food independence while addressing several health and nutrition-related concerns facing Texas, including lack of access to affordable healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables; lack of robust local food systems; lack of opportunity for children to interact with nature; and lack of physical activity for many individuals.
According to the US Department of Agriculture, about 15 percent of the world’s food supply is now grown in urban areas. Around the country, community gardens and urban farms are growing rapidly, most recently encouraged by the White House vegetable garden.
Urban food production faces some barriers, however. Most significant are costs associated with operating nonprofit gardens to benefit low-income consumers. Most nonprofit organizations pay property taxes, which can be prohibitive for privately owned urban lots. In some locations, community gardens receive discounted water rates since they do not use wastewater services typically, but in other areas water prices can be an additional impediment.
While community gardening and urban farming are inherently local issues, the state can provide incentives to encourage momentum in local communities by providing recognition, incentives, and assistance. In particular, local option property tax incentives and partnership with the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) and the Texas AgriLIFE Extension Service could remove barriers and facilitate innovation.
To encourage the development of robust urban food production systems throughout Texas, the legislature should take the following steps:
1. Permit local jurisdictions to abate property taxes for community gardens that grow food primarily for distribution to low-income consumers.
2. Adjust the current agricultural property tax exemption to include small urban farms that can demonstrate meaningful agricultural activity.
3. Encourage TDA to provide recognition for local communities that provide tax and fee-based or other incentives to encourage local food production.
4. Require the Extension Service to assess the status of community gardening and urban farming in Texas including the number of acres of land under cultivation, availability and access to fresh food, the demographic characteristics of participants and beneficiaries, the interaction between urban farms and farmers’ markets, and other issues of interest.
Expand the Summer Food Service Program
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) is the single largest federal resource available for local organizations that want to combine a feeding program with a summer activity program for children. Unfortunately, according to the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA), only about 12 percent of the 2.3 million Texas kids who receive free or reduced, nutritionally balanced lunches at school each day under the National School Lunch Program, also receive nutrition from the SFSP during the summer. While funding is available, there simply are not enough sites, sponsors, and volunteers to reach everyone who is eligible. For one out of every four kids in Texas, summer can mean not knowing where their next meal will come from.
During the school year, nutritious meals are available for children through the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. But those programs end when school ends for the summer. SFSP helps fill the summer gap. A program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA), SFSP not only addresses the related issues of hunger and obesity, but also can provide safe access to nature and outdoor recreational opportunities to children who have limited parental supervision during the summer months.
Hunger, or more accurately inadequate nutrition, is one of the most severe roadblocks to the learning process. Children suffering from hunger and food insecurity are especially at risk of not performing to the best of their potential in school and other learning environments. Lack of nutrition during the summer months sets up a cycle for poor performance once school begins again. Hunger prevents children not only from performing well in school, but also from maintaining a healthy lifestyle—making them more prone to illness and other health issues.
Ironically, hunger is linked to obesity. Texas children not only are at risk for hunger, but also face one of the nation’s highest rates of obesity, with 42 percent of Texas fourth graders counted as obese. Often, the cheapest foods have the highest fat and calorie count and therefore, the least nutritional value. Texas children today are likely to be the first generation to have a shorter life expectancy than the generation before them. Poor nutrition is one of the main factors. While providing food is necessary, it is important to provide the right types of foods—and providing healthy foods is one of the top priorities of the summer food program.
Because SFSP happens while most schools are not in session, the program relies largely on faith and community-based organizations to provide sites and volunteers. However, schools in Texas are required to serve summer meals for part of the summer if more than60 percent of their students are eligible for free and reduced lunch during the school year. Districts can waive out of this requirement.
The state and community organizations face a number of barriers to maximizing SFSP participation for Texas kids. Some of these barriers are federal regulations that are more appropriate for smaller, more homogeneous states that don’t face Texas’ challenges and unique issues such as geographic diversity, rural populations, transportation, and extreme summer heat that prevents children from attending outdoor programs.
The legislature should help to maximize participation in Texas’ Summer Food Service Program by taking the following steps:
1. Require more school districts to serve summer meals by lowering the threshold for mandatory participation from 60 percent of students qualifying for free and reduced lunch to 50 percent.
2. Direct TDA to apply for a waiver from USDA to allow Texas to implement innovative strategies such as mobile feeding sites.
3. Direct TDA to implement a web-based application and enrollment process for community-based SFSP providers, and encourage the agency to adjust its program timeline to be in line with faith and community organizations planning calendars, and to provide time for additional recruitment and training activities in local communities.
