Recent "For The Children" Weekly Columns

As we continue our examination of the massive federal legislation called the “Big Beautiful Bill” by proponents, it is important to look at the education portion of the bill. As you can see from the analysis below, the federal funding and policy changes will be a tremendous change in how Kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) classes and access to college courses are supported by federal dollars. The bill would create an unprecedented $5 billion national school voucher program under K-12 called the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA). Families making up to 300% of area median income would be able to apply for and receive scholarships to use toward private school tuition, homeschooling books, or tutoring, for example. The money would be distributed by third-party scholarship granting organizations (SGOs) certified by the U.S. Treasury and IRS. Donors to SGOs would reap the tax benefits from this system. Anyone would be able to donate to one of these SGOs like a charitable organization. The difference, instead of getting a deduction from your taxable income, donors will receive a dollar-for-dollar full tax credit for up to the greater of $5,000 or as much as 10% of one’s income. For example, $1,000 donated to an SGO would result in $1,000 deducted off one’s tax bill. This is an unprecedented dollar-for-dollar charitable donation tax credit at the federal level. The changes are not limited to just young Americans in the education system. For America’s college students, the news is very concerning to many, especially community colleges. The bill proposes to: • Raise the definition of “full-time” to 15 credits per semester to get full Pell (from the current 12 credits) • Eliminate Stafford subsidized loans • Eliminate graduate student PLUS loans and limits parent PLUS loans. • Eliminate existing income-contingent repayment plans and create one new income-based repayment plan, increasing the percentage of discretionary income allowed and the number of payments needed before a loan can be forgiven. This will place extreme hardships many, including those who choose to work while taking college courses. By current standards, only 36% of undergraduate Pell Grant recipients attempted 30 or more credits in one academic year, the newly proposed definition of full time. This means that in the 2024-25 academic year, only about 2.5 million of the 6.9 million Pell Grant recipients nationwide would have qualified under the new definition. Further, about 1.4 million, or 20%, of Pell Grant recipients would lose their Pell Grant funding entirely due to the limitation on awards for less than half-time enrollment. This would include 810,000, or about one-third, of the 2.5 million Pell Grant recipients who are currently enrolled at community colleges, according to Center for American Progress. For part-time adult students who work while attending school, this could have a devastating impact on enrollment numbers. Most students who register in less than full time enrollment have jobs to help cover the rising cost of college and often have families to support. These programs currently provide an offset opportunity to complete courses more quickly, therefore allowing entry into the job market at a quicker pace. The low interest loans these students would lose under this bill will likely have a devastating impact on enrollment, depriving many of the chance for better lives and opportunities through higher education.  You can read my previous two columns at https://www.oica.org/weekly-columns which discuss changes to SoonerCare and food assistance programs. A future column will look at the tax provisions of the bill being discussed. Should you have concerns about the legislation and wish to contact members of Oklahoma’s federal delegation, you can find their information at https://tinyurl.com/OKCongDel .

