the text book Practicing Texas Politics Texas Edition (16th Edition), Brown, et.al. for this assignment: 3,4,5,6,10,13.

Chapter10

Public Policy and Administration

• Chapter Introduction

• 10-1 State Agencies and State Employees

  • 10-1a State Agencies and Public Policy

  • 10-1b The Institutional Context

  • 10-1c State Employees and Public Policy

• 10-2 Education

  • 10-2a Public Schools

  • 10-2b Colleges and Universities

• 10-3 Health and Human Services

  • 10-3a Human Services

  • 10-3b Health and Mental Health Services

  • 10-3c Employment

• 10-4 Economic and Environmental Policies

  • 10-4a Economic Regulatory Policy

  • 10-4b Business Promotion

  • 10-4c Environmental Regulation

• 10-5 Chapter Review

  • 10-5aConclusion

  • 10-5bChapter Summary

  • 10-5cKey Terms

//what about non-chapter activities //

Chapter 10: Public Policy and Administration Chapter Introduction

Book Title: Practicing Texas Politics

Printed By: Ali Hussain G Almutlaq ([email protected])

© 2015 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

Chapter Introduction

SARGENT © 1998 Austin American-Statesman. Reprinted with permission of UNIVERSAL UCLICK. All rights reserved.

Critical Thinking

• Some groups in Texas are served well by public policy, others poorly. Why?

Learning Objectives

• 10.1 
Describe the role of bureaucracy in making public policy in Texas.

• 10.2 
Analyze the major challenges faced by the Texas education system.

• 10.3 
Describe the health and human services programs in Texas and discuss how efforts to address the needs of its citizens have been approached.

• 10.4 
Compare the roles of government in generating economic development while maintaining a safe and clean environment for the state's residents.

One good way to see what is important in public policy is to follow the money. For many years in Texas, the state government has spent the lion's share of the budget on four areas. For example, in the 2014–2015 biennium (two-year budget cycle), the legislature appropriated $200 billion as follows:

• Education: 37 percent

• Health and human services: 37 percent

• Business and economic development: 13 percent

• Public safety and criminal justice: 6 percent

• Everything else: 7 percent

Although regulation costs the state government little (0.6 percent of the total in 2014–2015), it has profound cost effects on individuals, companies, and local governments. Regulation commonly shifts costs and benefits from one group to another. For example, contaminated air hurts the quality of life and increases medical costs for children with respiratory problems such as asthma, as well as for the elderly, but regulations requiring special equipment to reduce emissions from smokestacks cost businesses money. Not surprisingly, regulatory policy is fraught with controversy.

This chapter examines public policy in Texas through two lenses: (1) the situation and behavior of the agencies and people who implement the policies and (2) the nature of the policies themselves. Covered are the major policy areas of education, health and human services, business and economic development, and the environment. The other big-ticket item in Texas state government—public safety and criminal justice—is covered in Chapter 12, “The Criminal Justice System,” and details on state spending are provided in Chapter 13, “Finance and Fiscal Policy.”

//what about non-chapter activities //

Chapter 10: Public Policy and Administration: 10-1 State Agencies and State Employees

Book Title: Practicing Texas Politics

Printed By: Ali Hussain G Almutlaq ([email protected])

© 2015 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

10-1 State Agencies and State Employees

LO 10.1

Describe the role of bureaucracy in making public policy in Texas.

Surprisingly, scholars who study public policy have not agreed on a single definition of it. However, many suggest the simple and useful definition utilized in this chapter: Public policyWhat government does or does not do to and for its citizens. is what government does or does not do to and for its citizens. Policy is both action, such as state or local governments raising or lowering speed limits, and inaction, such as Texas state government not accepting federal funds for expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

State government policies profoundly affect the lives of all of us. Services, subsidies, taxes, and regulations affect students from kindergarten through graduate school, the impoverished, the middle class, the wealthy, and small and large businesses. State policies affect our safety and health and the profitability of businesses. The impact of a given policy varies by group. (Who gets a tax cut? Who doesn't?) Thus, public policy is a source of great conflict because groups compete to gain benefits and reduce costs to themselves. As the opening cartoon suggests, some are better positioned than others to win this battle.

//what about non-chapter activities //

Chapter 10: Public Policy and Administration: 10-1a State Agencies and Public Policy

Book Title: Practicing Texas Politics

Printed By: Ali Hussain G Almutlaq ([email protected])

© 2015 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

10-1a State Agencies and Public Policy

Public policy is the product of a series of interactions among a variety of groups and institutions. Commonly, an interest groups begins the process by bringing problems to the attention of government and then lobbying for solutions that benefit the members of the group. Political parties and chief executives often select and combine the proposals of interest groups into a manageable number and push them as part of their program or agenda. The legislature then accepts some of the proposals through the passage of laws, the creation or modification of agencies, and the appropriation of money to carry out the policies. Finally, the executive branch implements the policies. At the national level, the president provides rules and instructions for the agencies that actually carry out the policies. In Texas, the more than 200 agencies have substantial independence from the governor, which means that each agency has more latitude and independence than federal agencies in deciding what was meant by the legislature and in applying the law to unforeseen circumstances. Not surprisingly, a great deal of informal interaction (and lobbying) occurs among Texas interest groups, political parties, top executives, legislators, and agencies themselves.

//what about non-chapter activities //

Chapter 10: Public Policy and Administration: 10-1b The Institutional Context

Book Title: Practicing Texas Politics

Printed By: Ali Hussain G Almutlaq ([email protected])

© 2015 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

10-1b The Institutional Context

The way in which the Texas executive branch is organized has a major effect on public policy. A key reason is that the fragmentation of authority strongly affects who has access to policy decisions, as well as how visible the decision process is to the public. The large number of agencies means they are covered less by the media and, therefore, are less visible to the public. The power of the one state official to whom the public pays attention (the governor) is limited. Special interest groups, on the other hand, have strong incentives (profits) to develop cozy relationships with agency personnel, and most agencies do not have to defend their decisions before a higher authority (such as the governor).

In addition to agencies headed by the elected officials discussed in Chapter 9, “The Executive Branch,” more than 200 boards, commissions, and departments implement state laws and programs in Texas. Most boards and commissions are appointed by the governor; however, once citizens are appointed to a board, the governor relies on persuasion and personal or political loyalty to exercise influence. The exceptionally long tenure of Governor Rick Perry meant that he appointed all of the members of most boards and developed a close working relationship with those agencies of special concern to him. For example, Governor Perry had a strong interest in his alma mater, Texas A&M University, and significantly influenced its direction through the policies and hiring decisions made by members of the board of regents of the Texas A&M University System (whom he appointed).

Fragmentation of the state executive into so many largely independent agencies was an intentional move by the framers of the Texas Constitution and later legislatures to avoid centralized power. Administering state programs through boards was also thought to keep partisan politics out of public administration. Unfortunately, this fragmentation simply changes the nature of the politics, making it more difficult to coordinate efforts and hold the agencies responsible to the public.

Boards governing state agencies are not typically full-time; instead, they commonly meet quarterly. In most cases, a full-time board-appointed executive director oversees day-to-day agency operations. Boards usually make general policy decisions and leave the details to the executive director; however, some boards are much more active and involved (for example, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality). In recent years, the governor's influence has increased through the ability to name a powerful executive commissioner to run two major agencies—the Health and Human Services Commission and the Texas Education Agency. Two important boards—the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) (which regulates the oil and gas industry) and the State Board of Education—are elected. Members of both tend to be quite active; however, the State Board of Education is limited by its lack of authority over the commissioner of education, who heads the Texas Education Agency and reports to the governor.

Some agencies were created in the Texas Constitution. Others were created by the legislature, either as directed by the state constitution or independent of it. As problems emerge that elected officials believe government must address, they look to existing state agencies or create new ones to provide solutions. Sometimes, citizen complaints force an agency's creation. For example, citizen outrage at rising utility rates resulted in the creation in 1975 of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to review and limit those rates. (Lobbying by special interest groups and the orientation of gubernatorial appointments over time, however, have changed the direction of the PUC's policies to again draw the ire of consumer advocates.) Lobbying by special interest groups to protect their own interests is also important in the creation of agencies. The most famous Texas case was lobbying by the oil and gas industry in the early 20th century to have the Railroad Commission create a system of regulation to reduce economic chaos in the fledgling industry.

The sunset review processDuring a cycle of 12 years, each state agency is studied at least once to see if it is needed and efficient, and then the legislature decides whether to abolish, merge, reorganize, or retain that agency. is an attempt to keep state agencies efficient and responsive to current needs. Each biennium, a group of state agencies is examined by the Sunset Advisory Commission, which recommends to the legislature whether an agency should be abolished, merged, reorganized, or retained. It is the legislature that makes the final decision. At least once every 12 years, each of 130 state agencies must be evaluated. (Universities and courts are not subject to the process.) The Sunset Advisory Commission is composed of 10 legislators (five from each chamber) and two public members. The commission has a staff of 32 employees. In 2014–2015, it reviewed 21 agencies, including the giant Health and Human Services Commission and the University Interscholastic League (UIL, which regulates public school competitions such as athletics), along with lesser known agencies such as the State Office of Administrative Hearings.

A major problem with the sunset review process, according to critics, is that the legislature has little taste for the abolition or major restructuring of large agencies. For example, the Sunset Advisory Commission's staff found that the mission and “byzantine” regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Commission were hopelessly outdated, yet the legislature continued the commission with only minor changes. In the 2013 session, the legislature failed to pass the sunset bills making changes in the Texas Education Agency and the Railroad Commission but did pass bills continuing their existence. It is not surprising that regulated groups (often enjoying close relationships with friendly administrators and legislators) and state employees fighting for their jobs and turf (the agency's size, power, and responsibility) wage vigorous campaigns to preserve agencies and continue business as usual. From the Sunset Advisory Commission's authorization in 1977 through 2013, a total of 437 agencies were reviewed. Eighty-two percent were retained, 8 percent were abolished, and 10 percent were reorganized in major ways (such as combining two or more agencies). Of those agencies retained, some had changes, such as adding public members (people not from the regulated industry) on governing boards, improving procedures, or changing policies. According to the commission, from 1982 through 2013, the sunset process saved the state $946 million, or approximately $25 for every dollar spent in the sunset review process.

//what about non-chapter activities //

Chapter 10: Public Policy and Administration: 10-1c State Employees and Public Policy

Book Title: Practicing Texas Politics

Printed By: Ali Hussain G Almutlaq ([email protected])

© 2015 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

10-1c State Employees and Public Policy

For most people, the face of state government is the governor, legislators, and other top officials. Certainly, these people are critical decision makers. However, most of the work of Texas state government (called public administrationThe implementation of public policy by government employees.) is in the hands of people in agencies headed by elected officials and appointed boards. These bureaucratsPublic employees. (public employees), though often the subject of criticism or jokes about inefficiency and “red tape,” are responsible for delivering governmental services to the state's residents. The public may see them in action as a clerk taking an application, a supervisor explaining why a request was turned down, or an inspector checking a nursing home.

The nature of bureaucracy is both its strength and its weakness. Large organizations, such as governments and corporations, need many employees doing specialized jobs with sufficient coordination to achieve the organization's goals (profits for a company, service for a government). That means employees must follow set rules and procedures so they can provide relatively uniform results. When a bureaucracy works well, it harnesses individual efforts to achieve the organization's goals. Along the way, however, “red tape” (the rules and procedures that bureaucrats must follow) slows the process and prevents employees from making decisions that go against the rules. State rules should mean the same in Dallas as in Muleshoe, but making decisions may seem slow, and “street level” bureaucrats may not have the authority to make adjustments for differences in local conditions. Thus, bureaucracies are necessary but sometimes frustrating.

Bureaucracy and Public Policy

We often think of public administrators as simply implementing the laws passed by the legislature, but the truth is that they must make many decisions about situations not clearly foreseen in the law. Not surprisingly, their own views, their bosses' preferences, their agency's culture, and the lobbying they receive make a difference in how they apply laws passed by the legislature. Agencies also want to protect or expand their turf. Lobbyists understand the role of the bureaucracy in making public policy and work just as hard to influence agency decisions as they work to influence legislation.

Public agencies also must build good relations with state leaders (such as the governor), key legislators, and executive and legislative staff members because these people determine how much money and authority the agency receives. Dealing with the legislature often involves close cooperation between state agencies and lobbyists for groups that the agencies serve or regulate. For example, the Texas Good Roads/Transportation Association (mostly trucking companies and road contractors) and the Texas Department of Transportation have long worked closely, and relatively successfully, to lobby the legislature for more highway money.