4. Create a stakeholder advisory of community organizations and providers that have experience with implementing SFSP.
Ease SNAP (Food Stamps) eligibility restrictions
Under the federal rules governing the SNAP (food stamps) program, individuals who have been convicted of drug related felonies are banned for life from receiving SNAP assistance. However, under the federal rules states may opt out of or modify the ban through state legislation. Texas is one of only 14 states that maintain the lifetime ban. Drug felons are the only felons subject to the ban.
It is counterintuitive on the state’s part to deny food assistance to individuals re-entering the community from prison. Ex-offenders return to the community with few or no resources, and may not be immediately employable. The public policy focus should be on integrating the ex-offender and encouraging them to become self-sufficient as quickly as possible. For this, they need adequate nutrition as well as the opportunity to maximize their existing resources.
Denying SNAP to parents also harms children. While children of ex-offenders are eligible for SNAP, the resources of the entire household are diminished if the parent is excluded from benefits.
SNAP is a fully federally funded program, so it would cost Texas nothing to lift or shorten the lifetime ban for drug felons. On the contrary, Mark Zandi of Moodys.com found that every $1 of food assistance generates $1.73 of economic activity.
The legislature should adopt legislation lifting the lifetime ban on SNAP benefits for drug felons.
Provide accountability for anti-obesity programs
According to the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) the cost of treating the rapidly rising rates of obesity in Texas will increase from $15.6 billion in 2010 to $39 billion by 2040. Texas has put into place several initiatives to address what has become one of our most expensive and urgent health crises, particularly for youth. However, budget reductions to programs such as health education and physical activity in schools may directly and negatively impact these health costs, particularly in underserved communities that rely on the resources of the local school.
Currently mandated programs in our public schools and communities such as the FitnessGram and School Health Advisory Committees (SHAC) can be enhanced to collect supporting information and increase program usefulness. The legislature should ensure that we maintain momentum, increase accountability and continue to support programs that work toward reducing obesity in Texas particularly among our youth by supporting initiatives such as:
1) Increasing the usefulness of FitnessGram data by requiring reporting of de-identifies, individual fitness data to TEA allowing the agency to accurately correlate fitness data with academic data, and make that data available to parents.
2) Implementing national standards for physical education including minutes per week, class size and certified teachers for grades K-12.
3) Prohibiting schools from withholding physical activity, PE or recess time as a consequence for classroom behavior or academic remediation.
4) Requiring that yearly SHAC reports to school boards include information on how campuses have incorporated coordinated school health into their campus improvement plans.
5) Recognizing schools that are meeting and exceeding minimum standards for implementing coordinated school health.
Faith and Community-Based Initiative
Level the playing field for small nonprofits, improve coordination of state programs with the nonprofit sector, and fund the Renewing Our Communities Account
Local faith and community-based organizations are valuable partners in state programs and services, not only for the most needy Texans but for entire communities, in areas such as public safety, education, health care, environmental protection, job training and beyond. For the partnership to be effective, however, local nonprofits must have the capacity to provide the services state programs expect, and state agencies must adopt a more strategic approach to facilitating the development of robust local nonprofit networks.
In 2009, House Bill 492 set forth a framework for improving partnerships between state programs and local faith and community-based organizations, including requiring state agencies to coordinate their work with the nonprofit community through an interagency coordinating group and establishing a small account to fund capacity-building activities for small and medium-sized nonprofits. Both of these initiatives have been successful. HB 492 also established a task force to recommend further strategies for improving partnerships between state programs and local nonprofits. The task force report includes a number of recommendations for strengthening nonprofit capacity in Texas as well as helpful background on the status of Texas’ nonprofit sector including the following information:
• There are nearly 68,000 501 (c)(3) nonprofit corporations in Texas, a number that has nearly doubled in the past decade. These organizations provide significant services in a wide range of areas, especially social services and education. More than 403,00 Texans work in nonprofits, accounting for 3.8 percent of Texas’ total workforce. Texas nonprofit sector employs more than six times as many workers as the state’s oil and gas extraction industry and 20 percent more than the state government.
• Most Texas nonprofits are small or medium-sized: in 2009, 92 percent had annual revenue less than $1 million; 87 percent had annual revenue less than $500,000; and 71 percent had annual revenue less than $100,000. Despite the small size of the average nonprofit in our state, however, Texas ranks third in the nation for number of nonprofits with government contracts and ninth in total number of government contracts. That’s a total of 6,776 government contracts and grants divided among 1,706 nonprofit organizations. By comparison, the average charitable contribution per tax return—$1,266—puts Texas fourteenth in comparison to other U.S. states in terms of charitable giving. Texas nonprofits are working hard for their funding, and a significant amount of that work is done in partnership with public programs through grants and contracts.