Last week, we discussed the cuts to programs through HR 1 at the federal level and what those cuts would do to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funds allocated to states. You can read the column at https://tinyurl.com/FTCVoice . The legislation passed by a single vote along a mostly party line vote and is in the hands of U.S. senators now, weighing if they will make changes. This week let us examine the impact of the “Big Beautiful Bill” on Oklahoma’s state Medicaid program, SoonerCare, and other state programs that receive this heavily subsidized federal match to operate. Currently, one in four Oklahomans receive health insurance coverage through SoonerCare. The Medicaid sections of HR 1 would: Impose work or community engagement activities for recipients to begin no later than December 31, 2026. Exemptions for this are: pregnant women, individuals under the age of 19 or over the age of 64, foster youth and former foster youth under the age of 26, members of a Tribal nation, and individuals considered “medically frail,” once verified as such. Reduce by 10% the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for Medicaid expansion states that cover the cost of Medicaid for immigrants who are not “qualified aliens.” The FMAP is calculated based on each state's average per capita income relative to the national average. Sunset FMAP increase for Medicaid expansion states on January 1, 2026. This is a 5% FMAP increase for 2 years for states, like Oklahoma, which opted for Medicaid expansion; 10 States have not yet opted for expansion. Oklahoma is one of three states which enshrined Medicaid expansion within our state Constitution. Reduce retroactive coverage for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to one month from three months beginning December 31, 2026. Prohibit Medicaid funding of gender-affirming care for all individuals. Require redetermination of eligibility every six months for expansion populations beginning on December 31, 2026. Freeze the current amount of provider taxes for states. These taxes are state-imposed assessments on healthcare providers to help fund Medicaid services. Many states use provider taxes to increase provider payments or to offset potential cuts. Require states to impose co-pays on Medicaid Expansion adults with incomes over 100 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). This cost-sharing may not exceed $35 per service. Exempted services include primary care services, mental health care services, or substance use disorder services. Prohibit federal funding for certain entities providing abortion services. Increase the state share of Medicaid expansion from 10% to 20% for states that use state-only funds to provide health coverage to undocumented immigrants, placing a greater burden on state budgets should states choose to continue this service. It is estimated that approximately $880 billion will be reduced over the next decade through the Medicaid provisions of the legislation, with much of that shifted to states if they want to continue providing services at current levels. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 174,000 Oklahomans will lose SoonerCare benefits under this proposal, with uninsured rates increasing by roughly 95,000 or 2 % of our population. Rural hospitals face the greatest risk under this proposal. According to the Center of Health Care Quality and Payment Reform “Sixty-seven percent of rural facilities operate with losses on services, and 59% are at risk of closing.“ The center’s report states that most at-risk hospitals are in isolated communities where closures would force residents to travel long distances for emergency and inpatient care. Nine rural hospitals have closed since 2005 in Oklahoma. If you have thoughts on parts or all of this legislation, please reach out to our federal delegation for your input on what should happen. You can find their contact information at https://tinyurl.com/OKCongDel .

Prior to the Memorial Day weekend, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 1, commonly called the “Big, Beautiful Bill” Act. The vote of 215-214 fell almost exactly on a party-line vote. The bill now moves the bill to the Senate for consideration. It is expected that a vote will occur within the next few weeks. Much of this legislation will have a significant impact on children and families across the country. I wanted to share a synopsis of the legislation which was prepared for one of our collaborative partners at the national level, SPARC. Over the next three weeks, I will highlight some of the major portions of this legislation tying to Medicaid modifications and how it will impact Americans, including those in Oklahoma receiving SoonerCare, educational support programs for students, and tax reform. I first want to highlight what the bill would do to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP). SNAP provides food benefits to low-income families to supplement their grocery budget so they can afford the nutritious food essential to health and well-being, along with providing many with basic survival through this program. The SNAP-related sections of the bill propose to: • Limit the frequency of updates to the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP)—the basis for calculating SNAP benefits—to once every five years and requires cost neutrality in updates. • Impose work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs), raising the age to which an ABAWD must work from 49 to 64, and narrowing the definition of a dependent child to those under age 7, and limiting caregiving exemptions • Limit state flexibility by allowing ABAWD work requirement waivers only in areas with over 10% unemployment and reduce the allowable exempt population from 8% to 1%. • Restrict the automatic qualification for utility deductions in SNAP calculations to households with elderly or disabled members and limit income exclusions for state energy assistance. • Require states to contribute at least 5% toward SNAP benefit costs starting in FY 2028, with higher contributions (up to 25%) required for states with high SNAP error rates. Currently the federal government pays 100% of the SNAP benefit. • Reduce the federal contribution to SNAP administrative costs from 50% to 25%, increasing the state share to 75%. What does this mean to families who depend on SNAP? • Nearly 11 million people — about 1 in 4 SNAP participants, including more than 4 million children and more than half a million adults aged 65 or older and adults with disabilities — live in households that would be at risk of losing at least some of their food assistance under the legislation. • Shifting the cost of SNAP and program administration to the states will force states to have to make hard decisions about how they provide SNAP. If every state had needed to pay 5 percent of food benefit costs last year, states would have collectively paid about $4.7 billion. Much of this federal legislation would apply to the following fiscal year or later, so immediate modifications to state budgets by state lawmakers and governors would not be necessary. As I mentioned, I will highlight other areas of this bill in the coming weeks. If you would like to join us in calling for federal lawmakers to carefully consider the changes to SNAP, SoonerCare, emergency management support and other provisions directly impacting children, please sign on to our letter of encouragement for them to weigh their decisions. Of course, you can reach out to our federal delegation on your own. If you want to join our effort, you can read the letter at https://qrco.de/CongressLetter . If you wish to sign on to the letter as an individual, go to https://qrco.de/IndSignOn , or if an organization wishes to join in, they can sign on at https://qrco.de/OrgSignOn .