In Texas, three factors are particularly important in determining agencies' success in achieving their policy goals: the vigor and vision of their leadership, their resources, and the extent to which elites influence implementation (called elite accessThe ability of the business elite to deal directly with high-ranking government administrators to avoid full compliance with regulations.). Many Texas agencies define their jobs narrowly and make decisions on narrow technical grounds, without considering the broader consequences of their actions. Texas environmental agencies have often taken this passive approach, which is one reason for Texas's many environmental problems. For example, a former Texas Commission on Environmental Quality commissioner complained:

One [issue] that always floored me was the high mercury level in East Texas lakes.… People were eating fish contaminated with levels of mercury that could only be attributed to pollution from nearby coal-fired power plants. Yet when permit applications for new coal plants came before the board, the majority of commissioners refused to consider the impact on area lakes. They said water issues are not relevant to air permits.… The regulators tasked with cleaning up the lake, meanwhile, considered airborne emissions to be beyond their purview. So the issue never gets addressed.

Other agency heads, however, take a proactive approach. Beginning in 1975, for example, three successive activist comptrollers transformed the Texas Comptroller's Office. It became a major player in Texas government, a more aggressive collector of state taxes, a problem solver for other agencies, and, under comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, a focus of controversy. Elected agency heads, such as the comptroller and attorney general, have more clout (and perhaps incentive) to be proactive about their agency's job than do appointed agency heads.

Historically, Texas government agencies have had minimal funds to implement policy. Consider the example of nursing homes, which are big business today and mostly run for profit. A major problem is that almost two-thirds of nursing home residents depend on Medicaid to pay for their care. However, Medicaid rates, set by the state, have not gone up as fast as costs. For at least the last decade, Texas's rates have ranked 49th among the 50 states. Low rates make it increasingly difficult for nursing homes to make a profit. The less scrupulous companies maintain profits by cutting staff and services.

Nursing home residents are generally weak and unable to leave if the service is bad or threatens their well-being. Therefore, residents depend heavily on government inspectors to ensure that they are treated well. Unfortunately, the number of nursing home inspectors in Texas has been like a roller coaster—sometimes up, sometimes down. When the number of inspectors relative to the number of residents decreases, the number of inspections decreases, and abuse tends to increase. Even when there are enough inspectors, connections of nursing home company executives and lobbyists to top agency administrators often ensure that infractions result in a slap on the wrist and a promise to do better. (This process is called elite access.)

One study noted that Texas ranked 10th worst among the states in serious deficiencies per home but in the middle for the amount of average fines. A 2011 Texas State Auditor's report found that the Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) “rarely terminates its contracts with nursing facilities that have a pattern of serious deficiencies. In fiscal year 2010, the Department recommended contract termination for 372 nursing facilities. However, it reconsidered or rescinded all but one of those terminations.” Over the years, both the Health and Human Services Commission and the state attorney general have been criticized for their lack of fervor in pursuing nursing home violations.

As these reports indicate, elite access and lack of resources make policy less effective and abuse more common in Texas nursing homes. (Also contributing is Texas's shortage of nurses, in major part because of too few state nursing programs.) At least since the 1990s, Texas has had more severe and repeated violations of federal patient care standards than most other states. A study by a nursing home advocacy group ranked Texas the worst nursing home state, failing on six of eight statistical measures. A study by the Commonwealth Fund, the SCAN foundation, and AARP ranked Texas's long-term care system 42nd on quality of care, due largely to poor nursing home ratings. Harm to residents can include neglect, physical and verbal abuse, injury, and death. For-profit nursing homes tend to do more serious and repeated harm to residents than do government and nonprofit homes. Clearly, bureaucrats do greatly affect policy, and their decisions impact people's lives.

Number of State Employees

Governments are Texas's biggest employers. In 2012, the equivalent of 311,000 Texans drew full-time state paychecks. Put another way, Texas had 119 full-time state employees for every 10,000 citizens. Although this number sounds like a lot, Texas ranked 43rd of the 50 states in number of state employees per 10,000 citizens. Texas is following a national pattern. More populated states tend to have fewer employees relative to their population. Thus, as populations grow, most states, including Texas, are hiring proportionately fewer employees. From 1993 to 2012, the number of state employees declined relative to the population in both Texas and the nation. This decline is because of the economies of scale (meaning that as agencies grow, they may require more total employees but not as many relative to the population they serve; for example, as demand increases, many employees may be able to process more cases in the same amount of time). Another reason Texas ranks so low compared to other states is that Texas state government passes a great deal of responsibility to local governments. In 2012, Texas local governments employed 1,105,000 workers, or 424 per 10,000 residents, placing Texas seventh among the 50 states. Moreover, as with local governments in other states, local government employment in Texas is increasing faster than the state's population.

Competence, Pay, and Retention

Although most public administrators do a good job, some are less effective than others. Many observers believe that bureaucratic competence improves with a civil service system along with good pay and benefits. In the first century of our nation, many thought that any fool could do a government job, and as a result, many fools worked in government. From local to national levels, government jobs were filled through the patronage systemHiring friends and supporters of elected officials as government employees without regard to their abilities., also known as the spoils system. Government officials hired friends and supporters, with little regard for whether they were competent. The idea was that “to the victor belong the spoils.” Merit systemsHiring, promoting, and firing on the basis of objective criteria such as tests, degrees, experience, and performance., on the other hand, require officials to hire, promote, and fire government employees on the basis of objective criteria such as tests, education, experience, and performance. If a merit system works well, it tends to produce a competent bureaucracy. A merit system that provides too much protection, however, makes it difficult to fire the incompetent and gives little incentive for the competent to excel.

Texas has never had a merit system covering all state employees, and the partial state merit system was abolished in 1985. What replaced it was a highly centralized compensation and classification system covering most of the executive branch but not the judicial and legislative branches or higher education. The legislature sets salaries, wage scales, and other benefits. Individual agencies are free to develop their own systems for hiring, promotion, and firing (so long as they comply with federal standards, where applicable). Critics worried that the result would be greater turnover and lower competence. A survey of state human resource directors, however, indicates that agencies have developed more flexible personnel policies that provide some protection for most employees. Moreover, patronage appointments have not become a major problem in state administration. In the words of one observer, “It's not uncommon for state agencies to become repositories for campaign staff or former officeholders.… But there are no wholesale purges” when new officials are elected.

In Texas, most employees (public and private) are “at will”—that is, they can be fired or can quit for good, bad, or no reason. The employment relationship is voluntary. Generally, only those under a contract or union agreement are not “at will” employees. The employer cannot fire a person for illegal reasons, such as race, retaliation for reporting illegal activity, or exercising civil liberties. For example, in a Virginia case, a federal appeals court held that a sheriff violated his employees' free speech rights by firing them for “liking” his opponent's campaign site on Facebook.

In recent years, Texas state government employee turnover has been consistently high: 14 to 17 percent in fiscal years 2003–2010. By comparison, in fiscal year 2004, turnover was 9 percent for Texas's local governments and 10 percent for the nation. In that year, turnover cost the state government $345 million, according to the State Auditor's Office. Turnover is highest for workers in social services and criminal justice. Exit surveys (filled out by employees leaving state employment) reveal that the top three reasons for leaving state employment are retirement, desire for higher pay or better benefits, and desire for more satisfactory working conditions. Note in “How Do We Compare … in State Employee Compensation?” that state government salaries in Texas tend to be higher than those of our neighbors but lower than those of other large states. In 2009, the legislature increased the number of state positions with salaries that compare favorably with Texas's private sector from approximately 56 to 83 percent. The higher wages and the recent recession have contributed to holding down turnover.

How Do We Compare … in State Employee Compensation?

Average Monthly Pay per Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) Employee, 1993 and 2012

Source: Calculations by author based on data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments, and 2010 Annual Survey of Public Employment and Payroll, revised January 2012, http://www.census.gov//govs/apes/historical_data_2010.html.

Critical Thinking

• What factors would account for the wide variations in pay shown in the table?

Other nonfinancial factors help attract state employees. Studies consistently show that large numbers of government employees have a strong sense of service and thus find being a public servant rewarding. Three “perks” also increase the attractiveness of public employment: paid vacations, state holidays, and sick leave.

Learning Check 10.1

1. True or False: Public administrators simply implement the laws passed by the legislature without making any changes.

2. What three factors are particularly important in determining how successful agencies are in achieving their policy goals?

Another incentive for employment can be equitable treatment. For many years, Texas state government has advertised itself as an “equal opportunity employer,” and evidence indicates that it has been, albeit imperfectly. Table 10.1 shows that women make up more than one-half of state employees and are more likely to hold higher positions (official, administrator) in government than in the private economy. Women and African Americans make up a greater proportion of public than private employment, whereas Latino Texans are more likely to be employed in the private economy. In relation to their numbers in the state's population, Latinos are underrepresented in the top job categories in both the public and private arenas. Data on newly hired state employees indicate that these patterns will probably continue.

Table 10.1

Texas Minorities and Women in State Government Compared with the Total Civilian State Workforce (in percentage)

Note on interpretation: The first cell indicates that 10 percent of Texas government officials and administrators are African American; the next cell to the right shows that 9 percent of the officials and administrators in the state's total economy are African American.

Source: Compiled from Texas Workforce Commission, Civil Rights Division, January 11, 2013, Equal Employment Opportunity and Minority Hiring Practices Report, Fiscal Years 2011–2012, http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/eeo-minority-hiring-2013.pdf.

Critical Thinking

• Where are there larger differences between the government and total workforce? Why?

//what about non-chapter activities //

Chapter 10: Public Policy and Administration: 10-2 Education

Book Title: Practicing Texas Politics

Printed By: Ali Hussain G Almutlaq ([email protected])

© 2015 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

10-2 Education

LO 10.2

Analyze the major challenges faced by the Texas education system.

After a legislative hearing on health problems along the Mexican border, Representative Debbie Riddle (R-Tomball) asked an El Paso Times reporter, “Where did this idea come from that everybody deserves free education, free medical care, free whatever? It comes from Moscow, from Russia. It comes straight out of the pit of hell.” While this phrasing is extreme, education and social services are controversial in Texas.

//what about non-chapter activities //

Chapter 10: Public Policy and Administration: 10-2a Public Schools

Book Title: Practicing Texas Politics

Printed By: Ali Hussain G Almutlaq ([email protected])

© 2015 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

10-2a Public Schools

Texas's commitment to education began with its 1836 constitution, which required government-owned land to be set aside for establishing public schools and “a University of the first class.” Later, framers of the 1876 constitution mandated an “efficient system of public free schools.” What continues to perplex state policymakers is how to advance public schools' efficiency while seeking equality of funding for students in districts with varying amounts and values of taxable property. (See Chapter 13, “Finance and Fiscal Policy,” for a discussion of school finance issues.) Texas schools are also faced with meeting the needs of a changing student body.

In the 21st century, students have come increasingly from families that are ethnic minorities or economically disadvantaged. According to Texas Education Agency data, in the 2012–2013 academic year, 51 percent of Texas students were Latino, 30 percent Anglo, 13 percent African American, 4 percent Asian, and 2 percent other (multiracial, Native American, and Pacific Islander). In addition, 60 percent of Texas students were economically disadvantaged (those eligible for free or reduced-price lunches). Historically, Texas has not served minority and less affluent students as well as it has Anglo and middle-class students. If this pattern continues, studies project that Texans' average income will decline, while the costs of welfare, prisons, and lost tax revenues will increase. Table 10.2 looks at how Texas's educational efforts and outcomes compare to those of other states.

Table 10.2

Effort and Outcomes in Texas Education (Rank Among the 50 States)

Source: Legislative Budget Board, Texas Fact Book, 2012, http://www.lbb.state.tx.us; Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2012 Texas Public Higher Education Almanac, http://www.thecb.state.tx.us; and National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2013, http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/.

Critical Thinking

• Education is often said to be important to individuals, the state, and the nation. But how serious are we? Do the numbers above suggest that Texas is seeking or achieving the excellence in education that it could?

One indication that the state can do better comes from U.S. News and World Report's ranking of the nation's best high schools (based on criteria such as college readiness and geometry and reading proficiency). Of 1,492 Texas high schools examined, 357 made the 2014 list. Fourteen Texas high schools were ranked among the top 100 in the nation, including the nation's highest ranked school, Dallas's School for the Talented and Gifted. Three schools making the top 100 were located in Donna, Mercedes, and Brownsville, all in South Texas. Of the 14 high-achieving schools, 12 had a non-Anglo majority, and 8 had a majority of economically disadvantaged students.

Today, more than 1,000 independent school districts and about 200 charter operators shoulder primary responsibility for delivery of educational services to 5 million students. (Chapter 3, “Local Governments,” discusses the organization and politics of local school districts.) Although local school districts have somewhat more independence than in the past, they are part of a relatively centralized system in which state authorities substantially affect local decisions, from what is taught to how it is financed.

State Board of Education

Oversight of Texas education is divided between the elected State Board of Education (SBOE)A popularly elected 15-member body with limited authority over Texas's K–12 education system. and the commissioner of education, who is appointed by the governor to run the Texas Education Agency. Over the years, the sometimes extreme ideological positions taken by many SBOE members have embarrassed the legislature and caused it to whittle away the board's authority. For several years, the board was even made appointive rather than elective. Today, the greater power over state education is in the hands of the commissioner of education through control of the Texas Education Agency, but the SBOE remains important and highly controversial.