• Nonprofits help to reduce workforce inequalities by hiring disadvantaged workers, and in spite of the economy, nonprofit employment in Texas is growing; approximately 18,650 jobs have been added since 2004. Nonprofits also offer the opportunity for community service: in 2009, almost one out of every four Texas residents volunteered. More than 566 million hours of service were donated in Texas, worth a total of $11.8 billion.
At a time when state programs are facing cutbacks, local nonprofit organizations expect that they will face increased demand for services of all kinds even as their own finances are tightening. Building close coordination between state programs and local efforts will help to ensure that scarce resources are used as effectively as possible. Local nonprofits will never have the capacity or desire to “take over” large state programs or functions, but working cooperatively, state agencies and community-based organizations may be able to transform some processes and programs in ways that extend the state’s resources, build local capacity, and, most important, result in better experiences for Texans. Strategic investment in nonprofit technology assistance and training will benefit state programs by building the capacity of their local partners.
Currently, many state grants and contracts tend to favor larger nonprofits that have an existing contracting relationship with the state. Grant and contract processes often are cumbersome. In establishing and administering partnership programs, state agencies do not routinely plan their programs to take advantage of or fill gaps in existing local nonprofit networks. Likewise, state agencies do not routinely share information with each other about their local nonprofit partnerships, or work across agencies to take advantage of interdisciplinary expertise in local communities where it is available.
The Legislature should ensure that partnership programs between state agencies and faith and community-based organizations are as effective as possible by taking the following steps:
1. The legislature should create a line-item appropriation for the Renewing Our Communities Account (ROCA) in the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) budget. The legislature should direct HHSC to conduct and document special outreach to nonprofits in historically disadvantaged and underserved communities in soliciting ROCA proposals, and to give priority to historically disadvantaged and underserved communities in the awarding of funds.
2. The Lieutenant Governor of Texas and the Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives should issue interim charges directing one or more legislative committees to examine issues relating to nonprofit organizations’ access to credit, and to explore ways in which the state could improve the nonprofit sector’s access to capital for social innovations.
3. The legislature should direct the Interagency Coordinating Group (ICG), established by House Bill 492, 81st Legislature, Regular Session, 2009, to develop and implement a plan to improve contracting relationships between state agencies and the nonprofit sector.
4. The ICG should be expanded to include the Governor’s Office, Department of Public Safety, Department of Insurance, Public Utility Commission, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Agriculture, Comptroller of Public Accounts, and other agencies. The ICG should be charged with sharing best practices for state agency and nonprofit cooperation and collaboration, identify duplication and gaps in service delivery among state agencies, and identify strategies for addressing these deficiencies. The ICG should establish a task force to assist them in this effort with representatives from private funders, local government, and FCBOs.
5. The legislature should direct the Department of Information Resources to consult with the ICG and its advisory committee to develop a user-friendly portal for local FCBOs to access information on state funding opportunities, including grants and contract opportunities, best practices, and other pertinent information.
6. The legislature should direct state agencies to maximize their acquisition of federal funds for nonprofit grant and contract programs.
Resist bureaucratic immigration policies that result in employment,
housing and other discrimination
Don’t burden Texas’ essential public safety systems with immigration
law enforcement
Resist bureaucratic immigration policies that result in employment, housing and other discrimination
Although immigration policy is primarily a federal issue, legislators are proposing a broad array of immigration-themed initiatives that, if implemented, could result in discriminatory behavior toward Hispanics and other people of color, regardless of immigration status. Border security and public safety are real issues, but harassing school children and small employers and exacerbating already-troubling racial discrimination patterns in rental markets will not address those issues.
The legislature should not confuse legitimate aims of public safety and law enforcement with racially biased discrimination. Among the policies that the legislature should oppose are:
• Legislation that requires school districts to monitor and report the citizenship status of public school students. Texas is required to educate all students, regardless of citizenship. Such a requirement would needlessly burden school districts that are already strapped for cash and could cause teachers and other students to discriminate against students based on their citizenship status. Some parents might not enroll their children in school for fear of undue scrutiny regardless of their immigration status, which would result in a further bifurcation of educational and economic opportunity for Anglo and non-Anglo children.
• Legislation that would require state agencies to report on the financial effects of providing services to illegal immigrants. Most state-funded services are not available to illegal immigrants; those services illegal immigrants may access are generally regulated at the federal level. The Comptroller has already issued a decisive report documenting immigration’s net economic benefit to the state. Requiring other state agencies to dissect the issue further would represent a waste of taxpayer dollars and divert agency resources that will already be strained to provide even the most basic services.
• Legislation that would require proof of legal status to obtain a driver’s license or other licenses such as occupational licenses. Licenses are necessary to protect the public from incompetence and fraud. The whole public should not be made to suffer the danger of having unlicensed, unregulated individuals in situations that put the lives of innocent people at risk.