Gov. Kevin Stitt and legislative leaders have announced an agreement for the key elements to the Fiscal Year 2026 state budget. The plan for the estimated $12.6 billion budget includes an income tax cut of a quarter percent and consolidation of the lowest income tax brackets. Based on modeling from the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy, a 0.25% cut to Oklahoma’s personal income tax rate is estimated to reduce collections by $338 million annually. By flattening the bottom three income tax brackets, this is expected to lower the state budget by $87 million annually. The negotiating parties agreed on key spending priorities, including funds for a new, state-of-the-art veterinary hospital at OSU in Stillwater for $250 million; a world-class pediatric heart hospital at OU in Oklahoma City for $200 million; and funds for various infrastructure investments across the state. Other items in the budget include the purchase of a private prison in Lawton for $312 million and funding for the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services so they can make payroll for the rest of this fiscal year ending June 30. There will also be $41.6 million for the Oklahoma National Guard to do needed maintenance and $5 million for state employee maternity leave costs. “Enhanced tort reform” is included in the agreement, further limiting lawsuits against doctors and some businesses. Other “business-friendly” policies include “Behind the Meter” to allow power generation by large-scale manufacturers and data centers, the establishment of business courts, and expense recovery for utilities. The agreement also boosts public school funding by $25 million and private school vouchers by $50 million, while raising the ceiling on teacher pay. A pair of programs — for statewide inhaler access and school panic buttons — will be moved out of the State Department of Education into other agencies. The deal also will make the children of teachers eligible for the Oklahoma Higher Learning Access Program scholarships. Lawmakers are spending $8 million for a partnership between the OSU Medical Authority and St. Francis Hospital to capture federal funding to establish a Level 1 trauma center in Tulsa; currently, the state’s only Level 1 trauma center is in Oklahoma City. Lawmakers must constitutionally adjourn by 5 p.m. on the final Friday in May. These agreements, along with other bills yet unresolved, must make it to the desk of the governor by then. Many issues discussed this year, including an increase of $5 per day for traditional foster care to meet the growing costs of the economy - a detriment to recruiting much-needed foster families – will be held over until next year. Some have called for eliminating the state’s income tax. This would slash an estimated $5.8 billion annually from the current state budget. Obviously, many government services such as public schools, SoonerCare, and highway maintenance would face severe shortages if this were to happen. Of great concern, state lawmakers still do not know the impact of cuts looming with the upcoming federal budget. In Oklahoma, our state budget includes 43-47% matching federal funds. Early indicators predict that there will likely be between $400-$800 million of federal funds to Oklahoma eliminated. This could require some potentially unpleasant actions. One is a special session to modify the budget. Governor Stitt would need to call lawmakers back to adjust agency allocations, or lawmakers could try to call themselves back by a two-thirds vote of both the state House of Representatives and Senate. The second option is for agencies to absorb those cuts in the programs funded by federal dollars and reduce services. There are still many unknowns about what will happen with the federal budget. The Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy will keep you informed once more is revealed. 

