Florence Crittenton News — April, 2009
Newsletter Archives
In this issue:
- Profile: Carol Larson
- Prop 1D: The More Voters Know,
The Less They Like It
- Will 100,000 Non-Profits Fold?
Carol Larson : Witness to 30 Years of FCS History
During her nearly 30 years at Florence Crittenton Services, Carol Larson has seen her share of change and challenge. Like the agency itself, Carol has proven resilient and adaptable in the face of changing circumstances. Still, one constant remains: a focus on helping those less fortunate than herself.
“Working at FCS gives you the feeling that you’re making a positive difference in the lives of people who really need help,” she says. “That’s what’s kept me here all these years.”
Carol was born and raised in Illinois and majored in English at Rockford College. She came to California in 1964 and worked as an architectural administrative assistant. She then spent four years living and working in London. (An avid traveler, she visits London at least once a year, saying, “Christmas in London is magical.”) After returning to San Francisco, she started working at FCS in 1979.
Since then, Carol has developed a panoramic perspective on the child care field.
When she started at FCS, the social services landscape was beginning to change. In the 1950’s, most single mothers who came to FCS were white and middle class. They came to FCS to “hide out” during pregnancy, and then give up the child for adoption. With the availability of birth control to middle class women in the 1960’s, lower-income women started coming to the agency. In the 1970’s, services like child care, job training, and education became available for these single mothers, who faced a variety of other challenges like lack of education and job skills, and drug addiction.
Carol also has the distinction of wearing more hats than anyone else at the agency. She began as secretary to the executive director. Since then, she’s worked with the board of directors, assisted with newsletters, mailings and fund-raising. Also, she was for several years in charge of human resources, and the recruitment and supervision of volunteers.
Currently, Carol is Director of Administration and Enrollment. As chief administrator, she is tasked with managing the office, supervising the IT department, and overseeing building facilities at Broderick Street. She was given the job of director of enrollment without any background in it. As in so many other instances, she stepped up and met the challenge. “I had to start from scratch and learn everything about enrollment,” she says. “There isn’t anything I haven’t done here.”
Carol’s job in enrolling children for child care slots is especially critical for FCS – the lion’s share of the agency’s funding is directly tied to filling those slots. But the job has its challenges. She is responsible for contacting parents and making sure they fill out their extensive paperwork truthfully and accurately. In the course of verifying the parent’s eligibility for child care, she may have to interact with employers, schools, and doctors.
But a greater challenge is communication.
One of the trends Carol has seen in the last few years is a growing number of Spanish-speaking and Cantonese-speaking immigrants in need of social services. Because these immigrants can’t speak English, their situation is especially difficult. To solve the language barrier problem, Carol works with translators who can explain to the parents what they need to do in their own language. “It’s heart-wrenching to sit with a parent with no income and job, no job skills, and who can’t speak English,” she says.
What’s the greatest challenge for FCS right now?
“Staying alive in these difficult economic times,” Carol answers without hesitation. “But I believe if we stay true to ourselves and our mission of ending poverty one family at a time things will work out in the end.”
“I’ve been through these tough times before,” she says. “I do have confidence that we’ll get through this period as well because we have an excellent staff and board and because our mission is an important one that we know how to accomplish.”
Prop 1D: The More Voters Know, The Less They Like It
Prop 1D will have little effect on balancing the state’s budget but a devastating effect on the lives of California’s neediest children. A recent poll shows that the more voters learn about the proposition, the less they like it.
According to the poll*, when voters understood the details of the proposition, 56% found the way the measure has been billed as “deceptive.” Another 45% expressed concern that the proposition will cut funding for children. And voters describing themselves as most likely to vote said they would likely vote “NO” on 1D.
In short, the best way to defeat Prop 1D is to educate all voters about how it hurts California’s most vulnerable children. So please lend your voice to this effort by writing to your legislators, to editors, and, above all, please inform your friends about what’s at stake on May 19. The following points should be kept in mind when discussing Prop 1D:
In 1998, voters passed Proposition 10, adding a 50-cent tax to each pack of cigarettes sold to create First 5 California. First 5 funds are given to local communities throughout the state to provide California’s most vulnerable children with crucial child care, health services, and education – providing these children with a chance of success when they enter school. Prop 1D, which goes before voters on May 19, would cut $1.6 billion from these funds.
Prop 1D diverts $268 million a year for five years from First 5 funds, or approximately 50% of current First 5 revenues. Worse still, as tobacco sales decline over the next few years, that percentage will only grow. And while $268 million represents less than half of 1 percent of the total state budget and would have a negligible effect on balancing the budget, it would prove very destructive to the vital programs at-risk children need.
Equally onerous, the proposition limits the way First 5 funds can be spent. “No longer will First 5 commissions be able to train preschool teachers, develop quality child care facilities, recruit pediatric health care specialists, or fund the many other efforts that are creating a lasting impact in our communities,” according to one report.
Some examples of the ways children will be hurt:
• 140,000 children in under-performing school districts who participate in kindergarten readiness programs, including family literacy, developmental screening, and school orientation for non-English-speaking parents
• 125,000 children who are screened annually for developmental delays and receive intensive follow-up services as needed
• 80,000 children who have health insurance through First 5 funding
• 29,000 children who receive immunizations funded by First 5.
*Tulchin Research, 3/31 – 4/2/09.
Will 100,000 Non-Profits Fold?
According to a recent article, as many as 100,000 non-profits across the nation could close their doors during the next two years as a result of the current economic crisis. “The most expensive presidential campaign in history and the cataclysmic financial meltdown of the past few months” have combined to create a “perfect storm,” according to the article.
That storm arose when affluent donors contributed large amounts of cash to the presidential campaign only to see their assets get wiped out in the financial crisis, leaving them with little money left over to contribute to non-profits. In addition, foundations have seen their hefty endowments wither and states across the nation are cutting their social service budgets just at a time when the need for such services have increased. As a result, non-profits have been forced to cut staff and reduce services.
Over the past decades federal and state governments cut programs for the poor and needy, and the nation’s non-profits took up the slack, providing a vital safety net for the less fortunate. “Responsibility for the poor was a government function in the Great Depression,” said David Jones of the Community Service Society. “Now more and more people who lose their jobs turn to charity because we’ve off-loaded the responsibility to not-for-profits.”
So the fact that non-profits are now in trouble should be a concern for all supporters of low-income people and the less fortunate.
