You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to myAJC.com

Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks.

GREAT REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

  • IN-DEPTH REPORTING
  • INTERACTIVE STORYTELLING
  • NEW TOPICS & COVERAGE
  • ePAPER
X

You have read of premium articles.

Get unlimited access to all of our breaking news, in-depth coverage and bonus content- exclusively for subscribers. Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks

X

Welcome to myAJC.com

This subscriber-only site gives you exclusive access to breaking news, in-depth coverage, exclusive interactives and bonus content.

You can read free articles of your choice a month that are only available on myAJC.com.

The Senate’s 3 percent poison pill for school choice


You have to hand it to Georgia’s Democratic legislators: They’re willing to say they just don’t like the state’s tax-credit scholarships. Republicans, on the other hand, keep coming up with ever-more creative ways to act as if they like the popular program, while working to stunt its growth.

The latest ploy, coming from (where else?) the state Senate, is to harp on the supposedly exorbitant “fees” student scholarship organizations, or SSOs, charge to run the program. People are allegedly “making money” off the scholarships, and our cost-conscious senators are on the case! So they amended House Bill 217 to ensure at least 97 percent of the money SSOs raise goes toward scholarships.

That sounds great, in theory. Who wouldn’t want as much money as possible to go toward scholarships?

Certainly, I do. That’s why I favor raising the cap from its $58 million limit. But it’s worth explaining why a 3 percent limit on “fees” would be crippling.

First, understand why SSOs get to keep any of the money they raise. Start with the fact that, before the tax-credit scholarship program was created, there were no such organizations. The law specifically mandates the existence of SSOs to collect the donations and award the scholarships. What our senators call “fees” are the overhead costs of operating them.

And the program requires significant operation. SSOs not only raise money but solicit scholarship applications, vet the applicants and decide who receives help, and how much. Someone has to do that work. With over 13,000 scholarship recipients in Georgia, it’s a fair amount of work.

Based on the evidence, they do it quite efficiently. Although senators wax concerned about SSOs keeping 10 percent of the funds, the law allows that percentage only on the first $1.5 million an SSO raises each year. It can keep between 5 percent and 7 percent of what it raises above $1.5 million.

Based on figures from the Revenue Department, SSOs collectively could keep as much as 7.8 percent of what they raise. (The actual amount might be lower, but the department does not report it; HB 217 would change that.) Is that high? Low?

Compared to other charities, it’s very low. I reviewed Charity Navigator’s data for the 68 Georgia charities that received its highest rating. The vast majority, 57 out of 68, spent more than 7.8 percent of their revenue on overhead. Just one of the 68 kept its overhead to 3 percent or less. The average for all of them was about 14 percent.

Remember, these charities are rightly considered the most responsible in the state, groups like Habitat for Humanity and United Way. And they spend almost twice as much on overhead as SSOs are already allowed to keep.

Just for kicks, I also looked at what Georgia’s public schools spend on overhead — i.e., everything but instruction. It’s about 33 percent.

But here’s the real question: If senators are truly worried too little money is going to kids on scholarships, why are they insisting on this provision, which would return about $2.5 million a year to the pool, while simultaneously removing a provision to raise the cap by another $35 million over the next several years?

One could be forgiven for thinking their goal is not to improve the program, but to neuter it.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Opinion: A road map for dealing with campus radicals

Jonathan Haidt is a member of one of America’s smallest fraternities — m those who attempt to see beyond their own prejudices. In the left-leaning Chronicle of Higher Education, he notes that “intimidation is the new normal” on college campuses. The examples are well-known: The shout-down/shutdown of Heather Mac Donald at Claremont...
Opinion: The day Bill O’Reilly got fired

On the day Bill O’Reilly was fired, Serena Williams announced she was 20 weeks pregnant. Fans did the math and concluded Williams must have had a baby on board in January when she won her 23rd Grand Slam singles title in dominating fashion. That, said TV tennis analyst Pam Shriver, made Williams’ win “even more spectacular.&rdquo...
Opinion: Alas, the mortgage interest deduction cannot be pried away

WASHINGTON — Attempting comprehensive tax reform is like trying to tug many bones from the clamped jaws of many mastiffs. Every provision of the code — now approaching 4 million words — was put there to placate a clamorous faction, or to create a grateful group that will fund its congressional defenders. Still, Washington will take...
As members flee, Georgia PTA risks status, stability
As members flee, Georgia PTA risks status, stability

On probation for a coup that ousted a revered president and under siege from a growing revolt in the ranks, the leadership of the Georgia PTA is burrowing deeper into its bunker. When the embattled board emerges and takes stock, it’s likely to find a changed landscape. Dozens of PTAs have decided to initiate the complicated process of dissolving...
Opinion: Why? I’ll tell you why!

Because I like it, because it’s Friday and because I’m going out for music and dancing tonight ….
More Stories