STATE REP. JOHN WALDRON (right), D-Tulsa, listens to Oklahoma’s Kid Governor® Emma Stephens (second from right with sash), during a Kid Governor® visit to the State Capitol. Waldron, along with state Rep. Ellen Pogemiller, D-OKC, hosted the visit to share insight into state government and to listen to the Kid Governor® and her cabinet. Joining Kid Governor® Stephens were Kid Lt. Gov. Shawn Ferrell, Kid Secretary of State Lawson Ream, and Kid Cabinet Member Clayton Rohla, as well as Oklahoma State Department of Education personnel who also took time to visit with the young leaders.

In 1983, advocates from across our state saw the need for an organization to “raise awareness, take action, and support policy for the health, safety and well-being of Oklahoma’s children” through outreach to government policymakers. With that, Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy (OICA) was created. Since then, our organization has strived to mobilize citizens from across the Sooner State to learn the process of how to be effective voices in calling for better policies for our youth. Now, more than ever, citizens need to contact lawmakers and officials at all levels of government to share their experiences. They can be personal or from those whom they might serve through employment within a social services network. These efforts ensure that those stories are used to boost support for efforts to improve the lives of those youngest Oklahomans. As a former state lawmaker, I can assure you that, in most instances, stories from constituents can drive votes in a certain direction. Few people take the time to reach out to policymakers, so when a few calls come into their offices, it impacts how a vote might go. When the call comes from a voter within the district served by the lawmaker, the call carries even more weight. Those are the individuals who will part of determining if a lawmaker returns to their office after the next election. It is even more impactful when the lawmaker recognizes the name of the person calling. Developing some connection with the official in a positive situation creates influence. You should attend town halls held by the policymaker and introduce yourself. Ask to meet over coffee, either in the lawmaker’s district or at the State Capitol. This will develop the dialogue which helps you become a trusted resource. Elected officials are not experts in every subject on which they will make decisions. They look for people they can trust to provide background on issues to help them make informed votes. You can be that person with proper planning. Over the next month, I will be an instructor in the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute (OLLI) program through Oklahoma State University for a course called Understanding Oklahoma’s Legislative Process. The course will be for four weeks, held May 20-June 10 on Tuesday afternoons from 2-3 p.m. at Epworth Villa in Oklahoma City.  The cost is $20 for those who wish to enroll. The breakdown over the four weeks will look at understanding Oklahoma’s Legislature, the work of the other two branches of government and the different levels of government. You will learn how they interact with the Legislature, as well as how to read Oklahoma state legislation, and how to be an effective advocate with policymakers. If you are interested in joining the class, please go to https://education.okstate.edu/outreach/osher-lifelong-learning-institute/okc.html to enroll. OICA also has our team members and board members travel around the state to meet with civic organizations and deliver presentations on similar topics, along with holding conversations about youth issues presented through policy by lawmakers at the state and federal level. If you have a program and would like to have one of us attend and present, please reach out to our office at info@oica.org or at (405) 236-5437, ext. 1. As the Legislature nears the end of the 2025 session, and with budget challenges ahead due to federal cuts, I strongly encourage you to go to https://www.oica.org and sign up for our Thursday newsletter. You will be able to keep up with the progress of legislation relating to Oklahoma’s children. Together, our unified and informed voices can make a difference for the positive!