• Legislation that would make English the official language of Texas or prohibits printing state documents in a language other than English. Though learning English is critical to participating in American society, such laws do nothing to advance English proficiency. Rather, they prevent the government from effectively communicating with all people who live in the state, even those who are here legally.
• Legislation that would require businesses or governmental entities to use E-Verify to check the legal status of their employees. E-Verify is an electronic verification system that checks Social Security numbers against agency records; however, the database has high error rates. About 13 million U.S. born citizens and 10 percent of recently naturalized citizens have inaccurate records. Moreover, E-Verify may cause employers to shy away from hiring workers who “look” like they might not be here legally, and may prevent legal residents or U.S. citizens from families of mixed citizenship status from applying for employment out of fear of being deported.
• Legislation that would discriminate against U.S. citizen children born to illegal immigrants. All U.S. citizens are afforded the same protection under the law. Restricting benefits to citizen children of illegal immigrants would create an underclass of citizens. Legislation purporting to revoke the 14th Amendment to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants would be unconstitutional: US citizenship is a federal issue and cannot be addressed at the state level.
Don’t burden Texas’ essential public safety systems with immigration law enforcement
In April 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law, thereby putting the responsibility of enforcing federal immigration laws on Arizona state law enforcement officials. SB 1070 requires police to attempt to determine legal status of a person involved in a stop, arrest or detention; includes provisions related to trespassing, harboring and transporting illegal immigrations; and provides employer sanctions for hiring illegal immigrants.
The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposed SB 1070 because the group said the law would hobble law enforcement's ability to "fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner." Police chiefs who opposed the bill said the bill’s requirements would mean officers would have to prioritize immigration enforcement over every other type of crime, including violent crime.
Studies have shown that immigration enforcement at the local level does not result in safer communities. On the contrary, state and local enforcement of federal laws make it less likely that immigrants—legal or not—will report crimes to the police or cooperate with the police out of fear that their citizenship status may be questioned. For the same reasons, victims of domestic violence may not report abuse. Furthermore, such legislation increases instances of racial profiling and discrimination, building distrust within communities. Finally, the U.S. Constitution makes immigration a federal issue and states should not try to regulate it.
Nevertheless, Texas legislators are proposing Arizona-style initiatives bills for Texas. These initiatives would rob local taxpayers of the already-scarce resources needed to prevent violent crimes, protect property and ensure safe communities. They also would invite discrimination and contribute to an environment of suspicion counterproductive to Texas’ goals for community oriented policing. Among the specific initiatives the legislature should avoid are:
• Proposals that would deny local law enforcement agencies state funds and/or imposing a fine if they make any rules or policies that will not fully enforce federal immigration law or if they withhold any information from USCIS regarding a person’s immigration status.
• Proposals that would require state and local law enforcement officials to inquire about a person’s immigration status when they are involved in a stop, arrest or detention.
• Proposals that would create a new class of immigration-related offenses in state law, such as the creation of a misdemeanor for any person without legal status to enter or remain on any public or private property and creation of the authority for law enforcement officials to arrest any person they believe to have committed such an offense.
Close the predatory lending loophole
For many individuals and families facing financial crisis, auto-title and payday lenders offer short-term relief and a chance to regroup. However, many of these lenders currently operate in a loophole in the Texas Finance Code that allows them to trap borrowers in a cycle of debt. Most other lenders are regulated by the state and therefore are subject to strict limits on fees and interest rates. The Texas Constitution states that in the absence of legislation, all contracts with an interest rate higher than 10 percent shall be deemed usurious.
Payday and auto-title lenders can operate outside of these regulations because they are categorized as credit-service organizations, which, ironically, are supposed to help people manage their budgets and get out of debt. Unfortunately, some lenders take advantage of their credit-service organization designation to charge a variety of fees and interest rates that can amount to the equivalent of 500% APR on an average loan. Borrowers are required to pay off their loan and fees all in one installment—if they cannot do so, they pay a rollover fee every month. More than half of borrowers roll over their loans at least once and 25 percent of borrowers rollover their loans multiple times. As a result, the cost of fees often exceeds the amount of the original loan. In Texas, the average borrower pays $840 on a $300 loan.
Texas has a strong history of promoting personal and family financial responsibility. Particularly in a tough economy, it is in the interests of neither the state nor its citizens to allow predatory lenders to operate under a well-intentioned but exploited loophole that traps Texans in a cycle of debt and dependence.
To prevent unscrupulous lenders from exploiting vulnerable Texans, the legislature should eliminate the language in the Texas Finance Code that grants CSOs the ability to help consumers with “obtaining an extension of consumer credit,” returning payday and auto-title lenders to the purview of state consumer lending laws.
###