Among the board's most significant powers are curriculum approval for each subject and grade, textbook review for public schools, and management of investment of the Permanent School Fund. Revenue from the $29 billion fund goes to public schools ($1.9 billion in the 2012–2013 biennium). Among other things, it pays for textbooks and guarantees more than $55 billion in bonds for school districts. (The guarantee allows districts to pay lower interest rates on their bonds.)

Representing districts with approximately equal population (1.8 million), the 15 elected SBOE members serve without salary for overlapping terms of four years. The governor appoints, with Senate confirmation, a sitting SBOE member as chair for a two-year term.

Deep ideological differences divide the board. The ideological split also follows partisan and ethnic lines. The socially conservative members tend to be Anglo Republicans, whereas the moderate and liberal members are commonly African American and Latino Democrats. Openly hostile debates on subjects such as textbook adoption and public criticism of possible conflicts of interest in the selection of investment managers and independent financial consultants for the Permanent School Fund have been common. The clashes have led some legislators to advocate reforming board procedures and others to call for elimination of the SBOE.

Probably the most contentious issue facing the SBOE is its periodic review of textbooks. Books for the foundation curriculum (English, math, science, and social studies) are reviewed at least once every eight years; other textbooks may have a longer cycle. The SBOE places a book on an accepted or rejected list. To be eligible for adoption, instructional materials must cover at least 50 percent of the elements of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for its subject and grade level. Approved books must also meet the SBOE's physical specifications (for example, quality of binding and paper). Recently, the number of electronic books and instructional materials has been increasing, although traditional paper materials still predominate. Books must be free of factual errors. Critics charge that some board members have interpreted this requirement to mean that ideas conflicting with their own views are errors.

A long-standing source of conflict has been the challenge to the theory of evolution by supporters of creationism and intelligent design. The board's debate over the TEKS social studies standards in 2010 was particularly harsh and was described by some as a “culture war.” In 2014, in a rare display of compromise, the board responded to a request for Mexican American studies by putting out a request for materials for use in Mexican American studies and courses that highlight contributions from African Americans, Native Americans, and Asian Americans.

Individual school districts make their own textbook adoption decisions. Traditionally, the state paid 100 percent of the cost if local school districts used books on the approved lists but not more than 70 percent for books not on the adoption lists. This rule made SBOE approval very important to the cash-strapped districts. However, in 2011, the legislature created an Instructional Materials Allotment that districts can use to buy books and materials regardless of SBOE approval. This change is reducing the significance of board textbook approval. The change is also of great importance to other states. Texas, California, and Florida purchase huge numbers of textbooks (more than 48 million textbooks a year in Texas). Thus, publishers cater to these markets. Other states have complained that their textbook options are limited to books published for one or more of the three big “state adoption” markets.

Texas Education Agency

Which level of government should make educational policy? The local level, according to many Texans. Local officials know local needs, and most parents and citizens believe that they should have a say. However, many public officials and scholars who study education believe that the broader, more professional perspective found at the state or national level encourages higher educational standards. Texas responds to both of these views. Local school boards and superintendents run the schools, but almost all of their decisions are shaped by state and, to a much smaller extent, federal rules and procedures. The U.S. Department of Education provides some financial assistance, requires nondiscrimination in several areas (including race, gender, and disability), and, under the No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top programs, demands extensive testing.

In the Lone Star State, the Texas Education Agency (TEA)Administers the state's public school system of more than 1,200 school districts and charter schools., headquartered in Austin, has fewer than 700 employees. Created by the legislature in 1949, the TEA today is headed by the commissioner of educationThe official who heads the TEA., appointed by the governor to a four-year term with Senate confirmation. Under Governor Rick Perry, commissioners were closely connected and responsive to the governor. The TEA has the following powers:

• Oversees development of the statewide curriculum

• Accredits and rates schools (during 2012–2014, the rating system was under review)

• Monitors accreditation (whenever a local school district or school fails to meet state academic or financial standards for consecutive years, TEA has a range of sanctions, including changing its leaders and closure)

• Oversees the testing of elementary and secondary school students

• Serves as a fiscal agent for the distribution of state and federal funds (administers about three-fourths of the Permanent School Fund and supervises the Foundation School Program, which allocates state money to independent school districts)

• Monitors compliance with federal guidelines

• Approves new charter schools and supervises existing ones (moved from the SBOE by the legislature in 2013)

• Grants waivers to schools seeking charter status and exemptions from certain state regulations

• Manages the textbook adoption process, assisting the State Board of Education and individual districts

• Administers a data collection system on public school students, staff, and finances, and operates research and information programs

• Handles the administrative functions of the State Board for Educator Certification (placed under TEA in 2005 as part of the sunset review process)

Much of what the TEA does goes unnoticed by the general public, but some decisions receive considerable attention and have effects beyond education. The ratings of schools are advertised to draw home buyers into neighborhoods and subdivisions, and the decision to close a school or school district has profound effects on the community it serves. Thus, TEA has been cautious and taken less drastic steps before closing schools or districts. One of the few districts closed by TEA is the North Forest ISD in northeast Houston. After decades of warnings and interventions, the district was marked for closure in 2011, then given a reprieve, and finally combined with the Houston ISD in 2013.

Charter Schools

In 1995, the legislature authorized the SBOE to issue charters to schools that would be less limited by TEA rules. There was hope that with greater flexibility, these schools could deal more effectively with at-risk students. Compared with students at traditional schools, charter school students are more economically disadvantaged, more are African American, slightly more are Latino, and fewer are Anglo. Although charter schools are public schools, they draw students from across district lines, use a variety of teaching strategies, and are exempt from many rules, such as state teacher certification requirements. Charters are granted to nonprofit corporations that, in turn, create a board to govern the school. The particular organization varies from school to school. Charter schools cannot impose taxes but can now issue bonds for new construction. They receive most of their funding from the state, with the rest coming from federal and private sources. Thus, most charter schools have less revenue per pupil than do traditional schools ($1,703 less per student in terms of ADA [Average Daily Attendance] in 2013–2014). In addition, charter schools have to spend part of the state money on facilities (an average of $829 per student). In early 2014, Texas had 552 charter school campuses serving 179,000 students (which is less than 4 percent of all public school students). In 2013, the Texas legislature passed a major revision of charter school regulations, including raising the cap on the number of charters granted from 215 in 2013 to 305 in 2019. The legislation also made the commissioner of education responsible for initial charter approval.

The effectiveness of charter schools in meeting the needs of at-risk students is sharply debated. Some Texas charter schools have “compiled terrific records of propelling minority and low-income kids into college.” In the 2014 U.S. News and World Report listing of the nation's best high schools, three of the 10 best high schools in Texas were charter schools: Yes Prep North Central in Houston (28th in the nation), IDEA Academy and College Preparatory School in Donna (South Texas, 30th), and Kipp in Austin (63rd). Some other charter schools have been marked by corruption and academic failure. A study by Stanford University researchers found that results varied by state. In Texas, the researchers compared the progress of students of comparable background in charter and traditional schools and found that Latino and African American students tended to do better in traditional schools, whereas students in poverty (including all ethnicities) tended to fare slightly better in charter schools.

Testing

Educators and political leaders are sharply divided about how to assess student progress and determine graduation standards. Nevertheless, testing as a major assessment tool is now federal and state policy. Texas first mandated a standardized test in 1980 and began to rely heavily on testing in 1990. An essential component of the state testing program is the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS)A core curriculum (a set of courses and knowledge) setting out what students should learn., a core curriculum that sets out the knowledge students are expected to gain. This curriculum is required by the legislature and is approved by the State Board of Education.

The current testing program is the State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR)A state program of end-of-course and other examinations begun in 2012.. Mandated by the legislature in 2007 and 2009, STAAR went into effect in the spring of 2012. It included a number of key mandates:

• End-of-course examinations in the four high school core subject areas (math, science, English, and social studies).

• A requirement to pass both end-of-course tests and courses in order to graduate.

• For grades 3–8, new tests to assess reading and math for each level, as well as writing, science, and social studies for certain grade levels.

• The new tests and curriculum to be more closely tied to college readiness and preparation for the workplace.

• The new tests to be more rigorous and standards to be gradually raised through 2016.

In the first round of STAAR tests, statewide passing rates for freshmen varied from 55 percent for writing to 87 percent for biology. However, if the 2016 standards had been applied, a majority of students would have failed in each subject. Not surprisingly, the results were met with controversy.

Increasing the number of tests, how much they count, and their level of difficulty caused a strong backlash. In 2013 the legislature decreased the number of end-of-course tests to five and cut testing for high-performing students in grades 3–8. Although testing continues to be a major part of Texas's education policy, the testing program was in a period of transition in 2014, the outcome of which was not clear.

One of the most controversial aspects of the testing programs is that test results are used to evaluate teachers, administrators, and schools. This practice is intended to increase “accountability”—that is, to hold teachers and administrators responsible for increasing student learning. Many educators object to having their pay—and perhaps their job—depend on student performance because student success is so much affected by students' backgrounds and home environments. The use of test results for accountability is continued under STAAR; however, the ratings were temporarily suspended in 2012 to allow development of a new system. For 2014, schools had to meet performance targets on each of four indexes (student achievement, student progress, disadvantaged students closing performance gaps, and postsecondary readiness). Schools were labeled: Met Standard, Met Alternative Standard (both are acceptable), or Improvement Required (unacceptable).

From its beginning, the statewide testing program has drawn cries of protest from many parents and educators. Social conservatives argue that the program tramples on local control of schools, whereas African American and Latino critics charge that the tests are discriminatory. Educational critics complain that “teaching to the test” raises scores on the test but causes neglect of other subjects and skills. Questions are also raised when the federal No Child Left Behind program sometimes produces substantially different evaluations of schools than does the Texas system (because they use different criteria). Supporters of testing argue that the policy holds schools responsible for increasing student learning. As proof, they point to the improved test scores of most groups of students since the program began.

Because test results are so important to both students and their schools, there has been controversy over how high standards should be. Some parents and advocates for disadvantaged students argue that standards are too high. Other critics argue that the previous test (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, or TAKS) suffered from grade inflation—that is, scores increased because of low standards, not student improvement. In January 2012, education commissioner Robert Scott, who led much of the development of the use of tests as a policy tool, said that testing had become a “perversion.” Over the previous decade, he argued, too much reliance had been placed on tests. He wanted test results to be “just one piece of the bottom line, and everything else that happens in a school year is factored into that equation.” In August 2012, following Scott's resignation, Governor Perry named former Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams to head the agency.

Some critics believe that national tests such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) are better measures because they are not “taught to.” The NAEP shows mixed results for Texas. For example, between 1990 and 2013, math scores on the NAEP for Texas eighth graders improved significantly for each major ethnic group and economic level. The gap in scores between African American and Anglo eighth graders narrowed, as did the gap between the less and more affluent. However, the gap between Latinos and Anglos was not significantly different. On the other hand, on the eighth-grade reading test, the scores over the years were flat, and the score gap did not substantially improve for African American, Latino, or economically disadvantaged students.Table 10.2 compares NAEP scores in Texas to those of other states. The results are mixed.

//what about non-chapter activities //

Chapter 10: Public Policy and Administration: 10-2b Colleges and Universities

Book Title: Practicing Texas Politics

Printed By: Ali Hussain G Almutlaq ([email protected])

© 2015 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

10-2b Colleges and Universities

Texas has many colleges and universities—103 public and 44 private institutions of higher education serving more than 1.6 million students annually. There is also a growing number of for-profit and nonprofit online institutions. This large and growing number of institutions reflects several factors: the early tradition of locating colleges away from the “evils” of large cities, the demand of communities for schools to serve their needs, the desire to make college education accessible to students, and the growing popularity of online programs. Most potential Texas students live within commuting distance of a campus. Public institutions include 37 universities, nine health-related institutions, 50 community college districts (many with multiple campuses), three two-year state colleges, and four colleges of the Texas State Technical College System. All receive some state funding and, not surprisingly, state regulation.

Texas has three universities widely recognized as being among the prestigious tier-one national research universities: Rice University (private), the University of Texas at Austin (public), and Texas A&M University in College Station (public). All three are ranked by U.S. News and World Report among the top 100 national universities, along with three private schools, SMU, Baylor, and TCU. Three other Texas universities made the second 100: UT-Dallas at 142nd, Texas Tech (161st), and University of Houston (190th).

Among public universities, UT-Austin and A&M-College Station are commonly referred to as the state's “flagship” universities; they have traditionally been the most prestigious academically and the most powerful politically. Most observers believe that Texas needs more flagship universities to serve the increasing number of highly qualified students and to carry out the research necessary to attract new businesses and grow the economy. In 2009, a constitutional amendment gave access to funding through the Texas Research Incentive Program that encourages seven other universities to try to join the list of tier-one universities: the Universities of Texas at Arlington, Dallas, El Paso, and San Antonio; Texas Tech University; University of Houston; and University of North Texas. In 2012, Texas State University–San Marcos was added to the list of emerging research institutions by the Higher Education Coordinating Board. To achieve tier-one status, each school will have to raise more money and produce more research and successful doctoral graduates. There are no universally accepted criteria for tier-one status. Having met some of the common criteria, including a listing by the Carnegie Foundation, the University of Houston advertises itself as a tier-one university.