As May is upon us, it is the time of year when the state budget picture begins to clear as state legislators put the finishing touches on the budget for the fiscal year beginning on July 1. This year, however, that picture is still very blurry due to uncertainty about the federal budget being written in Washington, D.C. Now, you may wonder what the federal budget has to do with the state’s budget. The fact is that a good portion of the state’s dollars to spend come back to Oklahoma from our federal tax dollars we send to Washington. Last year, the U.S. Census reported that Oklahoma’s state government received 43% of its 2022 revenue from federal dollars. Oklahoma generally gets more money as a percentage of its budget than most states. Recently, with recent federal allocations under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), the total actually approached two-thirds of state spending being federal funds. ARPA expenditures were mainly one-time use projects. This has allowed state lawmakers to keep Oklahoma’s tax rates, already some of the lowest in the nation, even lower while still providing the services Oklahomans need and expect from state government. All that may be about to change. President Trump’s budget proposal, and those working their way through Congress, would sharply cut federal government spending, including that which goes to the states. In a number of cases, congressional leaders in Washington want the states to pick up more of the tab, especially in regard to Medicaid, the federal and state-funded health coverage program for the poor. In 2020, Oklahomans voted to expand Medicaid to adults aged 19-64 who earn at or below 138% of the federal poverty level. This expansion was placed in Oklahoma’s Constitution. It is not optional for state legislators: they must abide by the state constitution. If Washington reduces the amount of money allocated to the states for Medicaid, Oklahoma state lawmakers have no choice but to move money from other functions to meet the constitutional requirement for Medicaid coverage. To put how important Medicaid is to Oklahoma families and children, more than a million Oklahomans are on Medicaid – a quarter of the state’s entire population, and more than half of Oklahoma Medicaid recipients are children. Federal cuts to Medicaid will hit Oklahoma kids the hardest because there is no state constitutional requirement that Medicaid for kids be covered. So, what kind of cut is looming, just in Medicaid? The U.S. House of Representatives proposal could mean as much as $800 billion cut from Medicaid. The U.S. Senate proposal is not quite so draconian, but we can likely expect a Medicaid cut, which will hit children more severely. Medicaid is not the only child-focused federal program on the chopping block. In 2023, more than half of all federal spending on children (57 percent) went toward Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Head Start, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, the Child Tax Credit, and the Earned Income Tax Credit – all facing cuts under current federal budget proposals. Cuts to childcare and Head Start would mean families would have to pay more for childcare when parents work, cutting into family incomes. State lawmakers already have less state money to spend this year than last, even without federal cuts or a proposed state income tax cut being championed by the governor. Our state legislators have an enormous task ahead of them. Now is the time to reach out to federal lawmakers and make sure they know Oklahoma’s children need to be as protected as possible from the budget storms coming from our Nation’s Capital. To get the contact information for Oklahoma’s federal congressional delegation, go to https://tinyurl.com/OKFedLeg

The 2025 Oklahoma legislative session is almost three-fourths of the way done for the year with adjournment occurring in late May, and a good number of positive bills are moving forward. The Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy (OICA) is grateful to those policymakers - individuals from both rural and urban areas, men and women, Democrats and Republicans, new and veteran lawmakers - who filed and advanced legislation improve the lives of children. As you can see, categories do not matter when it comes to good policies. Our Capitol team, along with citizen advocates, continue to promote positive outcomes in the bills remaining in the process. Of those we are tracking, here are just a few of the ideas being considered: • Senate Bill 139 and House Bill 1276 - Requires schools to develop policies to prohibit students from the use of cell phones and smartwatches during the school day and when present on school property. • Senate Bill 806 - Food is Medicine Initiative. Directs Oklahoma Health Care Authority to implement a financial incentive for contracted entities who improve health outcomes of covered members through nutrition services. • House Bill 1484 – “Rain's Law.” Requires student instruction on fentanyl use/abuse in schools. • House Bill 1574 - Requires The Office of Juvenile System Oversight at the direction of Oklahoma Commission on Children and Youth to inspect state-operated child facilities and inspect private operated child facilities on a periodic basis or as needed. • House Bill 1848 - Grants a tax credit to employers that provides a childcare subsidy to their employees or operates a childcare facility for their employees. • House Bill 2013 - Creates “Dylan's Law,” which provides that all individual and group health insurance