I noticed some similarities between two stories involving availability of state money both of which are at least superficially peculiar given the State’s recent announcement of a $2 billion surplus. Perhaps someone with better knowledge of the state’s fiscal processes can tell me whether the cases are similar or not, and whether they have anything to do with the announced surplus.
The first story has to do with a story by Niki Kelley in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette concerning the availability of State money to combat domestic violence. The Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence says the coalition has had to fight with the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute to get all the money that is appropriated to it.
Indiana Criminal Justice Institute spokesman Gary Abel [confirmed] that $344,000 of funding for the domestic violence prevention and treatment program was reverted to aid the state’s bottom line at the end of fiscal year 2014 in June.
All agencies were told by [Governor] Pence’s Indiana Office of Management and Budget to revert money – or not spend everything appropriated.
Doing the math, in the ICJI’s case, the bulk of the $500,000 it reverted must have come from the domestic violence program. “Abel said the money was reverted because there was no plan submitted on how to use it.” So, the State’s explanation is that the money was there but it’s the Coalition’s fault for not submitting a plan for spending the money.
The other story I saw was by Ron Wilkins of the Lafayette Journal & Courier and had to do with a road project in West Lafayette to reconstruct Happy Hollow Road. (Disclosure: this is a road I drive nearly every day to work). The reconstruction was scheduled to begin today but the Indiana Department of Transportation stopped the project because it reportedly ran out of money for Fiscal Year 2014. According to the City Engineer, INDOT was supposed to have obligated FY2014 funds for the Happy Hollow project.
INDOT has apparently said that the funds were obligated but “the purchase order was not written” and funding was withheld. “INDOT has said once they see a plan for the balances, they’ll release the money.”
The money at issue here seems to be federal road funds that are overseen by the State. So I’m not sure that this money would play into the State surplus claims one way or the other. But, I guess I was struck by two stories in the same day that had the State blaming a failure to release funds on the intended recipient’s alleged failure to submit paperwork.
Awful Infant mortality rates, dismal domestic violence programs, poor roads, dysfunctional education governance, and unhealthy hoosiers, but hey: we done got our $2 billion surplus
Figure out which one helps Gov. Pence among his Iowa constituents, and the priorities become perfectly rational.
There are some areas where the state has carved out responsibility for the public. One area is in public education, where Mitch proudly took over the General Fund, so that says the state is claiming responsibility for certain educational activities. There are, now, many children being home schooled, and kids in voucher schools. I think that voucher schools may have some supervision, but I am afraid that many home schooled kids are being neglected, employed in the family business and not being educated. I think that the the State has some responsibility to monitor those kids, and if the schools or State is not monitoring, I can see some angry young adult–or group of adults–who were “home schooled” yet who don’t even know how to read, taking the State to court for failing to monitor what was going on when parents were supposed to be educating them. I can easily imagine that on a number of fronts, with a state that has cut programs yet is liable for rescuing and monitoring vulnerable persons. It’s just like this government to “take responsibility” and subsequently cut funds, failing to realize that they have the job of monitoring and serving the public.
homeschool children have to take ISTEPs starting in 3rd grade just like those who attend public schools. And parents are subject to auditing by the state of their lesson plans for each day, and must demonstrate they have met the 180 days of school requirement.
I was wrong. They don’t have to take the ISTEP. But they do have to demonstrate 180 days of instruction http://www.doe.in.gov/student-services/home-school/homeschool-help-sheet
Ann, thank you for that correction to my understanding. We have, in the past, known some “home schooled” kids who weren’t really schooled, and they are a mess now. I think this process needs to be tightened up a lot.
Homeschooling is child abuse anyway.
I agree that some of it is, perhaps much of it. Who knows how much of it is neglect? Some kid, having grown up in that environment, is going to sue the state some day because it hasn’t done its job, and many people will pile on. As Joe says below, they could spend a little on prevention or a LOT on remediation. A lot of the ideologues’ behavior will come back to bite us all.
Spend a little now on prevention or spend a lot more later on remediation.
We still owe the Feds a ton of money for the unemployment fund so any surplus is a farce anyway.
In the world of smoke and mirrors, definitions are important. What is a deficit? What is a surplus?
Interesting point is that the state can “defer” payment on its obligations such as state pension plans and not call it a debt, that is not the way my books read for things I owe. But if your laws say you can not be in debt then simply redefine things in your accounting.
Several times this year, Medicaid recipients have had letters out of the blue requiring them to re-certify at odd times and sooner than the one year recerts that are ‘usual’. Many of them did not understand and figured since a year was not past since their last one they could just wait. Then they would get kicked off and at best get back on after a month or two, but the entire time these people are off Medicaid, money is ‘saved’. Part of it has been Pence pissing around about his ACA alternative, but, really It’s all about the surplus Pence plans to run on in Iowa. It’s a shadow surplus on the backs of the poor, the abused, unfunded pensioners, and neglected infrastructure. Who knows what else. I’m sure Wall Street would love the guy, but why an average person would give him a second glance is beyond me. Mitch Daniels is probably aghast in his ivory tower over this interloper as the gentleman from Indiana.
I’ve never understood how we can have a surplus and owe the Feds money either.
So should their be a penalty if you home school and your child is not a functioning member of society? Should the parents perhaps certify they will continue to raise the child (financially) until they can pass competency tests, rather than they fall upon the public dole?
Thinking out loud here.
Oh come on, Mike. How many people really think that Mitch is no longer pulling the strings?