Most Texas universities are members of a system governed by a board of regents and managed by a chancellor and other administrators. The University of Texas and Texas A&M University have evolved into large systems with multiple campuses spread across the state. Four universities are not members of a system (for example, Texas Woman's University), and the rest are part of four other university systems (for example, the Texas State University System). The Texas Almanac lists Texas state and private schools and indicates their systems.

Boards of Regents

Texas's public university systems, public universities outside the systems, and the Texas State Technical College System are governed by boards of regents. Regents are appointed by the governor for six-year terms with Senate approval. A board makes general policy, selects each university's president, and provides general supervision of its universities. In the case of systems, the board usually selects a chancellor to handle administration and to provide executive leadership. The president of one of the universities may simultaneously serve as chancellor. Day-to-day operation of the universities is in the hands of the individual school's top officials (commonly the president and the academic vice president, though terminology varies). Governance of community colleges is by local boards, as discussed in Chapter 3, “Local Governments.”

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB)An agency that provides some coordination for the state's public community colleges and universities. is not a super board of regents, but it does provide some semblance of statewide direction for all public (not private) community colleges and universities. In the 2013 sunset review process, the legislature significantly changed the agency's focus from regulation of public higher education to coordination. The sunset bill removed significant parts of the agency's authority, including the power to consolidate or eliminate low-producing academic programs and to approve capital projects. Other changes adopted during the sunset process aim to improve the effectiveness of the agency's coordination efforts and its relationship with higher education institutions through paying more attention to their input.

The nine members of the board receive no pay and are appointed by the governor to six-year terms with Senate approval. Gubernatorial power also extends to designating two board members as chair and vice chair, with neither appointment requiring Senate confirmation. Governors have substantial influence over higher education because they generally have a close relationship with the board. The commissioner of higher education, who runs the agency on a day-to-day basis and plays a significant role in higher education policy, is appointed (and can be removed) by the board.

Students in Action

Booze and Ballots: A Tale of Two Different Times

“We involved a lot of students in the public sphere for the first time, and some continued to be involved. We saved some lives and had a lot of fun.”

— Anonymous

Texas law allows citizens of almost any political entity to vote their area wet (the sale of alcohol is allowed) or dry (the sale of alcohol is prohibited). Walker County, home of Huntsville and Sam Houston State University (Sam), voted dry in 1914 and remained so until 1971. That year, Citizens for a Progressive Huntsville, composed mainly of Sam students and led by two students, circulated a petition for an election to permit alcohol sales within the city. Most of the 916 who signed the petition were thought to be Sam students or faculty. Townspeople were reluctant to sign the petition because others could see their names on the list. When the vote was held by secret ballot, however, all four voting boxes favored a wet community, which won with 62 percent of the votes. An estimated 800 students voted (out of 3,118 total votes).

In 2008, a Sam student ran unsuccessfully for the Huntsville City Council. Although it was not part of his public message, he told fellow students that his major concern was to extend bar hours from 12 midnight to 2 a.m. Even so, he couldn't get his own fraternity brothers out to the polls.

In 1971, in the wet issue, campus activists found a concern that could pull together students of widely varying views. Nearly 40 years later, the presidential election of 2008 produced a larger-than-usual student vote, but there was no local student-led movement to capitalize on the bar hours issue.

What's the Advice to Students?

“Sometimes it takes an issue like booze to get people interested enough to act on other, more important matters.”

Sources: Interviews and archives of the Walker County Clerk, City of Huntsville, and the Huntsville Public Library.

© Andresr/Shutterstock.com

Higher Education Issues

Two sets of issues have challenged Texas higher education in recent years: funding and affirmative action. Funding and the sharp increase in tuition rates are discussed in Chapter 13, “Finance and Fiscal Policy,” but we address affirmative action in the following paragraphs.

Improving the educational opportunities of Texas's ethnic minorities and the economically disadvantaged is an important but controversial issue, and one with a long history in the state. A 1946 denial of admission to the University of Texas law school on the grounds of race led to the “landmark [U.S. Supreme Court] case, Sweatt v. Painter, that helped break the back of racism in college admissions” throughout the country. Texas's long history of official and private discrimination still has consequences today. Although many Latinos and African Americans have become middle class since the civil rights changes of the 1960s and 1970s, both groups remain overrepresented in the working class and the ranks of the poor. To overcome this problem, in 2000 the THECB adopted an ambitious program, called Closing the Gaps, to increase college enrollment and graduation rates for all groups by 2015. The program has been quite successful. By 2014, African American enrollment in higher education was on target to double the 2015 goals. Latinos had doubled their enrollment but were at 86 percent of target levels. Anglo participation was down slightly. In terms of graduation or receipt of certificates, both Latinos and African Americans were on track to reach the 2015 goals. Women were enrolled and graduating at significantly higher rates than men.

A study financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation concluded that if the goals of Closing the Gaps were achieved, “When all public [state and local] and private costs are considered, the annual economic returns per $1 of expenditures by 2030 are estimated to be $24.15 in total spending, $9.60 in gross state product, and $6.01 in personal income.”

Texas colleges and universities commonly describe themselves as equal opportunity/affirmative action institutions. Equal opportunityEnsures that policies and actions do not discriminate on factors such as race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. simply means that the school takes care that its policies and actions do not produce prohibited discrimination, such as denying admission on the basis of race or sex. Affirmative actionTakes positive steps to attract women and members of racial and ethnic minority groups; may include using race in admission or hiring decisions. means that the institution takes positive steps to attract women and minorities. For most schools, this means such noncontroversial steps as making sure that the school catalog has pictures of all groups—Anglos and minorities, men and women—and recruiting in predominantly minority high schools, not just Anglo schools. However, some selective admission universities have actively considered race along with other factors in admissions and aid, and other schools have had scholarships for minorities. This side of affirmative action has created confict.

Some Anglo applicants denied admission or scholarship benefits challenged these affirmative action programs in the courts. In the case of University of California v. Bakke (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race could be considered as one factor, along with other criteria, to achieve diversity in higher education enrollment; however, setting aside a specific number of slots for one race was not acceptable. Relying on the Bakke decision, the University of Texas Law School created separate admission pools based on race and ethnicity, a practice the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals declared unconstitutional in Hopwood v. Texas (1996). In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two rulings on affirmative action. In the Michigan case of Grutter v. Bollinger, the court ruled that race could constitute one factor in an admissions policy designed to achieve student body diversity; on the same day in another Michigan case, Gratz v. Bollinger, the court condemned the practice of giving a portion of the points needed for admission to every underrepresented minority applicant.

After the Hopwood ruling, Texas schools looked for ways to maintain minority enrollment. In 1997, Texas legislators mandated the top 10 percent ruleTexas law gives automatic admission into any Texas public college or university to those graduating in the top 10 percent of their Texas high school class, with limitations for the University of Texas at Austin., which provided that the top 10 percent of the graduating class of every accredited public or private Texas high school could be admitted to tax-supported colleges and universities of their choosing, regardless of admission test scores. Thus, the students with the best grades at Texas's high schools, including those that are heavily minority, economically disadvantaged, or in small towns, can gain admission. The top 10 percent rule has helped all three groups. For students not admitted on the basis of class standing, the University of Texas at Austin used a “holistic review” of all academic and personal achievements, which might take into consideration family income, race, and ethnicity (with no specific weight and no quotas). The use of race in the holistic review produced another court challenge (Fisher v. University of Texas), which was heard before the U.S. Supreme Court during the fall of 2012. The Court held that a university's use of race must meet a test known as “strict scrutiny,” meaning that affirmative action will be constitutional only if it is “narrowly tailored.” Courts can no longer simply accept a university's determination that it needs to consider race to have a diverse student body. Instead, courts themselves will need to confirm that the use of race is “necessary.” The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit Court, which in July 2014 upheld the university's use of race in admissions. An appeal was expected.

In fall 2010 through fall 2013, Anglos were a minority of incoming University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin) freshmen—46 to 48 percent—although they remained a majority of the total student body until 2012. In 2003–2004, Texas A&M University announced that it would not use race in admissions decisions but would increase minority recruiting and provide more scholarships for first-generation, low-income students. (First-generation students are the first in their immediate family to attend college.) A&M also dropped preferences for “legacies” (relatives of alumni), who were predominantly Anglo. A&M's freshmen and transfers were 60 percent Anglo in fall 2013. All Texas institutions of higher education are under mandate from the Higher Education Coordinating Board to actively recruit and retain minority students under its Closing the Gaps initiative.

Learning Check 10.2

1. Which two state government entities are most important for public schools?

2. What is the “top 10 percent rule” in Texas higher education?

The top 10 percent rule is controversial, especially among applicants from competitive high schools denied admission to the state's flagship institutions—the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University. In fall 2009, 86 percent of students offered admission to the University of Texas at Austin qualified by the top 10 percent rule, a situation that left little room for students to be admitted on the basis of high scores or other talents (such as music or leadership). According to the university's president, even football might have had to be abolished. In response, the 2009 legislature modified the rule so that UT-Austin would not have to admit more than 75 percent of its students on the basis of class standing. The class standing that the university chose for admission varied by year: top 8 percent for fall 2011 and 2013, 9 percent for 2012, and 7 percent for 2014 and 2015. The 75 percent cap is in effect only through the 2015 school year, unless it is renewed by the legislature.

Point/Counterpoint

Should Texas Continue to Use the “Top 10 Percent Rule”?

THE ISSUE To promote diversity in Texas colleges and universities without using race as an admission criterion, the state legislature in 1997 passed a law guaranteeing admission to any public college or university in the state to Texas students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their high school class. The law sought to promote greater geographic, socioeconomic, and racial/ethnic diversity. The law applies to all public colleges and universities in the state, but it has had its greatest effect on the two flagship universities, the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University—prestigious schools with more qualified applicants than they can admit. The rule has increased minority representation at both schools but more so at the University of Texas. In 2009, the legislature capped automatic admission to the University of Texas at Austin at 75 percent through the 2015–2016 academic year.

//what about non-chapter activities //

Chapter 10: Public Policy and Administration: 10-3 Health and Human Services

Book Title: Practicing Texas Politics

Printed By: Ali Hussain G Almutlaq ([email protected])

© 2015 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

10-3 Health and Human Services

LO 10.3

Describe the health and human services programs in Texas and discuss how efforts to address the needs of its citizens have been approached.

Most people think of Texas as a wealthy state, and indeed there are many wealthy Texans and a substantial middle class. Texas, however, also has long been among the states with the largest proportion of its population in poverty. Texas's 2011–2012 poverty rate was the sixth highest in the nation at 23 percent. From 1980 to 2012, Texas's poverty rate varied from 15 to 23 percent of the population. Poverty is particularly high for children and minorities, as can be seen in detail in Table 10.3. Poverty is defined in terms of family size and income. In 2014, for a family of three, poverty was an annual family income of less than $19,790; for a family of four, it was $23,790.

Table 10.3

Who's in Poverty in Texas and the United States? (2011–2012)

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation, “State Health Facts,” 2014, http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/. Based on U.S. Census Bureau, March 2012 and 2013 Current Population Surveys.

Critical Thinking

• Why is poverty so substantial and persistent in Texas?

Even more Texans are low income, meaning they earn an income above the poverty line but insufficient income for many “extras,” such as health insurance. (A common measure of low income is an income up to twice the poverty level. In 2010, more than one in five Texans fell into this category—that is, between 101 and 200 percent of the poverty level.)

Access to health care is a national issue that is even more acute in Texas. Although the state's major cities have outstanding medical centers, they are of little use to those who lack the resources to pay for care. For at least the last decade, studies comparing health care in the various states consistently rank Texas near the bottom. For example, from 2007 to 2014, the Commonwealth Fund, a well-respected foundation, did five state-by-state comparisons of various aspects of health system performance. All ranked Texas in the bottom quarter of the states. In 2014, the Lone Star State ranked 44th. A key factor in access to health care is health insurance. Texas has led the nation in the proportion of people without health insurance since at least 1988. About one in four Texans has no health insurance, as compared with one in six in the nation. Texas also leads in the proportion of uninsured children.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (popularly known as ACA or Obamacare), passed by Congress in 2010, is aimed at improving this situation. Some provisions of the act are widely supported: for example, young adults up to age 26 can be on their parents' insurance, preexisting conditions are covered in many cases, and caps on lifetime benefits have been lifted.

The heart of the ACA is an attempt to provide health insurance to almost all Americans: requiring those who can afford it to purchase health insurance and expanding Medicaid to cover those who cannot afford to buy insurance on their own. Both provisions have met with controversy.

For individuals who do not already have a health insurance plan that meets ACA requirements, states can provide insurance “exchanges” or “marketplaces” to assist them. For states such as Texas that opt not to have an exchange, the federal government's exchange provides the assistance. Major technical difficulties in the rollout of the federal exchange provoked a storm of criticism. However, the problems were fixed, and most people met the 2014 enrollment deadline.