policies that provide medical and surgical benefits must provide the same coverage and benefits to any individual who has been diagnosed with epilepsy as they would to an individual that has not been diagnosed with epilepsy. • House Bill 2030 - Increases foster care maintenance payment for resources parents to be at least $22.72 per day or $681.60 per month (a $5/day increase). • House Bill 2361 – “Successful Adulthood Act.” Provides children 16 years or older who have been released from custody due to the entry of an adoption decree or guardianship order will be eligible to receive successful adulthood services until they are 21. • House Bill 2892 – Directs that the Oklahoma Commission on Children and Youth may pursue an investigation into a case where there exists reasonable belief in injurious conduct, neglect, physical or sexual abuse of a child has occurred. That is a strong list; still, there are some ideas which will not move forward this year. One of those is placing barriers on the use of social media by those youngest of Oklahomans in their pre-teen years. Two bills were proposed - HB 1275 and SB 885 - but legislative leaders decided to pause advancement due to questions about constitutionality. There is a similar concept being considered by federal officials that may advance, and OICA encourages that debate and passage. House Bill 1082 would have created a legal presumption that joint custody and equally shared parenting time is in the best interest of the child. The presumption could have been rebutted by a preponderance of evidence. This bill was held by the Senate Judiciary Committee to further study the language and remove any conflicting language currently in statute. Over the summer, we will work to address the concerns with these concepts. In the meantime, we will advocate for advancing those remaining ideas left alive for this session. If you would like weekly updates on these and other bills, go to oica.org to sign up for our Thursday email newsletter.

Do you consider your world view as “black & white” versus “shades of gray?” For my entire life, I can only remember a few times in my younger days that I felt so strongly about one side of an issue that it clouded me from seeing the other side of the story. In fact, the few times I took a hard line on something, I came around to see other perspectives and understood that someone somewhere would be hurt by not considering all sides of an issue. I had the pleasure of attending “The Boys from Oklahoma” concert this past weekend in Stillwater. While there, I made some new friends who recognized me from my former service as a state representative. We had an enjoyable conversation that sparked writing this column. After the introductions and pleasantries, light conversation about politics came up and two of them, lifelong best friends, shared their distinct political differences. What struck me was that this seems like a rarity these days as differing opinions have often divided up friends and family. I was happy to see that their friendship was strong enough to hold up against something like differing in their preferred political views. Policymakers have that challenge, and many enter the fray feeling they need to have enemies to validate what they wish to achieve. The natural opponent in politics is a person who is a challenger in an election, be it in a party primary between those who belong to the same party or those in the other party should one make it to the General Election. Only one wins the election, potentially leading to a grudge against the partisan opposition that can follow into political service. That is understandable as political parties often are the dividing line between views on multiple issues and can result in differing votes on issues. These differences often can become personal to policymakers who might champion an issue or stand devoutly against something. Fortunately, there are incidents that serve as a reality check for many that there are things far more important than political divides. One of those moments during this session was the passage of House Bill 1389, authored by Rep. Melissa Provenzano, D-Tulsa and Sen. Brenda Stanley, R-Midwest City. This bill would guarantee coverage for low-dose mammography screenings for Oklahoma women to help detect breast cancer. Provenzano, about two months ago, underwent a mastectomy for stage one HER2-positive breast cancer. “4,287 women were diagnosed [with breast cancer] this last year in the State of Oklahoma,” said Provenzano in her debate. “If this bill can help save a mom, I hope you’ll consider voting for it.” The bill did pass, and it was unanimous with a 95-0 vote. One of her colleagues, Majority Floor Leader Rep. Josh West, R-Grove, summed it up best. “Representative Provenzano, regardless of party lines, I guarantee it, I can speak for everyone, saying we all care about you,” West said. I appreciate that sentiment more than I can convey in this column. I am fortunate to work in a field (child advocacy) that often does not divide on party lines, albeit the pathway to solutions can have differing opinions. I have found it easy to visit with almost every lawmaker about most issues and am thankful when they think through the issues and what impact they will have on children, and with this bill, saving the lives of mothers. Thank you to those who place good policy over party on both sides of the aisle when it comes to legislative solutions. And if you have lost a good friend over political differences, please consider a second chance.