The second major effort of the ACA was to expand the coverage of Medicaid, the joint federal-state program to provide medical care to the poor. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld most of the Affordable Care Act in a suit brought by Texas and 25 other states (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S.Ct. 2566 [2012]). However, very importantly, the court held that the national government could not use the threat to cut existing Medicaid funds to coerce states into expanding Medicaid coverage. This allowed Texas and other states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion. (There is more discussion of Medicaid and the consequences of Texas not expanding its coverage in the Health and Mental Health Services section that follows.)

Since the Great Depression of the 1930s, state and national governments have gradually increased efforts to address the needs of the poor, the elderly, and those who cannot afford adequate medical care. In the 20th century, social welfare became an important part of the federal relationship (see Chapter 2, “Federalism and the Texas Constitution,” and Chapter 3, “Local Governments”). Over time, the national government has taken responsibility for relatively popular social welfare programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and aid to the blind and disabled. The states, on the other hand, have responsibility for less popular welfare programs that have less effective lobbying behind them, such as Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The federal government pays a significant part of the cost of state social welfare programs, but within federal guidelines the states administer them, make eligibility rules, and pay part of the tab.

Health and human services programs are at a disadvantage in Texas for two reasons. First, the state's political culture values individualism and self-reliance; thus, anything suggesting welfare is difficult to fund at more than a minimal level. In addition, the neediest Texans lack the organization and resources to compete with the special interest groups representing the business elite and the middle class. Thus, the Lone Star State provides assistance for millions of needy Texans, but at relatively low benefit levels. And many people are left out.

The Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) coordinates social service policy. Sweeping changes were launched in 2003 when the 78th Legislature consolidated functions of 12 social service agencies under the Executive commissioner of the Health and Human Services CommissionAppointed by the governor with Senate approval, the executive commissioner administers the HHSC, develops policies, makes rules, and appoints (with approval by the governor) commissioners to head the commission's four departments.. This legislation also began a process of privatizing service delivery, creating more administrative barriers to services, and slowing the growth of expenditures.

The executive commissioner of the HHSC is appointed by the governor for a two-year term and confirmed by the Senate. This official controls the agency directly and is not under the direction of a board; instead, executive commissioners tend to respond to the governor. The executive commissioner appoints, with the approval of the governor, commissioners to head the four departments of the HHSC: Department of State Health Services, Department of Aging and Disability Services, Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, and Department of Family and Protective Services. See Figure 10.1 for the commission's organization chart and major tasks of the departments. The HHSC itself handles centralized administrative support services, develops policies, and makes rules for its agencies. In addition, the commission determines eligibility for TANF, SNAP, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicaid, and long-term care services. For the 2014–2015 biennium, the legislature authorized 58,000 employees for HHSC and its four departments.

Figure 10.1

The Consolidated Texas Health and Human Services System

Based on Texas Health and Human Services Commission, March 2014, http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/about_hhsc/index.shtml.

Critical Thinking

• Draw on this organization chart and the discussion of the commissioner in the text. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the executive commissioner in shaping Texas health and human services policy?

The legislature not only consolidated agencies under HHSC in 2003, but it also mandated a major change in the state's approach to social services—privatizationTransfer of government services or assets to the private sector. Commonly, assets are sold and services contracted out.. The belief is that private contractors can provide public services more cheaply and efficiently than can government. Under the legislative mandate, local social services offices and caseworkers were replaced with call centers operated by private contractors. Applicants for social services were encouraged to use the telephone and Internet to establish eligibility for most social services. A similar but much smaller privatized system had worked reasonably well in 2000. However, this new, larger system performed poorly. After 2003, the number of children covered by insurance dropped sharply, and eligible people faced long waits and lost paperwork. In response to these problems, the offshore private contractor was replaced, many state employees were rehired, and attempts were made to bring children back into the system. Yet in 2010, a federal official complained about Texas's “five-year slide” to last place among the states in the speed and accuracy of handling food stamp applications after privatization. Promised savings and better service have yet to appear.

State officials say the problem is that privatization is still a work in progress and that there is no turning back. Critics argue that profit incentives for contractors and social services for the public are inherently in conflict. Officials have continued to promote privatization, but more gradually, with the result that some Texas social services are a mixture of public and private administration. Private contractors are both for-profit and nonprofit. An example is foster care. With too little money, too few caseworkers, and inadequate accountability, foster care in Texas has performed poorly under both public and privatized management. Child welfare advocates see the current heavily privatized plan stretching limited resources even thinner and adding a layer of private bureaucracy.

//what about non-chapter activities //

Chapter 10: Public Policy and Administration: 10-3a Human Services

Book Title: Practicing Texas Politics

Printed By: Ali Hussain G Almutlaq ([email protected])

© 2015 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

10-3a Human Services

The Health and Human Services Commission administers a variety of programs, three of which have long received a great deal of attention and debate: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, and Medicaid. All three are administered by the executive commissioner within federal guidelines and are funded by the federal government and to a lesser extent by the state. In the words of budget analyst Eva DeLuna Castro, eligibility for these and other “public assistance programs in Texas is very restrictive compared to other states, the benefits are lower, and health benefits for poor adults are more limited. As a result, a smaller share of the poor in Texas receives any public assistance.” In addition, all three programs suffered financially from the budget cutbacks carried out by the 2011 legislature and only partially recovered in 2013.

The executive commissioner has direct responsibility for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)Provides financial assistance to the poor in an attempt to help them move from welfare to the workforce. program. In Texas, this program provides limited support for extremely poor families. For a family of three in 2014, the poverty level was $19,790. To receive TANF that year, a family of one parent and two children could earn no more than $2,256 a year (less than 12 percent of the poverty level). The family received $277 a month. Along with other requirements, caretakers must be U.S. citizens or legal residents and agree to work or to enroll in a job training program. According to HHSC, the “most common” TANF caretaker is a woman about 30 years old with one or two children younger than age 11. She is unemployed, has no other income, and receives a TANF grant of $277 or less per month for fewer than 12 months. In addition to the small amount of cash provided by TANF, recipients may receive benefits from other programs, such as SNAP and Medicaid.

A second federal-state program administered by the executive commissioner is the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP)Joint federal-state program administered by the state to provide food to low-income people., formerly called food stamps. It makes food available to elderly or disabled people, families, and single adults who qualify because of low income of up to 130 percent of the poverty level. Approximately 80 percent of those who benefit from SNAP receive no TANF support. Benefits vary, depending on income and the number of people in a household. In 2014, for example, a qualified Texas household composed of three people could earn up to $2,686 a month and obtain groceries costing up to $497 each month. To reduce fraud, the program replaced paper stamps used for purchases with a plastic Lone Star Card, which functions like a debit card.

To assist in connecting eligible Texans to service providers, several private groups use social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook, as well as blogs. A Fighting Chance for Texas Families provides information about resources and encourages users to share their stories of what it takes to survive in poverty in Texas.

//what about non-chapter activities //

Chapter 10: Public Policy and Administration: 10-3b Health and Mental Health Services

Book Title: Practicing Texas Politics

Printed By: Ali Hussain G Almutlaq ([email protected])

© 2015 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

10-3b Health and Mental Health Services

The third major federal-state program administered by the executive commissioner is MedicaidFunded in large part by federal grants and in part by state appropriations, Medicaid is administered by the state. It provides medical care for persons whose incomes fall below the poverty line.. Part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society initiatives in the 1960s, Medicaid is designed to provide medical care for persons whose income falls below the poverty line. Resources not counted against the poverty level limit are a home, personal possessions, and a low-value motor vehicle. Not to be confused with Medicaid is MedicareFunded entirely by the federal government and administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Medicare provides medical assistance to qualified applicants age 65 and older., another Great Society initiative. A federal program providing medical assistance to qualifying applicants age 65 and older, Medicare is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services without use of state funds. Because Medicaid is considered welfare and serves the poor, it has much less political clout than Medicare, which serves a more middle-class clientele. Medicaid has much more difficulty gaining funding, and benefits for clients and reimbursements for service providers tend to be lower. Benefits are so low that the majority of Texas doctors now refuse new Medicaid patients, and nursing homes have trouble covering their costs.

Under the 2010 national Affordable Care Act, states were required to expand Medicaid coverage to virtually all nonelderly adults and children earning up to 133 percent of the poverty line. States that did not provide the expanded coverage risked losing their existing federal Medicaid funds. However, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal government could not use the threat of withholding the existing funding to coerce expansion of Medicaid for adults. Thus, states have the option of participating in the expansion or keeping their existing adult programs. Coverage of children must be expanded. Editorials in most of Texas's major newspapers supported the expansion; however, in July 2012, Governor Perry informed federal authorities that Texas would not participate in the expansion of Medicaid. As of June 2014, some 26 states were implementing the Medicaid expansion, 19 (including Texas) were not, and 5 were still debating it. For those states participating, the federal government pays the entire cost of expansion for the first three years and at least 90 percent beyond that. Payments for primary care physicians are also raised to Medicare levels.

Without the expansion of Medicaid, Texas remains a national leader in number of uninsured. About 1 million Texans were affected by the decision. Several studies have examined the consequences of the decision and concluded that it will lead to preventable deaths. In Texas, one projection is that 9,000 lives a year could be lost.

The Department of State Health Services (DSHS) performs a wide variety of functions, including public health planning and enforcement of state health laws. As with public assistance, state health policies are closely tied to several federal programs. One example is the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), a delivery system for healthy foods, nutritional counseling, and health care screening.

In September 2014, Texas's first Ebola case received great publicity and posed a challenge to the DSHS, which educates Texans on infectious diseases. An existing problem in Texas is acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). It is commonly transmitted by sexual contact (both homosexual and heterosexual) and contaminated needles used by drug abusers. AIDS is an international epidemic but more stable in Texas. According to the department's comprehensive 2010 report on AIDS/HIV:

Since 2004, the number of persons living with HIV (PLWH) in Texas has increased steadily, by about 5 percent each year.… In Texas, the number of new HIV diagnoses and deaths among PLWH has remained largely stable in the past seven years, averaging around 4,180 new diagnoses and 1,470 deaths per year.… The increase … in PLWH over time reflects continued survival due to better treatment, not an increase in new diagnoses. In an environment of increasing numbers of PLWH, the fact that new diagnoses have remained level speaks to successful prevention and treatment efforts, but more must be done in order to actually reduce the number of new HIV diagnoses.

In 2012, among the 73,000 Texans living with HIV, 78 percent were male, 29 percent Anglo, 38 percent African American, and 29 percent Latino. HIV is the state's seventh leading cause of death among Texans ages 25–44. (For comparison, first is accidents, second is suicide, and sixth is homicide).

A related problem is the continuing increase in the number of cases of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) other than HIV/AIDS reported in Texas each year. This number reached almost 158,000 in 2012. Persons between 15 and 24 years of age account for the majority of this total. The actual STD numbers are probably higher, because not all STDs must be reported, and many reportable cases are unreported.

The Texas departments of State Health Services and Aging and Disability Services provide public mental health programs for persons unable to afford private therapy for emotional problems. However, Texas's per capita funding for mental health programs has ranked 47th to 50th among the 50 states for years (in fiscal year 2010, $39 per capita, compared to the national average of $121). As a result, the state serves only a fraction of those needing assistance. For example, in Harris County (Houston) in 2013, 8,500 adults received care out of approximately 180,000 who needed care. Thousands are on waiting lists, and an unknown number of the mentally ill are detained in jails and prisons or living on the streets.

Like most states, Texas relies heavily on community outpatient services for mental health treatment, which is the cheaper and medically preferred option for most patients. The number of patients receiving community mental health services has been relatively flat, fluctuating from 62,000 to 68,000 annually during the 2007–2013 period. Approximately 2,400 patients are in state mental health hospitals, and 4,000 are in state-supported living centers. In addition to a long-standing debate about whether these large facilities are appropriate for all patients, reports of abuse in the living centers brought an agreement in 2009 between the U.S. Justice Department and Texas to increase the number of workers and federal inspections. Since then, the number of workers has increased, but the failure to increase wages for direct care workers has contributed to continuing high rates of neglect.

//what about non-chapter activities //

Chapter 10: Public Policy and Administration: 10-3c Employment

Book Title: Practicing Texas Politics

Printed By: Ali Hussain G Almutlaq ([email protected])

© 2015 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

10-3c Employment

Texas's state employment services cut across three areas of policy: human services, education, and economic development. The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC)A state agency headed by three salaried commissioners that oversees job training and unemployment compensation programs. receives appropriations from the legislature in the category of business and economic development, which probably works to its advantage because of the legislature's more friendly view of business and development. The agency serves both employers and workers. For employers, TWC offers recruiting, retention, training and retraining, outplacement services, and information on labor law and labor market statistics. For job seekers, TWC offers career development information, job search resources, training programs, and unemployment benefits. As part of this effort, the TWC matches unemployed workers with employers offering jobs. The TWC also collects an employee payroll tax paid by employers, which funds weekly benefit payments to unemployed workers covered by the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act. The amount paid to the unemployed depends on wages earned in an earlier quarter (three months). In 2014, the maximum weekly compensation was $454, and the minimum was $63. In the same year, the average tax rate paid by employers was 1.66 percent of the first $9,000 of each employee's salary. The Great Recession increased unemployment and claims, although Texas unemployment remained below the national average.

The TWC is directed by three salaried commissioners appointed by the governor, with consent of the Senate, for overlapping six-year terms. One member represents employers, one represents labor, and one is intended to represent the general public.

Since 1913, Texas has had a workers' compensationA system of insurance that pays benefits to workers injured by their work. program to help workers injured on the job receive medical care and recover some lost wages. The way the system works is that employers purchase insurance from private companies that covers expenses of those injured or sickened at work. By the mid-1980s, the program had become highly controversial, with charges of low benefits for injured workers and high insurance premiums for employers. A two-year lobbying and legislative struggle produced a major modification of the program in 1989. A coalition of employers and insurance companies defeated a coalition of plaintiffs' lawyers and labor unions. The process for injured workers became more administrative and less judicial. Workers were less likely to win and more likely to receive lower benefits. The major source of the problem, Texas's dangerous workplaces, received scant improvement.

Learning Check 10.3

1. Why are health and human services programs at a disadvantage in Texas?

2. Which program is better funded, Medicaid or Medicare?

The workers' compensation system is governed by the Division of Workers' Compensation (DWC) of the Texas Department of Insurance. It is headed by the Commissioner of Workers' Compensation, who is appointed by the governor for a two-year term. Since creation of the DWC in 2005, lawyers who represent injured workers have complained that the agency is too close to the insurance companies; and the commissioner testified in 2014 that workers are losing an increasing proportion of disputes in the agency's court-like system that resolves disputes. The number of claims by workers and insurance rates charged employers have declined.

Texas is the only state in the union that does not require employers to provide workers' compensation insurance. Failure to provide the insurance puts the employer at risk for expensive court suits, which are generally forbidden by law if the employer provides workers' compensation insurance. About two-thirds of Texas employers provide the insurance.

//what about non-chapter activities //

Chapter 10: Public Policy and Administration: 10-4 Economic and Environmental Policies

Book Title: Practicing Texas Politics

Printed By: Ali Hussain G Almutlaq ([email protected])

© 2015 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

10-4 Economic and Environmental Policies

LO 10.4

Compare the roles of government in generating economic development while maintaining a safe and clean environment for the state's residents.

Education, health, and human services receive three-fourths of Texas state government expenditure. Business, economic development, and regulation together account for 14 percent of the budget, but they have a substantial and often direct effect on the lives of Texans. The state tries to generate economic development that, when successful, produces jobs and profits. Regulations affect the prices we pay for electricity and insurance, as well as the quality of the air we breathe. Historically, regulation was supported as a means to protect the individual, the weak, and the general public against the economically powerful and the special interests. In practice, this protection has been difficult to achieve because the benefits of regulation tend to be diffuse and the costs specific. For example, cleaner air benefits a broad range of the public, but few can put a dollar amount on their own benefit. On the other hand, companies that must pay to clean up their air emissions see a specific (and sometimes large) cost. Thus, they may perceive more incentive to spend money to fight regulation than do those who benefit from it. Moreover, businesses are better organized and have more connections to policymakers than does the public. For most of Texas's history, economic and regulatory policies have tilted toward business. The Republican ascendancy in recent years has enhanced this tendency, although consumer, environmental, and labor advocates are increasingly heard.

//what about non-chapter activities //

Chapter 10: Public Policy and Administration: 10-4a Economic Regulatory Policy

Book Title: Practicing Texas Politics

Printed By: Ali Hussain G Almutlaq ([email protected])

© 2015 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

10-4a Economic Regulatory Policy

Have you ever complained about a high telephone bill, a big automobile insurance premium, or the cost of a license to practice a trade or profession for which you have been trained? Welcome to the Lone Star State's regulatory politics. For businesses seeking to boost profits or professional groups trying to strengthen their licensing requirements, obtaining or avoiding changes in regulations can be costly but rewarding. Less organized consumers and workers often believe they are left to pick up the tab for higher bills and fees and, on occasion, inferior service.

Traditionally, government regulation focused on prohibitions or requiring certain procedures to be followed. However, in the last decade, Texas regulators have increasingly sought to use economic competition to bring down costs to consumers and prevent harmful practices. This policy has produced great controversy. Although Texans tend to believe strongly in the merits of competition in much of the economy, there is not as much agreement that competition works for utilities and in protection of the environment. The reader will see this conflict played out across most of the areas of this section.

Business Regulation

The Railroad Commission and the Public Utility Commission are among Texas's most publicized agencies. The former regulates the oil and gas industry, which is experiencing a spectacular resurgence in its influence on the Texas economy, and the latter affects the telephone and electric power bills paid by millions of Texans.

The Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC)A popularly elected three-member commission primarily engaged in regulating natural gas and petroleum production. functions in several capacities, none of which has anything to do with railroads. Established in 1891 to regulate the railroads, it is the oldest regulatory agency in the state. However, in 2005, it lost its last responsibilities for railroads. Today, the commission focuses primarily on the oil and gas industry. It grants permits for drilling oil and gas wells, regulates natural gas rates in rural areas, hears appeals of municipally set gas rates for residential and business customers, tries to prevent waste of petroleum resources, regulates pipeline safety, and oversees the plugging of depleted or abandoned oil and gas wells. The RRC also has jurisdiction over surface coal mining and uranium exploration.

Textbooks often cite the RRC as the classic case of “agency capture,” a situation in which the regulated industry exerts excessive influence over the agency intended to regulate it. Despite legislation requiring protection of consumers and the environment, the RRC has long seen its major function as maintaining the profitability of the state's oil and gas industry. The industry's earlier decline and the state's greater economic diversity reduced industry dominance somewhat. However, the resurgence of the industry is enhancing its political power and influence. Some of the consequences of the oil boom are discussed in the reading at the end of this chapter.

Under law, the three commissioners are elected to six-year terms with one commissioner seeking election every two years. However, the RRC is often considered a way station in the career of rising politicians. Only a few stay six years, so many commissioners take office as a result of gubernatorial appointment. A high proportion come to office with much of their career in the oil and gas industry. The commissioners are full-time and earn $137,500 a year.

In 2009–2010, drilling for natural gas in the Barnett Shale put more than 1,000 wells within Fort Worth's city limits, creating a variety of public concerns—environmental pollution, pipeline rights-of-way, drilling near homes, and even earthquakes. The outcry contributed to the defeat of RRC Chair Victor Carrillo in the 2010 Republican primary—an unusual occurrence. (Carrillo complained that his Spanish surname also played a role in his defeat.)

A related controversy facing the RRC is hydraulic fracturing (generally called fracking). This process involves injecting large amounts of water, sand, and chemicals underground at high pressure to break up shale formations, allowing oil or gas to flow up the wellbore. Fracking and horizontal drilling have been key to the rebirth of the oil and gas industry in the state and nation. However, there are major questions about fracking's effect on the environment, including the safety of the underground water supply and the disposal of contaminated water that returns to the surface. The topic is debated in the Point/Counterpoint feature of Chapter 1.

Given the state's growing water shortage, this additional major use for water is causing concern. Another problem arising from the growing exploration and production is the damage to roads in the area of the Eagle Ford Shale (in South Texas). Given the tendency of state agencies to define their role narrowly, neither problem may be readily addressed. Fracking has had at least two major long-term consequences. First, it has extended the use of fossil fuels for decades. Second, the availability of relatively cheap and clean natural gas has reduced the carbon emissions created by much dirtier coal but also made it more difficult for clean, renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar to compete.

Regulation of Public Utilities

State regulation of Texas's utility companies did not begin until 1975 with the creation of the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC)A three-member appointed body with regulatory power over electric and telephone companies.. Its three members are appointed by the governor, with Senate approval, to overlapping six-year terms. They work full-time and earn $150,000 a year.

The PUC's regulatory authority is limited by both national and state policies. Its two major responsibilities are local phone service and electric utilities. It does not regulate long distance calling, wireless, or cable TV (regulated by the Federal Communications Commission [FCC]); natural gas utilities (Railroad Commission); water utilities (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality [TCEQ]); or municipal electric utilities (locally regulated).

Today, PUC operations follow recent trends in regulatory policies nationwide. Traditionally, the rates of utility companies, such as those providing electricity and water, were set or approved by government regulators. (Prices were said to be regulated.) Since the early 2000s, Texas regulators have embraced deregulationThe elimination of government restrictions to allow free market competition to determine or limit the actions of individuals and corporations., under which business practices (such as setting rates) formerly strongly influenced by government rules are governed more by market conditions. The belief is that competition will produce fair prices and protect the public interest.

During the past decade, the Texas legislature has caused the PUC to shift from setting rates that telephone and electric power companies may charge to a policy of deregulation. Allowing consumers to choose their telephone service supplier was expected to result in reasonable telephone bills and reliable service from companies that must compete for customers. With the growth of competition from cell phones, this system seems to work.

According to critics, however, deregulation of most Texas electricity suppliers has raised rates in comparison to those of other states—a reversal of two decades of lower-than-average rates under state regulation. In 2013, Texas rates ranked in the middle of the 50 states. Texans in the deregulated sector paid more for electricity than Texas consumers served by regulated entities (such as municipal power companies in, for example, Austin and San Antonio). In 2012–2014, the PUC faced major concerns over the reliability of the flow of electricity. To avoid blackouts during periods of high usage, such as the summer air conditioning season, the commission considered raising rates substantially to encourage the construction of additional generating plants. Critics saw this as one more failure of deregulation.

Insurance Regulation

The commissioner of insuranceAppointed by the governor, the commissioner heads the Texas Department of Insurance, which is responsible for ensuring the industry's financial soundness, protecting policyholders, and overseeing insurance rates. heads the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI), which regulates to some degree the $50 billion insurance industry in the Lone Star State. The commissioner is appointed by the governor for a two-year term and earns $164,000 a year. The Office of Public Insurance Counsel represents consumers in rate disputes. The TDI deals with the wide range of insurance, including auto, health, home, life, wind, flood, and workers' compensation. It has a role in setting insurance rates, licenses agents and adjustors, and houses the state fire marshal.

At the beginning of 2003, Texans who owned homes and automobiles paid the highest insurance rates in the country. Rates were unregulated and rising rapidly. In response to the public outcry, the 2003 legislature gave the commissioner of insurance authority to regulate all home insurers doing business in Texas. The following year, Texas began a largely deregulated “file and use” system for auto and homeowners insurance. Insurers set their own rates, but the commissioner of insurance is authorized to order reductions and refunds if rates are determined to be excessive. Advocates of this system expected it to produce reasonable rates by promoting competition among insurance companies; however, by 2014, Texas homeowner insurance rates were third highest in the nation, more than $300 above the national average. In the more competitive car insurance industry, during the period 2010 to 2014, Texas fluctuated between the middle of the 50 states in average cost and being significantly higher.

Because of natural disasters such as hurricanes, hail, and mold, insurance rates in Texas tend to be high. But are they higher than necessary, as consumer groups argue? The “loss ratio,” which is considered the best measure of insurance company profitability, is what a company pays in benefits as a percentage of the premium money it receives. From 1992 to 2009, the average loss ratio for Texas insurance companies was 68 percent—greater than the 60 percent the industry prefers and lower than consumer advocates desire.

//what about non-chapter activities //

Chapter 10: Public Policy and Administration: 10-4b Business Promotion

Book Title: Practicing Texas Politics

Printed By: Ali Hussain G Almutlaq ([email protected])

© 2015 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

10-4b Business Promotion

Some cynical observers contend that the business of Texas government is business. Others argue that boosting business strengthens the economy and creates jobs that benefit the lives of all Texans. Certainly, the state's political culture and the strength of business lobbyists make government highly responsive to business. In 2012, Texas was ranked third among the 50 states in “policy environment” for entrepreneurship, behind South Dakota and Nevada and far ahead of neighboring states. State agencies in at least three policy areas—transportation, tourism, and licensing—are administered in ways that promote and protect economic interests.

Highways

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)Headed by a five-member appointed commission, the department maintains almost 80,000 miles of roads and highways and promotes highway safety. deals with a wide range of transportation issues. Its major focus is the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of the state's highways and bridges (currently 80,000 miles). However, it is also involved, though to a much lesser degree, with aviation, maritime, rail, public transportation, safety, and toll roads. The agency is headed by a five-member commission appointed by the governor, with Senate concurrence, to six-year overlapping terms. Drawing no state salary, each commissioner must be a “public” member without financial ties to any company contracting with the state for highway-related business. The commission selects an executive director who administers the department and maintains relations with the legislature and other agencies. For the 2014–2015 biennium, TxDOT was authorized 12,000 full-time-equivalent employees and a $22.1 billion budget.

Texans' love affair with their cars and pickups has led to traffic congestion and accidents. In recent years, Texans spent an average of 25 minutes commuting to work (one way), just at the national average. However, this number conceals huge differences—from a few minutes in small towns to much more than the average in densely populated areas and some suburbs. On the other hand, since 2000, the percentage of workers commuting by private vehicle has declined slightly in Texas's major cities.

With an increasing number of cars and trucks on the road, total accidents tend to increase. However, from 1935 to 2012, traffic deaths per 100 million miles driven declined in the nation and Texas (for the state, from 16.6 deaths to 1.43). The reasons for the decline, according to research, are safer roads, vehicles and behavior by drivers (such as use of seatbelts and designated drivers). In 2012, alcohol was involved in 38 percent of Texas traffic deaths compared to 31 percent for the nation.

TxDOT is widely viewed as one of the most successful state agencies in lobbying the legislature for appropriations. However, it too follows the state pattern of scarce resources for government agencies. Highway mileage and public transportation have not kept up with population growth, and road and bridge maintenance has lagged seriously. Testimony in 2014 by Texas A&M Transportation Institute researchers indicated that Texas would need to spend $4-7.4 billion more each year to maintain 2010 mobility levels.

In the face of strong legislative opposition to new taxes, how should improvements be financed? Texas has made heavy use of bonds but is finding that this avenue is approaching its limits. Texas officials have shown a marked preference for toll roads built and run by private companies. However, there has been strong public opposition to toll roads, particularly to privately run toll roads. In 2007, the legislature passed a loophole-laden bill that has slowed the movement toward private toll roads, though public toll roads continue to expand. For a discussion of infrastructure financing, see Chapter 13, “Finance and Fiscal Policy.”

In keeping with state encouragement of private transportation efforts, a developer is planning a high-speed passenger rail for a 90-minute trip between Dallas and Houston. Texas made an unsuccessful push for such a project in the 1990s. If it comes to fruition in 2021 as planned, the bullet train will be the first in the nation.

Compared with highways, public transportation has less public and official support. Only a few Texas cities have light rail (such as Austin's Capital MetroRail) for public transportation. In Texas, 95 percent of public transportation is by bus. Statewide, the proportion of commuters using public transit has increased slightly since 2000, but there has been variation by city (El Paso and Austin up but Dallas and Houston down).

In 2014 Texas had eight large urban transit agencies serving areas with 200,000 or more residents. These agencies provide around 90 percent of Texans' public transit trips. The most common organizational form (7 of 8) is a metropolitan transit authority (MTA), which is a local regional government that can impose taxes and service the central city and the surrounding suburbs. TxDOT has little role in the planning, finance, or operation of MTAs. In 2014, there were also 30 small urban transit agencies and 39 rural transit systems serving smaller communities, as well as more than 135 operators providing transportation services to the elderly and to individuals with disabilities under varying arrangements.

Tourism, Parks, and Recreation

Responsibility for preserving Texas's natural habitats and managing public recreational areas lies with the Texas Parks and Wildlife DepartmentTexas agency that runs state parks and regulates hunting, fishing, and boating.. The nine members of its governing commission are appointed by the governor with Senate approval. The governor also designates the chair of the commission from among the members. Fees for fishing and hunting licenses and entrance to state parks are set by the commission. Game wardens, under the department, enforce state laws and departmental regulations that apply to hunting, fishing, and boating; the Texas Penal Code; and certain laws affecting clean air and water, hazardous materials, and human health.

Tourism is the third largest industry in the Lone Star State. The state park system attracts 7 to 10 million visitors a year (both Texans and out-of-state tourists) and usually generates over $1 billion a year for the economy. (Wildlife recreation produced over $6 billion for the state in 2011.) With Texas ranked 49th in state money spent on parks in the first years of this century, however, state parks were suffering deterioration in quality and services. Fewer parks and park amenities hurt business and were a loss to middle- and working-class Texans, many of whom depend on public parks for recreation. Since 2007, appropriations for Parks and Wildlife have experienced a roller coaster of ups and downs. In 2007, Parks and Wildlife leaders orchestrated a publicity campaign that convinced the legislature to boost the budget from $439 million to $665 million for the biennium. The 2009 legislature kept the increased level of funding, but the revenue-strapped 2011 legislative session cut the budget by $153 million. The 2013 session increased appropriations to just under $600 million. Thus, state parks continue to struggle.

Certification of Trades and Professions

Citizens in more than 40 occupations—half of which are health related—are certified (licensed) to practice their profession by state boards. Each licensing board has at least one “public” member (not from the regulated occupation). All members are appointed to six-year terms by the governor with approval of the Senate. In addition to ensuring that practitioners qualify to enter a profession (giving them a license to practice), the boards are responsible for ensuring that licensees continue to meet professional standards. For example, the Texas Board of Nursing (formerly called the Board of Nurse Examiners) licenses nurses to practice. According to investigative reporter Yamil Berard, it “is perhaps the most aggressive healthcare regulator in Texas, taking patient safety to heart.” Because of a shortage of legal staff, this board has been criticized for having a backlog of cases. Ironically, it and the Texas Medical Board, which regulates doctors, receive criticism from legislators and medical practitioners for being too tough while simultaneously receiving public criticism for not being tough enough.

//what about non-chapter activities //

Chapter 10: Public Policy and Administration: 10-4c Environmental Regulation

Book Title: Practicing Texas Politics

Printed By: Ali Hussain G Almutlaq ([email protected])

© 2015 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

10-4c Environmental Regulation

Among Texas's many public policy concerns, none draws sharper disagreements than how to maintain a clean and safe environment while advancing business development that will provide jobs and profits. Because of the nature of its industries and the love for driving, Texas has been among the most polluted states for years. Our industries, for example, produce more toxic contaminants (chemical waste) than do those of any other state. This grim reality confronts local, state, and national policymakers, and the decisions of all three affect the quality of air and water.

Since the early 1970s, federal policies have driven state and local environmental efforts, with Texas state and local officials generally trying to resist or slow the impact of federal policies. Mandates come from the national level through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and congressional directives in the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Under the Obama administration, the EPA became more vigorous, and the number of conflicts with Texas officials increased. Responses by Texas officials have included public complaints, legislation introduced by the state's representatives in Congress, requests for waivers, and state-filed lawsuits. Concern about climate change and Texas's substantial greenhouse gas emissions have also increased federal-state conflict.

Texas businesspeople usually support state policies designed to forestall federal regulations. Tracking corporate Texas's every step, however, is a growing army of public “watchdogs” (such as the Sierra Club), who do much to inform the public concerning environmental problems. By about 2012, environmental groups had begun to embrace the former enemy-technology to aid their cause. Cell phone cameras and GPS helped documentation, and social media became major tools for organizing and getting the word out.

Air and Water

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)The state agency that coordinates Texas's environmental regulation efforts., commonly called “T-sec,” coordinates the Lone Star State's environmental policies. Three full-time commission members earning $150,000 per year, an executive director earning $145,000 a year, and about 2,700 employees oversee environmental regulation in Texas. The commissioners are named by the governor for six-year staggered terms. The governor designates one of the commissioners as chair, and the commissioners choose the executive director. As with actions of other regulatory bodies, TCEQ's decisions can be appealed to state courts. For the 2014–2015 biennium, the agency received an appropriation of $729 million, which restored little (13 percent) of the major cuts made by the legislature in 2011. This was seen as a problem by environmentalists who thought the agency was underfunded and understaffed before the 2011 cuts.

Like the Railroad Commission, TCEQ has come under so much influence from the businesses it is intended to regulate that it is accused of being another instance of agency capture. For example, there are numerous cases of technical staff and specialists being overruled by the TCEQ's top leadership when the staff recommendation goes against interests with strong connections. This happened with the permitting of a West Texas nuclear waste site. The TCEQ's executive director ordered the license issued against the unanimous recommendation of staff specialists. He soon left the agency and six months later went to work for the operator of the waste site. From 1993 to 2010, “former TCEQ higher-ups—including commissioners, general counsels, and a deputy director … earned as much as $32 million lobbying for the industries they once policed.”

Cracks in the dry bed of Lake Lavon, northeast of Dallas. Texas's alternating periods of drought and flooding, together with the highly unequal distribution of rainfall from one region to another, make water policy a critical element of the state's development.

AP Images/Matt Slocum

Critical Thinking

• We can't control the weather. What can we do to better deal with alternating drought and flooding?

State policymakers must balance federal directives and state law with pressures from businesses and environmentalists, a major challenge. In recent years, TCEQ has pushed the state's metropolitan areas to meet federal air standards, with moderate success. However, Texas missed a 2009 federal deadline, which was then extended to 2012 and missed again. In 2014, the Sierra Club filed a federal suit over the second missed deadline. After changing its approach in 2005, Houston met federal smog standards in 2009 for the first time in 35 years. By 2014, it was meeting standards some days but missing them more often. Air quality in San Antonio has declined since 2008 and by 2014 was threatened with “noncompliance” status. In 2013, the American Lung Association named Houston (7th) and Dallas (8th) among the 10 U.S. cities with dirtiest air. (California had 7 of the 10!)

Another recent issue is how to generate more electrical power for Texas's growing population and economy. Many of the recent environmental conflicts between the EPA and Texas have related to the pollution produced by coal-burning plants. Significantly cleaner natural gas is becoming the preferred fuel for generating plants in Texas and elsewhere, and wind and solar power are making small but growing inroads.

Water is another important issue in a state that is largely arid. Texas's growing population, industry, and irrigation-based agriculture face serious water shortages; in addition, drought and flooding are regular problems for many areas. TCEQ, working with local prosecutors, deals with contamination of waterways. Major sources of water pollution include industry (through both air emissions and improper disposal of toxic waste), agriculture (particularly from fertilizer, manure, and pesticide runoff), and poorly treated sewage. The six-member Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) and its staff develop strategies, collect data, and administer grants and loans to support water supply, wastewater treatment, and flood control projects. Three sets of interconnected issues frame the water supply debate:

• Conflicts over who controls the water: Under Texas law, surface water (in lakes and rivers) belongs to the state, but citizens and other entities may be granted rights to it. Water is overappropriated—that is, if every entity actually received the amount it has been allocated by the state, lakes and rivers would be dry. Underground water (called groundwater) has almost no regulation. Under the legal concept known as the rule of capture, landowners own the water below their property. But problems arise when upstream landowners pump so much water that downstream landowners' wells and springs dry up.

• The desire of metropolitan areas and drier Central and Western Texas to build lakes and pipelines to capture and move water from wetter areas, such as East Texas: Many communities want to keep their water. Others object to loss of land to lakes and damage to rivers and wetlands. Closely related are conflicts among the users of water—agriculture, cities, and industry—and with environmentalists over who gets priority over water.

• Maintenance of the quality and quantity of underground water, such as the Ogallala and Edwards aquifers, on which many cities, farms, and rivers depend.

Flooding in Corpus Christi. While experiencing periodic drought, the Corpus Christi area also suffered 12 “flood events” in the period 2001–2013.

Todd Yates/Black Star/Newscom

Critical Thinking

• What factors make it easier or harder to reduce flooding and to deal with its consequences?

One thing on which most sides of the water disputes agree is that Texas needs an effective water plan. The state has had a series of water plans, but they have had little impact. In 2013, the legislature agreed to a two-pronged approach. With the approval of the voters, $2 billion from the state's Rainy Day Fund would be used (1) to encourage conservation and (2) to build new water projects such as reservoirs. Neither side believes that the plan will solve the problem, but some people on both sides are encouraged that some action is being taken. With the continued growth of population and the needs of agriculture and industry, the water fights continue to grow in importance. The issue of water supply is made worse by Texas's periodic droughts, which are often followed by flooding. The 1950–1957 drought cost the state's agriculture $22 billion (in 2011 dollars), and the 2010–2011 drought cost at least $8 billion and saw fires char 4 million acres. Since 1945, the state has experienced six periods of severe drought and two of extreme drought. Water problems are also discussed in Chapter 1, “The Environment of Texas Politics,” and financial implications are covered in Chapter 13, “Finance and Fiscal Policy.”

Hazardous Waste

Hazardous waste is a fact of modern life. From the use of low-level radioactive materials for disease diagnosis in hospitals to industrial production of plastics and chemicals on which we depend, we generate large quantities of dangerous waste. This waste ranges in danger from high-level radioactive material with potential toxicity for thousands of years to nonradioactive hazardous waste. Those who produce hazardous materials want to get rid of waste as cheaply as possible, and they have the money and incentive to succeed in keeping the costs of disposal low. Although environmental groups in Texas have grown in power and political skill, they generally can only delay and modify actions favored by pollution producers. For its part, much of the public simply says “Not in my backyard” (NIMBY).

In the case of low-level radioactive waste, there have been a series of political skirmishes stretching back to the 1970s, a lack of a coordinated plan, and a growing amount of waste. By 2009, a private radioactive waste dumpsite had been built in sparsely populated Andrews County near the border with New Mexico and a permit issued by TCEQ. By 2012, the first loads of waste had arrived. Initially, the waste was to be from Texas and Vermont, based on an interstate compact. However, 29 states depended on the site in 2014, and the number could rise to 38 or more. The substantial campaign contributions and lobbying by the site's developer, Waste Control Specialists, and its owner led to charges of crony capitalism (government officials favoring and subsidizing their friends in the private sector who have helped them). In 2014, the Texas site was the only one in the nation serving the estimated $30 billion a year demand for disposal.

Learning Check 10.4

1. True or False: Business regulation in Texas tends to be tough on businesses.

2. What are some demands that state environmental policymakers must balance?

Generated largely by Texas's petrochemical industry, nonradioactive hazardous waste stored in landfills presents another environmental dilemma. Poorly stored materials may leak into the water table or nearby waterways or contaminate the dirt above them. Some housing and commercial land developers covet landfill sites for their building projects because of costs and location. TCEQ has tended to approve less restrictive guidelines for these sites. As the state's population increases in the years ahead, even greater demands will be placed on the quality of its air, water, and land.

Selected Reading

Fracking the Eagle Ford Shale—Big Oil and Bad Air on the Texas Prairie

Terrence Henry

In Texas, big oil and the chance to make money have always carried a lot of weight, in both public and private life. With the resurgence of oil production in recent years, oil companies are gaining more power, and public officials are reluctant to take on the “big guys” or to threaten the golden goose that is revitalizing the state's economy. This reading gives a taste of the impact on people of the boom mentality, the reluctance to be regulated, and the tendency of government officials to not want to share information, particularly if it might put them or someone of importance in a bad light.

A new joint investigation out this week on air quality in the Eagle Ford Shale has brought up troubling questions about the effect fracking in South Texas is having on the health of residents. Inside Climate News, the Center for Public Integrity, and the Weather Channel cooperated on the report, which took eight months.

Among the report's findings:

• “Texas' air monitoring system is so flawed that the state knows almost nothing about the extent of the pollution in the Eagle Ford. Only five permanent air monitors are installed in the 20,000-square-mile region, and all are at the fringes of the shale play, far from the heavy drilling areas where emissions are highest.”

• “Thousands of oil and gas facilities, including six of the nine production sites near the Buehrings' house [a family with severe respiratory problems discussed in an article accompanying the report], are allowed to self-audit their emissions without reporting them to the state. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), which regulates most air emissions, doesn't even know some of these facilities exist. An internal agency document acknowledges that the rule allowing this practice ‘[c]annot be proven to be protective.’”

• “Companies that break the law are rarely fined. Of the 284 oil and gas industry-related complaints filed with the TCEQ by Eagle Ford residents between Jan. 1, 2010, and Nov. 19, 2013, only two resulted in fines despite 164 documented violations. The largest was just $14,250. (Pending enforcement actions could lead to six more fines).”

The report also notes that the TCEQ's budget has been slashed, reducing their ability to conduct inspections and air monitoring. Simultaneously, there has been a “100 percent statewide increase in unplanned, toxic air releases associated with oil and gas production since 2009.” These “are usually caused by human error or faulty equipment,” the report notes, and can be fixed.

The oil and gas industry wasted no time in issuing a response dismissing the investigation through the industry-funded Energy In Depth, saying it is “based on phony science and a deliberate misreading of the regulatory regime.”

Also of note are the roadblocks the team faced from state regulators and the oil and gas industry itself. While these obstacles are familiar to anyone who's ever reported on the fracking boom in Texas, they raise questions about what the state and industry are trying to hide:

• “The agency responsible for regulating air emissions—the TCEQ—refused to make any of its commissioners, officials or investigators available for interviews. Instead, we had to submit questions via emails that were routed through agency spokespeople. It's unclear if the spokespeople passed our questions along to the agency's experts. We received answers to most of our emails, often in some detail. But some of our questions were ignored or answered with talking points on general topics. The TCEQ employees who dealt with our public records requests were helpful and responsive, however. They discussed the filing process over the phone and answered questions about our requests.”

• “When a reporter called TCEQ field inspectors at their homes—a commonly used reporting technique—TCEQ spokeswoman Andrea Morrow left the reporter a message saying, ‘Under no circumstances are you to call our people and harass them at home.’ Morrow also blocked the reporter from approaching the agency's chairman, Bryan Shaw, at a public meeting in Austin.”

• “The agency's public records pricing system was puzzling. We were charged as little as 20 cents for one document but were asked for more than $10,000 to provide a batch of documents that had been given to another news agency years ago. We withdrew our request.”

• “The Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates drilling and all other aspects of the industry, made Commissioner David Porter available for a 10-minute phone interview. The Weather Channel later scheduled an on-camera interview with Porter, but when the producers arrived at the appointed time, they were told Porter was sick and would not be available for the next month. Like the TCEQ, the Railroad Commission spokespeople refused to discuss anything on the phone, including even technical questions about the mapping data we purchased from the agency. Nor would they make Porter or other top officials available for final, pre-publication phone interviews.”

• “Industry officials in Texas were as reluctant as regulators to meet face-to-face or go on camera. Most insisted that all queries be submitted in writing. No tours of Eagle Ford operations were allowed, despite several requests. No on-the-ground discussions of air pollution were facilitated. Hunt Oil was the exception. When we asked about a problem at one of its processing plants, the company set up a phone interview with an executive who answered our questions.”

Selected Reading Learning Check

1. Does the reading indicate that the two major state agencies involved in regulation are more supportive of the needs of industry or of local residents?

2. Texas has a law requiring public access to government records. Do the two agencies appear to be in compliance with the spirit of this law?

Source: Terrence Henry, “Fracking the Eagle Ford Shale – Big Oil and Bad Air on the Texas Prairie,” NPR, February 20, 2014, http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2014/02/20/watch-fracking-the-eagle-ford-shale-big-oil-and-bad-air-on-the-texas-prairie/. Terrence Henry reports on energy and the environment for StateImpact, a collaborative project of National Public Radio and member stations to examine the impact of state issues and policies on people's lives.

//what about non-chapter activities //

Chapter 10: Public Policy and Administration: 10-5 Chapter Review

Book Title: Practicing Texas Politics

Printed By: Ali Hussain G Almutlaq ([email protected])

© 2015 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

10-5 Chapter Review

10-5a Conclusion

The state's public policies affect many aspects of Texans' lives. The Texas education system faces challenges created by serving large numbers of disadvantaged students, coupled with a reluctance to devote sufficient state resources to education. The state has a large proportion of poor and working-class citizens in need of help in health and human services; this segment of the population has little political power to effectively satisfy their needs. In the areas of economic development and regulation, public policy has often tended to serve the interests of business over those of consumers.

//what about non-chapter activities //

Chapter 10: Public Policy and Administration: 10-5b Chapter Summary

Book Title: Practicing Texas Politics

Printed By: Ali Hussain G Almutlaq ([email protected])

© 2015 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

Chapter Review

10-5b Chapter Summary

• LO 10.1 
Describe the role of bureaucracy in making public policy in Texas.

• Public policymaking is a dynamic process in which bureaucracy plays a vital role in shaping the nature of policy. Texas's political culture and political process produce public policies that are responsive to business and government elites but that provide a weaker social safety net than the majority of other states. Most of the state's budget is spent on four areas: education, health and human services, business and economic development, and public safety and corrections. The sunset review process requires periodic review of state agencies by the legislature. Although producing few major changes in state government, it has had positive effects. The state's numerous agencies provide a variety of services to Texans, including public and higher education, social services, and business regulation and promotion. State agencies and their employees (bureaucrats or public administrators) carry out laws passed by the legislature but add their own influence by interpreting and applying the laws to specific situations. The success of agencies in Texas is influenced by the vigor of their leaders, the lack of resources for most agencies, and elite access. State employees are Texas's largest work group. Texas state government has done better than the private sector in providing access to employment for women and African Americans, but access for Latinos has been more mixed.

• LO 10.2 
Analyze the major challenges faced by the Texas education system.

• Whether in public school districts, institutions of higher education, or the legislature, policymakers face the challenge of achieving educational excellence at a price that Texas taxpayers can afford and that voters will support. Texas schools face the challenge of a changing student body—more ethnically diverse and from less affluent families. Failure to respond to the challenge is likely to damage the state's economy. The State Board of Education is limited and highly controversial. The greater state role in education is handled by the commissioner of education, who heads the Texas Education Agency. Testing remains a major tool for trying to improve education in the state. It is also a source of great controversy. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board coordinates all institutions of higher education; boards of regents govern universities; and local boards make policy for community colleges. Affirmative action and the top 10 percent rule have been major issues in college admissions.

• LO 10.3 
Describe the health and human services programs in Texas and discuss how efforts to address the needs of its citizens have been approached.

• State responsibility for many public assistance programs and the state's high poverty rate continue to place demands on Texas's social service agencies to assist needy families and those physically or mentally ill, aged, or disabled. Health and human services programs in Texas are politically weak and poorly funded. They are coordinated by the Health and Human Services Commission.

• LO 10.4 
Compare the roles of government in generating economic development while maintaining a safe and clean environment for the state's residents.

• Privatization of service delivery has a mixed record in Texas, with some major failures. It remains to be seen whether deregulation (the current direction of regulators) will be more effective than regulation in protecting the public interest; meanwhile, Texas consumers demand low-cost utilities, safe and plentiful drinking water, and cleaner air. State regulators tend to be protective of the industries they are charged to regulate. The deterioration of state parks because of funding shortages may cause Texas to lose tourist dollars. Texas has long had major pollution problems and public policies that have done little to improve the environment. Challenges to polluters are increasing, but change is slow. The ownership, protection, use, and availability of water have become major public policy issues.

//what about non-chapter activities //

Chapter 10: Public Policy and Administration: 10-5c Key Terms

Book Title: Practicing Texas Politics

Printed By: Ali Hussain G Almutlaq ([email protected])

© 2015 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

Chapter Review

10-5c Key Terms

• public policyWhat government does or does not do to and for its citizens.

• sunset review processDuring a cycle of 12 years, each state agency is studied at least once to see if it is needed and efficient, and then the legislature decides whether to abolish, merge, reorganize, or retain that agency.

• public administrationThe implementation of public policy by government employees.

• bureaucratsPublic employees.

• elite accessThe ability of the business elite to deal directly with high-ranking government administrators to avoid full compliance with regulations.

• patronage systemHiring friends and supporters of elected officials as government employees without regard to their abilities.

• merit systemHiring, promoting, and firing on the basis of objective criteria such as tests, degrees, experience, and performance.

• State Board of Education (SBOE)A popularly elected 15-member body with limited authority over Texas's K–12 education system.

• Texas Education Agency (TEA)Administers the state's public school system of more than 1,200 school districts and charter schools.

• commissioner of educationThe official who heads the TEA.

• Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS)A core curriculum (a set of courses and knowledge) setting out what students should learn.

• State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR)A state program of end-of-course and other examinations begun in 2012.

• Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB)An agency that provides some coordination for the state's public community colleges and universities.

• equal opportunityEnsures that policies and actions do not discriminate on factors such as race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or national origin.

• affirmative actionTakes positive steps to attract women and members of racial and ethnic minority groups; may include using race in admission or hiring decisions.

• top 10 percent ruleTexas law gives automatic admission into any Texas public college or university to those graduating in the top 10 percent of their Texas high school class, with limitations for the University of Texas at Austin.

• Executive commissioner of the Health and Human Services CommissionAppointed by the governor with Senate approval, the executive commissioner administers the HHSC, develops policies, makes rules, and appoints (with approval by the governor) commissioners to head the commission's four departments.

• PrivatizationTransfer of government services or assets to the private sector. Commonly, assets are sold and services contracted out.

• Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)Provides financial assistance to the poor in an attempt to help them move from welfare to the workforce.

• Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP)Joint federal-state program administered by the state to provide food to low-income people.

• MedicaidFunded in large part by federal grants and in part by state appropriations, Medicaid is administered by the state. It provides medical care for persons whose incomes fall below the poverty line.

• MedicareFunded entirely by the federal government and administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Medicare provides medical assistance to qualified applicants age 65 and older.

• Texas Workforce Commission (TWC)A state agency headed by three salaried commissioners that oversees job training and unemployment compensation programs.

• workers' compensationA system of insurance that pays benefits to workers injured by their work.

• Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC)A popularly elected three-member commission primarily engaged in regulating natural gas and petroleum production.

• Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC)A three-member appointed body with regulatory power over electric and telephone companies.

• deregulationThe elimination of government restrictions to allow free market competition to determine or limit the actions of individuals and corporations.

• commissioner of insuranceAppointed by the governor, the commissioner heads the Texas Department of Insurance, which is responsible for ensuring the industry's financial soundness, protecting policyholders, and overseeing insurance rates.

• Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)Headed by a five-member appointed commission, the department maintains almost 80,000 miles of roads and highways and promotes highway safety.

• Texas Parks and Wildlife DepartmentTexas agency that runs state parks and regulates hunting, fishing, and boating.

• Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)The state agency that coordinates Texas's environmental regulation efforts.